Sitting of 14 June 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Community Service Orders
    Mr. Meacherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his provisional assessment of the six experimental areas for community service orders under the Criminal Justice Act 1972.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): It was not until 1st April that community service arrangements were in operation in all six experimental areas, and it is too early to make any provisional assessment. I am, however, anxious to do so as soon as possible.
    Mr. Meacher: If the community service orders were a relative success and if the Government were truly committed to alternatives to prison, why is the Home Secretary still planning for a 50 per cent. increase in the number of prisoners by the early 1980s? Why is he still proposing to launch a prison building programme costing £140 million over the next four years? is that not a contradiction?
    Mr. Carr: No, it is not a contradiction because, however successful we may be—and I hope we shall be—in halting the increase in the number of prisoners, or even if we are successful in reducing that number, there is still a most urgent need for new and better prisons. Already about one-third of our total prison population has to live two and three to a cell, in cells designed in the last century for only one person.
    Mr. Fowler: In Nottingham the scheme has made an encouraging start and the courts are making use of these orders. Fifty orders have been made so far, and perhaps the most significant thing of all is that the failure rate is encouragingly low.
    Mr. Carr: Although it is too early to make any formal assessment, even of a provisional kind, I am encouraged by what I hear and I believe that this sort of development is one of the most hopeful in penal treatment for a long time.

    Fire Service
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will take steps to rename the fire service the fire and emergency service in order to reflect more accurately the range of services undertaken.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): I do not consider that this change is necessary or desirable.
    Miss Fookes: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the fire service undertakes a number of emergency services and that in fairness to it it should be called the fire and emergency service?
    Mr. Lane: I agree with what my hon. Friend says but I do not draw the same conclusion. May I remind her that the Holroyd Committee, which reported in 1970, considered this possible change of name, and we accept its recommendation that it is not necessary. However, I do not believe that the fire service always gets the praise and recognition it deserves, and we all owe a great debt of gratitude to its efficiency in dealing not only with fires but with many other emergencies, particularly motorway accidents, which I am sure my hon. Friend has in mind.

    Special Police Squads
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the number of special police squads now operating within the Metropolitan Police force.
    Mr. R. Carr: Teams of headquarters detectives with continuing operational rôles are generally known as squads and their numbers vary from time to time.

    1673
    Details are given in the Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for 1972, which was published on 6th June.
    Mr. Cox: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that there is growing concern as to the rôles that these squads fulfil? Will he say how many men are in the squads, and under whose control they ultimately fall? Is it the Commissioner, or divisional commanders? What are the criteria for their use? It is one thing to use them against serious crime but something else to use them against peaceful demonstrations.
    Mr. Carr: I am not aware of the concern that the hon. Member mentions. I am aware of concern about some of the work of the special patrol group, although I do not mean to say that by being aware of it I accept the validity of it. But that group is not a squad in the sense that the hon. Member was referring to. I believe that these squads are doing first-class work in tackling crime. The greater specialisation on different types of crime, which is inherent in the development of the system, is proving very helpful.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: What further consideration has the right hon. Gentleman given to a differential increase in pay for police officers in the Metropolitan Police force? Will he at least confirm that any such increase will in no way effect the total amount of the award to be negotiated for the federated ranks under stage 2 of the Government's prices and incomes policy?
    Mr. Carr: That is an entirely different question, which I think comes up later this afternoon.

    Parliamentary Boundaries Commission
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is satisfied with the workings of the Parliamentary Boundaries Commission; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lane: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." I know of nothing which calls for a further statement at this time.
    Mr. Madel: As the commission has the right to make interim recommendations for redistribution of seats, between nation-wide redistributions, does my hon. Friend agree that we should both encourage and implement its recommendations so that we can avoid having too many seats nearing the 90,000 mark, as will be the case even after the boundary changes at the next election?
    Mr. Lane: That is a desirable ideal, but there is a difficulty in dealing with very large or very small constituencies except at a general review. I doubt whether the commission would want to start any more interim reviews before the initial review of the new district wards that will be made by the Local Government Boundary Commission, but we shall keep my hon. Friend's suggestions very much in mind.

    Prisons (Location)
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if, in view of the difficulty of finding acceptable sites for the location of prisons, he would now consider finding a suitable site within the area of land to be reclaimed at Foulness and Maplin.
    Mr. Lane: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.
    Mr. Adley: In view of the substantial acreage of land to be made available there, and bearing in mind that quite a lot of it will be in what might be termed a security-conscious area, will my hon. Friend agree at least to consider the suggestion seriously?
    Mr. Lane: We considered it very seriously before giving the answer. If my hon. Friend is looking in the Home Office for more ammunition for his campaign, he will not find any.

    Children on Remand
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the numbers of children awaiting trial who, because of the shortage of remand homes, have been sent to prison.
    Mr. Lane: On 31st May, 103 young persons aged 14 to 16 were awaiting trial in prisons and remand centres in England and Wales because courts had certified that they were too unruly to be committed to the care of a local authority.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is it not very unfortunate that any child should have his first experience of prison in that way? In view of the possible psychological damage, is my hon. Friend satisfied that the building programme for remand homes is adequate, particularly in the areas of greatest stress?
    Mr. Lane: We are never satisfied with the programmes in any area. We should like to do still more. My hon. Friend's immediate suggestion is mainly one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who is in very close touch with local authorities about plans to provide more secure accommodation of the kind that my hon. Friend has in mind. We shall press on with that as quickly as we can.
    Mrs. Knight: Will my hon. Friend consider the use of community homes instead of prisons, in this context? Some places, such as Hays Bridge in Surrey, take about half the number that they used to take. Would not it be better if the children were sent to community homes rather than prisons?
    Mr. Lane: Very much so, in every case where it is possible. But I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that there are special cases in which it is not possible or desirable. Out of the total figure that I gave in my original answer, there were 95 boys, of whom 86 were in remand centres. The other nine were in local prisons. Of those nine, six were charged with murder and required full-time medical oversight.

    Police (Manpower)
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the current difference between the combined establishment strength of police forces throughout England and Wales and the actual strength of these forces; whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL. REPORT detailed statistics in this respect for each individual police authority; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. Carr: On 30th April the authorised establishment was 111,600 and the provisional strength 100,310, a difference of 11,290. I will, with permission, circulate the detailed statistics in the OFFICIAL REPORT, as requested.
    Mr. Judd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. He will agree that the most effective deterrent to crime is the certainty of detection. In achieving that, the morale and strength of the police forces are critical factors. Does not the right hon. Gentleman, recognising that there are special problems in areas like London, agree that there are cost of living problems confronting police personnel, necessitating an urgent and radical review of conditions of service and pay for police throughout the country?
    Mr. Carr: Matters of police pay and conditions are in the first instance for the Police Council. However, I think that it is fair to say two things. First, over the past two and three-quarter years the pay and conditions of the police have been significantly improved, not only in themselves but in relation to other sectors of the working population. Secondly, I am glad to say that over the same period there has been a considerable upsurge in police recruitment and strength.
    Mr. Bidwell: Is the retrospective nature of the 1971 Immigration Act, having regard to the substance of this Question and Question No. 5, likely to impose any additional strain on the police force, or will it be encompassed in more normal police activity? Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be no special or extraordinary police activity in this regard, or hounding of immigrants as a whole?
    Mr. Carr: I can assure the hon. Gentleman, as I assured the House the other day, that I have no special hounding operation in mind. I am glad to have the opportunity of confirming that once again.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is some feeling in the police force that the establishment figure is an understatement of what is required, especially if there is a move towards getting more police on to the unit beat system in the big cities? Does he recognise—I am sure he does—that in the big cities in particular, while there has been an improvement in salary, the conditions under which many police officers have to work, particularly in the period of the year when there are

    1677
    demonstrations and the like, are such that very often they do not get a reasonable amount of time with their families, or leisure time, and that this has a counter-productive effect not only on recruitment but on trying to hold existing police officers?
    Mr. Carr: I of course understand the points that the hon. Lady is making, and have much sympathy with them. It is a

    30th April 1973

    Authorised Establishment

    Strength for Ordinary Duty

    Difference

    Bedfordshire and Luton Constabulary

    826

    746

    80

    Birmingham City Police

    3,029

    2,650

    379

    Bradford City Police

    805

    740

    65

    Bristol Constabulary

    1,221

    1,160

    61

    Cheshire Constabulary

    3,092

    2,745

    347

    City of London Police

    1,013

    802

    211

    Cumbria Constabulary

    831

    805

    26

    Derby County and Borough Constabulary

    1,548

    1,364

    184

    Devon and Cornwall Constabulary

    2,554

    2,487

    67

    Dorset and Bournemouth Constabulary

    981

    942

    39

    Durham Constabulary

    2,804

    2,730

    74

    Dyfed-Powys Constabulary

    891

    818

    73

    Essex and Southend-on-Sea Joint Constabulary

    2,340

    2,068

    272

    Gloucestershire Constabulary

    1,215

    1,161

    54

    Gwent Constabulary

    875

    857

    18

    Gwynedd Constabulary

    1,155

    1,097

    58

    Hampshire Constabulary

    2,750

    2,673

    77

    Hertfordshire Constabulary

    1,472

    1,262

    210

    Kent Constabulary

    2,447

    2,220

    227

    Kingston-upon-Hull City Constabulary

    754

    715

    39

    Lancashire Constabulary

    7,040

    6,651

    389

    Leeds City Police

    1,413

    1,220

    193

    Leicester and Rutland Constabulary

    1,502

    1,452

    50

    Lincolnshire Constabulary

    1,700

    1,661

    39

    Liverpool and Bootle Constabulary

    2,538

    2,288

    250

    Manchester and Salford Police

    2,438

    2,209

    229

    Metropolitan Police

    26,055

    21,122

    4,933

    Mid-Anglia Constabulary

    1,022

    881

    141

    Norfolk Joint Police

    1,183

    1,116

    67

    Northampton and County Constabulary

    774

    756

    18

    Northumberland Constabulary

    1,833

    1,769

    64

    Nottinghamshire Combined Constabulary

    1,962

    1,921

    41

    Sheffield and Rotherham Constabulary

    1,450

    1,255

    195

    Somerset and Bath Constabulary

    1,260

    1,113

    147

    South Wales Constabulary

    2,682

    2,639

    43

    Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent Constabulary

    2,046

    1,945

    101

    Suffolk Constabulary

    1,044

    993

    51

    Surrey Constabulary

    1,393

    1,269

    124

    Sussex Constabulary

    2,496

    2,434

    62

    Teesside Constabulary

    1,022

    1,012

    10

    Thames Valley Police

    2,960

    2,703

    257

    Warwickshire and Coventry Constabulary

    1,815

    1,639

    176

    West Mercia Constabulary

    1,761

    1,559

    202

    West Midlands Constabulary

    1,968

    1,457

    511

    West Yorkshire Constabulary

    4,663

    3,901

    762

    Wiltshire Constabulary

    926

    829

    97

    York and N.E. Yorkshire Constabulary

    1,219

    1,196

    23

    In addition 1,276 police officers are serving away from main forces on central service or on such units as regional crime squads.
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the net increase in strength of police forces in England and Wales since 1st July 1970; how this compares with the comparable period ending 30th June
    matter of fact, however, that because we have been so under strength for so long the establishment level has not so far been any handicap or bar to recruitment. I am not saying that we might not reach that stage in the future. I was almost going to say that I hope we do. But at present the establishment figures are not causing any holding back of recruitment.
    Following is the information:
    1970; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. Carr: During the 34 months from 1st July 1970 to 30th April 1973 the increase was 7,500; for the 34

    1679
    months before 1st July 1970 the increase was 3,800.
    Mr. Fowler: Does my center hon. Friend agree that these are encouraging results, which show the wisdom of lifting restrictions on police recruiting? Further, does he agree that the major problem at the moment is in the big cities? That applies not only to London but, for example, to Birmingham. Is it not a matter of some urgency that special treatment should be given to policemen serving in large city forces?
    Mr. Carr: I accept that there are problems of a peculiarly difficult nature in big cities. London is by no means the only city with such problems, although I think that it is the city with the most acute problem. I very much welcome the recently declared attitude of the Police Federation towards differentials in London. At the same time, while I shall want to consider carefully any proposals that the Police Council may put before me in due course, we must realise that pay matters are subject to present pay policy.
    Mr. James Lamond: Does the center hon. Gentleman know whether there is any truth in the assertion that policemen are retiring as soon as they can, namely, after 25 years' service? If that is the case, does it not show that a considerable improvement is still required in the standard of employment, so that people will stay in the service for a reasonable length of time after they have been recruited?
    Mr. Carr: Yes, it is true that one of the problems at the moment is not so much new recruitment but wastage. Some of that wastage is early retirement, some of which is undoubtedly due to overstrain and stress as a result of police work. That applies particularly to big cities. Some early retirement is also due to recently improved pension provisions. We cannot differentiate the one from the other. We are faced with something of a vicious circle. If we could only keep the strength up the conditions would be improved and the wastage due to stress would go down. We are recruiting as hard as we can.
    Mr. Holland: Will my center hon. Friend include in the OFFICIAL REPORT a breakdown of the figures, giving an indication
    1680
    of the increases or otherwise of police forces in individual cases in each county?
    Mr. Carr: I shall consider that. I can almost certainly comply with my hon. Friend's request.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Is the center hon. Gentleman aware that the wastage figures are partly helped by the policy of using interchangeability in the Metropolitan Police rather than the police disciplinary code when officers have apparently committed some minor error? Will the center hon. Gentleman hold an investigation to ensure that when there is some doubt about the conduct of an officer in the Metropolitan Police, he is charged under the disciplinary code and has the center to put up a case rather than be punished—in my view quite improperly—by being transferred without an opportunity to state a case?
    Mr. Carr: If the hon. Gentleman has any cases in mind I should like to consider them. With the attention that is given to disciplinary matters in the Metropolitan Police at the moment—for example, the new division for any serious complaints both for internal matters and for public complaints—and the way in which the present Commissioner is pursuing this aspect, there should be an improvement rather than the reverse in respect of the sort of problem to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

    Criminal Offences (Disclosure of Information)
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has now completed his review of the practice of divulging information to professional bodies about criminal and suspected criminal offences.
    Mr. R. Carr: I have completed my review of arrangements under which the police are asked to report the convictions, as they occur, of certain defined groups of people in the professions and the public services. I should emphasise that these arrangements do not include the supply of information about suspected offences. The review dealt also with certain other information provided by the police; and, as the statement of conclusions reached is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Fraser: It is now over a year since I asked the center hon. Gentleman's predecessor whether he would make public the secret circulars issued to police chiefs about the disclosure of information. After an interval of a year, may we have a little more open government, and the publication of the instructions, so that they can be appraised and criticised by the general public and the House?
    Mr. Carr: I am not sure that I can accede to the request to publish circulars of certain kinds that are issued to the police, although I shall look into the matter. What I think is important is that the House and the public should know the basis of the instructions, and that will be included in what I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, for example, that in future the police will be asked to make reports on current convictions in respect of three groups of people—those who, on the whole, are in positions of great trust in regard to vulnerable members of society, such as doctors, nurses, and so on; those involved in matters of national security; and people who have a direct responsibility for the administration of the law, such as barristers, magistrates, and so on. To those categories alone will the instruction apply, and then only in respect of serious crimes.
    Following is the information:
    Police reports of convictions
    A working party of officials and chief officers of police has reviewed the circumstances in which the police are asked to report convictions of certain people in the professions and public services. The review was carried out in consultation with the organisations which receive the reports. I have approved the conclusions reached and will embody them in an early circular to the police. The effect is summarised below.
    The supply of police information will continue to be governed by the general principle that no information is given to anyone, however responsible, unless there are weighty considerations of public interest which justify departure from the general rule. Chief officers of police are agreed that any individual about whom a professional or public body receives a report of a conviction must be informed.
    In future the police will be asked to make reports of current convictions in respect of three groups of people:—
    (i) Doctors, nurses, persons employed in the care of children, and youth leaders—because they are in positions of trust in regard to vulnerable members of society.
    1682
    (ii) Civil servants, Atomic Energy Authority staff and Post Office permanent staff—in the interests of security.
    (iii) Barristers, magistrates, solicitors and solicitors' managing clerks—because they have a direct responsibility for the administration of the law.
    In respect of these groups the police will be asked to report convictions of offences, particularly those involving violence, indecency, dishonesty, drink or drugs, because they may reflect on a person's suitability to continue in his profession or office. Minor offences, such as road traffic offences for which there is no power to disqualify for obtaining or holding a licence, will not generally be included. But the police will be requested to report all offences by magistrates, since a series of even minor offences, such as for parking, may reflect on the fitness of a magistrate to sit in judgement on others.
    In addition, but only until the Department of the Environment's computer at Swansea is in operation, the police will be asked in the interests of road safety to report convictions for traffic offences by public service vehicle drivers.
    The circumstances in which the police may he asked to give information in connection with applications for licences for other purposes have also been reviewed. Where the police are authorised by statute to provide evidence about the suitability of applicants for certain licences they must discharge their duty to assist the courts or other statutory body. The applicants in these cases know what evidence is given by the police. I consider that it would be center for the police to maintain the practice, which does not have specific statutory authority, of helping children's departments in considering applications for adoptive and foster parents. It is also in my view center that the background of applicants to join police forces should be checked and that the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board and the Gaming Board should be assisted by reports from the police. In all these cases the applicants will be left in no doubt that checks are being made.
    A copy of the circular will be placed in the Library of the House.

    Plastic Foam (Fire Hazards)
    Mrs. Joyce Butlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive a report on the studies now taking place into the fire hazards of plastic foam used in the home; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Lane: The main research project is spread over three years, but a close watch is being kept on its progress so that any significant findings can be reported as soon as they occur.
    Mrs. Butler: As plastic foam-lined furniture is bought by almost everyone except the very rich, and as so many

    1683
    deaths have taken place because of fires caused by such lining, will the hon. Gentleman say, while we are awaiting the result of the research, whether there is any means of spraying plastic foam, before sale to the public, to render it less flammable? Will he have a discussion with his center hon. Friend in the Department of Trade and Industry about securing a safety standard for such furniture? It is a serious risk to many people.
    Mr. Lane: I do not know offhand of any system of spraying, as the hon. Lady suggests. We are keeping in touch with a number of Government Departments. During the development of the research I want to see something of it myself, in order to try to size it up better. The evidence which we have—I want this to be well understood in view of the spreading of some reports, which I consider to be excessively alarmist—is that plastic foam presents no greater hazard than other inflammable materials in the home. All the reports of tragic fires which I have seen suggest that there is more room for improvement in home care than possible faults in materials. That is why, in our publicity programme, we put so much emphasis on fire precaution.
    Miss Fookes: Is my hon. Friend aware that plastic foam is not used only for stuffing furniture? It is also used for toys. I should have thought that that presented an additional hazard.
    Mr. Lane: Yes, that is absolutely true. There have been one or two cases of fires involving toys. We are not convinced that there is any evidence about spontaneous combustion. That illustrates the importance of the research with which we are pressing on.
    Mr. Moate: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not a question of spontaneous combustion but whether foam contributes to the quantity of inflammable material in domestic premises? Does he agree that there is ample evidence that fires have been caused and deaths have resulted? Will he consider the matter rather more urgently?
    Mr. Lane: I am as concerned about this matter as anybody else. With respect, there is no definite evidence that this sort of material is more dangerous than other material. We must also concentrate on
    1684
    people exercising greater care and, for example, not leaving home with young children unattended.

    Missing Persons (Statistics)
    Mr. Grevile Jannerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will make it his policy to call for regular reports from chief constables giving annual statistics on missing persons in a unified manner.
    Mr. Lane: My center hon. Friend does not think that the value of such statistics would justify the work which would now be involved for the police in compiling them. But the police national computer will in due course include a wanted and missing persons index, and it will then be considered what statistics can be provided from that source.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister aware that an incredible variety of standards is applied at the moment? There is such a variety that the London figure provided to me turned out to be one-fifth of the true total for last year. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that approximately 150,000 people are going adrift in a year and that approximately 75 per cent. of those people are under the age of 18? Is that not a matter which requires urgent attention?
    Mr. Lane: I am aware of the varied statistics. I thought that I cleared up in an Adjournment debate the point about London. I do not accept what the hon. and learned Gentleman says. The important matter is that in whatever form the statistics come forward the police take great trouble to trace missing persons in all parts of the country. In the majority of areas the success rate of the police in tracing missing persons is between 99 per cent. and 100 per cent.
    Mr. Ronald King Murray: Will the Minister confirm that the national police computer to which he has referred will cover the whole of the United Kingdom and not only England and Wales? Does he agree that there would seem to be little point in having statistics for only a part of the country and not for the whole country?
    Mr. Lane: I believe that is so. I do not want to give an absolute answer today. It will clearly be very important.

    1685
    I understand that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) is writing a long list of questions which we shall be answering shortly.

    Emotionally Disturbed Offenders (Treatment)
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy concerning the issue of grants towards setting up treatment centres as an alternative to imprisonment for certain kinds of offenders who are emotionally disturbed.
    Mr. R. Carr: Funds are being made available by the Government for the provision over the next four years of some 1,650 places in probation hostels for offenders who might otherwise have received custodial sentences.
    Mr. Davis: I thank the center hon. Gentleman for his reply. Will he indicate when the first of the treatment centres will be available, and also give some further information about the speed with which the programme which he has just announced will be introduced?
    Mr. Carr: I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I cannot give the specific information for which he asks. I shall write to him. This is a matter of major importance. The hon. Gentleman will know that, for example, the Portia Trust has been talking to the Home Office about the matter. It is perhaps worth drawing to the attention of the House the scale of the expansion that I have just mentioned. At the moment there are 35 hostels, with 660 places. We are proposing to provide another 1,650 places over the next four years. All I can say is, "As quickly as possible".
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: I welcome the center hon. Gentleman's statement, but is he aware that in a number of cases which have been particularly disturbing to the public offenders with records of medical or emotional disturbance have, for lack of appropriate places to send them, been sent to prison? Will any or all the hostels that the center hon. Gentleman has in mind have full medical coverage of a kind which would make psychiatric or other forms of appropriate treatment available without the person having to be
    1686
    sent to prison to get it? Will the center hon. Gentleman investigate the possibility of encouraging other medical institutions to follow the excellent example of Henderson Hospital in taking on people with records of offences or whose main problems are medical or psychiatric rather than criminal?
    Mr. Carr: I shall certainly carry out that last suggestion. I hope that some of the hostels that we are to provide will provide the sort of services that the hon. Lady is talking about. Many of the organisations that we help are voluntarily-inspired and therefore it is difficult to forecast in advance exactly what form their hostels will take. I should like to see an adequate number provided with the center sort of psychiatric and medical facilities, and one of the main objectives of a bigger expansion in this sector is to prevent people who had better not go there from being sent to prison even temporarily.

    Community Development Programme
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the steps being taken under the community development programme.
    Mr. R. Carr: In 12 areas, local action teams employed by the local authorities and complementary research teams provided by universities or polytechnics are carrying out community development projects. Professor Greve and his stall at Southampton University, as consultants, are responsible for assessing the results of the programme as a whole and their implications for national and local policies.
    Mr. Knox: When does my center hon Friend expect to receive the report from Professor Greve? When he does receive it, will he publish it so that its lessons can be applied over the country as a whole?
    Mr. Carr: I am afraid that the report is still too far ahead for me to be able to forecast the date now. I will consider seriously, if not publishing the report—although I am not saying that I would not do that—at least making its main findings available for public information and discussion.
    Mr. Arthur Lewis: There are four Questions in almost identical terms, and all put down by hon. Members who happen to be Tories. Will the center hon. Gentleman give an assurance that in no way did his Department sponsor, suggest, hand out or make the idea available to the hon. Members who put down those Questions?
    Mr. Carr: Certainly.

    Urban Aid Programme
    Mr. Gryllsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement about the steps that are taken by his Department to co-ordinate the help provided under the urban aid programme with the help provided by the Department of Education for educational priority area programmes.
    Mr. R. Carr: The Home Office and the Department of Education and Science jointly decide how best to use the urban programme to help the educational needs of areas of acute social deprivation. Nursery education has accounted for a large proportion of all approvals under the programme, but other educational projects, such as holiday classes and special courses for immigrant school leavers, are also aided.
    Mr. Grylls: I thank my center hon. Friend. Is he satisfied with the total co-ordination not only with the Department of Education and Science but also with the Departments of Health and Social Security and the Environment in order to ensure that this programme is implemented as quickly as possible, including the many interesting and useful proposals of the Halsey Report on deprived areas?
    Mr. Carr: I am aware that there are various local schemes—it is center that there should be—for attacking the problems of inner urban areas, which are among the greatest social problems today and unfortunately prospectively still more so. The Departments of Education and Science, Employment, Environment, Health and Social Security, and the Home Office are all involved in their own programmes. My colleagues and I are giving careful study to ensuring that our various activities are co-ordinated, complement each other and do not overlap.
    Mr. Freeson: Do the Ministers concerned not consider that, after about five years of these various programmes in the different Departments, a major review should be made to assess their value and lessons? Secondly, does not the center hon. Gentleman consider that the time has come to replace this kind of departmental approach by a coherent, integrated approach inter-departmentally, for specified designated areas in our inner cities?
    Mr. Carr: I think that we must renew our efforts to ensure co-ordination, but I am nervous about lifting out of Departments matters which are the proper jobs of those Departments. For example, the nursery school programme, which was largely pioneered under the urban programme, has now come into the main stream of the spending of the Department of Education and Science. I believe that that sort of thing is center. Co-ordination is, in my belief, better than lifting such work out of a Department.
    Certainly these programmes should be re-assessed, and with the help of some of the staff of Southampton University we are actively trying to assess the benefits of the urban programme, which is now in about its fifth year. When I visit these areas, I feel that the local authorities and the voluntary bodies believe that the urban programme is proving of great value.
    Dame Irene Ward: I am sure that what my center hon. Friend says is perfectly true and that progress is being made. But is he aware that it would be much more helpful, particularly to those concerned with difficult areas, if we could have a little more detail? I get rather bored with hearing about general policies, of which we are all well aware. The people in my area and the general public at large would like to know how the urban aid programme is being received and operated. Is it not rather sad that when such good work is being done we do not know the details, which would be so helpful to us?
    Mr. Carr: I shall gladly publish more detail and will consider ways of doing so. If I can begin by writing to my hon. Friend with more detail I shall do so, but it is difficult to give great detail about programmes in answer to Questions.
    Mr. John Fraser: May I revert to the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Willesden, East (Mr. Freeson)? Will the Secretary of State ensure that the urban aid programme analyses the total deprivation in an area? If anything, the Government's White Paper on housing and the latest crime figures show that the problems of the urban areas are getting worse and not better. Will the center hon. Gentleman also ensure that there is a degree of co-ordination which will ensure, for example, that when a new housing estate is developed, the nursery and other ancillary facilities which such an estate needs—including tenants' meeting halls—are part of the total attack on deprivation, rather than that there should be isolated contributions by different Departments?
    Mr. Carr: I agree that this is important. We are trying to move in that direction. My colleagues and I are trying to identify total deprivation and to apply our various services in a co-ordinated manner. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we must make progress in this direction.
    Mr. Selwyn Gummerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much of the help provided under the urban aid programme is being supplied direct to voluntary organisations.
    Mr. R. Carr: The latest main phase of the urban programme was approved towards the end of 1972, when 30 per cent. of the total expenditure was allocated to schemes sponsored by voluntary bodies. Such schemes are routed through the local authority, which has to meet 25 per cent. of the cost, while the Exchequer meets the remaining 75 per cent.
    Mr. Gummer: I thank my center hon. Friend for that reply, but is he aware that in some places, certainly in Liverpool and Manchester, there is a feeling among voluntary bodies' local branches that they are not kept as well informed by the local authorities and that perhaps the rapport between them is not as close as it might be? Will his Department do all that is possible to show the voluntary bodies that they have a genuine part to play in the urban aid programme?
    Mr. Carr: I take the point. It is center that the local authorities in each area should be the channel through which
    1690
    the needs of the area are brought forward to my Department and other Departments, but it is certainly part of our policy, when selecting the projects to which we give aid, to make sure that the voluntary bodies in each locality are involved. That is why, as I have said, 30 per cent. of the total expenditure has been allocated through voluntary bodies.
    Mr. Bidwell: Has the center hon. Gentleman got it firmly in mind that part of the mission of the urban aid programme was to bring about racial harmony? Will he look sympathetically at proposals by local authorities, such as the London borough of Ealing, for capital projects such as a community centre in my constituency, which that local authority holds to be of direct advantage to the programme's central idea?
    Mr. Carr: I certainly will. I am sure the hon. Member will not expect me to stand at this Box and promise an affirmative answer to a particular application. I am glad to say that the number of applications is increasing from various parts of the country. That makes my task of selection increasingly difficult.
    Mr. Winterton: Does my center hon. Friend not agree that much of the money from the urban aid programme goes to the large conurbations although there are many smaller conurbations and boroughs—to name but two, the boroughs of Congleton and Macclesfield—where projects are urgently required and where there is social deprivation just as there is in large conurbations such as London. Birmingham and Liverpool?
    Mr. Carr: We do our best to get a geographical spread. The programme, which began in 1968, has been moving up in scale and impact, covering increasing parts of the country. We should realise that the most acute social problems which create tensions in racial relations, which sow the seeds of crime, unemployment and so forth, tend to occur more severely in the big cities than in the small ones.
    Mrs. Shirley Williams: In view of the problem of truancy, especially among older schoolchildren in some of the deprived areas, will the Home Secretary give sympathetic consideration to some of the proposals being put forward for community project schemes, just outside the

    1691
    educational system, which are intended to employ young people who have been persistent truants, as soon as they reach school leaving age? Is the center hon. Gentleman aware that this is an area where crime breeds, and where race relations can quickly deteriorate?
    Mr. Carr: I shall certainly consider what the hon. Lady has said. As she knows, one of the main objects of the urban programme was to take on projects which were experimental in nature and which fell outside the mainstream of work. I will certainly consider the sort of projects she has mentioned.

    Isle of Man (United Kingdom Citizens)
    Mr. Stonehouseasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations he has had with the Isle of Man Government on legislative proposals affecting the property centers of United Kingdom citizens.
    Mr. Lane: I assume that the center hon. Member is referring to a recent resolution by Tynwald that certain conditions should attach to settlement in the island. We have had no consultations on this proposal, which has not yet been put into legislative form.
    Mr. Stonehouse: Since citizens of the Isle of Man are allowed full centers within the United Kingdom, would it not make a great deal of sense to take steps to incorporate the Isle of Man within the United Kingdom in all respects, as is done with the Isle of Wight? In the meantime, while discrimination against United Kingdom citizens who go to the Isle of Man continues to take place, will the Home Secretary consider appointing a representative to reside in the island to assist in negotiations?
    Mr. Lane: There is no plan for suggesting any change of status here, as the center hon. Gentleman knows. I do not accept his rather exaggerated charges about discrimination. The Lieutenant-Governor, who is appointed by the Crown on the recommendation of my center hon. Friend, is the principle representative of the Crown on the island.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the Government uphold the traditional self-govern-
    1692
    ment of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands?
    Mr. Lane: We have no plans for changing it.

    Police (Pay)
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what improvements he now proposes in the pay and conditions of the Metropolitan Police to bring it up to establishment.
    Mr. R. Carr: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. and learned Friend gave on 11th June to Questions by the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris).—[Vol. 857, c. 252–3.]
    Mr. Lyon: Now that the Police Federation has said that it approves a special allowance for the Metropolitan Police, is it not important that the Government should consider a quite dramatic improvement in the pay of that force, in whose area the majority of serious crime exists and where there has been a situation quite different from the national situation, exemplified by the fact that there has been an increase in recruiting nationally but a decrease in the Metropolitan area? Is it not important that this improvement should take place quickly?
    Mr. Carr: As I said earlier, I very much welcome the new attitude of the Police Federation about differentials for the Metropolitan Police. The initiative rests with the Police Council. I repeat that no one's pay in this country can be settled without regard to the pay policy.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Does my center hon. Friend not agree that what would considerably aid recruiting and conditions in the police would be for more people in London and elsewhere to praise the work of the police instead of nagging and criticising them, as so many people inside and outside the House do constantly?
    Mr. Carr: As I have said publicly on a number of occasions, I certainly regard it as one of my duties as Home Secretary to speak up for the police and at the same time to do all that I can to make sure that the police deserve being spoken up for, as I believe they do.

  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech to the CBI in London on the economy on 15th May.
  Mr. Ashtonasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the CBI in London on the economy on 15th May.
  Mr. Norman Lamontasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on the economy to the CBI annual dinner in London on 15th May.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I did so on 16th May, Sir.
  Mr. Meacher: Since the trade deficit is now mounting at an all-time record rate of £1,800 million a year, will the Prime Minister say what happened to the announcement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry two days ago about the foundation for attaining a new commercial greatness by Britain? Since the next move will certainly be a sterling crisis, as soon as the dollar recovers, may we be told how this will be preceded by some new demonstration of the Government's hysterical euphoria?
  The Prime Minister: In the hon. Gentleman's close attention to figures I wonder whether it has escaped his knowledge that by far the greatest increase in imports has been in basic raw materials, which is 33 per cent., and in machinery required for the expansion of the economy. The hon. Gentleman must answer the question quite clearly: does he want an expanding economy using those raw materials and machinery, or does he not?
  Mr. Lamont: Has my center hon. Friend noticed the recent article in The Guardian by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), dealing with Labour's economic policies, in which he suggested that Britain's low economic growth. far from representing us as falling behind other countries, was a trend for other countries to follow? Is it not useful to know that the object of Labour's economic policies is to lower the growth rate,
  1694
  and is it not somewhat inconsistent for the hon. Member to come here week after week wanting better welfare programmes and lower unemployment and yet deny the means to achieve those ends?
  The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has admirably summarised what was a very long article in The Guardian. If the hon. Gentleman was saying that the Labour Party's policy will stop growth, then we know what to do about it.
  Mr. Atkinson: The Prime Minister has assured the CBI and the TUC that he is prepared to negotiate on issues concerning social benefits and Government investment. If future negotiations result in an increase in Government expenditure, is he prepared to conclude an agreement with either the CBI or the TUC outside the House?
  The Prime Minister: What we agreed yesterday with the TUC was that there were five groups of subjects which we had to study in detail. Both the Government and the TUC agreed that in the next two or three weeks we would exchange information on each of these subjects and work out what we thought was a reasonable position on each of them. At the same time I reserved the position of Parliament. If any matters about which we are in agreement require legislation or authority it is only Parliament that can give it. We have not gone into any questions about the level of Government spending or the consequence of any matters upon which we might agree.
  Mr. Tapsell: Bearing in mind the criticisms made earlier this year, when the Government intervened to help the building society movement, is it not heartening that funds are now flowing into the the societies and the general base rate is going down?
  The Prime Minister: It is heartening that funds should be flowing into the building societies. I am not aware that any announcement has yet been made by them but consideration must surely now be given by the building societies to the question whether they can reduce their rate. This was obviously the point of the bridging subsidy.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: As it is three years this weekend since the center hon. Gentleman was elected to power— [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] —on a clear pledge

  1695
  to deal with prices, as I point out to hon. Members opposite who are cheering, will he confirm that in less than three years under his Government the cost of living index has risen by almost as much as it did in six years of the Labour Government—28 per cent. as against 30 per cent.? Will he also confirm that in 34 months of the present Government food prices rose by 35 per cent. against 31 per cent. in double the period while the Labour Government were in office?
  The Prime Minister: Production is now increasing at a rate far greater than the total increase under the Labour Government.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the center hon. Gentleman stop dodging the question? In view of the gross deception with which he won the election, will he stop laughing when these figures are thrown at him?
  The Prime Minister: Will the center hon. Gentleman be honest enough to say what has happened to world prices in the meantime?

  MINISTERS (RETIREMENT AGE)
  Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about his policy for a retirement age for Ministers.
  The Prime Minister: No Government have ever prescribed a specific age for ministerial retirement; and I do not intend to do so.
  Mr. Fraser: Will the center hon. Gentleman tell us why it is necessary for civil servants to retire at the age of 60 but the age of 80 is not too old at which to retire from the Security Commission? Is there to be a new standard, and will the center hon. Gentleman be asking the Foreign Secretary to retire at the age of 70?
  The Prime Minister: There is no relationship between the different sections of the community to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. However, the average age of members of the Cabinet, when they came to office, was the lowest of any Government since 1945.
  Sir R. Cary: If a Minister is discharging his responsibilities well, why should he retire?
  The Prime Minister: There is no reason at all.

  EEC REGIONAL POLICY
  Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the DTI and the DEP in ensuring that Great Britain's experience of regional problems is reflected in the current creation of European Community regional policy.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The two Departments have co-operated closely in supplying information about our assisted areas for the discussions with our European partners and the Commission about this matter.
  Mr. Duffy: In the light of the center hon. Gentleman's experience of, contribution to, regional development, does he agree that a realistic policy for Britain must be based on a much more sensitive classification than a crude division between central and peripheral areas? Will he therefore banish the fear in intermediate regions such as Yorkshire that intermediate status designation, which is one of the provisions of the Industry Act, may be threatened by the current scrutiny in Brussels?
  The Prime Minister: The general policy for regional development is still in the process of discussion with the Commission and the Council of Ministers. However, I see the point that the hon. Gentleman has made. It was raised recently in the European Parliament, and the commissioner who answered said that after 1st July, which is when the transitional arrangements have to be settled for the new members of the Community, the Commission proposed to work out
  "a more refined and shaded area system"
  than central and peripheral. I think that that meets the hon. Gentleman's point.
  Mr. Body: Will my center hon. Friend say whether there is any need for concern about the fact that United Kingdom industrialists are investing more

  1697
  than twice as much in the old Community of the Six than industrialists of the Six are investing here?
  The Prime Minister: We shall give every encouragement to industrialists in the Six and elsewhere in the world to invest here.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Does the Prime Minister agree that the fears expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) on behalf of certain areas in Yorkshire were discussed in the county, and that warnings were given before the vote was taken in the House? The trouble is not a lack of co-ordination, but that the EEC's regional policy is wrong. A radical change of direction is needed. It is not merely a matter of administrative co-operation. Will the center hon. Gentleman press for a radical change of direction?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has absolutely no justification for making such an accusation, which tends to raise unnecessary fears in the minds of our people. The policy is not settled, it has not yet been agreed by the Council of Ministers, and the hon. Gentleman has no justification for making his allegation.
  Mr. Thorpe: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us attach much importance to the undertaking given by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on 23rd May that the Government would not tolerate the overall level of aid given under the Industry Act being lessened as a result of future policy? Therefore, will he confirm that areas that receive more than 20 per cent. of aid—such as the South-West, where Governments of both parties have tried to assist in curing unemployment and the situation of low wages—can look forward with confidence and that the Government will ensure that the level of aid for them is not lessened?
  The Prime Minister: My center hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made the situation absolutely clear, and we know exactly the areas in this country which are affected. But the center hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that no Government in this country have said that the boundaries of these areas would remain unaltered for all time. Both the last Labour Government and the Conservative Governments of 1951–64, as areas became more prosperous and
  1698
  circumstances changed, were able to help other areas. Therefore, I shall not bind any Government on the question of the exact boundaries as they are at this moment. But the whole purpose of regional policy is to help those areas which require it, and the center hon. Gentleman was quite center to emphasise the position in the West Country.
  Mr. Selwyn Gummer: Does my center hon. Friend agree that the operation of the policy of the European Economic Community towards the regional development areas would be much strengthened if Opposition Members representing intermediate areas were able to speak in the European Parliament?
  The Prime Minister: I quite agree.
  Mr. Shore: The difference between the present situation and the past is that previously the question whether an area should receive assistance was decided by the British Government alone and not by the Commission. Does the center hon. Gentleman agree that if he wants to develop the regions of Britain the best way of doing it is to make sure that we do not enter an economic monetary union and that we have power to continue to fix our own currency and maintain our own regional aid policy?
  The Prime Minister: Parliament has decisively rejected the center hon. Gentleman's views, and, as he claims to believe in the sovereignty of Parliament, he had better accept Parliament's decision.

METRICATION (DEPARTMENTAL CO-ORDINATION)
Mr. Redmondasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments of Trade and Industry, Environment, Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and Education and Science in respect of metrication.
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Each Department has appointed a departmental metrication officer and I am satisfied that the Departments are co-operating closely with each other and with the Metrication Board in the changeover to the metric system.
Mr. Redmond: Metrication is sensible, but should it not be introduced in education and in commercial industry with a good deal of care and not in the haphazard fashion in which it is being foisted on the public? Would it not help if the Government sought approval in Parliament for the White Paper published in February 1972?
The Prime Minister: My center hon. Friend the Leader of the House has turned down a debate on the White Paper because of the pressure of time. I cannot accept that metrication has been foisted on the public. Industries have accepted it voluntarily. My experience of both industry and agriculture is that they are asking for the introduction of metrication at the earliest possible moment because they realise that it is essential for their development in world trade and commerce. The evidence that the Metrication Board has suggests that in education generally the changes are well in step with what is going on in industry and commerce. I have heard it said many times that to children metrication is natural and automatic.
Mr. Pavitt: Will the center hon. Gentleman make sure that all his colleagues learn the lessons from the comparable problems that arose on decimalisation? We were then assured that there would he no leveling-up, but every housewife knows that it happened. Will the Prime Minister refer to his center hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs the question of packets of six now becoming packets of five, so that there is a hidden increase for the housewife?
The Prime Minister: Yes—that is very important. My center hon. Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs is in discussion with the interests concerned on that specific point. There are certain problems in industry, but industry has solved them for itself. It is in the interests of consumers that the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs is acting.
Mr. Edward Taylor: Will my center hon. Friend assure the House that steps will be taken to get general guidance about the future position in America—one of our largest export markets—which still uses imperial measures?
The Prime Minister: Yes, but the decisions of industry are voluntary decisions. The construction industry was the first to take the decision and others are taking it in their own interest because they believe they can trade effectively with British products only if they move over to the metric system.
Mr. Ronald King Murray: Will the Prime Minister listen to the ordinary consumer who wants to buy a pint of milk or a pint of beer, and not just to the industrialists and technologists?
The Prime Minister: The life of this country depends on industrialists and technologists and on those who work in industry to create the wealth by which we live. I have absolutely no doubt that the pint will continue to go down for many years to come.

SECURITY COMMISSION (REPORT)
Mr. Harold Wilsonasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the reference to the Security Commission of matters arising out of his statement on 24th May.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): As I announced on 7th June, the Security Commission has been asked to verify that security was not endangered as a result of the incidents referred to in my statement in the House on 24th May—[Vol. 857, c. 666–8]—or by the actions of the persons involved.
Taken in conjunction with the general terms of reference with which the commission was appointed in 1964—[23rd January 1964, Vol. 687, c. 1271–3]—this enables the commission not only to look into the facts of the particular matters referred to in my statement, but also to consider whether departmental security procedures were properly followed and whether in the light of recent events they need to be changed.
These terms of reference also enable the commission to consider whether there was a potential danger to security in what occurred, as well as to verify that there was no actual breach of security.
I proposed to the chairman of the commission, and he agreed, that in view of the exceptional character of this reference

1701
he should on this occasion sit with four other members of the commission, rather than with two, as he has done for previous inquiries; and Sir Philip Allen, Lord Garner, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve and General Sir Dudley Ward have agreed to take part in this inquiry.
Mr. Wilson: I very much welcome the fact that the commission is now sitting virtually as a full commission and that it includes members with practical knowledge of departmental problems and departmental security.
Recalling our confidential exchanges about the terms of reference and the construction to be put upon what they are intended to cover, will the center hon. Gentleman confirm for the record his interpretation of the terms of reference and confirm that that is the commission's understanding of them in relation to three points?
The first is on departmental procedures. The Prime Minister's reference to the overall terms of reference of the commission seems to confirm that they fully provide for an investigation into how far existing departmental procedures were fully effective, including, for example, the rôle of Private Office, the use of car log books and similar matters, having regard to the fact that since 1964 under the Labour Government and under this Government security is uniquely the responsibility of individual Departments and Ministers under the overriding control of the Prime Minister.
Secondly, on the specific reference to the commission to verify that there was no risk to security, will the center hon. Gentleman confirm that this will be interpreted as investigating not just whether any breach of security occurred but whether anything occurred which created a potential risk to security although there was no actual breach?
Thirdly—this point was raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) on 24th May—in view of the widespread reports—how accurate, none of us knows—about an international vice ring, whether motivated for political reasons by certain Eastern European countries, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, or simply run for enhanced profits from prostitution, will the com-
1702
mission be free to obtain all the information in the hands of the security services on this subject and to ask for further information to be obtained through the national security services, whether from their own resources or from normal international security exchanges?
The Prime Minister: Sir, as the center hon. Gentleman knows from our confidential exchanges, the answer to the first question is "Yes". The commission will be able to examine all departmental procedures, including those of Private Offices. Secondly, as I said in my statement today, the commission is also free to consider whether there was a potential danger to security. On the question of international ramifications, all the information which the police or the security services have will be placed at the commission's disposal and the commission will be free to ask for anything else it wishes to have.
Mr. Stonehouse: Concern was expressed when the announcement was made that Scotland Yard was placing the so-called "third Minister" under surveillance. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that there will be no question of Ministers being placed under surveillance by Scotland Yard unless a criminal offence is suspected?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; that is the position. The responsibility of the police for criminal offences is to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Do the terms of reference include an examination into whether the security requirements which apply to civil servants are different from those which apply to members of the Government? If such differences exist, will the commission be able to examine whether they are justified?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, that is within the commission's terms of reference, but in particular its task is to examine security arrangements relating to the particular incidents.
Mr. Lipton: Is there not an element of bluff about the Security Commission procedure? Is the center hon. Gentleman aware that it has no statutory authority, is not mentioned in any Act of Parliament and has no power to compel the

1703
attendance of witnesses? In those circumstances, what does the Prime Minister expect the Security Commission to elicit?
Mr. Skinner: Whitewash!
Mr. Lipton: When does the Prime-Minister expect to receive from the Security Commission a report on the case of Bingham and Hinchcliffe, which it has been investigating since 28th July 1972?
The Prime Minister: The Security Commission has operated—by general agreement between three Prime Ministers—extremely effectively without having the statutory powers to which the hon. Gentleman refers. If at any time the commission were to come forward and say that it was unable to carry out its task without statutory powers I am certain that any Prime Minister would immediately give consideration to this and report it to the House.
The report to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be published in the comparatively near future. Very clear procedure has been laid down on what happens when the report is prepared. The Leader of the Opposition is consulted, and the security services are consulted to see whether there is anything damaging to national security in the report that should not be revealed. If there is, there must be further discussions with the Security Commission. There has been absolutely no delay in this case, as hon. Members will see when the report is published.
Mr. Wilson: On the question of the powers of the commission, will the center hon. Gentleman be a little more specific? It has been held in the past that if the commission is unable to get witnesses to attend the simplest procedure is for the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary to put before the House a motion to reconstitute the Security Commission as a tribunal under the 1921 Act. That immediately gives all the necessary powers. The fact that that can be done should ensure compliance, even on the existing basis.
The Prime Minister: Yes, the center hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct. That would be the obvious course to take were the Chairman of the Security Commission to report that he was not getting the assistance he required.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: Will the center hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House please state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 18TH JUNE—Progress on the Report stage of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill.
TUESDAY 19TH JUNE—Until about 5 o'clock, Third Reading of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill [Lords].
WEDNESDAY 20TH JUNE—Progress in Committee on the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill.
Thereafter, completion of the remaining stages of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill.
THURSDAY 21ST JUNE—Until 7 o'clock, motion relating to the Northern Ireland Assembly (Election) Order, followed by further progress in Committee on the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill.
FRIDAY 22ND JUNE——Remaining stages of the National Insurance and Supplementary Benefits Bill
Second Reading of the International Cocoa Agreement Bill.
Remaining stages of the Guardianship Bill [Lords].
MONDAY 25TH JUNE—Until 7 o'clock, consideration of Private Members' Motions.
Afterwards, a debate on the new parliamentary building.
Motion on the Medicines (Feeding Stuffs Additives) Order.
Mr. Wilson: Is it not extraordinary that no provision is made in next week's business for Supply Days? Is the center hon. Gentleman aware that in the few remaining weeks before the normal date for the rising of the House the Government will have to find, in the ordinary course of events, eight Supply Days, including those devoted by agreement to debates on Select Committee reports? I emphasise that it amounts to a total of

1705
eight Supply Days between now and the recess. Furthermore, because of the great and unprecedented generosity of the Opposition two-and-a-half Supply days remain to be carried over from last Session, and we have a center to take back that time. Therefore, will he please give us back our ten-and-a-half days?
Secondly, will the center hon. Gentleman say how soon he expects to be able to have a foreign affairs debate in Government time since such a debate is long overdue? Is he aware that if the Government provide a day's debate on this subject, we shall be prepared to offer a Supply Day to make it a two-day debate because of the problems involving foreign and Commonwealth matters and the problems of international drought and famine which now face the world? Thirdly, when can we expect a statement and a debate on the Younger Report on privacy and all the related matters—including, for example, a matter which has been in the hands of the Government for nine months; namely, the report of the Royal Statistical Society and the Computer Society about protection and privacy under the census? Fourthly, when does he intend to allow the House to debate the Hardman Report on dispersal, which is causing great concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House as well as to people throughout the country?
Mr. Prior: On the subject of Supply Days, I recognise that next week we have not allowed for a Supply day. There are eight more to come, and I assure the center hon. Gentleman that after next week there will be one every week and in some weeks there will be two. I have had the position checked and the situation is about average for this time of the year. We should have had 20 or so Supply Days, and that is what we have had so far this year.
On the question of the Younger Report, I have not an announcement to make in terms of next week's business, but I very much hope that we shall be able to fit it in soon. I hope that we shall debate the Franks Report in the week after next and the Younger Report shortly afterwards. I hope that we shall be able to deal with the census matter at the same time as we discuss Younger.
1706
In regard to the Hardman Report, I must point out that it has only just been published. Many representations will have to be made by hon. Members and by outside bodies interested in this topic. The Government will wish to consider those representations, and I know that my center hon. Friends are prepared to receive deputations and representations from hon. Members in all parts of the House. After that has happened, we shall have to find time for a debate.
I accept what the center hon. Gentleman said about a foreign affairs debate, and I appreciate that there are those who would like the debate to be held soon. I should like to explore how quickly this will happen, but it cannot be next week and there are certain difficulties about the week after.
Mr. Cormack: I should like to express my pleasure at the fact that at long last we shall debate the new parliamentary building. Could my center hon. Friend make sure that the debate will last until 11.30 because a debate from 7 o'clock to 10 o'clock will not be long enough to allow hon. Members to express their feelings on this matter?
Mr. Prior: Hon. Members have had one opportunity already to express their feelings on the new parliamentary building. I hope that this time they will express their feelings and come to a decision.
Mr. Ford: Will the Leader of the House undertake not to find time for a debate on the Green Paper on the control of firearms until such time as adequate supplies of that document have been made available to the general public and the people concerned have had an opportunity to make reasoned representations to the Home Office?
Mr. Prior: Judging by my contacts with my constituents, they certainly seem to have got hold of copies of the document to which the hon. Gentleman refers because they are making representations at this stage. However, I take note of his point. I must add that there cannot be an early debate on this question.
Mr. Powell: Is my center hon. Friend yet able to say when he expects to find time for the House to consider two matters which require to be dealt with by the

1707
end of July? I refer, first, to the stance to be adopted by the European Community in the forthcoming GATT negotiations, and, secondly, to the outstanding EEC directive on driving licences and kindred matters.
Mr. Prior: On the subject of driving licences, I have given an undertaking that the matter will be debated before it is raised in the Community. I have an assurance that, although there may be a meeting of Ministers of Transport in the Council of Ministers this month, that subject will not be among those raised, so that there will still be time for a debate. As for a debate on future arrangements in the EEC in relation to GATT, I should like to consider further whether this should form part of our two-day foreign affairs debate—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or whether we should have additional time for it.
Mr. C. Pannell: The House is entitled to know what the Government intend to do on the question of the new parliamentary building. Will the procedure involve a motion tabled by the Leader of the House, or will there be a completely free vote of the House?
Mr. Prior: There will be a completely free vote of the House. The Government, through the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have made clear their view about the availability of finance for an early start of the building.
Mrs. Knight: Has my center hon. Friend noticed Motion No. 345 concerning the need to stop encouraging persons to remain unemployed? Is he aware that this problem should be dealt with extremely urgently since the shortage of labour is now serious in many parts of the West and East Midlands? Is it not the height of absurdity to pay men to stay at home when they are needed in industry? Will he consider giving time to debate this urgent problem soon?
[That this House, recognising that the exemption of short-term benefits from taxation has caused a vast field of anomalies whereby nearly all married persons earning up to £35 per week are better off out of work for an average of 12 weeks per year, and has also resulted in an estimated loss of revenue of between
1708
£150 million and £300 million per year, calls on Her Majesty's Government to make all state benefits taxable in order generally to restore incentive to work and also to remove injustice both to those who work regularly and to pensioners whose old age pensions, although much smaller, are in all cases taxable.]
Mr. Prior: I recognise that this is an important point, and I shall draw the attention of my center hon. Friend to the motion, but I cannot at present see any opportunity for an early debate. I still do not believe that the withholding of PAYE would necessarily mean that we would solve this problem, but I shall convey my hon. Friend's remarks to my center hon. Friend.
Mr. David Steel: Will the center hon. Gentleman confirm that he was displaying his well-known sense of humour when he said that he expects to complete the remaining stages of the Local Government (Scotland) Bill on Tuesday night? Is it not the case that some time out of that two days is to be devoted to the Third Reading of the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill, and is it not further the case that the Government have tabled 200 amendments to the Scottish Bill and that we do not know how many other amendments will be tackled by the Opposition and back benchers because we have no printed list? Will the center hon. Gentleman remember what his center hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said in Committee on the Bill; namely, that it was his intention
"to press strongly for adequate time for the Report stage and I have no reason to doubt that I shall get it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, First Scottish Standing Committee, 25th January 1973; c. 64.]
Why has the Secretary of State not been given that extra time?
Mr. Prior: I think that a period of two days is adequate. I appreciate that we have by agreement taken one-and-a-half hours on Tuesday for discussion of another Bill, but I trust that the Scots will deal with these matters in the expeditious way we hope they always do.
Mr. Jeffery Archer: Will my center hon. Friend consider having a debate on fisheries? We have had debates on both food and agriculture, two of the subjects for which my center hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is

1709
responsible, but we have not yet had a debate on fisheries, including the Icelandic dispute.
Mr. Prior: There is a Private Members' motion about the Icelandic fisheries which will come before the House on Monday week. As for other aspects of fisheries, certain orders become due for renewing in July, and they should provide an opportunity for debate.
Mr. Ewing: Was Tuesday the only day considered for discussing the National Health Service Reorganisation Bill which was taken off last night? What reason can be given for choosing Tuesday as opposed to, say, Wednesday or Thursday? Does the center hon. Gentleman now accept the almost impertinent observation of Sir Henry Hardman that in legislative terms Scotland and Wales are irrelevant?
Mr. Prior: This was done to meet the convenience of the House. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman should take such a jaundiced view about it.
Sir T. Beamish: Is my center hon. Friend aware that hon. Members who represent East Sussex constituencies are anxious to see the Ashdown Forest Bill on the statute book? Does he hope to find time for this in the near future?
Mr. Skinner: Take it to Strasbourg.
Mr. Prior: Not at the moment, but I should like to talk to my hon. and gallant Friend about it and make further inquiries.
Mr. Elystan Morgan: Is the Leader of the House aware that it is now exactly two years since we last had the opportunity in this House to debate agriculture? Is his reluctance to hold such a debate conditioned in any way by the knowledge that there is still agonising uncertainty about the future of marketing boards and the functions and powers that they will have?
Mr. Prior: No, Sir. On the whole, I think that if the hon. Gentleman consults his farming constituents he will find that they would welcome a debate so that he could pay tribute to the Government's agricultural policy.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: Can my center hon. Friend say how soon we may expect to have a debate on the extremely valuable
1710
reports of the Procedure Committee? Is he aware that there is a widespread feeling, in the face of legislative pressure which has persisted for several years, that our procedure is rather like a model T on a motorway—quaint and intriguing to passers-by but hazardous to its occupants?
Mr. Prior: We have had a number of debates on procedure in the past few months. I recognise that there are some Procedure Committee reports which have not been properly examined by the House and which might be considered. We shall not have much time between now and the Summer Recess. But a number of hon. Members have given me their views to the effect that we should look again at some of the Procedure Committee reports and perhaps take action on them.
Mr. Michael Foot: Will the Leader of the House take note of the fact that it would be unsatisfactory for us to have the debate on the Government's attitude towards the GATT negotiations submerged in a general foreign affairs debate, especially in view of the large numbers of other topics which have to be raised in that debate? Will he take account of the fact that the Government ought to provide time before the end of July for two debates on which there should also be votes—the first on the Government's attitude towards these negotiations of major importance and the second on the Government's attitude towards regional policy, which is of such paramount importance? Surely this House should retain the center to vote on matters of this kind?
Mr. Prior: I have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.
Mr. Edward Taylor: Is my center hon. Friend aware of the concern in Scotland about the implications of the Hardman Report? Will there be a debate on the subject this month in which hon. Members can have an opportunity to express their views? Secondly, can my center hon. Friend say when we are likely to have a statement on railway policy?
Mr. Prior: Certainly I cannot give an undertaking about a debate this month on the Hardman Report. As for the railway report, my center hon. Friend the Minister for Transport Industries will be making a statement in due course, but

1711
he has only just received the report from the Chairman of the Railways Board and it is still being considered.
Mr. Urwin: With regard to the Government policy on the dispersal of Civil Service jobs and the references to the Hardman Report, may I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that for the intermediate and development areas the Hardman Report is a non-event? The right hon. Gentleman has given certain assurances. Can he say what the time scale will be for the receipt of representations on the report, and will he ensure that there will be no ministerial decision on office dispersal unless and until there has been a full debate in this House on the Hardman Report?
Mr. Prior: I accept that there must be a full debate on Hardman in this House. But I cannot go further than I have already gone.
Mr. Hastings: Reverting to a previous question on the Green Paper concerning the control of firearms, does my right hon. Friend realise that there is a serious problem here? It takes about eight weeks to obtain a copy by post from High Holborn, and there are no copies available in Bristol or Cardiff. I do not know about the position at other Stationery Office branches in the provinces. Is he aware that hundreds of thousands of people are worried about this? The consultative period is inadequate. Will he urge upon the Home Secretary that to extend it to 31st July would be no longer than necessary?
Mr. Prior: I shall convey those views to my right hon. Friend. The Government wish to give a reasonable time in a matter which is worrying a great many individual citizens. I shall look into the reason why the Green Paper is not having a quicker and wider circulation, and I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary whether he can extend the time for consultation.
Mr. Dell: Will there be a statement from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on those aspects of the Public Accounts Committee's Report on North Sea oil which concern his Department and a debate before the Summer Recess?
Mr. Prior: We must await the Government's reply to the report, which we shall make as quickly as possible. I shall make further inquiries about it. I doubt whether there will be time for a debate. However, there are the usual autumn opportunities for debating PAC reports.
Mr. Evelyn king: Does my right hon. Friend intend to make a statement on the industrial dispute which is still preventing parliamentary papers from reaching this House, without which we cannot do our work adequately? Is he aware that some of those on strike are already earning more than £90 a week? I think that is a fact. Will he consider not only this dispute but, with the Services Committee, the long-term future, as there have been innumerable and increasing disputes in past years?
Mr. Prior: I apologise for the inconvenience that this dispute is causing. Continuous negotiations have been taking place between the HMSO management and NGA national and local officials. Every endeavour is being made to solve the dispute. I confirm that normal earnings, which are in line with those in the trade, are as high as £90 for night work and £75 for day work.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: When shall we have an urgent debate on the position of illegal immigrants, in view of the fact that the issue was never debated during the passage of the Bill through the House as a result of the Government's deliberate deception?
Mr. Prior: I cannot find the time in the next few weeks.
Mr. Selwyn Gummer: When shall we have the same chance as readers of the Daily Express to discuss the report on pop festivals? May we have that chance, so that young people can enjoy pop festivals within the limits of safety?
Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend has either answered a Question on this matter or will be answering one within the next day or so. I gather that a Press conference is to be held shortly. I know that there is great interest in this matter, but I cannot find time for an early debate.
Mr. Ross: On the subject of Monday's and Tuesday's business, did the Leader

1713
of the House consider the special difficulties of Scottish Members? He will be aware that we have not yet got the bound volume of the Committee's proceedings, that only this morning did we get the first sight of the Government's own amendments, and that we have no other amendments at all? Will he look again at the adequacy of the time allotted? It was bad enough before, but it is quite unfair to suggest that we should lose at least one-and-a-half-hours and still complete our consideration of this important measure.
Lastly, will the right hon. Gentleman look at a certain section of the Hardman Report and think again about the appropriateness of meeting the convenience of this House concerning the reorganisation of the National Health Service in England by not sitting after half-past eleven and then suggesting in a cavalier manner that, with a Bill of this importance for Scotland, it did not matter when we met and finished?
Mr. Prior: I have not said anything about it not mattering when Scottish business is discussed in this House. The right hon. Gentleman has no right to complain at all, bearing in mind the hours that he has kept hon. Members in the House when discussing various matters. I recall that when I first became a Member the right hon. Gentleman kept us up night after night on a Bill dealing with employment, and he has done so time and time again. It is only right to see how we get on. We have a lot of other business on other days which hon. Members on both sides want to see go through. I thought that the two days allocated for the Local Government (Scotland) Bill would be sufficient. If the right hon. Gentleman can be persuaded to keep his speeches to a reasonable length we can get through it.

CHRYSLER LIMITED (DISPUTE)
4.2 p.m.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the refusal of the Chrysler Company management to participate in any talks or nego-
1714
tiations which could lead to a settlement of their current dispute at their Ryton plant in Coventry."
On 24th May this company took men off the clock and refused to pay them, with allegations of shoddy workmanship. Despite the fact that the union representatives at the plant offered a formula under which an assessment of this matter could be discussed, the management has refused to participate. This and other changes which have been introduced in the Ryton plant, without any consultation with the unions, lead many people to conclude that these are deliberate acts of provocation on the part of the management.
Apart from that, there have been allegations of a bad industrial record, despite the fact that the unions took the initiative in February and conducted a detailed examination of industrial relations at the Ryton plant, as a result of which they produced a detailed report and as a consequence of which the company has done nothing.
This matter has national implications as well, because the possible transfer of investment abroad has been mentioned. It also has overtones of a multinational company, based in Detroit, telling this country what to do.
At a meeting of the combined shop stewards of all the Chrysler factories in the United Kingdom, the management was again urged to come to the negotiating table. It has since refused to do so. It has refused to participate in any talks at all.
I submit that that is an important and extremely urgent matter which could have national consequences and that this House ought to have a full and frank debate on it as soon as possible so that we can tell an American company that this is not the way to behave in this country.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huck-field) for having given me notice of his intention to make this application. I listened very carefully to what he said. I should like to make it quite clear that my decision is in no way a comment on the merits of what he said. However, I have to decide whether to give the application precedence over the business already arranged. I am afraid that I cannot do so.

