Sitting of 20 June 1973

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

    ASHDOWN FOREST BILL [Lords]
    Order for Second Reading read.
    To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ENVIRONMENT

    Road Fund Licences
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, what has been the average penalty for conviction for not having a road fund vehicle licence in the last 12 months.
    The Minister for Transport Industries (Mr. John Peyton): In 1972 the average fine was just under £9. In addition, orders were made for the payment of, on average, just under £6 in arrears of duty.
    Mr. Molloy: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that correspondence that I have received from all parts of the country, particularly London, provides evidence suggesting that there is mass evasion of the paying of car licences, which irritates ordinary people? Will he consider holding a conference between the police authorities and the licensing authorities, as there does not seem to be any clear-cut method whereby those who evade paying their car licences can be apprehended? They do it for a variety of reasons, including not having an MOT test certificate, not having insurance—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I have received representations that Question Time is
    654
    going much too slowly. We must have short supplementary questions.
    Mr. Peyton: I note what the hon. Gentleman said. Many of the matters that he raises are for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and I shall call his attention to them.

    Traffic in Congested Areas
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement about the future of traffic in already congested areas of cities and towns.
    Mr. Peyton: No, Sir.
    Mr. Chapman: As every other family now has a car and the proportion is likely to increase, do the Government intend to deal with the matter on a national scale or leave it to local authorities to deal with the increasing problem haphazardly and at their whim?
    Mr. Peyton: I did not mean for a moment to suggest by the brevity of my answer that the Government do not take the problem very seriously. Local authorities have a big rôle to play in dealing with it, but I accept that the Government cannot avoid large responsibilities.
    Mr. Cant: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the assurance that he will not follow the fashion made popular by the Select Committee on Urban Motorways that the car is to be utterly banned from our cities? Will he urge local authorities to seek a compromise between the motor car and public transport?
    Mr. Peyton: Yes, indeed, Sir. If only one were dealing always with other people's transport, the problem would not exist.

    Improvement Grants
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what progress he has now made to prevent profiteering from the abuse of housing improvement grants.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. Paul Channon): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Mr. Worsley) on 12th June.—[Vol. 857, c. 292–3.]
    Mr. Hamilton: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the recent White Paper, Cmnd. 5339, will do virtually nothing to stop the exploitation and profiteering that is going on, particularly in the stress areas, which will increase between now and the proposed legislation indicated in the White Paper? Will the Minister give local authorities the power to put a suspension or moratorium on the making of improvement grants in stress areas where there is evidence of their exploitation for profit purposes?
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Gentleman is under a misapprehension. Local authorities already have these powers. It is a discretionary grant; local authorities make improvement grants at their discretion. I have already urged them many times not to make grants if they feel that the sort of things to which the hon. Member refers are going on. The proposals in the White Paper will have substantial effects after the legislation is passed.
    Sir John Hall: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a case for requiring local authorities to impose a certain length of time during which the person obtaining the improvement grant must remain in occupation? There are many cases of people obtaining the grant and then selling the house, making a profit out of the grant.
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend will have read the White Paper and will know that, subject to consultations now going on, it provides new discretionary powers for local authorities to attach conditions.
    Mr. Stallard: Does the Minister accept that that reply is exactly to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who says that pending legislation arising from the White Paper people are worried about the kind of abuses that have been going on, which will go on, and will get worse? Is he aware that three old-age pensioners spent last night at No. 77 Leverton Street, N.W.5. in a house with no roof on it, under the pelting rain, because the roof had been taken off by the landlord, who is converting the property without having obtained planning permission for any of the improvements? Further, is he aware that landlords can continue with that process until legislation is introduced?
    Mr. Channon: On the contrary, the discretion to make an improvement grant remains one for the local authority. I am sorry to hear that the hon. Gentleman's local authority made an improvement grant under those conditions.
    Sir G. Nabarro: I recognise that occasionally there is an abuse of the grant, but does not my hon. Friend agree that over the past two or three years there has been an enormous increase in housing costs and that properly the amount of the grant should be substantially increased and not diminished?
    Mr. Channon: I do not think that it is necessary, in general, to take immediate action to raise the maximum amount of the grant. As is made clear in the White Paper, at the moment only 20 per cent. of all improvement grants are within £100 of the existing ceiling.
    Mr. Freeson: The Minister has constantly reiterated the point about local authorities having discretion which will allow them to withhold grants in the circumstances referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). Is he not aware that his own officials, in evidence to the Select Committee's sub-committee, have raised grave doubts about the legal powers of local authorities to use their discretion in this way? Further, will he consider urgently the suggestion that the right way to handle this matter, at least in the stress areas, is to introduce speedy legislation to authorise local authorities to take over and exercise management responsibilities at a moment's notice, as was suggested with regard to empty office buildings a year ago?
    Mr. Channon: I am not sure how proper it is for me to refer to evidence given to a Select Committee which, as I understand it, is still sitting. Local authorities have the right either to make improvement grants or to refrain from doing so. That is a discretion which they have, and which they have always had.
    Mr. Stallard: On a point of order. In view of the entirely unsatisfactory replies to the questions that have been raised, I beg to give notice that I intend to raise this matter on the Adjournment as soon as possible.

    Lorries (Routeing)
    Mr. Dykesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the establishment of the advisory routes system for heavy lorries.
    Mr. Moateasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the establishment of the advisory lorry routes system.
    Mr. Peyton: Discussions are continuing with the haulage industry. Meanwhile, by the end of August advisory routes for lorries will be signposted in eight of our major ports. Also, in a recent circular local authorities have been reminded of their powers to restrict lorry movements and parking, and a review initiated on the exercise and impact of existing regulations.
    Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Does he agree that the advisory route system should be wider and should proceed very fast? Further, does he agree that it could fit in very effectively and successfully with longer-term administrative and legislative proposals and that there should be a much more fundamental national approach to lorry routeing and zoning?
    Mr. Peyton: I take note of what my hon. Friend suggested. I also take the opportunity of acknowledging the valuable contribution that he has made towards the solution of the problem.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the last few weeks there has been a considerable number of accidents involving large heavy lorries? Further, is he aware that many of those lorries came from the Continent? Does he agree that many accidents happen because such lorries are using totally unsuitable routes? What will the Minister do about this?
    Mr. Peyton: Improve our road system as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Moate: Does my right hon Friend agree that the success of the advisory route system will depend largely on the co-operation and good will of the haulage industry? Does he not consider that stronger measures should be taken for drivers to be advised of the most
    658
    suitable routes, particularly drivers arriving at the ports?
    Mr. Peyton: As I said in my original answer, we are moving towards what my hon. Friend is asking for.
    Mr. Skinner: How can the Minister declare that the Government will improve the roads as quickly as possible when a few weeks ago his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared in the House, in unequivocal terms, that the road expenditure programme, not only for this year but for next year, will be cut drastically? Is he aware that local authorities have had a circular telling them precisely how to do that?
    Mr. Peyton: The hon. Gentleman puts his point with the unexampled and unrivalled charm for which he is so well known.
    Mr. Skinner: Answer the question.
    Mr. Peyton: If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that his question is worth asking, he might wait for the answer. The answer is that the total amount spent on the road programme will continue to increase.
    Mr. David Clarkasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will issue a circular to local authorities advising them on the use of their powers to prohibit heavy lorries on minor roads.
    Mr. Peyton: One was issued last month.
    Mr. Clark: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but does he realise that life in many villages on minor roads is intolerable, due to their use by large lorries, and that no matter how much these minor roads are improved he will not improve the situation? Will he not take even firmer measures with the local authorities?
    Mr. Peyton: I am always prepared to consider any possible course of action to deal with a problem which I am sure the hon. Gentleman recognises is very difficult.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will my right hon. Friend take measures to encourage the breaking of bulk at fly-offs on the motorways, particularly for the large lorries which come from Europe and from

    659
    various manufacturing centres in the United Kingdom, so that smaller lorries can be sent on to the minor roads?
    Mr. Peyton: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said.
    Mr. S. James A. Hill: Will my right hon. Friend make sure that when these heavy lorries are diverted from minor roads to major roads, the signs, certainly in port areas, are given in the main European languages?
    Mr. Peyton: I shall consider that most carefully.

    Portsmouth
    Mr. Juddasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make arrangements to visit Portsmouth.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Geoffrey Rippon): I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Judd: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman oblige the citizens of Portsmouth by making early plans to visit Portsmouth? When he comes will he look at two problems in particular? First, will he consider the difficulties arising from the fact that Portsmouth has a large proportion of public sector housing and that some of the worst living conditions in the city are in the public sector? Will he consider the need for a large injection of public funds completely to improve the environment of the public sector? Secondly, will he consider the absolutely appalling concept proposed by a special working party for a strategic lorry park on the already overcrowded Portsea Island? That would be completely unacceptable to the people of Portsmouth, who are short of space already.
    Mr. Rippon: I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says. The lorry park is a matter, in the first instance, for the Portsmouth City Council. Thereafter the planning procedures may apply. If the hon. Gentleman has specific questions that he wishes to put on the Order Paper I shall do my best to answer them.

    GLC Housing Development Committee
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet met the Chairman of the GLC
    660
    Housing Committee; and if he will make a statement of the matters discussed.
    Mr. Stallardasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has yet met the Chairman of the GLC Housing Committee; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Channon: I had a full discussion with the Chairman of the GLC's Housing Development Committee on 13th June. A number of problems of mutual interest were raised and I am now looking forward to a continuation of the past very close co-operation between the council and my Department.
    Mr. Cox: I note the Minister's reply. Is the hon. Gentleman now in a position to say what help he intends to give the GLC to acquire land in the outer boroughs? Further, what help will he give authorities to purchase more properties by way of loan sanctions and subsidies so that they can do so in the stress areas?
    Mr. Channon: I understand that the chairman of the GLC Housing Development Committee is to have a discussion with all the London boroughs. We must await the outcome of that discussion.
    Mr. Tebbit: What advice has my hon. Friend given to the Greater London Housing Development Committee about the sale of council houses?
    Mr. Channon: I fear that the Greater London Council and I differ about the sale of council houses. I think that my hon. Friend and I are in agreement on that matter.
    Mr. Stallard: Will the Minister tell us what discussions he has had or intends to have with the Chairman of the GLC about speeding up the process of compulsory purchase orders to help alleviate the general problem in stress areas?
    Mr. Channon: That point was not raised with the chairman of the housing development committee, but it is one that I am pursuing in view of questions which have been raised. I am hoping that I shall be able to make some improvement in the matter.
    Mr. Freeson: As the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment is Chairman of the London Housing Action

    661
    Group, will he be in a position to tell the House, in answer to the questions already asked, what he proposes to do to enable the GLC and other authorities to purchase land in the outer London areas more speedily, and to get houses built?
    Mr. Channon: As I have said, this question relates to the meeting that I had with the GLC Housing Development Committee and the matters which we discussed. At that meeting the chairman told me that she was proposing to have meetings with the chairmen of the London boroughs about the question of land. We must now wait and see what is the outcome of the meetings.

    Driving Licences
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what view the Government has recently expressed to the Common Market authorities on their proposal to raise the age for obtaining driving licences from 17 to 18 years.
    Mr. Peyton: None, Sir, as I have not yet had any occasion to do so.
    Mr. Marten: As the Government have now had nearly nine months to consider the matter, will my right hon. Friend be good enough to tell the House to what conclusions the Government have come on the question whether the age at which driving licences are issued should be raised from 17 to 18?
    Mr. Peyton: The Commission's proposals have been in orbit for only a comparatively short time. The proposals have not yet come before the Council of Ministers. I have not felt called upon to express an opinion. For myself, I can only say that I view a large part of the contents of the proposals with very great reservations.
    Mr. Mulley: The House will show great interest in the right hon. Gentleman's remarks. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposals are a directive of the Commission and were circulated as long ago as last October or November? It may be that the Government's present policy is to wait until the last minute, when matters get to the Council of Ministers, but many people would like to know the Government's attitude to the odd collection of proposals contained in the directive.
    Mr. Peyton: I have contented myself so far by politely saying that I have a great many reservations about the contents of the proposals that have emanated from the Commission. Incidentally, it is not a directive. The matter has not yet been considered by the Council of Ministers. As I have said, I think that a number of the proposals are things that I should not like at all.
    Mr. Adam Butler: I recognise that the risks of accidents are greater with a heavier traffic flow and that the best way to deal with this question is through more stringent tests and teaching methods, but will my right hon. Friend resist strongly the suggestion that the licence age should be raised from 17?
    Mr. Peyton: As I have said, I have many reservations on these proposals. I see no call to alter the driving age.
    Sir G. de Freitas: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind other Ministers that even in a federal country like the United States these matters are left to the individual States? Surely the Commission has more to do than fussing around with proposals like this.
    Mr. Peyton: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am not responsible for the proposals that emanate from the Commission. What I am responsible for is the response which Her Majesty's Government make to them—and these present proposals are, I think, not to be wholly welcomed.

    Flyover (Barking)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is aware of the inconvenience caused to residents of Barking by the construction of a flyover at Lodge Avenue; what exchanges he has had on this matter with the council of the London Borough of Barking; why representations and correspondence from that council's officers were repeatedly ignored by his Department and not acknowledged; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Keith Speed): Yes, Sir. We appreciate and regret that major roadworks inevitably cause some inconvenience to residents in spite of efforts to mitigate these effects. None of the representations made by the council has been

    663
    ignored. Meetings attended by representatives of the council to discuss the works were held on 4th April and 2nd June.
    Mr. Driberg: Will the hon. Gentleman say what efforts were made to mitigate this particular inconvenience, which is of a very extreme nature? Some of the people living nearby cannot get in or out of their front doors because the works come right up to their houses. There is not much mitigation there.
    Mr. Speed: Various works were carried out to pavements, for example. There should be a substantial improvement by September, when one of the carriageways will open. This is a major road scheme for a three-quarters of a mile heavy traffic route, and the responsible engineers and my Department have been working hard with the borough to try to make the inconvenience to residents as little as possible.
    Mr. Driberg: While thanking the hon. Gentleman for that answer, so far as it goes, may I point out that September is a long time away? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that ambulances and fire engines cannot get through, either?
    Mr. Speed: It is a long time, but we are pressing on with this complicated and expensive scheme as quickly as possible. September is the earliest possible date, bearing in mind all the considerations.

    Environmental Projects
    Mr. Johnasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what environmental projects will be deferred or cancelled as a result of the cuts in public expenditure announced on 21st May 1973.
    Mr. Rippon: I have nothing to add to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) on 25th May.—[Vol. 857, c. 184–6.]
    Mr. John: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman not give an undertaking that since all the information we are now receiving indicates that very much money will have to be spent in future in giving Britain a satisfactory environment he will press his Cabinet colleagues as strongly as possible that, wherever public expenditure is available, it should be provided and not cut from environmental projects?
    Mr. Rippon: Excluding housing, for which we have made additional provisions, we still expect a growth in local government expenditure in 1974–75 of about 2½per cent.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Is it possible that the building of reservoirs in rural areas can be postponed?
    Mr. Rippon: Every project has to be judged on its merits.
    Mr. Dormand: How will the cuts affect the east-west roads proposed in the Northern Region? The north-south communications are now reasonably satisfactory, but without the two east-west road links the scheme remains half-baked.
    Mr. Rippon: For various reasons I have a good deal of sympathy with that general proposition, but it is too early to say which roads will be affected. Naturally, discussions are going on as to which projects might be deferred. The Question refers to projects being cancelled, but we have much more in mind the deferment of projects while the construction industry is under heavy pressure. It is a question of resources as well as money.
    Mr. Crosland: Did I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that next year expenditure on the environment, less housing, would rise by only 2½ per cent.? If I did so understand him, may I ask whether he is aware that this is a smaller rise than the Government are expecting in the gross national product, and that he is telling us, therefore, that the entire block of environmental expenditure is to decline next year as a proportion of the gross national product?
    Mr. Rippon: I referred to local government expenditure as a whole. What the right hon. Gentleman calls "environmental" may vary from project to project. People have different conceptions of what is "environment". On the expenditure as a whole, the original idea was to have a growth of about 4 per cent. but now, excluding housing, it will be 2½ per cent. In housing, however, we envisage a substantial increase. I remember the Opposition, in the local elections, emphasising that we ought to put houses before roads.

    Rent Allowances
    Sir B. Rhys Williamsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many claims for rent allowances for unfurnished properties are now being met; and what estimate he has made of the rate of take-up by eligible persons other than those receiving supplementary benefit.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Reginald Eyre): I regret that information on rent allowances granted is not yet available from enough local authorities to enable any reliable estimate to be given. The initial rate of take-up has been slow, but it is steadily improving.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Will my hon. Friend consider the suggestion that national insurance pensioners should be given special additional help to encourage them to obtain their entitlement under the Housing Finance Act? For the longer term, will he consider the possibility of the introduction of a householders' allowance in the tax credit scheme, so that applications for benefit under the Act are put on a more or less automatic basis?
    Mr. Eyre: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion. He will appreciate that I cannot anticipate the provisions of the tax credit scheme. But he will appreciate that to include rent allowance could make the scheme much more complex.
    Mr. Adam Butler: There are indications that rebates or allowances in the council house sector are generally good, and that the take-up is probably about 30 per cent. or more, but is my hon. Friend aware that in the private sector the take-up is very low? Will he consider further publicity, so that private tenants can take advantage of the considerable benefits open to them under the Act?
    Mr. Eyre: Yes, Sir. My hon. Friend is right in saying that the take-up in the private sector is very good, but in dealing with the private sector one has to remember that this great reform has been in operation for less than six months. The indications are that the numbers are improving, but my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction and I will not be satisfied until there is great improvement in the take-up in rent allow-
    666
    ances, and we shall use ever possible means to bring that about.
    Mr. Loughlin: If the Minister considers a 30 per cent. take-up very good, is not the failure to take up allowances an indication of the complete and abject failure of the whole policy of selectivity?
    Mr. Eyre: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the needs allowance upon which the rent rebate is calculated is very generous. The percentage of take-up in the public sector is good when related to the number of people who qualify for this help.

    House Prices
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what is the latest average price of newly-built and second-hand dwellings as compared with 18th June 1970.
    Mr. Channon: The estimated average price of houses mortgaged with building societies in the first quarter of 1973 was £9,483 for new dwellings, and £9,283 for other dwellings. Corresponding figures for the second quarter of 1970 were £5,082 and £4,778, respectively.
    Mr. Skinner: I suppose that that is what the Prime Minister means by the boom. We certainly got it in housing! Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the predominant reason why we have this fantastic increase in house costs is the Tory Government's Housing Finance Act and the upward spiral in rents and prices—[Interruption.]—which has lined the pockets of some of those who are shouting? Is it any wonder that property spivs and prostitutes are competing with one another to say that life is better under the Conservatives?
    Mr. Channon: The hon. Member's supplementary is worthy of his usual comments in the House.
    Mr. McCrindle: Does my hon. Friend not agree, that disagreable as these figures undoubtedly are, there has nevertheless been a welcome reduction in the rate of increase over recent months? Does he not further agree that since this has coincided with a more difficult mortgage situation it points to the desirability of the building societies equalising their lending over a lengthy period if necessary through a voluntary stabilisation fund?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is quite right. He will have noted in the April White Paper our intention to seek voluntary arrangements with building societies.
    Mr. Crosland: The hon. Gentleman says that his hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle) is quite right and that this is due to the natural inflow of funds. Is it not because, far from the rate of increase in house prices slowing down, it was 10 per cent. in the first quarter of this year which was a substantially faster rise than in the last quarter of last year? What does he think about that? Does he think that the Government are totally helpless in the face of it?
    Mr. Channon: No, I do not think that at all. The right hon. Gentleman quite fairly draws attention to the first quarter, but I must point out that this is a comlicated set of figures relating partly to mortgage approvals and partly to mortgage completions for the period concerned. The subjective evidence that I receive is that the rate of increase is very much less than the figures—
    Mr. Thomas Cox: Not in London.
    Mr. Channen: The hon. Member says that that is not the case in London, but the situation varies very much in different parts of London.

    Empty Houses
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will request the London local authorities to provide him with statistics showing what proportion of the 99,000 houses standing empty in London is owned by them and the period of time for which they have been empty.
    Mr. Eyre: No, Sir. The figure quoted comes from the 1971 Census County Report for London and cannot be broken down to supply the information requested. A recent survey by the London Housing Office showed that only a small proportion of local authority dwellings are vacant at any one time.
    Mr. King: Will my hon. Friend try to give the House some figures? Is he aware that the figures that have been quoted in official reports are appalling? Is he aware that it is said that some of these houses have been empty for five or
    668
    six years, and that local authorities in London bear a heavy responsibility for this? It is at least his function—I do not attribute blame—to give us the right figures and supply the information that we need, because it is only if we have the information that we can bring pressure to bear, as we all wish to.
    Mr. Eyre: The recent survey to which I referred showed that most boroughs had only 200 to 300 council dwellings empty at any one moment, and usually far fewer. These properties were usually vacant for good reasons, such as repair, improvement or re-allocation.
    Mr. Molloy: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a lot of empty property in London, but not for the reasons that he has given'? Is he aware that this property is empty because it is too expensive for anyone to rent or buy? Does he agree that in view of the massive homelessness in London this is a ridiculous situation? Will he help local authorities compulsorily to purchase buildings such as Centre Point, which could be converted into homes for the homeless as an interim measure?
    Mr. Eyre: In the recent discussions with London local authorities my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that he would consider the possibility of using compulsory purchase orders where owners were blatantly disregarding the obligation to bring their housing into use. There is another point. In the recent White Paper it was made clear that further encouragement would be given to making use of empty houses, because the local authority would be given discretion to rate such properties 100 per cent. instead of 50 per cent., as at present.