CHRYSLER LIMITED (DISPUTE)

  ROYAL ASSENT
  Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

  1. Bahamas Independence Act 1973.

  2. Rate Rebate Act 1973.

  3. Metals Society Act 1973.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
  4.7 p.m.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I wonder whether I might make a request and ask a question. May I be clear that there will be a separate vote on official Opposition Amendment No. 6? May I ask about official Opposition Amendment No. 52? We saw that as being consequential on Amendment No. 6 because it would remove the schedule which spells out the details of the latter part of Clause 1. I notice that it has not been selected. I presume that that does not prevent us from talking about it, because it is important.
  The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) for having given me notice that he would be raising these matters. I am prepared to allow a Division on Amendment No. 6. It will also be in order to mention in debate the matters contained in the schedule to which he referred.
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: On a point of order, Sir Robert. This is more or less the same point, as this group of amendments deals broadly with the principle whether we have a border poll and the mechanics and conditions. Will it be possible to have a separate Division on Amendment No. 47, which raises points of some substance, and on one of the later amendments dealing with the time between polls?
  The Chairman: I will give that matter my favourable consideration. I am prepared to consider Divisions. However, I do not want to be tied absolutely beyond what I have already said. I will do my best to meet the hon. and gallant Member's requirements.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a further point of order, Sir Robert. The Chair is sometimes helpful enough to indicate why amendments have not been selected. I

  1717
  wonder whether you would consider giving us guidance about the reason why Amendment No. 7, Clause 1, page 1, line 15, appears not to have been selected? Is it because it is not within the Long Title?
  The Chairman: I am glad to be able to give the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) complete satisfaction on this point. It is not a question of non-selection. It is that the amendment is out of order and outside the scope of the clause.
  Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order. I take it from what you have just said about the amendment being outside the scope of the clause, Sir Robert, that if the substance of the amendment should be tabled in another form at a more appropriate point in the Bill you would give it unprejudiced consideration.
  The Chairman: Yes. That would be a new clause and I would give it my careful consideration.
  Mr. Powell: I am obliged.
  Mr. A. W. Stallard: On a point of order, Sir Robert. While not wishing to query your choice of amendments, may I seek your guidance on two points? You will note that I have put down Amendment No. 7 and New Clause 5, which are designed to ensure that the partition aspect is discussed on Clause 1, which deals with the status of Northern Ireland. May I seek your guidance as to how I may raise this very important matter if the amendment or the clause is not called?
  The Chairman: It is not the normal practice of the Chair to accept an amendment to leave out a clause. It is deemed that the debate on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill", is usually sufficient to cover that. We are not likely to reach that stage in the immediate future. If the hon. Gentleman will see me about it later I will give him some further information.
  Mr. Stallard: Does the same apply to New Clause 5? Will that be considered or have you not yet finalised your choice. Sir Robert?
  The Chairman: I have not yet considered New Clause 5. Therefore, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any advice
  1718
  about it. There is no point in going so far. We know that we are to have a long debate today. Therefore, I deemed it better not to go any further than I have gone with my selection of amendments. I will let the hon. Gentleman know in good time.

  NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION BILL
    Clause 1

      STATUS OF NORTHERN IRELAND AS PART OF UNITED KINGDOM
      Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 5, in page 1, line 12, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 15.
      The Chairman: It will be in order to discuss at the same time the following amendments: No. 1, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of Clause and add:
      'so long as a majority in the United Kingdom Parliament so agree or unless a majority of the people of the United Kingdom voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1 to this Act express their consent to a change in the constitutional relationship between Northern Ireland and Great Britain'.
      No. 2, in page 1, line 9, leave out from 'Kingdom' to end of line 15.
      No. 6, in page 1, line 13, leave out from 'Ireland' to end of line 15.
      No. 47, in Schedule 1, page 31, line 1, leave out from `State' to 'on' in line 2 and insert:
      'after a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly has been passed by a two-thirds majority of the members requesting the holding of a poll for the purposes of section 1 of this Act shall by Order direct that such a poll shall be held';
      No. 48, in page 31, line 4, leave out '1983' and insert '1974'.
      No. 49, in page 31, line 4, leave out '1983' and insert '1988'.
      No. 58, in page 31, line 4, leave out '1983' and insert '1993'.
      No. 50, in page 31, line 4, leave out ten' and insert '15'.
      No. 51, in page 31, line 4, leave out 'ten' and insert 'twenty-five'.
      No. 59, in page 31, line 4, leave out 'ten', and insert 'twenty'.
      Captain Orr: Amendment No. 5 is very similar to the official Opposition Amendment No. 6 and deals with almost the same point. Indeed, I am not sure

      1719
      on reflection that I do not prefer the Opposition amendment to my own. The only difference is that mine leave out the phrase
      "… without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland",
      whereas Amendment No. 6 includes it. The reason that I left out this phrase from my amendment is that its inclusion would make it very difficult to leave out some method of determining that consent.
      Perhaps it might be useful to look back at the history of this constitutional pledge. There was no such pledge in the 1920 Act or up to the time of the war. In 1948, or thereabouts, the Irish Free State, as it then was, decided to leave the Commonwealth and to break the final link with the Crown. In that atmosphere, the 1949 Act was going through this House and the Ulster Unionists at that time said that they would like some pledge about Northern Ireland's status incorporated in that legislation.
      Looking back, I am not sure that that was a sensible thing to do. Although it appeared at the time to give the sanction of an Act of Parliament to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland, the very fact that it was stated in an Act like that seems to me on reflection—I did not take this view at the time: I am using hindsight—to have been unwise. Events have shown that the constitutional pledge did nothing but create doubts about the constitutional position of Northern Ireland.
      It should be remembered what the pledge was. It was not a pledge that Northern Ireland would not cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the people, but that it would not cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of its Parliament. The Parliament of Northern Ireland, by this measure, is being removed, so that pledge is being removed. The real question is whether we should have a constitutional pledge again in this legislation.
      Like some hon. Members who put down an amendment, although for very different reasons from mine, to leave out this clause, I had thought at first that that might be the wisest thing. But on reflection I think that it might be mis-
      1720
      understood in Ulster if we were now to say that we did not want a declaratory constitutional clause in the Bill. It would be thought to mean that we did not wish our position within the United Kingdom to be under-written in this way.
      I therefore decided that the best thing to do was to have the clause read,
      "It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland remains part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom and it is hereby affirmed that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part of it cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom."
      It would be sufficient if it were left there.
      4.15 p.m.
      It is true that the Government are on record as saying that they wish the constitutional status of Northern Ireland to be determined from time to time by referenda, by border polls. I am not sure that it is wise to have a border poll written into the legislation. For example, there is no such provision in the Act of Union with Scotland or in the case of Wales. There are no constant constitutional pledges that Wales will not cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the people of Wales. We are not told that the Act of Union with Scotland shall be maintained so long as it has the consent of the people of Scotland.
      I am not sure that the position of Northern Ireland would not be strengthened with the declaratory clause minus the words that I propose to leave out. I am fairly sure that the Government will take the opposite view. I think that my right hon. Friend believes that they are committed to the idea of a referendum from time to time, and he may stick to that.
      Because of the grouping of these amendments, we must address our minds now to the question of what happens if my amendment fails and we have to fall back on having a border poll. It is a pity that we could not have separated the two subjects. Let us suppose that the Government were to reject this amendment or No. 6. This brings me to the reason why we would want a separate division on Amendment No. 49. We then come to the question of the conduct of the border poll itself.
      One of the weaknesses of the Bill as at present drafted is that it lays down no

      1721
      conditions under which and because of which a poll should be held. It is true that the Secretary of State has the absolute discretion whether there should be a poll. If he does not wish to have a poll, he never has to have one. If he or his successors, as a matter of Government policy, set their minds against referenda, nothing in the Bill would compel them to hold a referendum.
      On the other hand, if we write in a minimum period, saying that a poll shall not be held for at least 10 years, for example, it is a fact of life that towards the end of that time there will come a clamour from some section or another for the holding of a referendum about the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. It may well be that a Secretary of State at the time would find it very difficult to resist such a clamour. One cannot foresee what the circumstances would be like in 10 years' time, or what opinion would be inside Ulster or in Great Britain as far ahead as that. It is perfectly possible to get a situation in which a Secretary of State simply could not resist, at the successive 10-year periods, the holding of a referendum.
      The point of my Amendment No. 49 is that if we have to have a referendum—which I should prefer not to have—I should like to see some curb upon the discretion of the Secretary of State in the matter. What I am suggesting is that if there has to be a referendum in the Bill, at least no Secretary of State could hold a referendum unless it had been requested by the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have suggested a two-thirds majority of that Assembly, although I am not particularly committed to that formula. But I believe that there ought to be some method of determining an expression of opinion in Ulster before even a poll is held. A vote in the Assembly is probably the best way of doing it.
      It may be that my right hon. Friend will say that if one did that, it would not be taking the border out of politics. But anyone who thinks that the border can be taken out of Ulster politics by any kind of artificial device is deluding himself. The last local government elections made it clear that one cannot do that. The referendum device will not do it. Everyone ought to recognise that the real divide in Ulster is not even the
      1722
      religious divide. The divide is basically between those who want to remain part of this United Kingdom and those who do not. There is no way in which one can take that very deeply held division between people, a division about the very country to which people want to belong and imagine that they belong to, out of Ulster life by some kind of constitutional device. It is an illusion.
      There are a great many other points dealt with in this series of amendments to which we shall return later. At this stage, having deployed the main argument, I shall leave it and see how we get on and what my right hon. Friend has to say.
      [Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I explained in my point of order, Mr. Mallalieu, and as your predecessor in the Chair kindly explained, we can bring Amendment No. 52 into our discussion.
      As I see the amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), it would prevent any change in Northern Ireland as long as the Bill, when it becomes an Act, is in force. That certainly would not be to the satisfaction of the Opposition. It would leave such a lack of flexibility in the long run that it would be a foolish thing to do. But I note that the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not want a border poll.
      Without being patronising, I hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will listen carefully to the arguments of the Opposition on our amendment which, in a different fashion, seeks to remove the border poll. It is not tabled just for the sake of it. We believe that to put into a constitutional Bill for this far ahead the possibility—more than that, but for the moment the possibility, because of the wording in the schedule—that a plebiscite is to hang around the necks of the people of Northern Ireland would be extremely foolish. Despite the feelings of many of the people of Northern Ireland, we are very concerned for them.
      I put it to the hon. and gallant Gentleman and to the Secretary of State that if it should prove, as I shall seek to argue, that in 10 years' time, when I would doubt that the right hon. Gentleman will still be the Secretary of State and when

      1723
      most of us will not be actively concerned in the matter——
      The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): I shall be dead.
      Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we hope that even in 10 years' time that will not be so. However, it would be very much better to leave it to the Government and the Secretary of State of the time to analyse the position to see whether it was necessary and whether that was the right way to set about it.
      I seek your guidance, Mr. Mallalieu, on another point. The Opposition amendment may seem to be a narrow one about machinery, but I seek your indulgence. I hope, as perhaps others will express such a hope in relation to their amendments, that we can go more widely in the context of the earlier part of the clause, because it is extremely difficult to concentrate on just the mechanics of a border poll without looking at the question of the principle which is involved in the Bill. I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is given to doing this. I hope that he will look kindly on me if I go wider than the amendment.
      We regard the clause as the most significant and important part of the Bill. That is not to say that there are not other important parts. But in making a value judgment and considering it, we regard it as the most significant and important part. The Bill is based on a White Paper to whose principles we have given support over the last 18 months, and continue to do so. The amendments can be discussed only in the context of the clause as a whole because the part we seek to remove is the machinery by which the principle embodied in the first part is to be carried out.
      Most right hon. and hon. Members are constantly looking at what was said in the constitutional proposals in the White Paper. In this and in other respects we ought to look carefully to see what the Government have thought fit to change in recent weeks as a result of further thinking. But as far as I can see, the Bill faithfully carries out the intention of paragraph 32 of the White Paper, except that the latter part of that paragraph
      1724
      simply says, for reasons that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given,
      "and accordingly other means must be found to give expression to that commitment."
      The "other means" that has been found is the border poll. That was mentioned by the Prime Minister when he spoke in the debate in the House after direct rule.
      The Labour Party's view on this has been consistent. I could quote from the report of the annual conference of the Labour Party last year. That is an occasion on which the wider part of the Labour movement is met together and on which motions are accepted and debated, and so on, for onward transmission to the executive. They matter, as no doubt they matter in a different sense to the Conservative Party. What is clear and has been clear in policy documents of recent weeks is what the Opposition believe that change in Northern Ireland can come about only by consent. I echo the sentiment that I have expressed in the House over recent years and I say to certain of my hon. Friends that I believe that the people of the North cannot be joined with the South against their will. I ask that whatever else may come out of the debate today the people of Northern Ireland be under no iilusion about that. Whatever disagreements there may be in other respects there must not be dubiety on the point that there cannot be unification of North and South without the consent of the people of the North.
      4.30 p.m.
      It frequently occurs to me to wonder why this has to be put into an Act of Parliament anyway. Perhaps it is significant that we have to write into an Act that something should not happen that in practice could not happen anyway. I put it to the people of Northern Ireland that no one is arguing with them that they can be put into the South. That is also the firm view of the newly elected Government of the Republic. The election results in the South may not appeal in certain parts of this House, but that was the result and we must take it into account. Sometimes I think that the Irish beyond the seas ignore the fact that there is a Government of the South of Ireland which has its own view on these matters, a view which is sometimes different from those who are a long way away.

      1725
      I understand the views of certain of my colleagues about the 1949 pledge where they feel that by putting it into legislation it acted as a sprag on change in the North, and I understand, too, the views of those of my hon. Friends who want to change the wording in the earlier part of the clause in the way that my hon. Friends the Members for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) seek. I understand the difference which exists between us and which is embodied in their amendment. But the change between the North and the South can come about only with the consent of the North and the South. It can come about only as the result of the significant change in the Secretary of State's White Paper. There has been a significant change in the thinking of Governments in this country since the 1949 pledge and, indeed, even since the Downing Street declaration.
      Paragraph 112 of the White Paper sets out the greatest change of all. It is certainly recognised as a fundamental change by the people of Northern Ireland. The White Paper says that in the all-Ireland conference, which will be a first step in the realisation of the Irish dimension, discussions shall proceed upon the basis of the
      "acceptance of the present status of Northern Ireland, and of the possibility—which would have to be compatible with the principle of consent—of subsequent change in that status"
      I understand why not very much can be said about that aspect in the Bill. It would be surprising if we could build on that in advance of discussion and in advance of the views of the Government of the South. But change there is. I noticed in the newspaper of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the Protestant Telegraph, of 9th June 1973 the headline on his article read,
      "Save Northern Ireland From A United Ireland"
      The hon. Member sees even Clause 12, which is the beginning of agency cooperation between the North and the South, as proposing
      "the handing over of authority exercised by Northern Ireland to the Government of the Republic or any other designated body in or with the South of Ireland."
      In other words he sees it as
      "the recipe for a united Ireland."
      Mr. Stallard: I wish it were.
      Mr. Rees: It may be that my hon. Friend wishes that it were so, but I take into account someone who represents a group of people in Northern Ireland. Certainly in the context of paragraph 112 of the White Paper there has been a change over the years. I happen not to see it as a Trojan Horse, to use the words of the Taoiseach in the South. None of this can happen unless the people want it to happen. Given the feelings which exist in Northern Ireland, anyone who believes that there can be a change simply by putting clauses into a Bill is not facing up to the facts of life in Northern Ireland. It is not on. The views of the people in Northern Ireland will reveal themselves at election time and, whether or not we here like it, we must take those views into account. The paragraph 112 approach is the only way that the two parts of Northern Ireland can work together, given the facts of history.
      It is for that reason that we on the Opposition side of the House are against a plebiscite being written into the Bill. I am not against a plebiscite in principle, but it assumes a method of change in Northern Ireland which I believe to be unrealistic. Its presence in the Bill runs counter to that genius for flexibility that is the hallmark of British constitutional development.
      I do not believe, as some people seem to believe, that the border poll did much to reassure anyone. It certainly did very little to change the situation. It may have had some psychological importance, and maybe that was the justification for the Government proceeding with it, but to imagine that in 10 years' time, if there were a shift of opinion, because of an election result it would be possible to change the status of Northern Ireland is a mistake. It is not on. Of course, it might be a way in which it could be attempted, in which case the Government of the day could come to the House of Commons with a Bill. But we believe that it is better not to provide for the poll in the Bill.
      This aspect was referred to by the Prime Minister in his speech on 24th March 1972, and it is worth while looking at what he said. This is the genesis of the clause and so it is worth looking at. The Prime Minister stated:
      "This Government, and their predecessors, have given solemn and repeated assurances

      1727
      that the position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom will not be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. We have decided that it would be appropriate to arrange for the views of the people of Northern Ireland to be made known on this question from time to time. We therefore propose in due course to invite Parlaiment to provide for a system of regular plebiscites in Northern Ireland about the Border, the first to be held as soon as practicable in the near future and others at intervals of a substantial period of years thereafter."
      But we should notice what the Prime Minister then said:
      "These plebiscites will be in addition to, and not in substitution for, the provisions in the Ireland Act, 1949, which require the consent of the Northern Ireland Parliament to any change in the Border. This position is not prejudiced by the temporary prorogation of that Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th March, 1972; Vol 833, c. 1862.]
      On 24th March the Northern Ireland Parliament had been prorogued. That was the purpose of the statement. Therefore, there was no Parliament to which the Prime Minister could refer. He may at that time have had other views as to what might happen. We now see that a view stated by the Prime Minister 15 months ago has not proved to be a fact, even though it might have happened then.
      We are now being asked to job forward 10 years and to legislate for a situation the circumstances of which we cannot yet know. I state this as a warning rather than anything else. We are opposed to the border poll on the grounds of timing and the type of question which was asked. We still believe that that was the correct judgment and we strongly believe that it is wrong to write the plebiscite into the Bill. The future of Northern Ireland will not be decided in this way.
      Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen may ask how I can be so certain about this when a moment ago I said that no one can be certain of what will happen 10 years ahead. But there is a difference in the certainty. One cannot be certain of the events, but it is possible to be certain that there will never be a day when we can add the votes and say that because of the result we are going to have a change in Northern Ireland. The amendment would leave the matter to consent. How that consent is inter-
      1728
      preted must be left to the future. We must wait and see what happens after polling day. The amendment is about the machinery of consent. In the face of the all-Ireland institution it is the most which should be done to alter the clause. I choose my words carefully, as most of us do on this important matter. If the people and leaders of Northern Ireland choose to work the White Paper approach, which has almost universal support in this Parliament, the status given in the clause is clear. The future lies in the two parts of Ireland working together in ways that we do not yet know.
      4.45 p.m.
      What I am about to say is certainly no threat. I know too much about the people of Northern Ireland to think that they would take notice of threats from this House. I put it in a conditional way. If the people of Northern Ireland and their leaders are not prepared to work this United Kingdom Bill, which is possible, and if it fails, it is not just an individual part of the Bill that fails. The whole Bill will have failed. Nobody will be able to pick out the bits that he wants. What the United Kingdom Parliament is putting to the people of Northern Ireland is an approach. Perhaps it is foolish to say that every dot and comma cannot be changed. Perhaps some minor parts can be altered, but if the Bill fails it will be time to reconsider the situation.
      I hope that the Bill does not fail. Even if it does, the North could not be put into the South against its will. That is a fact of life, and anyone who thinks to the contrary is romancing from a distance.
      If the Government fail, as I hope they do not, the time will have come to look at the whole relationship of Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom as well as the form of government as a whole. Now I am having a little guess at what might happen a few weeks or a few months ahead. Anyone who thinks that, given all the troubles of the past 18 months, that could be done at a nice little conference at Marlborough House and a reception or two, followed by the writing of a constitution—the classic end of the colonies, as we have seen in the past 10 years—must think again.

      1729
      If it goes wrong, there is a chance of violence against which the terrible happenings that we have condemned would seem small. Any hon. Member who is prepared to advocate changes from which that might come should think very deeply before doing so. The result might be completely different from that which he wants. It would not be the first time. Nobody thought in 1916 that Ireland would end up with what happened in 1922. That was not carefully planned. It happened because of the logic of events. There is a curious logic in Northern Ireland.
      We on the Opposition Front Bench feel that the best thing to do is to remove the border poll. I freely admit that there are aspects of the first part of the clause which are contentious and raise issues for the future, but they are not the present issues. If the White Paper approach works, they do not matter. The time will have come to look at them if it fails.
      I appeal to the Secretary of State, who I know values the approach we have suggested, to comprehend the force with which I put our amendment. It is not just a mechanical device. It is far more important than that. I hope that he will accept it. It does not weaken the force of consent. Perhaps he requires more time. After all, pledges were given—but in politics pledges are not always kept in the course of time, often quite rightly.
      I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter. It is the consent that matters, but removing the last part of the clause puts a different tone on it. It brings us back to flexibility. That is what is required in Northern Ireland, not the certainty of what the future brings. We do not know what that is.
      Mr. Powell: I am not sure that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) was right when he said that ideally it would be best if the clause were not in the Bill. It is one of the pathetic but persistent fallacies of humanity to think that we can chain the future by words in the present, that by inscribing sentences and assertions in an Act of Parliament or
      1730
      on a piece of stone we can thereby in some way determine or prevent future events. There is something primitive and almost magical about that procedure. It is a procedure which is specially inappropriate to a country which has no written constitution and to a House of whose sovereignty the basic essential is that no Parliament and no House of Commons can bind its successor. Yet, deeply believing that, we from time to time proceed to contradict it by writing into statutes words which purport to bind succeeding Houses.
      Moreover, by vainly attempting to create certainty we often increase uncertainty. The great certainties of our life are not the certainties which are enshrined in statutes but the things which we take for granted. It is when a thing begins to be doubted, when it ceases to be taken for granted, that the demand arises: "Let us make sure of it by putting it into an Act of Parliament, by framing a formula of words."
      The people of Northern Ireland when they sought and obtained a formula in 1949 were, for reasons which we can all understand and sympathise with, deceiving themselves if they supposed that they were thereby gaining anything whatsoever. Indeed, on balance they were losing. Bitterly they were undeceived a year ago when they found that the very Parliament which had inscribed that pledge into an earlier Act had removed the piece of mechanism—namely, the Parliament of Northern Ireland—upon which the pledge depended.
      If we were for the first time debating a formula of that sort I should be urging the House to remove it from the Bill altogether. However, I believe that my hon. and gallant Friend was correct and realistic when he said that, at the point which we have now reached, the action of the House in not enacting some form or reproduction of the formula of 1949 would be misunderstood. That is yet another of the difficulties of any such assertion—namely, that when the assertion becomes obsolete the removal of the assertion does not take us back to where we were before it was made in the first instance, but instead, another dilemma and another evil has to be confronted.

      1731
      In 1973 the House would be doing wrong, despite the inherent feeble ineffectiveness of the clause, not to have something of the character of the clause in the Bill. We are right to avoid raising the misinterpretations which would certainly be raised if it were left out. In practice, therefore we are faced with a choice between two approaches which are represented by Amendment No. 5 of my hon. and gallant Friend and No. 6 to which the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has spoken.
      I can see the attraction of the longer deletion proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend. I can see the argument for removing altogether the phrase:
      "without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland …".
      Quite apart from the general objections to this sort of formulae which I have mentioned there is a special objection to such terminology as:
      "without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland …".
      The effect of such a formula is to shift the presumption and to reverse the burden of proof. It has the effect of putting the very people whom we are seeking to protect into the dock and representing them as the stumbling block which may lie in the way of a desirable future. Besides that, there is a certain absurdity in the United Kingdom Parliament limiting the conditions for the future integrity of the United Kingdom to the consent of the people of a part of it. In that respect I find myself in agreement with Opposition hon. Members whose approach and conclusions in other respects I reject. It is the business of the United Kingdom as a whole whether a portion of it continues to be a portion. It is not a sort of private property of the people of Northern Ireland whether they are part of the United Kingdom. Of course, they are much concerned, and perhaps they are primarily concerned; but they are not the only people who are concerned. The integrity of the realm is a matter of concern to all parts of the realm.
      One of the objections to a formula of the sort which my hon. and gallant Friend seeks to delete is that it narrows the field of vision unrealistically. It creates the reverse presumption to that which we wish to create. It is the natural presumption of any united country that its unity will
      1732
      continue unless there is an irresistible reason to the contrary. But if we write in "It shall not cease"—which is negative—"without the consent of a section of people", uncertainty is created. Indeed, we create the presumption of change by merely specifying the obstacle which lies in the way of change. The clause is a negative clause by its nature. The fact that it is of a negative character is emphasised by the words which my hon. and gallant Friend desires to delete.
      I must confess, however, that after listening to the arguments of my hon. and gallant Friend and the hon. Member for Leeds, South I am inclined to feel that the House would be wise to press upon the Government the shorter of the two deletions proposed.
      I have two reasons for coming to that conclusion. The first I have already mentioned in connection with the clause itself—namely, that the formula of consent is by now, with all its weaknesses and objections, the hallowed formula for many scores of thousands of people in Northern Ireland. Some of the same difficulties apply to the removal of the words "consent" and "majority", even though the removal of them would make no difference to the real position except by way of the misconception that might result.
      Another reason is that if my hon. and gallant Friend has his way the operative part of the clause will read:
      "in no event will Northern Ireland or any part of it cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom."
      If we leave the clause in that form we are committing to an extreme extent the error of attempting to bind by a formula what shall happen in future. The words "in no event" are about as comprehensive as could possibly be contrived. Is there any possible virtue in writing into an Act of Parliament, an Act which we well know can be repealed and its successor repealed again, words prophesying so much and achieving so little,
      "in no event will Northern Ireland or any part of it cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions …"?
      So I find myself driven to the conclusion advanced by the hon. Member for Leeds, South, and that is that we ought to retain all parts of this clause down to the words "Northern Ireland", but that we ought to eliminate the provisions which

      1733
      the Bill at present contains for the conduct of the poll—namely, by eliminating these words and the First Schedule to the Bill.
      [Mr. BRYANT GODMAN IRVINE in the Chair]
      5.0 p.m.
      There is something grotesque in setting out, 10 years in advance, to lay down in an Act of Parliament the manner in which the consent of a majority of people in a section of this country to something which we do not yet know, the outlines of which are not yet visible, is going to be obtained. We are in the absurdity that we do not know what the circumstances will be in 10 years, yet we are so certain about the method by which people will be invited to react to them in 10 years' time that we can put it into an Act of Parliament now.
      The enactment of the mechanism of a poll in the Bill is destined to be, if we leave it, a standing cause of uncertainty. The very fact that the mechanism is there is a ready-made argument for its use. "Well", people will say, "Parliament has given us the mechanism. Why not use it? What is the virtue in a period of 10 years? It is too long. It should be sooner." The very fact that we enact in such detail the mechanism carries with it the assumption that it should be used, that the ground foreseeable for its being used will exist, and, very easily, that it should be used sooner and more frequently than we are at present contemplating.
      But the greatest vice of these words and of the schedule is the grotesque manner in which they seek to limit our political duty, the duty of politicians and statesmen, to ascertain the consent of a majority of the people to one course of action or another. I intend no deviation, Mr. Godman Irvine, from the strictest relevance and the rules of order; but there are contexts, with which the House has recently been concerned and with which, I predict, it will not cease to be concerned, in which, for important constitutional changes, the full-hearted consent of Parliament and the people was required to be obtained.
      There is no Act of Parliament, no form of definition, by means of which it can be ascertained whether consent exists, what
      1734
      is the amount of the consent, and whether it is full-hearted or not. Whether there is consent for a course of action is something for which those who propose it or those who oppose it have to fight. They have to fight for it in the circumstances of the time, with the arguments and the methods of politicians, and they have to take the responsibility of acting or opposing in the belief that the course commands, or does not command, sufficient consent.
      After all, what does "consent of the majority" mean? A majority of one? A majority of 0·01 per cent'? We provide in the Bill as it stands for a poll, but we are not defining a majority. Yet I cannot seriously believe that any hon. Member would think that a poll, however scientifically conducted, which resulted in a dead-heat to within a fraction of 1 per cent. would give the appropriate basis for a fundamental change in the status of Northern Ireland. That calculation shows how absurd it is for us to think that we can contract out of our real responsibility by attempting to write the machinery into an Act of Parliament.
      The responsibility for the events in Northern Ireland, for the future of Northern Ireland, belongs to us in this House. It accompanies us from day to day and year to year, and it will do so as long as the United Kingdom remains the United Kingdom. We are only making things more difficult for ourselves and more dangerous for our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland by giving the illusion that we have found a mechanism which will automatically let us out and give them their heart's desire. I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to the general argument which all three of us so far in the debate have put forward, but that he will be most persuaded by the Opposition amendment.
      Dr. David Owen: The Committee has heard a devastating case against plebiscites, border polls or referenda by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). On 21st November last, I said that the decision to hold the border poll was wrong. I went on:
      "If we want vision, judgment, timing, and flexibility, I put my support firmly and squarely behind representative democracy, not behind periodic plebiscites and plebiscitary democracy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 21st November 1972; Vol. 846, c. 1124.]

      1735
      I think that the lesson of the last year or so is that the decision making in last analysis still belongs to this House of Commons formed by the relationship between a Member and his constituents, with a Member at a General Election being prepared to justify his views and actions to his electorate.
      I welcome the fact that the Opposition Front Bench is moving an amendment to withdraw the right to hold periodic plebiscites. I give it my strong support. I think that it will not help the future of Northern Ireland to hold periodic plebiscites, and the case against plebiscites is extremely strong. We admire the Secretary of State, who has handled a very difficult situation with great skill. I have frequently disagreed with him—although I have voiced my opposition less frequently—but very few would deny that the choices he has made have been the result of considerable experience and ability. He has shown that he is a man who can think again, who is capable of changing his mind. I hope that he will now think again about Clause 1 and the framing of the plebiscite.
      Many people felt, although I disagreed at the time, that there was a case for a once-for-all border plebiscite. I always accepted that there was a case for it. But to continue and to write a provision for plebiscites into the future is wrong. People say 10 years, but it could be 20 or 30 years before we came to make changes. If the Secretary of State is right in his supposition that the Bill and his other proposals will win support in Northern Ireland, hopefully it will remain on the statute book for a long time. I have my doubts.
      I support the Opposition amendment, and I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) will also support it. His amendment is similar and yet the argument he has used, although I do not altogether share it, for leaving in the word "consent" is very powerful.
      The core of the debate is the question whether we should re-enact the pledge contained in the earlier part of the clause. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West made a devastating indictment of that pledge. He made it clear. I think his words were that we had a tendency to wish to chain the
      1736
      future by words in the present. Unfortunately all too often in this House we think that we can somehow achieve our ends merely by passing legislation, so we establish a great factory of legislative words which rarely achieves our objectives. There are occasions, particularly constitutional ones, when words are important and when we have to consider those words.
      The Committee should not allow this clause to go on the statute book as it stands. The right hon. Gentleman said there was a danger of its being misunderstood. The reason why I tabled Amendment No. 4, which has not been called, was that I wanted to make it absolutely clear that I believe we cannot join the North and the South together without consent. I agree with every word spoken on that subject by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees).
      The facts of life are that it is one thing to say to one part of a country, "This far and no further", to say that the integrity of the union has been broken, and another thing to say simultaneously, "Not only are we readjusting our position, and the integrity of union is no longer, but you will have to join with someone else." That raises major issues of principle and practicality.
      It is wrong in principle to force people out of a fractured union into another union. It is also totally impracticable. The South would not wish it and successive Irish Governments have repeatedly said that there can be no union without agreement. I do not believe that without agreement it would be in the interests of the Northern Irish. The wording of the clause must carefully be looked at by us. The right hon. Member drew attention to the words "no event". This brooks no other interpretation. There is no qualification, there is no room for equivocation. If we intend to enact legislation which has words of any value, "no event" is categoric and clear.
      I believe there are circumstances in which Northern Ireland might have to cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom. Such a situation could occur much earlier than I wish it to. There are some who believe that we should, by act of will of our own, bring that about. I do not share that view. I have criticised various

      1737
      aspects of the Northern Irish policy but I believe that the present policy, the Assembly proposals and the envisaged power-sharing, must be given a fair wind.
      It is introducing a wholly new principle into democratic government, and I am extremely perplexed and anxious about it. Power-sharing has to succeed for this Bill to be a success. I wish it well, and nothing I say is meant to impair its chances of success. But—and this has to be said from the back benches if not from the Front Benches—the Northern Irish people, Protestant and Catholic, have also to remember that they are part of the United Kingdom.
      The right hon. Member was quite right when he spoke of the integrity of the realm. That integrity is dependent not just on how we in England, Scotland and Wales think, but on how the Northern Irish people act. As long as it has any power this Parliament should never allow its constitutional and political judgment to be affected by terrorism. If the truth is to be said, some of the criticisms I have of the conduct of our policy are that we have not been tough enough on terrorism. It is a very difficult judgment how to handle the terrorist situation when it is as close as this. It is for each of us to be certain that we would have handled it differently, given the options and choices. This House should not be subject to influence by terrorism, of that I am sure.
      5.15 p.m.
      I hope that nothing I say will give sustenance to terrorists. Equally, this House cannot maintain a situation when it is fighting terrorism on the one hand and on the other hand the broad mass of the population—not necessarily fighting, but using words and questions that carry with them eventual violence. I say to Conservative and Unionist Members opposite who have considerable influence with the majority Protestant community that they are deluding themselves if they think that there is some new option which will unfold after the Assembly has been set up, that the whole concept of power-sharing can be revised and that some new constitution can be brought about.
      Whatever their personal views and their dislikes in connection with these proposals, they have to accept that they are a compromise, and if they wish to remain
      1738
      within the realm, if they wish to contribute to the integrity of the realm, they have a duty to see that these proposals work and that the broad framework of the constitution is carried forward. If it is not, the integrity of the realm will be challenged and we shall have to assert the view of the realm, of the United Kingdom.
      That voice ought to be heard now, coming from the Secretary of State. I suppose that he has made the judgment that he will say this after the Assembly elections for fear of being thought to be interfering with the political processes in Northern Ireland. It is a question of judgment. I would prefer that that voice were heard now. It would be a great mistake if people were to go to the polls for the Assembly elections thinking that there was some choice. The question is whether we here should give any currency whatever to the view that somehow only the people of Northern Ireland will sort out their own future. The right hon. Gentleman recognises that that would not be the case. Why put it in words? Why give sustenance to many Protestants in Northern Ireland thinking that this is just bargaining and that it will start all over again next time? It will not.
      It is said that not re-enacting this pledge will lead to misunderstanding. I believe that to re-enact it will lead to misunderstanding. I am prepared as in my amendment to have written in a pledge that unification between the North and South will not be forced against the consent of the majority. I am not prepared to put in any word which will create a misconception in the minds of Protestants in Northern Ireland that there will never be, or that there might come, a time when the United Kingdom will have to say, "Right, if you will not collaborate, if you will not show that basic understanding and sympathy to the purposes lying behind the constitutional changes we have invoked, then we will have to part."
      I cannot possibly support a wording which says that in no event shall we in the House of Commons change the constitutional relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the country. It is humbug to ask us to do so. We ask how much importance we should attach to wording. With constitutional Bills

      1739
      in particular we should attach great importance to them. What happens? Will the Government come back in six months' time and say, "We did not really mean 'in no event'. It is a wording we wanted to qualify but did not dare to."?
      Do words mean anything in this Committee? Do we and our pledges mean anything? If we do not believe what we say, we should not enact it. I challenge the Secretary of State to say that he believes that in no event will Northern Ireland cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions. He knows that he may have to say to the people of Northern Ireland that this situation cannot continue. He knows that there is a strong case for saying to the Protestant community in Northern Ireland, "We will stand by you against terrorism but you must now accept this package."
      Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: With due respect, the hon. Gentleman ought to look at the words with which he is dealing. There is no suggestion that it will be "in no event" unless it is with the consent of the majority. The whole essence of the hon. Gentleman's argument is shot to pieces unless he recognises that all that is being emphasised is that there must be a majority. How could it be otherwise?
      Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman would have done better if he had listened to the whole of my argument. He would then have realised why I supported the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who argued that to exclude the words "without the consent", as proposed in the amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South, would shackle them even more. If the majority in Northern Ireland were able to decide that they wished, of their own volition, to end their association with the United Kingdom, I would wish to retain for the United Kingdom the same right to say to the people of Northern Ireland, "We, too, have decided, hopefully with friendship, that the time has come to part".
      I have always believed that the eventual solution in Northern Ireland will be unification, but that it will come by
      1740
      consent. We should therefore consider what we are legislating. I do not believe that the clause should be enacted. The pledge should not be re-enacted; it could be misunderstood. Above all, we should not continue to mouth words which do not carry a considered conviction which we are prepared to support not simply now but in future. As a subsidiary matter, I hope that we decide not to hold any more plebiscites, referenda or border polls.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: The speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) was thoughtful and powerful. I was glad that he emphasised that any change made in Northern Ireland's position within the United Kingdom could be based only on consent. That cannot be said too often in this Chamber, and I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said. However, to say that is not enough, and that is why I shall take a different view from that expressed in the four extremely powerful speeches made already in the debate and why I shall argue that it is necessary to go further.
      The purpose of the clause is to spell out the provisions for a border poll. When earlier this year the House considered the procedure for the first border poll, which took place in March, I spoke and voted in support of it. It therefore seems only logical that when spelling out the procedures for further border polls I should also support them. The Opposition Front Bench was against a border poll on that occasion, so its position is entirely logical. But those on this side of the Committee, such as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who called for a border poll on that occasion but who on this occasion say, "We can have only one", seem to be in a basically illogical position. They are trying to eat their cake and have it.
      There are essentially three questions which we must consider. First, is there to be a procedure by which there can be constitutional change? That is being spelled out in the Bill, and I do not believe, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) believes, that it is an illusion. It is an important safeguard which should be carefully spelled out.

      1741
      Secondly, is this the best procedure? I am sure that the answer is "Yes", because it is based on the consent of the people of Northern Ireland voting in a poll. Such a safeguard cannot be lightly tossed away. If we are to have a poll, it is clear that adequate machinery for it must be spelled out in the legislation.
      Thirdly, is a minimum of 10 years the right period? One can argue that it should be five or seven years, or 15, 20 or 25 years. One can argue that a short period would be unsettling and that too long a period would defeat the object of the procedures. Therefore, I am not very happy with the period of 10 years and I am glad that powers are taken in the Bill providing that it will be a minimum of 10 years. I hope that the possible unsettling influence of such a poll will not be felt and that it will be carried out with considerable flexibility.
      There is another important point in considering border poll procedure. When we reach Clause 12, the clause relating to the Council of Ireland will then be considered. But I have no doubt that it will be possible to develop a working relationship on matters of mutual interest only if it is based firmly and clearly on consent so that the people of Northern Ireland have a procedure for determining their destiny. That is another reason why it is important for the procedure to be spelled out in the clause.
      I hope that the Minister will resist the amendments. I shall go into the Lobby against them.
      Mr. James Wellbeloved: My hon. Friends the Members for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) were absolutely right when they said that the whole basis of this constitutional Bill is the guarantee enshrined in Clause 1.
      I have tabled an amendment which seeks to ensure that there shall be no poll held in Northern Ireland as to the future boundaries and constitution of the United Kingdom. It seeks to delete all after the word "Kingdom" in line 9 and to insert:
      "so long as a majority in the United Kingdom Parliament so agree or unless a majority of the people of the United Kingdom voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1 to this Act express their consent to a change in the constitutional relationship between Northern Ireland and Great Britain".
      1742
      I should still have preferred not to have the phoney guarantee in the Bill, and it is my firm intention to vote against it on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill" because if we accept the guarantee we shall re-enact the tragedy of the past in Northern Ireland. The basic trouble with our relationship with the Republic and Northern Ireland is that we delude ourselves in a belief that we, the British, have some part to play in Northern Ireland and a solution to offer for the age-old problems of that troubled country.
      We have the 1949 Act and the Downing Street declaration hanging round our necks like a millstone, holding back my hon. Friends from the course which many of them would like to take but for which they cannot get the agreement of their leaders because of that millstone. I do not believe that because both major parties in this House are committed to the same mistaken policy of re-enacting the phoney guarantee, that makes it right. It merely postpones the inevitable.
      The Government's policy is not even a gamble because it is based on a fallacy. At best it may bring temporary relief to the sufferings of Northern Ireland. It will transfer the crisis of decision from this Parliament to a future Parliament and from this generation to future generations. It renders worthless all the sacrifice and suffering endured by the people of Northern Ireland on both sides. It renders vain all the sacrifices made by British troops in Northern Ireland in trying to uphold this mistaken policy. One thing is absolutely certain. The trouble will come again. There is not a chance in hell of this Parliament solving problems which can be solved only by the people of Northern Ireland. There cannot be a solution unless that solution is based upon historic, geographical reality. That reality is that there is in Ireland one people, one nation.
      5.30 p.m.
      I entirely share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton that Northern Ireland cannot be forced into unity with the Republic. But Northern Ireland is not an integral part of Great Britain and no solution can be imposed by this Parliament or by the British people. Only by the co-operation of the

      1743
      people of the North and South, by discussion between them and by each accepting the necessity to work together can a solution emerge. What hope therefore is there for this constitutional guarantee? We are being asked to re-enact nonsense. To back that guarantee there is the promise of power-sharing and co-operation with the South, but that is not a reality. It cannot come about.
      We are in the sorry state of having a cosy accord between the two Front Benches. We have a Government with very little political capital left in Northern Ireland, for few people out there trust the Government and their policy. I say with deep regret to my hon. Friends that the Labour Party has no political capital in Northern Ireland. The majority do not trust us and the minority hold us in contempt.
      Where do the British people stand in this? They have no standing at all because they will not be consulted. We are asked to re-affirm that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part of it cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without consent. Without whose consent?
      Mrs. Bernadette McAliskey: In fairness to my hon. Friends, it is rather a general statement to say that the people of Northern Ireland regard the British Labour Party with contempt. There is a great deal of difference in the attitude of the people of Northern Ireland to the Northern Ireland Labour Party—the counterpart of the British Labour Party—and their attitude to the British Labour Party or certain members of it, which they see as a different organisation. Indeed, it is sometimes a different organisation from the party's own Front Bench.
      Mr. Wellbeloved: I am glad that the hon. Lady has clarified her point of view.
      The clause is based upon acceptance of a package. If that package is not accepted, a new situation arises. We already know that the other proposals contained in the Bill are unacceptable. The official Unionists, through Mr. Faulkner, have already told us that they want to negotiate on the other parts of the Bill. They want to put an interpretation on what we are told is absolute and laid down in legislation. We know that the
      1744
      Republicans still want unity with the South and will strive to achieve it despite any guarantees or proposals in the Bill. We also know that the majority will never willingly surrender Ulster to unity with the Republic.
      The constitutional guarantee that we propose to give Northern Ireland does not have the support of the British people. No guarantee given by this Parliament is worth the breath with which it is uttered unless it has the consent and support of the majority of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. Hardly anyone in Northern Ireland takes the guarantee seriously. Anyone who does is foolish to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South said that it will be possible in future to bring legislation to this sovereign Parliament to change the structure of the constitutional relationship. So the guarantee is qualified by that possibility.
      No one in Northern Ireland should put firm, positive, long-term faith in the guarantee because it is not based upon reality. I predict that the day will come when the Westminster Parliament will awaken to the reality and respond to the majority view in Britain and in Ireland by recognising that only the Irish can determine their own future, whether they want one Ireland or two Irelands. The voices that are beginning to be heard in the background of the debate in Northern Ireland will come to the fore, and we shall hear more about the taking of independence by the majority in Northern Ireland because they are not prepared to rely on a phoney set-up like this.
      Mr. Stanley Orme: My hon. Friend says that it is for the Irish people to decide their own future, but he also supports his hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) in what he said about the consent of the British people. Where do these points meet?
      Mr. Wellbeloved: The two points meet in this way. The declaration which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South urges me to support is worthless without the consent of the British people as a whole, and I believe that no majority in Northern Ireland on its own has the right to determine the future of that island for all time. The future of Ireland as a whole is a matter for all the people of

      1745
      Ireland as a whole to determine at some time in the future. I hope that my answer is clear to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Orme: I am afraid it is not clear. I can follow my hon. Friend's argument about the consent of the Irish people as a whole, but he is talking about the consent of the British people. Does he mean that the British nation as a whole must be consulted first before the Irish people are consulted? At present, of course, Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Wellbeloved: The answer to my hon. Friend is this. The Republic is an independent foreign State. We have no right in any way to determine how it wishes to bring about any changes in Ireland as a whole. That is a matter for it. Our responsibility is to determine how we would wish to see changes brought about in that part of Ireland which at the moment forms part of the United Kingdom.
      My amendment suggests two ways in which the British people could bring about those changes if at any time we felt them to be desirable. I say in my amendment that changes can come about by a majority in the United Kingdom Parliament or by a poll held in the United Kingdom as a whole. I foresee either of those two methods as the means by which change in Northern Ireland can be brought about.
      In being asked to vote for this guarantee in the Bill, we are putting a heavy price on those for whom we in Parliament have a great responsibility. I refer to the British Army, upon which we have imposed an impossible task in carrying out the policy of successive Governments. The soldiers who are sent in to discharge that responsibility are exposed to murder, criticism and abuse from the people whom they have been sent there to protect.
      Many tributes have been paid to the quality of the British Army and to the discipline and tradition which it displays, and I shall not repeat them now. There is a record on sale in the shops which deals with the position of the British Army in Northern Ireland. The record is published by Cube Records and is called "The Soldier". The author is a Mr. Harvey Andrews. I recommend every hon. Member to obtain that record
      1746
      and listen to it, for it brings into sharp focus the real agony we are imposing on those troops in sending them to uphold this mistaken policy. I regret that the BBC has refused to allow the record to be played on the air. I hope that the BBC will change its mind because it is only when the situation is fully understood in Britain that we shall be able to bring sufficient pressure on Government and Opposition Front Benches in this Parliament to bring about the change in policy which is so essential.
      I doubt whether when the full debate on all the amendments has taken place there will be a discussion on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill." Therefore I shall repeat what I said at the outset of my remarks——
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. My hon. Friend raises a matter which is of particular interest to me. Do you intend to say, Mr. Godman Irvine, that there will be no debate on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill". I wish to participate in a discussion of the clause, to which I object. I do not want to discuss any of the amendments.
      The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): The hon. Gentleman has been in Parliament long enough to know that the Chair does not give rulings on those matters until it has heard the debate.
      Mr. Wellbeloved: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) if in any way I have misled him. I merely assumed, Mr. Godman Irvine, that as you generously allowed a wide debate to take place, then, in accordance with the normal precedent, you might consider limiting the debate on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill".
      Unless we can create the sort of circumstances which are based on reality, the reality that Northern Ireland is not part of Britain, that the British cannot solve the problems of Ireland, we shall not even begin to assist in solving this terrible tragedy. This nonsense of the guarantee enshrined in Clause 1 is the basis of the whole tragedy of the last 50 years. If we re-enact this provision, then everybody who supports it will be personally responsible for prolonging the

      1747
      tragedy and the bloodshed in Northern Ireland.
      5.45 p.m.
      Mr. John Biggs-Davison: When the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) contested for the first time the notion that Northern Ireland is part of Great Britain, I thought that it was a slip of the tongue, but then at the end of his speech he again denied that Northern Ireland was part of Britain. Northern Ireland is not part of Britain and never has been. On the other hand, it is an integral part of the United Kingdom.
      That is not merely the wish of the large majority of its people. It also happens to be the interest of the people of Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman cannot have forgotten that if Northern Ireland had not possessed the status which is described in Clause 1 of the Bill, we would have lost the battle of the Atlantic because we would have had none of those ports which Michael Collins said to Churchill were essential for the life of Britain.
      This is not just a question of the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. It is in the interest of this country that what is said in Clause 1 should not only be affirmed but also should be maintained by this House and by the British people. The hon. Gentleman described the guarantee as phoney. I hope that it is not. But I hope also that I shall not alarm my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if I tell him that he is about to hear the first speech in the Committee this afternoon that is favourable to Clause 1 as a whole.
      The speech made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) makes the case for reassurance having to be given to the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. From the point of view of our fellow subjects in Ulster, that kind of doctrine and the sort of speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford will fill them with foreboding and suspicion about what might be in the minds of the people on this side of the water.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) spoke about a hallowed formula. There
      1748
      is also some considerable ancestry for the idea of referendum. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) mentioned the situation at the time of the partition of Ireland and the views which were then expressed. In the Report stage of the Government of Ireland Bill in 1920 a Captain Craig—not to be confused with James Craig, who afterwards became Lord Craigavon—said:
      "That a matter of such importance as the sweeping away of the Northern Parliament, and its inclusion in the Southern Parliament, was one which ought not to be left to a mere snap Division in the Northern House of Parliament Some further safeguard, either in the nature of a referendum, or that which is suggested by this amendment, namely an absolute majority of members of each Parliament at the Third Reading, should be inserted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th November 1920; Vol. 134, c. 1219.]
      That was half a century ago. It is little over a year ago that, with the sponsorship of my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) and others of my hon. Friends I obtained the leave of the House to introduced a Bill to amend the Ireland Act 1949. It did not reach the statute book.
      My Bill provided that the status of Northern Ireland should not be changed without a plebiscite. It did not say that there should ever be a plebiscite. It said that there should be no change in the status without one. As I read it, there is no provision in this Bill that there must or should be a plebiscite, ever. It says merely that no change should take place without this form of consultation of the people of Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Stallard: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that the setting up of the Six Counties originally was done without reference to any plebiscite or election? It was done by a deal virtually between the Ulster Unionists and people on this side. There was no plebiscite, no referendum and no election.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: If I attempted to reply to that I might stray from the subject matter of the group of amendments that we are discussing. However, it is quite true that there was no plebiscite before the establishment of the Northern Ireland State within the United Kingdom. But just as what happened in the Irish Free State might be described as an act of self-determination, so might the setting

      1749
      up of the Northern Ireland State be described as another piece of self-determination because the people in that part of Ireland as a whole did not wish to be included in the Irish Free State. I think that the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) knows that quite well.
      Even if a referendum is held, there are amendments in this group in my name and that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South which seek to increase the period in which there cannot be held another border poll. It the border is to be taken out of the politics of the province, if this is to be a serious attempt to bring this about, it is essential that if border polls are held they should not be held often.
      In introducing my own Bill I said that a border poll should not
      "be held too frequently. The interval should be long enough not to cause distraction from the problems of bread and butter, work and welfare, housing and health, education and development ".—OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July 1972; Vol. 880, c. 1350.]
      In Amendment No. 51 I specify a period of 25 years. If there are to be plebiscites, I should have thought one in a generation would be often enough.
      Mr. James Callaghan: I had not intended to speak in this debate, but my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who will be winding up, has kindly allowed me to do so.
      Haying listened to the speeches so far it seems to me that there are certain considerations which need bringing out if we are to be able to decide how to vote. It is a situation in which logic does not necessarily lead to the path of wisdom, although sometimes it does. I want to explain how I shall be voting and why, and I have to put it, therefore, against the background.
      To my mind this is genuinely the last chance for constitutional advancement by Northern Ireland. We have often said that something was the last chance but I have always said that it was not. But I genuinely believe that this is the last chance, and it is for that reason that I do not want to disturb any form of appearance or reality in guarantees which people think that they have, however well-founded they may be at present.
      1750
      This is the most serious moment that we have arrived at in the history of Northern Ireland, and I want to put this to my colleagues in Northern Ireland, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) did earlier, in no spirit of threat but in a spirit of reality.
      Britain has made a compact with Northern Ireland in which it has undertaken that Northern Ireland shall remain a part of the United Kingdom for as long as the majority of the people wish it to be so. That cannot be a one-sided compact. Both parties to the compact must have their rights as well as their obligations under it. To that extent I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved).
      So far we have acted on the assumption that there is only one party to this compact and that it is for the people of Northern Ireland only to determine their own future. This ought to continue to be true subject to the one condition that the majority in Northern Ireland continue to accept the sovereignty of Westminster. The sovereignty of Westminster means this Bill. It means what has been said about power sharing. It means bringing the minority into government in Northern Ireland in a real sense and in every way. If there is any departure from that or, to take an important extreme case as I see it as an observer of the situation, if some of the earlier statements of Mr. Craig are taken at their face value and there is a deliberate attempt to sabotage the working of the Assembly, it should be made known before the election that we shall reconsider our position.
      Speaking for myself, as one who has upheld in good times and in bad the absolute pledge to the majority, if there were an attempt by the majority in Northern Ireland to sabotage the Assembly I should regard it as Britain's responsibility to say that we shall reconsider our position. That should be clearly understood, and it is said in no spirit of threat.
      Britain cannot bleed for ever. We have to have help if we are to carry out our responsibilities in Northern Ireland. We have to be certain that the majority there accept the obligations of Westminster sovereignty. That means in the last resort, for good or for ill, whether we are wise or unwise, that Westminster has to take the final decision about how the

      1751
      government of Northern Ireland is carried on.
      Is that understood in Northern Ireland? I do not believe that it is. If it is, we are set on a new path once the elections are over.
      As far as we can, we should try to maintain an all-party approach to this problem. Again I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford, who says that there are no votes for anyone in this. In the circumstances, if there were a deliberate attempt to make the Assembly unworkable so that the groups in Northern Ireland went their own way irrespective of Westminster, I hope that the Secretary of State would consider calling an all-party conference so that we might all look at the problem afresh in the light not only of what was in the best interests of Northern Ireland but of what was in the best interests of Britain. I say that quite solemnly. I put it positively that if the people of Northern Ireland, through their representatives, are not prepared to carry out their side of the compact, we must be free to reconsider our side of it. That would have consequences into which I do not wish to go. It is against that background that I want to cast my vote tonight.
      6.0 p.m.
      I agree with the analysis put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen). Indeed, I think that I am saying much the same as he said. But I should like to advise him, if I may, that if that is our approach we should not allow the argument in Northern Ireland to proceed on any false basis. It is so easy to construct false arguments in Northern Ireland. If we were not to write into the Bill the belief under which people in Northern Ireland have lived for many years, that no part of Northern Ireland will
      "cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the majority",
      we would have an argument in Northern Ireland on an entirely different basis from what it should be about. The argument should be whether the sovereignty of Westminster is to prevail—whether they are to carry out the obligations into which they have entered and into which Britain has freely entered.
      1752
      Having said that, I repeat the view put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton, which is my view, that if the people of Northern Ireland fail to carry out those obligations after 28th June then, agreeing with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), it is no use attempting to change events by words. We cannot and should not attempt to do that. It would not be fair to the British people to try to do so in those circumstances.
      The future of the Bill lies very much in the hands of the people of Northern Ireland and their representatives who are elected after 28th June. It would be wrong for the British Government not to carry out their responsibilities under the Bill if the majority of the people allow them to do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton said, we must not give way to terrorism. We must never yield to it. I agree absolutely. But likewise the majority of people in Northern Ireland have an obligation. I regret that there are many signs that they are not prepared to abide by it. If they do not, then, in the vernacular, all bets are off. In the meantime, as long as they live by their obligation it is the responsibility of the British Government to live by their obligation in this matter.
      Therefore, despite the logic of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—I think he came to the same conclusion—I should be wholeheartedly willing to vote to preserve these words although we all recognise their shortcoming and difficulties. When we say it we mean it, but I think that events will determine how far those words will have life and how far they will not.
      It is against that background that I make my personal appeal. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South has advanced the Labour Party's view. However, as an observer of the situation, I make my personal appeal to the Secretary of State to think again about the words
      "voting … for the purposes of this section".
      I will not develop the argument further, but I do not think those words are necessary. They are a handicap rather than a help. Therefore, I hope that the

      1753
      right hon. Gentleman will be willing to reconsider them. If so, I should have no difficulty about supporting the pledge that is given in Clause 1, with all the reservations I have made about the evil consequences that could flow not from our actions, not from the actions of the Secretary of State, not from the actions of the Westminster Parliament, but from the actions of the majority in Northern Ireland itself.
      I hope that I have been clear enough in what I have said. It is for the people of Northern Ireland to decide. If, alas, they decide to refuse to follow the sovereignty of Westminster, then Westminster itself is entitled to think again irrespective of what is contained in Clause 1.
      Mr. Whitelaw: I intervene at this stage in the hope that I may be able to help the Committee on a narrow point. I do not in any way wish to limit the discussion. However, I may be able to separate one point from the generality of the clause and that might help our progress in Committee.
      First, I should like to follow what was said by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who I think agrees strongly, too. I am grateful to all of them for reaffirming what I believe to be essential; namely,
      "that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part of it cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland".
      I can understand the logical argument put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, but I and the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East, in his time in Northern Ireland, have repeatedly used and pledged those words. We are deeply committed to them. I could not in honour go forward with a constitutional Bill which did not have those words in it.
      I am grateful for the widespread support that has been expressed, even by those who, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West,
      1754
      have doubts about the wisdom of any words of this kind. But my right hon. Friend said that in the situation that we have today he believes it is right to have such words in the Bill. I am grateful for the support that has been expressed on both sides of the Committee. I stand absolutely firm on that part of the Bill.
      I turn now to the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Leeds, South which, in effect, seeks to leave out the words
      "voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1 to this Act."
      The White Paper—hon. Members will not be surprised that I have supplied myself with a copy to see exactly what it said on this matter—made the pledge that
      "there will be no change in the basic constitutional status of the Province as part of the United Kingdom without their consent, and accordingly other means must be found to give expression to that commitment. The Bill will therefore, include a statutory declaration that Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom, and will not cease to be a part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland."
      The White Paper did not state how that consent would be found or expressed. The Bill puts forward the method of achieving consent by further plebiscites.
      In talking about the amendment, am talking not about the basic principle outlined in the clause but about the mechanics, the method, by which we might carry through the principle. That is what we are discussing.
      Is it possible—I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West posed this question—to know now what would be the best means of achieving this in 10 years? If I knew what was likely to happen in Northern Ireland next week, I should be more certain of what the position was likely to be in 10 years' time. I do not think one can possibly know.
      The hon. Member for Leeds, South said that he believed it was right to have a considerable amount of flexibility. I am grateful that he should take that view. He knows that it has been my approach, but some of my hon. Friends may not like it. Indeed, I may be questioned later about the exact meaning of some of the flexible phrases which I believe are right to be used because they are

      1755
      flexible. If one wants to be flexible in one place, there is an argument for being flexible in other places. I cannot dismiss that argument altogether.
      Why did we decide that it was right at least to have the power to have a plebiscite after 10 years? My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) gave some powerful reasons why a plebiscite was the best method of achieving consent. Frankly, I do not know of any other method. I do not think that any hon. Member knows of any other method.
      The Bill as it stands does not provide that there must be a plebiscite. It makes no commitment of that kind. It merely says that the Secretary of State may, by order, institute a plebiscite. That does not mean that there ought necessarily to be one, but the power is there. We thought that was the best method of setting out how consent could be judged.
      I do not think that, reading the clause, we can move from that to say that necessarily, if there were a narrow majority, the constitutional change should be made. It says only that this arrangement could not cease without consent. If the consent was very narrow, no doubt there would be constitutional problems at that stage, both North and South, which would have to be considered. No one would have any doubt about that. Therefore, the idea of the very narrow majority, which I agree is inherently difficult in a poll, would not be a bar to a plebiscite as a method of achieving consent. So I conclude that it is very hard to envisage better methods than the plebiscite that we propose for expressing this consent.
      Second, a point that I must stress strongly is that I was pressed very hard indeed originally, even by some people who today express views about plebiscites, to have a border poll in the first instance. I was also bitterly attacked for having gone back on Her Majesty's Government's word about a border poll. In fact, as in so many things, we were as good as our word and we had a poll. Once one is as good as one's word and has a poll, everyone forgets that one has kept one's word; people merely accuse one of not keeping it before one has kept it. I do not mind that, but that is the position.
      1756
      I was pressed hard for it then and it was part of the proposals that we put forward when direct rule was introduced. I wish to be very careful indeed to ensure that under no circumstances could I be accused of going back on anything I had promised about a future plebiscite or plebiscites.
      Mr. James Kilfedder rose——
      Mr. Whitelaw: I am trying to develop what I hope the Committee will feel is a helpful argument. It is an important one, and if I am interrupted now I might get words wrong. I therefore beg my hon. Friend to let me finish.
      I must not be seen in any way to go back, on the Government's behalf, on any promises which may have been made about the method of achieving consent. In the time of this debate, as I think the Committee will be generous enough to appreciate, I do not have time to turn up the record of all the words I may have used at some stage on this matter. This would be very difficult at short notice. I have to be careful because I am determined not to go back on my word. It would be wrong to do so. I do not believe that we have gone further than the really strong pledges on principle. I am not sure that we have ever absolutely pledged ourselves on method, but I will consider this.
      Therefore, in view of the views expressed from both sides of the Committee, I would suggest that I should be allowed to consider them and to test reaction in Northern Ireland to the idea that, while preserving the possibility of having this method in future, we should not write it into the Bill. But I must warn the Committee that, if I find that we are pledged, if I find that people feel very strongly and that there is a very strong body of opinion that wishes to continue with the poll, I might then have to come back to the House during a later stage of the Bill to say that I believed it was right to have this method. The House would then have the opportunity to vote against me if at that time I came to the view that I had to maintain the plebiscite provision in the Bill.
      Meanwhile I suggest that, with that proposal, I should be allowed to look at this carefully and to come back on

      1757
      Report and say either that I must go forward with this, in which case some, I understand, will vote against me, or that I can agree that, while holding to the principle, we should not keep the method. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to consider withdrawing the amendment so that I can at least be given the chance to look again, as several hon. Members have asked me to do, at the method, while standing to the principle.
      I think that that is a reasonable proposition. How it happens in the conduct of the debate is a matter for the Chair. If my hon. and gallant Friend were prepared to withdraw his amendment, I imagine that nothing would stop the broader debate on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill", which is what many hon. Members have been discussing as part of this whole debate.
      Mr. Kilfedder: I am sure my right hon. Friend will remember that I was always against holding plebiscites in Northern Ireland, and I hope he will not have a plebiscite on whether or not polls should be held in Northern Ireland. Surely the proper way of testing opinion in Northern Ireland is to hold an election, not every four years but when the majority in the new Assembly decides that an election should be held.
      Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend has raised all sorts of other issues with which I am not concerned at the moment. I have made my position clear, and it is a reasonable one. I want to be given a chance to look at this matter.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
      6.15 p.m.
      Mrs. McAliskey: While it is not my custom to come to the Secretary of State's assistance, I find very strange the remark just made by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), since on 23rd November 1972 he voted for the Third Reading of the Northern Ireland (Border Poll) Bill.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: Perhaps I might respond to the right hon. Gentleman's words. The matter that concerns us is that while the schedule says "may", in the clause to which the amendment relates the exclusive way of testing opinion would be a border poll. We feel strongly on
      1758
      this matter. If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he will look at this in view of the speeches that have been made, and, if he finds that, in his view—it will ultimately be his view—he cannot remove this provision, the debate can be reopened on Report, and we can then vote in the way I recommended to my hon. Friends earlier. In my view—I am speaking on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench—the right hon. Gentleman has made a very reasonable approach to the matter, and we can return to it later.
      Captain Orr: I echo what the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has just said, that the Secretary of State has been very helpful in his approach to this matter. I should be prepared to withdraw my amendment, which is the substantive one that we are debating. We are now dealing with the principle of the border poll, but we are taking with it, because of the selection of amendments, not only the general question, to which my right hon. Friend has been speaking, of whether we have a border poll, but also a number of amendments which would depend upon a border poll actually taking place.
      If my right hon. Friend comes back on Report and says that the border poll has to remain, I want to preserve the right then to pursue the question of the conditions under which the poll would take place, the period that might elapse between polls and other matters which are the subject of later amendments in this group. One does not want to be faced on Report with the situation that the provisions for the border poll remain in the Bill when we have no opportunity to amend them at that stage if we now withdraw the amendment. Perhaps I could have some guidance from you, Sir Robert, or the advice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, before seeking leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Whitelaw: I do not know whether it is on a point of order, Sir Robert, and perhaps it does not matter, but, as far as I am concerned, having made these proposals to the Committee in the hope that I was helping, I naturally understand that if I came back to the House saying that I wished to keep the Bill as it was, on Report I would naturally and rightly have to face the various amendments, provided that the Chair so ruled,

      1759
      which have been tabled on both the clause and Schedule 1. Nearly all the amendments are concerned with the poll. I hope that I am not straying from my duties in saying that the other discussions which have been taking place were really on the basis of the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill". No one would be inhibited in making known their views on the poll because the debate can continue on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill". Perhaps that is your view, Sir Robert.
      The Chairman: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and to the Secretary of State for raising this matter. I see the great difficulty for them in what has been said. Mr. Speaker is naturally quite free to select what he likes but he has regard to what has taken place in Committee and tries to facilitate the business of the House as a whole. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. and gallant Gentleman could rely on that practice being followed when the time came.
      Captain Orr: In that case, Sir Robert, and with that reassurance, it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to continue the general debate upon the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill". In the spirit of my right hon. Friend, and recognising with considerable gratitude the fact that he will reconsider this question between now and Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I should like to be clear procedurally. Some of my hon. Friends are as unclear as I am. A number of them wish to speak on, for example, the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and on other matters that have been raised today. Before we reach the point of withdrawal of the amendment, and because we have had a broad debate, I should like to be clear that my withdrawal of the Opposition amendment on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends would not inhibit any of them from raising the issues that we have been discussing in the earlier part of the day.
      The Chairman: I am pleased to be able to give the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends that assurance: that the speeches they would have been making on this matter will be in order in the debate on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill".
      Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I appreciate the reasons for the various remarks by several hon. Members but, as I favour the amendment that has been moved, it is my intention to object to its withdrawal.
      The Chairman: If that is the hon. Gentleman's intention, that is his undoubted right and I cannot allow the amendment to be withdrawn.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I am not speaking to a point of order, Sir Robert, but it is most important that the niceties of parliamentary procedure, which are important to us all, are followed. What matters most is that there shall be a chance of withdrawing this proposal to have a plebiscite and accepting the offer of the Secretary of State, instead of voting and losing. There is the chance of another day to look at it. It is in that spirit that I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      The Chairman: We are getting into some confusion. The hon. Gentleman does not have an amendment to withdraw. We are discussing the amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). If I may respectfully advise the hon. Member, it would be taking the sense of the Committee if he did not press his amendment but allowed the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South to withdraw his amendment, on the understanding that the hon. Member is free to say what he wants to say on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill", and on the understanding—without in any way wishing myself to commit Mr. Speaker, which I cannot do—that in the ordinary practice as we know it points raised by the hon. Member will have a chance to be fully aired at another time.
      Mr. English: May I explain my view, Sir Robert? The debate having started on the amendment, it would be better if it

      1761
      continued on it. When I said that I intended to object at this moment, it was simply because the debate ought to be on the amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). For the sake of the world outside Parliament it should be clear that that is what we are debating. The Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill" is a technicality. We all understand that, but it is not necessarily understood outside Parliament. We are debating the hon. and gallant Gentleman's amendment. I take the sense of the Committee. We all do. We are all reasonable men. We have all discussed this issue with a fair understanding of each other's positions. But it is better that we discuss not the technicality of the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill" but the position taken up in effect by the amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. At a later stage I am sure that the Committee will wish that that amendment should, in the light of the discussion, be withdrawn. I would not object to that.
      Mr. Whitelaw: I wonder whether could make one point clear to myself. If it is clear to me, possibly it will be clear to others. My undertaking to look again at the position was in the context of the amendment of the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and in the context of the arguments advanced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and other hon. Members. If we had to proceed to any form of Division on the amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), I should have to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it. My commitment is to look at the position again in the context of the Opposition amendment.
      Captain Orr: I have moved my amendment. Having discussed the reasons for it, I said that I preferred the Opposition's amendment and that I understand my right hon. Friend's position. But I still think that it would be better if the debate were to proceed upon the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill", which would be very much wider than this debate, with respect to the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). I would still wish to withdraw
      1762
      my amendment if that were considered the right thing.
      Mr. Gerald Kaufman: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), there are those among us, Sir Robert, of whom I am certainly one, who regard the debate on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill", far from being a mere technicality, as the nub of the debate. I have kept not only out of the debate but also out of the Chamber, as I regard the debates on the amendments as absurdities, whereas I regard the debate on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill" as of vital importance.
      The Chairman: If hon. Members would like me to try to bring this matter to a conclusion, may I say that I think the better procedure would be to hear the hon. Member now and, when he has finished, perhaps the hon. and gallant Member will then seek leave to withdraw his amendment. I think that perhaps the whole Committee would be agreeable to that.
      Mr. Stallard: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I should be obliged if you could enlighten me in view of the confusion among both Front Benches. What happened to Amendment No. 6?
      The Chairman: It has not been moved. It is being discussed at present.
      Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Sir Robert. Which hon. Members are we now supposed to hear before the amendments are withdrawn and we come to the debate on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill"? Some hon. Members who have just appeared in the Chamber will rise and speak about matters without having heard the debate on them. If that happens, some of us who have been here nearly all day will be somewhat annoyed, to say the least.
      6.30 p.m.
      The Chairman: It seems to me that the sense of the Committee is not quite what I thought it was. I thought that the Committee would be content to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and would then allow the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) to withdraw

      1763
      the amendment, following which we could proceed with the debate on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill". I see now that that is not the unanimous wish of the Committee, and therefore we have no option but to continue the debate.
      Mr. English: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) was referring to me. If he was, perhaps I may tell him that I have heard every major speech in this debate.
      Mr. Heffer: I was not referring to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. English: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that statement, because I have not just entered the Chamber. If it is the sense of the Committee that it would be better to debate these issues on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill", I shall not stand in the way of that being done.
      Captain Orr: In that case, I again beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Several Hon. Members rose——
      The Chairman: I call Captain Orr.
      Captain Orr rose——
      Mr. John E. Maginnis: On a point of order, Sir Robert. It was agreed during an earlier debate that those hon. Members who had not spoken to the various amendments would be allowed to make their speeches in the debate on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill", but after sitting through the whole of the debate so far it appears to me that you are starting from the beginning again.
      The Chairman: Order. I cannot hear what the hon. Gentleman wants to say unless the Committee allows me to do so.
      Mr. Maginnis: I was saying, Sir Robert, that during the debate on the amendments it was agreed that those who had intended to speak to them would be allowed to make their speeches in general terms during the debate on the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill".
      1764
      It now appears that the Chair intends to call those who debated the amendments.
      The Chairman: I take the point. The difficulty is that one cannot be in the Chair for the whole debate and know what has happened all the way through. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) will give way and allow me to call someone else to speak.
      Captain Orr: Certainly, Sir Robert.
      The Chairman: In that case, I call Mr. Maginnis.
      Mr. Maginnis: I am most grateful to you, Sir Robert, for your ruling and also to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) for giving way. I realise that it is impossible for one occupant of the Chair to be fully aware of all that has happened in the debate.
      It is not right that hon. Members who have sat through the whole of the debate should be pushed into the background again, and I am therefore obliged to you for calling me to take part in the debate.
      I must first congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his action in proceeding as far as he has. It augurs well for the future that he is prepared to listen to points made by hon. Members, both here and in other places, about the future government of Northern Ireland.
      I am one of the few Members who have researched the Ireland Act 1949 which is the basis of Clause 1, which states:
      "It is hereby declared that Northern Ireland remains part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom, and it is hereby affirmed that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part of it cease to be part of Her Majesty's dominions and of the United Kingdom without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland ".
      and so on.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) said that he was granted leave to introduce a Bill to substitute "people" for the "Parliament" of Northern Ireland. I backed my hon. Friend and went on television to give my reasons for so doing, and how right we were to do that, because at a stroke the Parliament of Northern

      1765
      Ireland was prorogued, with the result that there was no way of determining the views of the people of Northern Ireland except through a border poll.
      I listened carefully to the arguments deployed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Were it not for the pledge given in the 1949 Ireland Act, I should have agreed wholeheartedly with my right hon. Friend's conclusion that we are weakening the position of Northern Ireland by including the pledge in the Bill. But having made the mistake in the first place, and Northern Ireland having lived under the pledge given by the then Prime Minister and through the Downing Street Declaration, and again by the present Prime Minister last year in his package deal on Northern Ireland, how can we come back and say that this must be taken out of the Bill? It would he like taking a dummy from a child, because people would jump to the conclusion that the British Government were taking from them something which they had cherished over the years.
      I agree that the mechanics of the border poll should be a matter for discussion. I do not care if another border poll is ever held, though I supported the one that was held because it was the only way of discovering the feelings of the people of Northern Ireland. On Second Reading, I said that 10 years was far too short a time in which to hold another border poll. I suggested 20 years, and I should like to be consistent.
      Let us remember that the Bill comes before us this afternoon because of all the violence that has occurred. All the demands and requests of the so-called minority in Northern Ireland had already been granted by the Government of Northern Ireland. The position that we are in today and the reason for this constitutional crisis stem from acts of violence. Despite this Bill and any other measures which follow, the issue can no longer be fudged. There will never be peace and good government in Northern Ireland, or throughout the United Kingdom, unless the first priority is the defeat of violence in Northern Ireland. I hope that that will be appreciated during the coming debates.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been magnanimous in his approach this afternoon and I hope that
      1766
      that augurs well for the future of the Bill, because it must be amended and considered in great detail. I say that because it is our responsibility to give to the people of Northern Ireland a vehicle that will work and will not break down and need repair every few weeks.
      Mr. English: If I were to introduce a Bill which said what Clause 1 of this Bill says, and sought to replace the words "Northern Ireland" with the word "Nottingham", it would rightly be regarded as ludicrous. The most interesting thing about the clause is that it is there at all, because by implication its existence means that many of us are thinking exactly the opposite of what it says. If we were not so thinking, there would be no need for it.
      Like most hon. Members now in the Chamber, I am a member of the Standing Committee which is considering the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Bill. The more I go through that Bill and the longer I sit on that Standing Committee, the more my views on the subject of the relationship of Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom change.
      No one relates what happens at private back-bench meetings, and I do not propose to do so now, but I do not think that any of my colleagues would mind my saying that when we returned from the recess—and we are people with different views on this and other subjects—we had serious thoughts on this matter because the Bill was coming before us. I think that all who have spoken from this side of the Committee have implied that, at least on our side, views on this issue are on the verge of change. This is a serious issue, and I shall therefore tell the Committee why my views are changing. It is because I believe that we cannot govern Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
      I say that because of the things being done in that Standing Committee, done against my will. There we are saying that, after centuries, we must throw away trial by jury. It has been done in Ireland before. Every coercion Act in British history has taken away that right. I looked up the last few of those Acts; there are so many of them that I did not look up all of them, but every one of them did that, and since as far back as the eighteenth, not merely the nineteenth, century.

      1767
      We are doing it once again, and for the first time I have come to realise what must have been in the mind of that man whom I regard as one of the greatest Prime Ministers this country has ever had, Gladstone, when he retired for that famous weekend at Hawarden and afterwards came forth and said "This will not do, this constant belief that we can keep Ireland"—the whole of it in those days—"as part of the United Kingdom and at the same time every few years introduce into the House of Commons a coercion Bill"—which made it an authoritarian State.
      Gladstone was a great man but a strange man, too, for he was one of the very few people to start life as a Tory and work his way steadily to the Left all his life. I am not saying that there is any particular virtue in that, but it is unusual. Most people grow more conservative as they grow older. Mr. Gladstone was a strange man. However, he said, in effect, that there must be some other solution than that to the problem of Ireland.
      The thing which happenend in that Standing Committee on Monday night really shocked me, as I said in the Committee at the time. For the first time in British history we are treating the Army in the United Kingdom as if it were in a foreign or colonial country.
      In that other Bill, the Emergency Provisions Bill, there is a clause on bail; it placed restrictions on bail, but they were taken out by a concession of the Government. Perhaps for that reason another part of the Bill said it should not apply to the Army. Throughout British history we have had the principle that the ordinary law of the land applies to Ministers, civil servants, politicians and the Armed Forces. We have had in addition embodied in the law a code of military discipline, but the members of the Armed Forces have not been exempt from the ordinary laws of the land. They will be when that Bill receives the Royal Assent. That is a constitutional principle we are throwing away.
      The precedents adduced by the Minister for doing it were the way in which our forces in Germany are treated and the way in which visiting forces are treated in this country. The United States of America (Visiting Forces) Act
      1768
      was adduced as a precedent, but that was introduced at the request of the Americans because under the American constitution people are entitled to trial by jury, they are entitled not to incriminate themselves and, the Americans said, in certain respects British law was not as good as it was in the eighteenth century when they themselves picked it up.
      Trial by jury, admissions by accused persons and a change in the position of the Army are only three things we have discussed in that Standing Committee, and all are basic constitutional principles upon which the United Kingdom has been governed for centuries. They are being thrown away because we cannot govern Ireland in that way, we cannot govern Ireland as though it were part of the United Kingdom. That is what every single piece and clause of that Bill is saying. It is a terrible admission. It is an admission in a Public Bill introduced by the Government that all the constitutional and legal and political principles on which this United Kingdom is and has for so long been governed cannot be used in the government of Ireland. That may be true. I am not disputing the truth of it, but it is a terrifying admission.
      6.45 p.m.
      I agree entirely with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said. No one, certainly on this side of the Committee, would wish to see Northern Ireland pushed into the Republic of Ireland without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. That is a matter for them. I understand the position of the Secretary of State as he has outlined it, and we all know him to be an honourable man who would wish to keep his pledges.
      I understand the position of my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South, but I am not committed by their past commitments. I am speaking now as one who has never actually committed himself publicly on this issue. I have never, I think, done so, but what I am saying, in the light of events, and in the light of the elections, which will influence me—because obviously no one would state his position in

      1769
      advance of those elections and I am interested to see the outcome of those elections—is that if the result of those elections is a certain outcome I shall be encouraged in coming, as I rapidly am, to the conclusion that, rather than throw away things in the British system of Government, things which I hold dear, as they are being thrown away ever day in the Standing Committee, it might be better for the United Kingdom if a portion of it ceased to be part of the United Kingdom so that the rest of it could he governed in the way it traditionally has been.
      I am grateful to you, Sir Robert, for calling me, because I deeply wished to say that.
      That is why I have some sympathy with the amendment moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), because the first part of this clause is simply a statement of fact. If the clause had said no more than that Northern Ireland was a part of the United Kingdom, it might have been superfluous but it would have been unobjectionable, but it goes further and it says that it should always remain part of the United Kingdom except with the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. That I will not have.
      This United Kingdom is governed, as it always has been governed, by this Parliament. I would argue, and have argued, that we cannot give away the rights of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole without their consent. I have used this argument in relation to the European Community. I find the position of the Government immensely strange in saying that we can throw out the baby—the whole of the United Kingdom—and yet have a referendum on a smaller point: that of whether a relatively small number of people should remain in it; that that can be decided not with the consent of the majority of the 55 million people of this country but only by their own consent. That I do not myself believe. This United Kingdom is a single State, but it is a single State for all its people, not just some.
      Usually in the world the arguments are the opposite way round. Over the question of Algeria the majority of the people of France wanted to keep Algeria as part of France; a majority of the Algerian people wanted to be independent. Here
      1770
      the argument is between a minority wishing to be independent and the majority which does not wish it to be. This is not the usual argument. This reversed principle I have not heard of in history.
      Frankly, I thought it was a mistake when the Labour Government introduced it in 1949, and I think a lot of our present difficulties stem from the fact that that statement was ever made in an Act of Parliament. I know that the amendment which I have down is out of order, and I understand that, but it would simply have put the position back where it was in the 1920s. Then we had just had virtually a mutiny in the Army and we had just had a civil war. So perhaps they realised, with more consideration, that it was not a statement it was desirable to make.
      I am not allowed to swear in the House of Commons but hon. Members can put whatever adjectives they like before my views on the section in the 1949 Act. It should be said to the people of Northern Ireland that they may, it they wish, belong to the United Kingdom but that if they do they must accept that the United Kingdom is ruled by this Parliament, is ruled basically by this House of Commons, which is elected by the people of the United Kingdom as a whole, and that, if they accept that, they must accept the decisions of this Parliament.
      They must be told that if they do not accept that, with the greatest regret—and I say "regret" because I have family connections with Ulster—we should have to consider whether we should part company with them with or without their consent. That is not to push them into the Republic but merely to part company with them as part of the United Kingdom. This should be recognised by everyone in Northern Ireland and I hope particularly that it is recognised before the 28th June next.
      The way that that Assembly is elected is something that every person in this House will be looking at. I have no wish for any particular party to win but I have a wish for certain viewpoints to win, and I hope that they win irrespective of their religious persuasion and that they will consider with the greatest care that the one thing they cannot hope for is to remain in the United Kingdom

      1771
      on their terms. Either they remain on our terms, meaning the terms of the majority of the people in this kingdom, or they go out of it. Those are the only viable political choices open to them. They cannot have both, and they must choose between the two.
      Mr. Kilfedder: I followed with interest all that was said by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) but when he speaks about the pledge given by the Labour Government in 1949 he and other Labour Members should remember that it was given with the remembrance of the part played by Northern Ireland in winning the war. In other words, the Ulster people had made their contribution to the integrity of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] I know that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) moans when I talk about that subject but soldiers from Northern Ireland died for the United Kingdom. There are people throughout the United Kingdom who served in that war and who were grateful for the fact that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom. He may groan now, but the fact that he depends upon Irish Republicans in his constituency to keep in Parliament does not mean that he should attack the British Army in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Paul B. Rose: For some reason the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) seems to have a fixation about me. He is always looking in my direction. I happen to agree with everything he says about those from this country and from the Republic of Ireland who died serving during the last war. Less than 0·5 of 1 per cent. of the people in my constituency are citizens of the Republic of Ireland and the hon. Member should therefore retract that ridiculous nonsense.
      Mr. Kilfedder: I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Nottingham, West said, but the law-abiding majority of people of Northern Ireland are not responsible for the campaign of terror which has been waged for four years. We have just witnessed the latest atrocity in Coleraine where six innocent people died and where old and young people were mutilated. Can this House say to the people of Northern
      1772
      Ireland. "Go your own way. We are taking back our soldiers", when Northern Ireland has always been part of the United Kingdom?
      The hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) is not here——
      Mr. Wellbeloved: Yes, I am.
      Mr. Kilfedder: I apologise. I did not see the hon. Member. He is not in his usual place.
      Mr. Rose: The hon. Member is not only deaf, he is blind.
      Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford spoke about the reunification of Ireland. Ireland was never united until Britain entered and brought it within the United Kingdom. Before that Ulster was a separate kingdom with its own separate traditions, and that was long before an Englishman set foot in Ireland, long before a Norman set foot on Irish soil. Therefore we should remember that Ireland has its own traditions, cultural as well as historic, and that is why the mat majority of Ulster people are and wish to remain separate from the Republic.
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, West spoke about coercion. We are at war with the IRA. A former Home Secretary said so two years ago and at that time very few people had died. Since 1969, however, over 800 people have died, and stronger measures have to be taken to put down these evil men. It is not only in Northern Ireland that the IRA has had to be dealt with in this way. I regret to say that one of my constituents, a bus driver, was shot dead only a few days ago. I went to see his sorrowing wife and family. It was a tragic experience and I hope that no Labour Member has to go——
      Mr. Rose: Who shot him?
      Mr. Kilfedder: —to see the relatives of a victim of violence.
      Mr. Wellbeloved: Who shot him?
      Mr. Stallard: Shot by whom?
      Mr. Kilfedder: I do not think I should want to delay the House but I have been asked by whom my constituent was shot——
      Hon. Members: Humbug!
      Mr. Wellbeloved: I am sure that the hon. Member did not mean to misrepresent what I said a few moments ago when he inferred that I was supporting the reunification of Ireland. I said that the destiny of Ireland is for the people of Ireland. Whether they choose one Ireland or two is for them. All I say is that Northern Ireland is not an integral part of Great Britain within the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Kilfedder: History proves that Ulster is a part of the United Kingdom and as far as I can see, despite everything, will remain a part of the United Kingdom for a long time to come. But I was talking about coercion——
      Mr. Rose: The hon. Member was talking about the UVF.
      Mr. Kilfedder: —and I was drawn away at a tangent. In the Irish Republic even stronger measures have been taken against terrorist organisations such as the IRA, even though the Dublin Government do not implement them to the full. We should remember that during the war members of the IRA were tried not by civilian courts but by courts-martial and executed.
      Mr. English: I referred not to coercion but to what are historically called "the coercion Acts". I believe in putting down violence and I believe that in such circumstances force must be met with force. I have no dispute about that. But throughout history we have used our armed forces for this sort of purpose and never before have we exempted them from the ordinary law of the United Kingdom when they were in it, and this is a significant difference. It may be that Ireland can be governed only in certain ways, but I do not think that even in the Republic a clause such as that to which I was referring in the Bill in Standing Committee has ever been introduced.
      7.0 p.m.
      Mr. Kilfedder: One thing I regret about the Republic is that, although we are asked to extradite people to the Republic, when warrants for extradition are issued to the courts in the Republic the people involved are allowed bail, even though they may be wanted on very serious charges in Northern Ireland. I accept much of what the hon. Gentleman says.
      1774
      The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Dr. David Owen) always makes a useful contribution to debates on Northern Ireland, and I have always listened to him with respect. Today he said that the House should not be subjected to terrorism, but it was clear from his remarks that it has been subjected to terrorism. Those of us from Northern Ireland accept the sovereignty of this House. I have always said that it is the sovereign body, and that the old Stormont was a subordinate Parliament. I would not state otherwise. But Labour Members, as well as my hon. Friends, should be ready to support the later amendment requesting an increase in the number of Members of this House from Northern Ireland. The increase is necessary so that the people of Northern Ireland not only realise that this is their sovereign Parliament but that they have a fair representation here. That is the only way to deal with the question. We must he fair both ways.
      If the Royal Commission on the Constitution, which is due to report this summer, recommended, for Wales and Scotland an administration such as that set out in the Bill, and the Government then attempted to implement it, Labour Members would rightly resent such a form of subordinate government. Indeed, it would not be a government. Nor would it be a truly democratic system. It would be a glorified county council, but without even the democratic controls which county councils possess.
      Mr. Kaufman: I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's argument. He has put forward one of the only two valid attempted solutions to the Northern Ireland problem. But he said that it was the only solution. I believe that what the Government are trying to do will inevitably fail. What he proposes may succeed, though I believe it will not. He says that his solution is the only way, but there is another way, which is the way I believe in, not that Northern Ireland should be part of a unitary United Kingdom with greater representation in this House, but that it should not be part of the United Kingdom at all and not represented in this House.
      Mr. Kilfedder: I do not subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's view on that matter. I want Northern Ireland to remain part

      1775
      of the United Kingdom, and that is the policy of the Unionist Party.
      I am taking part in the Assembly election, and I have interrupted my election campaign to take part in the debate. I am not recognised by some people in the Unionist Party as an official Unionist despite the fact that I was democratically selected, because I refused to sign a certain pledge. It may be a breach of privilege of the House if a sanction is imposed on an hon. Member in an attempt to prevent him from speaking on the Bill and dividing on it against the wishes of some members of his party. It is an interesting point which I am considering. The pledge would have prevented me from speaking and dividing the Committee on certain amendments. It is a matter of interest to all hon. Members that they should not be forced to do things by small groups of people, be prevented from speaking in the Committee as they wish, and be prevented from dividing the Committee in the way they feel they should.
      As a result of what has happened, I have been put to the expense of printing all my own election literature but there is an important principle involved. I think that I leave the point at that.
      The Chairman: I was just about to tell the hon. Member that there is nothing in the clause about his election.
      Mr. Kilfedder: I apologise, Sir Robert.
      I should like to return to what was said by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). I agreed with many of his arguments. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for telling the Committee that he will look again at the clause and the amendments.
      We should not be dependent upon plebiscites or polls. I did not think that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) listened to every word that fell from my lips. I am against plebiscites in general. Although I am against the Common Market, I could not, support those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who demanded a referendum on that issue, because I do not believe that that is the way to decide such questions.
      But in the instances to which the hon. Lady referred the Prime Minister had made one of those solemn promises that
      1776
      he makes from time to time. He told the people of Northern Ireland, "We have taken away your Parliament. We shall give you a poll as an opportunity to express your opinion on whether you want to remain part of the United Kingdom." The people of Northern Ireland had to clutch at something, and it would have been wrong of me to say then, "I dislike plebiscites. I am against having a poll in Northern Ireland." The people needed that poll to show hon. Members and the world that the great majority wanted to remain British.
      It is not a division on religious lines. That should be emphasised. Many Roman Catholics wish to remain British citizens; they wish Ulster to remain part of the United Kingdom. It is unfortunate that Republicans who are very subtle in publicity can put it over to the world that all of the minority want to get out of the United Kingdom and to have a united Ireland. That is completely wrong.
      Mr. Stallard: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are also thousands of people in the majority camp who would agree to a united Ireland, and that his subtle propaganda hides that fact?
      Mr. Kilfedder: I immediately deny that. There may be one or two such people, but 95 per cent. of the Protestant people and perhaps 99 per cent. of the Protestant people of Northern Ireland want to stay in the United Kingdom. The Northern Ireland Labour Party, which has come out fairly and squarely on the issue, would agree with me on that. Unfortunately, that party has been sabotaged by some Labour Members here. The key to the attitude of some Labour Members was perhaps revealed in a remark by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford. The hon. Gentleman said that there were no votes in it for the Labour Party. Of course there are no votes in it. If there were a majority of Labour hon. Members from Northern Ireland in this House just as the Labour Party has a majority of Labour Members from Scotland and Wales, all Labour Members would be demanding that Ulster should remain part of the United Kingdom. It is the fault of some Opposition hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who

      1777
      gave great support to the Social Democratic Labour Party, that the Northern Ireland Labour Party was sabotaged.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: The hon. Gentleman has done a great disservice to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East who has, throughout his time as a member of the Executive of the Labour Party, paid particular attention and care to the views and points put forward by the Northern Ireland Labour Party. It would be wrong to allow the hon. Gentleman to make such a point about my right hon. Friend and his attitude towards the Northern Ireland Labour Party. What he said is just not true.
      Mr. Kilfedder: Of course, so many things have happened in Northern Ireland. If the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East had looked after Ulster's affairs in a different way, the situation might now be different. The failure to undertake stronger measures, the decision to send over Sir Arthur Young—Sir Softly Softly—helped to undermine the morale of the police. The hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton made the point about dealing with terrorists, In fact, the morale of the police was destroyed and that is what contributed to the breakdown of law and order in Northern Ireland.
      Clause 1 refers to the consent of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland. We must ask ourselves what is meant by a majority. It could not be a simple majority of one or a majority of 1,000. If we attempted to force Northern Ireland into an Irish Republic as a result of a simple majority on a border poll there would be a terrible holocaust which would make the present campaign of terrorism pale into insignificance.
      Mr. Rose: Is the hon. Gentleman stating the proposition clearly and frankly to the House when he says that if the majority of the population in Northern Ireland decided it did not want to remain part of the United Kingdom he would not accept that verdict, just as in the past the House has not accepted the overwhelming verdict of the people of Ireland that they wanted an independent Irish Republic?
      Mr. Kilfedder: I am not sure whether in due course the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley might not advo-
      1778
      cate that when the next border poll is held not only the opinion of the people in the Republic should be tested but the Irish people in his constituency as well. I support the Amendment No. 47 which suggests that before a poll is held in Northern Ireland two-thirds of the members of the Assembly should agree to the holding of such a poll.
      As I have said, I am against plebiscites. They are only an invitation for further turmoil and civil unrest in Northern Ireland. That leads to terrorism and to bombing, shooting and death. The preparation of each poll will not be immediately before the poll is held. It will continue throughout the intervening years. Indeed, every election will be a preparation for testing the opinion of the people of Northern Ireland as to whether Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom.
      7.15 p.m.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) said that the clause throws an onus on those in Northern Ireland who wish to keep Ulster part of the United Kingdom. In other words, the majority in Northern Ireland will be translated into protestors. The onus will be placed on them of fighting—I do not mean in a physical sense—in this House to remain part of the United Kingdom. We shall be left with the responsibility, in the eyes of the rest of the United Kingdom, for being stubborn in our attitude of wishing to remain part of the United Kingdom.
      Next, we must consider the Government's proposal of a poll not less than every 10 years. The next Government might be a Labour Government. I trust that it will not be, but that may be the position. That Government may decide that there should be a poll immediately. Indeed, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West was speaking the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) shouted, "Let us have a poll tomorrow." He made that remark in the context of how soon a poll should be held in Northern Ireland. It is a bad thing to have a periodical poll in Northern Ireland. That will only concentrate the attention of the people on the poll and its outcome. It will distract them from paying attention to the economic, social and cultural matters which should be canvassed and which

      1779
      are important for the future prosperity of Northern Ireland.
      Finally——
      Mrs. McAliskey: Hear, hear.
      Mr. Kilfedder: I know that the hon Member for Mid-Ulster is anxious to speak. I am anxious to listen to her.
      Finally, I refer to paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will explain what is meant by that paragraph. The paragraph says:
      "Any order under this Schedule directing the holding of a poll shall make provision as to the persons entitled to vote on the poll, the question or questions to be asked of the persons so voting and the conduct of the poll …".
      In other words, it seems to suggest—and I am sure that it will suggest this to people in Northern Ireland—that we could have a completely different kind of poll in Northern Ireland in 10 years' time or that different questions could be asked. That would be wrong and I hope that my hon. Friend will give an assurance that that is not what is meant.
      I should like to see the responsibility for a poll resting on the Assembly and for the Assembly to draft the questions if they are to be different from those put forward by the Government in the border poll. Will my hon. Friend also deal with the final part of paragraph 2 of Schedule 1? The paragraph says:
      "may make such other provision in connection with the poll as appears to the Secretary of State to be expedient, including provision applying, with or without modifications, any enactment or statutory provision with respect to Parliamentary elections or elections to the Assembly."
      I should like to know what that means. The people of Northern Ireland will want to know the answer.
      I have dealt briefly with the points which I wanted to raise. I reiterate my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for looking again at Clause 1 and the amendments. I trust that he will give way to the wishes which have been expressed by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), the hon. Member for Leeds, South and others of my hon. Friends and myself.
      Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: I dislike following the hon. Mem-
      1780
      ber for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) because he makes so many outrageous assertions that it is difficult to know where to begin. But I will touch briefly on his reference to the wartime contribution of Ulster. I remind the Committee that there are hon. Members who experienced what the hon. Gentleman has merely read or been told, who know how many Service men returned on leave through Heysham to Northern Ireland, although Northern Ireland did not introduce conscription. I also know that there was a special gate on the quayside at Holyhead bearing the sign, "For HM Forces". This was to facilitate the travel of Service men returning on leave to Southern Ireland. We should surely bring out in this debate the wartime contribution of both parts of Ireland, which was every bit as good as the contributions of Scotland and Wales and every part of England. That means that it was "super".
      Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware of the frequent requests made for Britain to be able to use ports in the South of Ireland, how vital those ports were when this country was being strangled by the German submarine campaign, and how the use of those ports was refused to the United Kingdom and instead the South of Ireland——
      The Chairman: We ought not to enter into matters which are a long way outside the clause. I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) will help me.
      Mr. Duffy: I hope that hon. Members opposite—and I have no doubt that they do for the most part—have accepted what I said in the spirit in which I intended it.
      I want to take up the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) on Amendment No. 5. He concluded his remarks by praising the links with Britain, even going so far as to say that these are valued perhaps above everything else by the people of Northern Ireland. As he spoke, so convincingly, I could not prevent my mind from thinking about the links which Britain has with Dublin. I wonder whether they have ever been closer. I recall the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement, which we now know has revolutionised

      1781
      completely the commercial links between the two countries, and we all know the implications that membership of the EEC must have for the ever-closer relationship of the two countries, not merely economic but social.
      I wonder whether the social bond is not even more significant, not only because of the possible developments within the Community, but in the presence in this country of several million Britons of Irish birth or extraction, all of them content to live in Britain, to share in her institutions and to take pride in them and in their sons who gain membership of the House of Commons. Just as the sons of Dublin and Ireland are content with this state of affairs, there is growing evidence that Dublin, for her part, is content—and content to have London as a neighbour and certainly has no intention of absorbing Northern Ireland.
      But that does not mean that a new Ireland, embracing both North and South, should not evolve peacefully. Indeed, I suspect that that is the growing hope of the vast majority of the people of Britain. In view of the White Paper, it is difficult not to believe that this is also the hope of Her Majesty's Government. Why else do they talk of setting up a Council of Ireland, about the Irish dimension? Although they have not yet set out any express provision for it, the White Paper acknowledges the desirability of some scheme for institutional arrangements between the South and the North. Paragraph 110 of the White Paper says that the United Kingdom
      "… favours and is prepared to facilitate the formation of such a body."
      The White Paper takes the view that such a body should not be brought into being until the new Northern Ireland Assembly has been elected, but a Council of Ireland is clearly on the stocks and a Council of Ireland presumably will receive growing attention after 28th June. But it is a development that must satisfy the people of this country—perhaps first of all the people of this country. I have already suggested that what they will need to be satisfied about more than anything else is that ground will be prepared that will solve the Irish problem once and for all.
      We all recognise that such a development not only must be peaceful but, as
      1782
      I have said, must be on the basis of consent. I hope, as I have said on previous occasions, that we shall not use the word "consent" idly. I hope that we shall not use it as a mere excuse for not acting upon it. I hope that we shall not—even worse—use it as an evasion of our responsibilities. One cannot envisage a concept like this without thinking in positive terms, without recognising that it is not a neutral concept but one which has to be worked for and encouraged and even cultivated.
      This means that the onus first and foremost is on the British Government, and we shall all be concerned—on both sides of the Committee, I am confident—to support them in all they do from now on to give to this Council of Ireland depth and a positive content and to look for its possible growth points and then to seek to bring them to maturity.
      Unhappily, Clause 1 suggests that it might be an obstacle in the way. It provides for an even more emphatic assertion of the sovereignty of Westminster over Northern Ireland. This will run counter to the spirit of the declaration concerning a Council of Ireland. Does it not even run counter to our history and to our constitutional practice?
      In studying the history of Anglo-Irish relations, one must be struck by the fact that no British constitutional solution—the Government of Ireland Act, the Home Rule Bill, the Act of Union and the rest—has ever been successful. None of these solutions has been successful because it has never matched the underlying realities of the Irish situation. I want to believe that this time it will be different. I want very much to believe that this time it will succeed.
      Then there is the constitutional practice. We in this country have a remarkable record in constitutional innovation—a record such as no other country has. We truly have an inventive genius for government instrumentation and devices. I am glad to say that Members of the House of Commons have contributed enormously to the fashioning of various devices.
      7.30 p.m.
      It is only fair to say that those Members of this House who represented Southern Ireland in the closing decade of the last century had such an impact upon

      1783
      the House that they have left evidence of their presence in such devices. We may take these for granted but we should not. Other countries do not come up with them. Rather they adopt ours. One reason why we are successful is that we have always taken a pragmatic approach. We have always been most reluctant to attempt any formal, comprehensive constitutional document or prescription for our society.
      The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was absolutely right about this. I am surprised that we have not been a good deal more cautious about putting on to paper the words found in Clause 1. If we had to put something on paper, given what the Secretary of State said—and I accept his honourable intentions—I wonder why he did not bear in mind our constitutional practice and ask himself, "How little can I put down?" It may be that he phrased the question differently—"How little can I get away with?" and decided that he could not get away with less than this. If that is so, I understand.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), among others, said that this is possibly the last chance for Ulster. He sees little evidence that the majority of the people are prepared to accept the obligations that go with the rights that this House is anxious to confer on them. I am pessimistic about our own record, too. It is not just that there is little evidence that the people of Ulster will seek to make the Bill work. There is little evidence that we can make it work, given the way we are going about it. It is for that reason that I cannot accept the clause in its present form.
      Mr. McMaster: May I pick up at once the final sentences of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy)? He referred to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and to that part of it in which his right hon. Friend said that the North of Ireland would be required to recognise the sovereignty of this Parliament. That is something with which I would not disagree for one instant. However, I would like to see the system set out in the Bill copying
      1784
      the systems of government for which this country is known throughout the world.
      The ordinary principle of democracy is all that we ask for in Northern Ireland—the simple principle that the will of the majority should be accepted by the whole of the population and put into effect. Is it a principle of democracy that members of a minority, whether Communists, Nationalists or National Socialists, should form part of the Government of a country to achieve justice? This is what is being asked of Northern Ireland and this is the point that has not been dealt with. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
      If it is right that members of a minority should be invited to take part not simply by chairing the committees but by being members of a Cabinet before there can be democracy in Ulster surely Britain should follow this pattern and open the doors of the Cabinet to members of every minority in Britain which has not been fairly represented for the last 50 to 100 years.
      The points raised by Labour Members, particularly the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), who is not now present, and the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), seem to sell the pass completely. They look forward to a day when Ireland will be united irrespective perhaps of the wishes of the majority in Northern Ireland. This is exactly what the IRA is playing for.
      The IRA in Northern Ireland has been carrying out a campaign of violence, already referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). This campaign has resulted in more than 800 deaths in Northern Ireland in just over three years. There has been millions of pounds worth of damage. Each time a Labour Member makes a speech like those we have heard today, those members of the tiny minority which forms the IRA in Northern Ireland intensify their campaign because every encouragement is given to them that if they keep pushing a little longer they will get what they want.
      The fundamental point of this debate is what should happen to Northern Ireland in the years to come. Should the future of Northern Ireland be decided by the will of the majority there? Should there be a plebiscite there, or should it be decided by the will of the majority in

      1785
      Ireland as a whole, as the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford advocated, or by a majority in the United Kingdom as others have argued?
      Whichever solution is adopted, I feel that we must admit the right to self-determination of the people of Northern Ireland. In the last analysis we must leave it to them to decide whether they want to become part of a united Ireland or whether they want to retain their traditional position, which has existed for hundreds of years, as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
      We accept the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom and we ask nothing more than that the principle of democracy which is applied in this House should be applied in Northern Ireland—the principle of majority rule. It is important that the statement in the clause should be incorporated in the Bill. After the disturbances in Northern Ireland in the last three years, it is essential for morale that there should be a clear declaration that it is the Government's intention that Northern Ireland shall in all circumstances remain part of the United Kingdom unless the majority of the citizens decide otherwise.
      I share the anxieties of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), that it is unwise to require periodic plebiscites in Northen Ireland. This relates to the last phrase in the clause. If we state, as is stated in Schedule 1, that they shall be held at periods of not less than 10 years, that minimum period will quickly become the standard period.
      This will become a focus of attention for the terrorists. Pressure will mount during the passage of the 10 years so that it will be inevitable that a poll will be held at the end of the 10 years. Far from the border being taken out of politics, which is the aim of the Government, stated quite recently by the Prime Minister in an interview on Ulster Television, this provision would tend more than anything else I can think of to keep the border in politics in Northern Ireland.
      If we are to have regular plebiscites, the minimum period should be 20 years rather than 10 years. But I believe that it would be wiser to drop this part of the clause completely and to leave it to
      1786
      future Governments to determine, as they will in any event determine, how the consent of the majority shall be obtained. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) indicating assent.
      Provisions such as those in the clause are hardly worth the paper they are written on. It is a fundamental principle of the British constitution that we cannot bind our successors. The assurances given in the clause have been repeated many times and yet we are seriously debating whether these assurances should be dropped as a result of a simple decision taken tonight. That illustrates the value of all the previous assurances given—for example, in the 1949 Act and in the Downing Street Declaration. They are worth nothing if we decide that this clause shall not be included in the Bill.
      We are therefore perhaps putting too much emphasis on the exact wording of the clause. We want in the Bill as great a degree of flexibility as possible. One of the great strengths of the constitution of this country is that it has not been put in writing. The manner in which the new Government or Assembly and its Cabinet should be formed should not be spelled out. In the weeks following 28th June, when the election takes place, it should be left to those who are returned as the representatives of the people to decide the precise machinery which they wish to adopt and the manner in which the country shall be governed within the limits set out in the Bill.
      Some measure of local autonomy is desirable for the good government of Northern Ireland. I refute the allegations made in the debate that for the past 50 years the country has been misgoverned. Such allegations are the product of the Republican propaganda machine which has received far too much attention in the past three years. In my constituency people of all classes, creeds and religions were happy before the troubles began in 1969. Employment, living conditions and social security were good. The housing situation was improving and rates of pay were improving more rapidly than ever before. Since I became a Member in 1959, average unemployment has dropped from 11 or 12 per cent. for the whole of Northern Ireland to 5 or 6 per cent. That is a trend in the right direction. The vicious campaign launched

      1787
      against us was launched by people who feared that if they did not act quickly there would be no grievances left for them on which to act.
      For those reasons, I support the clause and wish to see it stand part of the Bill. I particularly welcome the Minister's statement that he is prepared to look again at that part of the clause dealing with the holding of a plebiscite.
      [Mr. RICHARD CRAWSHAW in the Chair]
      7.45 p.m.
      Mr. Stallard: There is one point which has not been mentioned. As I feared that it would not be mentioned, I tabled an amendment and a new clause designed to ensure that all aspects of the problems confronting people in Northern Ireland would be discussed. The aspect which has not been discussed, and which never is discussed by most hon. Members, is that of the border, which started the trouble.
      The Front Benches have been confused about amendments. We have had confused speeches on the amendments and two or three hon. Members have said that it might have been better if the clause had not been in the Bill. Amendment No. 8, in my name, suggested that the clause should be removed from the Bill because of the argument it would cause, has caused and will continue to cause.
      I have taken the trouble to read the debates going back over many years. In the debate in 1949 on the Ireland Act it was stated that that measure opened with the words "Be it enacted". There then followed not an enactment but an affirmation. We have heard much discussion about the meaning of words in Bill. I am no expert, but I believe that one does not say "Be it enacted" and then follow it with an affirmation.
      It was said in 1949 that not since the 15th century had a statute been used as a means of expressing policy. That is as relevant today as it was then. The present Bill starts "Be it enacted", but the enactment does not start until Clause 2. That was another reason why I felt that we should delete Clause 1. Far from it being an enactment, it is an affirmation.
      1788
      When introducing the Government of Ireland Bill, or the partition Bill, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Macpherson, said that all hoped that the division of the country would be temporary. The late Earl Winterton said that few would have supported the Bill had they not believed that it would lead to the ultimate unity of Ireland. Other Tory spokesmen and statesmen said similar things then and since.
      Some of us recently watched a film, which has been banned for showing to the public, which brought out quite a number of points. It showed that when the Anglo-Irish Treaty was being negotiated, the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George, assured the delegates that acceptance of the treaty would lead to the ultimate ending of partition. For years people have been saying that the border one day will have to go and that ultimately unification will come. Why, then, have successive Governments of all complexions constantly put forward affirmations that perpetuate the border? The clause does exactly the same, and that is why I feel that it should be removed.
      I have tabled New Clause 5, which I will refrain from discussing because I believe that new clauses are still under consideration and that my new clause may even yet be reached. What I object to is that the Bill reaffirms the partition of Ireland for what appears to be all time. It has always been my firm belief, as a result of years of close connection with the Anglo-Irish problem—a view shared by thousands of people of all religious views and of none here and in North and South Ireland—that so long as the border remains there will be trouble. I have heard slogans to the effect that one cannot bomb a million people, and my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench have constantly stressed that unification can come only by consent. I believe that it cannot be achieved overnight and I hope that it will not be achieved by violence, but until it is achieved there will be trouble.
      We should be moving in a much more positive direction towards the ultimate goal to which most people pay lip service. Prime Minister Gladstone has been quoted. I have always wondered what Gladstone said in 1886 and I took the

      1789
      trouble to find out. This is what he said on 8th April 1886:
      "What I wish is that we should no longer fence and skirmish with this question, but that we should come to close quarters with it; that we should get if we can at the root; that we should take measures not merely intended for the wants of today and of tomorrow, but, if possible, that we should look into a more distant future; that we should endeavour to anticipate and realise that future by the force of reflection; that we should, if possible, unroll it in anticipation before our eyes, and make provision now, while there is yet time, for all the results that may await upon a right or wrong decision of today."
      That was said about a hundred years ago. Mr. Gladstone was speaking then about a united Ireland, not about partition and not reaffirming that the Six Counties should be managed as part of the United Kingdom. What he said then is as relevant today, but our politicians have neither the courage nor the will to stop skirmishing and to accept that there will be trouble as long as partition remains.
      In new Clause 5 I suggest constructive steps for bringing about the end of partition and, by consultation and agreement, achieving a reunified Ireland, which is what most people in Ireland desire.
      It is not usually understood that the Irish Nationalists look upon the issue of the border in as logical a manner as do the Government and their supporters but come to a different conclusion. To them the outstanding fact is that the minority in the Six Counties is part of the majority of the people of Ireland as a whole. They regard partition as depriving the majority of the people of Ireland of their rights in a part of their own country. That is perfectly logical. They agree that the Unionist majority has rights, but they say that the boot should be on the other foot, that the majority should have the overall control and that the protective restrictions should apply to the Unionists within a united Ireland.
      There is nothing illogical about that. We may not agree with it, but it is not often discussed or even mentioned. There are people who go into orbit when it is mentioned, but it is logical. Any affirmation of the continuation of British sovereignty should be accompanied by an explanation that it is continued with the object of bringing the Unionist minority
      1790
      to a position where it will accept the majority rights of the majority.
      Mr. McMaster: Does the hon. Gentleman say that if the majority in North American is in favour of the unification of Canada and the United States that is what should happen, or does he allow the people in Canada the right to self-determination? That is a good parallel.
      Mr. Stallard: If I were to develop that line of argument I am sure you would rule me out of order, Mr. Crawshaw.
      Although everyone may not agree with the view put forward by the Nationalists, the Republicans and people like me who have long respected their point of view, that view nevertheless exists. It is based on logical reasoning and in the end it will be accepted by more and more people as the only basis for a permanent ultimate solution.
      During the past few years we have tried to maintain the link with Britain, and my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) has spelled out the cost. It is fast becoming the opinion of many people in Great Britain that the cost of trying to maintain the link is too high. Despite its cost, we are told by the people who have been most vociferous in their demand that the link should remain and that it must be the kind of link they want and not the kind we want. They say that they will wreck the Assembly and attempt to set up a separate State if the union is not as they want it, despite all the affirmations, resolutions and all the rest of it.
      I promised that I would be brief, and I conclude on this note. I believe that the point of view held by thousands of people here and in the North and South of Ireland—namely, that the only ultimate solution is the reunification of the 32 counties—should have been discussed in terms of positive and constructive ways of assisting in that reunification. The argument can be developed and I hope on this topic to take part in the debate on New Clause 5.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. James Molyneaux: The, right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and many other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), have emphasised that the

      1791
      majority must recognise the sovereignty of this Parliament at Westminster on the terms of this Parliament alone, a Parliament in which they are under-represented. It is curious that no similar duty to obey this Parliament is laid on the minority. The latest example of failure to co-operate with this Parliament came when the border poll set up by this Parliament was boycotted by practically all the leaders of the minority and a great many of their followers in Northern Ireland. This is scarcely an example to the majority or a lesson in unconditional obedience.
      I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members may feel on reflection that they were a little unwise in some of their comments. I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends fully understood the effect of what they were saying on the minds of the people to whom they were addressing their remarks. They kept saying that if majority returned a democratically-elected Assembly which took the attitude that certain parts of this Bill were unacceptable or unworkable, then the whole package would fall apart. One might then have to call an all-party conference to review the relationship of Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom.
      The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) towards the end of his speech indicated that he at least saw the logical consequence. He said that if this Parliament were to say, "Ulster is no longer part of the United Kingdom", then the alternative is not a united Ireland. It is an independent Ulster as provided for in the Vanguard manifesto to meet that very contingency.
      The assertion was made earlier that efforts by those who would be elected to the Assembly to have substituted more credible and more workable provisions would be regarded as nullifying, if not wrecking, the entire structure. If I were standing as a Vanguard candidate, I should be overjoyed by the volume of support so freely given in this debate. Whether it is intended as support is neither here nor there, but that will be the effect of it, as clearly will be seen on 28th June.
      1792
      The same goes for all the talk about the cost of preserving the link and the constant reiteration of the truth that public opinion is reaching the point at which it may not sustain the Army commitment. But this saddles the United Kingdom Parliament with a responsibility which was accepted in 1969 when the local security forces were destroyed, when the British Army was committed to cope with the situation, and there was then little hope of its ever being extricated from this impossible situation. Those are the people who made this decision and there were some who are now on the Government benches who supported that fateful decision.
      There is no convincing reason for perpetuating the practice of holding plebiscites within one part of the United Kingdom. The last one brought little satisfaction to either side of the political divide in Northern Ireland. The leaders of the minority took the line that one should not even start playing the game unless one was assured of winning. That was not a very constructive approach, but it was not an uncommon one in terms of the minority contribution in the past 50 years.
      Following the last plebiscite in March, the SDLP—which many hon. Members in this House are beginning to regard as a party not noted for accuracy of assessment—claimed that 40 per cent. of the electorate which had boycotted the border poll were by implication opposed to union. They sought to prove this by lumping together the 10 per cent. who are unable to vote by reason of defects in the rolls—the fact that they may have moved and all the rest of it—together with the 10 per cent. who never at any time bother to vote. They included those who refused to vote because they disapproved of this un-British practice. These were alleged to aggregate to 40 per cent. opposed to the union and it was even claimed that they had accepted the leadership of the SDLP.
      We should at least be thankful that, in the interval, in the local government elections the SDLP was cut down to size, and it was demonstrated that it did not have 40 per cent. support but barely 10 per cent. throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. That may be one reason why it is not represented in the Chamber tonight.

      1793
      Although it is true, on the other hand, that initially the majority side had some reason to be grateful for the vote in favour of union, this was quickly dispelled by the White Paper provision for a Council of Ireland with the promise of an early meeting of this unlikely body having as the first item on its agenda
      "the acceptance of the present status of Northern Ireland, and of the possibility—which would have to be compatible with the principle of consent—of subsequent change in that status ".
      So the majority gave an overwhelming answer to the question "Do you wish to remain part of the United Kingdom?" Having had this reassurance, we were told almost before the computers had stopped clicking that this was to be set aside and a body set up to discuss the possibility of a change in that status. Therefore, any temporary satisfaction which may have been felt by the majority was immediately set aside.
      Mr. Orme: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that when the plebiscite was held the new constitution was already proposed and it was implicit in the ballot that persons were voting not only for the union but for the sovereignty of this Parliament over the rest of the United Kingdom? That is surely the crucial issue. The hon. Member is saying "We have had the ballot, we want union, but we are going to go our own way."
      Mr. Molyneaux: With respect, I am not saying that at all. I do not think I need to reiterate to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who was an observer at the border poll, that the questions appearing on the ballot paper were very simple ones. People were asked "Do you wish to remain part of the United Kingdom?" or, on the other hand, "Do you wish to be joined to the Republic of Ireland?" It was on the basis of those questions that that convincing reply was given. However, within a matter of weeks of that decision having been taken, we had a White Paper issued by Her Majesty's Government saying that they were preparing to find ways, means and devices of discussing subsequent changes in that status.
      That was hardly a reassurance to those who voted in favour of preserving the union. One could hardly imagine a more cynical rejection of a referendum verdict.
      Mr. David James: Surely the object was that the Southern Irish would not come to a Council of Ireland unless they had at least the prospect open to them of subsequent change. If that is all that is meant by that paragraph, what is so frightening about the Council of Ireland?
      Mr. Molyneaux: I think that those words of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) in themselves would be frightening enough. One does not need to add anything. He has underlined my point for me.
      Mr. James: But what is frightening?
      Mr. Molyneaux: I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government were sincere in their original aim of using the referendum to take the border out of politics, but certainly the same Government, in this rather hamfisted follow-up in the White Paper to which I have drawn attention, brought the border back into a dominant position in the Ulster political scene, and there it remains to this day.
      It has been said and accepted generally by hon. Members on both sides that there can only be a united Ireland by consent. Unity could not even come as a result of a plebiscite. It has been accepted in this House that in Northern Ireland majority views are of very little account and that somehow it is necessary to invent various blocking and vetoing devices. All manner of devices have been invented to frustrate ordinary parliamentary democracy. For the sake of this House and hon. Members who represent constituencies in Great Britain, I hope that the disease does not spread to this side of the Channel. But I have my fears, and others share them, that the spread is already taking place. I hope that people here will find the courage to put a stop to it.
      As the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, it follows that unity can come only by consent. But it must be by the consent of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole and not just of the Republicans or Nationalists who might at some stage be in a majority. It must be by the consent of the Unionist as well even if by then they are in the minority. If the fashions

      1795
      which we have established and which are being perpetuated in the Bill are to continue, a Unionist minority in a united Ireland would have to be given an influence out of all proportion to its numerical strength. For example, Unionists would have to have some kind of built-in veto on various items of social legislation in the South of Ireland which would be unacceptable to them as matters stand at the moment. What is more important, they would have to be given key influential posts in all future Eire Governments. Would any Eire Government accept this? Dare they accept it in the foreseeable future? Can we expect them to accept it?
      I agree that the mere tipping of the scales in a future border poll should never—and could never—be the instrument for deciding. That is why I am happy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has undertaken to look at this proposal again.
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Heffer: This is the second occasion on which I have spoken in this House about Northern Ireland. I come from the city of Liverpool where we are not usually inclined to become too involved in the problems of that part of the United Kingdom. But it would be quite wrong if I did not express my rather deep-felt opinions about this clause.
      Whether we like it or not, we have to face the fact that the problem of Ireland is one of history. It is not a problem upon which one likes to dwell, but it is history. Any discussion of Ireland, be it Northern Ireland or any other part of Ireland, is essentially an historical discussion.
      I ask hon. Members to cast their minds back to some of the historical events and to remember that the wording of the clause is almost identical to the wording of the 1949 Act, the 1922 Act, and the declaration of Downing Street in 1969. We have to remember that it has been because of words of this kind that, every generation almost, another group of emergencies has arisen, myths have arisen, new songs have emerged, and more people have been killed. People have suffered as the result of the continuation of myths based upon the historical reality of what actually happened in Ireland
      1796
      when it was decided by a Liberal Government prior to the First World War to grant home rule.
      In the course of his remarks, one hon. Member used the phrase
      "… self-determination of the people in the North, and, equally, of the people in the South."
      It is remarkable to remember that it was the Carson rebellion and the arming of working people and others in Northern Ireland which led to the arming of working people and others in Southern Ireland. There were two lots of volunteers, one group wanting a united Ireland and the other wanting complete independence for one part of Ireland, having no intention of going into a united Ireland.
      Here is the dilemma of Ireland: two groups of people both absolutely passionate in their desire, one for independence in the South, and the other for the continuation of the union but, in a sense, for self-determination because, if the British Government had decided to go ahead with the Home Rule Bill by a majority in this House, they would have declared independence. That is what the Carson rebellion was all about.
      I am not saying that they are wrong. I am saying that historically that is what happened. There was a passionate desire on the part of two groups of people, one wanting freedom for the whole country from Britain, the other wanting to remain with Britain but wanting freedom if the whole country was given freedom by this country.
      Can anyone imagine a more complicated situation? It is almost impossible for the ordinary British person to begin to understand what has happened over there. Yet, if we do not understand it, we cannot begin to grasp the realities of the situation or find any answer to it. That is why, whether we like it or not, we must look at historical events in Ireland and at precisely where we stand regarding the clause.
      I am sorry that I missed the speech by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I understand that he, too, is unhappy about these words, although he will vote for them, as will my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), because there does not seem to be any other way out of the situation.

      1797
      My conclusion is the opposite. If the words are wrong and perpetuate difficulties on both sides, surely it is right at this stage of the game to eliminate them altogether. Whether we like it or not, by including these words, even if the violence in Northern Ireland is diminished—we all trust that it will diminish—we may be helping to perpetuate the violence in the immediate situation. What is worse is that in perhaps two or three generations to come another group of martyrs will arise to try to eliminate this tie with Great Britain. This is the problem with which we are faced.
      I supported the Government on Second Reading of the Bill, because it seemed to me that some way had to be found constitutionally, peacefully, to try to resolve the problem of violence in Northern Ireland. I did not go along with everything in the Bill. This was one part with which I did not agree. However, it seemed that we had to give the Government a chance to try to solve the problem, and we are still giving them that chance even if the clause is eliminated. We are saying not that the Assembly should not be established but that the clause ought not to be in the Bill. I believe that it should come out.
      I do not intend to make a long speech. I want to give my view of the situation and my reasons why the clause should not be included in the Bill. It is amazing that agreement has been expressed on the wording of the clause by hon. Members who have totally differing views on other matters. That point should be taken on board by the Government.
      There is a feeling in the House and in the country—I understand what my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Cray-ford (Mr. Wellbeloved) said—that good will is running out. For example, when a good young Catholic boy from Kirby is shot down in the streets of Belfast by the IRA and his father ultimately commits suicide, the good will of the Catholic community in my area begins to run out. Also, when a good young Protestant boy is shot down by Protestant extremists, the good will of the Protestant community begins to run out. British people—Catholic, Protestant, Church of England, Jewish, Baptist or anyone else—are getting fed up with a situation where our young lads are the targets for extremists on both sides in Northern Ireland. They
      1798
      are increasingly saying, "No more. We have had enough. It is time our boys were brought home." I understand that feeling.
      Captain Orr: They are home.
      Mr. Heffer: They do not know anything about Carson. Unfortunately, they do not know anything about Connolly either. I wish they did. They do not know enough about the problem. However, they know that in every part of the world British troops ultimately had to be withdrawn and a political solution found. Whether it has been Cyprus, Aden, Africa or anywhere else, our troops have had to come home. Our people are getting to the stage of saying, "Our boys must come home. We do not want much more of it."
      Therefore, I suggest that the clause should not be retained in the Bill. It will help to perpetuate and develop the border problem. I ask the Government to withdraw this clause in the interests of a final solution and ultimate unity and friendship among the Irish people as a whole.
      Captain Orr: We are still dealing with the clause as it stands, but our attitude on whether we vote for the Question "That the clause stand part of the Bill" is determined by what my right hon. Friend said about the possibility of looking at the whole question of the border poll between now and Report. Therefore, bearing that point in mind, we are in effect giving a decision on the earlier part of the clause dealing with the pledge. I should like to say something about that before we come to a conclusion on this matter.
      The hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) pointed to the differences in logical outlook about the situation in Ireland as a whole. I agree with the analysis put forward by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North. I am certain that many people in the nationalist community, and outside Ireland as well, look at it in precisely the way he described. I think that people tend to think of Ireland, because it is a geographical entity, as one nation. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is the opposite. The view of the

      1799
      British in Northern Ireland is that it is wrong to take geography as the judgment of what constitutes a nation; one should look at nationhood in accordance with what people are. Thus, the majority in Ulster consider themselves British.
      The hon. Member for Walton talked about bringing our troops home. "Home" to us is the United Kingdom. We regard the troops in Ulster as being home. They are welcome there because they are, in our view, on British soil. We welcome them and seek to support them and we condemn anyone who attacks them or makes their position difficult. They arc our Army on our soil.
      Thus, we are dealing with two irreconcilable points of view that are deeply held. I accept what the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North says, that the view he described is deeply held. There are people in Northern Ireland who, although they are on British soil, regard themselves as being on Irish soil, in terms of nationhood rather than geography. But he must also accept from me that those of us who live in Ulster regard ourselves as being on British soil. These two points of view are irreconcilable. [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Yes, they are totally irreconcilable when it comes to ultimate ends. Nothing is more passionately or deeply believed in by human beings than their nationhood, so the ultimate aims here cannot be reconciled.
      8.30 p.m.
      The best that can be hoped for in a situation like this is to find some way in which the majority will—it must be the majority—prevails, provided always that the ordinary civil rights of the minority are protected. We should not try to do something that will not work.
      This can be done in Ireland in one of two ways. We could treat Ireland as a geographical entity, which could be done overnight or could be worked towards, in an attempt to leave the British in Ireland as a minority in an Irish republic. Alternatively, we could start from the present position of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. We could ensure that the maximum protection was afforded to the minority but we should not create an artificial situation in an attempt to bring about an impossible end. Because
      1800
      of the inherent difficulties, it will not work.
      Mr. Frank Marsden: I find the hon. and gallant Member's argument perfectly clear, but there is one question that confuses Englishman. Why is it that people who regard the soil of Northern Ireland as United Kingdom soil attack their own Army? This is one of the things we cannot understand.
      Captain Orr: It is not for me to explain the motives of people who attack their own army. I condemn it. It is unjustified. Nothing that has happened in Ulster or that could happen in Ulster can conceivably justify any citizen of Northern Ireland attacking his own Army. I find it difficult to understand, but it is true that, in an anarchic situation, with a general breakdown of order, people often imagine that they have grievances which do not in fact exist. It is the bounden duty of those who regard themselves as British to obey the law laid down by Parliament.
      The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said in moderate terms that there was a compact between the rest of the nation and any part of the nation. That compact is based upon the argument that one remains part of a nation provided one accepts the law; if one does not accept the law, the nation has some right to cast one off. I am not sure that I would accept even that doctrine as it stands.
      Mr. Powell: It is like speaking about a compact. The conflict between a man and his own leg.
      Captain Orr: As my right hon. Friend has so eloquently interjected, it is like that.
      Nevertheless, even if one were to go with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East on this, what is the compact? The compact is that Northern Ireland, being part of the United Kingdom, is under the sovereignty of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, and its citizens are therefore bound to obey the law as passed by Parliament. I endorse that view completely. Neither I nor my hon. Friends would be a party to saying that one should not obey the law as passed by Parliament. But it is a different thing—this is where confusion exists—that one must always think that the law is right. Any part of the United Kingdom, any

      1801
      part of England, any group of people in England, or in Scotland, is entitled to say that the law that is being made by Parliament for it is unsatisfactory. Any local authority in England, while bound to work under the law as passed by this House, can at the same time argue that there are defects in the law and that the law is unworkable. It can invite its Member of Parliament to say to Parliament that the law is unworkable.
      I happen to believe that the scheme outlined in the Bill is unworkable, as I have argued on Second Reading and as we shall argue as we progress. It must not be assumed, therefore, that those who say the same thing at home in Ulster—that the provisions of the Act, as the Bill will become, are unworkable—are in some way against the law. Because the Assembly, when it meets, may not be workable, it must not be assumed that people are in some way acting against the law or breaking the compact.
      If at the end of the day my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State finds that he is unable under the Bill to appoint an Executive and we come back in March, as it were, to direct rule, that should not be held against the people of Ulster unless they have broken the law or unless they have gone into the Assembly and refused to operate within the law of the Assembly. But provided that they have operated within the law and done nothing unlawful or that would wreck the Assembly in an unlawful sense, it would be wrong to say that the failure was a failure of the people of Northern Ireland and, therefore, that they must be ejected from the United Kingdom.
      Mr. McNamara: I have followed part of the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument and in part accept it. But surely part of the argument he was stating is that there is a duty under the law for people to seek to work the law.
      Captain Orr: To obey the law.
      Mr. McNamara: To obey the law. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is basing part of his argument upon the point that he starts from the position that the law as Parliament may enact it may well be unworkable. The hon. and gallant Gentleman may well think that the law is unworkable but, under the terms of the statute as Parliament may pass it, is there not a duty upon people who are elected
      1802
      to attempt to work the law whether or not it be workable?
      Captain Orr: I am not sure that I like the phrase "work the law". I do not think that is the right phrase. The correct one is "obey the law". One can go into an Assembly—or a Parliament—that is set up and the Secretary of State can say "I shall set up an executive provided you agree to certain things", but there is no compulsion of the law to make one agree to obey. Not agreeing to something is not breaking the law.
      Mr. Kaufman: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for giving way because, unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), I totally agree with what he has just said. I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that the law as the Government are seeking to put it through is unworkable and will break down because what he is saying is an exact parallel of our view on the Industrial Relations Act—namely, that, although we would not seek to sabotage the law, we would not assist the working of the law, and when we advised trade unionists not to co-operate with the National Industrial Relations Court we were not, as was alleged from the Government Front Bench, sabotaging the law. We were merely exercising our right not to co-operate with but not to break a law of which we profoundly disapproved and which we believed to be unworkable, as it has proved to be. In the same way, this Bill will prove to be unworkable when it becomes an Act.
      Captain Orr: I am grateful for that intervention, and I shall carefully note it for future reference if it should be required. I think, however, that there is a slight difference between us in that, while the hon. Gentleman may advise his colleagues to opt out of the institutions that have been set up, I shall not so advise my hon. Friends.
      What I am saying to the people of Ulster is that if the Assembly is set up they should go into it, take part in its elections and not boycott it. But if the kind of agreement that is required before powers are devolved upon the Assembly is not obtained, let no one say—provided that the people in Ulster have obeyed the law—that, because the Assembly was not workable and because they did not agree,

      1803
      they have rejected the sovereignty of Parliament and, therefore, they ought to lose their citizenship. To do that would be totally unjust and unfair, and I want to get that plainly on the record, because the words of my right hon. Friend and of some Labour Members may be misunderstood and it is important that that should not happen.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making an interesting point. A comparison has been made with the Industrial Relations Act, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman has talked about whether the Bill will be workable and whether one should obey the law.
      Let me put the question another way. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the communities in Northern Ireland were irreconcilable.
      Captain Orr: As to their ultimate aims.
      Mr. Rees: Yes. Let us suppose that on 28th June the people of Northern Ireland, as is their right, vote for groups which, by the very nature of the irreconcilable attitudes there which are the basis of everything that has happened, will not be able to work the constitution. What will then happen, bearing in mind that the Government of the day have put forward proposals to try to deal with those irreconcilable attitudes? The 64,000-dollar question is what will happen? Surely we at Westminster will have to decide the matter.
      Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman is right. I spoke about the communities holding irreconcilable attitudes about their ultimate aims. I am not necessarily using the sectarian divide in this. I am not necessarily using the Catholic-Protestant divide. What I am using is the Republican-Unionist divide. Let us be quite plain about that just for the record.
      8.45 p.m.
      Now we come back to what happens if the scheme is unworkable, if we have the Assembly elected and it meets within the law and nobody breaks the law but it is not possible to find an agreement upon which the powers could be devolved in accordance with the Bill. What happens is that the Assembly comes to an end, we come back here
      1804
      again, and we are back, in effect, to direct rule again. Then we have again to think, and to find a scheme which will work.
      The hon. Gentleman is asking me—but I did not create the situation; I did not prorogue the Parliament of Northern Ireland; I did not start direct rule in the first place. It is no use asking me, who would not have embarked upon the operation, how we now save the patient, now we have cut him up. When did the patient become sick? In 1969.
      Mr. Stallard: In 1922.
      Captain Orr: Anyway, I suggest that speculation now about what might be the solution when the scheme fails is not very helpful at this moment. We have to do a very great deal of careful thinking between now and next March.
      In the interim we shall have the Assembly, and that will be of some value because we shall have had a General Election, and, whatever else happens, in the meantime, there will have been a free general election. It may be on a bad kind of franchise and a bad system, but, none the less, we shall have had a test of Northern Ireland's opinion and we shall see the results and be able to do our thinking and make our general contingency plans, whatever they may be, in a very much better informed way. So even though this scheme is not a good one, there is this to be said for it, that we are gaining some form of representative Assembly so that those who are seeking election to the Assembly now and the political parties which are working for them are not doing something in vain but are doing something very useful indeed in the Ulster context because they are providing a forum in which consultation can take place and through which we here can judge what Ulster opinion is likely to be.
      This debate has tended to run as though it were a Second Reading debate, but its subject is simply Clause 1 of the Bill. I come back to the clause. What we are discussing is the constitutional pledge. In opening the debate on the first amendment, which was withdrawn, I said that if we were starting anew without any pledge, without the history of the 1949 Act, I would agree with both hon.