    Alkali Inspectorate (Sheffield)
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will supplement the work of the Alkali Inspectorate in Attercliffe and Tinsley, Sheffield.
    The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): Since 1971 the Sheffield-based district of the Alkali and Clean Air Inspectorate has been reduced in size, enabling the inspectors to concentrate more closely on the City area. The Inspectorate is already assisted in Attercliffe and Tinsley

    669
    by the city council, which controls a number of registered works, and regular visits will shortly be undertaken by one of the new industrial grit and dust testing teams being set up by my right hon. and learned Friend.
    Mr. Duffy: When the Minister next drives up the M1 will he look to his left and right as he crosses the Tinsley Viaduct and observe the greatest concentration of industrial pollution in this country? Is he aware that according to those who have suffered this—now including industrial workers as well as housewives—this pollution is increasing in its intensity and its offensive nature? Will he reconsider the present state of the Inspectorate, with a view to increasing not merely the numbers of inspectors but also their powers?
    Mr. Page: I am conscious, as a result of driving up the M1, of the problem that the hon. Gentleman raises. This is being dealt with urgently. I have received the hon. Gentleman's letter concerning the breakdown and the difficulties that have recently arisen, causing trouble to neighbouring factories. I hope that we can deal urgently with this, because it is a serious matter.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that there is an urgent need to increase the strength of this Inspectorate, since the inspectors are grossly overworked? Will he also consider, in the near future, the amalgamation of this Inspectorate with the Factory Inspectorate?
    Mr. Page: There has been an increase in the Inspectorate by the reduction in the size of the district that it has to cover. The city of Sheffield has taken over certain duties, which should help. There is also the new dust and grit testing team, which will be of great assistance. If my hon. Friend will put down a Question about the amalgamation I shall deal with it.
    Mr. Mulley: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his expressions of concern and his promise of urgent action, but does he realise that conditions in my hon. Friend's constituency are much worse than they have been for many years? At a time when we are seeking to improve environmental conditions, this is an urgent matter. Is he
    670
    aware that it would be appreciated if he or one of his colleagues from the Department would come to Sheffield to see this for themselves?
    Mr. Page: I can give an assurance that either my Under-Secretary or I will come to look at this, because we think it is a serious matter.

    Building Industry
    Sir R. Russellasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make it his policy to encourage the expansion of the building industry in order that it can meet the demands being made on it, especially in the private sector.
    Mr. Channon: It is my policy to encourage the building industry to meet all the demands made on it.
    Sir R. Russell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that the building industry is so short of labour in some parts of the country that it is difficult to get a builder to carry out quite small repair jobs, because he is reluctant to transfer his men from work on new housing? Does my hon. Friend hold out any hope of this situation being remedied?
    Mr. Channon: My hon. Friend is right. This is what worries the whole House. There are, in particular, shortages of bricklayers and carpenters, especially in the Midlands and the South-East. I am engaged in talks with both sides of industry to see what can be done about this.
    Mr. Heffer: Since one of the most serious aspects of this is the development of labour only, or "lump" labour, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what encouragement he is giving, in the discussions taking place between the unions and the employers, to the reaching of a voluntary agreement for dealing with this? If this is not possible, will he say whether the Government are prepared to introduce legislation to deal with it?
    Mr. Channon: It would be wiser to wait and see the outcome of the negotiations between the employers and the unions. I am hoping that they will be successful.
    Sir D. Walker-Smith: In addition to stimulating expansion of the building industry, will my hon. Friend co-operate

    671
    with the industry in seeking the stimulation of new techniques and methods devised to increase labour productivity both in relation to craftsmen and labourers within the industry?
    Mr. Channon: I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend. It is encouraging that the number of craftsmen going through the training opportunities scheme has substantially increased, and I hope that this will have some effect.

    Metropolitan Green Belt (Epping Forest)
    Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he will make it his policy not to permit any erosion of the Metropolitan Green Belt within the new Epping Forest district of Essex.
    Mr. Rippon: Particular development proposals have to be considered on their merits but it is well known that we are determined to preserve an effective green belt around London.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: More homes are needed, and my right hon. and learned Friend's statement clearly is satisfactory, but is he aware of the anxiety occasioned by the indication that the Government wish to take some green belt land for building? It would help to remove anxiety if the Government clarified their intentions.
    Mr. Rippon: I appreciate the anxieties. It is important to emphasise that land will not be taken for housing where it conflicts with basic green belt policy. We have increased the green belt round London and we propose to see a further extension. If land is taken which is nationally green belt, although it may have no amenity or other value, we shall have replacement in mind. We appreciate the need to improve access and amenity facilities in the green belt.
    Mr. Tebbit: Leaving aside the proposals for the expansion of Harlow, as we should, because the proposals are under consideration, will my right hon. and learned Friend consider particularly closely those areas which are only theoretically green belt? There are old decayed greenhouses in the Lea Valley where the horticultural industry has changed. Will he consider those particu
    672
    larly closely, because many of them are industrial slums?
    Mr. Rippon: Those are the sort of factors that must be borne in mind before there is any incursion into what is described as green belt. In considering whether to make a draft order expanding the designated area, I would bear carefully in mind whether any expansion of Harlow New Town required incursion into existing or proposed green belt.

    Rates
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for the Environment to what extent his letters to local authorities requesting them to reconsider their rate demands have led to reductions in those demands.
    Mr. Graham Page: One hundred and seventy local authorities in England effected reductions amounting to £11·3 million. I am informed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales that the inclusion of Wales in this answer would make the figures 210 local authorities and reductions of £13·2 million.
    Mr. Tebbit: I am glad to hear that at least some local authorities have heeded my right hon. Friend's advice. However, is he satisfied that he has sufficient staff in his Department to consider whether rate demands are unreasonable? What will he do if local authorities continue to make extravagant and unjustified demands?
    Mr. Page: We have power to monitor the rate poundages and to make suggestions to local authorities when we think reductions might be made. Of the 1,400 authorities that were asked to review their proposals, in 480 cases the invitation suggested specific amounts. It is the local authority's responsibility to fix the rate poundage. There is no question of ordering local authorities what the rate poundage should be. The staff in my Department are able to deal with this matter, as I think is shown by the fact that they were able to suggest specific reductions in 480 cases.
    Mr. Pavitt: In monitoring this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman's Department take two things into consideration—first, that because of inflation the expenditure of local authorities that

    673
    should be made this year on necessary works will be much less if it is deferred and, secondly, because of a slight aberration by the electorate in electing Conservative-controlled councils that have delayed doing things excessive expenditure has been incurred in some cases this year to make up for the backlog?
    Mr. Page: I do not agree with the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. Perhaps he would remind me of the first part.
    Mr. Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that inflation means that money should be spent on necessary work now rather than next year?
    Mr. Page: The question of inflation was discussed fully with all those authorities that were asked to reduce the amount of rate poundage. Views as to what should be allowed for inflation differ between local authorities. This has been one of the considerations in the monitoring that we have been doing.
    Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate that it is possible to ask local authorities to reduce their rates, but is it not the case that most local authorities, in consequence of Government policy, have had to impose large increases on most ratepayers? The right hon. Gentleman talks about advising local authorities to reduce rates. Is he aware that his Department advised one of my local authorities to reduce rates by cutting out a proposal for concessionary fares to old-age pensioners?
    Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman writes to me about the case, I shall look into it. Generally speaking, there has been co-operation between central Government and local government in considering what should be the right figures based on the figures agreed between local authority associations and my Department in the course of the last rate support grant negotiations.

    Keighley (Signposting)
    Miss Joan Hallasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange for an investigation into signposting to Keighley, and in particular from the M606 through Bradford.
    Mr. Speed: Signing within Bradford is the responsibility of the city council. The Department's regional office has been
    674
    asked to discuss possible improvements with it.
    Miss Hall: I am glad to hear that. I appreciate that the Minister is not intimately concerned with the question of signposting in Keighley, but I assure him that it is appallingly bad. Skipton, a much smaller town, has many more sign-posts. Last year—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must ask a supplementary question.
    Miss Hall: When he is next in the West Riding, will my hon. Friend come with me to Keighley so that I may show him what the situation is?
    Mr. Speed: I am always happy to accept my hon. Friend's invitation to go anywhere with her. I know this part of the country very well, and I hope that the discussions that we are having with the Bradford City Council will go some way towards satisfying my hon. Friend.

    Oil Refineries (Siting)
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the regional dispersal of oil refineries and his Department's policy regarding the location of refineries in the next five years.
    Mr. Rippon: The siting of oil refineries was debated on the Adjournment on 15th June and I have nothing to add to what my hon. Friend said in reply to that debate.
    Mr. Douglas: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman concede that his hon. Friend's reply to the Adjournment debate that I initiated on Friday was extremely inadequate? As there will be a need to expand the number of oil refineries, is not the time ripe for a national strategy in siting oil refineries in the United Kingdom? Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman consult the other Ministers involved to see how a national strategy can be devised?
    Mr. Rippon: I have no reason to dissent from what the hon. Gentleman has said as a general proposition. I shall consult my right hon. and hon. Friend's concerned. Each case must be considered on its merits. We cannot prejudge all the circumstances that might arise. However, I thought that my hon. Friend's reply to the Adjournment debate was

    675
    helpful. We have taken into account, and will continue to take into account, the points that the hon Gentleman made in the Adjournment debate.
    Sir Bernard Braine: Will my right hon. and learned Friend take this matter more seriously? Is he aware of the intensive opposition in South-East Essex to the planning approvals given by Labour and Conservative Governments to the siting of oil refineries too close to residential populations for health or safety? Will he make it clear that in future considerations of commercial interests will not be allowed to prevail in the face of the opposition of local authorities, the elected Member of Parliament and the Minister's own inspector?
    Mr. Rippon: What my hon. Friend says illustrates my point that we must consider cases on their merits. With the new approvals, there is more or less a balance between the refining capacity to be provided and the requirements of the South-East area. On national policy—and we cannot rule it out of consideration in these matters—the Government follow the line adopted by the previous Government, which is set out in the White Paper on fuel policy published in November 1967. Paragraph 41 sets out in broad terms the sort of considerations that have to be borne in mind, as well as the local representations. We try to strike the best balance possible.
    Mr. Crosland: We have moved on some way since 1967. Is it not impossible to consider every case on its merits unless we have some sense of national policy and strategy? We are getting into a mess when oil refineries are being imposed on the residents of Canvey Island, who detest the idea, while other parts of the country long to have them for regional reasons. Following our recent brief debate, will the Secretary of State consider publishing a White Paper or a Green Paper setting out broadly what are the arguments—regional, economic and the rest—for this policy, rather than that policy, in relation to refineries? There is a great deal of public disquiet about this.
    Mr. Rippon: I shall certainly bear that in mind. I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman means when he says that we have moved on some way since 1967. In due course he may sug-
    676
    gest to us in what way he disagrees with the 1967 statement of the broad national policy. A number of proposals are coming forward for the construction of refineries elsewhere—for example, in Scotland. To some extent the initiative rests with the companies to assess the demand, but thereafter the regional and national considerations have to be borne in mind in any public inquiry.
    Mr. Ian Lloyd: My right hon. and learned Friend will obviously wish to bear in mind that if as a result of a general policy of refusing refineries we reach the same position as the United States—which is seriously short of refinery capacity in general, which is contributing to the severe energy crisis—this will not be generally popular in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Rippon: That factor was recognised in 1967 and it is still relevant today.
    Mr. Delargy: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I strongly support the plea made by the hon. Member for Essex South-East (Sir Bernard Braine)? There is already more oil stored along those few miles of the Thames Estuary from Canvey Island to Purfleet than is stored anywhere else in Europe. Does the Minister realise that the people who live along this dread river bank are not only gravely inconvenienced but are in fearful danger?
    Mr. Rippon: I cannot accept the latter part of the supplementary question. Questions of health, pollution and safety are relevant to any public inquiry on the siting of a particular oil refinery. I am aware of the public anxieties. One factor to be borne in mind is proximity to markets. I have said that, as far as one can judge, the present position is that the capacity of oil refineries matches the demand in the South-Eastern area. We have also to bear in mind the export of oil and balance of payments considerations, to which the 1967 White Paper drew attention.

    A439 (Harvington Bypass)
    Sir G. Nabarroasked the Secretary of State for the Environment, following the public inquiry at Harvington, Evesham, Worcestershire, on 30th April 1973, whether he is yet in a position to make an announcement of his decision on

    677
    the construction of the proposed bypass at Harvington on the A439 and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Speed: We are considering the inspector's report, and shall make an announcement as soon as a decision has been reached.
    Sir G. Nabarro: Does my hon. Friend realise that the money for this bypass was authorised in 1969—four years ago—in a sum of £150,000, which became £171,000 in 1971 and is now estimated at £240,000, and still there is no decision? Will he undertake to promulgate a final decision and give the go-ahead for the roadway before the end of July, when we rise for the recess?
    Mr. Speed: I remind my hon. Friend that we received the inspector's report only last month. I take note of the urgent representations that he has made about an early decision and I shall do my best to see that this comes about.

    A41 (Tring High Street)
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take immediate steps to restrict danger to pedestrians in the narrow part of the Tring High Street on the A41 trunk road.
    Mr. Speed: We are discussing with the local authority and the police a scheme for alternate one-way working in the High Street under signal control, with a view to this being introduced on an experimental basis.
    Mr. Allason: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that there will not be any hold-up on account of finance? In the discussions to which he has referred it was said that traffic lights for such one-way working would be too expensive?
    Mr. Speed: Subject to the delivery of the necessary equipment, I expect the scheme to be implemented within two or three months.

    Council House Building (Tenders)
    Mr. Horamasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the number of tenders for new council house building schemes.
    Mr. Eyre: Some authorities have encountered problems in obtaining tenders, but the number of dwellings in tenders accepted by local authorities in England and Wales in the first four months of 1973 was 23 per cent. up on the same period last year.
    Mr. Horam: Is the Minister aware that throughout the country families are having to live amongst the muck and rubble of demolition because local authorities cannot get tenders for the building of houses to rehouse them? In Gateshead, three major schemes attracted tenders only from the public works department, which the Government did not allow because they were above the cost yardstick. Will the Minister do something urgently about these problems?
    Mr. Eyre: If I may refer to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, my Department is in touch with the council about the three schemes with which there were difficulties. I hope that we shall be able to resolve those difficulties so as to enable competitive tenders to be obtained, so that all three schemes can go ahead.
    Mr. Leadbitter: Is the Minister aware of the survey of the North-East, which I placed before his right hon. and learned Friend and which contained evidence that because of the unit cost yardstick local authorities cannot build council houses? The unit cost yardstick argument has gone on long enough. Is not the Minister aware that representations from all parts of the United Kingdom have been made to him, his Department and the Government to consider a new unit cost yardstick that will enable local authorities to get on with their building needs?
    Mr. Eyre: As the hon. Gentleman knows, considerable efforts are being made to try to solve his local problem. I ask him to realise the large volume of house building that is being undertaken by the building industry, particularly in his region. There has been an enormous increase in the amount of work done under the house improvement grant scheme—the number of grants has doubled in comparison with last year—as well as all the new house building in the public and private sectors.
    Mr. Robert C. Brown: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in the Byker area of Newcastle people are living in abject

    679
    misery because redevelopment is being held up by the cost yardstick problem? This is not a political issue—the council is Tory-controlled. I know that the building industry is heavily overburdened with revitalisation, but will the Minister accept that the cost yardstick is the main problem and get down to it?
    Mr. Eyre: We should like to get that building work moving ahead as rapidly as possible. The hon. Gentleman has been good enough to refer to the tremendous demands being made upon the industry. He knows that last November we introduced this special market allowance to give some flexibility to these negotiations. Against the background of this difficult situation we are placing a large number of contracts.

    Building Land (Cost)
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the average cost of an acre of building land on 1st January 1972 and on 1st January 1973; and what is the figure for the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Channon: The latest available figures cover the second half of 1972, when the weighted average price per acre of private sector housing land in England and Wales was some £20,000. For the second half of 1971 it was some £10,400
    Mr. Hardy: The Minister spoke extremely quietly. Does not that answer show the sickening severity of housing land price inflation? Is it not clear that it continued unabated during the so-called freeze, while the Government remained content to tolerate or encourage private rapacity? Would the Minister care to say whom he regards as responsible for this.
    Mr. Chanson: I cannot accept what the hon. Gentleman says. The figures I have given to the House are about four months behind, because the index carries a built-in time lag between the date when the price of a plot is agreed and the recording of the price statistics. The figures are therefore considerably out of date. The short answer is to release more land and to provide more land, so that plenty of housing land is available for people to build houses.
    Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Minister please repeat the figures? Will he admit that, even if his latest proposal to bring more land into use succeeded, it would still have to be bought at market value—which is often a hundred times its previous value—before building or planning permission is given? Should not it be sold at its previous value as potato fields or disused dockland, as is proposed in the plan for public ownership of land just published by the Labour Party?
    Mr. Channon: I have read the Labour Party's plans with great interest. I recommend them to the House to read. If they were ever put into operation they would cost tens of thousands of millions of pounds. They are wholly impracticable.
    Mr. William Hamilton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In his original reply the Minister deliberately mumbled. For the convenience of the House, might the hon. Gentleman be allowed to repeat the figures for which my hon. Friend asked in his original Question?
    Mr. Channon: If the House would like me to repeat the original answer, I should be glad to do so. It reads:
    "The latest available figures cover the second half of 1972, when the weighted average price per acre of private sector housing land in England and Wales was some £20,000. For the second half of 1971 it was some £10,400."
    Mr. William Hamilton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister still has not shouted out those figures. My hearing is not inadequate. I did not hear the first figure. Will the hon. Gentleman please repeat it?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a matter for the Chair. I confess that I did not hear the figure the first time, but certainly I heard it the second time.
    Mr. Freeson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is clear that quite a number of hon. Members did not hear the figures quoted. I heard them reasonably clearly, being in fairly close proximity to the hon. Gentleman, but may I ask for confirmation that he said that there had been a 100 per cent. increase in land prices?
    Mr. Speaker: I do not think that that is a point of order.

SLATER WALKER—HILL SAMUEL
Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make a statement on the cancellation of the plans to bring about a merger between Slater Walker and Hill Samuel.
The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): As I explained to the hon. Member for Hackney, Central (Mr. Clinton Davis) on 23rd May [Vol. 857, c. 465–6], I earlier reached the view that the proposed merger did not raise issues which required investigation and report by the Monopolies Commission, and subsequent events have not altered my view. As the House will know, the parties yesterday announced their intention not to proceed with the merger.
Mr. Benn: But does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman understand that what has happened has far graver implications than his answer on the occasion or any answer to a previous Question suggests? Does he recall that the merger was promoted by two men who are very well known to Ministers, that it was supported by the Governor of the Bank of England, that it was endorsed by the Minister himself on 23rd May, that we were assured that he had received assurances which satisfied him about the merger, and that we were assured then that the public interest did not require a reference to the Monopolies Commission? In the event, is not it clear that the shareholders' interests have suffered, that it now apears from reports that 100 companies have been acquired by Slater Walker in the past 18 months and that their workers' interests have not been considered? Is not it clear from the Sunday Times reports that Slater Walker has engaged in operations which call for further inquiry, and these doubts have been confirmed by the cancellation of the arrangements for the merger by Hill Samuel, no doubt based on misleading and inadequate information?
I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether he will now institute an immediate Companies Act inquiry into Slater Walker in order to bring these
682
facts to light and to end the ill-judged efforts by him and his fellow Ministers to cover up the unacceptable face of capitalism in respect of this deal.
Sir G. Howe: As always, the right hon. Gentleman has sought to erect a far-ranging and elaborate structure on a single event. If I may go back over the matters that he raised, it is quite wrong to imply, as he sought to do, that transactions of this kind were promoted by Ministers who were familiar with some of the parties in the matter. [Interruption.] "Promoted by people known to Ministers" is an attempt to have the benefit of the innuendo without being prepared to assert it. I will deal with the right hon. Gentleman's next point in a moment.
It is worth reminding the House that the right hon. Gentleman accepted unequivocally the last time that this matter was raised that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had deliberately played no part in connection with these transactions. The innuendo which the right hon. Gentleman sought to introduce seeks to go back on that.
As for endorsement by the Governor of the Bank and by me, I told the House on the last occasion this matter was raised that the Governor had indicated his view, as has been the practice, and had made it perfectly clear at that stage that it was subject to a conclusion reached by my Department and, in the result, reached by me.
As for my own position, I applied my mind to the question which arose, whether this matter required consideration by the Monopolies Commission. I reached the conclusion that it did not so require. That does not amount to an endorsement one way or the other of that which is taking place. It amounts to a decision within the framework of the legislation whether it requires consideration in that context.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to mention a number of different factors, and in reaching that conclusion one bears in mind a great variety of factors, to some extent many of those mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but one still reaches one's conclusions whether the public interest requires a reference in the context of the legislation.
On the right hon. Gentleman's final point, I see no reason resulting from the

683
decision announced yesterday not to go ahead with this merger to appoint any kind of inquiry of the kind to which he has referred.
Sir D. Walker-Smith: Whatever the merits or demerits of the original proposal and its subsequent revocation, which, strictly speaking, would not seem to be a matter for this House, have the Government any proposals in mind for the closer involvement of shareholders in the affairs of companies of which they are the titular owners either by way of the institution of supervisory boards, which are in practice in certain other countries, or by any other method?
Sir G. Howe: As my right hon. and learned Friend will know, I answered several questions bearing on that point on Monday. I indicated then that one of the matters that we had under consideration involved suggestions for the closer involvement of shareholders by the appointment of supervisory boards. I said that it was only one of the factors currently under debate, launched into debate from a number of sources. Another matter was the extent to which the closer involvement of shareholders could be facilitated by changes in the law relating to the obligation to disclose information. Those matters are under consideration alongside that which has been suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend.
Dr. Gilbert: Has the Minister's attention been drawn to the fact that there was heavy dealing in the shares of both Hill Samuel and Slater Walker on the London Stock Exchange yesterday morning before the announcement was made and that according to today's Financial Times there were share falls in both stocks anticipating the announcement? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman also noticed that the Stock Exchange Council, as one might expect, did nothing about it yesterday and apparently has done nothing since?
Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, first, consider holding an immediate inquiry into dealings in the shares of these two companies yesterday morning, and, secondly, in his coming review of company law, will he take account of the total unfitness of the Stock Exchange to supervise private share dealings in this country?
Sir G. Howe: In his question the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) emphasises what is probably the most important factor in this matter. I think he was quoting from the Financial Times when he said that there were transactions in the shares of both these companies yesterday anticipating the announcement which had been made. There had been Press comment over the weekend and again on Monday expressing views about the merits or demerits of the proposed merger of a kind likely to lead to anticipation or speculation which certainly could have given rise to share transactions in relation to both companies. Those are matters to which one obviously has regard as being in the background.
The hon. Gentleman suggested the necessity for an inquiry. The powers that I possess under the Companies Acts are principally in Sections 109 of the 1967 Act and 165 of the 1948 Act. I have seen no evidence to justify the use of those powers to inquire into the transactions which have taken place. The matter to which, by implication, the hon. Gentleman referred is one which, in the first instance, should be for the Stock Exchange Council to consider.
On the wider question raised by the hon. Gentleman, plainly, as I think I indicated on Monday, legislation regarding insider dealing is one matter that the Government have in mind in preparing their proposals which will be laid before the House in due course.
Mr. Tugendhat: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one might be tempted to suspect the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) of some hypocrisy when one listens to what he says here and compares it with his performance as Minister of Technology, when he promoted an unprecedented merger boom without consulting workers and sometimes leading to considerable displacement of workers?
On a more practical point, may I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to clarify the situation about the assurances that on 23rd May he told us he had received from Hill Samuel and Slater Walker about the way in which they would handle their substantial share holdings in industrial companies? What is the position about those assurances, which I