      1805
      Gentlemen opposite that we should not make the pledge at all. Looking back, in retrospect, it was a mistake in 1949. I myself thought it was a good thing then to do. I was wrong. Looking back, one can see that it was a mistake. This kind of declaratory clause in a Bill is not very much worth while.
      However, we cannot start anew. We are starting from a pledge which was existing, and by not re-enacting it now what we shall be doing is withdrawing it. That would be misunderstood. I am certain that, if the clause were removed from the Bill, it would immediately give rise in Ulster to the impression that the House of Commons was no longer interested in keeping Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. For that reason, and understanding that my right hon. Friend is to look again at the whole question of the border poll, I would advise my hon. Friends in this instance to support the Government on the clause.
      Mrs. McAliskey: I do not intend to say a great deal except to support my hon. Friends who believe that the clause should be withdrawn. I pay particular attention to the words of my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard)—and I say that with due deference to hon. Members who are worried about the number of Irishmen in any particular constituency.
      The clause merely reaffirms the pledge which the Government, hon. Members on both sides and, much more important, the people of Northern Ireland know will in the end mean nothing. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said that there would be a misunderstanding if the pledge were withdrawn, if the affirmation were not repeated. The only difference it would make would be that the people in the North of Ireland, particularly in the Loyalist community, would begin perhaps to believe that there was some element of truth, honesty or credibility in a British Government.
      Although the hon. and gallant Gentleman says that it is beyond his comprehension why his kinsmen, his fellow Loyalist Protestants of the Shankill Road and East Belfast, should fire on the British Army, it is not beyond my comprehension. I can see quite easily how a group of people who are socially and economically no different from the
      1806
      Catholic community or the Republican community should do so. They have from 1949, indeed from 1922, been told continually that they are the people, they are the loyalist population and they are the true British citizens. The have been told continually that they are an integral part of the United Kingdom and that they will be protected by the same laws and democracies as the other parts of the United Kingdom. And while internment without trial and detention orders remain among that section of the people which supports Republican ideas, the Protestant and Loyalist section was untouched by them.
      For 50 years these people have been told that they had rights and they had privileges which with usage they considered to be rights. Then suddenly they discovered that the British Government for whom they fought a war, to whom they gave their loyalty, and the Unionist Party to which they gave their undivided and unflinching loyalty were divided over who can deceive their people the most. They see that the Army they joined and fought with in the war now stands against them on the Shankill Road. They are more loyal than the Loyalists who fed and bred them until they were smothered and choked in loyalty.
      Now those who fed and bred them have washed their hands of them and the people believe that they have been deserted by their Army. It is no longer their Army. It is the Army of the British Government, a Government they no longer trust which will impose upon them a settlement which after 50 years they believed would never come about. It is that Government who have taken from them with the consent of the party of privilege that which they believed was their rightful inheritance. I understand perfectly well why the people on the Shankill Road feel that they should open fire on the British Army.
      I come back to the point raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because their problem is one of nationhood. They may not consider themselves citizens of the Republic of Ireland but they are not British in the integral British sense. They are not like Yorkshiremen or Londoners or Scotsmen. They are Ulstermen. The people in this country have a common bond in that they at least belong to one integral system in this country. People

      1807
      in Ulster are British in so much as Britain will deliver the goods for them, and when Britain began to alter of necessity the deal offered to the Loyalist population that population began to feel that they were not an integral part of Britain. If they were, the clause would not be part of the Bill in any case.
      They know that their problem is that they are a threatened community who do not feel that they have any ties with the Republic or any links with republicanism as such. But they feel that all the links which they were led to believe they had with this country are as false, as devious and as dubious as the people who bred them in those beliefs.
      That is why we find ourselves with a clause which means absolutely nothing to the Protestant or Loyalist community because they do not believe that the British Government, be they Labour or Conservative, will keep their word. To them it is the same British Government who took away their Parliament, their B Specials and their privileges, told them that they would have to share power, and brought them Willie Whitelaw. The clause means nothing to the Catholic community and even less to the Provisional Republicans.
      Hon. Members have been saying something which has often been repeated but which is not true. It is not true to say that people cannot be taken somewhere they do not want to go, that they cannot be forced somewhere they do not want to be. After all, this country has gone into the Common Market although people do not want to be in it. They were not consulted about it. They were fooled and conned, and when they were not looking they were trailed backwards into the Common Market. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) may have ideas that in a hand-to-hand waltz the Leader of the Opposition will lead this country back out of the Common Market, but I have my doubts on that.
      Therefore, the Catholic community also know that the British Government do not mean what they say. Even if the Government do mean what they say, the Catholic community are determined that until such time as that pledge is broken and Northern Ireland ceases to be an
      1808
      integral part of the United Kingdom they will keep up the struggle to get the British out of Ireland.
      The Government may not know what the Loyalist community would do if they decided to come clean and say that they would like to be rid of the North of Ireland. But the Government can rest assured that as long as Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the United Kingdom the struggle to take it out will definitely and unflinchingly continue.
      The clause means nothing and says nothing. It affirms. It does not enact anything. It is a waste of time and paper, and nobody, least of all the present British Government, believe that the Government will keep their pledges. Therefore, they might as well take the clause out of the Bill.
      [Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. Kaufman: Although its words may be meaningless, I regard the clause as extremely dangerous. That is why I wish to see it deleted. Its implications are a prescription for bloodshed in Northern Ireland—not only mounting bloodshed of the kind which has been increasing almost day by day but never-ending bloodshed.
      The purport of the clause perpetuates the fiction that there is a genuine entity which is Northern Ireland as distinct from a segment of the island of Ireland which has been artifically severed from the whole. What is more, it gives a veto over the future of the whole island not only to a majority of those in the segment but to a small minority of the population of Ireland as a whole. It perpetuates most damagingly the fiction that there is a Northern Ireland problem. In my view, there is not and never has been such a problem. There is an Irish problem, which can be solved not within the Six Counties which make up Northern Ireland or in London but only in Ireland itself.
      We are labouring under a pathetic fallacy. That fallacy is engendered because Ireland is a short distance away from Great Britain geographically, because most of the people speak English and because it has for purposes of political convenience been labelled part of what is called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

      1809
      There are those—they are a majority on the Government benches—who regard it as a genuine part of the United Kingdom even if a rather wayward part. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), in an interjection, spoke very aptly from his own point of view of a conflict between a man and his leg.
      Mr. Powell: I am sorry; that is a mishearing or a slip of the tongue. The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) had been speaking of a compact between the people of Northern Ireland and the nation as a whole. I stigmatised that as being as absurd as speaking about a compact between a man and his own leg.
      Mr. Kaufman: I misheard the right hon. Gentleman's verb but I did not misunderstand his metaphor, which is extremely apt from the point of view of those for whom he speaks—a considerable number. Northern Ireland is not a leg which is part of the body. It has nothing to do with the body as a whole and it is, if I may use the right hon. Gentleman's metaphor, an anatomical fallacy to describe it so.
      Ireland is not genuinely a part of the United Kingdom but is a separate and different country. It will never settle down until its communities are permitted to solve their problems and difficulties together rather than have solutions imposed from Westminster. It is, in my view, the last of Britain's colonial problems. In the past 30 years every one of Britain's surviving colonial problems has been solved in precisely the same way and has gone over precisely the same course. India, Palestine, Cyprus and British Guiana, each having divided communities, have found a solution. A solution by force was attempted and it failed in each case.
      Ireland is the latest in the series in which an attempt has been made to impose a military solution on a territory with a communal problem which is ruled from this country. In India, Palestine, Cyprus and British Guiana, a solution was brought about because of a revolt by the British people about their boys being killed purposelessly. In every case, because of the feelings of the British people, we have pulled out our Army. The outcome has not always been happy. In
      1810
      many cases it has led to bloodshed, but at least whatever has ensued has been decided by the people concerned.
      The people concerned have decided, for better or for worse, their own destiny, and in all these cases, tragic though some of them still are, British soldiers are no longer pointlessly and bloodily involved. So it will be in Ireland. Every day that passes, including the things that hon. Members have referred to in the debate, writes in blood the verdict that this half-baked plan in this pathetic White Paper will never work. Heaven only knows what carnage will take place two weeks today when a further pointless stage will be reached in the elections to this eunuch Assembly.
      What will happen thereafter? The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) was right to ask that question. What will happen thereafter, if it is decided in this Chamber, will never satisfy the people of Ireland, and before long, as the bloodshed continues, as it tragically and inevitably will, the British people will rise up and say "No more of our sons, brothers, husbands and fathers will die to justify a White Paper".
      This problem can never be solved by trying to suppress terrorism. Even methods far more severe than those tried in Algeria will fail in Northern Ireland, as they failed in Algeria, where in the end, the Pieds Noirs had to abandon what they wanted—Algerie Francaise. That is what will happen in Northern Ireland, because the methods tried in Algeria are methods which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) said aptly, the people of this country will never tolerate. British public opinion will never tolerate the kind of suppression which is the only way to attempt to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland, even though that would not in any case defeat it.
      I oppose this clause because only the Irish—and not only the Northern Irish but all the Irish—can defeat their own terrorists, let alone solve their own problems. In the end, it is the Irish who will have to be given a chance to solve their problems, not only of terrorism but of politics as well. But this foolish clause imposes a statutory veto on solving the Irish problem. That is why it will cause death and suffering not only to the Irish

      1811
      of both communities who are suffering so grievously but also to British families, including a number in my constituency, who are suffering needless bereavement. It is for these reasons that the clause must be opposed.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: I do not accept the basic premise of the speech of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), which is based on the argument that Northern Ireland is a colonial situation. If one starts on that basic premise one goes completely amiss in understanding the basic problem.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that he would consider again the final words of the clause,
      "… voting in a poll held for the purposes of this section in accordance with Schedule 1 to this Act."
      He promised that he would look at his commitment on these words and to consult the various elements in Northern Ireland. I hope that when he does so he will stand firm on this provision, because I believe that the essential question is, "How is one to get consent?" and "consent" is spelled out in the clause as drafted.
      Mr. McMaster: Does not my hon. Friend see another alternative—that although one might for practical purposes in the end gain consent by plebiscite, it might be unwise to write it into the Bill? It is a totally different proposition.
      Mr. Mills: I understand my hon. Friend's point. I want to see a clearer procedure spelled out for consent. I do not want us to be in an ambiguous position years hence when various people will be interpreting in various ways how we define the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. I do not want to see the question left open. It should be clearly and precisely written into the Act.
      My view is basically that the poll is the best method of testing consent. The best yardstick of testing consent is to leave it to the people of Northern Ireland. I hope that when my right hon. Friend is thinking about this and considering different views he will consider what I have said and recognise that there are powerful arguments for leaving things as they stand.
      Mr. Orme: In many ways this has been a remarkable debate. There has been a great deal of clarity and fresh thinking on all sides. The opening speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), followed by the speeches of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) added a great deal to this clarity. There is no doubt, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) said later, that we are approaching the crossroads. In the Irish context this might be thought to be another cliché, but I think the Committee has grasped that we are dealing not just with words but with the lives of millions of people in Northern Ireland, the Republic and the rest of the United Kingdom.
      I have never before during my time as an MP heard the 1949 declaration being dealt with in such a serious manner. Hon. Members on all sides have said that if they had their time again that declaration would not have gone through without some opposition and probably would not have gone through at all. I agree with the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West that if we have to write this into a constitution it means that there is serious opposition. If it is necessary to reiterate it, then it means that the opposition is increasing and making itself felt.
      The strength of our constitution is its unwritten character. The right hon. Member and I might agree, on another matter, that once we start going in for written constitutions and protocols we are running into trouble. Lawyers frequently have different interpretations of legislation, and Parliamentarians can have just as many differing views. As a result there is difficulty in reaching agreement.
      We are dealing with the constitutional position as it exists in Northern Ireland. Everyone has said, whether he be Republican, Nationalist, Unionist or Vanguard, that there must be a guarantee that the majority in the Six Counties cannot, against its will, be forced into a United Ireland. That raises the wider issue, touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) and my hon. Friend the

      1813
      Member for Plymouth, Sutton, (Dr. David Owen), that there may be others who must be consulted. They said that whatever changes were made they should not entail forcing a group of people to join a united Ireland. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South. We on this side are at one on this issue—and I know that that goes for hon. Members opposite. That in effect weakens the demand for reaffirmation. It defeats the point which the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) made about the border poll.
      9.15 p.m.
      The interesting point about the consent of the majority is this: if the majority have a sanction of consent about joining a united Ireland—in other words, if they have a veto—the logic of my hon. Friends' argument is, "If you cannot have a united Ireland, you must have a united Six Counties". If the veto of the majority is against a united Ireland, the minority in Northern Ireland must have a veto against an independent Six Counties.
      When I was in Northern Ireland last week—and, as the Secretary of State knows, I went from East Belfast to the Creggan estate where there was an incident at 1.30 the following morning—I met people of different persuasions to discuss the current problem. I discussed the issue of an independent Ulster with Mr. Craig. I am still baffled about how it would work if it were achieved. It is strange that people who advocate the withdrawal of British troops and an independent united Ulster—UDI—do not necessarily want to break the financial links.
      The problem, as many of us see it, is not the question of a written constitution. It is not the words in the Bill which are significant. What is significant is that if the proposals in the latter part of the Bill which set up the new Assembly and deal with the question of power sharing are sabotaged and are made unworkable, the whole Bill, including Clause 1, becomes untenable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East said that then all bets would be off. That is not said in any sense of a threat. It is a statement of fact. The feeling expressed by my hon. Friends—and I understand the view of my hon.
      1814
      Friend the Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman), though I do not necessarily agree with it—and the demand for a break with Ulster and the withdrawal of British troops in gaining momentum in this country.
      When I talk in Northern Ireland about a change of policy along these lines our friends in the Northern Ireland Labour Party are petrified at the thought. When one moves from Belfast East to the Creggan and the Bogside one realises that drastic changes could bring with them a drastic loss of life, and my hon. Friends and I do not treat this matter lightly. We do not underestimate the difficulties.
      It cannot be too strongly stressed that the election of an Assembly does not necessarily mean that the people will be supporting a political party for its philosophy. It is a way of finding out whether the people are prepared to make a constitution work. I hope those people will read the report of our debate today. They will understand from it that the chips are down. The voting on the plebiscite did not guarantee that the people would accept a constitution.
      The opposition to this issue has been likened to the opposition to the Industrial Relations Act. This question is on a different level from the plebiscite. It is a much deeper, fundamental, constitutional issue. It concerns people who do not live within an integrated community, people who are threatening UDI. They are not trying to change the State but threatening to go independent, out of the State.
      Mr. Heffer: It has happened before.
      Mr. Orme: Indeed. The problems in Northern Ireland are historical ones. What Mr. Gladstone said in 1886 has been quoted to good effect but we are still a long way from a solution. I do not think that the Secretary of State will be able to drag along until 31st March 1974. People will look to the elected leaders of the respective parties to come together quickly to start things moving.
      Although the Bill does not offer a permanent solution it moves towards ending discrimination, abolishing poverty and the establishment of an all-Ireland Council in which Republicans, Unionists and Protestants will be able to fight for

      1815
      their own point of view in a political forum and not with weapons.
      Some of us have severe reservations about the philosophical approach of the clause—not on the guarantee of consent and not on the rights of the majority and the minority. There is a fear that if the situation is changed there would be a reaction, with all the problems which would flow from it.
      I know that many of my hon. Friends feel strongly on this issue and they will express their view in their own way. The official Opposition will not oppose this clause, but we say to the Secretary of State in regard to the plebiscite that we want him to reconsider the issue in the light of this debate. The right hon. Gentleman can then collect the voices in Northern Ireland and in this House and we shall then leave him to consider the matter and to give us his judgment. We are not pressing for an answer this evening. The right hon. Gentleman has gone a long way to meet the points of view which have been expressed on this matter—indeed, he reacted spontaneously to views expressed at the outset of this debate. Those views have been reflected in all speeches with one particular exception, and the hon. Member concerned was not being dogmatic but felt that there should be a reaffirmation of that particular point of view.
      Clause 1, which is the central provision in the Bill, deals with the question of consent, with the 1949 situation, with the question of the possibility of the failure of the Assembly and the possibility of a united Ireland or of a UDI situation. My experience of our involvement in Northern Ireland is that on this issue we have been working in a vacuum. People have made sympathetic noises and have said, "You understand the issue, so you had better get on with it." But for the first time there is a real stirring outside in the nation and it will begin to express itself in a political manner. It has not reflected itself in my postbag, but it has been expressed to me personally, and it is increasingly being expressed by the people that I meet.
      The views which have been put from the Opposition Front Bench are not put forward as a warning, but as a statement of fact of what could happen following
      1816
      the elections on 28th June. Many in this House tend to look on the black side. I happen to be an optimist rather than a pessimist and I still believe that there is a chance for a détente in these circumstances, a chance that the Assembly will work. I Certainly have not written off the Assembly. If that body is written off, then the consequences which flow from it will flow naturally and not vindictively.
      I meet people on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland, and I recently spoke to shop stewards at Harland and Wolff and we talked about these issues in great depth. I appreciate their feelings. The point is getting through to many people in Northern Ireland that Opposition Members in the United Kingdom Parliament do not take a sectarian view—we are neither pro-Catholic nor anti-Protestant. These matters affect working people on both sides of the divide and they must see the consequences which will flow from their own actions. This in a sense could be their last chance. I believe that the message in this debate has been loud and clear, and I hope that the people whom it affects will pay full heed to it and act on it.
      9.30 p.m.
      The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): In effect, we have had two bites at the clause today. In the first we chewed over the question of the border poll. Since then we have gone over the ground in the first part of the clause about the pledge given by successive British Governments.
      On the border poll, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear his view that, while there can be no challenging and no question but of upholding the principle of consent, he was prepared to look again at the means by which consent could be established through a poll and that he would come back to the House on Report. With the withdrawal of the amendments, I believe that the Committee signified its readiness to accept my right hon. Friend's position on that.
      I intend to keep the majority of my remarks to the other part of the clause which we have discussed in the second half of the evening, and that is the affirmation of the pledge of successive Governments that there shall be no change in the constitutional status of

      1817
      Northern Ireland without the consent of the majority of the people.
      To get the pedigree of this right, it must be said that this pledge was originally expressed in terms by Mr. Attlee as Prime Minister on 28th October 1948. It was first given statutory form in Section 1(2) of the Government of Ireland Act 1949, and it has been repeated by successive Governments many times since then, as, for example, in the Downing Street Declaration. It appears again in very similar form in Clause 1.
      Inevitably the thought has come up in debate from both sides of the House "Why bother? Do the words mean anything?" Do words ever mean anything in this kind of situation when it comes to making constitutions?
      I am the last person to claim that laws and legal formulae can override and conquer events and circumstances. They cannot. If one set out on that path alone it would be a hopeless path. But in this case, and in the light of the history of the pledge, the answer is that the words mean something. They have significance. They have a history and a value. In the very eloquent language of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), they are "hallowed". In other words, they are familiar. They are comfortable words in a situation full of discomfort and fear. They stand for and mean something of crucial importance. It is right that the whole Bill and the White Paper is built upon the principle of consent and the reaffirmation of the pledge that there shall be no change without the consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
      Mr. McMaster: Is my hon. Friend maintaining that they bind one's successor in any way?
      Mr. Howell: I think that my hon. Friend realises the position. I have just repeated that the very weight of those words is to an extent drawn from the fact that they have been repeated by successive Governments and that they constitute a pledge given by successive British Governments and by successive senior British statesmen again and again. That is their value and that is why most hon. Members have agreed that they mean something and that it is right for
      1818
      the Government to put forward the proposition that they should have central and first place in the Bill.
      Mr. Heffer: Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, it is the very existence of those words which has meant that in each given situation when there has been a need for a flexible policy Governments have been bound by inflexible words. It is that which has been responsible for the situation.
      Mr. Howell: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has put forward that view before and he has done so again now. But it cannot be accepted. Let me put to him the alternative proposition, because this is why one is entitled to say that it is right that this pledge should be at the beginning of the Bill.
      No one who is familiar with Northern Ireland—certainly not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—and no one who has sought to study the problems there has ever tried to disguise the facts or to pretend that there does not exist the basic dilemma, and it is this. There are those—we heard them this afternoon—who say that the status of Northern Ireland should never be in question and that there should be no need for the words in the clause because there should not be any doubt about the matter. For them the argument is closed and there is no need to assert the matter in the first place.
      There are also those—the existence of either group cannot be denied—who assert that the matter should be very much open, that it is the main issue; that, far from the matter being closed, it is the main question that raises the whole issue about the future of Northern Ireland.
      It is tempting but quite impossible—I think that the hon. Member for Walton will accept this if he reflects upon it—for one side to assert the other out of existence by saying that the other side's view does not exist. The truth and the difficulty is that both sides cannot be denied, even if it were practicable to do so, which it is not, the right to advance their views by democratic and constitutional means. That does not mean that either side, or any party, has the right to advance any view by terrorist methods. Any attempt to do so cannot be and is

      1819
      not tolerated. Indeed, the central part of my right hon. Friend's policy in seeking to deal with the security side in Northern Ireland has been to hunt out and crush terrorism and those who seriously believe that they can advance their views by nondemocratic and violent methods. That is obviously an essential part of the issue in Northern Ireland. But the debate is bound to go on. It cannot be silenced by one side asserting its view so firmly and loudly that in some way it believes that the other side will fall quiet. It will not be like that. Whatever people on either side may say, that is the situation facing the Government and that is the situation from which realistically we must start in the future.
      We must keep the two views that I have described from being pursued in such a way that they sabotage the normal and peaceful life that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland want. If one needs to look for evidence of that obvious fact, it can be found in the local elections in which the vast majority of people voted. New councils have been set up. For example, the members of the new council in Londonderry have decided to work together to operate the programmes to build the Londonderry of the future. That is an effort in partnership in startling and tragic contrast to the horrors of Coleraine, but there it is. There is a readiness by the members of the new council in Londonderry to work together. In many other places there is similar evidence that people are ready and willing to work together: on the factory floor, in the
      councils, in public offices and administrations. In a variety of places people not only work together but wish to work together.
      That is the argument for confirming the status of Northern Ireland on the basis of consent, for seeking to create a situation, whatever the ultimate views—I think "ultimate" was the adjective used by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) —whatever the ultimate views, completely legitimate, of people in Northern Ireland, of political stability within an established status of Northern Ireland resting on consent which cannot be changed without the consent of the majority. Although we have had strong opposition from one or two hon. Members this afternoon, I think the Committee will accept that.
      Finally, there are those who may say "Why go through all this again? It is obvious, is it not, that in a free society such fundamental matters as change of status of parts of a nation must be based on consent?" Perhaps it is obvious to us, but the inescapable fact is that it needs affirming in what my right hon. Friend called the hallowed words and it is a necessary foundation for peaceful politics, peaceful commerce and peaceful administration. That is why the Bill is founded on this pledge in Clause 1. That is why this is the reality from which we have to start.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 118, Noes 16.

      Division No. 156.]

      AYES

      [9.41 p.m.

      Adley, Robert

      Dean, Paul

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

      Dunn, James A.

      Kilfedder, James

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

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

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Eyre, Reginald

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Biffen, John

      Fidler, Michael

      Knox, David

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Lane, David

      Blaker, Peter

      Fortescue, Tim

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Body, Richard

      Fowler, Norman

      Lawson, George

      Boscawen, Hn. Robert

      Fox, Marcus

      MacArthur, Ian

      Bowden, Andrew

      Gray, Hamish

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Green, Alan

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Bray, Ronald

      Grylls, Michael

      McMaster, Stanley

      Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)

      Hall, John (Wycombe)

      McNair-Wilson, Michael

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Maddan, Martin

      Chapman, Sydney

      Hawkins, Paul

      Madel, David

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Hiley, Joseph

      Maginnis, John E.

      Clark, William (Surrey, E.)

      Holland, Philip

      Marsden, F.

      Clarke. Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Clegg, Walter

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Concannon, J. D.

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Cooke, Robert

      Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

      Hunt, John

      Moate, Roger

      Cormack, Patrick

      James, David

      Molyneaux, James

      Crouch, David

      Janner, Greville

      Money, Ernie

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Tope, Graham

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Ridley, Hn. Nicholas

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      More, Jasper

      Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Waddington, David

      Onslow, Cranley

      Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Russell, Sir Ronald

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

      Scott, Nicholas

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Page, John (Harrow, W.)

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Peel, Sir John

      Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Simeons, Charles

      Williams, W. T. (Warrington)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

      Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Winterton, Nicholas

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

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Tebbit, Norman

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Raison, Timothy

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Mr. Oscar Murton and

      Redmond, Robert

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Mr. Michael Jopling.

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      NOES

      Atkinson, Norman

      Latham, Arthur

      Watkins, David

      Booth, Albert

      Milne, Edward

      Wellbeloved, James

      English, Michael

      Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Prescott, John

      Mrs. Bernadette McAliskey and Mr. Gerald Kaufman.

      Judd, Frank

      Skinner, Dennis

      Lamond, James

      Stallard, A. W.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      INITIAL DEVOLUTION OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE RESPONSIBILITY
      Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 1, line 17, leave out it appears to the Secretary of State that
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we are to take the following amendments:
      No. 10, in page 1, line 19, leave out 'satisfactory'.
      No. 11, in page 2, line 1, leave out 'that'.
      No. 12, in page 2, leave out lines 2 to 5 and insert:
      'is likely to command the support of a majority in the Assembly'.
      No. 13, in page 2, line 3, after 'Assembly', insert:
      '(on principles set out in the standing order)'.
      No. 14, in page 2, line 3, after 'Assembly', insert:
      ' which shall be not less than 60 per cent. of the members thereof,'.
      No. 15, in page 2, line 6, leave out from beginning to 'shall' in line 8 and insert 'the Secretary of State'.
      No. 31, in Clause 25, page 17, line 24, leave out 'and'.
      1822
      No. 32, in page 17, line 26, at end insert:
      'and
      (d) for a procedure by which a broadly based Executive shall be appointed'.
      Captain Orr: The effect of this group of amendments would be to remove the discretion of the Secretary of State in the matter of the devolution of powers. If the various amendments were accepted, the subsection would read:
      "If it appears to the Secretary of State—
      (a) that the Northern Ireland Assembly … has made provision by its standing orders"
      for various purposes and
      "(b) hat a Northern Ireland Executive can be formed which is likely to command the support of a majority in the Assembly".
      The real effect of the amendments would be to remove what, without being offensive, I think I can describe as the extraordinary verbiage at the top of page 2. On Second Reading a lot was said about the meaningless nature of those words.
      As the Bill is drafted, before a Northern Ireland Executive can be formed, and thus before any of the powers can be devolved upon the new Assembly—in other words, before Part II of the Bill can come into being at all—the Secretary of State has to be satisfied that an Executive can be formed which
      "having regard to the support it commands in the Assembly and to the electorate on which that support is based, is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community, and that having regard to those matters there is a

      1823
      reasonable basis for the establishment in Northern Ireland of Government by consent."
      I do not want, at this stage at any rate, once again to labour the arguments which I advanced on Second Reading about the highly unsatisfactory nature of that piece of drafting. The words which I am seeking to remove are, in a way, the essence of the unworkability of the whole scheme.
      I have a feeling that the only way in which one can overcome the difficulty is to go back to the concept that whatever Executive transpires, it is based on the simple parliamentary test that it commands the support of a majority of the elected Members. I cannot see how or why we can or should depart from that principle. We have already put through this House the Bill enabling the Assembly to be set up and an election will shortly take place at which the people of Northern Ireland will express their views about which party they prefer. Candidates will be voted upon, and in due time the Assembly will meet.
      Under the present scheme, the Assembly will then proceed to make the proper provisions by means of its standing orders. Then, before the Secretary of State can devolve any powers upon it, and even before an Executive can be formed, he has to be satisfied about these vague subjective phrases. We do not really know what they mean. As the clause is drafted, it is left to the Secretary of State to form the Executive. Although he is told to have regard to certain things, he could try to form an Executive from people from differing parties who had put totally opposite points of view before the electorate, and he would then invite the Assembly to support that form of Executive. This is a total departure from anything which has been done in any other form of government that I know of within the rest of the United Kingdom.
      It is not because of some strange perversity in the Ulster character that this will not work. It would not work if we tried to impose it upon the government of London.
      Mr. Kilfedder: It does not work even in the Labour Party.
      Mr. Whitelaw: It worked in the war.
      Captain Orr: Ah, yes, it worked because the will was there.
      Mr. Whitelaw: Ah.
      Captain Orr: Yes, but for a common purpose, because the nation itself was threatened during the war. My right hon. Friend has made exactly the point. What was it that kept the Unionist Party in Ulster together for so long? It was precisely because our part of the nation was threatened. The Unionist Party was a coalition. During the war, as my right hon. Friend suggested, we had a coalition Government—of course, because there was an overwhelming threat and people at that time sank their differences about how the nation should be governed to the overriding necessity of preserving the nation itself.
      What we are dealing with here is a situation in which a part of the nation is threatened but, instead of seeking a coalition of those who are determined to defend the integrity of the nation, it would appear that my right hon. Friend is trying to force a coalition between those who wish to defend the integrity of the nation and those who wish to undermine its integrity. All I am saying is that any scheme based upon that proposition has failure built into it. It is not because the Ulster people are in some way perverse that it will fail. It is because it is an impossibility.
      What I suggest at this stage of the argument is that what one has to try to do when Northern Ireland goes to the poll and elects its representatives is to apply one simple test of the executive authority upon which the powers are devolved: will it command the support of the majority of the elected representatives? If it fails to do that, it can be dismissed.
      It is a simple proposition. To me it is so self-evident that I cannot at this stage think of any other argument to support it, until I hear justification for doing something else. We may argue it later, but it would be helpful if at some stage my right hon. Friend would indicate his own thinking on the matter, because there is obscurity in the clause as drafted and it is difficult to think what arguments could possibly be advanced to support it. Thus I prefer to reserve what else I have to say until I hear those arguments.
      It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

      INITIAL DEVOLUTION OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE RESPONSIBILITY

        BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
        Ordered,
        That the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  [Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mr. Powell: If a parliamentarian of long experience who had spent many years in this House, one well versed in legislation but not being privy to the events in Northern Ireland in the last year or two, were to have come to the House and to have been confronted with the Bill he would have found Clause 2 totally incomprehensible. Here, he would have said to himself, was Parliament setting up a subordinate Assembly and a subordinate administration in part of the United Kingdom. Here was a Bill which set out the procedure for the electing of the Assembly and which filled in the details both of the Assembly and of the Executive.
  But, he would have asked, what was the possible meaning or purpose of subsection (1)? Even if all the amendments in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) were to be accepted, it would still be remarkable enough. It would be remarkable, first, in seeking to set up an Assembly and Executive, to make it a condition of starting the show going that the Assembly should have made Standing Orders which, after all, any Assembly has and must make in order to function; and secondly, that there should be an Executive of some sort which should command a majority, since without that obviously an Executive cannot function. Even to specify
  1826
  those basic and objective requirements—and my hon. and gallant Friend's amendments render objective what in the Bill is subjective—even in that limited, stripped-down form it would have been an extremely surprising provision.
  But as it stands it is incomprehensible except against the background of the Government's policy in the last 12 or 15 months, and in particular against the background of the scheme which the Bill sets out to attempt to implement. I do not wish to traverse the ground I covered in my speech on Second Reading when referring to the clause. However, I must draw attention to the remarkable accumulation of conditions which are here imposed and all of which are subjected to the judgment of the Secretary of State.
  Quite apart from coming to the conclusion that the Standing Orders are satisfactory in certain respects, he has to form his opinion, first, on the support which the Executive commands in the Assembly; secondly, on the electorate on which that support is based; thirdly, on the likelihood of its being—and then there are three separately emphatic words—
  "widely accepted throughout the community";
  fourthly, on top of that and apparently separate therefore, that
  "there is a reasonable basis for the establishment in Northern Ireland of government by consent".
  I pause for a moment upon that last point. I hope that my right hon. Friend, in replying, will make clear, though it is a subordinate issue, why there is any separate consideration as to there being
  "a reasonable basis for establishing government by consent in Northern Ireland"
  from the previous conditions which are already specified.
  If the Executive were likely to be widely accepted throughout the community it could be taken for granted, I should have thought, that there was a reasonable basis for establishing government by consent. Yet the latter is treated as a separate point upon which the Secretary of State must be satisfied. It is clear that the clause is deliberately drafted so as to make that an additional, super-eminent requirement. Otherwise the words in lines 6 to 8 on page 2 would

  1827
  be not only tautological but dangerously tautological.
  Why, having set up an elective Assembly, are we in the Bill imposing these four successive conditions dependent upon the judgment of the Secretary of State before the Assembly or the Executive are allowed to function? The key is not in the Bill but in the White Paper, which denoted as the central element of the whole scheme which this legislation is intended to implement the sharing of power.
  I can be the more brief in considering the practicability of that proposal by reason of the interchange which took place just now between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. and gallant Friend. For the analogy which my right hon. Friend invoked for the sharing of power in an administration between persons who otherwise were deeply divided politically was this country at war, and at war for its very existence in the Second World War. I do not think it is obscure that the reason why power was shared, necessarily shared, voluntarily shared, and for the most part enthusiastically shared, between deeply divided political opponents was that for the duration of the war—just for the duration of the war, for the limited period of the war—they shared an aim which overrode all other aims, namely, that of survival and victory.
  But it is completely fallacious to try to transfer that demonstration of power-sharing to the situation in Northern Ireland. The object of this power-sharing in Northern Ireland is not to share power between people who differ marginally about policies, who have different views upon the subsidising of housing, even on regional policy, even upon taxation. That would be bad enough. That would be difficult and impractical enough in a peacetime administration which is intended to continue from one year to another.
  But no; clearly in the context of the White Paper, in the real context in which the whole matter is placed, the object is to endeavour to yoke together those who, in words which my hon. and gallant Friend has already used in today's sitting, are irreconcilable, are divided as regards their ultimate aims. They are those for
  1828
  whom the most important things do not coincide, as they did with us during the war, but are diametrically opposite. So that is the reason for this totally unique and unexpected precondition being imposed upon the functioning of the Assembly and of the Executive.
  How can it possibly work? My right hon. Friend once again interjected just now, "If there is the will." But let us suppose that there is a will, if at all possible, to carry on. Even if there is open-hearted generosity on the part of all concerned, there is the ultimate divergence where all policies are seen and judged in the light of whether they tend towards or away from those ultimate aims. The adventure would be found impracticable in its nature.
  A little while ago the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) posed the possibility that the scheme might be sabotaged and made unworkable. I think that the voice, grammatically speaking, in which he expressed that prospect was the wrong one. That implies that those concerned will deliberately sabotage something which would otherwise work; that they would deliberately render unworkable something which was inherently workable by its nature. That implies that deliberate contrivance would be necessary to sabotage or to make unworkable. But the nature of the scheme which is put before us is such that it does not require to be sabotaged. It is inherently unworkable by its nature because it implies the co-operation of those whose political objectives are not merely different but irreconcilably opposed.
  In the context to which I have referred the hon. Member for Leeds, South said "If this happens, what is to be done?" For my own part I have offered my answer to that question many a time both in debates in the House and in public on this side of the Irish Sea and on the other side. I believe that the only practicable course which can be adopted consistent with the common policy to which both sides of the Committee have adhered in past debate and in Clause 1 is to accept the thorough-going total integration and unification of the Six Counties of Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Obviously that is not the subject of our present debate upon the amendment. Nevertheless, it would be wrong if we

  1829
  were to discuss the clause under the assumption that this was the end of the line, under the assumption that we must accept these proposals, however inherently contradictory and unworkable they may he, because there is nothing else. That is always a dangerous frame of mind in which to deliberate. There is no need for us to accept the clause and to accept that central part of the White Paper on the basis that there is no alternative. There is an alternative, and I believe that it is the alternative to which the House will find that perhaps before very long it comes, which will be found when the inherent contradictions of what we are here invited to enact have revealed themselves in practice.
  [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
  10.15 p.m.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The right hon. Gentleman, quite properly, harks back to what we were saying earlier. I remind him that we were postulating that because of the way the elections went, the system would break down, which would be another factor in the inherent contradictions, not necessarily in the way the clause was drawn. I always find it difficult to understand the right hon. Gentleman's analysis. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) talks about irreconcilables, and the right hon. Gentleman has just said that the Secretary of State would be unable to get agreement to work this constitution, not just because of the way it is drawn but because of the contradictions in society in Northern Ireland. Given that, and all the feelings that have been there for so long and which have bedevilled the House of Commons back to Joseph Chamberlain and beyond, how, on his analysis, can the right hon. Gentleman talk about integration? The same irreconcilables are there. The same people who will not work together in Northern Ireland are there. How can this irreconcilability be translated here?
  Mr. Powell: I will respond to the challenge. Because these irreconcilabilities would render impracticable in the case assumed the operation of a Northern Ireland local Assembly and Executive, it by no means follows that they would have the same result when the politics and parties of Northern
  1830
  Ireland were dissolved and subsumed in the whole of the United Kingdom. I do not want to be drawn into a lengthy disquisition upon this matter, but from the point of view, for example, of the Roman Catholic citizen of Northern Ireland who might well wish to sustain the union and might also wish to take a part in the politics and government of his country, how much easier it would be for that man to play a part in the politics of the United Kingdom than to find a practicable rôle in a constitution such as we are at present drawing up of the Province of Northern Ireland.
  I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I give no more than that indication of a reply to his question, but I believe it is adequate sufficiently to demonstrate that we have no need and we have no right to decide upon these amendments under the pressure of the notion that either we accept this or there is nothing else acceptable. But still my right hon. Friend or the hon. Gentleman might say, "Maybe you are right in your fear, your conviction, that anything of this character so constructed, so contrived, is impracticable. But why oppose it now? Why support the amendments which would remove these impracticable features, if they are impracticable, these impracticable requirements, if they are such, from the clause? Why not be content to sit back with good will and the best optimism one can muster and see? If it breaks down, then it breaks down, but why seek to amend the Bill now?"
  I will answer that question. It is because this House is enacting, in the context of Northern Ireland, something which it would not dream of enacting in another context, and because it is doing so not in order to reassure and buttress the security which we purport to have promised in Clause 1 but to render the constitution acceptable not to those who accept the union but to those who fundamentally reject the union.
  That intention is itself one of the causes of the continuing bloodshed and violence in Northern Ireland. It is uncertainty not certainty which lies behind the troubles of that Province. It is uncertainty as to the purpose of Her Majesty's Government, as to whether terrorism will not prevail. It is the uncertainty, which speech after speech this

  1831
  afternoon has illustrated, whether the people of Britain presently may not be rattled and frightened and bored and bothered out of their maintenance of law and order in Northern Ireland so that after all the purpose of a minority, even a small majority, may be attained.
  When that small minority, those who do believe that this can be achieved without consent, see this impracticability being enacted by this House for the reasons for which it is being enacted, far from being discouraged they are powerfully encouraged to believe that they are on their way and have moved another step towards their goal. That is the very practical reason, in which the lives of men
  1832
  and women are bound up, why I believe my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South was right to seek to eliminate these abnormal elements from this provision and to say, "If we are to set up an Assembly and an Executive in Northern Ireland, let it be done upon the terms and conditions on which we would set up an Assembly and an Executive anywhere else in the United Kingdom". If we accept my hon. and gallant Friend's amendments we shall not only be easing the prospects of a workable Assembly and Executive being formed and brought into existence; we shall he reducing rather than enhancing the prospect of continued violence in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: Now that we have come to these amendments which touch the central core of the Bill we are undoubtedly moving, in House of Commons terms, into uncharted territory. Although my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has applied his brilliant and devastating logic to this clause, it is not as simple as he suggests. We are not starting from scratch and we have to provide answers to the situation confronting us in Northern Ireland.
  It is easy to point to uncertainties, problems and difficulties. We know how difficult it will be to get the Executive off the ground. Nevertheless, I do not believe that my right hon. Friend's proposals for complete integration are the answer. At one time I hoped that such proposals might be the answer and I looked at them carefully. I am convinced that they are not. We have to face these proposals within a Northern Ireland context. It is no good saying that we must operate on the basis of the simple democratic Westminster pattern. That is no answer. That has been tried and now we have to move to new ground.
  Although I entirely accept that this is a difficult argument, I believe it to be essential and right that we try to build a system of power-sharing into the executive government of Northern Ireland. It is basically wrong for people to analyse these proposals on the basis of comparisons with the House of Commons, which we all know so well. The Assembly is not a similar type of body. It is a new type.
  My right hon. Friend asked whether there was the will to make it work. This was echoed in other exchanges. The proposals are a compromise between two basic objectives. However, my guess—and it has been confirmed by much that I have seen in the last two months since the White Paper was published—is that at the grass roots people in Northern Ireland desperately want them to work and they will have precious little sympathy with politicians who are out to sabotage them. However, it will be a difficult task to implement them and that is probably why considerable latitude has been left to my right hon. Friend in getting the Executive off the ground.
  1834
  The basis of my exploratory Amendment No. 13 is that I feel it important that if the Executive gets off the ground we should move to a stage whereby the methods by which an Executive is formulated are set out clearly in an order of the new Assembly. I do not think it satisfactory to leave the matter entirely open and vague from now till kingdom come. Therefore, in Amendment No. 13, taken with Amendments Nos. 31 and 32, I have set out the idea that the Assembly should, in its standing orders, set out some basic principles for putting together an Executive.
  In Amendment No. 14, which is also exploratory, I suggest that the Executive should have the support of at least, say, 60 per cent. of the members of the Assembly. That is to meet the situation about which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and I talked on Second Reading. It is important to spell out that the Executive should have—because it will not make sense if it does not have—the support of a majority of members of the Assembly. Plainly it cannot be effective if it does not. There is an argument for saying that a majority of one to back up an Executive of this nature is not enough and that to be effective something larger will be needed for a broadly-based Executive to be able to operate effectively.
  We must clearly spell out—and I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will do this—that power-sharing is the central theme of the new constitutional proposals. He should also clearly spell out that anyone who adduces the argument that the central proposal is negotiable is in danger of trying to fool the electorate. If we want a regional Assembly—and I believe that the people in Northern Ireland do—we must learn to share power in it. If we do not, I fear that there will be no regional Assembly.
  I am encouraged to see from the Daily Telegraph today that the leader of the party of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South, Mr. Faulkner, has said that he is prepared to share power with those who are prepared to take the oath of members of the Executive, which ensures that they should work for the benefit of people in Northern Ireland. It is also encouraging that the SDLP, in its Press conference yesterday,

  1835
  Reported in the Daily Telegraph, has indicated that its members would be prepared to take the oath.
  Mr. Maginnis: Has not the leader of the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland categorically stated that he will not share power with those who are out to wreck the position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom?
  10.30 p.m.
  Mr. Mills: Yes, but my hon. Friend has missed the point. The leader of his party has changed his position since he said that. Although he said that he was not prepared to share power with those whose primary objective was a united Ireland, he has qualified it by pinpointing those who are prepared to take the oath to the Executive and to pledge themselves to work for the benefit of Northern Ireland. That is what politicians are there for. Those who take that oath put themselves inside the catchment area.
  Mr. Maginnis: Does not my hon. Friend recall that the SDLP stated categorically that members seeking election to the Assembly took the oath only to enable them to receive their parliamentary remuneration?
  Mr. Mills: My hon. Friend is introducing a different element. He must think about the point to which I am addressing myself, look at today's Daily Telegraph and sort it out with the leader of his party.
  The right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), speaking impromptu from the Opposition Front Bench, made a speech of immense significance which the people of Northern Ireland must heed. The main anxiety of many of us is about what is to happen if these proposals are made unworkable after the election. I do not know the complete answer, but I am certain that if the proposals are made unworkable there will be no united Ireland, there will be no return to the old Stormont, and I fear that opinion in the United Kingdom will go sour and fluid. I do not know in which direction events will move, but I am convinced that no section of the Northern Ireland community will be the beneficiary.
  Mr. McMaster: I rise to support the amendment, but I do so with no great pleasure. I find this part of the clause difficult to comprehend. The Green Paper and the White Paper on which the Bill is based set out in the preamble that if a solution is to be found to the problems of Northern Ireland it must be clear, precise and easily understood. The clause does not match those requisites. It is not clear, precise or easily understood.
  It is not made clear to the ordinary man in the street what is meant by
  "if it appears to the Secretary of State".
  What criteria is the Secretary of State to apply in judging whether the Assembly has made satisfactory provisions by its standing orders. What is the definition of "satisfactory"? Perhaps the vaguest and most difficult phrase to understand appears in Clause 2(1)(b)—
  "is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community".
  What does it mean? Does it mean that it will be accepted by a simple majority of the people of Northern Ireland? What other test of acceptability can there be in a democracy? The Bill should state what the Government intend by "widely accepted". Some clear provision must be incorporated in the Bill so that those who are putting themselves up for election for the new Assembly will know the situation, and so that the head of the Executive will know the test which he has to satisfy in order that the Assembly can get off the ground.
  I rise hesitantly in this debate, for I personally am worried about the position in which I now find myself. Am I to criticise the Bill if I find it faulty, or am I to accept it? There is great pressure on all the Ulster Members to try out the Bill's provisions, not to point out the difficulties which logic suggest to them—difficulties which my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) so clearly expressed in his remarks. There is pressure to wait and see. We in Northern Ireland are war-weary. We are aware that if this Bill does not work we must ask what is the future for Northern Ireland. We are afraid that anything we might say in this House may tend to jeopardise the position in Northern Ireland, that it would add fuel to the fire—a fire which has already been kindled in the United Kingdom and which has resulted in a

  1837
  feeling, "Bring home our soldiers—let us withdraw, let us disengage".
  However, we must not fall into the temptation to do nothing, to sit back and to hope for the best. If the Bill plainly is unworkable or appears to us to be unworkable, then surely our clear duty is to state here our doubts. We would be performing no service to the people of Northern Ireland if we sat back quietly and let something about which we are worried pass through this House. If we do and the Bill turns out to be unworkable, how much greater will be the disillusion in this country, and what damage we shall do to the Ulster cause in Britain.
  For these reasons I support the important Amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). I hesitated to take part in this debate because I fully appreciate the work carried out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the past 14 or 15 months. We accept without any doubt or equivocation his sincerity and his dedication to his difficult task. Therefore, I am reluctant to do anything which, either directly or indirectly, appears to criticise the product of the last 14 months. We must think clearly about the situation. The hour is late and we are war-weary after years of bombing and blasting in Northern Ireland. We want tremendously to have peace in Northern Ireland. Perhaps we are tired tonight after a long day's debate, but we must pause at this late hour here because these provisions are vital and we must give them due consideration. Therefore, our words must be weighed carefully and tested against the clear test of logic.
  Will this provision work or will it not work? I suggest that we should apply the criteria clearly set out in the opening paragraph of the White Paper. Is it clear, precise, can it be understood by the ordinary man in the street and will it work? I suggest that these words do not fit this formula because they fall far short of satisfying that test.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) spoke about the dilemma which faced him of sitting back quietly. Whatever else might have been the situation before direct rule, no one can accuse Northern Ireland Members in this House of sitting back quietly
  1838
  on matters concerning Northern Ireland. Of course, that is right. When a Bill of this kind is passing through the House, it is their duty to raise their doubts on it. But when people talk about making it unworkable, that is in a different context and at a different stage.
  The hon. Gentleman asked what "widely acceptable" meant, and I have tried to find an answer. As with so many other problems, it is easier to discover what it does not mean. Certainly I do not wish to rake up the past but, in terms of the Parliament which existed before the imposition of direct rule being widely acceptable, that it was not. Many of the people elected to it did not take up their seats. What is more, the very name "Stormont" makes people ask whether the new Assembly must be at Stormont. There is no doubt that amongst certain sections of the community part of the irreconcilability to which the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) referred is just this.
  It is not an issue which can be ignored. The previous set-up, whatever the proportions and whatever may be said about the number of Catholics in North Antrim who voted Unionist, created a serious problem in Northern Ireland. If it had been otherwise, there would not have been the difficulties which we all face today.
  Mr. McMaster: If the hon. Gentleman cares to refer back, he will find that those who did not turn up represented fewer than 7 per cent. Therefore in terms of being widely acceptable, 93 per cent. accepted the former Stormont Parliament.
  Captain Orr: The words "widely acceptable" in this context are used not in relation to an institution but in relation to a Government. The Executive shall be "widely acceptable". Surely those words cannot be used of any government, local or otherwise, in any other part of the United Kingdom. Could it he said, for example, the Conservatives in London widely accept the present GLC?
  Mr. Rees: I quite agree. However, the hon. Member for Belfast, East took me away from my "widely acceptable" to a different form of it, and this is part of the difficulty that we all have to face.
  It is extremely difficult. Much will depend on the elections on 28th June. I

  1839
  believe that, whatever else is the bonus from the work of this House and of the Secretary of State and his Ministers, there is to be a new Assembly and there are new parties. There have been changes. The Unionist Party is not what it was, and one could not expect it to be, given the traumatic effect of direct rule. The Nationalist Party has been replaced by the Social Democratic and Labour Party. There will be different groupings in the new Assembly. Much will depend on the result of the elections, and I do not care to guess what that might be.
  There is a tendency on this side of the water to sneer at the leaders of political parties in Northern Ireland. But political leaders and Members of Parliament in the North of Ireland face an almost continuous primary in a way that we do not on this side of the water where political differences are often based less on ideas and ideals overall and more on different social origins.
  10.45 p.m.
  In many respects we are protected from the continuous primary position that is shown there. I understand that the attendance at meetings for the re-selection of Unionist Members of Parliament runs to a very large number—certainly quite different from the situation on this side of the water.
  I believe that the leaders of the parties in Northern Ireland will be in the front line after 28th June. If they believe that they can leave it to the Secretary of State, they are gravely mistaken. There are problems about the rôle of Opposition. In my view, those in Northern Ireland who think that this matter will meander on from 28th or 29th June through to March next year are gravely mistaken. The leaders of the parties there will have to face this fact very quickly, not because of the weariness of people on this side of the water with what they see, but because people will expect action and support to be given to the Secretary of State.
  I believe that flexibility is the key to this clause, just as I was asking for flexibility on Clause 1. I am glad to see it in Clause 2. I hope that when we get back to Clause 1 at a later stage that same flexibility will be found. There must be flexibility here. We
  1840
  cannot spell it out in detail. There must be a great deal of give and take. Much will depend on the Secretary of State and the leaders of the parties.
  I should like to ask about support from the Assembly. This point was touched on on Second Reading. In the spirit of flexibility, I do not expect the Secretary of State to spell it out, because the merit of the clause is that it is drawn up in a very British way. However, it leaves a great deal of room for manoeuvre. Nevertheless, an Executive that does not have support in the Assembly will be asking for trouble. While I do not expect certainty on this point, I hope that the Secretary of State will give us some indication of his thinking.
  In general, I am against these amendments, but it is most valuable to have had a chance to talk about power sharing.
  Mr. Maginnis: Power sharing is the kernel of the whole problem facing Northern Ireland. I support the amendment moved by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), but I do not do so with any great pleasure, and I agree with the sentiment expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that it is our duty to give a workable constitution to Northern Ireland.
  I am not against the concept of power sharing, but I am against sharing power with those who are out to destroy the very institution of which they are members. This is the problem that we face.
  In the debate either on Second Reading or on the White Paper I said that if members of the elected body known as the Assembly who are out to destroy the very state of Northern Ireland were selected by the Secretary of State to be members of the Executive, they would not need to use the tactics which were used against the walls of Jericho to bring down Stormont. I stick to what I then said.
  I am not against the concept of power sharing with those who may be of a different religious belief from myself. That makes no difference whatsoever to me. But I am against sharing power with those who are out to destroy the very State of Northern Ireland. If we pass the Bill unamended and members of the Assembly

  1841
  in Northern Ireland are appointed to the Executive and then proceed to wreck the institutions of which they are members, we shall have a lot to answer for.
  I know that the Secretary of State has a very difficult job. I hope that he can make this Assembly work and appoint the Executive. I am not against hoping because I am an optimist, but the test of acceptability is—would we in this House accept such a proposal?
  Mr. Molyneaux: Not on your life.
  Mr. Maginnis: My uncle, who spent a lifetime in the Church of England, was once officiating at the wedding of a sailor in Portsmouth. When he put the question, "Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife?", the answer was, "Would you?"
  Mr. Kilfedder: He must have been sober by that time.
  Mr. Maginnis: The test of acceptability is what we in this House would accept.
  I believe that my hon. Friends the Members for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) are candidates for the Assembly. If I went along to any of the election meetings of any of the gentlemen running for the Assembly and asked, "How do you propose to institute in the Assembly the proposals in your manifesto?", they would be completely floored. The due processes of British democracy will not be carried out.
  The election to the Assembly in these terms is the greatest confidence trick in British politics. If I were running for election on a party manifesto, I should be honest enough to tell the people that, if my party won a majority, we should put into operation the proposals in our manifesto. That is how Governments operate. Often, time does not permit them to do everything in their manifestoes, but I hope that the Committee will see the point.
  If a party in Northern Ireland—there is a conglomeration of parties there now; the situation is as bad as in some African States—gained a majority in the Assembly, it would be deceiving the electorate if it said that it would carry out the programme in its manifesto. I hope that we shall look seriously at this part of the Bill. I believe that there is a will
  1842
  to work the Assembly—I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills)—but it must be given the proper machinery to make it work. That is our job here.
  There are many good things in the Bill, but the kernel of the Bill will have to be worked on, and there must be give and take. I described the Secretary of State earlier as magnanimous in his approach to Clause 1. I hope that he will deal with this matter magnanimously and that at the end of the day something more satisfactory than is in the Bill will emerge.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I am sorry that we did not hear the rest of what my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) had to say about his uncle and what happened to the sailor and his proposed bride. My hon. Friend told us that the bridegroom, when asked if he would take this woman to be his wife, said to the clergyman, "Would you?" Perhaps reality had set in for the sailor! That is the sort of position which we are in today. The time will come if we have this Assembly when the people of Northern Ireland will be in the same position as the sailor who was to be married by my hon. Friend's uncle.
  The suggestion has been made that some people may wreck the Assembly. I am a candidate for the Assembly. I do not believe in engaging in any double talk and I wish to say that I cannot accept a position where the majority would be forced to share power with those whose long-term aim is the destruction of the link between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
  It is clear that if any Republicans are prepared to serve on the Executive, those Republicans will set out to wreck the Assembly. They will not need to do very much because the clause reveals contradictions and conditions which make it virtually impossible for the Assembly or the Executive to work effectively. It is no use anyone in the Committee saying to the Unionists or to any other loyalists in Northern Ireland that they are out to wreck the Assembly. The position is that the people of Northern Ireland are being forced to accept the sort of machinery of government that is not really government at all.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said that the people of

  1843
  Northern Ireland are war-weary. He is depending upon that. The people who have succeeded in Ulster are those who are members of the Irish Republic Army. Through their campaign of violence and terror, they have got rid of the Stormont Government and the Stormont Parliament. They have got rid of the oath of allegiance and many other manifestations of the British link.
  I am sorry that no representative of the Republican side in Northern Ireland is in the Chamber for the debate on this clause. It is no use anyone on the Opposition side of the Committee saying that the Loyalists are out to wreck the Assembly. We shall do our best to make it work, but I have serious doubts whether it is workable, bearing in mind the conditions which must be satisfied even before the Executive is approved by the Secretary of State.
  The purpose of the clause is to force the majority to share power with the Republicans in the hope that the Republicans will then bring violence to an end. I fear that it is a hope that will never be realised. That will not come about. The White Paper did not bring peace. The border poll did not bring peace. The Assembly elections will not bring peace.
  In Northern Ireland the men of violence will continue their campaign of terror because from month to month they see the present Government giving way to them. Therefore, all that those men have to do is to wait, to fight on and to continue to murder innocent men, women and children. They know that this great Government, with all their proclaimed resolution, will one day give way to their demands if the gruesome murders take place from time to time.
  11 p.m.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) talked glibly, I thought, about the ease with which politicians should be able to share power with those who take the oath. No doubt the hon. Gentleman was referring to Republicans, or perhaps to members of the Social Democratic and Labour Party. But the oath has been done away with for members of the Assembly. Only members of the Executive have to take the oath.
  1844
  The oath upon which so much reliance is placed is set out in Schedule 4 on page 34. It is a simple, straightforward statement:
  "I swear by Almighty God [or affirm] that I will uphold the laws of Northern Ireland and conscientiously fulfil [as a member of the Northern Ireland Executive] my duties under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973"
  and so on. It is a simple oath, and I doubt whether any Republicans, or even members of the IRA, would shy away from taking it.
  What about the oath which we proudly take as Members of this House? By that oath we swear to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. That oath has been done away with in Northern Ireland because the Republicans would not take it, but they can take an oath which will allow them to become members of the Executive and pursue their long-term aim of taking Northern Ireland out of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: The hon. Gentleman will know that the form of oath—and this was the point made yesterday by the leader of his party, Mr. Faulkner—means that there is an undertaking to uphold the laws of Northern Ireland—which will include this Bill when it becomes an Act—and also the status of Northern Ireland as envisaged in Clause 1.
  Mr. Kilfedeer: I agree that under the oath set out in Schedule 4 a person swears to uphold the laws of Northern Ireland, but I am not certain that much reliance can be placed even on that. So far as I am aware, the SDLP has already declared that it wants an amnesty for all those who have engaged in atrocities in Northern Ireland, and this must include those IRA men who murdered six men and women and mutilated women and children in Coleraine. The SDLP wants an amnesty for those so-called political criminals. There may be some hooligans among the Loyalists—one finds them in all walks of life, in the trade unions when strikes take place in Great Britain and all over the world—but one thing that is clear is that the Republicans have no intention of preserving Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. Since 1969 we have seen what illegal action the Republican can take.

  1845
  If the Assembly is to act responsibly as a law-making body, it should at least have the responsibility of deciding what its own standing orders shall be and who shall be members of the Executive. At present, the members of the Assembly cannot or may not be responsible for the appointment or selection of those who will be on the Executive. Surely that is not a democratic system of Government.
  But it goes even further. The majority of the Assembly may not find it possible to support the actions of the Executive, yet it will not be able to remove the Executive from power. We must bear in mind that this Executive, which is screened by the Secretary of State as set out in the conditions in the clause, has powers under Clause 12 to enter into arrangements and agreements with any authority in the Republic of Ireland with respect to any transferred matter. That is why we must treat the matter with great caution. I can understand why standing orders of a borough council should have to be approved by a Government Department. But it seems to diminish the status of the Assembly for those standing orders to require the approval of the Secretary of State. Here again he is taking on powers which are far too wide.
  The general practice in Northern Ireland where an authority has been set up—whether it is a fire authority or a hospital authority or something of that sort—is that its standing orders must he devised and determined by the statutory authority, and the approval which is required by a Government Department is a mere formality. But the Department's powers to approve standing orders are usually relegated to subordinate legislation under the main Act. Here the clause provides for an Executive which is not responsible, or need not be, for its actions to the members of the Assembly as in a normal legislative council.
  The Executive will not be responsible even to the majority of the people in Northern Ireland. It is a creature of the Secretary of State. I suppose that it cannot even be discussed by the members of the Assembly. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will tell me if I am wrong. I hope that the Assembly can discuss the actions of the Executive and go further and express disapproval of its actions if
  1846
  it so disapproves. I hope that it will have some means of getting rid of members of the Executive if they act contrary to the wishes of the majority of the Assembly.
  This is an elaborate piece of legislative machinery which seems to exist for the purpose of enabling my right hon. Friend to discharge his functions as conveniently as possible. The members of the Assembly will realise the frustrations which will result from the system as devised and the conditions set out in the clause. It will not be long before that dismay is transmitted to the electorate, who will soon realise that the Assembly will have no real power to take decisions on matters touching their everyday lives. The Ulster people will find that they go through the whole process of listening to the election campaign, voting and sending their members to the Assembly, but that in the long run they will have a sham Assembly, that the terrorism will continue and that the Government will take further action which will appease the Republicans and the IRA. The law-abiding majority of the Ulster people, the war-weary people of Northern Ireland, will be left to make their final protest.
  Mr. Stratton Mills: Before my hon. Friend sits down——
  The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member has already sat down. Mr. Marsden.
  Mr. Marsden: I have sat through the whole debate, like many hon. Members opposite. I am sorry that I am the only Opposition backbencher present at this time of night. It is not my fault.
  We are debating a Bill to make new provision for the government of Northern Ireland. With great reservation, I have been in the Lobby with the Government, something I am not accustomed to doing, to protect the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom. I have read the Bill, which, like all Bills, looks like the back of an insurance policy. I do not know whether the people of Northern Ireland will be able to understand it or not. But I understand it sufficiently to know that it contains many things for the minority which five years ago were beyond their wildest dreams.

  1847
  I ask myself: how do hon. Members know that people will not power-share? How do they know whether a Bill is workable until they have tried to work it or had the opportunity to do so? It is not a Bill for all time. It can be amended in the light of subsequent events and in the course of time.
  I am appalled by the lack of good will that has been shown to the Bill and in the debate generally by the Unionist Members for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) that the body provided for in the Bill is of a new kind. I do not condemn it for that. To me, its main defect is that it does not even begin to look credible. The thinking behind it so obviously flies in the face of common sense that the whole structure is viewed with utter disbelief.
  My hon. Friend said that many people at grass-roots level desperately want the Bill and the structure to work. I differ from his estimate of what the people at grass-roots level are thinking. A number of people certainly hope that the Bill may work. That is about as far as any hon. Member would dare go. A vast number of people lack any faith in its working and see little in the text of the Bill on which they can base such faith.
  We should all have some hope and faith if only the structure had the appearance of stability, but because that is lacking there can be no real return to settled conditions. There can be no real end to the violence. There can be no effective counter to the guerilla warfare that has plagued us for four years, and that some of us have been very reluctant to recognise as such. The political uncertainty over Northern Ireland will be perpetuated, and with it will be perpetuated all the unrest, terrorism and disturbance which we have already encountered.
  It has been suggested that if only Republicans subscribed to the oath as set out in Schedule 4 they could be expected to work loyally as members of the proposed fantastic structure. I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me for using that expression. We must remember that they took an even more binding oath at Stormont and when they came here. But that did not inhibit them from set-
  1848
  ting about undermining the entire constitution of the Province. I do not believe that the watered-down oath in the Bill will deter them in any way. My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) said that a candidate should keep a promise that if his party secured a majority in the Assembly he would press for the implementation of policies in the manifesto on which he was elected. But the new political ethics of Westminster would brand such a man as a wrecker. We in this House have reached a crazy situation. If sincerely held views are endorsed by the majority of the electorate in an election in Northern Ireland there will be accusations of sabotage and wrecking. It is only if one promises on election to foresake genuinely held beliefs—that is, to be a good boy and do exactly what one is told—that one becomes acceptable in the eyes of the Westminster Parliament.
  That is a crazy situation, and it is hardly surprising that the clause and its possible product is regarded privately in the Palace of Westminster and publicly throughout the country with derision.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Whitelaw: Having spent 15 months as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland I have been led inescapably to an approach of great humility, and that is my approach when dealing with all the problems which arise when dealing with the Bill and individual clauses.
  I ask that those who disagree with me—and I understand that there are some who are in disagreement—should be prepared to exercise a similar degree of humility. If I say that I hope desperately that something will work and that I wish to explain why it will work, they are entitled to say that it will not work. If I am in the position of not being absolutely certain, I might find it a little hard to accept that others should be so absolutely certain. Are they so much more certain of themselves than I am? Perhaps they are. Perhaps they are certain. Perhaps they have a pride and a determination in their judgment which I do not always have. I have learned in life that I am not always right, and I find difficulty in believing those who assert that they are always right.
  Be that as it may, the problem of power-sharing is something which is

  1849
  fundamental to a new start in Northern Ireland. I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) that there will be difficulties. This is new ground. It will require a will to make it work. I do not believe that comparisons with this Parliament and the House of Commons are right.
  The situation which Her Majesty's Government and I on their behalf have found in Northern Ireland is not the same as that which has been found by others. Sometimes I feel that I am entitled to say that we did not start from scratch. To hear it said, as is sometimes suggested, that the previous arrangements worked so well causes me to say that—and no one should forget it—it was not this Parliament which asked to send the troops into Northern Ireland. It was not the Government of the day here who sought that. It was the Parliament, the people and the Government of the day in Northern Ireland who had to ask for the British troops to go in. It is no use running away from that. That is the situation which happened in 1969 and from which one has to start.
  Mr. Maginnis: I am following the right hon. Gentleman's reasoning with care. He must understand that the reason for the then Stormont Government asking for the troops to be brought into Northern Ireland in support of the civil forces was the fact that propaganda was being used against the civil forces of Northern Ireland in the situation which then prevailed.
  Mr. Whitelaw: I am not going to argue what happened. All I am saying is that that is what did happen. That is the point we have to start from, and that is what many of the problems with which we are confronted stem from. It is no use running away from it.
  I believe that we have to make a new start; I think everyone accepts that we have to do so. If we are to make a new start, we shall inevitably be faced with the arguments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who are entitled to their view that the proposals we put forward will not succeed.
  1850
  But equally I say that it must be right to seek to make a new start. I have had responsibility for Northern Ireland for 15 months, and I may be right or I may be wrong, but I believe that this is a new start which could work given the will. Here I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Marsden) that it could work, given the will.
  I take the point that if it does not work there will be a difficult and serious situation. Obviously, a new situation will arise and other methods will have to be tried. I accept that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and others genuinely believe that the system of power-sharing will not work. If they are right and our efforts to make it work are not successful, we shall have to try something else. That is a fair proposition. But this is, in my judgment, something which should be given a chance to work and about which there should be the will to make it work.
  Some derision was poured upon my recollection that it was possible to have a coalition in this country during the war. I agree that comparison in this context between our situation and Northern Ireland's situation now is not real. But there is no doubt that a crisis situation exists in Northern Ireland and that something new has to be tried.
  Those who suggest that we can go on as before, that all will be well if we put back the whole thing to where it was before, must surely agree that in the present situation, after all the time and weariness borne in upon people, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) rightly pointed out, a new start has to be made and something new has to be tried.
  I accept the view of those who say they do not believe that this is the right new start that we are proposing. But I challenge those who say that there is no need to make a new start at all, that one has simply to go on as before. I do not believe that is possible, could conceivably work or would not lead back to all the troubles we are trying to emerge from. We have to make a new start, and I believe that power-sharing can work. I think one has to accept that there is no comparison with what has happened

  1851
  here. I equally accept that some of the criteria set out are vague. As the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, they are deliberately so because I believe that some flexibility is right.
  I do not think that the Government can be charged in two ways at the same time—on the one hand, that they are seeking to impose an exact solution on Northern Ireland, and, on the other, that they are being too flexible in their approach. One cannot have it both ways. I believe that if one is seeking a flexible solution and to give the new members of the Assembly an opportunity to come together and seek to work out a scheme of power-sharing which will work, that is better than saying exactly how it is to work down to the last dot.
  Captain Orr: One of the things which worry us is not so much the lack of flexibility or too much rigidity but the obscurity. The very phrase "power-sharing", even in the White Paper, is not clear. One does not know exactly what is in my right hon. Friend's mind in this matter. Are we talking about sectarian power-sharing? Are we talking in religious or political terms? Are we talking about sharing all power between the majority who favour the union and the minority who favour ultimately a republic? Or are we talking about power-sharing across the sectarian divide?
  Mr. Whitelaw: I believe we are talking of trying to achieve a broadly based Executive. We must remember that for 50 years the government of Northern Ireland was entrusted, perfectly democratically, to one party which drew all its elected representatives from one section of a divided community. That is a fact which cannot be denied and which I do not believe can in future be continued, as we say in the White Paper. That is a fundamental principle which we have to accept.
  I come to some of the other points raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South and others. There was, first, the question of support in the Assembly. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West said that there would have to be a majority in the Assembly, and I believe that that is inevitable. The Executive, if the powers
  1852
  are transferred, will be in charge of legislation, and if it does not command a majority it will not be able to get its legislation through. If the Assembly did not have a majority there would not be a broadly based Executive and it would not be government by consent. It would not work.
  I am asked: Might it not be better to lay down the exact size of the majority to be achieved to have a broadly-based Executive? This would immediately bring about a rigidity which would be extremely unwise. If we found that there was an Executive, broadly-based, with a wide measure of consent to work together, commanding a 68 per cent. majority in the Assembly and we had stated that there had to be a 70 per cent. majority we would look very stupid. Rigidity there would be a great mistake. That is why the flexibility makes sense.
  My right hon. Friend enters this discussion about ultimate aims and diversions. There is a considerable argument about this in Northern Ireland. Contrary to what was stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), I believe that the form of the oath is, of itself, most important. He derided it and more or less said that no oath anyone takes is any good because no one pays the smallest attention to it. If we carry that argument to its logical conclusion we would never have any oath at any time for anyone under any circumstances. I cannot see the point of that argument.
  Mr. Kilfedder: I did not say what my right hon. Friend is imputing to me. I was making a comparison between the oath set out in Schedule 4 and the oath which we take as Members of this House, and asking the simple question, which my right hon. Friend has never answered: Why cannot members of the Assembly and the Executive take a similar oath? Why should we be ashamed of taking an oath to Her Majesty the Queen and swearing to be faithful and give our true allegiance?
  11.30 p.m.
  Mr. Whitelaw: If I am wrong HANSARD will state the opposite of what I am saying, but I recollect my hon. Friend as saying that people whom he described as "Republicans" took the oath in this House and that made not the smallest

  1853
  difference to them. If that is not what he said, I do not know what it is. I think that that is in fact what he said.
  I cannot accept that argument. If a person is prepared to
  "uphold the laws of Northern Ireland and conscientiously fulfil [as a member of the Northern Ireland Executive]"
  his
  "duties under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 in the interests of Northern Ireland and its people",
  it is reasonable to say that he is seeking to serve the interests of that State and not to destroy it. I cannot find anything in those words which suggests that someone who has sworn that oath is seeking to destroy the State; he would be swearing exactly the opposite.
  I answer my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West in this way. If a member of a party believes ultimately in a united Ireland and accepts, as I believe many do, that there is no question of having a united Ireland in the foreseeable future and, therefore, wishes to work within the State of Northern Ireland to improve the employment prospects and to ensure that more hospitals and schools are built, is he not prepared to work, as his primary aim, in the interests of the State of Northern Ireland? I should have thought that he was prepared to do so.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) is very fair. He says that he is not against power-sharing but he is against sharing power with those who are out to destroy the State. However, if they are people such as those I have described, I think one can say that they are not out to destroy the State because they know that that will not happen, and they would wish to see improvements made in the employment situation and in the economic conditions and housing of the people. If they are able to work together in transferred functions to that end, surely it can be said that they are people with whom one can share power, people who are not out to destroy the State. I should have thought that that was a reasonable proposition
  Mr. McMaster: I do not think my right hon. Friend has made a valid test. If a person whose long-term aim is the
  1854
  establishment of a republic in Ireland is, say, Minister of Education and he has to decide what type of history book the children shall read in the schools, how can he become part of an Executive whose aims are totally different and which might not approve of the type of history book that he wishes to introduce in the schools?
  Mr. Whitelaw: If someone had the ultimate aim of a united Ireland, it would not be a great advance in the position of Northern Ireland, nor would it be necessary to try to continue a situation which has, in some cases, two different histories of what has happened. It is a question not only of history but of day-to-day reading. There are two completely different and totally divergent versions of almost any incident set out in two newspapers in Northern Ireland every morning. However, I should have thought that if one wished to work sensibly forward, it would be right to have one history book and that a power-sharing Executive would seek to achieve that. I cannot see why it should not do so.
  I take the view that it is perfectly possible for people to have a long-term aim that they want or would wish in certain circumstances which they cannot foresee at this moment. Anyone who is a realist knows that one cannot force a majority into a united Ireland against their will. No one wants to do so. Certainly the Government of the Republic are the last people who want to do so. If that be the case and no one wants it, I do not see what is the fear of people who would wish to work together for the good of the State as it exists at the moment and who therefore wish, under the terms of the oath and the Bill, to work together for the good of their own country I would have thought that this was something that could be accepted.
  Nor do I take the argument to which some hon. Members seem to get near, the argument that if one believes as a long-term aim in a united Ireland one is inevitably against everything in Northern Ireland, against every improvement for its people and against all the things that are happening in the Northern Ireland State. I have not found this in these people at all, and I do not think it is right.

  1855
  I must take issue with those who believe that any form of power-sharing, any form of new start that we are proposing, is a concession, a giving way, yet another surrender of some sort. I cannot accept this in any way. I believe quite the reverse. I believe that those who wish to continue with violence would be desperately upset if power-sharing worked, because it would remove one of the major items which move them to sustain their violence and their hold on many parts of the community. I believe that they are the people who desperately do not wish to see power-sharing working. Therefore, that is one of the major reasons why I think a new start with power-sharing, difficult as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North says it is, is nevertheless in the long run right. Equally, if it worked it would be a significant advance.
  I do not pretend, nor should anyone, that it will be easy to achieve this. Nor do I suggest that, if one achieves it, overnight one suddently removes violence and all the motives behind it. Of course, one does not do any such thing. I know, however—I go further than "believe"; I know for a fact—that the men of violence would be very upset if an Assembly succeeded in working, if it succeeded in achieving an Executive which shared power on the lines we are setting out.
  If it is suggested that the proposals are too flexible and give the Secretary of State too much power, one must then come back to the point that if the Secretary of State believes, after his discussions, that such an Executive can be formed, he has to come to this House with the proposals and this House has the final say whether it believes that his judgment is right or wrong. He rightly and properly has to submit his judgment to this House, to which, as a member of Her Majesty's Government, he is ultimately responsible. That is a fundamental principle.
  Perhaps I may end by dealing with some points made in detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North in his various amendments. As regards those which impinge on the Assembly standing orders, again I would say I believe it to be right that the Assembly should be given the maximum flexibility in setting out its own standing orders.
  1856
  Therefore, I would not like to set out details of exactly how they had to work. Again, I believe that flexibility is important.
  I say to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South and those who have supported him that I cannot accept the amendment. I recognise the inherent problems of the central feature of power-sharing and the immense difficulties that will face those who are seeking to achieve power-sharing. It is an immensely worthwhile goal which could be frustrated if we tried either to stop it being attempted or to tie it down so much that a degree of flexibility was not available.
  I hope that the Committee will accept that I cannot accede to the amendment and that the chance must be taken to embark on a new start. It would be ridiculous for me to pretend that we shall necessarily succeed, but I believe it to be a vision on which we should embark and one in which the prize of success will he great.
  Captain Orr: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend cannot accept my amendment. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland (Mr. Marsden)—whom I admire for staying to make a contribution despite the absence of so many of his colleagues—suggested that there was a lack of good will in myself and my hon. Friends towards the possibility of the peaceful operation of the Assembly. I assure him that that is not so.
  For three years Ulster has suffered from a ghastly campaign of murder and violence. People are so sick of it that the great majority of the population in Ulster on either side of the sectarian divide are only too axious to find a decent way of living at peace with each other.
  All we are saying is that what my right hon. Friend appears to have in mind—and we still do not quite know what it is—is impracticable. I accept from him that one's opinions are put forward with a degree of humility, and I concede that one cannot tell what will ultimately happen, but there is nothing in the amendment to prevent power-sharing.
  If the Assembly elections follow the pattern of the local government elections, as most of us think they will,

  1857
  there will have to be power-sharing because it is likely that no one party will command a majority in the Assembly. The question is whether it will be power-sharing by coalition entered into voluntarily between parties to find a majority in the Assembly to form a Government, or whether it is to be an artificially composed Executive imposed by the Secretary of State upon the Assembly. If it is the latter, it is unlikely to find a majority in the Assembly. If it is the former—a natural coalition formed by people who are nearer to each other than others might be—power-sharing will almost certainly come about.
  I cannot see a possibility of power-sharing across the deep political divide. The sectarian issue may not enter into it. It may be perfectly possible to achieve power-sharing across the

  Division No. 157.]

  AYES

  [11.41 p.m.

  Biggs-Davison, John

  McMaster, Stanley

  Maginnis, John E.

  Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

  Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Mr. James Kilfedder and Mr. James Molyneuax.

  NOES

  Adley, Robert

  Howell, David (Guildford)

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

  Atkins, Humphrey

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)

  Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

  Biffen, John

  Hunt, John

  Raison, Timothy

  Blaker, Peter

  James, David

  Redmond, Robert

  Bray, Ronald

  Jopling, Michael

  Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

  Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)

  Knox, David

  Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

  Chapman, Sydney

  Lane, David

  Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey

  Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

  Langford-Holt, Sir John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Clegg, Walter

  MacArthur, Ian

  Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)

  Concannon, J. D.

  McNair-Wilson, Michael

  Russell, Sir Ronald

  Cordle, John

  McNamara, J. Kevin

  Shelton, William (Clapham)

  Crouch, David

  Maddan, Martin

  Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)

  Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

  Madel, David

  Tebbit, Norman

  English, Michael

  Marsden, F.

  Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

  Eyre, Reginald

  Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

  Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon,S.)

  Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

  Fortescue, Tim

  Mills, Peter (Torrington)

  Waddington, David

  Fowler, Norman

  Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

  Walder, David (Clitheroe)

  Fox, Marcus

  Moate, Roger

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Green, Alan

  More, Jasper

  Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

  Grylls, Michael

  Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Haselhurst. Alan

  Murton, Oscar

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Hawkins, Paul

  Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

  Mr. Kenneth Clarke and Mr. Hamish Gray.

  Hiley, Joseph

  Peel, John

  Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia

  Price, David (Eastleigh)

  Question accordingly negatived.
  To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]
  Committee report Progress; to sit again tomorrow
  sectarian divide. If that is what my right hon. Friend has in mind, there is no difficulty about it.
  I am sorry that my right hon. Friend cannot accept the amendments, for they would not, if accepted, prevent power-sharing. In fact, in order to get a majority in the Assembly as contained in my amendment, there would have to be power-sharing anyway. However, because of the total obscurity of the words I seek to delete, I shall have to advise my hon. Friends to vote on the amendment and no doubt we can return to the general subject when we have a debate on the Question, "That the clause stand part of the Bill".
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 71.

  NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION BILL
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

  ALLOTMENTS
  11.56 p.m.
  Mr. John Cordle: The Local Government Act 1972 has wrought profound and gratifying changes in our system of regional and local administration. However, the Act failed to deal adequately with the matter of allotments, and I should like, at this late hour, to express my gratitude to Mr. Speaker for selecting this subject for the Adjournment debate.
  During the course of the day I received a telegram from the National Allotments and Gardens Society, which is holding its annual conference this week, which states that the following resolution was passed unanimously:
  "That this conference being dismayed by the Local Government Act and its reference to statutory allotments, together with replies from the Minister to agitation on this subject, now asks that Her Majesy's Government expedite the proposed new allotment legislation following urgent discussion with accredited representatives of this society."
  That is signed by the chairman, Mr. Robinson, and the secretary, Mr. Milligan.
  It may be thought that allotments are the most mundane and unexciting things, but in my opinion the provision of allotments is a vital duty on the part of Government and local authorities, and the tending of allotments surely is a meritorious and healthy pursuit. In my view, the tending of allotments must be one of the most popular recreational activities in this country. For reasons that I shall later recount, every encouragement should therefore be given to those who wish to pursue it.
  The law regarding allotments is in disarray. It needs to be updated. The Minister agrees with this. There is a need for precise definition of the duties of local authorities to provide land for allotments, to finance their upkeep, to provide facilities for the proper use of the allotments and to superintend the activities of allotment users.
  The Allotments Acts from 1908 to 1950 are still operative, but the Local Government Act 1972 has made two changes in the existing law. They are not extensive, but they are important. First, the default powers of the Secretary of State and the
  1860
  old county councils, by which allotments authorities were controlled, have been removed. Secondly, the statutory obligation on allotments authorities to appoint allotments committees has been removed.
  It is a source of consternation to me that the Government so effected piecemeal change and proceeded to leave the relevant law in disarray. If there is further delay, especially after the advent of the new local government system in April 1974, in producing new legislation on allotments, many thousands, perhaps millions, of allotment holders will be seriously disadvantaged and inconvenienced. I therefore respectfully ask the Minister to give priority to the promotion of new legislation on allotments.
  In the modern world, allotments are paradoxically vital. They are a deliberate substitute for gardens. Modern housing developments are dominated by high-rise flats. The tenants have no piece of land to call their own, on which to grow their own flowers and vegetables. Modern houses have small gardens, principally because of the astronomical cost of land. For retired people in flats and old people's homes, an allotment affords untold enjoyment, cheaply and beneficially. The age of retirement is coming down and the need to help pensioners to get the most out of their retirement is more pressing. For some old-age pensioners it is their only pleasure.
  Similarly, with the shorter working week people will need to channel their energies during their leisure hours into useful, rewarding and harmless activities, and more allotments should be available to cater for this need.
  It is said that man is nearest to God in a garden. Those of us who love flowers and who are excited by cultivation and growth can appreciate the peace and joy of tending the land. No amount of scientific data will persuade most people other than that home-grown vegetables and fruit taste better than factory-farmed produce, and also that home-grown produce is more beneficial.
  With rocketing food prices, people should be encouraged to grow their own food as they did so successfully in the last war, when we were encouraged to "Dig for victory". In short, the tending of allotments is healthy, productive leisure, and in an age of manufactured

  1861
  entertainment such self-sufficiency and effort should be encouraged.
  I readily admit that some allotment holders have let the rest down by allowing their plots to go to rack and ruin. There has peen legislation empowering local authorities to deal with such lack of cultivation but often the powers have not been used. In the past local authorities have been reluctant to spend money on amenities to promote good cultivation and ensure security.
  While I recognise that there is much that the allotment holders' movement can do to improve its lot, the attitude of the Government and of local authorities must become one of encouragement and real concern. The promised legislation on this matter could provide for this among other things.
  I propose that each allotment holder should be able to take his plot on a five-year tenancy agreement, rather than the present 12 months. This change would give greater security to plot holders. I would further propose that local authorities should be given more aid by the Government to purchase suitable land for the establishment of allotments. In addition, no planning permission should be given for new housing developments unless they include parcels of land suitable for cultivation. No block of flats should be without attendant allotment land.
  The Department of the Environment could make regulations to enforce the proper administration of allotments by the relevant authorities. Minimum standards for security, water supply, lavatories, access roads, car parks and particularly maintenance should be promulgated.
  Perhaps it would not be without sense and reason at this time to suggest that there should be facilities made available for the rest of the family, so that, when Dad is digging, perhaps Mum and the children could have adequate facilities to enjoy the open air, the space and perhaps the complex, with the possibility at a later date of even swimming pools being arranged.
  It is distressing that the organisation of such a beneficial form of recreation is as poorly treated as it is. The Government must act swiftly and boldly to bring the law on allotments up to date and actively to encourage this most civilised and rewarding leisure activity.
  12.5 a.m.
  The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle), with his usual perception, has brought before the House tonight a subject of some topical interest. In the past few months there has been a significant increase in the demand for allotments, particularly in certain urban areas. One might cynically say that this is due to the rising price of vegetables, but that is not the full story and I do not think it plays any real part in the demand we have seen lately for this type of recreation. The increased demand is due to changes in leisure habits coupled with the fact that Birmingham, Bristol, Coventry, Sheffield, Waltham Forest and Brent have gone ahead with the provision of a new type of allotment—the leisure garden—recommended by the Thorpe Committee.
  I pay tribute at once to the Thorpe Committee, which inquired into allotments under the chairmanship of Professor Harry Thorpe, whose report, Cmnd. 4166 of October 1969, I commend as the encyclopaedia on allotments, giving very valuable information and advice upon all aspects of the subject.
  At the end of the last war there were about 125,000 acres of allotments in England and Wales. That high figure was undoubtedly due to the response to the "Dig for victory" campaign. But it looks as though there is a "dig for peace operation at present. In an Adjournment debate just over a year ago I said that at that time there were only some 35,000 acres of allotments in urban areas. I am now told that since then there has been a significant increase in demand for plots in such areas.
  Gradually the image of allotments is changing. No longer do so many of them qualify as candidates for Operation Eyesore. It was Professor Thorpe who exploded the theory that vegetables would grow only in rectangular plots and in juxtaposition to corrugated iron. He advocated a wider variety of plots, not necessarily rectangular in shape or given over entirely to vegetables, but plots on properly landscaped sites, with provision for flowers, shrubs and even small lawns where all the family could go and spend leisure time together.

  1863
  This is a quite new conception, which properly reflects the fact that nowadays the emphasis is not so much on out-and-out food production but on recreation and general family enjoyment. It gets us away from the conviction that in this country we have only two kinds of vegetables and they are both cabbage. In a statement in July 1971 I told the House that the Government welcomed this new look for allotments. I certainly encouraged local authorities to review their allotment sites and to tidy up those which did nothing to enhance the environment or which positively detracted from it. I also asked local authorities to consider improving facilities for allotment holders where these were necessary to ensure a viable and appealing site.
  Local authorities can give a lead by fencing sites against trespassers, laying on water supplies, putting vacant plots into proper shape for reletting and so on. I know that local authorities and plot holders become despondent when their efforts are frustrated by vandalism, but it could well be that attractive family allotments would keep potential vandals out of mischief.
  There are encouraging signs that there is now emerging a renewal of interest in allotments and a rising demand for them. Professor Thorpe and his committee have shown in their report the improvements that are possible, and I am pleased to say that a growing number of local authorities have promoted the new-style allotment sites, and many others are contemplating doing so.
  Allotments are an integral part of the environment. These new-style sites are already showing that by careful planning, landscaping and internal layout they can enhance the environment and improve visual amenities for us all. But one must recognise the difficulties that face local authorities in bringing about these changes, particularly those in the heavily built-up areas where land is expensive and the pressures on land continue to increase and there is mounting competition from other sporting and recreational pursuits such as football, cricket, tennis, golf and so on.
  Provision has to be made for all those activities, and I think it is right and proper that local authorities should be given the maximum possible freedom to
  1864
  meet the demands, unfettered by control from central Government. It is no longer right to single out allotments for special treatment, as the old statutes did, as compared with, say, tennis courts or bowling greens.
  This is where I must join issue with my hon. Friend. He is arguing for more control and direction by the central Government. I advocate less of it. The controls and requirements which exist, extending back to the beginning of this century, are part and parcel of the charitable image of allotments. I want the movement to be rid of that. These controls are quite out of keeping with our policy of leaving local affairs to be decided by local people. Because the cultivation of an allotment has become increasingly a leisure pursuit, the time has come for the provision of land for this purpose to rank part passu with other recreational and sporting activities.
  Local authorities should be free to make suitable provision for allotments, having regard to the demand in their area not only for allotments but also for other recreational needs. The two amendments made by the 1972 Act, to which my hon. Friend referred, to the allotments law were entirely in keeping with the reforms in that Act relating to other local government functions—that is to say, the removal of the Big-Brother attitude from Whitehall towards local government.
  The future of the allotments movement lies in the provision of land for the new-style allotments in carefully selected and properly landscaped sites on which there would be proper facilities for the plot holders. The planning of sites in this way, involving not inconsiderable capital expenditure, will stabilise the use of the land for allotments and should bring in its train the security and additional facilities which are the goals for which the movement is striving.
  But if we can trust local authorities to use their discretion in the provision of land for almost everything from parks to rubbish dumps, we cannot say that we do not trust them to provide the allotments necessary and demanded in their areas. Nor can we say that if they provide these allotments we do not trust them to provide services to those allotments.

  1865
  After local government is reorganised next April, the new district councils will all become allotment authorities, and the parish councils which are at present responsible for providing allotments will continue to have this responsibility in their areas, as will the community councils in Wales. The allotments movement has, I know, been concerned that the Local Government Act 1972 will result in a sort of legislative lacuna or, as my hon. Friend put it, will leave the law on allotments in disarray and that there will be no proper administration of allotments law.
  That will not happen. That is a complete misconception of the present situation, and it is untrue—I think I am quoting my hon. Friend correctly—to say that millions of allotment holders will suffer from this position. For the present, the general body of allotments law remains on the statue book and the new district councils, the parish authorities and the community councils in Wales will all continue to be governed by it pending any new legislation.
  Where I must join issue again with my hon. Friend is in his plea for special Government aid to local authorities for the provision of land for allotments. I also oppose his plea that allotment holders should be provided by local government with what I might call all mod. cons. It is right that local authorities should tidy up existing allotments and make them into leisure gardens, areas which are attractive to those who wish to undertake allotment work. I have urged local authorities to clean up and landscape their allotments sites so that we may have these leisure gardens rather than the untidy and unsightly overgrown jungles which are to be found in many places. I regard that as a good investment and as good local government by an authority of its area.
  Expensive land, of course, should not be left unsightly or even, in some cases, derelict, and when tidied up it should be let at a reasonable rent to the allotment holders. They are not entitled to heavy subsidies from either their fellow ratepayers or taxpayers. There is provision in the existing statutes for a proper rental to be paid for the allotments and they
  1866
  should be managed correctly in that way by the local authorities. In most cases, even when reasonable rents are paid there will probably be an element of subsidy because only 12 allotments can be produced from one acre of land. The rent that can be charged makes little contribution to the land cost so that, even on a reasonable basis of what might be charged for an allotment, an element of subsidy creeps in. Therefore I cannot urge either my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the local authorities to provide further subsidies.
  The point made by my hon. Friend that the provision of allotments should be part of any housing development, especially a development of high-rise flats, with adjacent car parks, lavatories and so on, is wise and prudent. But, even if my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State had the power, I would not advise him to make regulations ordering local authorities to provide such facilities. The rising demand for allotments will make it worth while for authorities to make these provisions without any compulsion and I am sure that they will provide for their citizens such leisure gardens as are needed. I hope we shall have them in the near future.
  The Thorpe Committee sent out a questionnaire to residents in high-rise flat developments asking whether they would like allotments and. generally speaking, about one-third of them said that they would. That proves the value of the point made by my hon. Friend. I would leave it to the local authorities to decide to provide such services in the ordinary way for their citizens, who, I believe, will demand them more and more and will be ready to pay for them so that they may enjoy the pleasure that one derives from seeing things grow on allotments—not only vegetables but flowers—and possibly enjoy having lawns on them also.
  I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I hope that I have been able to give him some answers to his points.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  Firearms
  Firearms
  False Messages (Transmission)
  False Messages (Transmission)
  Prison Disturbances
  Prison Disturbances
  Borstal Training
  Borstal Training
  Urban Aid Programme
  Urban Aid Programme
  Identity Cards
  Identity Cards
  Plastic Foam (Fire Hazard)
  Plastic Foam (Fire Hazard)
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Murder Convictions
  Murder Convictions
  Vehicle Parking
  Vehicle Parking
  Animals (Competition Prizes)
  Animals (Competition Prizes)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
  Vandalism
  Vandalism
  Mr. A. W. Madanayake (Notice of Deportation)
  Mr. A. W. Madanayake (Notice of Deportation)
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Violence (Police Protection)
  Violence (Police Protection)
  Shops (Sunday Opening)
  Shops (Sunday Opening)
  Prisoners' Wives
  Prisoners' Wives
  Citizenship Applications
  Citizenship Applications
  Local Government (Electoral Arrangements)
  Local Government (Electoral Arrangements)
  Mr. Drury (Police Pension)
  Mr. Drury (Police Pension)
  Probation Service (Pay)
  Probation Service (Pay)
  Firearms Control (Green Paper)
  Firearms Control (Green Paper)
  Magistrates' Courts (Duty Solicitor Schemes)
  Magistrates' Courts (Duty Solicitor Schemes)
  Bail (Applications to Judges)
  Bail (Applications to Judges)
  Security Companies
  Security Companies
  Fire Precautions
  Fire Precautions
  Fire Fatalities
  Fire Fatalities
  Immigration Act 1971 (Interpretation)
  Immigration Act 1971 (Interpretation)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Bread Price
  Bread Price
  Agricultural Land (Price)
  Agricultural Land (Price)
  Food Consumption
  Food Consumption
  Import Duties
  Import Duties
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Inland Revenue Statistics
  Inland Revenue Statistics
  National Savings (Page Report)
  National Savings (Page Report)
  Schedule E Income
  Schedule E Income
  Gold Sovereigns
  Gold Sovereigns
  Share Saving Scheme
  Share Saving Scheme
  Economic Growth
  Economic Growth
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  United Nations (United Kingdom Delegation)
  United Nations (United Kingdom Delegation)
  Rhodesia (Sanctions)
  Rhodesia (Sanctions)
  India (Drought)
  India (Drought)
  Uganda (Aid)
  Uganda (Aid)
  Kenya (Defence Aid)
  Kenya (Defence Aid)
ENVIRONMENT
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Housing (Under-Occupation)
  Housing (Under-Occupation)
  Delltune Car Sales (Planning Appeal)
  Delltune Car Sales (Planning Appeal)
  Rent Assessment Committees (London)
  Rent Assessment Committees (London)
  Manor Farm Dairies (Petersfield) Ltd.
  Manor Farm Dairies (Petersfield) Ltd.
  Domestic Rate Poundage
  Domestic Rate Poundage
  Road Accidents (Darrington)
  Road Accidents (Darrington)
  A1, Darrington (Fly-over)
  A1, Darrington (Fly-over)
  LISKEARD
  LISKEARD
  NORTH-WEST REGION
  NORTH-WEST REGION
  PREMIER OF ONTARIO (MEETING)
  PREMIER OF ONTARIO (MEETING)
  LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS
  LONDON BOROUGH COUNCILS
  CONGRESS OF EUROPE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  CONGRESS OF EUROPE (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  CAYMAN ISLANDS
  CAYMAN ISLANDS
  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
  COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY
  NUCLEAR TESTS (PACIFIC OCEAN)
  NUCLEAR TESTS (PACIFIC OCEAN)
  CHARITIES
  CHARITIES
  WALES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  WALES (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PROBATE DEPOSITIONS
  PROBATE DEPOSITIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  POULSON CASE INQUIRIES
  POULSON CASE INQUIRIES
DEFENCE
  Cruiser Contract
  Cruiser Contract
  Personal Armour
  Personal Armour
  Devonport Dockyard (Fire)
  Devonport Dockyard (Fire)
EMPLOYMENT
  61–65 Age Groups
  61–65 Age Groups
  Wales
  Wales
  Job Satisfaction
  Job Satisfaction
NORTHERN IRELAND
  RUC-RMP Task Force
  RUC-RMP Task Force
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Medical Equipment (Polystyrene Supply)
  Medical Equipment (Polystyrene Supply)
  Benefit Payments
  Benefit Payments
  Portsmouth Hospital Group
  Portsmouth Hospital Group
  Benefits (Expenditure)
  Benefits (Expenditure)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Child Health Services
  Child Health Services
  Medical Rehabilitation Services
  Medical Rehabilitation Services
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
  Peterhead Power Station
  Peterhead Power Station
  International Computers Limited
  International Computers Limited
  Computer Companies
  Computer Companies
  Second Mortgage Companies
  Second Mortgage Companies
SCOTLAND
  Probate Depositions
  Probate Depositions
  Medical Rehabilitation Services
  Medical Rehabilitation Services
WALES
  Housing
  Housing
  Roads (Carmarthenshire)
  Roads (Carmarthenshire)
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  M4 Motorway
  M4 Motorway
  Quarries (Hazards)
  Quarries (Hazards)
  Chemical Waste Tips
  Chemical Waste Tips

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock:
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

STEEL SUPPLIES
LORD ORR-EWING: 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 expect a shortage of British steel in view of the expanding needs of United Kingdom industry.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, there is at present a shortage both here and abroad of certain types of steel. The rapid growth in home demand this year has coincided with tile cyclical upturn in world demand for steel. The Corporation has also experienced some severe labour and production troubles. Though supplies are currently under pressure, the Government believe that the industry is doing its utmost to overcome these difficulties and to meet the requirements of its customers. The Department of Trade and Industry is dealing sympathetically with requests to suspend import tariffs on steel products which are in short supply domestically. However, the ten-year development strategy which the Government settled with the British Steel Corporation last December is designed to enable the Corporation to meet the rising demands of British industry in both quantity and quality, and a number of steel companies in the private sector have also announced development schemes.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful and constructive reply. It is clear from his reply that the Government are aware that British industry is already being held back by a very long date for delivery of steel, and it is disappointing that this should be so at a time when our potential and our sales and our order books are all turning up. One realises fully that of course this is partly
814
due to the serious strike at Scunthorpe, but I hope the Government will take every possible measure at their disposal to overcome this shortage.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as I said, the steel industry itself is doing all it can to solve these problems, including the quota-ing of supplies by the British Steel Corporation to their customers in order to make certain that purchases are not made for purely stocking or speculative purposes.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether we are always from now on going to be fobbed off, whenever we in this country have either shortages or high prices, with the answer that this is due to world shortage or to world high prices?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have not said that this shortage was due only to world shortages. But it is a fact that steel is in short supply and it is difficult for users here to obtain their supplies from abroad, even at a much higher price. What I said was that there has been delay in completing such projects because of production and labour difficulties.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, in view of what has been said, will the noble Lord tell us why the Government are cutting back the steel industry?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Government certainly are not cutting back the steel industry. There is a very big development programme which is going to cost £3,000 million over the next ten years. What they are doing is to make the steel industry more efficient in order to compete better in the world and give the best possible service at home.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, would not the noble Minister agree that every time we have a boom in England we have a steel shortage and we have to import steel, which imperils the balance of payments as we saw yesterday after those very encouraging speeches by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and others? Would he not also agree that this steel shortage shows the utmost short-sightedness of the Government last year when they tried to cut the expansion scheme to 28 million tons and were only with difficulty persuaded to make it 42 million tons?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, so far as the question of importing steel is concerned, the fact is of course that steel in this country is cheaper than it is abroad. Therefore there is a tendency for foreigners to want to buy steel here at the cheaper prices that persist, and that is an additional factor which leads to shortages here. As to the review of steel that took place, there was no question of the Government's cutting back from 42 million tons. At the present time steel is running a production of 27 million tons and the forecast output in the ten-year programme is something between 36 million and 38 million tons.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, would my noble friend bear in mind that much of the scrap supply is now going abroad; and will the Government look at this matter to see whether there are any fiscal measures they can take to encourage scrap to remain and to be used in this country, in view of the developing black market there is for new steel?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that we are now members of the European Economic Community and have to comply with its Rules, but I shall look at the problem to see whether anything can be done in this field.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it is bad economics to dispense with thousands of people who have been engaged in the steel industry producing steel for the nation and for the benefit of industrial development, and to cut back production, instead of increas'ing it, when more development ought to be taking place?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it does not follow that, because labour requirements are reduced, the rate of production is being cut. It is well known that the purpose of the reduction in labour requirements is to make the industry more efficient, and at the same time to produce more. I would say to the noble Lord only that the present position is not due to closures or cutting down. I have here a list of the closures and there has been only one closure this year: that of Cookley Rolling Mills.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that these people who
816
have been engaged in the industry are practical men, and having spent their lives inside the industry know much about it, just as the management knows about the industry? This is what the Government and some of the "higher-ups" inside the industry never take into consideration, and then they are faced with labour problems.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I may say so I think the noble Lord is going a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper. I have made clear the position as to the future and to the course that we shall take on supplies. We are entirely sympathetic with the fact that the development will require economies in the use of labour and that some men will be redundant. The Government are taking every possible measure, in conjunction with the industry, to meet this problem.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, are we to understand that the Rules of the Common Market now inhibit the Government from prohibiting the export of steel scrap to the Common Market itself, in line with the orders that used to be issued to this effect?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I really should require notice of that Question, because again it does not arise immediately out of the Question on the Order Paper. If I remember correctly, this is so or it will be so; I am not quite certain whether it is so at the moment or whether it will be so.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, in that case could not the Government introduce regulations, as has been done frequently in the past, prohibiting the export of scrap at this time?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have already said that I will look at this.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the problem with regard to the steel industry has always been that they have tried to work on too fine a margin of spare capacity, as compared with America, which always leaves herself sufficient spare capacity to take up a suddenly expanding market.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not think that is entirely true. The

817
present situation is due in some considerable part to the fact that steel stocks were run down very substantially and then they had to be built up again.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, the Minister stated that he has a list of steelworks that are to be closed. Can he tell us whether the Shotton steelworks in North Wales is included in that list?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that again is wide of the Question on the Order Paper and I think I should refer the noble Lord to the White Paper on Steel, published in February last.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, if my noble friend gives the time taken before capital expenditure is made and before new steel comes on stream, will it not be revealed that our present shortage arises, because first years ago, the previous Government did not make adequate plans for steel-making?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was careful not to make any suggestions of that sort here; but of course it is a fact that steel developments take three to five years and noble Lords can draw their won conclusions.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, if the Minister is going to answer in the manner in which he has done to his noble friend, perhaps it would be as well for him to take a look—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD SLATER: Then, my Lords, will the Minister take a look at and go over the records, back to 1950 and 1951, after the Labour Government was in power, to see what really happened when the Tory Government came into power?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am quite willing to do that, but it does not arise out of the Question.

HEAVY ROAD VEHICLES AND PORT INSPECTIONS
3.18 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: 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 how many heavy commercial vehicles entering this country since August 1,
818
1972, have been inspected at ports of entry, how many were found overloaded or contravening other regulations either at ports of entry or subsequently, and where contraventions were found after entry, how many prosecutions were initiated, and of these prosecutions how many have been brought into court.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, in the period August 1, 1972, to May 31 this year, approximately 6,000 foreign vehicles have been examined under the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act, 1972, by D.O.E. examiners and Weights and Measures officials. 1,200 were found to be over-weight and of these 800 were forced to off-load immediately; 17 were mechanically defective; 58 had no permit or short-term operator's licence and 79 contravened the hours and records regulations. Two drivers ignored prohibitions issued to them, were arrested, prosecuted and fined. Separate figures for vehicles prohibited at inland checks are not available.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask whether he has any indication as to whether the enormous number of vehicles which have been found to be overloaded and otherwise in poor condition come from the same companies, or do they come from different companies?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, with regard to the observation made by my noble friend that it is an enormous number, I would assure him that it has been reduced from 80 per cent. of the foreign vehicles entering found to be faulty a year ago, to something now between 10 and 20 per cent. That, I think, will give comfort to all noble Lords in this House. As to the question of whether they are coming from the same companies, I can say that basically we are taking note of that point. There was one company which had six or seven particularly had offences of overloading, and we complained to the French Government. The French Government have now said that no more permits will be issued allowing that company's vehicles to come to this country.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us, if 6,000 is the

819
number of vehicles that have come in, and that all the vehicles that have come in have been examined by examiners at the port?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, no. Of the number of heavy vehicles entering this country, about 11,000 enter every month: of these, half are British and of the remaining half, half are trailers to be attached to British lorries, and therefore they become British. So of the total of foreign vehicles coming in, we examine about one in five.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, would the noble Lord make it clear that that figure of between 15 and 20 per cent. non-compliance is not at all acceptable?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I said that we have reduced the number contravening our regulations from 80 per cent. to between 10 and 20 per cent. We are not happy with that figure. In this country, of our own vehicles we have something like 2 to 4 per cent. non-compliance, and it is our intention to reduce the figure for foreign vehicles to this percentage.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, does the fact that such a small proportion of the vehicles coming in are being examined result from the fact that we have an insufficiency of examiners at the port?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Champion, not for the first time, has put his finger on an important point. Our men working at the ports have been fully stretched. By September we shall have 50 more inspectors/examiners available to the D.O.E.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that even that will not be satisfactory if, out of 6,000 vehicles inspected 1,200 were found to be overloaded? Would not the fact that this result is found on a spot check appear to show that there must be a very large number of vehicles coming into this country at the moment unchecked and grossly overladen?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lords. I think the point is that
820
we have reduced the number contraveening our regulations from 80 to between 20 and 20 per cent. That indicates that these spot checks are working; and, in any case, one in five is rather more than a spot check. We know what to look for and the firms likely to be at fault. The situation is improving all the time. There is no need to worry. The Act has not yet been in force for one year and the improvement is markedly to the good.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord may not be very worried, but many people who operate on the motorways and on the smaller country roads around Dover are greatly worried, particularly bearing in mind the very tragic accident last week.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is overstepping his brief in that statement. There is no indication that that accident had anything to do with an overweight vehicle, and it is very wrong of the noble Lord to indicate that. We do not find that vehicles are coming in overweight in increasing numbers. We are reducing them, and we think that the number of inspectors will now be sufficient. There is no evidence that the accident to which the noble Lord referred had anything to do with overloading, which is what the law is about.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say quite truthfully that this exhibition of leniency has anything to do with our association with the Common Market?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, there is no question of leniency. We prohibit any overweight vehicle which does not unload on our instructions from entering. Prohibition is a very costly fine to operators abroad. We allow only a tolerance of around 2 cwt., and when one has a maximum limit of 32 tons laden weight that is not a great deal of leniency.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend if those figures are not somewhat misleading. Am I right in thinking that the vast majority of lorries that come in—that is, the remaining 75 per cent.—are British. Of the 25 per cent., those that are examined are obviously likely to be faulty—and

821
it is impossible to examine every lorry—therefore the figures mislead to some extent because many need not be examined.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think I made it clear that of the vehicles coming into the country half are foreign—and we examine all vehicles coming in on our spot checks, whether British or foreign. The Question refers to foreign vehicles, and I merely pointed out that, of the half which came in as foreign, half of those were put on to British lorries and therefore from that moment came under the heading of British vehicles. But they are still spot checked.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, could the noble Lord—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has spoken once or twice.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether, if the Government find one firm continually violating our orders, they are in a position to ban that firm's vehicles from coming into this country?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I answered that Question earlier. I pointed out that we had complained to France about one particular French firm and the French had agreed not to issue permits for that firm to come to Britain.
LORD HALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord say to what extent lorries are provided with insurance policies which cover injuries to British subjects on the roads, and to what extent those insurance policies are invalidated if lorries do not conform to regulations or are in a defective condition.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, defective condition is certainly one of the things we examine. They must have papers of sorts but whether they must have the exact papers the noble Lord refers to I am not sure: the noble Lord will have to put down another Question.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend a slightly different question, but covered by the original Question? His replies nearly all concern vehicles overloaded or overweight, but there are other regulations which could be contravened, notably on size. Can the noble Lord say how many cases have been checked at the ports where foreign vehicles that contravened regulations as to length and size have come in?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am not aware that any have come in in contravention of our regulations. That is what we are there to examine.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this has been a most spirited debate, and I notice that it is now 26 minutes past three and we have had only two Questions.

NORTH SEA OIL LICENSING REVIEW
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the review of the licensing procedure for oil exploration in the North Sea has been completed, and whether new principles have been established for further licences and when a new round of licensing would be initiated.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the review is not yet complete; its outcome will be reported to Parliament as soon as it is. I can give an assurance that there will not be a further general round of licensing before it is complete.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, and may I remark, in passing, that I am delighted that I did not lose my sparring partner on this Question? May I, however, ask whether, in view of the Norwegian decision to begin licensing again, it would not be better to speed up the process of consultations and reviews?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Well, my Lords, the review is proceeding with all speed. If it is possible to speed it up

823
I am sure it will be further speeded up. The next Question of the noble Lord deals with consultation.

NORTH SEA OIL: TAX CONSULTATIONS
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the consultations (promised in the Budget speech) with the oil companies on preventing tax avoidance on the North Sea profits through offsetting book-keeping losses have been completed, and what the results are.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the consultations have not yet been completed. As my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget Statement, the issues involved are complex, and the reason for having full consultations with the industry is to ensure that next year's legislation takes full account of the practical problems involved. The Chancellor made it clear, however, that the Exchequer must not suffer as the result of any delay caused by the need to consult, and that the new legislation would therefore apply from the beginning of the current trading year.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer.

OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD): PAY DISPUTE
3.29 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Her Majesty's Government Private Notice—namely,
Whether they will make a Statement about the progress of negotiations on the Hansard Reporters' pay issue, and if they will give an assurance that the seasonal bonus, as previously paid, is being considered.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, discussions are continuing with the staff association concerned and I am anxious to ensure that every effort is made to
824
bring this matter to a conclusion. I am glad to be able to tell your Lordships that the reporters have informed the House authorities that they will be in normal attendance tomorrow. In the meantime, I believe that it will be more helpful to these discussion if I were to refrain at this stage from making any public statement about the points at issue.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. But, as has been expressed on a previous occasion, he will know the value which the House places upon the services of the whole Hansard team, and he will know, therefore, how great is our interest in the progress of these negotiations. Of course. I accept that the Floor of the House is not the appropriate place to conduct pay negotiations, but I would press the point towards the end of my Question; since a seasonal bonus was paid in 1971, as the noble Earl knows, in lieu of the settlement of a satisfactory pay structure, and a similar bonus was of course paid in an earlier year, can he give an assurance that if this matter goes before the Pay Board tomorrow, as I understand it may well do. Her Majesty's Government's view expressed to that Board will be that such a bonus is payable again for 1972?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the House authorities and staff association concerned are going to consult Pay Board officials tomorrow about the implications of the Pay Code on the matters which are the subject of discussion. I am sure that any solution, or any claim, falling within the requirements of counter inflation policy will be most carefully considered.
LORD BESWICK: I am much obliged to the noble Earl, and of course I accept what he says.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord must not keep on calling me the noble Earl.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I was assuming that the noble Lord's promotion carried with it certain advancements. I thank him for the answer he has given. But may I ask him again, when this matter goes before the Board will it be the Government's expressed view that this bonus does fall within the scope of the conditions of Phase 2?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it is difficult to go into this in detail, as the noble Lord himself rightly said in his first supplementary question. There is a great deal of case law, of case history about the interpretation of the Pay Code and I think it is only right to leave this matter to the Pay Board.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, could the Minister say whether the Hansard reporters are covered by the Whitley machinery? And, as the noble Lord responsible in this House for the Civil Service, would he not say that the time has now arrived when the Whitley machinery ought to be looked at with the object of introducing a new form of conciliation machinery on behalf of the Civil Service in this country?
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether it would not be better for this matter to be dropped entirely now, and not discussed publicly? It would be far better, I think, if he would declare that this matter should be dropped entirely, with no more questions asked or answered.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think that is right, and that the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, has caught the feeling of the House on this matter.

QUEEN MARY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SELECT COMMITTEES
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Lord Privy Seal (L. Windlesham) be appointed in the place of the Earl Jellicoe to the following Committees of the House: House of Lords Offices, Procedure, Privileges and the Committee of Selection.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STANDING ORDERS OF THE HOUSE
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The purpose of this Amendment is to implement the recommendation of the Procedure Committee to which the House agreed last Thursday.
Moved, That the Standing Orders relating to Public Business be amended as follows:—
Standing Order No. 29
Line 13, at end insert—
"(2) No Lord is to speak more than once to any Unstarred Question except, with the Leave of the House, for the purpose of explaining himself in some material point of his speech (no new matter being introduced)."—(Lord Windlesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RATE REBATE BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

WATER BILL
3.36 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 4 [Establishment and functions of National Water Council]:
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 6, line 43, at end insert ("and planning;").
The noble Lord said: Late on Monday night your Lordships debated at some length three Amendments dealing with the central planning of water: they were my Amendment, the Government's Amendment and the Amendment moved in the name of the noble Lord, Lord

827
Sinclair of Cleeve, with various other names attached, which attracted great support. All those Amendments were withdrawn. I got the impression that many noble Lords were disappointed and felt that the National Water Council ought to be involved in central planning. I believe that many of your Lordships detected contradictions in the Government's ideas about such central planning. Evidently the Government have resolved some of those contradictions, if contradictions they were, because I understand that they are going to accept my Amendment No. 26, which is the one before your Lordships now. Amendment 26 bears on the same problems, in that it is trying to give the National Water Council responsibility for promoting the planning functions of regional water authorities. It adds the words "and planning" to the duties which are put upon the National Water Council. It is short and sweet and is less radical than the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve. In fact it is the shortest way to ensure that the central planning should be transferred to the National Water Council; indeed, it would involve the National Water Council as deeply as possible in the planning of water resources.
I understand that the Government would have accepted this Amendment if it had been moved in another place. I was tabled but it was not called. That is something that I do not understand. Nevertheless, in accepting it, I understand the Government have certain misgivings with regard to the word "planning". When the noble Lord dealt with the question on Monday he said that he found it too imprecise. And yet noble Lords discussed the planning functions of various bodies at some length the same evening without any apparent confusion or imprecision. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, himself continually used the word and we had no difficulty in understanding him, though some of us at that time had some difficulty in agreeing with him. If, in acepting my Amendment now, the noble Lord can accept that word without restricting it in any way or rendering it meaningless, or weakening the effect of some other aspects of the Bill's provisions, I shall be happy. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I think that we are in some little difficulty about this matter. I have the greatest sympathy with the purpose of the Amendment. It does not go so far as the Amendment of Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, but it is in the same direction. My difficulty is that at our last sitting we accepted a Government Amendment which referred to the planning duties of water authorities under Clause 23. As we said at the time, that was, in effect, a restrictive Amendment.
LORD HENLEY: We did not accept it; we asked the Government to withdraw the Amendment on the grounds that it was too restrictive.
BARONESS WHITE: I beg your Lordships' pardon. The recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is correct and I am at fault here. It was because of the very danger that I was apprehending that we did not, in the event, accept it. If we do not accept Lord Henley's Amendment, then it seems to me that the Government would be in difficulties in carrying out the proposition, as I understood it, put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford: that the Government wish to have time to see how their own proposals work in practice and that if, in experience, they are not satisfied with the results and we have not put specific provisions into the Bill—as proposed, for example, in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve—the Government will be free to reorganise the system without statutory impediment. I wish to be satisfied that that is really so. If, in the clause as it stands unamended, one mentions specifically functions relating to research but not functions relating to planning, then surely the Government might be in some difficulty, even on their own premise, in carrying out the sort of reorganisation which some of us certainly wish to see and which the Government might, in the light of experience, also wish to see. It seems to me that this is what gives the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, its particular importance.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: May I say that while I am glad to know that the Government take a favourable view of planning being within the scope, or under the authority, of the National Water Council, I feel that there is still

829
great substance in the point that planning and research should go together. While I certainly could not oppose this Amendment in the sense that planning itself should go there, I hope that its acceptance will not be regarded by your Lordships as an admission that research should not ever be so included. I indicated at the end of the debate on Monday evening that we proposed to return at the Report stage to this subject of planning and research being vested in, or under the authority of, the National Water Council.
LORD HENLEY: May I just reassure the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, by saying that it does not seem to me that I am weakening Clause 23 in any way by adding the words "and planning" to Clause 4(5)(b).
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to confirm that this Amendment is acceptable and will not cause any difficulties to the Government. The point I would make is that we are here discussing two rather separate things arising from Lord Henley's Amendment. There is the business of the planning function of the regional water authorities, and the role which the National Water Council have in promoting the planning functions of the regional water authorities. I am quite prepared to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, which would have the effect of adding "planning" after the ward "research", but that is in the context of what I was saying at the earlier stage of the Committee when I mentioned that it would be necessary, or at any rate desirable, to spell out what those functions were and make them more specific. I do not think that that will weaken what the noble Lord is saying. I do not think that it will restrict it, but it will just direct attention to Clause 23, where the kind of planning which is required of the regional water authorities is spelt out in more detail.
Subject to the retabling of my Amendment, which was No. 24, at the next stage, the noble Lord's Amendment is acceptable for the time being. I do not think that the Government are in any great difficulty whether the noble Lord's Amendment is accepted, my Amendment is accepted, or neither Amendment is accepted. It is plain for all to see that the regional water authorities will have
830
to undertake planning, and it is clear already, on the face of the Bill, that the kind of planning that they have to do is set out in Clause 23. Therefore we are all right either way; but a debate on the kind of planning they have to do, and the way in which the National Water Council has to do it, has been valuable and useful.
Running parallel with this discussion has been the further discussion which was made possible by my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve when he tabled his Amendment concerned with planning at the national level, and which is dealing with much longer-term events than the planning by the regional water authorities. Anxieties were expressed by several noble Lords about the pattern of the national water bodies that are going to be set up in future and which will inherit the work of various bodies such as the Water Pollution Research Laboratory and the Water Resources Board with which we have been familiar in the past. During that debate I gave the undertaking that, in the light of anxieties and comments and queries raised from all sides of the Committee, I would seek to prepare a further Paper, not only setting out what the Government intend to do but giving more weight to the reasons behind those decisions, which perhaps have not been sufficiently clear hitherto. In the light of that debate my suggestion was that we should have a further debate, if necessary, on the Government's proposals for the Water Research Centre, the Central Water Planning Unit, and the other central bodies. I believe that it was the opinion of the Committee, when we adjourned on the last occasion, that this course would now be the most convenient way in which to proceed. To sum up, that is what I propose to do, and in the meanwhile advise the Committee to accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.48 p.m.
LORD DE RAMSEY LORD DE RAMSEY had given Notice of intention to move Amendment No. 28:
Page 7, line 39, at end insert:
("( ) The Council shall establish a national water planning unit for such purposes related to the national use of water as the council may, with the consent of Ministers, specify from time to time, and the council shall make

831
such arrangements in connection with the establishment of this unit as will procure that:—

(a) the work of the unit is guided generally by a steering committee which shall include, together with persons associated with the council and the water authorities, persons appointed by the council after consulting Ministers and persons so appointed after consultation with associations of local authorities and the Greater London Council, and with such bodies as appear to the council to represent the interests of agriculture, industry other than agriculture, and trade unions, or to be concerned in research closely related to the use of water;

(b) provision is also made for the unit to undertake any specific work which Ministers may require from time to time, whether at the council's expense or on a repayment basis;

(c) a report on the work of the unit is published annually, and other reports arising from the work of the unit are published as the steering committee so decides;

(d) employment (which may be permanent or by secondment) in connection with the work of the unit is offered by the council in accordance with arrangements specified by the Secretary of State after consultation with the Minister for the Civil Service to such of the persons engaged at the time of the passing of this Act in the work of the Water Resources Board as may be so specified.")

The noble Lord said: I am still not clear, and far from happy, about the relationships between the various central bodies, the National Water Council, the Central Water Planning Unit, the Steering Committee, the Water Research Council, and the Department of the Environment. I was proposing to deploy arguments on assumptions that may not be valid. I now understand that the Government propose to circulate Papers that may remove some of those fears, or may not. However, I must reserve my position at a later stage, and I do not move the Amendment standing in my name.
On Question, whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS WHITE: May I ask the noble Lord whether he will ensure that we have the Paper, which we shall deeply appreciate, in good time, so that we have some opportunity of consulting before we reach the Report stage?
LORD SANDFORD: Certainly. In fact, I can say that I have one in draft already.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Arrangements for discharge of functions of water authorities]:
3.50 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 8, line 44, after ("authority") insert ("and this general provision shall permit the appointment of an executive committee consisting of the chairman or the deputy chairman of the authority, and such other members of the authority as the authority may appoint including the Chairman or Deputy Chairman of the Land Drainage Committee; any such executive committee shall be charged with such duties as the authority may define, including the consideration in detail of recommendations from sub-committees and the formulation of proposals arising therefrom for the consideration of the authority; and any such executive committee shall be served by the principal officer of the authority.")
The noble Lord said: I hope that this is a comparatively simple Amendment. It is permissive and not mandatory. So far as I can see, it raises questions of procedure and administration rather than major questions of principle. Nevertheless, it is not unimportant and the reasons for putting it down are simply these. In the early days particularly, these new water authorities will have a great many problems which involve quite important questions of policy or administration. The Bill, as it stands, certainly gives these authorities permission to appoint committees or sub-committees as may be required. But the whole tenor of the paragraphs dealing with that aspect suggest that those committees ought to deal with particular subjects or problems. In the result, if there are many such committees, they will report direct to the full authority, and it does not require much imagination to appreciate that in a very short time the machinery will become hopelessly clogged unless some device such as an executive committee is adopted.
It may be said that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an executive committee being appointed, and I think that is true. On the other hand, in practice, if there is no recognition of the possible existence of an executive committee, it is conceivable, if not indeed highly probable, that many of the committees or sub-committees reporting from time to time to the authority will require that their report should go direct to the full authority, which, I am afraid, would

833
simply not be practicable, because of the number of such committees and the number of recommendations from them which would arise. Those are the reasons why I am suggesting that a permissive power to appoint an executive committee should be incorporated in the Bill. I beg to move.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): As this is the first time that I have taken part in this Committee stage, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady White, for her very kind remarks. As we always listen with such respect to what she says, the compliment is the greater; and many other noble Lords have also made such kind remarks. Any inadequacies on my part will be entirely due to myself and not to the Water Bill or to the very considerable amount of excellent advice that I have been given.
When considering my reply to my noble friend Lord Sinclair, whose experience in these matters is so great, I re-read what he said on second Reading when he made a similar point. I entirely take his point that it could well appear that, with the number of committees under a regional water authority, there could be a lack of central direction and co-ordination. I hope, however, that I can reassure him on this point—and I say that for two reasons. First, as he himself has said, under Clause 6 it is within the powers of a regional water authority to establish such a committee, and I think, without in any way anticipating how such authorities will act, that they will attract the kind of people who will see the necessity for this kind of committee. However, the Government accept that it is desirable to provide guidance about the management structure, and last year they set up a committee, under the chairmanship of Sir George Ogden, the Town Clerk of Manchester, to prepare such guidance. The Secretary of State has now received the report of this committee and it will be published shortly. I cannot anticipate the full report, but it can be said that the committee are very well aware of the kind of problems to which my noble friend Lord Sinclair
834
has drawn attention. Their recommendations include the establishment of a Policy and Resources Committee as the central committee of the authority, under the chairmanship of the chairman of the authority. The Secretary of State will be commending these recommendations of the Ogden Committee to the water authorities as soon as they are set up. I hope that with those two reassurances my noble friend Lord Sinclair will feel that he has made his point and is able to withdraw his amendment.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. If it is understood—as I imagine it will be understood—that for practical purposes the Policy and Resources Committee would function as an executive committee, and if that is explained by the Secretary of State to the National Water Council which will give guidance to the water authorities on such matters, I imagine with the approval of the Secretary of State, then I shall be very happy indeed to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS YOUNG: Certainly. My understanding is that such a Policy and Resources Committee would, in fact, be an executive committee in the sense described by my noble friend Lord Sinclair.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.57 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 9, line 1, at end insert:
("(c) by any local authority;").
The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 46. The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, has drawn attention to the fact that Clause 6 deals with arrangements for the discharge of functions of water authorities. Subsection (1) enables a water authority to
" … arrange for the discharge of any of their functions

(a) by a committee, a sub-committee or an officer of the authority; or

(b) by any other water authority".