685
imagine were given direct to him or at any rate to the Secretary of State, now that the merger has lapsed?
Sir G. Howe: My hon. Friend, in the first part of his question, echoed a comment that I made about the right hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) when answering supplementary questions last time. He is right to remind the House that the right hon. Gentleman promoted a number of changes in company structure with far-reaching effects and was himself active in doing so with no more consultation than my hon. Friend suggested.
The statements of intention given by the parties to the proposed merger were given as indications of the way that the merged organisation was likely to conduct itself. They were given in that context and in those circumstances. Now that the merger has not taken place, there is no merged organisation to have such intentions. The statements of intention are, therefore, not relevant in the circumstances that now exist.
Mr. Carter: May I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman what discussions may have taken place between himself, other Ministers or his Department with either of the two companies concerned both before and after the announcement of the merger?
Sir G. Howe: The normal investigations and analysis of the implications of the proposed merger were undertaken by officials in my Department in consultation with others, as is customary, in order that advice could be given and the matter properly considered. Since the original decision was taken, I have continued to keep myself informed about the likely progress of the merger. There was no further consultation with my Department before the announcement was made by the two companies yesterday.
Mr. Biffen: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there will be gratitude that the Government did not become a committed catalyst to this particular concentration of financial power to an extent that would have prevented the emergence and triumph of the doubts that were so widely held not only within but outside this House?
Sir G. Howe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his observation. I discharged my functions as required by the statute, and reached the conclusion that it was not a case that was appropriate to be referred to the Monopolies Commission. The matter has subsequently been considered by shareholders and others, parties or prospective parties to the proposed merger, and the conclusion of which the House knows has been arrived at.
Mr. Atkinson: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit to the House that there is a great difference between the merging proposals which were made by the IRC at the time—that is, the merging of industrial interests—and the merging of pure financial interests as suggested on this occasion by the coming together of financial consortia in this way? Secondly, may I ask whether he is pleased or disappointed that this merger has fallen through?
Sir G. Howe: It is not for me to express judgment on the last part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Ministers should not be regarded as being required to pronounce judgments on each and every thing that happens on each and every aspect of our society. Of course, we have a responsibility to the House and the country to see that legislation and policy brought before the House are justified. However, it is not for us to form judgments on everything in the way implied by the hon. Gentleman.
There is some difference in the nature of the organisations concerned, but the essential point is that the judgments of shareholders and of parties concerned must be brought to bear as well as the judgments of Ministers and of Parliament on matters of this kind. They were brought to bear on the industrial mergers, about which the hon. Gentleman spoke to some extent, and they have been brought to bear in this instance. One could not conclude from the implication in his question that it is right to lay upon Ministers as great a responsibility as he implied for promoting each and every change in the industrial structure of the country which they happen to believe is right at any given moment.
Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recollect that a little while ago I asked about what I felt could

687
be an abuse of the PNQ procedure. Could you advise me now—
Mr. Speaker: Order. If it is a point of order relating to the PNQ procedure, we had better dispose of the next PNQ first.

WEST AFRICA (FOOD SUPPLIES)
Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Minister of State for Defence if he will respond to the request by President Hamani of Niger for the urgent use of Royal Air Force planes to deliver 2,500 tons of food a week to stricken areas of West Africa.
The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Richard Wood): I have been asked to reply.
The request from the President of Niger was addressed to the European Community and repeated to member governments. The Sahelian area is one which we do not know particularly well. In view of the seriousness of the situation there, I therefore decided that the most effective and speedy response Her Majesty's Government could make would be to contribute towards the relief operations being undertaken by the Community and the Food and Agriculture Organisation.
As I said in my reply last Wednesday to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I am also urgently considering what other help we can make available, particularly by providing aircraft to move food into the areas most severely affected. With the agreement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, a reconnaissance team from the Royal Air Force will leave tomorrow, if the necessary visa and other formalities can be completed. Its task will be to assess the most effective way in which British aircraft could be used for the relief of the stricken areas. I hope that its report will be available very shortly.
Mr. Allaun: I very much welcome that reply. I hope that RAF planes will be used, and used speedily, because of the urgency of this situation.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many hon. Members believe that this
688
is the best possible use of the Armed Services and that it would be a good thing if a permanent force could be set up by earmarking part of the Armed Forces for deliberate and special use in emergencies should they occur in future?
Mr. Wood: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that operations of this kind have been conducted in many different parts of the world. As soon as the report is available it will be studied by my right hon. Friend and myself and we shall then reach a decision about what should be done.
Sir J. Tilney: Could we also collaborate with our friends in Nigeria, the neighbouring country, in this aid scheme?
Mr. Wood: Certainly, I think that we would like to co-ordinate our efforts as far as possible not only with neighbouring countries but with our European partners, to whom this request has been directed.
Mrs. Hart: While welcoming very much what the right hon. Gentleman said, may I ask whether other EEC countries are also contributing help with transport in the way that we are proposing?
Secondly, may I ask what is the precise extent of the food aid that we have decided to make available?
Lastly, a more far-reaching question, may I ask how far the situation in West Africa has come within the ambit of the new disaster agency created by the United Nations? This bears on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Frank Allaun) about the need to have available from every donor country transport and other help for meeting disasters of this kind. One would hope that the disaster agency would be able to move in on matters of this kind. I should be grateful to know how far it has been involved in this instance.
Mr. Wood: As I understand it, the other European countries are considering the appeal that has been made to us collectively and individually by the President of Niger. As I told the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) we have so far contributed £300,000 to the FAO Sahelian Special Fund and nearly £500,000 to the Community programme. In addition, as the right hon. Lady knows,

689
we are contributing to the World Food Programme which is active in that area.
The machinery that has been referred to will take time to build up, and probably disasters of this kind, in the existing state of the situation, are best answered by the kind of reconnaissance and possible later action that I have announced.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS
Mr. Speaker: I call the hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Tebbit) to raise the point of order which he mentioned earlier.
Mr. Tebbit: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can explain to a self-confessed novice in these matters of procedure how it can come about that the fact that the right hon. Member for Bristol, South East (Mr. Benn) has discovered that his mare's nest is empty conceivably justifies a Private Notice Question and the expenditure of a good deal of time on a lot of nothing?
Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the discretion of the Chair. I have to decide whether to allow it.

PRIVATE NOTICE QUESTIONS

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to order [22nd March],
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Cyprus) Order 1973 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Prior.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to order [22nd March],
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Finland) Order 1973 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Prior.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to order [22nd March],
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (France) Order 1973 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Prior.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to order [22nd March],
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Jamaica) Order 1973 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Prior.]
  Question agreed to
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to order [22nd March],
  That the draft Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malaysia) Order 1973 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Prior.]
  Question agreed to.

EMPLOYEES' CHARTER BILL
3.52 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ensure reasonable conditions and rights for all workers; to provide for reasonable communication of information, ability of workers to express views and review performance and prospects, annual accounts to state labour turnover and reasons, reasonable consultation on mergers or takeovers, elimination of unreasonable distinctions between white and blue collar workers, minimum holidays and holiday pay rates, leaves of absence for family reasons and childbirth, better earnings for normal working hours and discouragement of unnecessary overtime, fair rewards for suggestions and inventions, and prevention of discrimination in pensions on termination of employment; and for purposes generally connected therewith.
This measure follows a Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) introduced last month to establish works councils throughout industry and precedes one for which my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) hopes to obtain a First Reading next week to establish guaranteed minimum earnings throughout industry.
It is generally accepted that there is a running debate, certainly in politics, about how the power and wealth of industry should be shared. Although the solutions will differ radically, the Bill which I am seeking to introduce is brought in against a background of public concern and discussion. It seeks to establish certain basic rights which, in our view, give practical expression to the changed status of employees in industry. It is also introduced at a time when other countries have experimented successfully with new techniques in industrial relations which I suggest we in this country should not be too proud to examine.
From the days of the earliest Factories Act, right up to the present time, it has been the responsibility of Parliament and the Government of the day to set minimum standards in industry in human and

691
certainly industrial relations. I hope that if the House is prepared to give the Bill its First Reading it will be possible to publish a Bill that will set out in greater detail the specific matters and reforms that we seek.
First, reasonable communication relating either to the prospects of a firm or individual prospects and the livelihood of those who are employed within it will not become an entrenched right until the Companies Acts are amended so that employees become full members of the company. Their right to information, their right to vote, not least their right to vote for or against the appointment of directors at the annual meeting on the same basis as the shareholders in a company, will give long overdue recognition to the fact that the rôle of labour is as vital as the rôle of capital in a company.
On the question of the security of employment, my noble Friend Baroness Seear hopes to introduce shortly in another place an Unfair Dismissal Bill which will deal with the statutory procedures which we suggest in the event of mergers, takeovers and redundancies, but suffice it to say that we should at least consider the spirit of the draft European Company Statute providing for a two-tier system at management level. If workers were represented at supervisory level, and if works councils were established throughout industry, I suggest that there would be at least some protection against the arbitrary effects of mergers, takeovers and unfair dismissals.
If we are, in effect, changing the structure of company law in this country, I suggest that the prelude to it—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must not make comments from a sedentary position, still less must he carry on a conversation with hon. Members on the other side of the House.
Mr. Thorpe: I suggest that if we are to amend our company laws, the first prelude must be to change attitudes, and the first thing that we are seeking is to eliminate the unreasonable distinction between white and blue collar workers. We all know that there is what, in a different context, is known as the petty apartheid of special lifts, special lava-
692
tories and special menus for managerial and clerical staff as opposed to blue collar workers.
I know of a factory being built in this country for an American firm the completion date of which was delayed by three months because the British management was insistent that it must have separate lavatories from those of its workers. Fortunately, the Americans prevailed and they are all now under one roof.
It is not merely the petty aspects of apartheid that give rise to trouble. There is, for example, the fact that occupational pensions schemes are usually exclusive to executives. The terms of employment and the requirements for compensation are calculated in terms of months for white collar workers but in terms of "weeks not months" for blue collar workers.
If minimum holidays, which prevail in many other countries in Europe, are coupled to a guaranteed minimum wage, it will mean that for a normal five-day week a man will have an adequate take-home pay without having to work excessive overtime which in turn may prejudice employment opportunities of others. If we can bring in the provisions which the Bill seeks to introduce we shall begin to establish some basic rights in this country, many of which are long overdue.
The first Industrial Revolution in this country decided what we should produce and it changed the emphasis from the field to the factory. The second industrial revolution should determine the conditions in which we produce what we produce, and if we can first create human relations, which are essentially a matter for individuals, and if we then can guarantee basic rights and encourage genuine partnership, I believe that on a basis of shared rewards and shared responsibility we can provide for this country opportunities and rewards greater than those achieved in the past and certainly dreamed of in the future. It is in that spirit that I ask leave to introduce the Bill.
3.58 p.m.
Mr. John Wells: It is with great diffidence that I rise to oppose the request of the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) for leave to bring in this Bill.

693
The long title of the Bill is so long that this measure has no prospect whatever of becoming law. The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to bring in the Bill merely in order to get it printed, to get it published and to give it news value. I believe that the Liberal Party, which is here in force for the first time this Session, is trying its traditional method of trouble stirring.
If a trade union member with trade union experience had sought to bring in the Bill, one might have listened to the preamble with rather greater respect. But, as it is, it is a load of mixed-up mumbo-jumbo, purely seeking personal publicity for the Liberal Party. It has no prospect whatever of becoming law. There is only one Friday left for Private Members' Bills, and it would have to get through all its stages on the nod, which is virtually inconceivable.
I believe that the eyewash and the codswallop for which the Liberal Party is becoming steadily more famous should be cut down to size, and it is primarily for that reason that I oppose the introduction of the Bill.
Second, the Bill—[Interruption.] I am only say that I wish that the right hon. Gentleman—
It appearing on the report of the Division that forty Members were not present, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared
Mr. Thorpe rose—
Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about all these interruptions?
Mr. Wells: If the right hon. Gentleman would have the goodness to listen in the silence in which he was heard, it might be better.
The fact remains that this tactic of the Liberal Party, of stirring up dissatisfaction in many sectors of the community without posing any real solutions, is one of the greatest evils of our time. This is an example of stirring without any solution being offered. The trade union movement has solutions and the Prime Minister and his Government have solutions. The little team of six merely have eyewash—
Mr. John Pardoe: Eight.
Mr. Wells: Where are the other two?
I ask the House not to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motion for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at the commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 18, Noes 7.

Division No. 167.]

AYES

[4.4 p.m.

Biggs-Davison, John

Montgomery, Fergus

Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

Fell, Anthony

Proudfoot, Wilfred

Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

Redmond, Robert

Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

Shelton, William (Clapham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Knox, David

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Mr. David Steel and Mr. John Pardoe.

Longden, Sir Gilbert

Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Tope, Graham

NOES

Bell, Ronald

Pounder, Rafton

Holt, Miss Mary

Scott-Hopkins, James

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

McMaster, Stanley

Soref, Harold

Mr. Peter Rost and

Nabarro, Sir Gerald

Stanbrook Ivor

Mr. John Wells.

that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next Sitting of the House.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 14th June].
  [Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]
  4.10 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. We do not have in our possession the OFFICIAL REPORT of the last proceedings of the Committee a week ago. You, Mr. Mallalieu, and the Committee will understand that this is important for hon. Members taking part in the debates. I should like respectfully to ask the Chair what is proposed to be done about this.
  The Deputy Chairman: I am afraid that it is not a question for the Chair.
  It is a matter for the hon. Member to take up with Ministers if he can.
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Without the OFFICIAL REPORT it is difficult to recollect the point that we had reached. I understood that, having disposed of Amendment No. 9, the Chair would be willing to permit a Division on Amendment. No. 12. If it be your pleasure, Mr. Mallalieu, I shall move that amendment.

  NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION BILL
    Clause 2

      INITIAL DEVOLUTION OF LEGISLATIVE AND EXECUTIVE RESPONSIBILITY
      Amendment proposed: 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 '.—[Capt. Orr.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 302.

      Division No. 168.]

      AYES

      [4.12 p.m.

      Bell, Ronald

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Biggs-Davison, John

      Pounder, Rafton

      Mr. Stanley R. McMaster and

      Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

      Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch

      Mr. James Molyneaux.

      Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

      Soref, Harold

      NOES

      Adley, Robert

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)

      Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James

      Dykes, Hugh

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Campbell, L (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Eadie, Alex

      Ashton, Joe

      Carlisle, Mark

      Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Astor, John

      Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Chapman, Sydney

      Emery, Peter

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Evans, Fred

      Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Ewing, Harry

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cockeram, Eric

      Faulds, Andrew

      Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Batsford, Brian

      Concannon, J. D.

      Fidler, Michael

      Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood

      Cooke, Robert

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Benyon, W.

      Coombs, Derek

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Biffen, John

      Costain, A. P.

      Foot, Michael

      Bishop, E. S.

      Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)

      Forrester, John

      Blaker, Peter

      Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Fortescue, Tim

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Fowler, Norman

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)

      Fox, Marcus

      Booth, Albert

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Gilbert, Dr. John

      Boscawen, Hn. Robert

      Deakins, Eric

      Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Dean, Paul

      Golding, John

      Bowden, Andrew

      Deedes, Rt, Hn. W. F.

      Goodhart, Philip

      Bowden, Andrew

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Bradley, Tom

      de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Delargy, Hugh

      Gray, Hamish

      Bray, Ronald

      Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

      Green, Alan

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Dixon, Piers

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)

      Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Doig, Peter

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Buchan, Norman

      Dormand, J. D.

      Gurden, Harold

      Bullus, Sir Eric

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Ridsdale, Julian

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      McLaren, Martin

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Hamilton, William (File, W.)

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Hardy, Peter

      McNamara, J. Kevin

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Harper, Joseph

      Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

      Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n & R'dnor)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Marsden, F.

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith

      Marten, Neil

      Rowlands, Ted

      Hawkins, Paul

      Mather, Carol

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Hayhoe, Barney

      Mawby, Ray

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Heffer, Eric S.

      Meacher, Michael

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Hiley, Joseph

      Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Shersby, Michael

      Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

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

      Hill, James (Southampton, Test)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Sillars, James

      Holland, Philip

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Silverman, Julius

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Horam, John

      Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas

      Milne, Edward

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Howell, David (Guildford)

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

      Spearing, Nigel

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledywn (Anglesey)

      Moate, Roger

      Speed, Keith

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Molloy, William

      Spence, John

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Monro, Hector

      Sproat, Iain

      James, David

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stallard, A. W.

      Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)

      More, Jasper

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Steel, David

      John, Brynmor

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

      Morrison, Charles

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Sutcliffe, John

      Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Tebbit, Norman

      Judd, Frank

      Murton, Oscar

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Neave, Airey

      Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)

      Kerr, Russell

      Normanton, Tom

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)

      Nott, John

      Tilney, Sir John

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Tope, Graham

      Kirk, Peter

      O'Malley, Brian

      Trew, Peter

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      Oram, Bert

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Knox, David

      Orme, Stanley

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Lamborn, Harry

      Oswald, Thomas

      Varley, Eric G.

      Lamont, Norman

      Padley, Walter

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Lane, David

      Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Palmer, Arthur

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Lawson, George

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Pardoe, John

      Wallace, George

      Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Walters, Dennis

      Le Marchant, Spencer

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Leonard, Dick

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Watkins, David

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

      Prior, Rt. Hn J. M. L.

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Lomas, Kenneth

      Probert, Arthur

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Longden, Sir Gilbert

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      Wilkinson, John

      Loughlin, Charles

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Loveridge, John

      Quennell, Miss J. M.

      Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)

      Luce, R. N.

      Radice, Giles

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Raison, Timothy

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Woof, Robert

      MacArthur, Ian

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      McBride, Neil

      Redmond, Robert

      Younger, Hn. George

      McCartney, Hugh

      Reed, D. (Sedgefield)

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      McElhone, Frank

      Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Mr. Walter Clegg and

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Mr. Michael Jopling.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Captain Orr: On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. Before we proceed perhaps I had better explain exactly what has happened. The Chair originally selected Amendment No. 16 for debate, but, on reflection, I and my hon. Friends prefer Amendment No. 17 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and we are perfectly happy to follow what he is proposing to do.
      The Deputy Chairman: I am grateful for the explanation.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 25, at end add:
      '(5) Notwithstanding anything contrary in this Act, if an Order in Council is approved by Her Majesty appointing a day for the commencement of Part II of this Act, any reference in subsection (5) of section 5 of this Act to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland shall be construed as a reference to the Governor of Northern Ireland for so long as that office exists'.
      The Deputy Chairman: It will be convenient to discuss also the following Amendments:
      No. 16, in page 2, line 25, at end add:
      '(5) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Act if an Order in Council is approved by Her Majesty appointing a day for the commencement of Part 2 of this Act, there shall be appointed a Governor of Northern Ireland and any references in sections 5, 7, 8, 24 and 27 of this Act to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland shall be construed as references to the Governor of Northern Ireland so long as that office exists'.
      No. 40, in Clause 36, page 25, line 16, at end insert:
      'on the advice of the Governor of Northern Ireland'.
      No. 46, in Clause 42, page 29, line 36, leave out:
      'or of the office of Governor of Northern Ireland'.
      New Clause 1—Governor's powers in relation to Assembly.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: The purpose of the amendments and the new clause is to enable Her Majesty's Government to accede to our desire, which is shared by thousands of our fellow subjects in Ulster, that the office of Governor should be retained. If I can appeal to the heart as well as to the head of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State I would beg him not to trample the feelings of loyal and peaceable Ulster people, many of whom are now canvassing and subscribing to a petition to this honourable House against the abolition of the governorship.
      During the last bloody year and more we have seen how loyalty has been soured and affronted by the prorogation of the Northern Ireland Parliament, by the imposition of direct rule as arbitrary as any that Ireland has ever known, without proper additional representation here or proper parliamentary time for the dispatch of Northern Ireland business. The predictable and predicted result was Protestant counter-terrorism and the proliferation of private armies.
      Now we have these new proposals to abolish the office of Governor, to wind up the Privy Council of Northern Ireland and to replace the oath of allegiance. All these are the subject matter of amendments on the Notice Paper. But these proposals, this chipping away of the crown in Ulster, feed the suspicions of those who against all ministerial
      700
      assurances—and my right hon. Friend would say against good sense—and despite the overwhelming verdict of the border poll still fear a slide into the Republic. They fear that it might happen under some future administration not provided by the Conservative and Unionist Party. They fear the erosion of the British character of Northern Ireland institutions within the wider context of the European Community.
      Some people will ask what all the fuss is about and suggest that the governorship is of little practical moment. Certainly until Lord Grey of Naunton showed himself in the discharge of his influence a man worthy of his very distinguished imperial service and also of the terrible challenge of urban terrorism in Northern Ireland very few in Britain would have been able to put a name to the Governor of Northern Ireland. It is probably true, and I hope it is not unfair to say, that in the 50 years of Unionist ascendancy Ulster premiers and politicians have not particularly cared to be overshadowed.
      I may be wrong but I heard that Lord Grey was the first Governor of Northern Ireland to receive the Northern Ireland Cabinet papers. He is a great Governor. He possesses the greatness of humility. I remember him best at a meeting of prayer for peace in Ireland organised by PACE—Protestant and Catholic Encounter. Anyone who has had the opportunity of picking his brains knows that they are brains worth picking. Lord Grey established the vice-regal office at a higher level above the partial affections and religious denominations. He interpreted the monarchy of the United Kingdom as a source of unity and a fount of healing. He received all sorts of people and brought all sorts of people together. With very little publicity he would visit the wounded and comfort the distressed and with Lady Grey he encouraged many endeavours for the common good and for the relief of a stricken society.
      But the case for our amendments and the new clause does not rest upon the high quality of Lord Grey and the graciousness of his lady. In a sense the case resembles that which was argued in favour of Clause 1, of which I was the sole backbench defender in its entirety and integrity.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: I was also.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: I should have said "the only Conservative backbencher". I beg the pardon of the hon. Gentleman who, I hope, will always be my hon. Friend for forgetting his notable contribution.
      It would not have been helpful to write into the Bill a reference to the status of Northern Ireland if that status had not been disputed and denied within the realm and without it and challenged in the streets of Northern Ireland with bomb and bullet. It would not be necessary to contest the withdrawal of the viceroy had the sovereignty of the monarchy not been contested in Northern Ireland. The issue of Republicanism is a great one.
      In the past Ireland was cursed with absentee landlords and absentee kings. The Secretary of State has given it to be understood that Royal visits may be made more frequently to Northern Ireland. Hillsborough has been spoken of as a Royal residence, but it is not Holyrood House. My right hon. Friend knows Scotland far better than I do. Scotland has her own judiciary, whereas the Northern Ireland judiciary is to be an excepted matter if the Bill is enacted. Wales has her Prince. In Northern Ireland the Governor and the Privy Council were the outward signs of the kingdom of which Northern Ireland is a part.
      My right hon. Friends may ask "Haven't you got me, one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State? What is wrong with me?" My right hon. Friend is one of Her Majesty's servants, but he is immersed in politics, bitterly controversial politics, and I am sure that he would not want to add ceremonial functions to his arduous political duties.
      [Mr. RICHARD CRAWSHAW in the Chair]
      4.30 p.m.
      The Secretary of State may object that it would not be possible under the proposed new constitution for a Governor to co-exist with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Perhaps the Law Officers have said so. But historically, under a modification of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, the Governor of Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Privy Council are, as it were,
      702
      the residuary successors of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, and the lord-lieutenant and the Chief Secretary were partners in the old Irish administration. In fact, senior appointments in 20 Irish departments of old were made by the lord-lieutenant or were subject to his approval.
      The purpose of the amendment is to retain the Governor as the Queen's representative and to confer upon him certain functions which would not impair his non-partisan position. The Governor could, and should, open, prorogue and dissolve sessions of the legislative Assembly, thus conferring a royal dignity upon this new body. The Governor should transmit measures of the Assembly for submission to the Queen in Council. The Governor should advise the Sovereign on the appointment of those officers of State mentioned in Clause 36 who stand outside and above the political battle; namely, the Northern Ireland Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Complaints, the Civil Service Commissioner for Northern Ireland, and the Comptroller and Auditor-General. Here there is an analogy with the function of the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland in making certain appointments.
      I conclude with a question of detail. What becomes of the Great Seal of Northern Ireland under the Bill? Article 4 of the Queen's Letters-Patent to Lord Grey authorises His Excellency to use the Great Seal of Northern Ireland. Who becomes the keeper of the Seal? What becomes of it if the governorship is abolished? Is this, too, thrown on the scrap heap of history with the vice-regal office, the Northern remnant of an ancient Privy Council and the oath of allegiance?
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: We have just indicated our general support for the Government in the Division on the previous amendment, which we regarded as a matter of fundamental importance. That is why we acted as we did.
      In the remainder of the Bill there are some very interesting points to elucidate, matters that the Secretary of State will probably find himself acting upon after 28th June. There are some most important aspects, such as the questions of dissolution, that we shall seek to talk about in the ensuing hours. But we

      703
      strongly oppose the amendment before us in the current context of Northern Ireland. Repetition is probably the curse of the whole subject. We have already made plain our praise for the work of Lord Grey and his Lady, who have done so much in Northern Ireland in recent years, in many respects an improvement on much that happened before.
      What has really moved me to speak is that the people of Northern Ireland listen carefully to what we say here, and the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), who takes an interest in these matters, seems still to be of the opinion that there could be a slide into the Republic. In our discussion of an earlier, very important amendment to Clause 1, I felt that there was a consensus that united both sides of the House and influenced the Secretary of State that there can be no slide into the Republic—that whatever people want to write, whatever people want to do, it is just not on.
      When the hon. Gentleman talks in this way he does no service to Northern Ireland, because he repeats mythology. There just cannot be a slide into the Republic. One of the reasons why we on this side support the White Paper is that it makes that clear, even in the context of the All-Ireland Council. Even with the departure of the Governor there can be no erosion of that. It is no use people talking about unification as if it is something that can happen overnight or as if there can be a slide. There cannot be, and the more we talk to the contrary the more harm we do to the Protestant community in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood what I said. I did not say that it was my view that there would be a slide into the Republic. I was very glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say on behalf of the Labour Party that there can be no slide of Northern Ireland into the Republic. Many people on both sides of the water will be delighted to hear that said on behalf of the Labour Party. The reason for the amendments is to remove very real fears and suspicions. It is not what is but what is believed that is so important. The amendments are a constructive effort
      704
      to remove fears and suspicions in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Rees: It is not news to anyone that I should say what I have just said. In the time for which I have had responsibility on the matter I have said it again and again, not as a public relations exercise but because I believed that it had to be said. One of the problems about any discussion of Ireland over the past 30 or 50 years has been that mythology has entered into it. But it does no good to legislate for mythology.
      There is a similar background to the amendment as there is to pledges. The question of the Governor must be taken in the context of what is, and that is that the Government have decided on a new approach to the matter.
      I can only repeat that we add our words of praise to the Governor. We do not believe that the amendment would improve the situation. What must be discussed is the dissolution and how it is to be done by the Secretary of State, and we have covered that ground on Second Reading.
      In many senses we have a watching brief on the Bill. We want to obtain information from the Secretary of State. We cannot support the amendments.
      Captain Orr: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) cannot support us. Oddly enough, I did not expect that he would, any more than I have any real expectation of the Government accepting the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). I think that it is a pity.
      My approach to the matter is slightly different from that of my hon. Friend. The issue between us is whether we are setting up a devolved Parliament or anything like it. My right hon. Friend has on previous occasions pointed to the fact that Scotland and Wales have senior Secretaries of State, who are in a sense a link with Her Majesty.
      The reason that the Act of 1920 set up a Governor for Northern Ireland, as it did for Southern Ireland, was that there was envisaged in the Act a considerable measure of devolution. It was thought that the Crown should have a representative in Northern Ireland and distinct from party politics, even though there

      705
      was one of Her Majesty's Secretaries of State—namely, the Home Secretary—responsible for Northern Ireland Affairs.
      We see in the proposal to remove the Governor acknowledgment of the fact that serious devolution of power is not intended. The schedules which we shall be discussing later indicate that that is so. Nonetheless, I still cannot understand why it would hurt the principle of the Bill as it stands, accepting what my right hon. Friend will try to do in Clause 2 and Part II, to separate the functions which my right hon. Friend will have. He is a popular and a personally respected figure. Every one has tremendous personal respect for him even though they may disagree with him. But as my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell said, he is a political figure. He is a member of Her Majesty's Government, and that is rather different from being the representative of the Crown.
      My right hon. Friend has given himself two different functions. One is as the political head of the Government of Northern Ireland with powers which may eventually go in some degree to the Chief Executive. My right hon. Friend still remains the principal executive officer in Northern Ireland for the immediate future. While he does so he is putting upon himself the powers which would have formerly lain in the Governor—in other words, formal as opposed to executive powers.
      I consider that my right hon. Friend could keep the fabric of the Bill and concede the amendment. First, it is always a good thing to distinguish between the formal functions of the Crown—as it were, the Royal Prerogative—and the executive functions of Government. I do not see why that cannot be done in this case. There are, of course, other rather more deep-seated arguments which my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell well deployed. Those are reasons which come from a deep feeling about the Governor in Ulster.
      It has been argued that a good man would not go to Ulster as Governor purely for ceremonial purposes. In fact, the ceremonial purposes are very important. The Governor has been able to perform the kind of duties which are normally performed by the Crown—that
      706
      is, by members of the Royal Family—on the mainland. It has been exceedingly useful to have the Governor.
      The day after the Governor departs from Ulster, if the Bill is carried and if the clause removing the office of Governor is carried, there may be an important presentation of standards to, for example, the Boys Brigade. That is a duty which would normally be carried out by the Governor. Who will perform ceremonial functions? It is still useful to have the office, and it is for that reason and for many others that I support the amendment.
      4.45 p.m.
      Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I shall add support to the arguments already put before the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). I say to my right hon. Friend once again, and perhaps for the last time, that he should think carefully about his proposition. I plead with him to have second thoughts. He must, I am sure, be aware not only of the deep affection which is felt in the hearts and minds of Northern Ireland not only for Lord Grey but for the position of Governor in Northern Ireland.
      As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South said, the functions of Governor are divisible by two. There are the ordinary functions of someone who stands outside politics, someone who is a figurehead and the representative of the Crown. Secondly, there are political functions. I advance my argument primarily on the ground that I am sure that my right hon. Friend wants to see the new system working in Northern Ireland. I believe that if a concession were made on this point it would help to win the sympathy of the people in Northern Ireland. For that reason I ask him to think again.
      The effect of a small concession on the hearts and minds of the ordinary majority of law-abiding people in Northern Ireland—I include every class and creed in Northern Ireland—would help to preserve the link with the Crown. In the present circumstances, and as far as can be seen in the future, it is not reasonable to expect the Queen or any immediate member of the Royal Family

      707
      to reside in Northern Ireland. Who would expect that? Therefore, to help preserve the link with the Crown and the stability of Government in Northern Ireland, to help to maintain the fact that there is an independent representative, someone above politics, looking after Her Majesty's interests and acting in the position of the Queen towards the people of Northern Ireland in so far as power is devolved to the Assembly, such a concession would help conditions in Ulster. It is for those reasons that I ask my right hon. Friend to be so good as to reconsider the amendment favourably.
      Mr. Rafton Pounder: I supported the Bill, albeit with reservations, on Second Reading. My right hon. Friend knows that the question of the Governor was one of the considerable reservations which I had at the time and which I still have.
      Normally I find myself in these discussions in agreement with the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), but to consider the issue of the Governor as some mysterious variant on the border theme and that in some curious way the reference to the Governor comes back to the first clause is an idea with which I disagree completely. As some of my hon. Friends have already said, this is an issue in its own right. To many hon. Members it may seem a small issue compared to the enormous decisions which are contained in the Bill and which in due course we shall be considering.
      At the time of the publication of the White Paper, I did not appreciate how deep affection had gone not only for the person of the Governor but for his office. At a meeting in my constituency that evening, the first question I was asked related to the office of governor. It is therefore right and fair to contend that the feeling among many people in Northern Ireland on this subject is spontaneous.
      I realise that there are legal arguments about the practicality of retaining the office in the context of the Bill. I am not a lawyer, so perhaps I can speak freely. In any case, one often finds eminent lawyers arguing totally different opinions. Whereas there may be a
      708
      school of thought that it is impossible to retain the office in the context of the Bill, it may be possible on Report to look again into this very emotional issue.
      Rightly, there is great respect and affection in Northern Ireland for the present Governor, who has done a tremendous job. The popular feeling on this issue goes beyond the personage of Lord Grey to the office itself. It is a feeling of having a personal link with the Crown rather than of a link via an executive.
      It has been argued also that the office may not have been used to the full by previous Northern Ireland Administrations. It is not for me to say whether that has been the case, and I am not prepared to argue it. But the man in the street is not conversant with whether former Northern Ireland Governments consulted the Governor in the way they should have done or could have been expected to do. He does not know these things. He sees the Governor as someone not only with important ceremonial functions, but above all, as the personal link with the Crown.
      Even if it is not possible in the Bill to clothe the office with a plethora of executive functions, I hope that the issue of a personal link with the Crown and of ceremonial functions is given second thoughts before the Report stage.
      Mr. James Molyneaux: My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) referred to the feeling that there is a slide into the Republic of Ireland. Like him, I say that no matter what statements are made in the House and no matter what may be accepted in it, there is enough hostility expressed in the House—sometimes in a most irresponsible fashion, of which there were examples last week—to convince people in Northern Ireland that there is a danger or possibility of some kind of move towards an Irish Republic.
      It is very difficult, therefore, to convince people that they should accept unreservedly assurances given in the House, even those given by the Government. With the abolition of the Governorship, it is the more difficult to remove the fears of both the Unionists and the representatives of the Republicans, because the abolition tends again

      709
      to be divisive and to perpetuate the division which already exists.
      We must recognise that the removal of the Governor is another of those unnecessary actions which form and to some extent even create suspicion. Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), I am not convinced that the Governor's role could be filled by any political Secretary of State. I accept what he said about my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State, but people will find it difficult, having had the experience of working with a non-political Governor, suddenly to find themselves on one occasion criticising the Secretary of State because he is wearing one hat and on another occasion paying him the respect which would be his due as the senior officer of the Crown in Northern Ireland.
      The Bill seems to be based on the philosophy that political structures in Northern Ireland differ very much from those in Great Britain. It has been said that there is a far greater political divide in Northern Ireland and certainly that there is a far deeper sectarian divide. That may be true. But surely for that very reason it is all the more important that the office of Governor should be maintained, because all the Governors have been accepted by all sections of the community.
      I know that on divers occasions leaders of nationalist and republican parties went through the motions of criticising the Governor. They indulged, for example, in some little campaigns of insulting the Governor by refusing to stand for the Loyal toast, but I think that this was generally regarded, even by their own supporters, as one of those things in the power game to which they had to subscribe and no one took it seriously. I do not think that these actions ever reflected the true wishes or views of their own supporters.
      On the majority side, great care was always taken by what one might call loyalist organisations and loyalist individuals to avoid embarrassing either the Governor or the office itself. This was a significant factor because people who in some cases, quite wrongly, might be termed extreme loyalists were prepared to recognise that the Governor had a
      710
      duty to the minority as well. For that reason, they were prepared to accept and approve actions by him which they would never have tolerated from any politician.
      That is probably the strongest reason for retaining the office. The Government are proposing to remove a unifying link between what are often mistakenly called the "two communities ". With respect to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his successor, I cannot see that we are going to put anything worthwhile in its place.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair.]
      5.0 p.m.
      The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): The amendment was well moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). At the very start I make it clear that I do not underestimate in any way the feelings of the people of Northern Ireland about the position of the Governor. Those feelings have been expressed by my hon. Friends in the debate. I think that many of the people in Northern Ireland have found it hard to differentiate between the present holder of the office and the job itself. Nevertheless, it is important that I should get some points out of the way at the very beginning.
      The first point is one which I find personally embarrassing and therefore I want to get it out of the way at once. It is the position of, and inevitably the controversy which has surrounded, the present holder of the office. It is embarrassing to me personally because I have enjoyed over the past 15 months what I hope he would feel, and I certainly feel, have been very good relations with Lord Grey. I have lived in his house all the time and my wife and I have been immensely grateful to Lord and Lady Grey. If there should be any controversy I hope that it will never be said on my side that it is in any way personal. I do not think it will be said on his side.
      In considering this matter, we must divorce the position of the present holder of the office from the office itself. We must argue about the future of the office but not about the present holder. I am sure we would all agree that Lord Grey has performed his functions admirably. I know that the House has already

      711
      recorded its gratitude to him on that score.
      The next point to be dealt with is the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell about the abolition of a Governor being in any way regarded as a slide into the Republic. I hope we can get away from that. We must not pursue such an argument because it arouses unnecessary fears. I accept, as my hon. Friend said, that the fears exist where they should not, but it is not for us to give credence to such fears. Rather we should try to dismiss them. I understand the point of my hon. Friend's argument but I believe that Clause 1 answers the point.
      I turn to what must be the next division of the argument, and that is the difference between executive and ceremonial functions. Under the 1920 Act the executive authority of the Crown was devolved to the Governor of Northern Ireland. If that were continued the Queen's executive power would flow through the Governor. This Bill brings us up to what must be the reality, which is that it is possible for the Queen's executive functions to be devolved to a Governor or to be exercised by a Secretary of State appointed by Her Majesty and responsible to this House but it is not possible in modern times to set up something afresh. It has either to flow through the Governor or the Secretary of State. If it does not do that and there is an attempt to make it flow through both, there are misunderstandings and difficulties.
      What, then, is the position of Her Majesty? It is surely fair in executive terms to argue that she is directly exercising her executive authority in Northern Ireland through a Secretary of State. In a curious way, purely constitutionally, that brings us somewhat closer than if she were to exercise it through a Governor. I believe that to be a fact, although I do not expect the people to accept it.
      I come to the point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) who said that by abolishing the office of Governor and making the executive authority flow direct from Her Majesty through a Secretary of State we were in some way indicating a lack of faith in a devolved Assembly or going further and believing that there
      712
      would not be a properly devolved legislative Assembly. My hon. and gallant Friend is surely wrong to say that if the powers are transferred and the new Assembly legislates in the sphere of the transferred powers, then that legislation has to be submitted direct by the Secretary of State to the Queen in Privy Council. The Secretary of State cannot stop it being directly submitted.
      Captain Orr: The Secretary of State is saying that where powers are devolved upon the Executive such measures as are enacted must be submitted direct by him to the Queen. This is, in effect, a formal function. All that I am asking is, why not have a Governor for the purposes of the formalities?
      Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. and gallant Friend has slightly changed the question because he was earlier suggesting that doing away with the Governorship was not recognising the importance of a devolved Assembly. Surely my argument about measures having to be submitted direct to the Queen in Privy Council proves the point that the Government have recognised the importance of a devolved legislative Assembly. When devising a new constitution it must be right to decide that the Queen's executive power flows either through a Governor or through a Secretary of State. It cannot flow through both without misunderstanding and difficulty.
      I come now to the ceremonial side. I am the first to accept that no politician, no Secretary of State, can be the right person to fulfil the ceremonial functions. Although it is done in many countries in in the world when the person concerned is a controversial political figure, there are difficulties. The many duties of a Secretary of State would not allow him the necessary time to carry out all the ceremonial functions which may have been carried out by a Governor. The Secretary of State cannot be in the same sort of position as that of a Governor, nor would it be right for him to be in such a position.
      I therefore accept entirely the arguments put forward on that score. I believe that I have a considerable answer to them and one which I hope my hon. Friends will acknowledge, as well as the people of Northern Ireland who feel worried about this. There are two issues.

      713
      There is, first, the question of the Royal visits and keeping Hillsborough Castle as a place for members of the Royal Family who visit Northern Ireland.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) derides the possibility of members of the Royal Family visiting Northern Ireland and staying at Hillsborough Castle under present conditions. I do not accept that view and nor do members of the Royal Family. It is important that that should be said. Members of the Royal Family certainly wish to make a visit. That would make the people of Northern Ireland feel that Her Majesty and members of the Royal Family were directly interested in Northern Ireland. I can assure my hon. Friend that such royal visits will take place and that it is the great desire of members of the Royal Family that they should take place as soon as possible.
      In England, Scotland and Wales Her Majesty appoints lieutenants for various counties. She also appoints them for the counties in Northern Ireland, as she always has done.
      My hon. Friends may say that the lieutenants have not in the past carried out many of the ceremonial functions which were in fact carried out by the Governor. Might it not be that they have not done so because it was the Governor's purpose to carry them out? The lieutenants are above the political battle. Anyone in the counties can go to them. They are directly appointed by the Queen as her representatives. If they are not so regarded, we must develop the position so that they are so regarded, as I am sure they would wish.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: On whose recommendation are the lieutenants and deputy lieutenants of counties appointed?
      Mr. Whitelaw: In England, Scotland and Wales they are appointed by Her Majesty. I imagine that in Northern Ireland they are appointed by the Governor. There is no reason why Her Majesty should not receive advice on exactly the same basis in Northern Ireland in future as it is received in England, Wales and Scotland. The matter is not dealt with necessarily through political Ministers. Her Majesty decides whom she should appoint as lieutenants.
      714
      If I am wrong, I shall take an early opportunity to correct what I have said.
      The ceremonial functions can and should be carried out by people appointed by Her Majesty as her personal representatives in the counties in Northern Ireland. While I understand the feelings in the controversy, I hope that that course will be pursued and appreciated as being the right one.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell asked about the position concerning the Great Seal. The Bill leaves alive Section 3 of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1945 which provides for the use of the facsimile of the Great Seal in certain circumstances. This matter is not tied to the office of Governor and therefore that situation remains.
      Mr. Molyneaux: No matter how much responsibility is given to the lieutenants, the Secretary of State will inevitably be left to discharge a number of the duties formerly discharged by the Governor. Bearing in mind that it is accepted in the House that, when possible, the Secretary of State for Scotland should be a Scotsman and the Secretary of State for Wales should be a Welshman, might there not at some stage be a Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who was an Ulsterman? If so, would there not be embarrassment in having that person accepted as being neutral and impartial, bearing in mind that our troubles will be with us for quite a long time?
      Mr. Whitelaw: I do not think that any person engaged in party politics can ever hope to be above controversy, but I should have thought that, with six lieutenants for the counties and, in addition, Royal visits, the ceremonial functions could and should be carried out without the Secretary of State being required to carry out some of the functions previously carried out by the Governor. No doubt it would be appropriate for him to carry out some of them, as happens in Scotland, but others could be carried out in the way I have suggested.
      5.15 p.m.
      I appreciate the inevitable strength of emotional feeling at the time of any change. We cannot proceed in future

      715
      with a division of Her Majesty's executive authority. Her Majesty's Government believe it right that it should flow through a Secretary of State responsible to this House.
      On the question of ceremonial, I reaffirm the desire of the Royal Family to pay visits to Northern Ireland and the decision that apartments at Hillsborough Castle should be kept aside in which they could reside during such visits. As time goes on, I believe that other ceremonial functions should and will increasingly be carried out by the lieutenants of counties appointed by Her Majesty.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: Has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility of having a chief lieutenant, with the office rotating?
      Mr. Whitelaw: I have no doubt that that possibility can be considered. It would be for Her Majesty to decide, and therefore it would be wrong for me to express a view. I know of nothing constitutionally against such a course, but clearly that matter does not come within the ambit of the Bill.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: I regret that we have not persuaded the Secretary of State, and I believe that thousands of people outside the Chamber will regret it. However, I thank my right hon. Friend for replying so courteously to the debate. He said that the Queen's executive power cannot flow through a Governor and the Secretary of State. It did in the past, and presumably it can in future.
      Mr. Whitelaw: If I said that it cannot, perhaps I was wrong. It would be wrong, and I believe would be liable to lead to misunderstanding, if it were to do so.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am much obliged.
      The Secretary of State and all who have spoken in the debate have been careful to distinguish between the office of Governor and the holder of that office. This is not a matter of personality; it is a matter of high principle. I ask my hon. Friends to assert that high principle in the Division lobby.
      Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 263.