It seems to me rather odd that the Bill does not also provide for regional water authorities to enter into arrangements with local authorities in their areas where

835
it may be advantageous to do so; that is, with district councils, county councils, London boroughs and the Greater London Council.
In the case of sewerage functions which are dealt with in Clause 15, local authorities are required to carry out certain functions for a water authority, and they have no discretion at all in the matter. Subsection (5) of Clause 15 reads:
"If within a period of two months beginning with the date on which any such draft was sent by a water authority to a relevant authority, the two authorities have not entered into the arrangements, the water authority shall, within seven days of the end of that period, notify the Secretary of State of that fact and the Secretary of State shall settle the terms of the arrangements which shall be binding on both authorities."
As I see it, there could be distinct advantage in securing the possibility of co-operation in regard to water, except that the arrangement should be by agreement and not obligatory. In this respect, the really odd thing about the Bill is that Clause 10 permits of just such arrangements in regard to the supply of goods and some services.
Clause 11 again places a local authority in a position in which it may be required to enter into an agreement under Section 1(1) of the 1970 Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act with the water authority for a period of five years to provide support services. But as I understand the position, it is the provision of support services only, and there are very strong reasons why there should be provision to enable water authority functions themselves to be carried out by local authorities on agreed terms if both parties are so minded and as long as it suits them both. In support, I would draw attention to the position of local authorities as open space authorities—a capacity in which, because of their detailed knowledge of their own areas and of the people who live in them, and indeed of the people who visit them, they are surely placed in a better position than the large and often far-removed regional water authority, who exercise water, recreation and amenity functions. If we take the monitoring of the water in the Thames tidal estuary. the Greater London Council possesses well-equipped laboratories and has long done the job. Incidentally. I rather think they will
836
continue to do this monitoring, come what may. But is it not sensible to anticipate that the G.L.C. would extend the service to cover whatever needs the water authority may have for scientific monitoring of the river? Clearly it is rather wasteful if two bodies are undertaking the same function.
There are other functions which could be undertaken on an agency basis, all with economy and in most cases with. I venture to suggest, greater efficiency and satisfaction. I think perhaps the one or two instances I have given will in themselves be self-evident as to the point I am making. The Amendment does not seek to introduce compulsory delegation, or anything like that, but only permissive powers; and I trust that the Amendment will be acceptable. May I say that it is submitted as a constructive and helpful Amendment, and at the moment I find it very difficult to anticipate that any valid objection can possibly be made to it. Since this is the first time I myself face the noble Baroness opposite on this Bill, may I say that I very much hope that she will be able to accede to my plea and say that the Government are prepared to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
BARONESSS YOUNG: I should like to begin by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that I accept the spirit in which he has moved this Amendment. When I in fact came to consider my reply to it, it seemed to me that it was essential to go back to the basic principle of the Bill, which is the proposal to establish ten regional water authorities which are to be multi-purpose and will have control over all the functions set out in Part II of the Bill. I have listened to many speeches, both at Second Reading and on the first day of Committee, which set out in detail these functions of water supply, sewerage, sewage disposal, water conservation, land drainage, fisheries and pollution. The point was made over and over again of the necessity, in view of the great difficulties facing us over our whole water situation, of having a decision and establishing powerful multipurpose authorities which could deal with them. So that when one looks at the Amendment before us—which for many of your Lordships has, I am sure, a great many temptations—I think one must recognise that what is being asked for is

837
a two-tier system under the regional water authorities. This, of course, becomes particularly attractive on the two parts which have been traditionally local authority services, the first being public water supply and the second being sewage disposal.
If I may turn to the question of public water supply first—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, mentioned this in some connection, as well as some of his other services—it will be known that since 1945 there has been a gradual change in the provision of public water supply from direct local government control to water boards, and there is very considerable evidence that, even had this Bill not been put forward in the particular form that it is in, there would have had to be even larger boards than exist already to meet the kind of situation that we face to-day. There has been severe criticism from the Central Advisory Water Committee on various aspects of this, but probably the most compelling reason for this Bill was the need to establish an adequate system of sewage disposal. As the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said, so far as the sewerage system itself is concerned, this is in fact delegated under Clause 15 to district and London borough councils, who will be able to continue to maintain and operate their own local sewerage systems. But over the whole range of other matters the Government still feel that it is essential to establish this service under the regional water authorities.
Again, there have been very severe criticisms of the present situation, in which there are 5,000 separate sewage treatment works operated by some 1,300 local authorities; and even though I know that this number of authorities will be considerably reduced from April, 1974, the fact remains that there will still be some 400 of them. We have moved into a world in which the whole of the treatment, maintenance and operation of sewage works has become a highly skilled and exceedingly expensive operation. When one comes to consider this, and whether or not it could be conducted by local authorities on an agency basis, or something like that, I think we have to face the difficult fact that it is an expensive operation and that what one authority would have to pay for would frequently not be of benefit only to its
838
own electors but to those of another authority; and I myself have been in local government long enough to know what a very difficult procedure this is to carry out and to persuade people to adopt.
The noble Lord mentioned other possible functions which might come under this, but I think they are all open to the same kind of objection; that we should be establishing a two-tier system. In saying this I should like to make it quite clear that I am not in any sense criticising local authorities or local government for what they have done. This discussion gives us an opportunity to pay tribute to the staff of the authorities responsible for all these services and, of course, to the many people who have served in a voluntary capacity on their committees. But it is simply a fact of the complications of our industrial society that we must devise new organisations to meet present trends.
Perhaps I may conclude where I started. I have explained as clearly as I can the reasons that have led the Government to the conclusion they have reached; that is, the establishment of the regional water authorities. I believe that local authorities have been given a say in their work by now having a majority of the members of the regional water authorities. It will be very well known to all Members of your Lordships' Committee in public life that we can never please everybody, and I am given to understand that there were many other organisations which would have liked a much greater representation on the regional water authorities than they have, and which would have wished that the proportions were different. But we have in fact gone ahead and given local authorities the majority of the representatives there, and I hope they will regard this as a recognition of their work and of their knowledge in this field. For the reasons I have set out, I think it would be a mistake to go against the principle and introduce a two-tier scheme, because one has to see this whole organisation against the very serious national need in the provision and supply of water.
4.10 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: May I thank the noble Baroness for the charming way in which she has refused to accept this Amendment; such a task

839
could not have been more charmingly undertaken. Having regard to her local government experience, however, I cannot help feeling that it could not have been a very agreeable task for the noble Baroness. I do not propose to take up all the points she made, but may I say that if anybody imagines that local government will be forever satisfied that they have been given a majority of members of regional water authorities with an appointed chairman I am certain that the years will bring evidence that such optimism is quite unfounded.
I really cannot understand why the Government—or is it the Department of the Environment?—are so inflexible on such a simple matter as this. There is here no request for power. There is no request for compulsory delegation. This Amendment seeks only to ensure that there may be an arrangement for the discharge of any of the functions, as between a regional water authority and a local authority, if it suits them both. To talk of that as setting up a two-tier system of administration does not make sense to me. The regional water authority will be under no compulsion at all. When I was moving the Amendment I refrained from giving many examples, but let me give one other to indicate how the Greater London Council could be of the greatest possible assistance. A very considerable amount of timber and other flotsam disfigures the River Thames and creates a considerable problem for small craft using the river. The Greater London Council would like to see this nuisance removed, bust has no power to take action. If the water authority could agree arangements by which the Greater London Council could take over the function of clearing the river of floating debris the job would be done much more quickly and probably more cheaply; and the regional water authority would be relieved of a responsibility which surely it cannot wish to have. May I ask whether the noble Baroness will have another look at this point and ask her right honourable friend also to do so. If she does not, I think that I may well have to come back to it on Report stage. If the Department is prepared to examine the matter, may I suggest, since the Greater London Council is probably the largest authority that would be con-
840
cerned, that the Department has further discussions with the G.L.C., as a result of which it might be able to come up with an Amendment that meets the point. I ask whether the noble Baroness is prepared to give that undertaking.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: Before my noble friend Lady Young is persuaded by the persuasive terms of Lord Garnsworthy's intervention to give such an undertaking, I should like to say a word in support of the line she has taken. It would be a mistake to give local authorities a status such as to lead one to expect that there could be schemes of delegation. The next Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, which I imagine goes with the one that he has just moved, would give local authorities a distinct status which would oblige the R.W.A.s to make such delegation schemes to them unless the contrary is determined by the Secretary of State. That would run completely contrary to the whole concept of the Bill, which is to form multipurpose regional water authorities over a big enough area to be completely comprehensive.
The sewerage function is just as important in this context as the water supply function. At present, the sewerage function is carried out by individual local authorities. As my noble friend rightly said, expenditure by one local authority does not usually benefit that local authority. It improves the condition of the effluent which that local authority is putting into the river but the beneficiaries are the authorities lower down the river. We are all familiar with the continuous conflicts, involving especially the biggest authorities, about the very large sums, running into millions of pounds, which are required to be spent to improve their effluent. That is one of the main reasons why there has not been faster progress in cleaning up the effluent from many big towns in this country, especially in the Midlands and the North. Therefore it is absolutely basic to the kind of progress that we want towards making our rivers cleaner, for amenity and for water re-use purposes, that the sewerage authority of the future, the regional authority, should extend over a big enough area; so that when the new sewage works are constructed at very great cost—and they will have to be in large numbers all over the country—the

841
cost should be borne by the whole region and not by just one local authority. Therefore it would be a complete mistake, and completely in conflict with the whole philosophy of this Bill, if we gave local authorities any status whatsoever to expect that there could be schemes of delegation of this kind. I hope that my noble friend will say firmly, and I am sure very charmingly, that this is simply not on.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, talked about my persuasive powers. May I say that I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will not be persuaded by the Chairman of the Thames Conservancy. This matter deserves very close examination. There is no thought of taking over major functions, or any functions. The sole object of my Amendment is to allow local authorities, if it is agreeable to the regional water authority and to themselves, to undertake such functions as may be suitable to both of them. I do not think that there is the slightest possibility of dangers arising such as have been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and I hope that the noble Baroness will look at this matter again, despite what the noble Lord has said.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: Before the noble Baroness, Lady Young, replies, may I put in one word? I think the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is in such terms that it is fairly easy for the Government to reject it on the general ground that if you put an Amendment like this into the Bill it could be used to make the local authority members of regional water authorities who, we are delighted to hear, are going to be in a slight majority on the regional water authorities) regard themselves as a local authority group, a majority group and, as it were, ganging up in the interests of local government to get certain decisions taken by the regional water authorities. Those of us who have the respect that I have for local government believe that that is not what is going to happen and not what ought to happen.
It could be argued that if the regional water authorities have a general power to give a local authority responsibility for any part of their work, it would encourage
842
at any rate some members of the less enlightened regional water authorities to seek to re-establish the rights of local government in a field which many of us wish that local government was not being deprived of but which it is going to be deprived of under this Bill. In spite of the noble Baroness perhaps not being able to do more than repeat what she has already said in regard to the second plea of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, I would ask her whether she could not take this matter back for consultation with her right honourable friend to see whether something could be done in these general terms to meet, among others, the totally reasonable point about allowing the Greater London Council to do the obviously sensible job of collecting flotsam and jetsam off the surface of the Thames. Would it not be possible to enable the regional water authority to use a local authority as its agent for certain purposes, without giving the general freedom for which the present Amendment asks and which, I am afraid, I can see the Government declining to give for these general reasons.
BARONESS YOUNG: I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Nugent for his helpful remarks, because he has made clear this fundamental principle about the two-tier system. However, I see that what the noble Lords, Lord Garnsworthy and Lord Redcliffe-Maud, were talking about was not so much a two-tier system as greater operational flexibility. I understand that it is not necessary to write this into the Bill in this particular way, because subsections (10) and (11) of this clause already make sufficient provision for a water authority and a local authority to enter into arrangements for the latter to carry out specified operations or provide services for the former without the water authority delegating their functions or lessening their accountability. I have also been assured on the particular point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, about the G.L.C. wanting powers to deal with the flotsam in the River Thames. This would come under the new Government clause on recreation and amenity on the River Thames, which would enable the G.L.C. to deal with this particular problem. I hope that with that assurance the noble

843
Lord will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she said, and particularly for her last remarks. I very much appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, had to say. I must say that I was on tenterhooks until he came to the last few words. I thought he was doing his best to build up a strong case against the purpose of my Amendment; but in the end he was extremely helpful because he underlined the point I was trying to make. Local government is not being treated as an equal party in this matter. The noble Baroness referred to subsection (11). The first words of that subsection read:
" A water authority may require an existing local authority who between the passing of this Act …".
I repeat, "a regional water authority may require …". All that I am seeking to provide is that where a local authority is thought to be able to undertake a function better than anybody else, it should be possible to reach an agreement, and if the water authority thought they could better undertake the function they could open negotiations. I take the point that local government members in majority may gang together; but from my experience of local government I cannot see them—they representing a variety of councils—achieving that degree of unanimity. I doubt whether anybody with experience of local government can do so. I still hope that the matter may be looked at again, but in the light of what was said I withdraw the Amendment, while reserving the possibility of coming back again with another form of words unless the Government themselves on reflection feel that there is a point where they can be helpful. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.28 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 30A:
Page 11, line 3, after subsection (11) insert:
("(11A) an existing local authority1 may require a water authority to whom functions or property of an existing local authority, a joint sewerage board, a main drainage authority, a joint board for sewage disposal or
844
statutory water undertakers are transferred by this Act to enter into an arrangement under section 1(1) of the said Act of 1970 with the first mentioned local authority or, where that authority is abolished by the 1972 Act, the local authority or one of the local authorities who replace the abolished authority, for a period of 5 years from 1st April 1974 to provide any services which between the passing of this Act and that date are being provided for the first mentioned authority by the section of the authority, board, committee or undertakers concerned with the functions or property transferred by this Act to the water authority, and it shall be the duty of the water authority who have been so required to enter into such an agreement, unless it is determined by the Secretary of State that the requirement is unreasonable having regard to the provision of those services immediately before that date and the operation of any enactment which comes into force on that date.")
The noble Lord said: It seems to me that the principal object of this Bill is to transfer responsibility for water and sewerage services from local authorities and joint boards to the new regional water authorities. Its main preoccupation is to provide for the continuing operation of those functions after April 1, 1974. In their anxiety to bring the transfer of responsibility into operation simultaneously with local government reorganisation the Government have not left sufficient time for the new regional water authorities to be established and fully staffed by the time they will be required to assume their statutory responsibilities. Recognising this, they have made provision in the Bill to enable the new authorities to call upon local government to continue to provide services corresponding with those which have been provided within the local authorities prior to April 1, 1974.
What the Government have overlooked is that the water departments and the sewage disposal departments of many local authorities provide certain services for other departments of the local authority or, in the case of joint boards, for one or more constituent authorities. For example, the chemists' department of the water or sewage disposal undertaking may carry out tests and analyses on behalf of the engineering, public health or supply departments.
It is true that the Bill makes provision in Clause 6(10) for the regional water authorities to undertake this kind of service for a local authority if it so chooses. The Bill does not, however, enable a

845
local authority to require the water authority to continue to provide this sort of service in the same way that the water authority can require a local authority to do so. It seems to me to be only right and proper that there should be mutual obligations in this respect, and the object of the proposed new subsection is to put the water authorities in a corresponding position to the local authorities under subsection (11) of the clause, with corresponding rights of appeal to the Secretary of State should the regional water authority regard the requirement of the local authority as unreasonable. This is a case of reciprocity, and a reasonable case of reciprocity. I admit that it is rather a lengthy Amendment to achieve a simple purpose, but it is surely a reasonable one. I hope that the noble Baroness will find it possible to accept it, because it will make for smooth working in a comparatively limited field. It is of course a limited Amendment, but one which to some extent might ease things for the future. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: This Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion has said, is directed at the short-term trantitional problems that will confront local authorities in this coming year and thereafter. It is one for which We have some sympathy, although it might be thought that the problems which might be caused to local authorities would not quite be comparable to those which might be caused to water authorities, because local authorities rely on a great many common services, which water authorities do not. Nevertheless, the Government are anxious to do what they can to minimise any of these problems, and I am advised that if the noble Lord, Lord Champion, is prepared to withdraw this Amendment, because the drafting is not quite right, the Government will look at the matter again and discuss putting down an Amendment on similar lines at the Report stage.
LORD CHAMPION: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I must say that in dealing with Clause 6, her first clause on this Bill, she is making a wonderful start.I am happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Rationalisation of holdings of property, and of functions]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 11, line 14, leave out from ("desirability") to end of line 27 and insert ("in the interests of rationalisation, of doing either or both of the following, that is to say:

(a) altering the boundaries of their area for the purposes of any functions of theirs;

(b) transferring property of theirs to some other water authority.

(2) In discharging their duty to consider the desirability of altering the boundaries of their area for the purposes of any functions, a water authority shall first consider those boundaries which are different for the purposes of different functions, and in discharging their duty to consider the desirability of transferring any property, they shall first consider any property of theirs held for the purposes of any functions which is situated outside their area as constituted for the purposes of those functions.
(3) If a water authority decide that it is desirable to do either or both of the things mentioned in subsection (1) above, they shall make a recommendation to the appropriate Minister or Ministers accordingly, and the appropriate Minister or Ministers may:

(a) if the water authority recommend the alteration of the boundaries of their area, make an order under section 2 above altering those boundaries in accordance with the recommendation; and

(b) if the water authority recommend the transfer of any property of theirs, make an order transferring that property and any rights or liabilities of theirs in connection therewith to a water authority specified in the recommendation.

(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (3)(b) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
The noble Baroness said: This is a long Amendment which redrafts a whole section of Clause 7. It is necessary in a Bill of this kind to have some provision for rationalisation, because the present boundaries of the different types of authority responsible for water services do not coincide, and the boundaries of the water authority will differ initially for differing purposes. The Amendment is designed to make clearer the purpose of the clause, and it also limits the Order-making power contained in the clause for the transfer of property. Other Orders likely to arise in the interests of rationalisation—that is to say, Orders for the alteration of

847
boundaries—would be made under the provisions of Clause 2 of the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: Amendment No. 32 is a drafting Amendment. The term "river purification authority" occurs only in subsection (4) of this clause. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 39, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (4) above")—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Transfer to water authorities of functions of river authorities]:
4.35 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 33A:
Page 12, line 12, after ("shall") insert (",except where it is a reference to a specified river authority or is to be construed as such,")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 33A, and it might be convenient to take at the same time Amendments Nos. 33B and 36A. These three Amendments are drafting Amendments and they have a common purpose. They are intended to make it clear that the references to a river authority or to a river authority area whose meaning is modified by Clause 8, and the references to statutory water undertakers whose meaning is modified by Clause 10 are generic references and not references to an individual river authority or river authority area or to an individual statutory water undertaker, as the case may be. Provision will be necessary for modifying references to individual river authorities or river authority areas. In the case of such references which occur in local statutory provisions the necessary provision is contained in Part II of Schedule 5 to the Bill. In the case of references in other documents, the necessary provision would be included in Orders made under Section 254 of the Local Government Act, 1972, as applied by Clause 31 of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 33B.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 16, after ("shall") insert (",except where it is a reference to a specified area or is to be construed as such,")—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Water Conservation]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 12, line 25, at end insert:
("(2) The reference in this section to action for the purpose of augmenting water resources includes a reference to action for the purpose of treating salt water (whether taken from the sea or elsewhere) by any process for removing salt or other impurities.) "
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 34. I hope that this is a straightforward Amendment. It provides for water authorities to include treatment of salt water in action they may take for the purpose of augmenting water resources.
BARONESS WHITE: This is such an innocent looking Amendment that I am not surprised the noble Baroness said so little about it. However, I do not think we should let it pass without at least a comment on it, because the Amendment refers to one of the most important possibilities for the future, and one can suppose that it was left out of the Bill originally only by inadvertence, or maybe this is just a clarification. I think it is true to say that our earlier hopes that desalination would solve our water problems and prevent our having any more controversial reservoirs in Wales have been somewhat dashed by the failure of our brilliant scientists to find a commercially viable way of carrying out the process. They are able to do it technologically, but nobody has yet been able to find a method of doing it which is sufficiently cheap, so far as this country is concerned, at any rate, to be able to compete with water obtainable from other sources. I am of course delighted, if it is necessary to have the specific reference, that it should be included in tine Bill. I only wish that we could have further information from the Goverwment that they are more optimistic than I would suppose them to be. It we could

849
find a method of treating salt water economically it would take a great deal of the controversy out of the whole water situation. I say this with emotion, as a Welsh woman, because I know how fly fellow countrymen have been almost praying that we should find a method of dealing with salt water, which would save our beautiful countryside.
I must confess that when I first learned of these processes, and how they were used in Israel and other places, I was full of hope. Further investigation has dampened my ardour, however, because not only is the method very expensive but, on the present state of knowledge, one has to erect buildings on the foreshore which themselves might ruin the landscape—it would be a different landscape, of course, but it would be equally vulnerable. Therefore, although we are glad to have this Amendment included in the Bill, it must, I fear, be greeted with modified rapture.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: May I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whether the language of the clause, and also of the Amendment, implies that a single authority will be able to do these things without reference to other authorities? As has been said, there is this question of desalination and it is not just a question of sea water but of any water that is brackish or may have been contaminated. There are methods which do not necessarily apply to sea water and which might prove to be economic. So I should like to know whether one single authority will be able to do these things without reference to any other authority, to the National Water Council or to the Secretary of State.
BARONESS YOUNG: I should like to begin by reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady White, that to the best of my knowledge there is nothing sinister about this Amendment. The first simple point is that Section 135(4) of the Water Resources Act 1963 enables water authorities to take similar action for the purpose of eventually discharging the water into a source of supply in their area. This Amendment, through the re-enactment of Section 4 of the 1963 Act as Clause 9 of the present Bill, preserves the effect of this earlier provision which would otherwise have been lost. My understanding of this Amendment is that in
850
fact it is simply putting into this Bill what has been contained in previous legislation.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: I wonder whether the noble Baroness would forgive my asking a further question. In her very illuminating reply, if I understood it correctly, she said that it is a matter of transferring water from one course into another course within the existing region. We are now talking of removing water from one major water area into another water area—which could be quite a different thing.
BARONESS YOUNG: Yes, I take the noble Lord's point. My understanding is that under the Water Resources Act a river authority would be able to take action for discharging water into a source of supply in their own area. My understanding of this Amendment is that it would make it possible for a decision to be taken at executive level and that a regional water authority would be able to act on its own. I would add, since this is a somewhat technical matter and I am very conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, will be much more familiar with it than I am, that if I have not given an adequate reply I will write to him on this matter and give him further information.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness.
BARONESS WHITE: With great respect to the noble Baroness, while I am sure we shall be delighted to know that she and the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, will be in correspondence with each other, may I say that there are other Members of your Lordships' House who would also like to know the answer to this question. We are dealing with matters which, if they are carried out at all, must be performed on a considerable scale and at very considerable cost. In fact, looking more closely at this whole clause it is not only desalination which worries one (and I must admit I have been in default here by not having checked the reference to the Water Resources Act 1963 as to the precise arrangements for direction), but it seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, has put his finger on a very important point. These are matters

851
which should not be left to the discretion of a single regional water authority. This brings us back to the question we discussed at an earlier stage: the responsibility for the coordination of these matters. I will not press this point further this afternoon because, as I say, I have not looked up the earlier reference in the 1963 Act to see precisely who has the duty of making directions under that earlier Act. However, I should like to put to the noble Baroness that although not only the Amendment but the clause itself looks innocent, if one looks into it a little further one finds that doubts are raised, and they are reinforced by the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman.
BARONESS YOUNG: May I say to the noble Baroness, that whatever letter I write to the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, I will certainly write to her too, so that everyone may be fully informed, because I accept that this is a very important matter. I understand that the effect of the clause is that whatever actions a water authority may take. whether augmenting resources in its own area or transferring them to another area, may include desalination. When I rose to reply for the second time, the noble Baroness, Lady White, had raised a much larger point about desalination generally. My information on this matter comes from the Report of the Water Resources Board entitled Desalination 1972. In fact it seems to indicate that the cost of water from desalination has increased considerably more than that of water from conventional sources. It says this:
".. We cannot foresee in that period "—
that is to the end of the century—
"… any substantial contribution by desalination to water resources in England and Wales. There may, however, be small local applications where the additional cost may be judged worth while."
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 [Water supply]:
4.48 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 35:
852
Page 13, line 14 at end insert ("heretofore").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 35. Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 and the Amendment to leave out Clause 11 all deal with the same point. These Amendments seek to remove from the Bill those parts of it that would continue within the structure to set up the statutory water companies. I am very much a local government man and feel bound to say that while, in the context of the Bill, I accept the desirability of the local authority water undertaking being merged under the general framework of the water authorities, I can see no possible justification for the retention within that framework of the statutory water companies. The present position is that we have two bodies carrying out the same function: one called a statutory water company and the other a local authority water undertaking. In the interests of water management as a whole, the Government have decided that one is to go and the other is to remain in being. I think we are bound to ask why.
The local authority undertaking exercise their functions within a democratic set up. Some of these authorities are owned and operated by county boroughs, some by joint boards and some by other local government bodies. An outstanding example of this is the Metropolitan Water Board—surely an excellent example of a municipal co-operative. This Board is to go, and the statutory water companies are to find a place in the new structure. It must be noted that those companies are privately owned and managed in the interests of the shareholders of the company. I recognise that they have to be managed within the limits imposed on them by legislation; but the control of them, under Clause 11 of this Bill, will bear no comparison with the control that will be directly exercised by the regional water authorities on their own undertakings which the Bill takes away from the local authorities.
During the past year the Government have talked a good deal about strengthening local government, of hiving off powers from the centre to the local authorities. but I am bound to say that not much has been done to make a reality of that type of talk. The Housing Finance Act is still very much in our minds in this connection. That was something of a slap in the face for the local

853
authorities and their elected members. Now, by this Bill we are going to give them another slap, for good measure. We take away their water undertakings but leave somewhat comparable bodies that are privately owned in their existing owners' hands. If it is essential for the distribution of water for the management of the water cycle to be the task of the regional water authorities, surely that applies right across the board. There are some arguments, I admit, in favour of the private water companies, but those arguments stem rather from the fact that they are local in character rather than anything else. The arguments, as I understand them, are largely a matter of size and proximity to the people served by the companies. But the same arguments surely apply to the local authority water undertakings. They must apply equally, because both are local in character. The local touch will be lost when the management of water distribution by local authorities is taken twenty or perhaps many more miles away, as the case may be. I can see no possible justification for the existence of water companies which is not present in the existence of local authority undertakings.
I can, however, see the case, which is really the basis of the Bill, for the management of water from the source to the consumer being one operation. I can see the case for the employment of highly efficient and perhaps expensive technological equipment, with highly efficient and perhaps expensive brains to control it and plan its use. That means big undertakings, and for that reason I do not oppose the merging of the local authority water undertakings under the regional water authorities. I believe, with the Government, that this will provide an advantage. Indeed, if I remember something that was said in Committee in the other place, it is reckoned that eventually huge economies will occur as a result of the merging of bodies and control passing on to the centre of the regional water authorities. But if that is the case, it must apply equally to the statutory water companies. As I understand it, these statutory water companies account for 22 per cent. of the public supplies of water. That is an indication of the size of the gap which leaving them out will make in the overall management of water supplies by the regional water authorities.
To leave water companies still in existence seems to me to make a nonsense of much of what the Government are trying to do by this Bill. I doubt whether the noble Baroness will be able to give me as satisfactory an answer on this Amendment as she did on the last one; but I fear that if her answer is not pretty good we shall have to take her through the Division Lobbies to show our disapproval of what the Government are doing in this connection. Of course, before making a final decision on this matter I shall listen carefully to what the noble Baroness has to say.
4.55 p.m.
LORD SINCLAIR OF CLEEVE: I have great respect for the fairness of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and I was not quite sure what line he was going to take in moving this group of Amendments. I had a suspicion that there was an element of a suggestion that this might be a good opportunity for deploying the arguments for a takeover of the statutory water undertakings. I do not think he has gone literally to that point; but the main theme, if I have understood him correctly, is a complaint about the disparity of treatment between the local authority water undertaking's position under the Bill and that of the statutory companies' position. I am not going to weary the Committee by attempting to enter into an academic argument on the principles of nationalising or taking over all the means of production of goods or services essential to the life of the community. I think our primary concern in this Bill is the efficiency of the water industry under the proposals of the Bill. On that basis I should like to crave your Lordships' indulgence for a few minutes to attempt to put the position of the water companies in perspective.
Statutory companies were the pioneers of the industry as it is to-day and ensured that 99 per cent. of the people in England and Wales now have a piped water supply as compared with 60 per cent. in the United States and 40 per cent. in France. In terms of availability of potable water to the population it can be claimed fairly that in this country we have the best water supply in the world. The history of water supply as we know it to-day began in the early years of the 19th century when the twin developments of the mass production of cast iron pipes

855
and the use of steam for pumping made practicable the provision of piped water supplies to service large areas; and companies were formed by local residents in the initial stages to provide this service.
The Public Health Act of 1875 gave local authorities a general power to act as water undertakers. By the end of the nineteenth century every large town had its own piped water supply, in some cases run by companies and in others by local authorities. In the early part of the twentieth century piped supplies were gradually—somewhat slowly at first, but more rapidly later—extended by local auhorities and companies to the surrounding countryside in their respective areas. By 1945 there were over 1,000 separate statutory water undertakings. However, following the Coalition Government White Paper entitled A National Water Policy, substantial regrouping and refinement of the industry was planned under the Water Act of 1945, and to-day the total number of undertakings is 160, of which 44 are local authorities, 85 are joint boards and 31 arc companies. Of the 18 largest undertakings, 9 are statutory companies.
In 1956 there were 85 statutory companies which supplied 20 per cent. of the water. To-day, by regrouping and amalgamation, largely under their own initiative but in harmony with Government policy, that number has been reduced to 30 statutory companies; and these 30 supply 20 per cent. of the requirements of England and Wales—a figure very close to the one quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. Statutory companies are public companies incorporated by private Acts of Parliament. They are subject to the same statutory limitations as the majority of local authorities as regards maximum charges; their dividends on preference and ordinary capital are limited by Statute and the preference capital is noncumulative. The total issued capital of these 30 companies is £236 million and the average return is 6·8 per cent. Charges made by the companies for water supply approximate very closely to those made by local authorities. In general it is true to say that they amount to no more than is sufficient to meet their working expenses, to service the capital
856
employed, and to provide the necessary reserves for future development.
I certainly cannot speak for all companies, but from such experience as I have had—and I have had experience of a few—some of these companies are highly efficient, devote a great deal of time and money to research and technical improvements in the methods of supply, and have good relations, uniformly I believe, with their staff and with the public they serve. They have not as an Association argued against the reorganisation proposed in this Bill, although to some extent their independence is impaired by their being put in the position of acting as agents for the new authorities. So far as their own supply areas are concerned, it is a sensible arrangement, for their knowledge and experience will be pooled for the general benefit and there will be full mobility of staff between the companies and the authorities.
I believe the semi-independence of the companies and their responsibilities to their shareholders is a good thing for the industry, and I can foresee some healthy competition between companies and the other undertakings within the various water authorities: competition which I would hope would be for the benefit of both and for the public they serve. Quite apart from any Party political considerations or the costs and complications involved in takeover, it does not, in my judgment, make any kind of sense to take this part of the industry into national ownership. The industry is, I believe, on the whole, an efficient industry as it is. Under this Bill I hope it will become even more efficient.
BARONESS STOCKS: Surely all that the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, has said about the water undertakings could be said, and indeed has been said, by my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy about the local authority undertakings. I think if we let this arrangement stand the Government have a contradiction in policy. Personally, I am not in this matter pro-local authority; and I have a strong suspicion that the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair, is saying in this debate what he might have said very properly in the debate on Lord Brockway's Motion.
5.5 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: I greatly dislike to quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord

857
Sinclair of Cleeve, because we are firm allies in another part of the Bill, but on this one I am afraid I cannot accept his proposition. As my noble friend Lady Stocks has said, what is sauce for the local-authority goose should be sauce for the statutory-company gander. The arguments are precisely the same. What are we trying to do in this Bill? We are trying to set up very large multi-purpose authorities which shall be responsible for the whole control of the hydrological cycle within their areas. The fact that 22 per cent. (according to the Minister in another place) of the water supplies in this country are in the hands of the statutory companies means that this is not something inconsiderable. This is a very significant proportion indeed of the total water supply. If we are setting up these large multi-purpose authorities, one of the objects of the exercise is to secure maximum flexibility. This is the reason given to the local authority companies, including the Metropolitan Water Board, which after all has a most noble tradition, why they should lose all their functions; why they should be absorbed; why they should no longer remain responsible for water supplies, sewerage and the rest: because they must in the greater good of the nation surrender these functions, surrender their tradition Of service, to the overriding requirements of national organisation and the regional water authorities.
What possible argument can one advance to differentiate between the local authorities and the statutory water companies in these matters? The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, spoke about healthy competition. But, as he knows very well, under the arrangements of the Bill, and under the existing arrangements come to that, the statutory water companies are in fact so closely bound—and they will be further bound by the provisions of the Bill before us—that their freedom of action is considerably circumscribed. They are not permitted, as he himself confirmed, freedom of action so far as financial arrangements are concerned. The amount they are allowed to pay on their issued capital, and so on, is controlled. So I cannot see in the new set-up under this Bill what advantage the public gain from retaining what we frankly regard as an anachronism. Of course what the noble Lord
858
said about the functions of the statutory companies in the early days is correct. They were pioneers in many parts of the country. No one would deny it; but that, with the greatest respect, is not germane to the argument before us. We are not considering merits and past history; we are considering how to reorganise for the future. Sentiment apart—and sentiment applies equally strongly to local authorities—I cannot think that there is any really sound argument for this. The noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve, referred to responsibility to shareholders. But then the local authorities have a responsibility to ratepayers. Where is the difference?
The only argument of substance which the Government have advanced is that it would cost money in compensation. But of course, on the other side, one would in the future be obtaining the revenue from charges which now flows to the statutory companies; those revenues would then come directly to the regional water authorities. No. This is really a matter on which we on this side feel the deepest possible regret and a certain element, I think, of resentment because we feel this is a distinction which ought not have been made. It is one of the only two Party political arguments in this Bill. For the rest, we have our differences of view and differences of interest, and so on, but this we regard as really a bit of straightforward political dogmatism. We cannot see that in merit there is any sound reason for exempting one-fifth of the water supply organisations in this country simply because they have a highly restrictive form of private ownership. It is not normal private ownership; it is not the private ownership where individual enterprise can have its head or anything of that sort; it is circumscribed in every direction. Therefore to our minds it is really very little more than a method of keeping certain local notabilities (shall I put it?) in positions of influence and power which they otherwise might not attain. I do not think there is very much more to it than that, and for those reasons, subject to what my noble friend Lord Champion may say, because it was he who moved this Amendment, I think this is an occasion on which we ought to record our disapproval.
LORD PEDDIE: I am prompted to intervene in this discussion because of

859
the assertion of my noble friend Lady White that this involves a matter of deep Party principle. So far as I am concerned it does not. So far as I am concerned, the matter truly at issue is whether or not this Bill creates an organisation and a structure that is efficient, and I cannot for the life of me see how and in what way taking over the statutory water companies as such would add to the overall efficiency.
At this stage I should declare an interest in the sense that I am a member of the board of a water company; but I would assure the Committee that my knowledge and my belief in the contribution made by water companies extends over a period far longer than I have been a member of the board. I have had some opportunity of studying the efficiency of statutory water company operations. I do not wish to repeat the comments that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Sinclair of Cleeve. There is not the slightest doubt that over past years—indeed in the early development in the water industry—the companies have made an outstanding contribution, but I would accept that, regardless of whatever contribution they made in the historical sense it does not necessarily have a bearing on the situation now.
I agree that it was a mistake not to retain local authority undertakings as well as the companies as agents to work in water distribution. But two wrongs do not make a right, and I rise now to challenge the point of view expressed by my noble friends that the water companies are motivated by profit alone and function for the benefit of the shareholders. That is just not true. It is not the case that water companies function solely for the benefit of the shareholders; indeed the average return on money invested is about 6¿8 per cent. (so I am told) which is far less than the charges on loans for local authorities. We have already heard it stated, and accepted by my noble friends, that the profits, charges, dividends and reserve funds are controlled by Statute. So in what way is there a justification for pulling them in, merely because the local authorities have not been given the same privilege?—which I think they should have had.
860
Speaking in terms of efficiency, I remember well an association with the P.I.B. when we made a very detailed survey of the whole of the water industry and the companies came out very well. I may also mention—when one is considering whether or not these bodies are run just for shareholders—that on the board on which I sit there are three men whose lifetime's work has been in water engineering. That is three out of seven. Two have had a lifetime's involvement in the administration and financial operation of water undertakings; another is deeply involved in the public and social life of that area. That accounts for six—and I forget about myself. I believe that the retention of statutory companies will add to the overall efficiency of water distribution and will maintain a closer link with users. In short, I see a measure of value in retaining statutory companies as agents: I see no benefit to the overall water distribution by accepting this Amendment.
LORD BRAVE: Might not one solution to this problem be to give a certain number of seats on the new water authority to members of the existing county council?
BARONESS YOUNG: When the noble Lord, Lord Champion, introduced these Amendments, he expressed the hope that I could be as helpful to him on these Amendments as I was on the last one. But I am sure he will have realised, as I have done, that these Amendments constitute an issue of principle on which Members on each side of the Committee are divided. However, I was glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Peddie. and I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Sinclair of Cleeve for his remarks. The noble Lord, Lord Peddie, asked an important question; namely, whether or not the efficiency of the regional water authorities would be impaired by the existence of the statutory water companies—and he made it quite clear that in his opinion they would not. Because I think this is a matter which divides us, I should like to set out as fully as I can the reasons that have led the Government to the conclusions that they have reached.
The statutory water companies were created by local Acts to supply water and their profits are strictly regulated by

861
Statute. They have in general expanded their operations in recent years as a result of the regrouping of water undertakings, which has continued under both Labour and Conservative Governments. My information is that to-day there are 31 statutory water companies responsible for 22 per cent. of public water supplies, and they include a number of the largest and most efficient undertakings in the country. It is our view that the most important fact about them is that they represent an injection of private capital into the water industry, the amount of money involved being about £250 million. We believe that this feature ought to be preserved, if possible. Quite apart from anything else, it is obviously undesirable that the Exchequer should have to raise this amount of money to buy out the stockholders and shareholders unless it is essential to do so.
So we have looked for a way to retain the companies within the new system and we believe that we have found a way of doing so, as they will become agents of the water authorities. They are being incorporated into the reorganised system and placed firmly under the operational control of the water authorities. Clause 11, which one of the Amendments seeks to delete from the Bill, requires agreements to be made between the companies and the water authorities, or, in the event of failure, provides for determination by the Secretary of State. Certain functions of the Secretary of State under the Water Acts will be transferred to the water authorities, who will have the power to require the companies to carry out surveys, to give or take bulk supplies, and it will also have the power to take over the functions of a company should it default on its obligations.
The water authorities will take over the functions of the present river authorities in respect of the licensing and control of abstractions and they will be given new powers to take over compulsorily any source works belonging to a statutory water company, subject to the payment of appropriate compensation. Furthermore, the capital investment programme of these companies will be included in the capital investment programme of the regional water authority and will have to be submitted to the Secretary of State. We believe that by these means, by this combination of controls
862
and the fact that the statutory water companies will be financially independent, we shall be able to retain the companies but at the same time not interfere with the comprehensive management of water resources which is one of the features of this Bill.
BARONESS WHITE: May I interrupt the noble Baroness? She talked about retaining the companies: are the Government contemplating—as they think that these are such meritorious organisations—that there should be new ones, that they should be extended, or that there should be more of them?
BARONESS YOUNG: It is rather diffcult to foresee whether in the future anybody will wish to set up another private water company in these circumstances.
BARONESS WHITE: Would they be allowed to do so under the Bill?
BARONESS YOUNG: As far as I know it would be possible, but if I am not correct in that I shall of course let the noble Baroness know.
Noble Lords raised the argument about the difference between the statutory water companies and the position of local authorities. I would say on this matter that we believe that by giving local authority representatives a majority on the regional water authority—which I think meets the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Braye—we have given them a real role to play in the whole of the management of water, whereas if they were put into the position of being subject to the kind of controls that the statutory water companies are going to find themselves subject to, they would not have the power and the freedom that they have enjoyed in the past and I think would find themselves in a much more unsatisfactory position than their representatives will find when they serve on the regional water authorities. I do not think that for them it would have the kind of independence and power that they have enjoyed in the past. They will find a more satisfactory role as members of the regional water authorities, rather than finding themselves in the same position as the statutory water companies are in. It is for these reasons that we think it is right to retain the statutory water companies. They will not damage our proposals for the regional water

863
authorities, we are keeping something which has worked very well in the past and we see no reason why it should not continue to work well in the future.
5.23 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: I find the arguments against the proposition that I put at the outset entirely unconvincing. The more I have listened, the more it seems to me that here is something which clearly ought to be brought within the terms of the Bill and be part of the undertakings of the water authorities. The fact that these water companies have done fairly well in the past—and I have no complaints to make about them —is no justification, it seems to me, for their continuation under the new set-up. I am sure that the noble Baroness and the other Members of your Lordships' House who have spoken in favour of water companies would say precisely the same about the water undertakings of the local authorities. They have done an extraordinarily good job in the past. In the interests of ensuring that water management is carried out, as the Government obviously desire that it shall be carried out, from the collecting of the water to its final consumption and use within that cycle, surely the water companies ought to go and the whole undertaking be conducted by the single body, the water authority.
The noble Baroness said that the profits of these water companies were limited by Statute. That of course is the case. I said that they worked within the bounds imposed upon them by legislation. But that does not, in my opinion, justify their retention in the new set-up. The noble Baroness told us that there was £250 million of private capital involved and that difficulty would be caused if the Government had to purchase those undertakings and pay that £250 million, or some such figure, for them. But I agree with my noble friend Lady White, that the servicing of the cost of purchasing these undertakings would be met from the revenue which would be derived as a result of the charges which would be made by the water authorities to those users who have, up to now, been using and paying for the water companies' water. I must also press the point which has been made, and the question
864
which the noble Baroness unfortunately did not answer, as to whether under this Bill it would be possible to set up any new companies in the future. I must admit that I do not think it a likelihood or a possibility.
BARONESS YOUNG: I wonder whether I might give a more complete answer than I gave earlier. My understanding is that there is no provision in this Bill either to set up or to prohibit the setting up of any new companies. That would need separate legislation and it is rather difficult to foresee the kind of circumstances in which it would be necessary.
LORD CHAMPION: I think that answers the point. There is one other question I should like to ask before we depart from our consideration of this matter. Are the Government doing anything now to prevent some local authorities from selling off their undertakings to private water companies? It has been suggested that in some parts of the country local authorities are contemplating selling their undertakings before the Bill becomes operative—selling them, that is, to private water companies. Can the noble Baroness give us any information on this matter, and, if so, can she tell me, if there is to be such a move, whether the Government will step in to prevent that from happening? I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to obtain that information. So far as I can see, the pigeon post is working and there is just the possibility that there will be a flutter around that side of the House and that shortly the noble Baroness will find—not on the leg of the noble Earl, Lord Ferriers —the answer to the question that I am here posing. I sincerely hope that the answer will be that the Government will certainly take every step to ensure that these undertakings are not sold off by these local authorities in an endeavour to frustrate the will of the Government in this matter. I can go on.
BARONESS YOUNG: No, there is no need for the noble Lord so kindly to keep speaking any longer. I now know the position on the question of the re-grouping. I understand that there has in fact been one re-grouping; that is between the Chesham Urban District Council and the Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Company, where an order has been

865
made and the date of operation is March 30 this year. There are three others that are before a public inquiry at the moment. There are two others that I understand are waiting for a public inquiry.
LORD CHAMPION: I did not quite understand what the noble Baroness was telling us. This is not a question of merging. The question here is as to whether the local authorities are preparing to sell off their undertakings or permit them to be merged within the bodies that she was talking about which will be the subject of the private inquiry.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am sorry if I did not make myself clear. My understanding is that in the first case that I mentioned, these water undertakings would be merged and would be taken over by a private water company and that the others are subject to inquiry.
LORD CHAMPION: The only thing I can say about that is that the Government are clearly failing in their duty to the new undertakings that are to be set up, and I should be wasting the time of the House if I said any more about it. I shall certainly challenge the decision
of the Government in this matter by asking my noble friends to accompany me through the Lobby.
LORD PEDDIE: Before my noble friend resumes his seat, may I ask him to explain a point that he raised in his comments? He made the point that it would be possible to purchase assets of statutory companies and service those loans, or in whatever way it was done, out of the revenue of the statutory companies. As the present cost of the capital employed in water companies or statutory companies is so low, does he not agree that if financing was done along the lines he suggested it would cost the user more in consequence?
LORD CHAMPION: I do not think so. I do not think that when spread over the whole of the area of a regional water authority that that would be the effect of it.
5.31 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 35) shall be agreed to?
The Lordships divided Contents, 40; Not-Contents, 93.

CONTENTS

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller]

Segal, L.

Arwyn, L.

George-Brown, L.

Shackleton, L.

Beswick, L.

Hall, V.

Shepherd, L.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Shinwell, L.

Brockway, L.

Henley, L.

Slater, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hughes, L.

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Stocks, B.

Chorley, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe. B [Teller.]

Stow Hill, L.

Clancarty, E.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Diamond, L

McLeavy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

White, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Platt, L.

Wigg, L.

Foot, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Williamson, L.

Gardiner, L.

Seear, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Cowley, E.

Fortescue, E.

Amory, V.

Craigavon, V.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Auckland, L

Cranbrook, E.

Gamer, L.

Aylesford, E.

Crathorne, L.

Gowrie, E.

Balfour, E.

Daventry, V.

Grafton, D.

Berkeley, B.

de Clifford, L.

Greenway, L.

Bradford, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Grenfell, L.

Brecon, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hailes, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Dundee, E.

Hailsham of St. Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Carrington, L.

Eccles, V.

Coleraine, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Hanworth, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Conesford, L.

Falkland, V.

Jessel, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ferrers, E.

Kemsley, V.

Courtown, E.

Fisher, L.

Killearn, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Moyne, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L,

Somers, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Lothian, M.

Peddie, L.

Sudeley, L.

Loudoun, C.

Rankeillour, L.

Swansea, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Tenby, V.

Luke, L.

Redesdale, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Lyell, L.

Reigate, L.

Vivian, L.

Lytton, E.

Rochdale, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Rockley, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Mancroft, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Windlesham, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Merrivale, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Wolverton, L.

Monck, V.

Sandford, L.

Wynford, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Selkirk, E.

Yarborough, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [iTeller.]

Sempill, Ly.

Young, B.

Shannon, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.39 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 36A.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 19, after ("undertakers") insert ("as such").—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Whether Clause 10, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: On the Motion, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, there are one or two questions I should like to address to the opposite Front Bench. I think I ought to say that I am doing so because I am a VicePresident of the Central Fire Liaison Panel, and as a consequence I am aware of some concern on their part in regard to what is going to happen with regard to fire fighting. It is very difficult to exaggerate the importance of this, since the record shows quite clearly that the situation in regard to fire damage in Great Britain is getting no better, and indeed is rapidly getting much worse.
A report was prepared by the Central Advisory Water Committee for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government and adopted in 1963, and it stated, inter alia:
"…so long as no charge is to be made to the public for maintaining supplies at hydrants or for water used in fire fighting we consider that there is no sufficient reason to charge for maintaining supplies to private fire fighting installations, or for water used by them.
"Water used for fire fighting should continue to be free of charge.
"No charge should be made for providing a supply for private fire fighting installations. nor for water used by them, but the water undertakers should be entitled to recover certain costs."
868
These parts of this particular report do not appear to have been implemented, and there is concern lest charges for the supply of water for fire fighting purposes, including automatic sprinkler systems, should be levied in such a way as to provide a disincentive to industry to protect itself against fire. The Bill, in its present form, allows for directives by the Secretary of State on matters affecting national policy and matters of national interests, including directives on charging schemes.
At present, as I have indicated, water taken from a public main to extinguish a fire at a factory would not be chargeable to the company. The Bill, as it stands, is not clear whether water authorities will be directed to levy charges for water used in extinguishing fires. If the reply is to be that no charge is to be made for such supply of water, I wonder whether I might raise a further question, and ask whether water authorities will be expected to introduce a by-pass on the meter system in order that there will be a really adequate supply of water, because if the water does not need to pass through the meter the flow of water, I understand, can be considerably increased.
I hope that my question is clear. What directives is the Secretary of State likely to give in respect of charges, and has any thought been given, if no charges are to be made, to introduce a system which by-passes the meters? If this were undertaken it could, incidentally, in many instances, if not all, considerably increase the flow of water to be used for fire fighting purposes.
BARONESS YOUNG: I hope that I can give the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, an adequate answer. I apologise to the Committee for some of the gaps in my

869
knowledge, but coming to this Bill somewhat late in the day I am not absolutely conversant with every part of it. My understanding on the question of water supply for fire fighting is that there is statutory provision that water authorities would make water available for firefighting. This is Part VIII of Schedule 3 of the Water Act, 1945. This position will remain unchanged.
On the second part of the question the noble Lord asked, the question of charges will be a matter for the National Water Council and the regional water authorities to work out in order to secure a common policy. This may not answer the question fully, and I think it would probably be for the noble Lord's convenience, and that of the people who have asked him to raise this point, if I wrote to him more fully on the matter, which I shall do.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. She has replied in a very gracious fashion. I must say that I am finding it somewhat distracting when there is a little subcommittee meeting going on in the corner of the Chamber. I am very grateful to her, and I am quite sure that if she writes it will be possible to give full consideration to the matter, and indeed I shall be glad of the opportunity to take advice from the panel.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Supply of water by statutory water companies on behalf of water authorities]:
5.46 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 37A:
Page 14, line 17, at end insert—
("(c) the company's charges for the supply of water.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37A, and I should like to take with it Amendment No. 37D. These two Amendments go together and would make clear that the arrangements between a water authority and a statutory water company under Clause 11 may include provision about the company's charges for the supply of water. The second Amendment is consequential upon the first, and provides that the Secretary of State shall not so settle or vary arrangements under Clause
870
11 as to require the company to fix their charges at a level which would endanger their ability to provide a reasonable return on their paid-up capital. This limitation is to apply only so long as the company's undertaking is efficiently managed.
Since these two Amendments were put down on the Marshalled List my attention has been drawn to the fact that there may still be a defect in the drafting. I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to move the two Amendments now, but I may well have to come back at Report stage with a further Amendment.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 37B:
Page 14, line 28, after ("or") insert ("either of the parties may,")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37B, and I should like to take with it No. 37C. These are both drafting Amendments: they are intended to make clear that if a water authority and a statutory water company are unable to reach an agreement about a proposed variation of the terms under Clause 11, either party may refer the dispute to the Secretary of State for determination.
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 37C:
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 29, leave out ("may")—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESSS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 37D.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 33, at end insert:
("() The Secretary of State shall not so settle or vary arrangements under this section as to oblige the company to fix their charges at a level which will endanger their ability, so long as their undertaking is managed efficiently, to provide a reasonable return on their paidup capital, having regard to their probable future expenditure.")—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 37E:
Page 15, line 6. after ("12") insert ("or under the said section 13").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment provides that any order which a water authority might make under Section 13 of the Water Act 1945, as applied by the present Bill, declaring a statutory water company to be in default of its obligations and transferring its functions to the water authority, would have effect only if it were confirmed by the Secretary of State. The Bill already provides that any order which a water authority may make, requiring a statutory water company to give or take a bulk supply of water under Section 12 of the Water Act 1945, will be subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State. A default order would clearly be something of greater moment than a bulk supply, and it is therefore appropriate that it also should require confirmation by the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Clauses 12 and 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Sewerage and sewage disposal]:
5.52 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 37F:
Page 17, line 11, leave out ("and 42") and insert ("42 and subsections (1) and (b) and (2) of section 72 (insofar as those subsections related to the cleansing of cesspools, including septic tanks").
The noble Lord said: In many towns and populous parts of the countryside, there are places where sewage is dealt with in large and, in most cases, highly efficient sewage disposal works; but there still remain many premises—in particular, more remote houses and groups of houses in rural areas—whose drainage is to a cesspool or to a septic tank. This is normally an intermediate form of sewage disposal because, subsequently, the cesspool or septic tank is emptied by the local authority who remove its contents for final disposal elsewhere. The emptying of cesspools and septic tanks by local authorities, or for that matter by contractors, is therefore an integral part of the sewage disposal process. It should therefore be treated as such, certainly so far as finance is concerned. Some local authorities charge for the emptying service, while others provide a
872
free service at stated intervals and charge only for additional calls. But if a system is adopted there usually remains some charge on local funds.
In 1970, the Jeger working party on sewage disposal, in that excellent report, Taken for Granted, recommended that local authorities should provide a free and adequate service for cesspool emptying and septic tank clearance. The size of the problem cannot be clearly defined, but the working party to which I have referred estimated that there were probably about 1,200,000 houses which are not on main drainage, with about 3 million people living in them. That gives some indication of the size of the problem. It would be anomalous if this sector of the sewage disposal process were to remain a direct charge on local authorities, while all the other costs of sewage disposal became a responsibility of the new regional water authorities. It is accordingly the object of this Amendment to transfer the statutory responsibility for cesspool and septic tank emptying to the new regional water authorities, anticipating that under Clause 15 of the Bill they will make arrangements with the new district councils to undertake the actual day-to-day work of emptying on their behalf, but at their expense. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: As the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said, the effect of this Amendment would be to transfer this function of emptying cesspools from local authorities to the new water authorities. This matter is one about which the arguments are somewhat evenly divided. It can be regarded as a function of public health and one which has been with local government, so we consulted local authorities in order to find out their views. The difficulty was that as a result of our consultations we had divided opinions from the local authorities. The County Councils' Association and the Urban District Councils' Association thought that it was a function which should remain with local government, while the Rural District Councils' Association thought that it should not, unless the authorities had "a constructive role in the wider aspects of sewerage." The Association of Municipal Corporations exprssed no view. Subsequently, however, the Association

873
of Municipal Corporations wrote suggesting that the function should be transferred to the water authorities. We have considered this matter further and have reached the conclusion that, if the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, will withdraw this Amendment, we can consider it again. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I have no difficulty at all in responding to the invitation of the noble Baroness, and I am very pleased to do so. She very rightly said that the Association of Municipal Corporations finally made up their minds on this issue, and I have little doubt that they will have views which they will wish to press. I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
BARONESS YOUNG: I think I should correct any misunderstanding. The Association of Municipal Corporations wrote again, and the second time said that they thought the function ought to be transferred to the water authorities.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think the noble Baroness made that quite clear when she spoke earlier.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.59 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 37G:
Page 17, line 21, at end insert ("except any such reference in section 24(4) of the said Act of 1936,").
The noble Baroness said: This is a drafting Amendment. Subsection (2) of Clause 14 provides that references to a local authority, in the enactments relating to sewerage which are listed in the subsection, are to be construed as from April 1, 1974, as references to a water authority. This statement would be wrong, however, in the case of Section 24(4) of the Public Health Act 1936, which defines the length of a public sewer for which a local authority can recover the cost of maintenance from other persons. In that subsection, the term "local authority" refers to local authorities as they existed immediately before the beginning of the 1936 Act, and
874
it would therefore clearly be wrong to alter this meaning. I beg to move.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Arrangements for discharge of sewerage functions]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 18, line 19, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (5A) below").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 39 I should like to take with it Amendments Nos. 44 and 45. The purpose of these three Amendments is to introduce greater flexibility into the provision for the discharge of sewerage functions. Clause 15 as at present drafted requires a water authority, under subsection (1), to enter into arrangements for the discharge of their sewerage functions, other than those relating to sewage disposal and any sewers at present vested in joint sewerage boards or the Greater London Council, by the local authority or by a development corporation. Subsection (4) states the date by which the draft arrangements must be sent to the relevant authority by the water authority; and subsection (5) provides for the Secretary of State to settle the terms of the arrangements if the parties are unable to agree.
These Amendments provide that in cases where the two parties decide, in the interests of efficiency, not to enter into such arrangements the water authority are not to take the actions required by subsections (4) and (5). It therefore gives a greater flexibility, and I beg to move the first of these three Amendments.
VISCOUNT AMORY VISCOUNT AMORY moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 18, line 37, after ("sewer") insert ("or sewage disposal works with a designed capacity not exceeding a dry weather flow of 500,000 gallons per day").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. I understand that my noble friend's object in these three Amendments—and I should like, if I may, to relate my remarks to Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 as well—is to enable regional

875
water authorities, in appropriate cases, to give control functions for sewage disposal, in the case of small sewage disposal works, to districts. This seems to me a sensible idea, because districts would have the technical staff to run such small sewage disposal works, and it would be done only in appropriate cases. I am moving this Amendment really in order to enable my noble friend to tell me her thoughts on these proposals. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: Before the noble Baroness replies to the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, may I support the request for further information on this matter and reserve the right to say a few words on Amendments Nos. 41 and 42 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, who is prevented from being here to-day and whose notes I have been given? I will not repeat some of the Devonshire stories in his notes, as I do not have the advantage of the accent which he has, but I should like to raise one or two points after the noble Baroness has replied to the request made by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory.
LORD WOLVERTON: I should like to support this Amendment and also declare an interest as a Vice-President of the Urban District Councils Association, which also strongly supports this Amendment. On Second Reading I spoke about the sewerage problem and said I hoped that the Government would seriously consider making agency agreements with local authorities for them to look after sewage plants as their agents. As the Bill now stands, local authorities have to look after all main drains as agents, but they are not allowed to look after the sewage disposal plants. There is a very large number of small plants throughout the country, especially in my part of the world, East Anglia, which have been built by local authorities and admirably looked after. They are nearly all new since the war, and they do not pollute the rivers and streams into which the effluent goes. If the responsibilities were divided, local authorities would have to look after sewers but not the plants. It would be necessary to split the staff and split the offices, and I think this would be all wrong. I hope that, as proposed in the Amendment, these
876
smaller plants, anyway, can be looked after by local authorities as agents.We have just had an Amendment to the effect that statutory water companies are to be allowed to look after water as agents. so in that' way they are second-tier authorities. I do not see at all why local authorities should not look after the sewage plants as agents, and if they do not look after them properly then the agency can be terminated. I strongly support this Amendment.
LORD SLATER: From this side of the Committee I should like to add my support to the Amendment so ably moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. I think this is a step in the right direction. After all, for many years district authorities have been responsible for looking after sewerage and for laying down new plants, and they have been able to build up the personnel necessary to provide for their district the services for which they are responsible. Because of that standing I think it would be wrong, and a retrograde step, if we were to take away from the local authorities such responsibility as they have had for so long, and were to allow another section to take over such responsibility. I support the Amendment so ably moved by Lord Amory.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am sure we have all listened with great interest to the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Amory, who, as we know, as President of the County Councils Association, has a great deal of knowledge and experience of local government. The difficulty the Government see in these particular Amendments is that, as in the case of Amendment No. 30 (I think it was), which we discussed earlier on, we believe that it would effectively involve the introduction of a two-tier system into the regional water authorities. I do not feel that I need to go over with the Committee all the arguments which were advanced earlier, save to say that it is the prime function of this Bill to introduce 10 regional water authorities which will be all-purpose authorities; and, of course, one of the principal reasons for making them cover such large areas is to deal with the whole question of sewage disposal, which is such a very complex and technical matter. In fact, we believe that the only way in which, in the coming years, we shall be able to manage the

877
disposal of sewage, the cleaning up of rivers and all the pollution problems, is to put the whole of sewage disposal under the regional water authorities.
However, I am advised that under the Local Authorities (Goods and Services) Act 1970 as applied by the Bill, a water authority, if it so wishes, will be able to enter into an agreement with the local authority for the operation of such works. The local authority would be able to operate and maintain a particular sewage disposal works on behalf of a water authority, or to operate and maintain any trunk sewers which are not included in the arrangements under Clause 15 of the Bill, or to make professional engineering services available to the water authority for the purpose of designing small sewage disposal works and supervising contracts for their construction. I do not know whether this goes far enough to meet the points that the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and his supporters have raised, but I think it goes a long way in the direction in which they are going, and I hope that they will feel able to withdraw this Amendment.
VISCOUNT AMORY: First I should like to apologise to my noble friend Lord Gainsborough. I had no idea that he was the authorised delegate of my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. I intervened only because of the natural instinct of one Devonian to rush to the aid of another. I think I would there fore ask the Committee to disregard what I said earlier and to substitute the remarks of Lord Gainsborough. I think that both Lord Gainsborough and I will have been interested to have heard what the noble Baroness said. Apparently sewage work can be arranged with a district council. That, it seems to me, goes some way towards the points raised. I do not know Lord Gainsborough's view, but in the light of what my noble friend has said with his agreement I would beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH: I would agree with my noble friend Lord Amory on this.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH THE EARL OF GAINSBOROUGH had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 41:
878
Page 18, line 41, after ("sewers") insert ("and sewage disposal works").
The noble Earl said: In view of what has been said by the noble Baroness, I do not think it would be right to occupy the time of the Committee by speaking to Amendments 41 or 42. I do not move the Amendments.
BARONESS YOUNG: This is another drafting Amendment. Clause 15(3)(b) of the Bill refers to a joint sewerage board or main drainage authority" whereas Clause 30(g) which abolishes certain bodies refers only to "joint sewerage boards". The Amendment seeks to make the two references consistent and to resolve any doubts about bodies abolished by this Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 16, leave out ("or main drainage authority").—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 45 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 18, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) Subject to subsection (5A) below, a water authority shall, not later than 1st November 1973, send to every relevant authority with whom they are under a duty to endeavour to make arrangements under subsection (1) above a draft of the arrangements with the relevant authority.
(5) Subject to subsection (5A) below").—(Baroness Young.)
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 45 formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 29, at end insert—
("(5A) If at any time before arrangements are settled under this section a water authority and a relevant authority come to the conclusion that in the interests of efficiency it would be inexpedient to enter into any arrangements under subsection (1) above or, as the case may be, to be bound by arrangements settled by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) above—

(a) the water authority shall not take the action required by subsection (4) or (b) above; or

(b) where the water authority have already notified the Secretary of State under subsection (5) above that arrangements have not been entered into, they shall further notify him of the conclusion

879
and he shall not settle the terms of the arrangements.")—(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Whether Clause 15, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Before this clause passes from the discussion, I should like to point out that despite all efforts made (and I said this the other day) by local authority representatives of standing in regard to the functions to be allocated to the regional water authorities under the Bill, and despite the fact that the authority associations have said in the wisdom of their many years' experience that a more positive involvement of the local areas would take place, there seems to have been little move in that direction. As somebody who came from a rural area and represented one for many years, with the development of farming, so far as I am concerned not enough attention has been given to the problem of farm sewage in rural areas. In this excellent Jeger Report which is taken for granted, the original number of farms connected to the sewage system was put at some 4,000. Later, we are told, the Committee corrected that figure and give 10,000 farms. With the development of factory farming and disposal, because of more intense rural farming of farming sewage the cost per animal is much higher than the cost of moving in cities, despite the apparent simple, open, way of sewage disposal on farms. As civilisation presses more and more and urbanisation spreads into our beautiful rural areas (and that is as it must be, for men are living like insects these days) we are in duty bound to look in depth at this matter of farm sewage disposal. I still feel, despite all the talk in Committee and the many days spent in this House and another place, that this is a section of the Bill that has been completely forgotten or has not be treated in depth.
The other point I mentioned is the development of use in our laboratories of radio-active isotopes. These isotopes go into the sewage system. This is one of the things to which much more attention should be paid. The Jeger Report mentions at page 42 farms disposing of their slurry into the sewage system and some of the impractical ways of their
880
disposing of it. I will not weary your Lordships by quoting from the Report. It is available to your Lordships and is beautifully written. This Report is one of the "top ten" Reports of the century so far as demand for it is concerned. Even if there is not time now and we cannot correct this—and I regret that the local rural areas have not a bigger say in this matter—I would urge that we look carefully at the disposal of farm waste. Time is not on our side. This should be looked at now.
LORD SLATER: I was rather disappointed when the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, withdrew the previous Amendments. I did not make my protest at the time but in discussing whether this clause should stand part of the Bill, I am wondering what consultation took place with the sanitary inspectors' association and the sanitary surveyors who have been responsible for looking after the sanitation and sewage disposal for local authorities up and down the country for many years. The noble Baroness said in the course of her observations that an agreement would be arrived at between the water authority and the local authorities. We have seen some of these agreements arrived at in the past. We have seen delegation from local authority to district authority in highway development. Eventually the time arrives when the county authority (of which I was a member as well as being a member of the district authority) took away that form of delegation and took it upon themselves to become the highway authority responsible for the whole county highway development. I am afraid in the course of these agreements between the two forms of association that the time will come when, if the new authority (the higher authority, against that of the district authority) want to break these types of agreement they will do so as they have done in the past. I am only sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, should have done what he did on this occasion. The noble Viscount moved the Amendment in the absence of his noble friend and he thought that he was justified in withdrawing it. I wish to ask whether any representations have been made by the sanitary inspectors' association or the sanitary surveyors.
BARONESS YOUNG: Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, I think that we are in complete agreement on this matter of sewage disposal. I have said several times that difficulties and problems raised by this matter are one of the principal reasons for the form of reorganisation which appears in the Bill. From reading the Jeger Report I know of the kind of problems to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, drew our attention. We hope that is the kind of thing that the larger authorities, with more money, will be able to tackle. The noble Lord, Lord Slater, asked whether there had been discussions with sanitary inspectors, and I am wondering whether these are the same people that I think of as public health inspectors. I suspect that they are. Having made that remark, I must say I am afraid that I have not that information before me, but I will take steps to find out and let the noble Lord know.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Requisitioning of sewers for domestic purposes]:
6.22 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 46A:
Page 20, line 31, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
("(1) It shall be the duty of a water authority to provide any public sewer to be used for domestic purposes for the drainage of premises in their area—

(a) if the owners or occupiers of the premises require the authority to provide a public sewer, otherwise than for the drainage of new buildings which they propose to erect on the premises, and the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are satisfied; or

(b) if the owners of the premises require the authority to provide a public sewer for the drainage of new buildings which they propose to erect on the premises and the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) below are satisfied; or

(c) if the conditions specified in subsection (4) below are satisfied.

(2) In a case to which paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above applies, the conditions which must be satisfied are—

(a) that the reckonable charges payable in respect of the premises will not be less than the qualifying amount; and

(b) that the persons making the requisition agree severally with the water authority to pay the reckonable charges in respect of
882
the premises for three years at least from the date on which the laying of the sewer is completed.