      Division No. 169.]

      AYES

      [5.20 p.m.

      Bell, Ronald

      Neave, Airey

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      McMaster, Stanley

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Mr. John Biggs-Davison and Mr. Rafton Pounder.

      Molyneaux, James

      Soref, Harold

      NOES

      Abse, Leo

      Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

      Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)

      Adley, Robert

      Campbell, L (Dunbartonshire, W.)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)

      Carlisle, Mark

      Duffy, A. E. P.

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert

      Dunn, James A.

      Ashton, Joe

      Castle, Rt. Hn Barbara

      Dykes, Hugh

      Astor, John

      Channon, Paul

      Eadie, Alex

      Atkins, Humphrey

      Chapman, Sydney

      Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

      Atkinson, Norman

      Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher

      Edwards, Robert (Bilston)

      Awdry, Daniel

      Clark, David (Colne Valley)

      Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)

      Bagier, Gordon A. T.

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclife)

      Emery, Peter

      Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony

      Clegg, Walter

      Evans, Fred

      Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

      Cockerham, Eric

      Ewing, Harry

      Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)

      Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)

      Eyre, Reginald

      Batstord, Brian

      Concannon, J. D.

      Faulds, Andrew

      Benyon, W.

      Cooke, Robert

      Fenner, Mrs. Peggy

      Berry, Hn. Anthony

      Coombs, Derek

      Fidler, Michael

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Cordie, John

      Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)

      Biffen, John

      Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Bishop, E. S.

      Costain, A. P.

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Blaker, Peter

      Cronin, John

      Forrester, John

      Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)

      Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard

      Fortescue, Tim

      Booth, Albert

      Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)

      Fowler, Norman

      Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)

      Davies, Ifor (Gower)

      Fox, Marcus

      Boscawen, Hn. Robert

      Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)

      Fraser, John (Norwood)

      Bossom, Sir Clive

      Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)

      Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)

      Bowden, Andrew

      Deakins, Eric

      Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)

      Bradley, Tom

      Dean, Paul

      Golding, John

      Bray, Ronald

      Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.

      Goodhart, Philip

      Brinton, Sir Tatton

      Delargy, Hugh

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Brown, Rober C.(N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.)

      Dixon, Piers

      Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)

      Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)

      Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas

      Green, Alan

      Buchan, Norman

      Dormand, J. D

      Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)

      Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)

      Mather, Carol

      Scott-Hopkins, James

      Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.

      Mawby, Ray

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

      Gurden, Harold

      Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.

      Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)

      Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)

      Meacher, Michael

      Shelton, William (Clapham)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Shersby, Michael

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Hannam, John (Exeter)

      Miller, Dr. M. S.

      Skinner, Dennis

      Harper, Joseph

      Mills, Peter (Torrington)

      Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)

      Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)

      Hawkins, Paul

      Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

      Speed, Keith

      Heffer, Eric S.

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

      Spence, John

      Hiley, Joseph

      Moate, Roger

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)

      Molloy, William

      Sproat, Iain

      Holland, Philip

      Monks, Mrs. Connie

      Stallard, A. W.

      Holt, Miss Mary

      Monro, Hector

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Horam, John

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Steel, David

      Howell, David (Guildford)

      More, Jasper

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)

      Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)

      Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)

      Stokes, John

      Hutchison, Michael Clark

      Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.

      Stuttaford, Dr. Tom

      James, David

      Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)

      Morrison, Charles

      Sutcliffe, John

      Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

      Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick

      Taverne, Dick

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)

      Judd, Frank

      Murton, Oscar

      Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Nabarro, Sir Gerald

      Tebbit, Norman

      Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine

      Normanton, Tom

      Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret

      Kerr, Russell

      Nott, John

      Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)

      King, Tom (Bridgwater)

      Oakes, Gordon

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Kirk, Peter

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Tilney, Sir John

      Knight, Mrs. Jill

      O'Malley, Brian

      Tope, Graham

      Onslow, Cranley

      Trew, Peter

      Knox, David

      Oram, Bert

      Tugendhat, Christopher

      Lamborn, Harry

      Orme, Stanley

      Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin

      Lamont, Norman

      Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

      Varley, Eric G.

      Lane, David

      Palmer, Arthur

      Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

      Langford-Holt, Sir John

      Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles

      Walder, David (Clitheroe)

      Lawson, George

      Pardoe, John

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Leadbitter, Ted

      Parkinson, Cecil

      Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)

      Lee, Rt Hn. Frederick

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek

      Le Merchant, Spencer

      Percival, Ian

      Wallace, George

      Leonard, Dick

      Pink, R. Bonner

      Ward, Dame Irene

      Lestor, Miss Joan

      Price, David (Eastleigh)

      Watkins, David

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

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

      Weatherill, Bernard

      Lipton, Marcus

      Probert, Arthur

      Wells, John (Maldstone)

      Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)

      Proudfoot, Wilfred

      White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)

      Longden, Sir Gilbert

      Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

      Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William

      Loveridge, John

      Radice, Giles

      Whitlock, William

      Luce, R. N.

      Raison, Timothy

      Wilkinson, John

      Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)

      Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James

      Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Rankin, John

      Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick

      MacArthur, Ian

      Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter

      Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.

      McBride, Neil

      Redmond, Robert

      Younger, Hn. George

      McCrindle, R. A.

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      McLaren, Martin

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Mr. Hamish Gray and Mr. Michael Jopling.

      Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

      Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n & R'dnor)

      Marsden, F.

      St. John-Stevas, Norman

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Captain Orr: We come now to a general discussion on the clause.
      It is a pity that the Government could not accept the amendment which I moved to delete the unfortunate words in the clause and to insert more positive words. Before we part with the unamended clause we are entitled to ask the Government how they see things developing. Having expressed our view in the course of debates on the amendments that the clause is unviable, I am not in a mind to oppose the clause standing part of the Bill. I recognise that if the clause is removed, the rest of the Bill will also be
      718
      removed. We put down an amendment on Second Reading, and those who were opposed to the Bill voted against it on Second Reading. On those grounds it is therefore unnecessary for us to oppose the clause standing part of the Bill. Nevertheless, we and the people of Ulster are entitled to know with greater clarity what are the Government's intentions.
      The House has just rejected by a large majority the proposition that the new executive Government of Northern Ireland shall be based necessarily upon a majority in the Assembly. We are faced with the proposition that the Assembly elections will take place and that the various candidates and parties will put before the electorate in Ulster what they intend to do when the Assembly meets.

      719
      No one in any party can say to the electors what he will do or what will happen, because the intentions of the Secretary of State are completely vague at present. We have the proposition that the only guidance given to us about how the Secretary of State will act is the vague phrase which appeared in the White Paper and the almost meaningless words which are now left in the clause.
      5.30 p.m.
      The Government ought now to answer some positive questions about what will happen when the Assembly meets. When the Assembly election takes place, the first obvious question that arises is when it will meet. Will there be a long delay between the election and the meeting of the Assembly? How will the Secretary of State proceed when the Assembly meets? What happens when it meets? Presumably the Clerk to the Assembly will preside and the Assembly will move to get all its Standing Orders in accordance with subsection (1)(a). The Secretary of State then has the task of forming the Executive. We want more guidance as to how he will set about it.
      Let me take a hypothetical example. Supposing that the election results in an Assembly made up roughly as follows: the Unionist Party with 22 seats; the Vanguard-DUP alliance with about the same, or perhaps with one or two seats fewer; the Alliance Party managing to scrape five seats in the Assembly; the rest of the seats being held by independent, SDLP and various other Opposition parties. How does the Secretary of State proceed in that situation? We ought to have a clear answer.
      Will the Secretary of State pick on the person who leads the party with the largest number of seats in the Assembly? Will my right hon. Friend invite him to see whether he can become the chief executive, as Her Majesty here picks upon the leader of the majority winning a general election, and invite him to form a government? Is that the procedure that my right hon. Friend will follow?
      Will my right hon. Friend necessarily pick the leader of the party which gets the largest number of seats in the Assembly? I use those words rather than the word "majority" because it looks on present form as though no one party will
      720
      arrive with a majority in the Assembly. Alternatively, will my right hon. Friend wait, before sending for anyone, to see what kind of horse-trading goes on between all those elected to the Assembly and between this and that party?
      It may be, of course, that my right hon. Friend will not necessarily select the person who leads the party with the largest number of seats. He may select someone else as the chief executive whom he thinks has a better chance ultimately of bringing about some kind of majority in the Assembly.
      How does my right hon. Friend intend to proceed? It is very unfair to the electorate that these questions should not be answered in advance of the election and to leave matters so vague that one cannot even say, "If I vote for that party and therefore for that party leader, and he emerges with the largest number of seats in the Assembly, he will become the chief executive." It is even possible as the clause is drafted at present that an Executive could be formed before the Secretary of State even decided who the chief executive should be. It is an extraordinary piece of unfairness to the Northern Ireland electors to leave them in such an appalling state of confusion about what is to happen when they elect the Assembly.
      I quite understand that my right hon. Friend wishes to have the maximum flexibility and that he has been deliberately imprecise so that he will not be tied to any specific formula. I understand that he wishes to leave himself some ground for manoeuvre. In the circumstances that is not unreasonable. But to go so far as this clause goes without any kind of precision is being grossly unfair to the Northern Ireland electors. They are being asked to elect an assembly. They are being asked to make this constitution work. We have been preached at from both sides of the House that we shall be unreasonable people if we do not work the constitution. But we do not know what it is.
      Mr. Stanley Orme: The hon. and gallant Gentleman does know what it is. The terms on the basis of power-sharing of the constitution of the new Assembly have been outlined to this House. The parties going into the election know the general terms on which the

      721
      Bill is based. It is quite wrong of him to suggest otherwise.
      Captain Orr: With respect to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), I suggest that it is he who is wrong. It is unknown. We do not know what the constitution is. We are told that the Secretary of State has to be satisfied
      "… that a Northern Ireland 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 …"
      If the hon. Gentleman can explain that to me or to the Northern Ireland electors, I hope that he will do so. It is inexplicible to the ordinary man in the street and to many hon. Members.
      The clause goes on to say that if my right hon. Friend is satisfied
      "… that having regard to those matters there is a reasonable basis for the establishment in Northern Ireland of government by consent …"
      we might get an executive and we might get some powers devolved upon us. What does that mean? If the hon. Member for Salford, West can explain that to my electors, he will be doing well.
      Mr. Orme: It means what already has happened in Derry, for instance, where the Nationalist majority has seen fit to share power with a Unionist minority. Basically that is what it means, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows it.
      Captain Orr: I do not know what it means because the Secretary of State has never said what it means. I asked, when we were dealing with earlier amendments, what was meant by power sharing. Are we talking about power sharing between different political parties on the basis of a religious division?
      We are talking about a divided community. What is meant by "divided community"? Are we talking about a community divided by religion? Are we being told that at all costs the only criterion that will be used for the formation of this Executive is that it shall have Protestants and Roman Catholics on it? Or are we told that the essence of power sharing is that those who stand for union with Great Britain must enter into a Government with those who stand against union with Great Britain? Nobody has told us which is meant. Cer-
      722
      tainly the Government have not. My right hon. Friend was exceedingly imprecise when we discussed this question. We want to know what it means. The people of Ulster want to know what it means. I suggest that we should not part from the clause until we hear a little more.
      I should like to put some specific questions to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. I have dealt with the point about when and how soon the Assembly will meet.
      Who will summon the Assembly? Will the Secretary of State summon the Assembly? How will it come about? For example, there is no Governor to summon the Assembly. It may have been laid down in the Assembly Bill, but I do not recollect who will call the Assembly together.
      Does the Secretary of State intend to initiate talks with party leaders immediately after the election? Is that the way that it will proceed? Is it the intention that the Executive should be formed quickly? Is it the intention that the Assembly will meet and the Secretary of State will talk to party leaders on either side with a view to seeing who among them might ultimately command the kind of support that would fall within the parameters of these vague words?
      Given the formation of an Executive, given that the scheme succeeds to that extent, and supposing it were possible—I do not believe it is—to find an Executive which would fit into these vague words, how soon after that is it intended that devolution shall take place?
      I should be grateful if my hon. Friend would tell us something about the timing when he replies to the debate. I still think that we should be wary of allowing the clause to stand part of the Bill until we get some satisfaction about what the Government intend to do.
      Mr. McMaster: I have grave doubts about the practicality of the scheme set out in the Bill. My main doubts centre on a fact which came out during the debate last week. Indeed, I asked of some hon. Gentlemen opposite whether these provisions, particularly in Clause 2, would ever be accepted for the Government of the United Kingdom. The answer that I got from hon. Gentlemen opposite—indeed, I felt I was getting the same

      723
      answer from my own Front Bench—was, "But that is not the right test to apply, because conditions in Northern Ireland are totally different."
      I see that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) nods assent. What is meant by that? It means that there are conditions of violence in Northern Ireland and that the Bill has been drafted under duress.
      [Mr. RICHARD CRAWSHAW in the Chair]
      5.45 p.m.
      I suggest that we must put these conditions right out of our minds. If we are simply adopting a scheme for the Government of Northern Ireland because of the violence that we have witnessed in the past three years, I ask, is that right or fair? Is it a good scheme of government? We are bowing to duress.
      I suggest that the only proper way of determining whether the system of government which we are asking the people of Northern Ireland to accept is right or wrong is to ask—could it apply in ordinary circumstances to the United Kingdom as a whole? Could we share power with a minority in Government in the United Kingdom?
      For example, if the National Socialists demanded to have a share in the power in this country, claiming that it was undemocratic because they were never invited to take part directly in the Government of the country, would we in Britain accept that as a principle? That is what is being asked of people in Northern Ireland.
      My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has rightly questioned the interpretation of Clause 2, particularly the vital recital in subsection (1). He asked, "Does it mean that we are to share power across the religious frontier or across the political division in Northern Ireland?"
      I should like to go a stage further. Surely what is meant by the Bill is not that we are inviting a few Roman Catholics—in the past Roman Catholics have taken part in the government of Northern Ireland, and I hope there will be many more in future—but that some members of the Republican Party should play a part in Government. We have seen not only in the recent plebiscite, but
      724
      in the local authority elections and, in the past, Stormont and Westminster elections, that that party commands very little support in Northern Ireland. Certainly the more extreme elements in that party command very little support indeed.
      I believe that my right hon. Friend should make clear here and now, before voting takes place at the end of next week, what is meant by power sharing. Does it mean that those who are dedicated to the establishment of a republic in Northern Ireland must be invited to take Government positions or Cabinet positions as they would be in this country, in the new executive to be set up in Northern Ireland? Is this what we might reasonably expect could be applied in Britain to Westminster? If not, why not?
      My right hon. Friend has been less than fair with Ulster Members in this House and with the people in Northern Ireland. He has refused to spell out exactly what is intended in Clause 2. He has refused to spell out what conditions must be applied by the head of the Executive, when he emerges, in order that this new Executive and Assembly shall be established and set up. Indeed, the White Paper and the Green Paper following the Darlington Conference stated that it was desirable that it should be set out clearly and simply so that the ordinary man in the street would know what was intended.
      If this is to be effective, and if it is to form the basis of a well-established new administration in Northern Ireland, these facts must be stated, and stated clearly, if not in the Bill, then to the House, and through the House to the people of Northern Ireland so that they know just what is intended.
      I believe that some form of devolution of Government is desirable in Northern Ireland. I believe, too, particularly following the experience of the last year, that the House has not the time, the knowledge or the ability to deal with the many functions of Government in Northern Ireland. I therefore want to see the Bill work and to see an effective Assembly set up, and I do not think that it helps that cause to leave as much uncertainty as is left by the Bill.
      I can see the argument in favour of flexibility, but the points that I have raised must be spelled out clearly and debated in the House, and some decision

      725
      taken on them, if there is to be any chance of the scheme outlined in the Bill and in the White Paper being a success. It is for that reason that I ask my right hon. Friend to consider answering the questions put to him by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South about what is meant by power sharing and what he intends to do following the elections on the 28th of this month.
      Does it mean that representatives of the Republican Party in Northern Ireland, whose manifesto was greeted with surprise, and perhaps dismay, by many of the papers when it was released earlier this week, will share power in the Assembly? Does it mean that members of the SDLP must form part of the Executive?
      Unless we know the answers to those questions, and unless we can debate these matters in the House and come to a decision on them, I can see little hope for the future, because they will come as a surprise to people in Northern Ireland when these conditions are made clear, and the dismay and reaction of that surprise could undermine the success of the Bill which has been hoped for both inside the House and outside it.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: This debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill, is unsatisfactory. In saying that, I do not criticise in any way the able and interesting speeches that we have heard, but it is difficult to bring together one's views on the clause when one cannot have access to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in our earlier proceedings a week ago.
      At the beginning of our proceedings today I referred to the absence of the OFFICIAL REPORT. We are told that there is an OFFICIAL REPORT, and I hold a copy of it in my hand—difficult though that is to do—but it is Hamlet without the Prince, because it contains the debate without my right hon. Friend's reply. If the debate is to be conducted properly, we ought to adjourn until we have my right hon. Friend's speech. However, Mr. Crawshaw, I do not think that it would be within your competence to accept such a motion, nor do I suppose that it would be agreed to by my right hon. Friend, although I am sure he would be the first to want to see what he said on the pre-
      726
      vious occasion. I do not know whether my memory is correct, but I think my right hon. Friend said that this exercise in power sharing might not work, and in that event there would be a new situation.
      My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) criticised the imprecise verbiage of the clause and suggested that my right hon. Friend justified it on the grounds of flexibility and wanting freedom of action. My criticism of the clause is that it is not drawn flexibly enough. If what my right hon. Friend wants to happen—and it is not clear what he wants; my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South said that he had no idea at all of what my right hon. Friend wanted—does not come about; if what is called power sharing—what others might call the manipulation of representative democracy—does not work; if there is a new situation and a new initiative is called for by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, surely it would be better if there were a simple clause rather than a complicated one which is so difficult to understand and which places all sorts of limitations on the way in which a new Executive is to be formed.
      Would it not be better merely to state in the clause that the Secretary of State is empowered—I am not putting this in legal language—to form a broadly-based Executive on the most practical and acceptable basis? Surely words of that character would be more apposite and more helpful, and would lead to less criticism on the grounds of wordiness, incomprehensibility, and so on? In this difficult situation, I think that the Secretary of State should not be circumscribed in the manner in which he forms an Executive. What is important is that a legislative Assembly should be elected and that, based on that Assembly, a broadly-based Executive should be formed.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: Some of my hon. Friends have asked what is meant by power sharing, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) asked a number of rhetorical questions. To some extent, my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) answered the question about power sharing.