(3) In a case to which paragraph (b) of subsection (1) applies, the conditions which must be satisfied are—

(a) that the sewer which the owners of the premises require the water authority to provide is a sewer communicating (in such manner and in such place as the authority consider appropriate) with a private sewer provided by the owners; and

(b) that the owners undertake to meet any relevant deficit.

(4) The conditions mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above are—

(a) that the rcckonable charges payable in respect of the premises will be less than the qualifying amount; and

(b) that the local authority in whose area the premises are situated undertake to meet any relevant deficit.").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this Amendment I should like to discuss with it Nos. 46B. 46C, 46D, 46E, 46F, 46H, 46J, and 46K. This whole series of Amendments result from an Amendment which was agreed in another place and they arise from the redrafting of this clause. The clause was introduced by the Government in another place in response to an undertaking to provide power for local authorities and private persons to requisition sewerage facilities in the same way as they have power to requisition water supplies, subject, as always, to their willingness to make guaranteed payments where necessary. It was stated at the time that the text of the Amendment needed further consideration. These Amendments are designed to meet that. They are primarily drafting Amendments and should give to local authorities the same arrangements with regard to sewerage as they have with regard to water.
LORD CHAMPION: I have no fault to find with the purpose behind the Amendment but I wish to make a mild protest about the way in which all these Amendments have been presented to the Committee. In this clause there are 14 subsections; two are to go and of the remaining 12, 10 are being amended by this mass of Amendments. I found a great deal of difficulty in reading the clause, I tried to put into it the whole of what is contained in the Amendments, and it is extremely difficult to read the clause as it will appear. As subsections (1) and (2) are to go and we are to get these massive Amendments,

883
by far the easier course would have been to have withdrawn the whole clause, reprinted it and presented it again in a manner which would have been easy for noble Lords, and indeed local authorities, to read. To present a series of Amendments in this form seems to me to be a nonsense and to pay no regard to the Committee. I mention this only in the hope that Parliamentary draftsmen, who may consider my words, will in future, when they propose to make such a series of Amendments, consider withdrawing the whole clause and presenting it in a readable form.
BARONESS YOUNG: I have considerable sympathy with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Champion. I had difficulty in mastering these Amendments, but I am sure that the point has been taken and that it is being done to meet the wishes of various people in both Houses. This is, I think, an Amendment with which we shall all agree. I understand that it is a very complex matter, but if I have understood the situation right it is ultimately something which will make the provision of houses a more straightforward matter, in the sense that it links the drainage with the houses. It is important that the whole clause should be included and that the Amendments should correctly state what is implied. For this reason I am moving the Amendment. I am sorry that it should have caused so much difficulty.
LORD CHAMPION: I have no fault to find with the clause and I thought it worth while when I say that it had been introduced in another place. It was obvious that some amendment would have to be made. I agree to the Amendments that are proposed, but I protest at the form in which they have been presented to us.
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendment No. 46.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 29, leave out ("(2) above shall in any event") and insert ("(3) or (4) above shall").—(Baroness Young.)
LORD CHAMPION: May we not take Amendments Nos. 46C to 46K en bloc?
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD JESSEL): With the permission of the Committee I will call Amendments Nos. 46C to 46K.
BARONESS YOUNG: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 46C to 46K.
Amendments moved—
Page 21, line 32, leave out subsection (4).
Page 21, line 38, leave out ("local or").
Page 21, line 39, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)").
Page 22, line 14, leave out from ("not") to ("they") in line 15 and insert ("lay the necessary sewer within six months or such longer period as may be agreed between the parties or be determined under subsection (10) below".
Page 22, line 18, leave out subsection (9).
Page 22, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 35 and insert—
("(b) as to the period within which a sewer is to be laid, shall be determined by a referee appointed by the parties or in default of agreement by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers.
( ) In this section—

"local authority" does not include a county council or the Greater London Council;

"necessary for domestic purposes" means necessary for removing the contents of a lavatory or removing water used for cooking or washing other than water used for the business of a laundry or a business of preparing food or beverages for consumption otherwise than on the premises;

"qualifying amount", in relation to a sewer, means one-eighth of the expense of providing it and of providing any other sewer whose provision the water authority consider necessary or expedient in consequence;

"reckonable charges", in relation to a sewer, means charges in respect of the drainage of premises attributable to its use and includes such proportion of any charge payable under Part III of this Act for services which include sewerage as is stated by the water authority to be so attributable;

"relevant deficit" means the difference between the qualifying amount and the reckonable charges received by a water authority in respect of each year.

( ) It shall be the duty of a water authority, at the request of any person, to state the proportion of any charge under Part III of this Act which is a reckonable charge for the purposes of this section.").
Page 22, line 38, after ("a") insert ("public").—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Whether Clause 16, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I will not delay the Committee but I wish to ask a couple of questions because Clause 16 deals mainly with the issue of pollution; or, rather, there is opportunity, through the provisions in the clause, to deal with pollution. Paragraph 414 of the Jeger Report states:
"Priorities for research should include treatment and disposal of sewage sludge, treatment and disposal of farm waste, the removal of nutrient salt and organic residues from polluted waters and the development of improved criteria for assessing pollution."
I believe those objectives to be absolutely essential, particularly so far as the rural areas are concerned. In the Trent-Severn authority an area has been made from Bristol to the Humber and it is too large to deal with this problem.
During the Committee stage in another place a first-class case was made for estuarial groups to deal particularly with pollution and sewage in estuary areas and shedding from the regional areas the responsibility for the two estuarial areas. The two most polluted areas in Britain are bunched together; namely, the Trent Estuary and the Severn Estuary. What I want to ask is whether we have really looked into this in depth. Does the Minister not think that we should take more care before we agree Clauses 16 and 17, with some of the Government Amendments? I think that we should have this brought back to us after the number of approaches that have been made by local authorities throughout Britain for the last two years.
BARONESS YOUNG: If I have understood the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, correctly, he is again concerned about the sewage disposal arrangements, particularly in the new river authority of Severn and Trent. I can only give him the answer that I gave him before: that we recognise that there is a strong link between the provision of sewage disposal arrangements and the pollution of rivers, and it is because we feel that these two matters are linked that we are making the regional water authorities allpurpose authorities. We believe that they will have the power to carry out the functions mentioned by the noble Lord.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [River pollution]:
On Question, Whether Clause 17 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.31 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION LORD CHAMPION I do not want to say much about this clause, although by consent—and certainly my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek has demonstrated the fact—the problem of river pollution is a highly important one. My restraint in the matter is due to the fact that the Government will, I understand, be introducing a comprehensive measure providing for stringent control over the discharge of effluents into our rivers and the disposal of toxic substances. However, I want to ask a question about the timing of the proposed measure which the Government have told us they arc to introduce.
The Secretary of State for the Environment, when he introduced this Water Bill in the other place, after mentioning the proposed provisions arising from the Jeger Report and the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, said:
"Those provisions will be covered, together with other aspects of environmental pollution, such as waste disposal... in legislation which we would wish to introduce during the lifetime of this Parliament."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 5/2/73; col. 40.]
I cannot pretend to know how much longer this Parliament will continue: I think it ought to end at an early stroke; but it might go on until June, 1975. Subject to the Secretary of State's statement on Second Reading, Mr. Griffiths, the Under-Secretary for the Environment, said to an international congress in London on June 5:
"A Bill to be presented to Parliament possibly next Session would give regional water authorities full control of all tidal rivers, estuaries and of trade effluents to sewers."
This is—and I think we all admit it—a highly important and urgent matter. I should welcome a statement to-day by the noble Baroness on the timing of the proposed legislation.
The urgency of this matter is being highlighted at the moment by some searching articles by "Insight" in the Sunday Times. Perhaps I might briefly refer to these, because they are germane

887
to what I am saying. In one the writer says:
"A new peril has been discovered at Maendy quarry, the South Wales industrial tip which, as Insight reveared last week, contains at least 31 chemicals, half of them toxic to some degree. Last week as the Welsh Office sought to play down the dangers—Government scientists had already found another deadly chemical leaking from the tip…known as TOCP….TOCP was found in water from Maendy just over a week ago by analysts at the Water Pollution Research Laboratory at Stevenage. The laboratory, an agency of the Department for the Environment, has been testing Maendy discharges for some time. The TOCP the laboratory found was at concentrations of 'well over' 50 parts per million."
I know this quarry well; it is not far from my home. I know that it is 700 to 800 feet up, and inevitably water from it could flow down into the springs which feed the local rivers.
I do not expect the noble Baroness to comment on these articles, because I have not given her any real indication that I should be raising this in any depth, although I did advise her that I should be asking her something about the timing of the proposed legislation. I sincerely hope that she will be in a position to give us some information, which I certainly should like to have, and which I am fairly sure the Committee would like, too.
BARONESS YOUNG: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Champion, for giving me notice of his intention to raise these points on the Question, That the clause stand part. I can confirm that it is still the hope to introduce during the lifetime of this present Parliament new legislation on environmental pollution, but I cannot say anything further than that. The noble Lord mentioned in the course of his remarks the article in the Sunday Times and the case of Maendy Quarry in Glamorgan. I can confirm that powers to control new tipping of this kind—and this tipping occurred between 1965 and 1970—do exist in the Deposit of Poisonous Wastes Act 1972 which makes it an offence to deposit poisonous wastes where they will endanger public health, and which provides for a system of notification to the county council of intention to tip substances under this Act.
Reverting to the proposed new legislation, I may say that it is intended that this will provide much more wide-rang
888
ing powers on environmental pollution. New tipping sites will have to be licensed by the wastes disposal authority, the county council, who would in this case consult the regional water authority. The wastes disposal authority will be able to attach conditions to the licence governing types of waste and the precautions to be taken to avoid pollution. It will have power to inspect sites and power to vary the conditions of the licence. There will also he provision for the determination of disputes between applicants for licences and the wastes disposal authority. My honourable friend the Minister for Local Government and Development recently announced in another place that the Department would be commissioning a new programme of research into substances percolating from tips. I hope that this goes some way to answer the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Champion.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): I just wish to add, on the subject of Maendy Quarry, that I have no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Champion, is aware that the Secretary of State for Wales made a statement in the other place last Monday in which he said:
"On the basis of an extensive series of tests, the best advice available to me is that there is no evidence to sugeest any immediate public health hazard from the situation at these quarries. There is no danger of contamination of public water supplies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons,11/6/73; col. 968.
He went on to say that he was keeping the matter under constant watch and he would immediately take action should he find any dangers. He also mentioned T.O.C.P., referred to by the noble Lord, and said that he had been told about this by a consultant only on the Friday; that investigations took place immediately, and that these would continue with the full services of the Government analysts and all Departments.
LORD CHAMPION: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for making that statement. I must have been so busy preparing for this Committee that I missed the statement by the Secretary of State. I have only now been able to read last Monday's Lords Hansard because of the difficulty we have had in getting it.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Very briefly, it was because I knew of the statement which had been made in another place and that I did not mention this. I do not wish to delay our proceedings and to make a meal of this local problem. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his statement. I am sure that both sides of the Committee and the officials of the House will take careful note of this. However, I must say that driving up here in my car I listened to an account from some official of how this matter was being looked into. I believe that he was "stonewalling"—I will put it kindly—a little too much. I know this is emotive, but it is something that I feel the Welsh ought to be emotional about.
I believe we shall have to look at this problem of chemicals. I must declare an interest in the chemical industry and I know the problem involved in the disposal of these waste products and the effluent from plastics. We must get a national policy on this disposal problem. It is all very well for somebody to say, "Throw this down some of your old Welsh coalpits in the Rhondda". It may be that the pit goes down 2,000 feet into the ground, yet it may still be 4,000 feet above sea level somewhere else, and fluids can drop into other parts of the country. I have now said enough. I do not know the answer to this problem and I do not want to sound pompous, but I believe we must try to find an answer to this modern problem of chemical effluents all over Britain.
Clause 17 agreed to.
6.42 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 17 insert the following new clause:
Arrangements for discharge of certain functions by Greater London Council.
".—(l) It shall be the duty of the Thames Water Authority and the Greater London Council to endeavour to make arrangements for the Greater London Council to discharge as respects the London excluded area the functions of that water authority under or in pursuance of the Water Resources Act 1963 and this Act for and in connection with—

(a) the determination and review of minimum acceptable flows for inland waters in that area;

(b) the control of the abstraction of water from or from the vicinity of, and the impounding of water in, such inland waters:

890

(c) the protection of such inland waters against pollution, and the control of discharges into underground strata in that area;

and for that council to discharge as respects the London excluded area or such larger area as may be agreed between the two authorities or determined by the Ministers such functions of that water authority under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 to 1961 as were exercisable by the Port of London Authority and the Greater London Council immediately before 1st April 1974 under Part VI (Prevention of Pollution) of the Port of London Act 1968.
(2) If within a period of two months beginning with the date on which consultations between the water authority and the said council were commenced for the purpose of making such arrangements as aforesaid the two authorities have not entered into the arrangements, the water authority or the council may within one month of the end of that period refer the matter to the Ministers and the Ministers shall in that event settle the terms of the arrangements which shall be binding on both parties.
(3) The parties to any arrangements in force by virtue of subsection (1) or subsection (2) above, as varied (if it is the case) under this subsection, may by agreement vary the arrangements or, in default of agreement, either party (after giving notice in writing to the other party) may apply to the Ministers to vary the arrangements and the Ministers may in that event by direction to the parties vary the arrangements in a manner specified in the direction and such variation shall (subject to a further application of this subsection) be binding on the parties."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 47. I moved a number of Amendments earlier, all of which were linked together and were intended to secure the retention by the Greater London Council of powers which they already possess, and to ensure for the Council powers which, as a water authority, they could well discharge with efficiency and economy. I had been hopeful that the Committee would have seen the good sense behind allowing the Greater London Council to do that and also that perhaps the Amendments would have been carried; but one had to anticipate that they would not be accepted. I want to make it quite clear that Amendment No. 47 is one that accepts the position that the Government are not prepared to do what I sought to achieve in the early stages of our proceedings in Committee.
This Amendment, which would introduce a new clause in the terms set out in the Marshalled List, would secure arrangements for the discharge of certain functions by the Greater London

891
Council which are nothing like as ambitious as those envisaged in the earlier Amendments. I hope that the same reason which prevailed when we were considering water authorities just now and the same kind of thinking that went on in the minds of a number of those who spoke might be brought to bear in connection with this Amendment. I should also like to think that the Government themselves would be big enough to see that, as I shall hope to show, there is a good reason behind this. May I say that there can be no question here of old-fashioned or reactionary thinking. I do not think the accusation was particularly fair before: it certainly was not accurate then, and I do not think it can have any application with regard to this Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is to provide arrangements whereby certain functions of the Thames Water Authority may be discharged by the Greater London Council. Having regard to the unique situation existing in the London excluded area and the experience and capabilities of the Greater London Council, there is a very strong case indeed for doing this. It is of real importance to London that it should be done. This Bill provides for the Greater London Council to retain its functions as a land drainage authority for what is known as the London excluded area. This involves over 400 square miles, taking in a good proportion of Greater London and other areas outside it. It is not covered by any other river authority and it includes the catchments of the Rivers Brent, Crane, Ravensbourne and Wandle and the Beverley Brook. These are not large tributaries of the Thames but I think that many, if not all, of your Lordships will remember that there has been serious flooding in built-up areas through which these tributaries flow. The Greater London Council is generally responsible for tidal and other flood prevention and for the improvement of main metropolitan water courses. Those functions, as I understand it, will remain under this Bill. Unless the Bill is amended, certain important functions of river management will be discharged by the Thames Water Authority, but since the Council will have the land drainage function they feel themselves clearly in a position to undertake those river management functions
892
and thus avoid wasteful and unnecessary duplication of administration over the same streams.
The functions to which I have referred fall under two main heads: control over river flows, and prevention of river pollution. Under the Water Resources Act 1963, all river authorities have powers in connection with the establishment of minimum acceptable flows for inland water in their areas and the control of construction or alteration of impounding works on such waters. These bowers have never applied in the London excluded area, although tile Greater London Council have represented to Government Departments many times that they were necessary for dealing with land drainage and amenity responsibilities in relation to London streams. The Wandle Valley is a case in point. Anxiety has arisen from the progressive reduction of the River Wandle, which has resulted in the virtual drying up of Waddon Pond and the Croydon branch of the river since December 1972. If the river in this area does dry up, the lake in Beddington Park will be endangered and the whole environment will suffer, causing trees, shrubs and other plants to be very seriously affected. I have touched on these matters very briefly, but I trust I have said enough to show it is necessary for the G.L.C. to have powers to ensure certain minimum flows in London streams.
If I may now turn to the subject of pollution, the Port of London Authority are responsible for the prevention of river pollution as regards the tidal reaches of the Thames within their area. In this the Council's Scientific Branch assists by monitoring the condition of the rivers. As I indicated a few moments ago in connection with the previous Amendment, they will continue to monitor the condition of the river. The Council itself discharges the function of pollution prevention with regard to canals and non-tidal rivers in the 400-odd square miles of the London excluded area. I gather there is conjecture as to the Government's intentions in regard to the pollution powers of both the Port of London Authority and the Greater London Council. May I inquire from the Minister who is to reply whether the Government intend these powers to be transferred to the Thames Water Authority on April 1, 1974? If that is the case, it

893
would seem to make little sense. As I have indicated, the Council's staff will in any case have to patrol, inspect and maintain these rivers in the exercise of land drainage functions. It would clearly be nonsense if they lost the function of pollution control.
In so far as the new clause proposes that the Council should take over for the first time pollution control of the tidal Thames the arguments are somewhat different but equally strong. The tidal river is clearly not a possible source of water supply for drinking purposes, so the purposes of pollution control relate to the planned protection of the environment and to amenity and recreation, including the improvement of the river for the purposes of angling. These are clearly functions of the Council and not of the Thames Water Authority as the Government are already (following the proceedings in Standing Committee D in the House of Commons) publicly committed to conferring on the Council the amenity and recreation functions of the Thames Water Authority in Greater London.
It should also be pointed out that the new clause would permit arrangements to be made whereby, if it was thought right, the Council, instead of the Thames Water Authority, could exercise the pollution prevention functions now carried out by the Port of London Authority, not merely in London but right down the estuary well outside Greater London. As the Council's scientific branch at present monitors the condition of the river far out into the estuary, there would be no practical problems to the Council taking on this task.
I hope that I have demonstrated something of the strength of the case in support of this Amendment. The Greater London Council has lost a good deal of its original functions. May I remind the Committee—we ought not to forget it—that they are losing some 15 per cent. of their staff and half of their direct services to the people of Greater London.
If this Amendment is accepted, something will be done to secure services to the advantages of the people of London, and to the interests of London generally; they will be secured with economy, and, at the same time, I think it would go some way toward showing respect for and confidence in the largest unit of local government
894
in the country. There have been many tributes paid to local government from all sides of the House at many stages of these proceedings. There was acknowledgment from the noble Lord. Lord Sandford, that local government was feeling bruised. I sincerely hope that the merits of this Amendment will commend themselves to the Government and that they will be able to indicate their acceptance of it.
6.53 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: I venture to intervene to support my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy in proposing the new clause at present before the Committee in order to supplement slightly what he has already said very amply and very cogently; and also for one subordinate reason. When my noble friend moved at the outset of your Lordships' debate that virtually the Thames River Authority might be subdivided, and the Greater London Council invested with the functions relating to London which tile Bill would transfer to the Thames River Authority, he was somewhat severely taken to task and told that his proposal was reactionary and unhelpful. The noble Lord who used that language to him did not include me in the condemnation, and I would feel rather conscience-stricken if I did not seek to come to my noble friend's support in this much more moderate proposal which he is now putting before the Committee, and which I hope is not reactionary or unhelpful.
In the case of the previous Amendment, my difficulty in addressing the Committee was that my noble friend had expounded the case admirably and fully; and he has again in that fashion expounded the case in respect to this Amendment. But perhaps it would not be wholly inapposite if I pointed to some features in his present proposal. The background of his proposal is his reluctance to see the direct functions performed by the Greater London Council diminish, as they would diminish if this Bill became law without qualification. He has indicated that it is that general feeling which has motivated him, in part at any rate, in making the proposals now being considered by the Committee. What I seek to add is a word on the moderate character of that which he is at present suggesting. I would point to the fact that all he is proposing is that the Thames Water

895
Authority should get together with the Greater London Council, and they should consider together a scheme for investing the Greater London Council with the duties which are set out in sub-paragraphs (a),(b) and (c) to his new clause which he has already explained in some detail.
The proposal goes on to require that if agreement cannot be reached the matter should go to the Minister. There should not be delay because a twomonths' time limit is set. The net result of that proposal, if it is accepted, surely is not unreasonable. I would go further: surely it is helpful. In spite of what has been said so cogently by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in an earlier discussion, there has been apprehension expressed about the rather mammoth size of the Thames Water Authority. This would slightly—perhaps more than slightly—go some distance to meet that criticism. It would provide a means whereby a sensible arrangement could be agreed between the two authorities in such a way as to be acceptable to both. Part of the function could remain with the Greater London Council.
It is a sensible division of labour, a division of labour which would retain the feature which at present is applicable; namely, that the expert staff available to the Greater London Council could again be made available for the purpose of the discharge of these three separate categories of function. That is surely to the good. Before we started discussing this Amendment, the noble Lord said that change for the sake of change is not necessarily desirable, and that is distinct in the suggestion which my noble friend made. Therefore all that is proposed is this: let these two authorities get together, let them come to some sensible agreement for a division of labour in a very limited field, as set out in sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), for which the Greater London Council is at present very well provided. It is well provided by its expert staff to discharge those functions. Limited in scope though they are, they are of great importance. They would to some extent counter the criticism which motivated my noble friend in moving the earlier set of Amendments. He now therefore returns to the same proposal—I emphasise, and cannot
896
emphasise too much—in a modified, highly practical and restrained form.
I ask Ministers to consider carefully whether there is not something really valuable in this new approach. It does not dismantle in any way the Thames Water Authority. On the contrary: it recognises that Authority as the overall authority which will still he a partner in this joint enterprise. It will work together with the Greater London Council in pursuance of arrangements which they have both worked out to their mutual satisfaction. That is what my noble friend has proposed. I hope if he is again said to be reactionary in this matter that I will be identified in spirit with his reactionary nature. I never thought he was a reactionary, and I still find it rather difficult to believe. I do not think I am. and I hope we may both survive this debate with our reputations in that regard not too damaged. I beg to support my noble friend.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I fear I must add just a word after listening to the persuasive advocacy cf the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, who makes even the lightest substance carry great weight. I really do not think there is quite the substance in this argument that he was able to clothe it with by the skill of his words and dialectic. If we look at the three functions which he and his noble friend Lord Garnsworthy are advocating should be put in the hands of the G.L.C., we see that the first one, in paragraph (a), has not been carried out at all by anybody. Nobody had been able to do it yet, for a variety of good reasons, so that is not going to affect the G.L.C. staff. The second one, concerning the control of the abstraction of water, of course has not been carried out by the G.L.C. either; and "the protection of such inland waters against pollution" also has not been carried out by the G.L.C. but by the P.L.A. While I follow the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that this function might be given to the G.L.C. as a consolation prize because they have lost other functions which they valued—I take that point; I am sad to see any functions transferred from local government—I really do not think that these three particular functions—
LORD GARNSWORTHY: May I remind the noble Lord that I covered this point and acknowledged that nobody had had the powers, and I endeavoured to make a case, with brevity, as to why it was desirable that the G.L.C. should have them.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, did, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, spun a very skilful web which made the picture seem slightly different. I was dismantling the web he had so skilfully erected. Lord Garnsworthy related this, very cleverly I thought, to the G.L.C.'s recreational powers, saying it was most desirable that the prevention of pollution should be related to those powers. There is a connection, I would agree, but of course far the strongest connection is between the prevention of pollution powers and the sewage disposal function. This Committee decided on Monday, after the very interesting debate which the noble Lord promoted, that that should remain with the R.W.A.; that the whole logic of this Bill demanded that it should. That being so, there is no doubt at all that the body responsible for monitoring the control of pollution should be the same body, so that the general management of the sewage works—the whole function of reclamation—is in the same hands. So the whole logic of this issue is that these powers should remain with the regional water authority in so far as they are substantial—and they are certainly substantial in regard to paragraph (c)—but with regard to paragraphs (a) and (b) I do not think they are very substantial. They certainly will not make any difference to the G.L.C. staff. So I hope my noble friend will find himself unable to accept this Amendment.
7.5 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: I certainly acquit both noble Lords opposite of being anything other than good sound radicals, but I cannot say that their proposal is anything less than reactionary, though perhaps not quite so reactionary as their earlier proposal on Amendment No. 1. They are still clinging to the past instead of reaching forward into the future. I cannot say the proposal is anything like so reasonable or so practical as the skilled advocacy of the noble and learned
898
Lord, Lord Stow Hill, might have deceived some of us into thinking that it was. So I am afraid I cannot advise the Committee to adopt this proposal, any more than the one incorporated in Amendment No. 1. I will endeavour to say why, without repeating more than is absolutely necessary what I said at the beginning of the Committee stage.
The main fact is that, like it or not, Greater London, or any area based closely on the Greater London area, is not a viable unit for the purposes of the future comprehensive management of water services. Those river management functions which have significantly been omitted from the present new clause are a good illustration of this. For instance. the augmentation of water in the underground strata under London would depend upon operations which have to be carried out someway outside in the Chilterns where the chalk aquifer is naturally replenished. Equally, the administration of fisheries and angling has to take place over a much wider area than the stretch of the tidal Thames which happens to lie within Greater London.
The Government, however, are content to see the responsibility for land drainage, for flood protection and for the great Thames flood barrier to remain with, and for the river recreation including angling and amenity be conferred upon, the Greater London Council. I shall be seeking to explain how the latter is to be done when I move Amendment No. 63C, later on this evening. They do this not because Greater London or the London excluded area, as the case may be, is the natural area for the exercise of these functions, but because these particular functions in the unique circumstances of Greater London—and I would entirely agree with Lord Garnsworthy that our capital city is unique in many ways—have sufficiently close ties with other local authority functions and can in the special circumstances reasonably easily be detached from the other water services, though on technical grounds it is not desirable to do so. That particular consideration does not apply to the further functions covered by the present new clause.
I must advise the Committee that to split off any further particular functions would go directly against the whole

899
principles of this reorganisation and seriously harm and jeopardise them. It is the Government's view that it is essential for the future for sewage disposal and pollution control to go together and go into the Thames Water Authority, which is where we have indicated right from the beginning in the original proposals for this reorganisation they should go; and exactly the same applies for water conservation and water supply. I would end by reiterating my own conviction that the future role of the G.L.C. and such of their staff as have been engaged in this field lies fairly and squarely in the Thames Water Authority, where they undoubtedly have a substantial contribution to make.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I much appreciate the rely of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, while not being too pleased at what it conveyed to us. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill for his much appreciated support. I am only sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, comes in so often against the Greater London Council. I have endeavoured to represent to this Committee the anxiety of the Greater London Council in regard too what is being done in depriving it of powers it has discharged with efficiency and with economy. It really is a nonsense for the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to suggest that the Greater London Council in its approach to this matter is being either old-fashioned or reactionary. He knows as well as I do that the attitude of the Greater London Council on this issue is not a question of Party politics. He knows as well as I do that if the outcome of the Greater London election had been different the request to this Committee of the kind of consideration that I have sought would have been the same, with this possible addition, that probably there would have been somebody on the other side, as there was in the case of the London Ambulance Service.
With regard to the suggestion that the proposal is reactionary, I venture to think—and I certainly hope—that the noble Lord will live long enough, and indeed I hope I shall live long enough (I do not think it will be a long period of time) to hear local government officers saying
900
that they are not prepared to be left out when it comes to being entrusted to the same extent that privately-owned water undertakings are being entrusted. The time will come when local government will say, "You have created these vast bodies; you have given us some representation on them; you may have given us a majority but you have taken jolly good care to see that control lies with the Department of the Environment, or the political head of that Department."
What is important is that the people of London should appreciate that, so far as the Greater London Council is concerned, it has endeavoured to preserve under public control as much as it can of the services in regard to water and sewerage functions. But I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that this is not only a matter of recreation; there is also the question of general amenity, and the instances I gave with regard to what is happening in the area of the Wandle I should have thought would be taken very seriously indeed. He has drawn attention to the fact that there has been no river authority in that area. I hope the debate will serve some purpose in that somebody will continue to think of the problems that concern London. In the circumstances of the debate I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: I think now might be a convenient moment for me to move that the House be now resumed, on the understanding that we meet again to resolve ourselves into a Committee on this Bill at a quarter past eight. I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved, That the House he now resumed.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

ROYAL ASSENT
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act

901
1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Bahamas Independence Act;

Rate Rebate Act;

The Metals Society Act.

MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed, and referred to the Examiners.

SALARIES (COMPTROLLER AND AUDITOR - GENERAL AND OTHERS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1973
7.15 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD BELSTEAD)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD BELSTEAD) rose to move, That the Draft Salaries (Comptroller and Auditor-General and Others) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, laid before the House on May 21, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order is required to authorise an increase in salary for the holders of three posts in Northern Ireland and to provide for the authorisation of any future increases. Although three public offices are involved, those of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Commissioner for Complaints, in fact only two people are involved because the posts of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Commissioner for Complaints are held jointly at present.
The Order proposes an increase of £1,500 for all three posts; that is, from £7,875 to £9,375 per annum, with effect from January 1, 1972. This increase, the new salaries and the effective date, are all the same as those implemented by administrative arrangement last summer for Permanent Secretaries in the Northern Ireland Civil Service following acceptance by the Government of the Report of the Top Salaries Review Body—the Boyle Report. As long ago as July of last year specific written assurances were given to the holders of the posts covered by this Order that similar increases would be paid with
902
effect from the same date as soon as the necessary Parliamentary approval had been obtained.
Before direct rule, such increases required a Resolution of the Northern Ireland Parliament, and but for Prorogation these increases would undoubtedly have been implemented about a year ago. As your Lordships will appreciate, direct rule was attended by constitutional complications and pressures on Parliamentary time which were sufficient to delay Parliamentary action on the contents of the Order until the late summer, when the breakdown in the tripartite talks on the economy led to the counter-inflation programme and an inevitable further brake on early action to authorise these increases. I can assure the House that the Order is in full accordance with the terms of the counter-inflation policy introduced by the Government last autumn. The relevant section is paragraph 13 of A Programme for Controlling Inflation: The First Stage (Cmnd. 5125), which states that in all cases where a settlement was reached before the standstill and the operative date for the increase was on or before November 6, 1972, the increase can be implemented.
Finally, the Order provides that future increases will be authorised by Order in Council made by the Governor of Northern Ireland after a draft has been approved by the Parliament of Northern Ireland. However, subject to Parliamentary approval when the new arrangements contained in the Constitution Bill which is now before another place are in force an Order would be made by the Secretary of State on a Resolution by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Those are the terms of the Order. I beg to move.
7.19 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sure I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but I think this is probably the first occasion on which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has spoken in his capacity as a Minister responsible for Northern Irish affairs and I should like to give him the warmest good wishes in his onerous responsibilities. He is following his noble friend Lord Windlesham, who quite clearly did a first-rate job there, and I can assure him that the House will be as sympathetic as possible in the light

903
of the special circumstances there. Certainly I speak with the knowledge of this "over-crowded" House, and I am sure that those of us who are present wish him all good fortune.
He has a slightly awkward little Order to introduce and one one which I think noble Lords who have not actually studied it, or have not heard the arguments, will be rather mystified. First, there is no doubt that these two gentlemen—and although they appear to be three, as the noble Lord has explained one of them holds two posts—are to receive an increase which is to be back-dated no less than 18 months, to January 1, 1972. I think I am right in saying that.
One wonders how this has come about. The noble Lord obviously was advised not to go into too much detail on this matter, and he gave us a brief and accurate but not fully satisfactory explanation. None the less, I followed very closely what he said, and since—and I hope that he will not take this amiss—his statement followed the statement made in another place even more closely than was usual with his predecessor (although I noticed that some subtle words had been inserted here and there which made the drafting a little different) I had the advantage more or less of knowing in advance what he was going to say. That is no criticism of him. I would say, however, first of all that I have no doubt that these two salary increases should be made and should be back-dated. Undoubtedly we owe gratitude to the holders of these posts in the difficult circumstances of Northern Ireland where inevitably judgment can be sensitive in its political effect, though I have no doubt that they judged them on merit and impartially. Having said that I have no doubt that these payments should be made, and as one of these gentlemen I believe is to retire at a not too distant date, this has a particular effect on his pension.
It is one of the unfortunate effects of delays in payments, whether it was the staging by the previous Government or the greater mess of the present Government—and I do not expect the noble Lord, Lord Beistead, to comment on that—that with regard to Civil Service pay there is a real danger of officials losing
904
not merely the pay increase that they should have but losing for ever the benefit in their pension. Happily, in this case that is not to happen, except of course that since January, 1972 (and after all their pay is related to Civil Service pay and Civil Service pay is based on comparability) they are still likely to be at a disadvantage.
The noble Lord argued, as did his honourable friend in another place, that it was ail right to make these increases under paragraph 13 of the Government's programme for controlling inflation. I suppose that it is possible to say in law that in all cases where settlement was reached before the standstill and the operative date of the increase was on or before November 6, that that increase can be implemented. Since they were informed, with the wisdom of foresight, as to the Government's likely pay freeze that it would be backdated, I think that the noble Lord and the Government are perfectly right in interpreting a phrase which does not appear to be directed to this kind of situation, but none the less should in equity apply; and I do not quarrel, except that I would hardly use the word "settlement" in regard to a pay increase to two particular individuals at this kind of level. Let me make it clear, and I repeat again, that this is no reflection on the individuals but merely the slight tangle which the Government have got into with regard to their pay policy. This is not a matter with which the noble Lord need concern himself very much. These remarks seemed to me to be relevant in this context. As I say, I have no doubt that these increases should be made and that the recipients richly deserve to get them even though they are rather belated.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, may I just say "thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. He is a busy Member of your Lordships' House as Leader of the Opposition, with many other things to do, and he has taken time to reply to the moving of this Order this evening. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for doing that. I am also aware that the co-operation between political Parties in both Houses has hitherto made the task of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that much lighter than it would otherwise have been.

905
I omitted to say when I moved the Order that one of the reasons for delay was that the Northern Ireland Advisory Commission studies all Orders which come to both Houses of Parliament. That was again another reason why we reached the time of the standstill on pay and prices, and of course it was then that standstill on pay and prices which led to the further delay in bringing the Order before Parliament. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for having looked at the Order and for saying that he feels it should go through. I would bear out what he says about judgment being difficult for the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Commissioner for Complaints. There are two Reports extant for 1972 and they give one an idea of some of the difficulties involved in their offices.
Before I sit down perhaps it is worth saying that the Parliamentary Commissioner is giving very good value for money. He has now managed to see ahead as to what he thinks his workload will be, and I noticed from his Report that he has now reduced his staff by not very far off 50 per cent. from the time he began operations in 1969. I shall accept the invitation given by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and not comment on Civil Service pay. In this case this Order avoids the pension difficulty which the noble Lord rightly said that we might be heading towards. It is relevant to the pay and prices policy, and I hope that the House will now agree to pass this Order.

ROAD TRAFFIC (AMENDMENT) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1973
7.28 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD rose to move, That the Draft Road Traffic (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, laid before the House on May 9, be approved. The noble Lord said: The main purpose of this Order is to bring the law more closely into line with that in Great Britain on a wide variety of miscellaneous matters, including several of some importance to road safety. The Order also proposes certain changes as the result of local government reorganisation.
In the field of driver licensing, the six county councils and the two county boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry are at present the responsible licensing authorities. Following local government reorganisation on October I of this year, the local licensing authorities will cease to exist and Article 15 of the Order provides that the Ministry of Home Affairs will become the single licensing authority for the whole of Northern Ireland.
Local government reorganisation also has an effect on the organisation of road safety in Northern Ireland in so far as the existing permissive powers of local authorities to incur expenditure on road safety will cease to be appropriate. At present there are four full-time road safety officers currently employed by local authorities in Northern Ireland, and the aim is to try to expand the number of road safety officers in order to provide a comprehensive programme of road safety education and training throughout the Province. Towards this end the Ministry of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland will assume direct responsibility for the road safety officer service and for the expenditure of road safety committees under Article 7. In this respect the position in Northern Ireland will be comparable with that in Great Britain when the new county authorities are given a statutory road safety duty.
Although road deaths for 1973 in Northern Ireland are down compared with the first four months of last year, the number of children killed has increased somewhat. There are, of course, a variety of ways in which road safety can be improved. I must say I hope that the raising of the school-leaving age is now going to provide an added opportunity to develop road care and driver training in schools. I would also, if I may, pay a tribute to the work carried out by the voluntary road safety movement in Northern Ireland, which has continued with its task in a spirit of community co-operation undeterred by all the troubles. Following local government reorganisation the road safety committees will continue to function, but in future they will be based on the 26 new district council areas and will provide a link with local government at that level. Each committee will in turn be represented on the Road Safety Council for

907
Northern Ireland, which corresponds to the Accident Federation in Great Britain.
My Lords, without keeping the House too long, perhaps I may turn for a moment from the structure of the Order to some of the detailed provisions. In Great Britain we do not take the view that epilepsy should necessarily be a reason for banning, a driver, provided that it is established that this condition is adequately controlled. However, in Northern Ireland the condition of epilepsy is an absolute bar to the granting of a driving licence. Article 3 will, therefore, enable regulations to be made to enable a driving licence to be granted to a person suffering from epilepsy, with controls similar to those in Great Britain, which will be prescribed in regulations.
In the field of vehicle inspecton, which takes up several pages of the Order, the present position is that Northern Ireland has schemes in operation which provide for the annual inspection of goods vehicles and public service vehicles, but there is no scheme in existence for the annual testing of private cars. Many of the cars currently used on the roads in Northern Ireland are clearly not in sound mechanical condition, and it is possible that some of them ought not to be allowed on the road at all.
Article 4 therefore provides for the introduction of a scheme of annual inspection for private cars to be carried out in Government inspection centres. This will be a comprehensive examination of the vehicle carried out by an independent and impartial Government examiner. Initially it is proposed that the scheme will apply to cars over 10 years old, but the Order permits the scheme to be extended progressively down through the age range. In addition to providing for annual inspections, the Order also extends the powers for authorised officers to carry out roadside checks of all vehicles in all age groups, and provides for the issue of prohibition notices in respect of vehicles which are so defective as to constitute an immediate risk to public saftely.
In Great Britain the powers of traffic wardens have already been extended to enable them to carry out additional duties, and in this respect Article 6 pro
908
vides for a similar extension of powers in Northern Ireland. This will, of course enable the traffic warden service to carry out additional duties and to relieve the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Article 5 of the Order extends the existing powers to regulate drivers' hours. Your Lordships may recall the lengthy debates we had in 1968 on Part VI of the previous Government's Transport Bill, during which fears were expressed about the practical difficulties of reducing drivers' hours. However, the Regulations for Northern Ireland are slightly more generous than those in Great Britain, and both sets of Regulations will need to be modified for the E.E.C. Regulations after 1976. What the Order does is to give powers with respect to drivers' hours which may well be needed by 1976 for Northern Ireland.
Finally, Article 8 of the Order will enable Northern Ireland to follow suit with Great Britain by providing for the compulsory registration of professional driving insructors. At present, although standards required of an instructor for registration as an approved driving instructor are the same as in Great Britain, the Northern Ireland scheme is still voluntary. Compulsory registration will not preclude the giving of free driving lessons or practice by a friend or relative, but professional instructors giving driving lessons for payment will be required to maintain the high standards required of an approved instructor. The object of this scheme is to raise the standard of driving instruction in the interests of road safety, and at the same time to provide a measure of consumer protection for the public.
This is a lengthy and detailed Order to which, I am sure, this House would wish to give detailed attention if it were presented in the form of a Bill. However, it has been studied with care by the Secretary of State's Advisory Commission. It contains provisions which are urgent for the good of road safety in Northern Ireland, and I hope that the House will agree that it should be passed and become effective as soon as possible. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Road Traffic (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, laid before the House on May 9, be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
7.37 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we strongly support this Order and welcome its introduction. It has been increasingly the practice that we have followed from this side of the House on these rather technical Orders to call in a spokesman who is particularly concerned in that partiscular area, but unfortunately those of my noble friends who are expert on road traffic and transport matters have been otherwise engaged. At least the noble Lord, Lord Belstead and I probably start equal in this subject in not originally knowing very much about it. He has given us a very clear explanation.
Studying comments made elsewhere, it appears that this Order is even more necessary than it was at one time. I understand that the standard of driving may well have deteriorated, and the police and the authorities have naturally been much involved in other matters and have been able to devote less time to controlling and policing road traffic performance. Certainly when one looks at the casualties in Northern Ireland resulting from road traffic accidents they are rather horrifying. It is a commentary on the extraordinary indifference that we all show to road traffic accidents that whereas none of us would do other than express horror when a bomb goes off and somebody is injured, many more people are killed at the weekends on our roads—and I gather that in Northern Ireland the figure is proportionately the same. Therefore, anything this Order can do must be welcome. Indeed it is clear—and I do not wish to say this critically in the Northern Ireland situation—that some of the provisions in the Great Britain Act might well, desirably, have been introduced a good deal earlier. Take the matter of car testing. As I understand it, there is one quite important difference (and I must admit that I pick up my information partly by reading what is said in another place) in that testing is to be done by public authorities and the private garages will not themselves be doing the road testing.
Again, I wondered what the noble Lord meant when he said that hours were a bit more generous with regard to drivers in Northern Ireland. It crossed my mind, "Generous to whom?" Generous to the driver in shortening his hours or generous to the employer or those who benefit from his services? I take it that
910
he means that drivers have more scope for driving longer hours, and I am glad to hear the noble Lord say that this matter is being tightened up. It is worth noting that one of the benefits of entering the European Community—and the fact that there are so few of my noble friends present is not the reason why I am emboldened to say a word in favour of it—is that we shall hope to bring ourselves into line with what I understand is the more civilised approach of the Cornmunity with regard to length of drivers' hours.
I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, recognised that in other circumstances this would have been a Bill. On the other hand, one is bound to say that, much as my conscience has smitten me in regard to the lack of consideration we have given to Northern Ireland business, one does note sometimes, despite the enthusiasm of Scottish noble Lords, that Bills that parallel closely United Kingdom Bills, unless there is some particularly Scottish point, tend to proceed rather more rapidly than do United Kingdom Bills. Certainly it is worth mentioning for those who may forget the extent to which the Government have sought to make efforts at proper scrutiny, that, as the noble Lord explained, this proposal will have been through the Advisory Committee. In passing, I wonder whether, at some stage, one could know a little more about the work of the Advisory Committee. It has been explained to us, and occasionally we have even asked a question about their proceedings. I do not ask the noble Lord to make any promise now, but it is rather interesting that there is this extra Parliamentary scrutiny.
I apologise for branching so widely, conscious, as I am, of the growing inability of Parliament to provide as effective a scrutiny as we should like over a great deal of matters that directly concern ourselves. In regard to the European Community we are to have a debate, but we still are in a position where there is a great flood of Orders which none of us is examining. We get Papers on them, but I wonder how many Papers noble Lords read and see what they are about. I do not want to branch into that wider issue, but I should be interested if, at some time, the noble Lord's right honourable friend, if he has not done so

911
already, would consider giving some sort of a report on the workings of the Advisory Committee, which is something that has been designed to help fill in the gap until such time as presumably the Assembly will have certain further powers transferred back to it. I apologise to noble Lords for making those rather wider comments. There is no doubt that this is an Order that we should welcome. It will be to the definite benefit of people in Northern Ireland, and the sooner it comes into force the sooner lives will be saved.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, once again I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for what he has said, because he has thrown some more light on different parts of what is indeed a very long and complicated Order. The noble Lord referred to safety on the roads in Northern Ireland, and he is absolutely right when he indicates that the numbers killed on the roads there are unacceptable, as indeed they are in most European countries. My honourable friend, in moving this Order in another place, pointed out that in the last three years more people had been killed on the roads in Northern Ireland than had died owing to the disturbances.
I would not like to let this Order pass and give a wrong impression, however, about vehicle testing, to which both the noble Lord and I have linked many of our remarks in the last few minutes. In some ways I think that Northern Ireland has led this country in vehicle testing. For many more years they have tested both passenger service vehicles and goods vehicles. Certainly they tested goods vehicles back in the early 1930s. In Northern Ireland they have not had compulsory testing for cars, and that is what this Order now provides. It will be at centres, of which there will be fifteen initially, and it will be up to the Government, or to the relevant Ministry, to see whether the centres should be increased in number. There will be one great advantage over this country—and I must admit this—in that it will mean that there will be continuity between one centre and another as to the way the tests are carried out. This is because in Northern Ireland they will be able to do this from centres, and instead of
912
saying that the test will refer to particular aspects of car safety, such as steering, brakes, and so on, it is clearly put into the Order that these will be "general tests". Therefore, I submit to the House that the tests will probably be more comprehensive than perhaps we find at the moment in this country, and they are more likely to be consistent. In saying that, I am in no way making any reflection on the garages which do the tests in this country.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps this is the first fruits of that powerful debate we had yesterday on socialism.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the limits on driving hours are more generous, in that they provide for 11 hours at the wheel of a vehicle in Northern Ireland and, as the noble Lord correctly divined, a lesser time in this country. Both Northern Ireland and Great Britain will, however, have to keep an eye on 1976, when the relevant E.E.C. regulation will come into force, and we have agreed that we will abide by it. This Order will certainly allow Northern Ireland to do that. May I finally say that I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to the noble Lord's remarks about the work of the Advisory Committee. If I am able to do so, I will certainly see that either I, or my right honourable friend, writes to the noble Lord on that matter. With that, I hope that the House will agree to the passage of this Order.
[The Sitting was suspended at 7.47 p.m. and resumed at 8.15 p.m.]

WATER BILL
8.17 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on the Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Sandford.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The VISCOUNT HOOD in the Chair]
Clause 19 [Land drainage]:
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 47A.
Page 24, leave out lines 27 to 29 and insert—
("(4A) Land drainage functions relating to the London excluded area shall continue to be exercised by the Greater London Council and other authorities by whom they are exercisable immediately before the passing of this Act, and in accordance with the enactments by virtue of which they are exercisable, but Part IV of Schedule 4 to this Act shall have effect for the purposes of their exercise.")
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is almost drafting, in so far as the words which will be substituted serve to make abundantly clear—more so than do the words which are removed—that the land drainage functions, which are at present exercised by the Greater London Council, will continue to be exercised by them in perpetuity. I beg to move.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I suppose that one ought to acknowledge the grand gesture of the Government, if I am not taken too seriously in referring to it in that way. But it is appreciated that this matter is being treated in the way that was promised.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 25, line 2, after ("that") insert ("sections 1 and lA of the Land Drainage Act 1961 (general drainage charges) and").
The noble Earl said: If I may speak to Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51, because they are all linked together, their purpose it again to make much clearer than the Bill at present does the effect of a charges option order when it comes into force. This is, in fact, almost solely drafting. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: I beg to move Amendment No. 50.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 3, at end insert ("and shall thereupon be treated for the purposes of section 38(2) of the Interpretation Act 1889 (effect of repeals) as if they had been repealed in relation to that area by another Act.")—(Earl Ferrers.)
EARL FERRERS: I beg to move Amendment No. 51.
Amendment moved—
Page 25, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 8.—member(Earl Ferrers.)
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved Amendment No. 51A:
After Clause 19 insert the following new clause:
Provision for maintaining and developing sonic inland waterways for freight carrying
".Without prejudice to any powers which may be transferred in accordance with Section 8 of this Act, a water authority may maintain and develop for freight carrying vessels an inland waterway for which it is the navigation authority."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull. In so doing, I should apologise to the Committee on behalf of my noble friend who has been called away. This Amendment seeks to clarify the purpose of water authorities, particularly in regard to the maintenance and development of river navigation for the carriage of freight. It is my understanding that, under an earlier clause, authorities have a duty to promote the use of waterways for all kinds of navigation, but there appears to be some doubt that their powers as set out in the Bill are sufficiently explicit for them to carry out their functions where freight carrying is concerned. It is the purpose of this Amendment to provide for their ability to look after this activity, which could well be of growing importance. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: In considering this Amendment, I think it best to begin by setting out the aims of the Bill, which are two-fold. First of all, it provides a new structure of water authorities; and, secondly, it transfers a number of existing powers to water authorities. Among those existing powers, the new authorities will inherit from existing river authorities statutory navigation responsibilities in respect of some 510 miles of river. These existing statutory navigation responsibilities derive from various local enactments, many of them old, governing particular stretches of the river concerned. The new clause which my noble friend Lord Lucas has moved would remove

915
any doubt that there may be by giving water authorities clear powers to maintain and develop these 510 miles of river for freight-carrying. The Government would not wish in any way to be discouraging about freight-carrying on inland waterways but, as I understand it, the difficulty is that it is intended in the present Water Bill simply to transfer existing powers and not to add to them, which is what this Amendment would do. As a result of this, we consider that we are not able to accept this Amendment, but I hope that the noble Lord will rest assured that all the existing powers are transferred to the new water authorities.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: I thank my noble friend Lady Young for her reply. Your Lordships will perhaps recognise some of the inadequacies with which I am faced. It would appear, however, that in transferring the existing powers we can make no provision for an element of improvement, and it was the thought of my noble friend in setting down this Amendment that, through it, the Bill would provide the opportunity for improving that which already exists. He will be somewhat disappointed in that the Government do not feel able to add such an improvement to the powers which are contained in the Bill. However, it would not be my wish to pursue the matter unduly, and in the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Recreation]:
8.26 p.m.
LORD PEDDIE LORD PEDDIE moved Amendment No. 52A:
Page 25. line 29, at end insert:—
("Provided that every water authority and all statutory water undertakers shall so discharge their duty under this subsection as to have due regard to the duty of the water authority under section 10 above to supply wholesome water in their area.").
The noble Lord said: I hope your Lordships will appreciate my personal support for any steps that lead to an encouragement of the provision of amenities. I think that was indicated by an Amendment that I moved early on in the Committee stage. So, naturally, I give full support to the proposals which are inherent in this clause. According to the clause, water undertakings have a
916
duty to take such steps "as are reasonably practicable" to make water space and associated land available for recreation; but the overriding duty is to provide wholesome water. In another place an Amendment similar to my own was tabled, but in his reply I think the Minister missed the essential point of the Amendment. The Minister said (if I may paraphrase) that water authorities' duties would extend beyond mere water supply and would cover the whole of the water cycle. That, of course, is true. He said it was impossible to segregate and wrong to separate one duty from another.
Now it is true that the provision of what the Bill describes as wholesome water is but one function, but the fact is that it is the most important function. I think one must appreciate that it is possible to neglect drainage without an immediate risk to life and health, but that is not so in the case of water. Therefore, this Amendment merely underlines the priorities of responsibility. It does not detract one iota from recognition of the necessity for the authorities to provide adequate amenities, but it makes crystal clear to both the public and to the authorities that, while that prevision is important and must be recognised, the overwhelming and overriding responsibility is that of the provision of wholesome water. I therefore recommend this Amendment to the Committee, and I hope the noble Baroness opposite will be willing to accept it, because I think it would strengthen the clause. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I would say in answer to the noble Lord that a reconciliation of all these purposes rather than talk of overriding priorities is the underlying philosophy in the Bill before us. The water authorities will have statutory duties relating to a far wider ranee of functions than hitherto: water supply—I certainly put it first—sewerage and sewage disposal, prevention of pollution, land drainage, fisheries, navigation, recreation and amenity. Now these will interrelate at many points, and it will be the job of the regional water authorities to decide how they should be reconciled. This is what the comprehensive management of the whole water cycle is all about, and it is the Government's main reason for setting up the

917
regional water authorities responsible for discharging this whole range of functions.
For that reason, we believe it is undesirable to single out in the Bill one particular function to be given what the noble Lord calls overriding priority, even though we would agree with him that it is the basic one. To do this would, I think, cast a doubt on the relationship between it and the other functions as they are now envisaged. So, while taking the point that the noble Lord is making to the extent of agreeing that the supply of water is a basic purpose, we believe that the matter is best left to the water authorities to determine in the circumstances of each case, and with particular reference to Clause 10 where the noble Lord will see that water supply is rated high, as it should be, in the category of functions to be fulfilled. In considering the recreational developments which are given new prominence they will have to take all their other relevant statutory functions into account, including that in Clause 10.
It is misleading to imply, as the Amendment might be taken to imply, that there is an inevitable clash between recreation and water supply in the sense that it was believed, and is still believed in some quarters, that it is not possible to have a water supply reservoir with any recreation going on in it or near it. I think the Committee will agree, and I hope the noble Lord will agree, that we have moved a long way from the days when every reservoir catchment was totally forbidden territory; the development of the regulating reservoirs has facilitated this. I hope the noble Lord will agree that the philosophy that we are stressing is now the right one to adopt and that the prominence, importance and basic indispensability of water supply is recognised without his Amendment and that he will not feel it necessary to press it.
LORD PEDDIE: I am encouraged by the noble Lord's comment that the provision of water is the major activity. I think he made that clear in his reply. I accept that a wide variety of functions are involved, so long as the major activity is made crystal clear as it was in the course of his reply. I hope this will be borne in mind constantly by the authorities who will have responsibility
918
for judging the extent to which the provision of amenities should be made available. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 52B:
Page 25, line 41, at end insert:
("(3A) In exercising their functions under subsection (1) or (3) above a water authority shall not obstruct or otherwise interfere with navigation which is subject to the control of a harbour or navigation authority without the consent of the harbour or navigation authority.
In this subsection "harbour authority" has the same meaning as in the Harbours Act 1964 and "navigation authority" has the same meaning as in the Water Resources Act 1963.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment makes clear that a water authority exercising its function with regard to recreation shall not interfere with navigation controlled by another authority without the agreement of that authority. There are already safeguards of this kind with respect to water authority functions other than recreation. This Amendment fulfils an undertaking given by my honourable friend in another place at an earlier stage of the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD DE RAMSEY LORD DE RAMSEY moved Amendment No. 52C:
Page 25, line 41, at end insert:
("( ) The Secretary of State may, where he is satisfied that it will assist the exercise by a water authority of their functions under this section, make an Order under section 82 of the Water Resources Act 1963 (for the transfer of functions and property of a navigation authority, conservancy authority, or harbour authority):—

(a) in relation to any waterway where at any time any body has exercised functions to facilitate navigation, notwithstanding that the exercise of such functions may have ceased through any cause other than a provision by virtue of any statute or an order of any court requiring that it should cease;

(b) so as to give the water authority such rights, powers and obligations for the improvement and maintenance of the waterway and the facilities for public access along it as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, having regard to the rights, powers and obligations of water authorities in respect of other water where they exercise the functions of navigation authorities.

Provided that no new right over land shall be created by an order made in pursuance of this subsection.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has to do with navigation, a subject which appears to be nearly as complex as land drainage. There are, it seems, certain river authorities to-day with navigation responsibilities and powers. There are many without any. The object of this Amendment is, first, to extend these existing navigation powers to river authorities, even if they are defunct; and, secondly, to improve them. This needs to be done. This Amendment is a simple way of effecting it. If the Government do not like the drafting, let them put down their own draft at Report stage; but let us hear that they are willing to agree that in principle this must be done now in this Bill. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I am glad to respond to the Amendment by saying that we agree that, broadly speaking, something on these lines is needed. One must apologise for not being in a position yet to propose the precise form of Amendment that would commend itself to the Government, but I am glad to confirm that we have the matter in hand and hope to be able to bring forward an Amendment at Report stage which will meet the case. I hope, with that undertaking, that the noble Lord, Lord De Ramsey, and anybody here who may be intending to move Amendment No. 57B on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD DE RAMSEY: I thank the noble Lord for his statement and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.36 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE BARONESS WHITE moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 26, line 8, leave out ("that") and insert ("the Welsh")
The noble Baroness said: It will be to the general convenience to consider Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 together, because what we seek to do in this Amendment is to transpose the responsibility in subsection (5) of this clause. This is an Amendment of considerable importance in the Principality. I should like briefly to explain to these who may not be familiar with the arrangements proposed for Wales why it is that we are concerned about it.
Your Lordships will recall that when we were discussing the Amendment concerned with the Severn-Trent authority it was made plain that the Upper Severn catchment area which lies in Montgomeryshire would be, in general, in the charge of the Severn-Trent authority and not under the supervision of the Welsh National Water Development Authority. It was realised by the Government, as the preceding subsection (4) and the subsequent subsections (6) and (7) make plain in this clause, that it would not be acceptable in Wales if the Severn-Trent authority were made entirely responsible for recreation and amenity provisions in Montgomeryshire or what will be the new county of Powys. Therefore this rather complicated arrangement was proposed, that the Welsh authority, after consultation with the Severn-Trent authority, should prepare recreational plans for the whole of Wales including the Severn catchment. That is entirely satisfactory to us. It was also made clear that it would be the Welsh authority who would he empowered to acquire land and so on for the purpose of recreation connected with water throughout the Principality, including the area otherwise administered by the Severn-Trent authority.
So far, so good. But when we come to subsection (5), to which these two Amendments refer, we are told that any such plan for the promotion of recreation connected with water, in so far as it falls to be carried out in the area of the Severn-Trent Authority shall be carried out by that authority in accordance with the scheme agreed to by them and the Welsh authority or, in default of agreement, in accordance with the directions of the Secretary of State. With that we do not quarrel. We cannot see the sense of this. If the Welsh authority is allowed to go as far as it is in making all plans and acquiring land et cetera, we cannot see why it cannot proceed also to carry out those plans, provided they were agreed with the Severn-Trent authority which has the overriding responsibility for the management of the Upper Severn catchment and which plainly would not agree with any provision which conflicted with its primary duties as the senior authority in the area, so to speak, for all purposes other than recreation.
I will refer in a moment to some extremely obscure and ambiguous remarks on this subject made in another place by the Minister of State for Wales, Mr. Gibson-Watt, in the proceedings in Standing Committee D from which, frankly, I could not understand what it was that the Government had in mind. Before I turn to Mr. Gibson-Watt's remarks I will explain further why it is that we are so anxious that this should be an entirely Welsh undertaking—with always the authority and consent of the Severn-Trent people. In Wales we have our own Sports Council and we have our Welsh Statutory Committee on the Countryside Commission. We have our own Welsh Tourist Board, and these, together with the local authority, the new County of Powys and possibly any elected regional council which may be forthcoming ultimately under the Kilbrandon proposals—will all be the people concerned with life in mid-Wales. They will want to see how things are going and whether the schemes are working satisfactorily; whether the local people are happy about them and whether there is any conflict between the innumerable visitors who come to our beauty spots and the local people. I am not now speaking of any other aspect of water management or control. Despite the various pleas that have been put forward about local democracy and so forth, I agree that for the most part the management of water is a technological function. But when you come to amenity and recreation it is after all a human and a local function. Therefore one's relationship with the local community is of overriding importance.
Were we living in the old days, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—very rightly I thought—emphasised, the position might be different. In the old days, when water went directly from the reservoir into the pipe and into the tap, so to speak, one had to be extremely careful about what happened in the surroundings and on the surface of the reservoir. I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will reply for the Government, and I am quite sure that he is not living in the old days and will not put forward any such nonsensical argument. Knowing the Upper Severn catchment as I do—I live very close to it: I live actually in the Dyfed catchment, but I am very close to Clywedog, and so forth—I cannot conceive,
922
and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will agree with me, that in the Upper Severn catchment we shall ever again have the kind of reservoir that we have in the Elan Valley, where the water is pumped direct to Birmingham. They do not do that any more; it is absolutely "old hat". The Severn is now used as the pipe, the river is the conduit. The Clywedog is a regulating reservoir. The quantity of water going into We Severn is regulated from the Clywedog reservoir and would, I am certain, be so regulated in any other reservoir which might be constructed in the future in the Upper Severn catchment. There would be no water in the Upper Severn catchment going straight to the consumer, and so there is no question of the Severn-Trent Authority having to be on the spot as guardians of the purity of the water. It is absolute nonsense.
The Clywedog reservoir, which I know very well, has its boating and fishing and all that, and people are allowed to wander all round it, as I do. The actual purification of the water takes place miles away, hundreds of miles away so far as the Severn is concerned, and not on the spot. The only people who might drink the Severn water would be in Montgomeryshire, and much of their water conies from the shale-bearing areas adjacent to the Severn and not from the river. But I must not go into technical details of that sort.
All I am trying to make plain is that, in my view, it is not necessary for the Severn-Trent Authority to be responsible for the execution of the plan, provided that the plan is fully agreed in detail; and if it is desired that the Severn-Trent Authority should have some authority if things go wrong to appeal to the Secretary of State, this is provided for. If they are in disagreement with the Welsh Authority the Secretary of State can issue a direction. There is a good safeguard and a good appeal to the Secretary of State if, by any chance, the Welsh Authority proposed something which the Severn-Trent Authority felt was detrimental to the carrying out of their overriding duty regarding the supply of water. I can assure the Committee that this will make a great deal of difference in Wales. This is not one of the great tourist areas it is not, for example, like Snowdonia in the pressure of visitors at the moment.