      727
      As I see it—and I do not want to enter into the debate on a previous set of amendments—the aim is to get as broadly based an Executive as possible. That is what is meant, and that is what is clearly set out in paragraph (b). It is drawn in such a way as to underline the points about which the House is anxious and to underline, too, the fact that the Secretary of State must, inevitably, be given the maximum amount of flexibility to act because we are building a new type of institution, and building it before an election. In those circumstances, one has no alternative but to approach the matter in this way.
      There are some points in the clause on which I should like further details. It is envisaged that after this election the Secretary of State shall consider the matter with the leaders of the parties involved and prepare a scheme for power sharing. I am not clear about what is to happen after a subsequent election, or about what is to happen if there is a withdrawal of some of the parties from the Executive at various stages. I am not clear about what is to happen if there is a change of personnel. That is why I am anxious, as I have made clear on previous occasions, to ensure that the rules of the Assembly set out in clear and intelligible language the basic principles on which an Assembly-based Executive is to be put together. I understand the need for flexibility in the first instance, but there is much merit in the idea of getting the matter clarified for subsequent occasions.
      I wish to set out the scenario as I see it. The Assembly will be elected on 28th June. The Bill will not pass through all its stages in both Houses until about the second half of July. That is my estimate, but perhaps we can be given some indication of the Government's thinking on the matter. I would assume that in such an event the Assembly would not be able to meet until after the Bill had become law. But I hope that the aim is that the Assembly should be brought together as soon as possible after the Bill became law rather than for it to be allowed to sit over until September. There is much merit in bringing the representatives of the parties together in an Assembly at the earliest practical date.
      728
      I assume that there is no reason why, before the Bill is passed, the Secretary of State should not consult the leaders of the main political parties in Northern Ireland. I assume that informal talks will take place at that stage between the chief executive and the leader of the party which has the widest support in the Assembly, to try to bring together, and to activate, the Assembly in line with Clause 2 of the Bill.
      If the Executive is then formed, and if it is satisfactory to the Secretary of State, under the Bill as it stands this House would have to approve it by means of an order. This would mean that if the Commons were in recess until the middle of October it would not be possible for the Executive to be activated before then. Therefore, if the Secretary of State has made progress and has succeeded in bringing an Executive together would it be considered necessary to recall this House to consider such an order? It is essential to maintain the dynamic in this matter. I hope that the Opposition will agree with this. These are a few basic points which I think should be examined before we approve the clause.
      Mr. Molyneaux: The effect of the rejection of Amendment No. 12 is greatly to improve the electoral prospects of all the anti-White Paper candidates in the Assembly elections. The lack of any clear, precise statement of intention will make for untold confusion throughout the remainder of the Assembly election campaign. The natural result is that the electorate will decide to support the parties which have a clear ojective, which have shown evidence of clear thinking and which did not accept without reservation some very improbable proposals and suggestions contained in the White Paper. I make no particular complaint about that, but I hope that hon. Members will not afterwards say that we did not give them an oportunity and a lead. I would say, on their own heads be it.
      The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) expressed the view that, because what he called power-sharing in Londonderry had appeared to work there, it should work in the Northern Ireland Executive and in the Assembly. But what power is being shared in Londonderry? The power to do what? with all the worthwhile powers removed, on what

      729
      could they possibly disagree? Even the most determined political agitator would find it difficult to make controversial an issue such as the emptying of dustbins in Londonderry, or anywhere else.
      Mr. McMaster: My hon. Friend will know that, in the past 24 hours, it has been impossible to carry out four burials in Belfast because of something which falls within those powers—that is, the control of the cemeteries.
      Mr. Molyneaux: It should in fairness be pointed out that the councils have greatly reduced powers and little or no influence on security. I hope that what my hon. Friend has said will be noted on the Frnot Bench and that this appalling situation will be remedied.
      Mr. Whitelaw: It has already been remedied.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and I am sure that that will be accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster).
      Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: Will not the hon. Gentleman accept that what my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) wanted to bring to the attention of the House in mentioning Derry was that the will was present, whatever the consequences? This is what is so desirable at this stage. Do not he and some of his hon. Friends think that they might make a more open show of enthusiasm for these arrangements, whatever their doubts? There are doubts, which should be aired, as they have been in a proper and responsible way, but basically what we must all subscribe to is a willingness to see these new arrangements work. What is so significant and heartening about Derry is that such a will is present there.
      Mr. Molyneaux: The hon. Member, like his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West, makes the mistake and falls into the trap of believing that this is something entirely new in local government. For the past 12 years we have never had this kind of political divide. It is only in very recent times that party political labels have been used in local government elections. In my own Antrim
      730
      County Council, we did not sit on opposite sides and hurl insults at one another. We sat around in a semi-circle and tried to do what we regarded as best for the people who elected all of us, and not just for our own supporters. There has been a tradition of councils being non-political, in the best sense of the word.
      I would imagine that nine-tenths of the councillors who have now been rejected—they have not been rejected by the electorate, but have simply been put on the shelf and set aside by the local government reorganisation—never supported any party political view. The combined actions of the councils on which they served were never taken on a party political basis. So I see nothing new in this. We should welcome the fact that it has continued, but it is nothing new.
      Mr. Orme: But the hon. Member must recognise that in Londonderry it is new. This is the second largest city in Northern Ireland, which was the scene of many of the civil rights disturbances, with a built-in majority for the Unionist Party over 50 years, and with no power sharing at all. What is encouraging following these elections is that they have seen fit to elect an SDLP member as chairman and a Unionist member—not an official Unionist Party member but someone on the right—as vice-chairman. That, to many of us who observe the Northern Ireland scene, is nothing but encouraging.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about the shift in the balance of political power. The much-maligned Unionist-controlled Derry Corporation invited in the Northern Ireland Housing Trust, a completely non-sectarian body, to build all its new houses. The charge that the corporation failed to build houses was unrealistic and largely untrue. It is accurate to say that it did not build them itself, but it invited in the Trust to build them. When they were built, the houses were administered by the Trust and the lettings were made by its officials, and not by the Unionist-controlled corporation.
      But it will be a different matter with the Assembly, and particularly the Executive. Although their powers are in many respects in the realm of make-believe, there are certain powers still left

      731
      on which, in certain circumstances, the influence of the Assembly and, probably even more important, of the Executive will be sufficient to give rise to dispute. That is where the real divide will emerge, and when a clash comes, as it will come, for example, on the key question—the only thing that really divides the people of Northern Ireland—whether or not to remain part of the United Kingdom, will the majority view be accepted by the Republicans, the SDLP and their allies, or will there be another tiresome walkout by those parties such as we have seen over the past 50 years? Will the Secretary of State at that point keep his nerve and sustain an Executive based on the remaining majority, or will the whole thing disintegrate and be put back into the melting-pot?
      It is this possibility of opting out which to some extent is encouraged and even incited by the vague wording of the clause, and this is what worries me most. The Secretary of State could perform a signal service not only to the House but to all the people of Northern Ireland if he could clarify this position.
      Mr. Pounder: I should like to follow closely the concluding remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), who highlighted the terribly brittle thread which will exist after 28th June. Hon. Members opposite have referred to the activities of the new Londonderry Corporation. That is fine, but it met within a matter of days after the election, as did a number of the district councils, to elect its officers. The momentum generated by that election has not been allowed to become dissipated by delay between the election and getting the nucleus, the office-holders, of the new organisations off the ground.
      What is terrifying is that, after all the momentum of an election culminating on 28th June, my right hon. Friend will hold conversations with political leaders and so on throughout the holiday period, and it might be autumn before anything has happened. The momentum will have been dissipated, and heaven knows what will have happened on the ground during those intervening three months. We must acknowledge that a very brittle thread could be broken—I derive no pleasure from saying this—by
      732
      the autumn. The sense of urgency cannot be over-emphasised.
      Reference has been made, both on Second Reading and today, to the fairly unhappy wording of the clause. Flexibility is desirable—my right hon. Friend's hands must not be tied—but there is a distinction between flexibility, which is desirable if not necessary, and loose and unattractive terminology being written into an Act of Parliament.
      If we part with the clause with this loose language unaltered, it will be open to successive Secretaries of State to interpret the words of this House not necessarily with the care and clarity of my right hon. Friend. When one talks, as two hon. Members have done, about power-sharing meaning as broad a base as possible, that phraseology is as bad as the loose and vague wording in the clause.
      What is desirable is for the Minister to try to lift a corner of the carpet of a declaration of intent about his thinking, all being well, on the steps to be taken after 28th June, when the electors have given a verdict on those who should serve in the new Assembly.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
      6.15 p.m.
      I am very concerned—perhaps frightened is a more appropriate word—about the appalling dangers of nothing happening between July and September. I am concerned for a variety of reasons. We must not allow the new Assembly to be made unworkable merely because of the whim, for whatever reason, of one of the parties therein. If we are prepared to think and talk in terms of a rather rigid power-sharing concept, so that it could be totally destroyed by a mischievous act or decision on the part of one of the participating parties at the end of this month, we might as well stop here and now and forget this Bill. We must ensure to the best of the ability of the Committee and later of the House of Commons that the wrecker, whatever his motives, cannot succeed in thwarting the new Assembly.
      Mr. Orme: The Opposition's views on how the Assembly is to operate are well known. While we have reservations about its operation, obviously we want it to operate successfully and succinctly.

      733
      I was impressed by what was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) and the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) about the issue of timing. That issue could be crucial to the whole matter. I draw an analogy, for instance, between what happened in Londonderry and what could happen in the Assembly, particularly if it looked as though there were groups of parties who were willing to try to make the Assembly work. It would be a disaster if the Secretary of State had to wait until the new Session of Parliament to make orders, and so on, to get the Assembly and the Executive fully off the ground.
      We should like to know the Minister's recommendations on this matter. The Opposition would support any speedy legislation to implement any facets of the Bill earlier than originally anticipated.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): We have had an interesting debate on the amendments to the Clause and on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. Perhaps it would be a good thing now to stand back a little and to look at the clause as a whole. Before doing that, I want to clear up one or two of the smaller but important points that were raised. Perhaps then some of the major questions that were asked will be dealt with in the speech that I have tried to prepare.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) asked a question about rules. Subsection (1)(a) clearly states that the Assembly must make satisfactory provision in its standing orders. That is the method. It is up to the Assembly to start to make these orders.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: Am I to understand, therefore, that under subsection (1)(a) the Assembly's standing orders are to include the procedure by which an Executive is to be formulated on the basis of subsection (1)(b)?
      Mr. Peter Mills: No, I am not prepared to go further than what I have said on that matter at present. I cannot commit myself. Subsection (1)(a) makes it quite clear that satisfactory progress must be made.
      The question of time is very important. It is certainly my right hon. Friend's
      734
      intention to get things under way as quickly as possible, as soon as possible after the election and when the Bill becomes law. The Government's desire is to make progress. We understand the problem of delay and of a possible vacuum and the dangers that have been spelt out to us. Obviously discussions must take place—that is terribly important—once the election has taken place and we know who is elected. Discussions will take place. There is no question of delay. The need is to get the Bill through the House of Commons and to get the elections over. Then we can start these discussions.
      My right hon. Friend fully understands the problem of delay, especially in the circumstances in Northern Ireland, and the warnings that hon. Members have given are fully accepted.
      Mr. Orme: On that point, the Minister will need an order for the implementation of Part II. If the Secretary of State wants to get ahead with this matter, how does the recess fit into this situation?
      Mr. Mills: I understand what the hon. Member is getting at. Obviously this is a matter which must be discussed through the usual channels.
      Captain Orr: On the same point—the summoning of the Assembly—who actually summons the Assembly?
      Mr. Mills: I am coming to that.
      The attention of the Committee has already been drawn to the difficulties inherent in these provisions. The Government recognise that there are difficulties associated with the principle of power sharing, which principle these provisions are designed to achieve, and recognise the immense problems which will face those who are seeking to achieve power sharing. It is none the less an immensely worthwhile goal, which could be frustrated if the House of Commons were persuaded that it should not be attempted or, equally, if it were persuaded to tie down the provisions on which it was based to a degree where flexibility was not available. We recognise that there are very real difficulties but I believe, as I hope that the Committee will believe, that it is an immensely worthwhile aim.

      735
      It is the Government's intention that the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland should play a part in deciding how a basis for government by consent can be established. What has to be found through the consultations of the Secretary of State with the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland is a system of exercising the executive power in Northern Ireland in relation to transferred matters which is broadly acceptable throughout the community.
      Rather than specifying details of how such a basis could be measured, for example, by specifying, perhaps, weighted majorities, as one or two hon. Members have suggested, the issue has been left to the discretion of the Secretary of State. But the Secretary of State is required—this is important—to take into account the expressed support of the electorate in addition to the support of the members of the Assembly. This degree of flexibility is considered both necessary and desirable. I emphasise that strongly.
      It is rather difficult to say very much more until one knows the result of the elections. One cannot forecast which way they will go, but one can promise that consultations will take place.
      The clause implements paragraphs 52 and 53 of the White Paper. Basically, the clause provides for the initial devolution of legislative and executive powers under the Bill. Surely we are anxious to see this under way—in other words, to get the political initiative moving. From my travels in Northern Ireland, I believe that people naturally want to have a say in their own affairs and that they want this political initiative to be kept moving. My right hon. Friend has promised that he will consult and do all that he can to see that these things get under way as quickly as possible.
      The devolution takes place by Order in Council approved by both Houses in a draft specifying the date for the commencement of Part II and setting out the matters to be dealt with at this stage. However, the Secretary of State requires the fulfilment of certain conditions before he can move forward. He must not lay the draft Order in Council before Parliament until he is satisfied on several important matters. As the clause is drafted, the Secretary of State has to make crucial
      736
      judgments whether satisfactory provision has been made in the Assembly standing orders for the purposes mentioned in Section 25; whether a Northern Ireland Executive can be formed which, having regard to the support it commands in the Assembly and to the electorate upon which that support is based, is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community; and thirdly whether, having regard to these foregoing matters, there is the reasonable basis for the establishment in Northern Ireland of Government by consent. Those are crucial matters of judgment which the Secretary of State must make.
      Captain Orr: By what criteria does the Secretary of State make his judgment that the Executive is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community?
      Mr. Mills: He must see the results of the election, he must have consultation—as he has promised he will—and he must discuss the matter with those who are elected.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: Why do not we merely legislate to enable the Secretary of State to form a representative legislature without indulging in all this complicated verbiage?
      Mr. Mills: I do not agree with my hon. Friend about that. The Government believe that what is proposed is the best way of carrying out what is needed. We believe that it is best to see how the election goes and to consult those who are elected. I would have thought that that was perfectly clearly the fair way to proceed.
      Mr. Molyneaux: This is a vital point because it is not just a question of seeing who is elected but also of seeing on what basis they are elected. That means that in some way an estimate would have to be made of who is voting for them, and how wide is the volume of support they have secured in the ballot box. I never understood how it was proposed to do this, but it appears to be written into the clause, and that is the point which we should like to see explained.
      Mr. Mills: If We had been more specific as my hon. Friends seem to wish, they would have criticised us just the same. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) seems to be criticising the fact that we intend to

      737
      see how the electorate votes before the consultations start. I should have thought that that was a fair and correct way to proceed.
      My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South talked about the clause being the nub of the problem and "the essence of unworkability". I found that extremely depressing. Here we are anxious to get on with the work so that the political initiative can go ahead. We have undergone all the problems of bringing forward a difficult Bill like this and now he speaks about the "essence of unworkability". I hope that is not his attitude. Surely the essence of the clause is that we need the will to see that it works in consultation with and with the support of those who are anxious to give it a try. My experience is that a large number of people want it to work and it is deliberately designed to be flexible and adjustable.
      We must not attempt to tie the hands of the Secretary of State or, for that matter, the parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly in this delicate business of forming a broadly-based Executive. Obviously great care will be needed and there will be much consultation. Obviously very great patience will be needed also. Given the will and the flexibility which the clause contains, I think we shall be able to get this thing under way. Surely that is what we want, and that is what the clause sets out to do.
      6.30 p.m.
      Captain Orr: It is not the intention of myself and my hon. Friends who share my views to delay the proceedings on the Bill. We have no vested interest in delay. The sooner the arguments are out of the way and the Bill, good or bad, is on the Statute Book, the better. But as I have already said, it is upon this clause that the whole Bill hangs. My hon. Friend the Minister has with great patience and great care dealt with the argument, but he has not answered the fundamental question.
      It is suggested to us—and this is one of the things that are so difficult to understand in the ordinary use of the English language—that there is something perverse about us if we do not go in for
      738
      power sharing. But no one has explained what power sharing means. What does it mean? What are politics about? They are about power. Why do parties go before the electorate? They do so in order to put their policies before the electors in order to attract the electors into giving them power. All politics are about power. People share power for a common purpose and coalitions are formed. Every political party is a coalition of people who agree to submerge minor differences for a political philosophy.
      In Ulster we are at present trying to do something which is contrary to all human political practice. The Government are saying to people, "Very well, you ask the electorate for power and you fight your opponent for that power, but when you achieve that power we shall not allow you to exercise it unless you then form a coalition."
      The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) spoke about Londonderry. What happened there was voluntary. No one said that the people there could not form a council unless they agreed in advance to setting up a coalition. It is one thing to form coalitions voluntarily by submerging differences in order to achieve an over-riding matter on which all are agreed. But to suggest to people in Ulster that, having fought a strenuous election campaign with deep fundamental divisions in it, they must then form a coalition or they get no power seems totally wrong.
      My hon. Friend the Minister said that he found it depressing that I should use the phrase "essence of unworkability". The essence of unworkability lies in the clause, not in the people. The people of Ulster are not to be blamed if it does not work. They have been asked to do the impossible. Representative government, if it means anything, means that people go to the electors seeking power from them and the majority of the elected representatives wield the power. By all means when dealing with a subordinate assembly write in those safeguards thought necessary for minorities, but do not do something that is inherently impossible. That is why the clause will not work.
      I accept that I shall not persuade the Government. I do not think that either

      739
      of us will persuade the other. We may simply have to leave it there.
      Mr. Orme: Is not there something false in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's premise? I have looked at the election progammes of all the main parties concerned. I can see no basic economic difference, for example, between them. It is not as if we were talking about Conservative and Labour Parties. Working-class Protestants and working-class Roman Catholics are being asked to come together across the divide to try to knit the community together. The parties are not based on an economic division within the community. There are probably differences of emphasis and opinion, but the parties do not split on an economic basis.
      Captain Orr: Indeed. The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on the point. The differences in the community in Ulster are far deeper than economics. There are differences about what people we are, whether we are British or belong ultimately to an Irish Republic. That is the deep divide. It is not possible to have power sharing across that divide. It will not work. It is inherently impossible.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is leader of the Unionist Party at Westminster. He has said that the difference is not economic but that there is an inherent division in the community, and that the clause will not work. Is he not therefore casting doubts on the whole nature of Northern Ireland? The Secretary of State, whose Government the hon. and gallant Gentleman normally supports, has had a go at doing something that has not happened over 50 years. When I hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman talking in this way, I raise my hands in despair, because he seems to be saying before the event that the clause will not work. Is that what he is saying?
      Captain Orr: I am saying that if the clause stands, and if we understand by power sharing that people who believe in the union with Great Britain must enter into a Government organisation with people who do not, the deep division between them is such as will make the clause impossible to work. I believe that to be true. It is quite a different matter
      740
      to tell people "You must obey the law". I am not advocating, and would not be party to advocating, that people should enter the Assembly with a view to wrecking it in an unconstitutional or unlawful way. The law must be obeyed, and when people elect their representatives to the Assembly those elected representatives should go to the Assembly. If the law be as it is proposed to be in the Bill, so be it. We must operate within the law in so far as that is possible.
      All I am saying is that the House will be under an illusion if it thinks of power sharing across the divide between those who wish to be British and those who do not. If power sharing means power sharing in the sense that there should be no barrier of a sectarian nature between people who are agreed on political aims, that is a different thing. But that is not what we are being told. The whole basis of the Bill is that there are two communities in Ulster, fundamentally divided, and that we are being told, "You will not get a scrap of power back in Ulster unless you come together and sink these totally fundamental and irreconcilable differences."
      The Government are embarked on a dangerous course, dangerous ultimately to human life. I beg them to reconsider it before it is too late.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: Perhaps unconsciously my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has demonstrated the very real problems and difficulties which the Secretary of State will encounter in trying to make the clause work. But I believe that it is right to proceed on the basis of seeking to share power, and that has been the basis of my argument today.
      I want to return briefly to the question solely of maintaining momentum. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said much about the momentum of meetings with the party leaders, and I welcome that. Can he go a little further and give us an assurance that it is the basic aim to try to bring the Assembly together to meet as soon as possible after the Bill becomes an Act? I hope that it will be possible to bring it together briefly at the end of July rather than leaving it until September or early autumn. It is an important matter.

      741
      If, despite all the problems and difficulties, my right hon. Friend succeeds in putting together an Executive, inside the definitions in the clause, we still face the problem that the Executive cannot be activated under the clause until a resolution is passed by both Houses of Parliament. It would be unfortunate if my right hon. Friend were successful and if there were then a gap. Therefore, I ask that either there should be consideration of an amendment on Report to alter the provision, so that the order would have to be approved within, say, 40 days, or that we should have an assurance—and this is the optimistic scenario—that in those circumstances, rather than hold the matter up, earnest consideration would be given to bringing back Parliament at an early date, purely for that purpose.
      Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) has raised two points so important in regard to timing and so personal to the way I see the matter myself that perhaps I should add to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said.
      I believe that it would be right, and it is my desire, that the Assembly should meet as soon as possible after the Bill has become law. Its first meeting must be at a time and place which the Secretary of State determines. At its first meeting it must elect a presiding officer and then proceed to draw up its orders.
      I cannot say when the Bill will become law, but I am making the point that the Assembly cannot meet until it has. The first reason is that the Bill sets up the Assembly and many of its conditions. Secondly, it gives me the power to call it at a given time and place, and until it is law I do not have that power. Thirdly, the present Northern Ireland Parliament is still in existence, although prorogued, until the Bill becomes law. For those reasons, it is clear that the Bill must be through the House before the Assembly can meet.
      Mr. McMaster: Surely there is a distinction between its meeting and the Executive being formed? Cannot the Assembly meet, without forming an Executive, before the Bill becomes law? There will be a very important period of perhaps three or four weeks.
      Mr. Whitelaw: The answer is that it cannot officially meet. But although the powers will not exist until the Bill becomes law there is nothing to prevent my having discussions with the leaders of the parties who are elected to the Assembly, to see on what basis it might be possible to proceed once the Bill has become law. The constitutional basis is clear and must be adhered to. Certainly Her Majesty's Government hope that the Bill will become law by the end of July. It is hoped that the Assembly will meet as soon as possible thereafter. If my discussions before that date give hope that the Executive could be formed at an earlier date I should have to consult my colleagues, and no doubt discussions would have to take place through the usual channels about the way in which a devolution of powers order could be brought before the House.
      6.45 p.m.
      I accept the fears of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). I accept his sincerity and I do not blame him in any way for taking the view that he has declared. If he is proved right I shall be sad, but I understand that he might be right. I shall not go further than that.
      It is right that the clause should give a wide degree of discretion and flexibility to the Secretary of State. That makes it all the more important, as he is answerable to the House, that he brings his proposals to the House and Parliament decides whether his judgment is right. It is something which must, in the final event, be decided by Parliament. The question when the orders must be brought before Parliament is not one that I can possibly answer. In a previous capacity I might have been able to do so, but I cannot make any pronouncement other than to say that if I thought I were in such a position I should consult my colleagues. The matter could be discussed through the usual channels and a decision made as to how the momentum could be maintained.
      I have been anxious about timing and I have been interested in what has been said by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). I have gone as far as the

      743
      constitutional position allows under the Bill. I hope that I have explained the matter correctly and clearly and that whatever may be the reservations we shall be given the chance to see whether we can make the clause work.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3

      ALTERATIONS IN DEVOLVED RESPONSIBILITIES
      Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 18, in page 2, line 39, leave out 'not specified in Schedule 3 to this Act'.
      If I read the clause aright, after the appointed day if it appears to the Secretary of State—

      "(a) that any matter (not being an accepted matter) which is not a transferred matter by virtue of an Order under section 2 above or a previous order under this section should become a transferred matter; or

      (b) that any matter which by virtue of any such Order is a transferred matter should cease to be such a matter"—

      he may devolve powers. He may transfer matters from Schedule 3 to the new Assembly. We can discuss timing and the ways in which that may be done when we come to the debate on the Question, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
      Having transferred a certain power at some time the clause, as drafted, gives the Secretary of State the power to remove the power again from the Assembly and to make it once again a reserved matter.
      The purpose of the amendment—I am not a lawyer and I accept that the amendment may be defective for its purpose—is to prevent the Secretary of State from reassuming a power or reserving a power that has been transferred. That seems to be an obvious defect in the clause. Let us suppose that it is possible to form some kind of Executive and that the Secretary of State decides to lay before the House an order giving certain powers to the new Assembly. How long will the Assembly be permitted to retain those powers? I can see an extraordinary degree of uncertainty if, at the whim of the Secretary of State—and subject only
      744
      to an order of this House—the Secretary of State can take away a power.
      Let us imagine the kind of confusion to which that could lead. Almost any of the powers in Schedule 3 could be removed. Presumably, at some time it is proposed to hand over to the Government or to the Executive, and thus to the Assembly, all the various matters in Schedule 3. Let us suppose that any one of those powers were handed over. By that time the Assembly might begin to pass measures on the advice of the Executive. It is possible that the measures concerned would deal with plans over a considerable period. It seems extraordinary to leave with the Secretary of State the power to resume powers. I do not want to make heavy weather of this matter, but I should like to know why that power is in the clause.
      I understand why the powers are reserved to begin with. I understand the philosophy behind the Bill, namely, that the powers can be devolved when the Secretary of State thinks that the Assembly is mature and responsible enough to have the powers. However, I cannot envisage circumstances in which the Secretary of State should arbitrarily resume them. Presumably, if, in the Secretary of State's view, the Assembly began to be irresponsible and to do things of which he disapproved, he could get rid of it altogether by dissolving it.
      I do not see any justification for the power of piecemeal resumption of powers. Far too much uncertainty would be created. I may be wrong. Perhaps there is a good reason for it. I wait to hear what my hon. Friend has to say.
      The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) for the way in which he moved the amendment. As he made clear, he is seeking information on the nature of the powers in this part of Clause 3. The clause provides that under the initial devolution order powers are transferred, and that the powers may not be clawed back. There is no power in the Bill for matters transferred under the initial devolution order—that is, matters not mentioned in Schedule 2 and Schedule 3—to

      745
      be brought back and turned again into reserve matters.
      I understand that the amendment goes further, and that if accepted it would ensure that when the situation arose in which it became possible to transfer further powers—that is, powers, responsibilities and functions specified under the reserved minimum list in Schedule 3—it would apply to the second set of devolved powers the same block on a return of those powers. The clause provides no such block. On the contrary, it gives my right hon. Friend, in certain circumstances, power to take back matters that have been devolved following the initial devolution order. It does so for a number of reasons.
      It is the Government's view that these are contentious matters—obviously they are, because there has been so much dispute about them in Northern Ireland. We therefore believe that the United Kingdom Parliament must retain ultimate control and that it should not be a question of this depending upon the initiative of the Assembly. One hopes that if it should ever come to the withdrawal of the second tranche of powers it will be with the consent of the Assembly, but our view is that the United Kingdom Parliament must retain ultimate control.
      We are trying to strike a balance. Some people say that there should be power to claw back all transferred powers; others say that there should be no opportunity, once powers have been transferred, for them to be taken back. Clause 3 provides a balance between the view that any matter should be capable of being withdrawn and the view, indicated in the amendment, that there should be no power of withdrawal at all.
      I hope I have made clear what the powers are, and what functions they cover, which are not those transferred under the initial devolution order. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Captain Orr: I am grateful for that explanation. I did not think that the power to take back applied to those matters that would be in the initial devolution order. I was dealing with the matters specified in Schedule 3, which, as my hon. Friend rightly says, are, contentious. Many of them we can discuss
      746
      when we reach the amendments that are proposed to the schedule. I consider that many matters in Schedule 3 ought to be devolved if we are to create a worth-while devolution—in other words, if we are to create anything approaching a devolution that would justify the diminution of representation of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons.
      This will be the more difficult to justify so long as the power remains in Schedule 3 to remove a matter as soon as it becomes contentious. For example, paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 refers to
      "The establishment, organisation and control of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and of any other police force"
      Supposing that at some stage the Secretary of State thinks it right to devolve that power upon the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Assembly proceeds to exercise its authority in the matter and makes plans. There is every incitement for anyone who wishes to be disruptive and to attack the State immediately to make the matter so contentious that the demand will be upon the Secretary of State to re-reserve the power. This is a weakness, because it means that as soon as he devolves any of the powers in Schedule 3 the Secretary of State will constantly be subjected to demands outside and inside the House of Commons to take back this or that power. Anyone who wishes to attack the Northern Ireland Executive or the State itself will have that option open to him.
      7.0 p.m.
      It would be wise of my right hon. Friend to think again about the piecemeal resumption of these powers if they are ever devolved. I believe that sufficient safeguard lies in the overall power of the House of Commons to deal with a Northern Ireland situation that got out of hand. It is always possible to dissolve the Assembly and resume direct rule. All kinds of remedies are available. But my right hon. Friend will get the worst of all worlds if he decides to retain this piecemeal method. I see difficulties in it.
      However, I do not want to make heavy weather of the matter now. We want to get on, and in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, and on the understanding that my right hon. Friend will look at what I have said, I am prepared to

      747
      return to the subject on Report. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5

      SECRETARY OF STATE'S CONSENT FOR PRO POSED MEASURES DEALING WITH EXCEPTED OR RESERVED MATTERS
      Mr. Whitelaw: I beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 4, line 46, leave out second 'to' and insert 'by'.
      This corrects a printing error.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. McMaster: On a point of order, Sir Robert. I am anxious that the Bill should become law rapidly, but can you clarify, since the Bill has now been amended, whether there will be a Report stage?
      The Chairman: It is the normal practice of the House that if a Bill has been amended there is a Report stage.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: I am confident that I know the answer to the point I raise now, but I think it important to place it on the record. Subsection (5) contains procedures for submission by the Secretary of State of measures passed by the Assembly. As I understand it, all measures which are within the competence of the Assembly, as set out in the Bill, are automatically submitted by the Secretary of State to Her Majesty for approval and there is not a filtering process of a political nature by which the Secretary of State himself is involved. I understand that this is the position, but it is important that it should be made clear.
      Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this point. The answer is that measures enacted relating to any of the matters which are transferred under the initial devolution order or which may subsequently be transferred from the reserve list must be passed direct to the Queen in Council by the
      748
      Secretary of State. When it comes to those matters in the reserved category, and a new power is given to the Assembly which was not held by Stormont, it is felt that it would be convenient that the filtering process of the Secretary of State and this House should come into effect.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6

      PARLIAMENTARY CONTROL OF MEASURES DEALING WITH EXCEPTED OR RESERVED MATTERS
      Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 6, line 5, leave out subsection (6).
      We are dealing here with measures affected by the urgency procedure. A measure submitted under the urgency procedure is to be subject to annulment by a Prayer in this House. My point is that subsection (6) says that such a motion seeking to table a Prayer must be signed by not fewer than 20 Members. That would mean that even if all the Northern Irish Members were agreed they would not be able to table a Prayer to annul a measure. I thought that an amendment to reduce the minimum period might be in order but eventually I decided that I would table a probing amendment to give the Minister a chance to explain this proposal.
      Mr. Peter Mills: The effect of this amendment would be twofold. First, it would mean that any one Member of the House of Commons or the House of Lords could table a motion praying against a proposed measure, asking that it should not be submitted to Her Majesty in Council for approval. Secondly, it would delete the provision for the period of 20 days mentioned in Clause 6(1)(a) and (4)(a) dealing with the reference to sitting days only. This would mean that the 20 days during which a measure was required to be laid before Parliament could be during the recess. There would then be no opportunity to table a Prayer against such a measure. This would obviously be undesirable.
      I understand the point my hon. and gallant Friend makes about it being difficult for one Member from Northern Ireland to do this but it is a matter which

      749
      has to come before the House as a whole. The House should be able to act as a check on the action of a Secretary of State in recommending that Her Majesty confirm a measure, but it would be wrong if there were not a body of opinion in Parliament which questioned that measure. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend recognises the significance of that.
      Captain Orr: My hon. Friend is quite right to point out the effect of this amendment, which goes far wider than the point I was seeking to make. I wanted to raise the issue of the numbers involved. I understand that there has to be some kind of protection against what could be called constant maverick praying against measures by individual Members. The figure of 20 mentioned in the subsection prevents all of the Northern Ireland Members acting in concert and bringing a Prayer before the House.
      Mr. Mills: I understand the point. It means that 20 signatures have to be found, but no doubt my hon. and gallant Friend, with his usual powers of persuasion, will find many others to join him in signing such a motion.
      Mr. Orme: May I ask a question on this? If 20 signatures are obtained, is it mandatory for the Prayer to be taken? If that is so, it will be an advance on the present situation. We often pray against orders and obtain more than 20 signatures but we do not always have a debate.
      Mr. Mills: It is not mandatory.
      Captain Orr: My hon. Friend was kind enough to speak of my powers of persuasion. I do not think that the results in our recent Divisions are monuments to that. I take the point about the requirement for a sizeable body of opinion and, having had the matter explained, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 7

      EXECUTIVE AUTHORITIES IN NORTHERN IRELAND
      Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: I want to ask the Committee to consider subsection (6) briefly. I have in mind the phrase "the Northern Ireland Executive." The same phrase is also used in Clause 19 in an important sense and in Clause 39. I wish to inquire into the thinking behind the use of the phrase.
      Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that subsection (6) is basically a matter of common legal form and that there is nothing subtle and nothing beyond that to it. It is the legal way in which one does these things. If there is any further point, I am prepared to look into it and to write to my hon. Friend.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 8

      THE NORTHERN IRELAND EXECUTIVE
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg to move Amendment No. 21, in page 7, line 5, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
      '(3) The Chief Executive Member shall be appointed by the Secretary of State on behalf of Her Majesty having regard to the provisions of subsection (1)(b) of section 2 of this Act.
      (3A) The heads of the Northern Ireland Departments shall be appointed by the Secretary of State on behalf of Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Chief Executive Member.
      (3B) The Secretary of State may appoint such number of additional persons (if any) as he thinks fit to discharge, whether as members of the Executive, or otherwise, such functions as he may determine; and any such appointments shall be made on the recommendation of the Chief Executive Member.
      (3C) The total number of persons at any time holding appointments under this section shall not exceed twelve.
      (3D) If at any time after the appointed day it should not be possible to make an appointment in the manner prescribed in this section, the Secretary of State may make an appointment, or appointments, which do not comply therewith; but any person so appointed shall not hold office for more than six months'.
      The Chairman: With this we may also discuss the following Amendments:
      No. 62, in page 7, line 5, leave out subsection (3) and insert:
      '(3)(a) The chief executive member shall be appointed by the Secretary of State on behalf of Her Majesty;
      (b) the heads of the Northern Ireland departments shall be appointed by the Secretary of State on behalf of Her Majesty on the advice of the chief executive'
      No. 23, in page 7, line 6, after 'shall', insert:
      'after consultation with the parties in the Assembly'.
      No. 24, in page 7, line 22, at end insert:
      'but no person shall hold an appointment under this subsection after 30th March 1978'.
      No. 25, in page 7, line 23, leave out subsection (6).
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: It is my desire that provincial self-government should be restored to Northern Ireland as quickly as possible on an acceptable basis. The recasting of the clause intended by this amendment and others provides for the organisation of the Northern Ireland Executive on the parliamentary lines which are traditional in the United Kingdom and, for that matter, in the Irish Republic.
      7.15 p.m.
      Amendment No. 21 provides for the appointment of the chief executive member by the Secretary of State who would also choose his cabinet colleagues. This is not a device to frustrate power sharing, whatever that means, because it will be noted that the Secretary of State keeps control of the situation. He would appoint the chief executive member. There would no doubt be a close understanding with the chief executive member about the terms on which he would operate. The Secretary of State would also have power to appoint additional people to the Executive to a number not exceeding 12.
      Therefore, the amendment proposes a useful improvement to the Bill, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider it sympathetically.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: It is useful to explore the Secretary of State's mind about the procedure on which the Executive shall be formed. I understand from the Bill that after the election and the
      752
      consultations between the parties the Secretary of State will call on a person whom he sees as being most likely to be acceptable as chief executive and will ask him to engage in talks presumably either directly or on a round table basis, with the Secretary of State with the idea of putting together an Executive. At that stage the chief executive and the Secretary of State will presumably ensure that the Executive is based on the power-sharing provisions of Clause 2.
      I understand under Clause 8(3), after the order is passed by the House, the Secretary of State will specifically appoint the chief executive and the additional members who make up the heads of departments in the Executive. I am not sure to what extent my right hon. Friend's rôle will be formal or of a direct and interventionist nature. Perhaps we can have more detail on that point. I propose in Amendment No. 23 that the parties in the Assembly should be consulted before the appointments are made. That is vital because it is essential that the people making up the Eexecutive should be acceptable to as wide a cross section of the heads of parties in the Assembly as can be managed. There are many difficulties, but that is an important principle.
      Amendment No. 24 also deals with an important point. It relates to subsection (5), which provides that two additional people who are not members of the Assembly can be brought in as makeweights.
      Clause 8 is not a highly desirable clause, but I can see the merit of it in the present situation. A similar situation had to be faced in previous Northern Ireland Governments. In former days the Prime Minister, wishing to broaden his Cabinet, was able to bring in people for a limited period. I can therefore appreciate the merit of having flexibility so that additional people can be brought in to balance the cabinet. To be relevant, those people must have a political standing in their own right and they must represent someone and something if they are to carry weight. The clause is not desirable as a long-term measure, and that is why my amendment proposes a limitation on its use. It enables us to probe the Secretary of State's thinking.
      Captain Orr: It may seem curious that my name is on Amendments Nos. 21 and

      753
      62. The simple explanation is that they are two shots at drafting which achieve the same result. If my right hon. Friend accepts in principle what we have in mind, we give him a choice of words from which to select.
      The substantial point has been put by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), namely, who will pick the Executive? As the Bill is drafted, the Secretary of State will form the equivalent of the cabinet of Northern Ireland. Presumably after the assembly elections he will consult the parties. He will say, "Will you work with A?" He will ask B whether he will work with C, and he will ask the person he is considering as chief executive whether he will be willing to work with certain people.
      That is not the way in which to proceed. An Executive formed in that way will have inherent instability. It will be better if my right hon. Friend, when the Assembly elections are over and the Assembly parties have chosen their leaders, makes a judgment as to which of them is most likely to command a majority in the Assembly and exercises his power by sending for that person and saying to him, "I am of a mind that you should be the chief executive. Tell me whether you can command a majority in the assembly and recommend to me the members of your Executive." It would have been much better in a sense if we had accepted earlier amendments proposing a Governor, because that would have been the function of a Governor.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) rightly asked whether the Secretary of State will act as a political person making a political judgment or whether his action will be purely formal. As the Bill stands, his position is not purely formal. His action is that of a Secretary of State making political judgments. My amendment would change that situation. He would have to make a judgment about the chief executive but, he having made that judgment, all the rest falls upon the advice of that chief executive. It would change my right hon. Friend's function.
      I shall be interested to hear my right hon. Friend's arguments for keeping the Bill as it is, but I am inclined to support Amendment No. 21.
      Mr. McMaster: I should like to know what form the consultation between the Secretary of State and the chief executive is to take. Clause 25 provides that the heads of the departments shall also be chairmen of consultative committees. Is it in my right hon. Friend's mind that he will consult the chief executive member about which of the members who make up the Executive will be elected to each department, or will this be left to the chief executive member in discussion with the leaders of the various parties returned to the Assembly? Will the appointments then be referred to my right hon. Friend for his approval under the provisions of the clause? 'What will be the degree of consultation?
      It is provided that the persons who are appointed to lead the Government—the Executive members—shall also be heads of departments. Is this the best way in which to form the new Executive? Would it not be better to have a division of responsibility and provide that the heads of the departments should not be the same people as the chairmen of consultative committees? Is this a matter which is to be discussed with the Secretary of State?
      Captain Orr: I might be able to assist my hon. Friend. He will no doubt recall that Amendment No. 33 on this specific point has been tabled.
      Mr. McMaster: I do not wish to anticipate that argument, but I want to find out whether this is covered by Clause 8 and whether the consultation goes to that depth. I hope that my right hon. Friend will clarify this.
      [Mr. RICHARD CRAWSHAW in the Chair]
      7.30 p.m.
      Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and other hon. Members who have taken part in the debate for raising an important aspect of the Bill and of the Secretary of State's responsibilities. I hope that I can go some way to clarify their minds and to help them.
      If possible, the position of the chief executive must be strengthened at every turn if he is to command the support that is vital to him in carrying out his duties. I have said this before on amendments to Clause 2, which were discussed

      755
      late at night, but as those remarks have had a limited circulation in print I should like to go back to that point now. Clearly, the Executive must be based on the Assembly. It must be able to command a majority in the Assembly. I think the House accepted the reasons for not tying the Executive to weighty majorities, but when powers are transferred the Executive must get its legislation through the Assembly, and to do so it must have the support of and a majority in the Assembly. Therefore, the Executive must be based on the Assembly. That is fundamental.
      Amendment No. 21 provides that the Secretary of State shall appoint the chief executive, and that is where it differs from the Bill. Thereafter, the additional members would be appointed by the Secretary of State on the recommendation of the chief executive. The Bill preserves the position, and I believe that that is right.
      There may be occasions when it will be in the interests of everyone for some appointments, after discussion, to be made by the Secretary of State. It might be easier for all concerned to do it in that way. The amendment removes a certain flexibility that is essential.
      Nothing would please me more if, after discussion, the chief executive and the leaders of the parties were able to agree amongst themselves and come forward with an agreed list on which the Secretary of State could make his judgment. But I do not think that we can rely on that. The danger of Amendment No. 21 is that it relies upon that happening. There may be occasions when it would not happen, and we must have a certain degree of flexibility to cover that eventuality.
      Captain Orr: My right hon. Friend is being helpful and telling us what is in his mind, but in the circumstances he envisages a chief executive could have put into his Executive someone of whom he disapproved.
      Mr. Whitelaw: In theory, but in practice if that happened the system would be starting not to work from the word "go". I do not think that would be a sensible way of proceeding. The other side of the coin is that there may be circumstances in which all concerned would be only too pleased to say, "This
      756
      is what we would like you to do, we have found it difficult to decide and we would prefer you to make the appointment." Amendment No. 21 would prevent that and would remove a degree of flexibility which all concerned might be sorry to see removed.
      Captain Orr: Does not the maintenance of the flexibility that my right hon. Friend would make the appointment leave it open to the chief executive to say to his supporters, "I did not want that man, he was forced upon me?"
      Mr. Whitelaw: It may leave it open in that way. If we are trying to proceed flexibly with a new endeavour of this sort, all these possibilities undoubtedly exist. Even the well-tried systems that we know in many other places have not removed that possibility. I do not think that we should be too touchy on this point.
      Turning now to Amendment No. 23, by which means my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) proposes to insert the words
      "after consultation with the parties in the Assembly",
      it would be inconceivable and impossible for the Executive to be appointed unless it had a basis in the Assembly. Therefore, it is most important that there should be the consultation to which my hon. Friend refers. However, I am advised that on legal grounds there are difficulties in accepting the amendment as it stands. I am prepared to accept the principle of consultation put forward by my hon. Friend, and on Report I shall be moving an amendment which I hope will give effect to his idea that there should be consultations with the parties in the Assembly before these appointments are made. That also goes some way to meeting the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr).
      On Amendment No. 24, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North, the two additional members are designed for flexibility in circumstances which might arise and which cannot be foreseen at the moment. I am loth to go as far as my hon. Friend wishes in placing limitations on this idea. However, what I propose in answer to Amendment No. 23 may go some way to

      757
      help on Amendment No. 24. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider what I propose to do on Report on that basis.
      The ideal situation would be if, after discussion, it became clear that the leader of the party with the largest number of seats in the Assembly, awl who could be the chief executive, was able, in consultation with the leaders of the other parties, to come forward with an agreed list. But we must preserve the position in the event of that not being achieved, when the other appointments may have to come from the Secretary of State in one way or another.
      On Second Reading, I was asked whether the position of the Secretary of State under this clause was formal, or whether he had political judgments to make. I am bound to say, in the first instance, that if it could be formal it would be the best of all worlds. However, there may be circumstances in which the ultimate decision of the Secretary of State has to be exercised. That is the fall-back position which must be preserved.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am glad that my right hon. Friend has said that the Executive is to be based on the Assembly. It is ironic that that was the subject of an earlier amendment, which was voted down by an enormous majority—
      Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend and I are about the same age in terms of parliamentary experience. I am sure that he will not expect me to swallow that one. The amendment did a great deal more than that.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: It is not my wish to press Amendment No. 21 to a Division, but I should like to be clear that it is the intention of my right hon. Friend that the heads of the Northern Ireland departments will normally be appointed on the recommendation of the chief executive. We hope that a convention of that kind will develop.
      Mr. Whitelaw: I very much hope so, and I agree with my hon. Friend that that would be desirable.
      Perhaps I can take this opportunity to repair an omission. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) asked about the position of
      758
      the heads of departments also being chairmen of committees. This can be argued both ways, of course. My hon. Friend argues that it would be better to divorce the two. The Bill keeps them together. If they are divorced there is the danger of building in an area of conflict and controversy that will be undesirable. However, it can be argued both ways. It is difficult to be dogmatic about it.
      Mr. McMaster: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate taking part in consultations with the chief executive officer as to which members shall be responsible for which departments?
      Mr. Whitelaw: I have said in general terms that I hope very much that it will be possible for the chief executive and the leaders of the parties joining him in the Executive to put forward their own list. But if he wished to consult me, or if I felt it necessary to consult him, inevitably that would have to happen. If it were possible for him to come forward with a generally agreed list, no one would be more pleased than I.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's acceptance of the principle behind Amendment No. 23. I should like to put it on record that to date this is the first amendment to have been accepted in principle. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend.
      Amendment negatived.
      Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 9

      REMUNERATION AND PENSIONS OF MEMBERS OF NORTHERN IRELAND EXECUTIVE ETC.
      Mr. Peter Mills: I beg to move Amendment No. 26, in page 7, line 41, leave out 'pre' and insert 'prescribed by'.
      This is an amendment to correct a printing error.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: May I make one matter clear? As I understand it, anyone elected to the Assembly automatically will be in receipt of a salary, whether or

      759
      not he takes his seat. Is that the correct position?
      Mr. Peter Mills: To be honest, I am not sure what it is that my hon. Friend is asking. Clause 9 is concerned with the Executive and its payment. It is not concerned with members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: I apologise. The matter arises on a later clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill
      Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 12