923
But it is an important and developing area, and there is no part of Wales which is more sensitive politically on this matter of water than the Upper Severn catchment.
Clywedog dam was bombed and we do not want—I am serious about this—to encourage any forces of this kind, or to give any sort of excuses for the kind of trouble which can be caused. I am happy to say that we have not had any trouble for the last two or three years. But when I was Minister of State I went to see Clywedog when explosives had been discharged which damaged the dam. Fortunately, it was before the darn had been entirely completed and there was no flooding. This is a matter which is not to be entirely overlooked. One does not wish to give any sort of excuse to any people who may wish to express themselves in this way. Therefore it appears to me that it would be entirely proper to reverse the responsibility in subsection (5) and give the Severn-Trent Authority the privilege, if you like to call it so, of approving or disapproving the scheme; and if there is disagreement, there is an appeal to the Secretary of State, but then the Welsh Authority would carry through the entire business. The Welsh Authority already has the planning and the ownership of the land required for such purpose. Why, therefore, cannot it also have the management? To us in Wales this makes complete sense. With modern methods of reservoir management—and I stress the term "modern methods" because this would not have been true 20 or 30 years ago but it is now—I do not believe that there is any reason for conflict with the duties of the authority.
In conclusion, may I turn to the comments of Mr. Gibson-Watt which, as I say, I do not understand. As he is a Minister I Presume that I may quote him. I quote from col. 157 of the Committee's Report of March 1—St. David's Day, as it so happens—and it is in reference to recreation and amenity provisions. Having described the general pattern, Mr. Gibson-Watt went on to say:
"To say that those who will be running this executively—"
that is, executing the plan—
"will be people who live at Scunthorpe is totally wrong. What will happen is that on the
924
spot these important amenity activities will be run by local people."
But we have no guarantee whatsoever anywhere in the Bill that they will be run by local people. There is nothing in the Bill which puts any duty on the Severn-Trent Authority to employ local people to carry out the schemes, and therefore I cannot see what authority Mr. Gibson-Watt had for making such remarks which are completely unsubstantiated. When he was pressed by other members of the Committee who, not being Ministers, I must not quote, he was driven to the fallback position, in which lie said:
"I give the advice now to the Severn-Trent Authority that those who should actually administer and arrange matters on the spot"—
with the agreement of the Authority—
"should be people Aho well know the area."
That is a very different thing. This is a middle Minister at the Welsh Office giving advise to the great Severn-Trent Authority. Are they going to pay the slightest attention to something that he happened to say in Committee D if there is nothing in the Bill? Frankly, I do not think they will. Why should they? Therefore, with the greatest respect to Mr. Gibson-Watt (and I have quite an affection for him), I do not believe that he was entitled to say, as he did, that what will happen is that on the spot these important amenity activities will be run by local people. I do not think he had any right to say that. I do not see how he could possibly substantiate it. I do not see that there is any guarantee that it will happen. I believe, therefore, that the Amendments that my noble friend Lord Champion and I have put down—and my noble friend also knows this area, though not quite so well as I do—are right. We submit that the only safeguard that would be adequate would be to put the primary authority for execution on the Welsh body and the supervision of it on the Severn-Trent Authority. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: I should like, quite shortly, to support the main contention that the noble Baroness made in her speech. Coming as I do from the English side of the Welsh Border, ail my experience and instinct tells me that unless there is strong reason indeed to suggest the contrary. any recreations that are to happen in Wales are very much better managed by the Welsh.
8.52 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: I have a great affection for the noble Baroness opposite and for my noble friend, to whom I am slightly related, who has just supported her. I also have a great affection for Wales and am naturally predisposed towards this Amendment, but I must say, having gone into it very carefully, that the logic lies in the Government's proposals. I take it that we are at one on the planning proposals and I do not need to touch on those; it is simply a matter of who should manage the recreational use of the water in the Upper Severn basin and part of the area of the Severn-Trent Authority.
The noble Baroness made great play with Clywedog; but Clywedog is not the only reservoir in this area. There is also Lake Vyrnwy, which she did not mention. She said emphatically that it was "old hat" and old fashioned (I suppose I shall be called "fuddy duddy" again) to take water from a reservoir in pipes to its destination; but that is what happens at Lake Vyrnwy. Lake Vyrnwy is a direct-supply reservoir for Liverpool Corporation, and the water goes straight from Lake Vyrnwy to Liverpool in pipes. It is for that very reason that it would be quite wrong if the Severn-Trent Authority, who are responsible for the delivery of what I think is called potable water to Liverpool, were not in charge of the water in Lake Vyrnwy and the recreational use of it, because quite easily recreational use can lead to pollution, as the noble Baroness will acknowledge. It would be impossible, I think, to lay the responsibility on the Severn-Trent Authority to supply clean water to Liverpool and at the same time not allow them to manage and look after the recreational facilities on Lake Vyrnwy.
So far as Clywedog is concerned, I think the same applies. Although I recognise that this is a regulating reservoir, at the same time, water is drawn off from the River Severn to supply Birmingham, Gloucester, Bristol and many other places.
BARONESS WHITE: Much lower down.
LORD ABERDARE: I do not think it fair that one should say to a water authority: "You are responsible for the production of clean water to many important cities in England", and at the same
926
time that another authority should have the responsibility for recreational facilities on those waters. After all, it is not only in the reservoir but on the waters, too. It seems to me absolutely logical and right that the management and responsibility for clean water should rest with one authority. I say that with sympathy for those who speak on behalf of Wales, naturally, but I am convinced that it would be quite wrong to separate these two responsibilities.
BARONESS WHITE: I am sorry about this, but surely the noble Lord can appreciate that, so far as Vyrnwy is concerned —which I agree is a direct abstraction reservoir—all the Severn-Trent Authority have to do is to say: "Sorry, but you cannot have that scheme here, because that is an old reservoir; it is a piped reservoir and not a regulating reservoir". The Severn-Trent Authority have the right of veto.
LORD ABERDARE: No.
BARONESS WHITE: They could have. They have to agree to the scheme.
LORD ABERDARE: No; that is not correct. The Welsh Authority put up the plan in conjunction with the Severn-Trent Authority, and if there is disagreement it is the Secretary of State for Wales who has the final word.
BARONESS WHITE: Yes; quite so. But what we are suggesting is that the Welsh Authority should have the power to run the scheme, but a scheme agreed upon between them and the Severn-Trent Authority, and only in default of agreement will the Secretary of State be appealed to. The normal procedure would be that any scheme would have to be agreed upon with the Severn-Trent Authority. The Severn-Trent Authority would therefore say about Vyrnwy: "We are sorry, but this is not a place where you can carry out much recreation provision. It is not suitable. It is one of the old-fashioned reservoirs where there is a strict limit to the kind of recreational provision that could be carried out." I think that is true.
LORD ABERDARE: It is not exactly the type of recreation, because whatever sort of recreation takes place, pollution can occur. Human beings can cause pollution. You could say, "We will allow fishing"; but a fisherman could

927
cause pollution if he was careless in the way he acted. Somebody has to be running that reservoir who can stop that kind of thing from happening.
BARONESS WHITE: I still think that arrangements can perfectly well be made between the two authorities for that. I agree that Vyrnwy is much more sensitive than Clywedog because it is old-fashioned. Clywedog itself, and any new reservoir, would be a regulating reservoir, where the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would, in my submission, have no force at ail. To talk about what happens to the people in Gloucester, for example, for anything which could be done in Montgomeryshire is really quite irrelevant, because the water sup? plied in the taps of the city of Gloucester has gone many miles from Montgomeryshire before it is treated in such a way that it is suitable for drinking purposes. That is not done in Montgomeryshire; it is done far lower down the river. As I say, this applies to all the abstractions from the Severn. There is a tremendous amount of abstraction from the Severn, and then the water is treated and goes hack into the Severn and so on: there is a cycling that goes on the whole length of the river.
I grant the noble Lord a certain validity in his argument about Vyrnwy, but, as I say, I believe that could be dealt with by the Severn-Trent people's simply not agreeing to a scheme which did not give them adequate supervisory powers, if that is what they want. They would then Le part of the scheme. But the politics of this—and this is serious—is that in any new scheme it should be the Welsh Authority which should have the real say, I would have said, in running Clywedog as well as Vyrnwy, but, for the reasons put forward, it may well be that the scheme agreed upon for Vynrwy would need to contain some special provision. I think it is far better to do it in that way: to have the Welsh Authority as the executive as well as the planning authority, with the consent of the Severn-Trent people. If the Severn-Trent Authority felt that the more sensitive situation in Vyrnwy was such that they wanted a different type of scheme, I cannot believe that in those circumstances the Welsh Authority would be obstructive—and if they were the Severn
928
Trent Authority has a remedy in going to the Secretary of State and making its case. It is far better not to base the whole thing on what might happen in the case of a very old reservoir like Vyrnwy, where I believe perfectly suitable safeguards could be arranged—in other words, to take Vyrnwy as the pattern (in the Platonic sense) of the whole of the Upper Severn catchment. It is the wrong balance: you are making the lesser govern the greater cause, and this seems to me to be unstatesmanlike.
I think the technical arguments can be met within our proposition and that full safeguards can be agreed, since the Secretary of State has the over-riding power in any case. I do not think the Welsh Authority would be unreasonable over Vyrnwy. Vyrnwy is not one of the places on the whole which arouses political problems. Undoubtedly new reservoirs would; and I am really trying to safeguard the future. Water is the most inflammable substance in Welsh political life and it is just foolish not to recognise that. I am pleading with the Minister because I have to live with this perhaps more closely than he does. I was delighted to have support from the Shropshire side of the Border, because our Shropshire friends are close enough to know what goes on in Mid-Wales. We are merely asking the Government to show some statesmanship about this. I am quite sure that the technical anxieties about Chilworth water can be dealt with by agreement. I do not think that will stand in the way of what I am asking for, which is that the recreational and amenity provisions in Wales shall he seen very clearly to be the responsibility of the Welsh people.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: Before the noble Baroness sits down, would she tell us, for the benefit of those who do not know that part of the world very well, what recreation takes place on these various reservoirs at the moment?
BARONESS WHITE: It is mostly a matter of fishing, sailing, nature trails, picnic sites and view-points where you just sit and absorb the view and the beauties of nature. The Clywedog reservoir that I have mentioned so many times is a modern regulating reservoir. It has a very active sailing club and arrangements for fishing. I think myself

929
that other amenities could be very much better developed there. This is partly because at the moment these things are not run locally—it is the week-enders who come for the most part, though not exclusively, from the Midlands who run the sailing arrangements, and so forth. I believe there is scope there for better provision for refreshment arrangements and so on. This is something that I know the Welsh Tourist Board in particular are very anxious to promote, and I would hope also that the Countryside Commission Welsh Committee would arrange for amenities such as picnic spots and nature trails. There is considerable scope for that type of recreation.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: May I ask the noble Baroness about Vyrnwy? Is it one of those reservoirs which are surrounded by a fence that no one can possibly get through, or is some recreation allowed there at the moment?
BARONESS WHITE: It is very much more closely guarded, certainly. I am not so familiar with it as I am with Clywedog, but it is one of the two old Eland Valley reservoirs, where the water is piped directly. Therefore there is greater control, and one appreciates that there has to be.
LORD ABERDARE: Perhaps I might add, for the information of my noble friend, that all this planning and development would be done by the Welsh National Water Development Authority. It is their responsibility to do that. All we are talking about is the running of it—that is, to see that the running of the reservoir is properly carried out and
that human beings do not pollute the reservoir once the recreation facilities are there.
BARONESS WHITE: Are we not really boggling at something which could be arranged in the scheme? If this is really of over-riding importance, then surely the Severn-Trent Authority, before the beginning of the scheme could say, "We must have our watchman on the spot", and that would be part of the scheme. I seriously put forward to your Lordships that the Minister is allowing the lesser points, which I believe could be dealt with quite satisfactorily on an administrative basis, to obscure his vision of the essential political point of all this. I do not believe that these difficulties cannot be met within the formulation of an intelligent scheme by agreement between the parties. If the Severn-Trent Authority say, "We would not be happy unless we had our own inspectors or wardens on the spot", I believe that could be included in the scheme. I think that point applies to Vyrnwy but not to Clywedog, because it does not matter what you do with Clywedog, the water just goes down mingling with all the Severn water until it is extracted and purified when it is needed for use as drinking water. So far as Vyrnwy is concerned, all right: have a special scheme where you have your uniformed Severn-Trent people parading all round.
9.7 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 53) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 40.

CONTENTS

Atholl, D.

Champion, L.

Shepherd, L.

Beswick, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Snow, L.

Blyton, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Stamp, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Peddie, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Shackleton, L.

White, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Byers, L.

Gowrie, E.

Auckland, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Henley, L.

Aylesford, E.

Conesford, L.

Lothian, M.

Balfour, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Beaumont, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Berkeley, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Northchurch, B.

Brahazon of Tara, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, B.

Gainford, L.

Rochdale, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Sudeley, L.

Vivian, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Tenby, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Sandford, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Young, B.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Twcedsmuir, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

9.14 p.m.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 26, line 26, leave out ("in Wales").
The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment on behalf of the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale. It deals with community compensation, which is a relatively new idea. The Bill enables the water authority which makes a reservoir in Wales, which may affect but not necessarily benefit a local community, to provide certain facilities for that community. I think the reason for this is that when the Welsh Council made a report in 1970 on water in Wales they suggested not only that compensation for the landowner and the occupier should be better than it was—and noble Lords will remember that this has been a bone of contention for a long time—but also that those members of the community who do not benefit in any way should get some benefit from it.
If this is a good idea in Wales—and I am sure it is; everybody has accepted that it is; it is in the Bill—is it not also suitable that it should be extended to those parts of England which are very similar to Wales in this respect? I could mention the Lake District; Devon; the Peak—upland areas which by their very nature are poor, supply water which goes somewhere else and which yields them very little advantage. The suggestion is that people living in areas of that kind in Wales should benefit. May I, by removing the words "in Wales" from Clause 20(8) of the Bill, extend this to other parts in England? Noble Lords will remember what an emotive issue reservoirs in this kind of area arc, and the psychological advantage of being able to do something for these areas is very great. I beg to move.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I would support very strongly indeed what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has said. I cannot see any reason for any distinction between England and Wales. As he has already said, there are certain parts of our country very similar to Wales
932
with hills where the rain is greater and where water can be collected and passed long distances. It is not only from the Welsh hills that water is passed long ways to Birmingham and the Midlands; the same thing happens in the Lake District, which the noble Lord has mentioned—and I declare an interest in both the Lakes Ullswater and Windermere there. Water is carried from there a very great distance to Manchester and beyond. We have identical situations both in Wales and in parts of England, and for the life of me I really cannot see why there should be this difference between two parts of the United Kingdom.
There is of course in this Amendment no intention whatever of doing any harm to Wales at all. All that is wanted is that the same advantages which, quite properly and quite rightly, belong to Wales in this clause should also belong to England as well. I know of no reason of any kind why the same facilities given to local communities in the hills in Wales should not be given to local communities in the hills in various parts of the United Kingdom.
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to make it perfectly clear that, so long as we secure the provision of this part of the clause for Wales, we should not in any way wish to be selfish or dog in the manger. I am sure we should raise no objection at all to comparable provisions being made for similar places in England —the Lake District is perhaps the most outstanding. I think the reason why this is in the clause is, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, because we had a report from the Welsh Council, which had set up a special committee to study this matter in Wales, and they made this very strong recommendation. But I am sure that the feelings which gave rise to it must be common to all the supplying areas of the United Kingdom. And it is a quite simple matter. After all, those of us who live in these areas have to suffer the rainfall, which then flows to other parts and, apart from the addition to the rates, we get nothing for it. It is felt that this is one of the natural assets. Water is, after all, a natural asset like any other mineral substance, but we

933
get nothing for it. The rates of course really just save the Treasury. Nearly all the counties concerned are on some form of rate support grant, and all it means is that they get less rate support grant. They do not receive any more cash in the end; it just comes out of a different pocket.
So they do not feel that this is of any real benefit to the local community, although as I have said, it may save the Treasury something. There is a very strong feeling indeed that this is a local asset which is being abstracted from the area in which live the people who suffer the discomforts of the heavy rainfall, and it is enjoyed by people in far more prosperous parts of the country. Therefore, it was felt that this proposal that something might be done by the authority concerned for the local people would at least do something to mollify their feelings. I am sure that none of us in Wales would want to prevent the appropriate parts of England from receiving the benefits.
LORD SANDFORD: I agree that certainly in the past and probably in the future there has been—and there will be —an explosive relationship between those parts of the Kingdom where the rain falls and where the reservoirs are built and from where the water is supplied, and the cities, such as Birmingham. Liverpool and Manchester, where the water is drunk and consumed. I do not think there is any doubt at all that the provision that is now in the Bill and to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred, is a provision which is designed to defuse to some extent this explosive relationship and to soften and mitigate the effects of the construction of these reservoirs. I think perhaps members of the Committee would share my view that there is something about the relationship between Wales and the West Midlands which is even more explosive than any other relationship, though I suppose that between the Lake District and Manchester comes pretty close. It may be that when we get to the Peak District and Nottingham and Derby we are a little lower in the scale, although between Cornwall and Plymouth I should think there is something of the same nature of explosiveness. The Bill as it is drafted makes special provision for Wales—I
934
think rightly, because Wales is a major supplier of water to England.
There is one factor which noble Lords have not yet recognised and which I ought to point out. Since this point was made by the Council and incorporated in the Bill, we have passed the Land Compensation Act and this empowers water authorities as well as other authorities to do things in mitigation of the adverse effect of public works, and this is what we are talking about. Of course it goes further than the provision in the Bill because that would apply to sewage treatment works and mitigation of the adverse effects of those. So the case made by the noble Lord is not perhaps quite as strong as he sought to make it appear.
I should like to take away the points that noble Lords have made and consider whether it is not possible to introduce a different sort of Amendment, perhaps conferring a power and not a duty upon the river water authorities to make provision of the kind that is already incorporated in the Bill. I hope that, with the undertaking to consider the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, he and his supporters will agree to withdraw this Amendment for the time being.
BARONESS WHITE: Before the noble Lord, Lord Henley, does or does not do so, may I say that we certainly would not be happy if the duty were merely turned into a power. We feel most strongly that the duty should remain.
LORD SANDFORD: I was not proposing to alter what is in the Bill at the moment in respect of Wales, but to add to it.
LORD HENLEY: First let me say that the noble Lords reference to the Land Compensation Act is not a very happy one. After all, the Land Compensation Act deals with England as well as Wales already, and I know that it has made certain improvements with regard to compensation—not very great ones, but it has made some—and it has clone one good thing which is to begin to change the attitude of mind toward compensation. But so far as this Amendment is concerned it is irrelevant and has nothing to do with it. I will of course withdraw the Amendment on the undertaking that

935
the noble Lord has given. But I should not be at all happy if the noble Lord's own Amendment were to fall short for England in respect of anything he has already offered to Wales. I know that the situation in Wales is perhaps even more explosive than it is in Devon or Cumberland, or yet in the Peak District, but that is no reason at all for treating it any better than the rest of England. We should all be treated the same in this respect, and I hope that when the noble Lord drafts his Amendment and we see it at Report stage it will neither diminish what Wales now gets under the Bill nor offer less to England. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.26 p.m.
LORD BYERS LORD BYERS moved Amendment No. 55A.
Page 26, line 35, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury and after consultation with the Council and the Water Space Amenity Commission make to any water authority such grants as he considers necessary to enable that authority to discharge their duty under subsection (1) above.")
The noble Lord said: The "subsection (1) above" referred to in the Amendment is subsection (1) of Clause 20 which reads as follows:
"Every water authority and all other statutory water undertakers may take steps to secure the use of water and land associated with water for the purpose of recreation and it shall be the duty of all such undertakers to take such stew as are reasonably practicable for putting their rights to the use of water and of any land associated with water to the best use for those purposes."
I welcome very much indeed the Government's attitude in placing emphasis on the importance of making the maximum use of water space for sport and recreation, and for the preservation and enhancement of amenities. That is indeed very welcome. But this Amendment poses the questions: "Where is the finance to come from?" and "Where is the finance to come from in the ultimate?" We appreciate—and I speak now as a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House on Sport and Leisure—that grants can be made by the Sports Council. But the amount available to the Sports Council for all forms of sport is not very much, and certainly is not a great deal when compared
936
with what may be required for the purposes of water recreation in the future, because water recreation is an up-and-coming occupation and there is no doubt that it will play a very important part in the leisure pursuits of people in this country.
As I said on Second Reading, this is not just a question of canoeing or fishing. but of walking by the riverbanks, of picnic sites and all the rest of it. We appreciate' that grants can be made, possibly by the Countryside Commission. I do not know whether the Minister can say anything about that but, at the moment, as I understand it, the Countryside Commission has a very limited budget for all forms of countryside activities. I am not sure of the amount but I think it is something in the region of £1 million, which will not be anything like enough. Local government can provide grants for water recreation purposes and so on, but we are dealing with facilities which may well, and often will, transcend the locality. And the point remains that the concept embodied in Clause 26(1) of the Bill, namely, that taking one year with another the water authorities ought to aim to break even, could well mean that where it is impossible to obtain sufficient revenue to justify providing or maintaining facilities for water recreation, or recreation on water and land together, then the facilities will simply not be provided. This, in my view, would be very unfortunate indeed.
I do not believe that this Bill embodies the proper concept of what is going to be required in the future. It is going to be something much greater than can be provided by the Sports Council, the Countryside Commission or local government. We should like to be assured, first of all, that adequate grants will he available to enable water authorities to discharge their obligation on recreation if they cannot do so otherwise out of their revenues; secondly, that water authorities will not feel that they have to charge excessive fees for some recreation, thus risking denying the sport or recreation to the less well off; and, thirdly, that where the general revenue of the regional water authority is only sufficient to meet their general outgoings there will he cash available to help them to provide facilities for which charging is not possible, for instance, the use of river banks,

937
picnic areas and so on, where you simply cannot levy a per capita charge.
This is only a permissive Amendment; nothing is lost by including it in the Bill, and some Government some day may wish to take advantage of it. I should like to conclude with an extract from the First Report of the Select Committeee on Sport and Leisure where they emphasised this point very strongly indeed. They said:
"Recreation is not a field in which monolithic central policies are appropriate. Regional variations and local involvement are indispensable. The responsibility of local authorities, however, is subject to two important conditions. The first condition is that national strategic planning must co-ordinate the activities of local authorities and influence their decisions; and, secondly, a substantial clement of central grant aid must supplement local finance."
This is the point of this permissive Amendment, which I am quite sure one day some Government will want to use. I beg to move.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: I should like to support very strongly what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has just said. It is essential that every facility that can be obtained for water recreation, and that of course includes finance, should be so obtained. I very much support and appreciate subsection (1) of Clause 20, which encourages the use of water for recreation. Water, particularly in the inland areas, is getting in very short supply. More and more people are wanting to use water in that way. I declare an interest, in that I am President of the British Water-Ski Federation. More and more is it necessary in this country to use every space of water that can be obtained for recreational purposes. We see an increase in angling, an increase in canoeing, in under-water activities, as well as in water-skiing and nature conservancy, swimming and all the rest. It is, therefore, extremely important that we look ahead in this way. Therefore, I very briefly but most warmly support what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said. Of course a very important step is this permissive Amendment, which does help on the financial side; it could be very essential in ensuring that the kind of water recreational development we should like to see occur in our country does in fact take place.
LORD GREENWAY: I, too, would like to support the noble Lord, Lord Byers's Amendment, with the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield. I was in Luxembourg last year with the European Parliament, and I know what goes on there. I have been in Epernay; I came back last Sunday. I saw what use was being made of waterways at Pentecôte—our Whitsun holiday which we have wrecked; we do not have it now. I was with my good lady wife coming back from Epernay on the train, and I saw all the people who were camping and making great use of the waterways and the lakes they have there, and even elsewhere in Luxembourg. I thoroughly support Lord Byers's Amendment.
LORD CHAMPION: I have read this Amendment very carefully. It seems to me to add nothing at all that really matters to this clause. The first subsection of Clause 20 can be carried out without any grant at all from the Government. No grant at all is necessary for the river authorities to carry out the function that is imposed upon them by Clause 20(1). When we come to grants under Schedule 3, we have an Amendment down which suggests that the Secretary of State should make money available for the purpose of enabling the authority to make only such charges as are reasonable for the authority's recreational facilities. In that Amendment we have an Amendment which has some Punch and some force to it. What are you going to apply the money for? What are you going to use it for, if the Secretary of State will grant it? You will use it for the purpose of reducing the charges on the recreational facility users. Our Amendment, No. 94, seems to me to be a much better Amendment—perhaps it is because we devised it—than the Amendment now before us.
I can see what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, is up to, but if he reads his Amendment carefully and considers the first subsection of Clause 20 he will see that it does not really add any punch at all to what he would wish to see happen in connection with recreation. With the rest of what he and other noble Lords have said I am in absolute agreement. We ought to use these facilities to the maximum, but using them to the maximum means that you must be able to let people use them without imposing charges on them which would prohibit their use

939
by most people. Here is the difference between the two Amendments, and I rather think that it would be better if eventually we could persuade this Committee to adopt our Amendment rather than the one which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has proposed.
9.38 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: This is difficult. I see the point of my noble friend's speech, but also see something else here, because the wording of the Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, says:
"The Secretary of State may with the approval of the Treasury and after consultation … make to any water authority such grants as he considers necessary"—
and here I think is the operational bit—
"to enable that authority to discharge their duty …".
Their duty under the subsection may in the beginning have nothing to do with recreation. It may help if some people have read The Background to Water Reorganisation in England, as no doubt nearly every noble Lord in the Chamber has. I do not want to bore you, but it may have to do with a massive amount of things, like widening canals, or puddling canals, about which I know something. Before you can use the canal the canal has to be cleaned out and made fit. If we are thinking of collecting pennies from the public—and I know how many pennies they collect in some of these lovely National Parks—to make these canals available, another "think" is due for this noble Chamber. From reading the latter part of this Amendment, I think, with all due respect, that the Liberal Amendment is looking at the matter from the point of view also of getting the amenities prepared, whatever those amenities may be.
LORD BYERS: Will the noble Lord allow me to correct him? This is not a Liberal Amendment; it is an Amendment which stems from the First Report of the Select Committee on Sport and Leisure. It is not a Party Amendment.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I meant liberal with a small "1". The noble Lord has now contradicted his own liberal outlook. One has to be careful with the English language; the Welsh is
940
much clearer. Consequently, this liberal and far-seeing Amendment, moved with the perspicacity of the noble Lord who has just interrupted me, is worthy of attention and I shall move into the Lobby with him if he feels so inclined. I shall also move into the Lobby on the other Amendment No. 94, when we reach it, together with my noble friends. I would refer to pages 26 and 27 of the Report, about the massive preparation which is needed—it would be invidious to read those pages out to the Committee—on canals and water space, on the preparation for sports such as those which the noble Lord opposite spoke about, and on these cheap underwater sports for youngsters and teenagers at school. There has to be safety, and pools, rivers and canals have to be prepared, to say nothing of the three-and-a-halfmillion fishermen of England who no Jonger have any rights of consultation, and who are now losing their right at Common Law—I shall raise that matter another time—to make a protest. Consequently, I am delighted that this liberal Amendment has been put forward and I shall move with alacrity into the Lobby, if the noble Lord has the courage to divide the Committee.
LORD SANDFORD: It may not be necessary for us all to move in support of this perspicacious and liberal Amendment. But I should like to start by acknowledging the helpfulness of the House of Lords Select Committee on Sport and Leisure, and to say that the Report has been a very great help in drafting these clauses in this Bill. I hope that when we have been through them the Committee will agree not only that the Lords Select Committee has done a useful job, but that the Government have responded effectively to it. Two sets of Amendments have been commended to the Committee—the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, which is No. 55A, and those of the noble Lords, Lord Winterbottom and Lord Champion, which are Nos. 94 and 94A—and I agree that it might be useful for us to consider them together.
They are indeed admirable Amendments and I should be happy to accept them, if I did not feel that what they are seeking to do is already fully and adequately provided for in the Bill at

941
Schedule 3, paragraph 34, where there is this permissive power, which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, so rightly said should be somewhere, for the Secretary of State to make grants to water authorities. In sub-paragraph (1)(b) of paragraph 34, your Lordships will see that there is additional provision for a direction to be given, if necessary, indicating for what purpose those grants are to be paid. Furthermore, there is also a power to lend sums of money. So I can assure all three noble Lords that what they are seeking to do, which is something which ought to be in the Bill, is already in the Bill, so their points can be said to be fully met. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, raised a rather different point on the grant-giving power of the Water Space Amenity Commission, which I think we shall have an opportunity to go into more fully when we reach Clause 22 which deals with that body. With that explanation and assurance, I hope that all three noble Lords will be happy and that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, will riot feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD BYERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. If he feels that what he has proposed and what is embodied in Schedule 3 is a proper response to the recommendations made in the First Report of the Select Committee on Sport and Leisure, then I am quite happy to withdraw my Amendment on the understanding that that is so. We may want to come back to it if, after having studied Schedule 3, we feel that this is riot entirely what we had in mind; but, having had a quick look at it, it may well be. I beg leave—
LORD SANDFORD: I wonder whether, before the noble Lord sits down, I could "come clean" on this to the extent of saying that this is not so much a response as a successful anticipation of what the Select Committee would say because this was already in the Bill. There are other points where we have specifically responded.
LORD BYERS: I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I wonder whether he could anticipate our final Report. It would save us a lot of time. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 21 [Duties with regard to nature conservation and amenity]:
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 56A:
Page 26, line 44 leave out ("natural beauty of the countryside") and insert ("beauty of, or amenity in, any rural or urban area").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend. This is in fulfilment of an undertaking given at the Committee stage in another place. My honourable friend Mr. Griffiths recognised that in this context the term "natural beauty" is not sufficient because we may well find that the water space that ought to be used for the benefit of the local population is in a derelict urban area, and by no stretch of the imagination could that be encompassed by the term "natural beauty". Therefore, to make it clear that what we are concerned about is not only the preservation and conservation of natural beauty in the countryside but also the improvement and enhancement of less attractive, ugly and derelict areas in town as well as in country, this particular Amendment has been made to the Bill. I beg to move.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: I am sure we all agree with the principle of this Amendment, but it seems to me that the English of it is not very attractive. I was wondering if it could not read "beauty or amenity of" any rural or urban area. It seems to me that "amenity of the area" rather than "amenity in the area" would be more expressive.
LORD SANDFORD: I shall be very happy to consider that with the draftsman. It is not always easy to get elegant English and accurate legislation, but we shall do our best.
9.48 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND LORD AUCKLAND moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 26, line 45, at end insert:
("( ) In formulating or considering any such proposals water authorities shall have special regard to their possible ecological consequences and in the event of their deciding that any proposal is desirable in spite of the possibility

943
that it will cause injury to natural beauty, or flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, or buildings or other objects of architectural, archaeological or historic interest, or the ecological condition of an inland water or river estuary, they shall advertise their intention in at least one newspaper circulating in the area likely to be affected at least two months before starting to take action.")
The noble Lord said: Clause 21 deals with nature conservation and amenity, and this is surely one of the vital parts of the Bill. The more one considers this Bill from the point of view of one who is merely a consumer of water, the more involved some of the technicalities become. Indeed, this is in itself a very technical Amendment, but it is an important one. The existing legislation comes under the ambit of the Water Resources Act, which has done a great deal of good but does not in fact go far enough. It is not only the quantity and the quality of water supplies that we have to consider: there is another aspect, and that is the ecology, which, defined by the Encyclowdia Britannica, is:
"a basic approach to the conservation of natural resources".
Your Lordships have debated this particular subject on a number of recent Bills, and in a major Bill of this kind it is something which has to be considered very carefully.
Rivers vary in their length and in their composition, and ono of the necessary things is to avoid pollution as far as possible. This pollution can take a number of forms: sunshine on certain vegetation, pollution from land drainage and from animals and birds. This Amendment seeks to give protection. One criticism of the clause as drafted is that the Government merely "have regard" to these matters—which is really rather a discretionary power. The adjective "special" might be inserted here; because it is very important if we are going to have our rivers and other waterways for recreational use as well as for sources of drinking water that we should keep them clean. There is another very important part to this Amendment which concerns a matter not yet been considered in the Bill. Many of these rivers are in rural areas which often do not have the modern media of communication of our cities and urban areas. They
944
have to rely very much on the local newspapers. This Amendment seeks to cause the authorities to make sure that the local newspapers (or at least one local newspaper) carry an advertisement at least two months before work begins of what is proposed to be done. As I understand it, this is no new proposal. For any compulsory purchase or for any local government matter of that kind there is a requirement for a public inquiry which is advertised in local newspapers. The Amendment seeks to add that provision to this Bill. I hope that that explains the purpose of this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: My noble friend has explained the purpose of this Amendment perfectly clearly. I think he is making two points: he is asking that the regional water authorities should have regard to the possible ecological consequences of what they are proposing and that they should advertise their proposals. I will answer those two points separately. My belief is that the possible ecological consequences are fully covered and embraced in the terms of Clause 21(1), particularly where they refer to the duty of the water authority to
"have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest…"
I will draw the attention of the draftsman to my noble friend's remarks, and if he can satisfy me that the possible ecological consequences are not embraced in those terms we will see what we can do to amend the Bill to make sure that they are.
As to the second point, that the proposals of the regional water authorities shall be advertised, I can assure him that what he is seeking to do is more than covered by the Town and Country Planning Acts and the Water Resources Acts, which require not only what he has suggested in his Amendment but a great deal more to be done. A number of other stringent requirements—more stringent than in my noble friend's Amendment—have to be undertaken and gone through before any proposals such as he has in mind can be proceeded with. So I hope that my noble friend will feel satisfied, at any rate for the time being, that his points are fully met already.
LORD AUCKLAND: I thank my noble friend for that full answer which I should like to consider carefully. This relates to a part of the Bill which has caused a great deal of interest up and down the country, but I think that my noble friend's reply has covered the point satisfactorily. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.56 p.m.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 27, line 7, at end insert:
("(2A) It shall be the duty of every water authority for any inland waterway consisting of or including a navigable river to maintain any bank of such river which carries a towpath being a public right of way.
Provided that this subsection shall not affect any duty which the highway authority may have in respect of such right of way.")
The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Molson. The Amendment seeks to make it the duty of every water authority to maintain the banks of the river along which a towpath runs which is a right of way. Walking along the banks of rivers is becoming increasingly popular. I use the term "towpath" because an Amendment was moved in the Commons which was rather wider in its scope and did not meet with the approval of the Government. This Amendment deals with towpaths in a rather narrow way. Towpaths are being lost, partly I think because of the increase in the number of power boats which are used and which cause damage to the banks by erosion.
At present no authority has a duty to maintain the river bank. Of course, a river authority has a duty to maintain the river for navigation and a highway authority has a duty to maintain the surface of a path which is a right of way. But there is no responsibility at all in the case of towpaths. I need not quote examples as no doubt your Lordships will be able to recall instances where towpaths have been lost. This Amendment seeks to lay the duty firmly and securely on the new water authorities, as the successors to the river authorities, which seems to me perfectly just and equitable. In any case, the authority will need to inspect the river and its banks regularly, and this will not exclude any arrangement made between the river
946
authority and the planning authority for the improvement of a towpath and the adjoining land for recreational purposes. It may well be that the river authority should be able to recover some part of the cost of this work by a small increase in the navigation charges on power boats, which represent only a tiny proportion of the total cost of boating. A small increase in the charges would not be an undue burden on boat owners or hirers.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: I should like to say a word before my noble friend replies to the Amendment. The highway authority has a permissive power to spend money on a right of way, and in some cases it does so. It is true that the river authority has no responsibility for maintaining a towpath when it is no longer used for towing, and to-day the paths are not used for towing. But the solution suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, of an increase in the registration charge for launches using the river sufficient to cover this work, would, let me assure the Committee, be a very heavy charge. The cost of repairing towpaths which have been eroded, and which in many cases have fallen into the river, is very high. I could give an example of the restoration of a towpath by the River Thames where originally the thought was to try to get it completely repaired the whole way from London to Cricklade. That idea has been abandoned, but the Thames Conservancy was successful in persuading the local authorities concerned to pay the very heavy cost of repairing the towpath as far as Staines, which was at least a start. But the cost ran into hundreds of thousands of pounds. It is a very expensive thing to do. Personally, I entirely sympathise with Lord Henley's object. The towpath is a very attractive walk, and it should be preserved, but the cost of doing it is heavy. It certainly could not be borne by the users of the river without imposing on them a completely intolerable burden.
I would ask my noble friend to give us, as I am sure he will, his considered opinion on this, but I am rather of the opinion that this is a responsibility of the local authority. It is a right of way; it is like any other footpath. The highway authority already has a permissive power to spend money on such parts, and I think this is the right thing to do. This

947
is an amenity for the general public enjoying themselves walking by the side of the river. I should have thought that the right approach here was for the Government to encourage local authorities to take up their burden, use the powers that already exist, and for them to provide what is needed—as it is undoubtedly needed—in restoring and maintaining footpaths wherever they should exist or have existed.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kinnoull in connection with his Amendment No. 57A, which has a bearing on this matter. My noble friend seeks by his Amendment to establish quite squarely where the responsibility lies for the maintenance of a pathway or walkway that is used for commercial purposes. It is understood, of course, that where there is a public right of way the highway authority has a duty to maintain the services. Then there seems to be below the surface of the right of way some rather peculiar no-man's land from the point of view of who looks after the support of the surface. My noble friend's Amendment seeks to put this responsibility—that is, the responsibility for the bank and that which supports the surface and indeed the whole responsibility, on the water authority.
If my noble friend Lord Sandford is unable to fix a responsibility for the whole or for the pathway in its various parts, then, frankly, irrespective of the cost, it seems to us to be the responsibility of the water authority to maintain, since they derive the benefits of income from running the rivers, recreation facilities and so on on the waterways. Therefore it would seem quite reasonable that that authority should bear the responsibility for the upkeep.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this topic. I was particularly grateful for the information given by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, who, from his experience as Chairman of the Thames Conservancy, has well made the point that a duty quite as starkly expressed as it is in the two Amendments that have been discussed would not be practicable, and would, if it were carried into the Bill, badly distort the functions of both the
948
Waterspace Amenity Commission and the regional water authorities, because they would then have to devote quite an inordinate amount of their resources to one particular recreational facility.
I think we all agree that a well-kept towpath on an attractive bank of the river is one of the most valuable amenities. But the regional water authorities have a clear duty to make the best practical use of their water space, their rights on it and their rights on the land associated with it. That, I think, is about as far as it is right to go in legislation. What will undoubtedly happen is that the Water Space Amenity Commission, when they get to work, will address themselves to a big general problem such as to how to make the best use of towpaths and in the general discharge of the recreational duties laid on the regional water authorities, and will be able greatly to assist the regional water authorities in the preparation of their own particular plans for so doing.
What I should like to do is to thank the noble Lord for drawing this to our attention and to say that I must resist the Amendments because the duty is too starkly and simply put. I should like to ask him to recognise that in the terms of the Bill, and in particular the duty to make the best practical use of the water and water space, the rights on it and the rights on the land associated with it, is really the best way to set the task before the regional water authorities. I confirm, though I will not follow, my noble friend's remarks about the parallel duties with the highway authorities in these fields. The problem is too complicated to be set forward in quite the simple terms set out in this Amendment, but I would certainly agree that this is a matter that needs to be looked at, particularly by the Water Space Amenity Commission.
LORD HENLEY: I should like to thank the noble Lord for those words. It seems to me that that is probably sensible, and it may well be that such a duty is really well beyond what a regional water authority should do. Nevertheless, it is something which somehow—and sooner rather than later —we must look at and we must do something about, because every time a

949
towpath falls into a river it becomes just that little bit more expensive to put it back again. To lose these towpaths at a time when we need every bit of this kind of access into the countryside would be a great pity. I was not suggesting that all the cost of this, if that had been accepted, should fall on the users of power boats. I agree that would be an intolerable burden, but in so far as a great deal of the damage that is done to towpaths is done by these power boats, it does not seem to me unreasonable that a rather larger measure of the cost needed for keeping the towpaths up should be put upon them. I also accept the point that there is a permissive duty upon the highway authorities to do it. I know very few which take advantage of that permission, and it may well be that when the noble Lord looks at this he may be able to devise means by which the highway authorities and in some part the new regional water authorities and the Water Space Amenity Council may be able to devise means of doing this. Certainly it must be done. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Kinnoull, and in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said in speaking to Amendment No. 52C, together with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley, I do not wish to move the next Amendments, Nos. 57A and 57B.
Clause 22 [Water Space Amenity Commission]:
10.10 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 27, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 and insert:—
("(1) For the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on them by this section there shall be a body to be known as the Water Space Amenity Commission consisting of").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 58, and at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 62. These are the two Amendments in which we are responding to some of the recommendations
950
of the first Report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Sport and Leisure, fulfilling a promise made by my right honourable friend at the Committee stage in another place to reconsider the "promotional role" of the Commission, and seeking to clarify the duty and powers of the Water Space Amenity Commission. To summarise what we are doing in these two Amendments, we are responding to the proposal that a more positive duty, a more realistic purpose, a wider national role, should be assigned to the Water Space Amenity Commission. More specifically, we are adding to their advisory duties a duty to submit proposals, not just to wait to he asked, and to encourage and assist in the preparation of plans. We are also adding a duty to collate and publish. All those expressions will be found in the two Amendments that I have just mentioned. I hope that the Committee, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in particular, will agree that this pair of Amendments implements quite a few of the recommendations the Committee put before us. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I am not sure whether this is the appropriate moment to speak. I was deferring to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, owing to his particular connection with the Select Committee on Sport and Leisure. At the end of our considerations of Clause 22 my noble friends and myself suggest that we should leave it out altogether, and it may be easier to discuss the matter here than on the Motion, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Frankly, we are not convinced—even the Amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, do not convince us —of the necessity of having the Water Space Amenity Commission at all. It applies only to England, not to Wales, although the noble Lord, Lord Byers, wishes to extend it to Wales. I can assure him, however, that that would not be welcome in Wales; we prefer to remain as we are. I say this after some experience, because, as one of those responsible for dealing with the Countryside Bill when it was before another place, I proposed that we should keep the Welsh arrangements under the same xgis as those for England, but with a separate Welsh Committee. I have Dome to the conclusion that what I thought then was

951
the wiser thing to do was not in fact justified. Having gone to Scotland, for example, I found that the Scottish Countryside Commission got on much better by itself than it would have done had it been linked to the English one. I suspect that we might have done better in Wales had we had a separate Countryside Commission for Wales. This was not my view some years back. But I find that the Welsh problems are apt to be regarded as peripheral; they do not get the same attention as they would if they were part of the totality which embraced England. Therefore for matters of this kind, which are so largely local in their application, it is better to have a separate arrangement for Wales, and we are perfectly content with what the Goverrnment propose.
Having said that, I repeat that we are not convinced that it is really necessary to have this body. We have the Sports Council, whose duty it is to promote water sports as much as land sports. We also have, of course, the British Waterways Authority, which will deal with the canal aspects, or can deal with them. We have the Countryside Commission. We have the Tourist Board. I am not at all certain that an information body, which is what the Water Space Amenity Commission is largely to be, is going to be anything other than yet another entity interposed between the water authorities, who also have the duty to promote recreation and so on, and the other national bodies—the Sports Council, Countryside Commission and Tourist Board—who also are engaged on this matter.
Should we really gain so much advantage by setting up yet another body? Will it not lead to a great deal more paper work and correspondence, and the kind of consultation which does not lead to anything productive but takes up a great deal of time of busy people? I am not in the least convinced that this is the way to tackle the promotion of water space amenity. It is not as though this body is to be, for example, a channel for grants. If it were able to use financial inducements or sanctions, as the case might be, to further its policy, then I should have looked at it with at least much greater interest and respect. But this, I understand, is not the intention of the Government. It seems to me that by establishing
952
this body one will have a diffusion and not a concentration of purpose. It is for those reasons that my noble friends and I do not think the Government are wise in putting forward this proposition. I repeat that, although the Amendments now proposed add some kind of substance to its duties and functions, they do not shake us in our basic objection to it.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: May I again briefly support my noble friend who has just spoken about this Water Space Amenity Commission. Once again, no notice has been taken of the advice that has come from local authorities over the last two or three years, with the massive knowledge they have accumulated over a period of fifty years. We seem to be creating yet another body which has no real power in any sense at all; it is an advisory body. I find the precise role of the Commission ill-defined. One agrees that the noble Lord who has spoken for the Government wants to extend it, and that is all very well. But so far as its duties are concerned in regard to Clauses 20 and 21, and its duties in relation to local government, these are not at all clear. There is no reference at all to real consultation.
How can all this work be done? This Commission is going to be responsible for expansion. Let us take one item in which I am interested—the increase in sailing clubs, which has been from 400 to 1,600 in the matter of half a generation. The rowing clubs have increased by hundreds. Worst of all: the poor old fishermen of England, about whom we have made rollicking barrack-room songs, some of which I used to join in in my Eisteddfod days, are not even consulted, although there are 3½ million of them. They are just moved aside. Most of the jokes of the comedians of old, red-nose ones, and the jokes of noble Lords who were great after-dinner speakers, were based on stories about fishermen. But they are altogether forgotten in this connection. We are forgetting people. We are dealing with figures, computers and bodies—this wonderful floating word "body". It must be the effect of spaceship flight.
We are talking about amenities and river pollution, yet we have about 3 million people in Britain without water closets while they are gazing at the television,

953
watching people on the moon. We are so busy legislating that we are getting out of touch with reality. Consequently I see no real purpose in the establishment of this Water Space Amenity Commission. Why not use the local authorities properly? They have more knowledge tucked up in their own local heads than all this new-born body will acquire in the next 25 years; and that knowledge is being drastically cut aside in this neophiliac age in which we are living —love of change for the sake of change. That is the kind of world in which we are living to-day. Consequently I support wholeheartedly my noble friend's remarks at this time of the night and I hope that noble Lords will soon come to an end of their talking.
10.21 p.m.
LORD BYERS: I should like to give a qualified welcome to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said. I should not like to anticipate what will be the final recommendation of the Select Committee. What we said in our First Report was that the Water Bill makes no provision for positive recreational planning and the Committee would like Clause 22 to be amended.
They did not want to get rid of it, as the Opposition appears to do to provide that periodical reviews, plans and programmes for water authorities should include short and long-term plans for recreation. We said:
"There is a strong case for a national body interested in the provision of facilities forwater recreation across the whole country".
I still think that is right, and by "the whole country" I should like to include England and Wales, though I do not want to offend the Welsh susceptibilities in this matter. I honestly believe that we need more positive planning on a larger area when we are dealing with a matter such as water, whether it is on the technological side or the recreational side. We said,
"At present the function of providing facilities for water recreation was shared between the Sports Council and the Countryside Commission, and the Committee would have liked to see this involvement developed."
We said:
"However, if the decision is taken to set up a Water Space Amenity Commission then the Commission should be given a realistic purpose and should assume a national role."
954
I think this is what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has been trying to say that the Government are doing in order to meet the Committee so far as they can —to give the Commission a more positive role, to give it a promotional role, and, if possible, to remove it solely from its advisor, field; and so far as he has gone, I welcome what the noble Lord has said.
LORD PEDDIE: On more than one occasion the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in replying to my own comments on an Amendment, has emphasised that the water authorities will be alive to their responsibilities with regard to amenity, and he was at great pains to emphasise that they were capable of carrying out that responsibility. I am prepared to accept that; but I now see that there is suggested a Water Space Amenity Commission, and I share the view of my noble friends that this is but a piece of window-dressing. None of us would oppose the general principle of doing all to encourage amenity but, frankly, if we set up a body like this, which I think is completely unnecessary, it will be full of advice but will have very little power to implement. It will just be another talking shop. The noble Lord opposite may reply to that particular point and indicate that a member of the Council will probably be the Chairman of the Water Space Amenity Commission. But if that be so, it is indicative of the fact that this job could be far better done by the Council itself, or by a Committee of the Council, upon which could be recruited or co-opted all the various interests.
You may ask, "What is the difference?" There is a fundamental difference, because here you would find that those people who will be urging the amenity use and development of these facilities, would be living, talking and working with people who have the power, the skill and the ability to implement those proposals. But what the Government are suggesting is to set up a separate body which, over the course of 'time, will simply mean developing a measure of non-co-operation, if not antagonism. Therefore, if the view is genuinely held that we seek to develop amenity through these water facilities. I do not think that this is the best way of going about it.

955
It has already been stated that under this Bill as it stands the Commission's advice would be limited to England. The Welsh National Development Authority is to be given—under Clause 24, I think it is—responsibility for preparing recreational planning for Wales. There is no justification for yet another national body that would be limited in effective power. It is very significant indeed that the Sports Council and the Regional Sports Council object to these proposals. So I hope that the Government will accept this point of view. I do not offer this suggestion in a spirit of intense criticism. Somebody, somewhere along the line, has felt that it was necessary to give a very positive and recognisable gesture that they wanted to do something to encourage amenity. Fair enough! We shall accept that. But on considered reflection upon this Bill, surely it is perfectly obvious that, with all the continuing emphasis we have heard from the other side that the water authorities will recognise their responsibility for dealing with amenity, they will accept the proposition. We recognise the need for developing amenity. Let it be part and parcel of the Water Council's obligation. Let it be a special cornmittee of that Council upon which would be co-opted all the different interests that could express themselves and be, as I said previously, working cheek by jowl with the people who can implement those proposals.
LORD SANDFORD: I agree that it has been helpful to have the debate on whether or not we should have the Water Space Amenity Commission at this point. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady White, that the Government have given much thought to whether or not to have this body, and we think that it is a good idea, more especially because the emphasis on amenity and recreation has come upon us not only suddenly but with such tremendous force. Both aspects need to be developed and a special body at national level is required, not only to advise but to do all these other positive things which have now been incorporated in the Bill in response to our own Select Committee's recommendation that a positive, promotional, recreational role is called for. I do not accept that this will be a mere talking shop. I do not accept that it is little more than a mere gesture
956
in this direction. It will be a body that will have an important, positive, valuable and indispensable role to play, and therefore I think that we must have this Commission.
It may well be that some of your Lordships can think of a better name for it. I do not think that the Water Space Amenity Commission is a particularly elegant name but we have not been able to think of anything better. I cannot agree (I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek who made the point) that there are built into this the seeds of perpetual antagonism. The fact that we have on this body the Chairmen of the Water Authorities themselves and other members appointed by the Secretary of State itself establishes close links between this body and the regional water authorities whom the Commission will be there to advise, assist and encourage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that this body will not serve any useful purpose, and indeed will be fruitful of all sorts of conflict, if we fail to get the relationship right between it, the Countryside Commission, the Sports Council the English Tourist Board. But I believe we have now managed to achieve this. I admit that there were objecttions from these bodies in the first place, but I think the one thing they chiefly objected to was the proposal originally mooted that we should give grant-giving powers to this Water Space Amenity Commission, because this would have introduced a series of duplications. But as the noble Lord will see, we have stopped short of doing that, not least because of the objections of these bodies to it.
I do not have to persuade the noble Baroness, Lady White, to accept the Water Space Amenity Commission for Wales, because it does not extend there. The noble Lord, Lord Byers, may continue to advocate the Council for Wales, but we do not go as far as that with him. I see a good deal of merit in what the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, was saying about a recreational committee, but I think that where this particular suggestion has force is if his remarks are applied to the regional water authorities. That is where a committee of the main body to execute recreation and amenity policies will be very useful, and I shall be very surprised if the regional water authorities themselves do not adopt the

957
suggestion. But I stand firm in my belief that at the national level the pattern set forth in the Bill and now amended in the light of the Select Committee's Report is about what we should have, though I do not exclude the possibility of being able to improve it further in the light of experience.
10.33 p.m.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 27, line 25, leave out ("ten") and insert ("eight").
The noble Lord said: I think I am rather nearer the noble Baroness, Lady White, and the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, about the Water Space Amenity Commission than to my noble friend Lord Byers. I shall need a good deal of convincing that it is really a worthwhile part of the Bill. Neverthless, if we are going to have one, it seems to me that a little amendment is needed as to its composition, because I think the relationship between the various overlapping bodies is the one thing that must be got right. Similarly, the advice that the Council is to get must be right. It seems to be the intention to provide representation for nearly all aspects of sport and recreation, but to leave out those on whose land or in whose vicinity this sport and recreation takes place. Recreation brings very great problems in relation to the primary use of the land. If that is wrong, it means destroying any possibility of a proper relationship on the Water Space Amenity Commission.
It seems to me, therefore, that it is vital, in getting the balance right, to make provision for getting advice from people who have a knowledge of what the primary use of the land is—agriculture and so on. Unless we get that right, we shall not obtain the co-operation of owners and farmers in order to get provision of those facilities at all. It has universally been accepted that fisheries should be represented on the Commission, and it seems appropriate that the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries should appoint this representative. I think he would probably also be the right Minister to appoint someone to advise the Council with regard to problems related to the land itself, which is,
958
after all, the raw material which is going to be used for recreation. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I have considerable sympathy, if not actual agreement, with the drift of the noble Lord's argument. In answering him I wonder whether I might also answer my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, if he would agree that we could consider at the same time Amendment No. 61A. I imagine the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is also speaking to his Amendment No. 60. In answer to all three of those, what I would say is that provision for consultation about the appointment of persons interested in these fields is secured, or can be secured, under subsection (3)(d) of this clause. I can add to that the assurance, which has already been given in another place, that it is the intention of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to consult the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food before making these appointments, to ensure that the aspects for which that Minister is responsible are satisfactorily covered. I can also say that the Minister himself is content with that proposed procedure, and satisfied that when it is carried out the aspects for which he is responsible, and with which noble Lords are concerned, will be adequately met. I hope that the two noble Lords will be satisfied also, and will not feel it necessary to press those three Amendments.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to my noble friend. May I apologise for being unavoidably absent earlier in the evening. I do, in fact, return now refreshed. The two arguments basically here concern those who should serve on the Commission, and those who should be consulted. Of course my Amendment No. 61A simply asks that the organisations representing farmers should basically be consulted. As I understand my noble friend, this will be done under subsection (3)(d), and I am grateful for that assurance.
What I should like to ask is why it could not be written into the Bill? It is not, I understand, an obligation at the moment, and the farmers represent a very important aspect of the Commission's work. I would remind the Committee that there are two miles of farms

959
to every one mile of river. I think farmers add a very substantial voice to the whole success of the Commission's work. Perhaps before I withdraw my Amendment my noble friend could say what harm there would be in accepting this simple Amendment, which concerns purely a matter of consultation and not of serving.
LORD SANDFORD: The general answer is one that I have given at several earlier stages of the Bill, that we are combining in the regional water authorities and in the Water Space Amenity Commission an enormously wide range of interests. I have catalogued them several times already. If I were to respond as my noble friend would like me to respond and give an undertaking that the N.F.U. specifically should be consulted before any of these appointments were made, that would open the floodgates to a vast number of similar applications from a whole range of bodies, all of whom have a claim—maybe not such a strong claim— to be consulted to the same extent. This is why I am asking the Committee to accept the assurance from me that my right honourable friend will consult with the Minister of Agriculture certainly—and that does not exclude other consultations—and that the Minister of Agriculture, with his responsibility for the N.F.U. and other primary users of the land, land drainage, and so on, is satisfied from his point of view that this will meet the interests of this particular very important sector.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am most grateful to my noble friend for that assurance. May I just ask him specifically whether the Minister will recommend that bodies responsible for farming interests will be represented?
LORD SANDFORD: No. That is just the kind of direct assurance that I cannot give. Obviously, my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will both have an interest in conducting through consultations with all the bodies concerned in developing the recreational potential of water space and the land associated, as thoroughly as they possibly
960
can. But for me to give categorical assurances that one particular body or group of bodies will be consulted would mean that I should have to come back at a later stage of the Bill and give a comprehensive catalogue of umpteen different authorities, each member of which would be fully consulted on every occasion. I hope that the Committee will be content with the broad assurances that I have given.
LORD HENLEY: I am perfectly happy to beg leave to withdraw my Amendment. I think that subsection (3)(d) of Clause 22 completely covers the noble Earl's point though it does not cover mine, which is extra representation. Nevertheless, I am glad to know that the Minister of Agriculture is content that the point which we both raised is met, and I fully accept the noble Lord's point that one does not necessarily want to have these matters written into the Bill. I think I said something earlier about not necessarily wanting to have a statutory representative for amenity. I do not know that one necessarily wants to have a statutory representative for any other interest either, so long as one is assured that these very important points are met. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.42 p.m.
LORD BYERS LORD BYERS moved Amendment No. 60A:
Page 27, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) one shall be appointed after consultation with the British Waterways Board;").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the membership of the Water Space Amenity Commission, but before I briefly develop the argument I should like, unusually, to correct my noble friend Lord Henley, who said that I was wedded to the Water Space Amenity Commission. I am not wedded to it, nor is the Select Committee. I quoted what the First Report of the Committee stated, which was:
"There is a strong case for a national body interested in the provision of facilities for water recreation across the whole country."
It went on to state that if, however, the decision is taken to set up a Water Space Amenity Commission, then various things should follow. I want to make this clear,

961
because I do not want to anticipate in any way what the final decision of the Select Committee should be on what is quite a complicated and difficult point, particularly when it has to be integrated into a whole pattern for recreation. But if there is to be a Water Space Amenity Commission, we should like to see one member of it appointed after consultation with the British Waterways Board.
The British Waterways Board is not included in this legislation but, in our view, it must be closely integrated into the whole scheme, and one way of assisting this aim is by giving it a seat on this Commission. I believe that this is rather different from asking for consultation with a whole list of different authorities and interests, because if we could get the British Waterways Board closely integrated we should have a better chance of getting the positive planning of water recreation as a whole on a comprehensive basis. The thought that led to this Amendment was included in the First Report, which stated:
"The numerous waters outside the water authorities' control, such as canals under the British Waterways Board and gravel pits, have a place of the first importance in any scheme of recreational provision and it would be wrong to confine the Water Space Amenity Commission to part only of the country's water resources. There is scope for the Commission to foster a unified and coherent policy of provision among the water authorities, the British Waterways Board and the private owners of water."
I do not think it is too much to ask that the British Waterways Board should be consulted as to one member of the Water Space Amenity Commission. If not, I shall be interested to hear the Government's reasons. I beg to move.
LORD SANDFORD: I certainly do not exclude this, but it is not written into the Bill for the reason that the English Tourist Board, the Countryside Commission and the Sports Council, which are written in, have parallel functions in precisely the same field as the Water Space Amenity Commission. It is for that reason—and noble Lords have pointed out the importance of it already—that we feel it must be provided for statutorily. Although the British Waterways Board, like the regional water authorities, has a network of watercourses all over the country, it is a rather different body run
962
ning its own affairs on a different set of waters; and the closest relationship for the Water Space Amenity Commission will, if anything, be with the Inland Waterways Advisory Amenity Council of the British Waterways Board. I can confirm that the Secretary of State will certainly consult them among the others envisaged in Clause 22(3)(d).
LORD BYERS: I must say I am not very convinced by that argument; but I happen to have an advantage over the noble Lord since he will be giving evidence to the Committee next week and we shall see how far we can take him along this route. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL had given notice of an Amendment (No. 61A):
Page 27, line 40, after ("interested") insert ("in any riparian agricultural land or").
The noble Earl said: In saying that I do not intend to move this Amendment perhaps I may thank my noble friend for the assurance he gave earlier. Perhaps I could also say that although the noble Lord, Lord Henley, feels that my Amendment was not necessary, in fact, my advisers tell me it was.
LORD SANDFORD: We have already discussed this Amendment No. 62. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 44, at end insert:
("(3A) It shall be the duty of the Com-mission—

(a) to advise the Secretary of State, the Council and water authorities on the discharge of their respective functions so far as relating to recreation and amenity in England;

(b) to submit to water authorities any proposals which the Commission consider appropriate for the discharge of the authorities' functions so far as so relating; and". —(Lord Sandford.)

LORD BYERS LORD BYERS had given Notice of an Amendment to the Amendment:
Line 4, at end insert ("and Wales").
The noble Lord said: In view of the semi-nationalism which has emanated from certain quarters of the Committee, I will take my Amendment back to my Committee and not move it to-night.
10.49 p.m.
LORD BYERS LORD BYERS moved Amendment No. 62B:
Page 27, line 44, at end insert:
("( ) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (3A) above, the Commission shall advise the Secretary of State, the Council and water authorities with a view to securing a national policy for the development of facilities for water-based recreation and may for the purpose of giving effect to such a policy themselves promote or collaborate in action to be taken by other bodies or persons interested in water or land associated with water.")
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is really to stress once again what I have been saying most of the evening, and that is that the paramount need is for a national body for water recreation. In producing such a body we feel it is essential that there should be a positive plan for all water amenities, and that this plan should be one in which those making it look a long way ahead. We have a long view of leisure and recreation, particularly water recreation, ahead of us; and the purpose of this Amendment is to find out what the Government intend to do in this field. I beg to move.
LORD GREENWAY: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in this Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for his Amendment and on behalf of the Government I welcome the stress he is laying on this concept of laying the duty of positive recreational planning upon regional water authorities, and indeed upon other executive bodies like them in other spheres. But if a statutory duty is to be laid on this new body, or any other body in this field, full consideration needs to be given to the role of the new body in relation to other important bodies like the Countryside Commission and the Sports Council. This Amendment would need further improvement before it could be said to do this satisfactorily. I should like to consider the Amendment and perhaps we shall have to have further discussions with the Countryside Commission and the Sports Council and perhaps the members of the noble Lord's Committee in order to be sure that we have the matter right before we accept any further amendment to the Bill; but I
964
am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers.
LORD BYERS: In view of that undertaking, I am perfectly happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 23 [Periodical reviews, plans and programmes]:
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 63:
Page 29, line 41, leave out from ("any") to end of line 46 and insert ("of the following plans prepared for any part of that area under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, that is to say, a structure plan, a local plan and any development plan within the meaning of Schedule 5 to that Act").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is in fulfilment of an undertaking given during the Committee stage in another place. Its effect is to require the water authorities in carrying out their duties under Clause 23 to have regard to local plans under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, to structure plans and, where appropriate, to development plans.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
10.54 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD LORD SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 63C:
After Clause 23 insert the following new clause:
Discharge of recreation and amenity functions in and around Greater London
,—(1) The Thames Water Authority shall, after consulting the interested bodies, submit to the Secretary of State not later than 1st April 1975 proposals for the transfer to the Greater London Council of the recreation and amenity functions of water authorities as respects the whole or part of the watercourses and land to which this section applies and, subject to subsection (3) below, the Secretary of State may by order give effect to the proposals, either as submitted to him or with modifications.
(2) The Secretary of State may himself at any time after consulting the interested bodies amend or revoke an order under subsection (I) above or, where any such order has been revoked, provide for the transfer of all or any of the recreation and amenity functions of water authorities as respects the whole or part of the watercourses or land to which this section applies to the Greater London Council.
(3) If it appears to the Secretary of State that it is desirable to make an order under

965
subsection (1) above giving effect to any proposals with modifications which appear to him to be substantial, he shall direct the Thames Water Authority, after consulting the interested bodies, to reconsider the proposals and submit revised proposals to him under that subsection within a time specified in the direction, but the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply to an order under this subsection giving effect to the revised proposals.
(4) While any recreation and amenity functions are exercisable by the Greater London Council by virtue of an order under this section, section 22(3A) above shall have effect as if refences therein to water authorities included references to the Greater London Council.
(5) In this section "the interested bodies" means—

(a) the Water Space Amenity Commission;

(b) the Greater London Council;

(c) in the case of proposals made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) above, the Thames Water Authority and in any case any other water authority whose recreation and amenity functions will be affected by these proposals in question;

(d) the Port of London Authority;

(e) the Common Council of the City of London;

(f) the London Boroughs Association;

(g) such other bodies representing persons interested in the use of the watercourses and land to which this section applies as the Thames Water Authority consider desirable or the Secretary of State directs in the case of proposals submitted to him and as he considers desirable in the case of his own proposals.

(6) In this section "recreation and amenity functions" means, in relation to any authority, the authority's functions under section 20 above and, so far as relating to those functions, their functions under sections 21 and 23 above, not being in any case functions with respect to navigation conferred by or under any enactment.
(7) The watercourses to which this section applies are:

(a) so much of the River Thames as lies within Greater London;

(b) every watercourse, other than the River Thames, which is for the time being a main metropolitan watercourse within the meaning of Schedule 14 to the London Government Act 1963;

(c) so much of the River Beam, the River Ingrebourne and the River Roding as lies within Greater London; and

(d) so much of any other watercourse situated wholly or partly within, or adjoining the boundary of, Greater London as lies within the flow and reflow of the tides of the River Thames;

and the land to which this section applies is any land associated with any watercourse to which this section applies.
(8) Without prejudice to any power exercisable by virtue of section 31 below, an order under this section may contain such transitional, incidental, supplementary or consequential provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order.
(9) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move Amendment No. 63C. It looks rather formidable but I think that I can move it fairly briefly. It is the Amendment which secures the discharge of recreation and amenity functions that would otherwise vest in the Thames Water Authority and confers them on the Greater London Council. I explained that it was the intention of the Government to secure this and this is the Amendment that does it. Associated with it are Amendments Nos. 73A and 74F. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has apologised to me for his I absence and asked that rather than expand the whole philosophy and detail of this matter in full, I just give an assurance on one phase that is used in the new clause, "whole or part", which I understand raises some anxiety in the G.L.C. that they are not going to get quite what they expected to get.
The reason why the term has been used is that there are in fact three exceptions. One of them is in relation to the short sector of the Thames above Teddington and within the Greater London area. This is an area in which the Thames Water Authority will remain responsible for navigation; and the present view of the Government is that it would be unduly complicated if the G.L.C. were to exercise recreational functions on this short stretch. The matter is not now, finally resolved because, as noble Lords will see, the general intention of this clause is that a scheme should be worked out between the Thames Water Authority and the G.L.C. between now and April 1, 1975.
That is one reason for using the phrase "whole or part". There are other similar instances, such as that which makes it necessary to retain that kind of flexibility. At this stage of the evening I think it would be the general desire of the Committee that I should

967
do no more than the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked me to do in explaining the purpose of this new clause.
LORD CHAMPION: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy I thank the Government for having put down this new clause and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his explanation of the point which my noble friend would have raised. Had I been able to read the noble Lord's writing I should have made a long speech, but as I cannot read it, I do not propose to make that speech.
Clauses 24 and 25 agreed to.
LORD SANDFORD: Now that we have reached the end of Part II, which is where we had agreed to get to I think the time nas come for me to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved, That the House be now resumed.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

HULL TIDAL SURGE BARRIER BILL
The Queen's consent signified and Bill reported with Amendments.
  NORTH-EASTERN CIRCUIT: COURT CENTRES
  NORTH-EASTERN CIRCUIT: COURT CENTRES