      CONSULTATION, AGREEMENTS AND ARRANGEMENTS WITH REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
      Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 9, leave out lines 5 to 18.
      This is a somewhat comprehensive amendment. I do not necessarily stand on its wording. It is designed to draw attention to a point in the Clause which requires considerable explanation. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will explain it to us.
      On the general question of relationships with the Republic of Ireland, the position of most Ulster people is well understood. We have always been willing to live on good terms with our neighbours in the South, provided that it is recognised by the Irish Republic that we are part of the United Kingdom, that our constitutional position is plain, and that the Irish Republic has no right to interfere in internal matters concerning the United Kingdom.
      7.45 p.m.
      It has always been the desire of successive Northern Ireland Governments that there should be co-operation across the border on matters of mutual interest. Equally, it has always been accepted that such co-operation should be as between one sovereign authority and another—in other words, that the co-operation should
      760
      be between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, both being sovereign powers.
      The practice has been that Ministers in Northern Ireland Governments have gone to the South of Ireland, have seen their opposite numbers, and have entered into various administrative arrangements. However, I understand that anything agreed between them which required legislation of any kind was a matter for the House of Commons.
      It seems that Clause 12 now goes beyond that. It permits a Northern Ireland Executive authority to
      "enter into agreements or arrangements with any authority of the Republic of Ireland".
      I agree that it does so only in relation to transferred matters, but transferred matters could be very wide. They could be all the matters that are already in Schedule 3. But the clause goes further than that. It allows a Northern Ireland authority to enter into agreements or arrangements, but provides that where legislation is required to give effect to those agreements or arrangements that legislation can be passed by the Assembly.
      This is treating a portion of the United Kingdom as if it were not a part of the United Kingdom. It seems to be giving a subordinate legislative body power to enter into negotiations with a foreign power and to legislate in a treaty sense. That opens a dangerous door. I cannot see the House of Commons devolving power upon, say, Kent County Council to negotiate with the French Government about the Channel Tunnel, or something like that, and power to legislate on the matter.
      I prefer relationships with the Irish Republic to be conducted on the basis of the two sovereign powers—the United Kingdom, on the one hand, and the Irish Republic, on the other. Subject to that, and as agents of the United Kingdom, Ministers in the Northern Ireland Government, Executive, or whatever it be, should have the right on behalf of Her Majesty's Government to consult their opposite numbers in the Irish Republic. All I am suggesting is that any resulting legislation ought to be passed in the House of Commons rather than transferred to Stormont. This is one area in

      761
      which I would resist that degree of devolution.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: Is it not analogous to the power that the Stormont Parliament had to legislate on fisheries, electricity, power and such matters?
      Captain Orr: No, it is not. I recall that when we negotiated an arrangement about the River Foyle Fisheries in 1951, I think it was, we had to have a Bill in the House of Commons to give effect to it. It could not be done by a Bill at Stormont. I believe that that should be the pattern for the future. If we allow such a matter to become the subject of a Bill at Stormont we are conceding that Northern Ireland is not quite part of the United Kingdom. It would be giving the Assembly some kind of authority to negotiate with a foreign power. I do not like that. I prefer the position as it was before—the Stormont authority may enter into a discussion with its opposite number in the Republic and they may agree on what they should do about the Foyle Fisheries, but the Bill should come to the House of Commons.
      Mr. Orme: I am following the hon. and gallant Gentleman's argument with interest, but I find it contradicts what he said previously. For example, he talked about the loss of power of the Assembly and the fact that there are reserve powers, and so forth. Now there is a chance for the Executive to have powers. Bearing in mind that the Bill excludes specific items which can be discussed with the Republic, but states that others can be discussed with the Republic, is there not a contradiction?
      Captain Orr: I think not. I said that this was the one sphere in which we should not devolve power, because we are dealing here with a power devolved for operation not within Northern Ireland but with a foreign State. I do not believe that the House of Commons should devolve upon any subordinate legislature power to deal with a foreign State. That power should remain with Westminster. That is the defect that I see in the clause. I may be wrong in my reading and understanding of it, but that is as I see it. I prefer to retain the old practice.
      I am in no sense suggesting that we should not talk to and negotiate with
      762
      the Irish Republic. The River Foyle Fisheries agreement would not have come about without serious and meaningful negotiations. I am submitting that the power to ratify and to give legislative effect to such negotiations should not be devolved but should be retained in the House of Commons.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: I am a little puzzled by the argument advanced by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). I may have got it completely wrong. I thought that Clause 12 was comparable with what went on in the time of the Stormont Parliament and Government in that it was then possible for agreements and arrangements to be made across the Border, subject to legislation.
      Captain Orr: The legislation would have to be in the House of Commons.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: I thought that arrangements were made across the Border—I speak subject to correction by my hon. Friends who have greater knowledge of this matter—and that the legislation was enacted at Stormont.
      Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend, because I have had some advice. The example of the Foyle Fisheries is wrong. At that time Westminster legislated to give Stormont power to pass its own Act on the Foyle Fisheries, which Stormont then did.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: I hope that the anxieties of my hon. and gallant Friend will be allayed, because I should not like anything to be said or done in this House that would set back practical co-operation between the North and the South.
      I was very much struck by an interview which Fortnight had with the Minister for External Affairs of the Republic, Mr. Garret FitzGerald. It contains some material which my hon. and gallant Friend will find disturbing, even dangerous, but some parts of it are encouraging. For example, the Minister said:
      "We accept that under the Treaty of 1921, which is part of the foundation and origin of this state"—
      that is the Irish Republic—
      "that the six north-eastern counties have opted out and that we cannot expect them to come back into any all-Ireland framework except with their agreement."

      763
      Earlier in the interview the Minister recognised the sensitivity of the North when he said:
      "We recognise the sensitivities of the Northern majority to anything they see as a Trojan Horse involving the imposition on them gradually and in some hidden way of national unification, as we would call it. Any arrangement for a Council of Ireland or any arrangement for the joint sharing of responsibility where we have to do jobs constructively together must be so designed that it respects these sensitivities. People in Northern Ireland must be able to see not merely that they are not being pushed into something that is going gradually and outside their control to develop into a unification that they don't see themselves at this time as ever likely to wish or seek for."
      The syntax seems to be involved, but I am reading Fortnight.
      It is interesting that those remarks were made by the Foreign Minister of the Irish Republic. There are other parts of the interview that are somewhat disturbing, but I should not like anything to be said or done in this House that would make it difficult for co-operation to take place between the two parts of Ireland without prejudice to the national sovereignty of either part.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Orme: We welcome the clause. Perhaps it does not have the clothing that was envisaged in the White Paper for the development for the Council of Ireland, but I think that the experiment that will be entered into by the Republic and the new Executive can only augur good for the island as a whole.
      People on the Executive who have strong views have nothing to fear from meeting members of the Republic and arguing in their corner in a way which represents the views of the people who elected them to the Assembly. Coming together in that way, bearing in mind the limited powers that they have for dealing with certain issues, may well lead to further developments on such matters as internal security, which can be of benefit to both communities.
      If, for instance, the Assembly felt that the limited powers given to it were not sufficient to enable it to introduce legislation following any discussions or proposals worked out with the Republic, it could come back to this House of Commons and the matter could be discussed
      764
      by the sovereign Parliament. That safeguard is always there.
      We welcome the fact that a basis is being provided for discussions with the Republic. At the beginning these discussions must necessarily be on limited matters, but this can be extended. These discussions and the development of a Council of Ireland will lead to nothing but good from the point of view of internal arrangements. I do not think that there is anything to fear from this position. On the contrary, I think that it should be encouraged.
      We all recognise that the border is the basic political issue. We recognise the powers that exist. The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) reported Mr. Garrett FitzGerald as saying that nobody in the Republic envisages taking over the six counties without the agreement of the people in that area. Every body recognises that. There has been a good deal of realistic thinking both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic.
      Having discussed the matter with political leaders on both sides in both the North and the South, I realise that nobody expects an easy solution for the ultimate aim of many people, which is a united Ireland or the absence of resistance to such a proposal by people who will be represented in this Assembly. That is why it is important that those who represent large sections of the majority should be in this Assembly and play a part on the Executive. People whom they represent should know that their voice will be heard. I do not think that there is any need to walk cautiously through the tulips, as it were. The clause should be welcomed.
      The fact that the Secretary of State has seen fit not to develop the matter but to say at the beginning of the clause in paragraph (a) that an executive authority may
      "consult on any matter with any authority of the Republic of Ireland"
      provides the chance for an open agenda, and I believe that having an open agenda is the way in which to start dealing with this matter.
      Mr. Pounder: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), but I know that he would not expect me to agree with him. I am glad

      765
      that the clothing chosen for the clause is not that outlined in the White Paper which went further and, in my view, was fairly unattractive.
      Nor do I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) on this issue. If I shared my hon. and gallant Friend's fears, I should be with him 100 per cent., but I read the clause rather differently, and do so in terms of the cross-border co-operation which existed prior to the imposition of direct rule. There is clearly a common bond between the North and the South on such matters as tourism and animal health. I was associated with the audit of the Foyle Fisheries, and I was surprised to learn that the Act had to be passed by this House. There is also a common bond in the provision of electricity.
      Another dimension which has not been raised, but which is important in the context of the clause as drafted, is the EEC implication. Northern Ireland hopes to benefit very considerably from the Community's regional policy and the funding of the Regional Development Fund. One feature which inevitably arises in any consideration of regional funds in the Community context is that they will almost certainly operate on either side of the border, in that the problems of County Londonderry will not necessarily be wildly different from those of County Donegal from the point of view of economic development.
      It would make less than sense if, as my hon. and gallant Friend envisages, everything relating to cross-border co-operation came through this House. I am a convinced regionalist, and therefore I want as much power given to the Assembly now as is humanly possible, and a great deal more as time develops. Quite apart from the desirability of a Northern administration to deal with its counterpart in the South in matters of economic mutual interest, so also the situation must arise in a Community context and regional policy as it develops over the next three, five or ten years, or whatever period may be required.
      I hope that I have read the clause correctly and that the intentions are entirely limited to economic cooperation. For both these reasons I cannot go along with my hon. and gallant Friend. I cannot
      766
      stress too strongly my total opposition to and abhorrence of any concept of political discussions between the Northern Assembly and its Southern counterpart.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is being pedantic about the difficulties which he finds in the part of the clause which his amendment proposes to deal with. I did not quite the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. understand the metaphor about tulips from Orme). If he meant that my hon. and gallant Friend was trampling unnecessarily upon a well-organised flowerbed, I am in disagreement with him.
      Mr. Orme: I was alluding to a popular song entitled "Tiptoe through the tulips"
      Mr. Powell: As usual, one finds oneself outclassed and out of date through not being in touch with popular song and literature—[Interruption.] It depends upon the date. I think the House will be prepared to take a little irony occasionally.
      I find in this part of the clause the same ambivalence to which attention was drawn earlier in the Bill, and in the whole concept which underlies the White Paper. It is an ambivalence which is not merely a matter of logical and argumentative interest but one which, in the context of Northern Ireland, has great reality and which involves real dangers. This Bill substitutes for the old Stormont and the old Stormont constitution a deliberately different type of assembly—one which is deliberately in a different relationship with Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
      This Assembly is undoubtedly one which is being made in all possible ways subordinate to the main legislature of the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State plays, in relation to the new Assembly and Executive, a part which no United Kingdom Minister played in relation to the Stormont Government. The range of authority of the new Assembly and Executive will be in most ways, at any rate initially, more limited than that of the former Government and Parliament of Northern Ireland.
      Whereas, with that Government and Parliament, the object of this House in setting them up was to give maximum

      767
      independence and the maximum autonomy, the purpose behind the Bill, or at least behind parts of it, is to make it clear that it is not an autonomous assembly and Government which is being set up in Northern Ireland, but a provincial assembly and provincial executive, and one which remains closely and firmly anchored to the purpose and policy of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.
      To that extent and in that sense—if I may risk saying so—the Bill is an integrationist measure. It lessens the degree of separation and autonomy of the Province of Northern Ireland. We debated earlier today the disappearance of the Governor, which is understood by people in Northern Ireland to have that significance. It has the effect of bringing Northern Ireland and its six counties closer together with the administration of the rest of the United Kingdom.
      With that character of what we are doing in the Bill, there is a contrast in the provision of this clause. We should not contemplate giving this kind of power to a provincial assembly in the rest of the United Kingdom. Indeed, this House rightly and jealously guards the right of Her Majesty's Government and of this Parliament to authorise and exercise surveillance over arrangements entered into with foreign Powers.
      It was an interesting and helpful intervention by the Secretary of State when he pointed out that action of the previous Stormont Government and Parliament, on the lines indicated in paragraph (1)(b), had had to be, even under the former constitution, specifically authorised for the purpose by this Parliament. That brings out the contradiction between the general status of the new Assembly and Executive and this power, unlimited as regards transferred subjects, which we are to give to that Assembly and Executive at large.
      I believe that this ambivalence is dangerous, because it expresses the intention to do two things at the same time, and two things which ultimately are irreconcilable. On the one hand, we are saying to the people of Northern Ireland, "Your Province is being bound more clearly, firmly and evidently than before to the rest of the United Kingdom. There-
      768
      fore, your fears are to that extent groundless; your aspirations are to that extent fulfilled," and yet, at the same time, in the desire to span irreconcilable opposites, we are saying to the new Assembly and Executive, "You are entrusted with the power, and, by implication, invited to exercise the power, to enter into arrangements with the Republic of a sort which no subordinate body would be allowed to enter into with any other external power, arrangements which, in the White Paper, are candidly seen as leading in the direction of what those who take another view describe as reunification."
      There is the same contradiction at the heart of these provisions as lies at the heart of the White Paper. This is the reason why, with some of my hon. Friends, I thought it right to vote against the principle of that White Paper. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise the real difficulty of the power in paragraph (b) and the real dangers that it imports.
      After all, if consultations under paragraph (a) reach a point, on a subject or subjects, at which it is considered that there should be a formal agreement between the two countries—the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland—there cannot be the slightest objection to that matter being brought before this House and the normal authorisation obtained. But at this stage of this operation, I believe that we stand to lose more than we gain by including in the clause the lines that my hon. and gallant Friend proposes to delete.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I seek some clarification of the very first line of the clause. How do we interpret the word "a" in "A Northern Ireland executive"? I go on from that to the word "authority". On page 2, where the Northern Ireland Executive is referred to, it stands alone without the word "authority" attached. Therefore, what is gained by referring to a Northern Ireland executive "authority"? What is the interpretation of the word "authority"? Will it be some kind of body that is set up for an entirely different reason? For instance, will it be some kind of transport authority? Could it be the Northern Ireland Housing Executive? Does the phrase include or authorise all such bodies?

      769
      8.15 p.m.
      Paragraph (a) provides power to consult any authority in the Republic of Ireland. We notice that here again it is not a department of the Eire Government but just some kind of authority. I should like the term "any authority" defined, as well. Could this consultation take place with or without the consent of the appropriate department of the Government of the Repubic? Could it possibly take place—could arrangements be entered into—without the knowledge of that Government?
      Does the reference to "executive authority" mean a department of the new administration or the head of a department, or will it just be some body? This is not clear. The phrase "may enter into agreements" also occurs. Again, does this imply the approval of the Assembly, or is it simply the sanction of the Executive?
      I have always felt that the old Stormont was always at a disadvantage when engaged in these cross-border negotiations. I say that not for any political reason but simply because Stormont did not have the scope, and knew that it did not have the scope, to engage in international discussions. It therefore never developed the expertise and knowledge that was necessary to meet, cope with and negotiate with a sovereign Government.
      My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) referred to Foyle Fisheries—a matter that was dealt with by the Secretary of State. If that kind of thing were to arise again, can we assume that this House would be asked to approve legislation, if it proved necessary?
      The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) somehow linked this clause with the Council of Ireland. I have no doubt that he was correct, because this is probably one of the Bill's few indirect references to the council. The hon. Member may forgive me if I say that to this extent he has let a sizeable cat out of the bag. It is being said by some people in the Assembly election campaign that they do not object to a tripartite conference.
      None of us would object to a tripartite conference between three Governments,
      770
      but what was proposed in the White Paper—I do not know what is intended now—was clearly a conference to be called soon after the Assembly elections, consisting of the two sovereign Governments—Westminster and Dublin—plus, not a Northern Ireland Executive or Government but a collection of the leaders of political parties who might be elected to the Assembly. If, instead of the Parliament of the United Kingdom at Westminster, a council were to evolve as the superior body, to which these negotiations were subject and by which they were scrutinised, our fears would be confirmed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) rather naïvely asserted that if there were to be any political overtones he would find himself at the parting of the ways. I am afraid that I am already there.
      Mr. Eric S. Heffer: The speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) was very interesting, but I am not absolutely certain about what he was arguing. I always follow his speeches with the greatest interest because their logic is such that the House of Commons and the country, in a sense, hang on his words to find their ultimate end.
      On this occasion, however, the right hon. Gentleman was not being very logical. He said that this was an integrationist measure and that it was tying Northern Ireland closer to the rest of Great Britain than it had ever previously been tied.
      I understood the right hon. Gentleman to have been advocating for a long time that Northern Ireland ought to be integrated, essentially, into the rest of Great Britain. If that is so, the idea of having a semi-autonomous Assembly in Northern Ireland is beside the point. If we accepted the integrationist argument, there ought not to have been a Stormont or anything else following it, because it is logical that the place where decisions are made in an integrated Great Britain is the House of Commons. Taking this argument further, if we have a body such as the Assembly in Northern Ireland, we must equally argue for an Assembly in Scotland, Wales and other areas which have peculiar nationalist

      771
      characteristics. The right hon. Gentleman has, to some extent, missed the point.
      I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and suggest that the cat was let out of the bag by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who thought that it was the first step towards a Council of Ireland, knowing the fears of the hon. Member that that is one tiny steps towards a united Ireland. No one has been advancing that argument, certainly not since I have been in the Chamber today.
      Listening to the argument, it seems that by allowing the Assembly to have these powers in paragraphs (a) and (b) is not necessarily an integrationist measure, although to some extent one needs to have integrationist policies to get flexibility. That may seem to be a contradiction, but it is not. It is the logical situation at which we must arrive if Northern Ireland is to have better relations with the Republic.
      I should have thought that this was a sensible provision. What are the problems? Whether or not one likes it—many people do not like it—the two areas of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland exist and are associated with each other. They have common problems. Whether those are in relation to the Common Market is irrelevant. They need to work together to solve their common problems, be they problems of electricity supply or of many other issues. They need to be discussed. Joint authorities may be needed.
      I should not have thought that this was a question of the North becoming integrated with the South, or of the South being accepted into the North. It is common sense. What is the point of having consultation in paragraph (a) if it does not lead to an agreement under paragraph (b)? The one is dependent upon the other. I should have thought that this was a logical argument. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) shakes his head. All that he does by doing that is to reveal the problem that we have had in Northern Ireland for 50 years. Some people do not want to enter into discussions with the Republic of Eire.
      Captain Orr: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman wishes to be fair. I have never argued that one should not enter into arrangements to the mutual benefit of all, such as electricity supply arrangements, arrangements about common fisheries, and all such things that are to the benefit of the people. All that I am saying is that the arrangements affecting the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland could be negotiated at local level but must be entered into on the basis of sovereign powers.
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying that the arrangements must be entered into here at West-minister, by us, with the Republic of Ireland—
      Captain Orr: That is right.
      Mr. Heffer:—with the Assembly having very little power indeed, less power than Stormont had. Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman arguing that it was incorrect for Stormont to enter into arrangements without the consent of the House of Commons at Westminster?
      Captain Orr: It could have been, yes.
      Mr. Heffer: That is an interesting argument. I can remember, over the years, that my hon. Friends on the then Government side of the House of Commons wished to discuss Northern Ireland matters but were always told that they could not raise issues about Northern Ireland and that it was not possible to discuss such questions because they were matters for Stormont to discuss and to decide upon. Now, however, the hon. and gallant Gentleman is arguing somewhat differently, under different circumstances. We were not then talking about matters of foreign policy.
      Captain Orr: This goes to the heart of the problem and shows that the hon. Member does not understand the argument. We are talking about relations with a foreign power. The Irish Republic chose to leave the United Kingdom and to become an independent republic. It is, therefore, a foreign power.
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that in this part of the Bill there is no question of entering into joint foreign policy arrangements with the Republic of Ireland. We are talking about matters of general interest

      773
      to both North and South. If we can consult on any matter with any authority of the Republic of Ireland, we can follow that up by a logical entering into arrangements or agreements with any authority of the Republic.
      We have to have certain integrationist policies at present in order precisely to achieve a more flexible approach to the problems of Ireland as a whole. Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree that the only hope for Ireland in the long run is that the North and the South should meet together and should enter into agreements on all sorts of issues, economic and otherwise, which are beneficial to both sides of the Border. Surely that is logical. I cannot see the logic of the arguments advanced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman. Perhaps that is because they are so backward looking on this question and he cannot see the wood for the trees in relation to the present needs of Northern Ireland. I do not say that those arguments are bigoted, because the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not personally bigoted in that sense.
      Mr. Molyneaux: The hon. Gentleman said that if one had certain economic interests in common with another nation, one could subordinate all political considerations and enter into an agreement, lumping the whole thing into one. Does he subscribe to the idea that Rhodesia and Zambia ought, perhaps, to reach that kind of agreement? Their economic problems are very similar, and one depends to a great extent on the other. Would it not make sense for them to drop all their political and ideological differences, and so on, and to link up far more closely?
      Mr. Heffer: If the hon. Member thinks that I came into this House last week he can think again.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I did not say that.
      Mr. Heffer: The hon. Member seems to think that I did. I will not be drawn into a discussion about Rhodesia and Zambia. We are discussing a Bill designed to deal with the problems of Northern Ireland and its constitutional future. There are vast differences in the historical backgrounds of Rhodesia and Northern Ireland. The arguments which have been put forward even by the hon.
      774
      Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, who made a powerful case, are not I submit, in the best interests of this country, the people of Northern Ireland or the people of the South.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: I want to touch briefly on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), with which I agree. I shall try to expand that point and explain how the new Northern Ireland 'Assembly, a provincial body with limited powers, would be psychologically at a substantial disadvantage in direct talks and contact with the Southern Government which is a sovereign power. The Assembly will also suffer from a lack of expertise which also comes from being a provincial Assembly. It is important that we in this Committee should understand that and that efforts should be made to help the self-confidence of the Assembly.
      That means that it is essential that the full range of expertise to back up these facilities should be given to the new Executive and that it should have the full moral support of the Westminster Government with no feeling of being put under pressure. The new relationship between Northern Ireland and the South will develop only slowly. It will not come by press-ganging the people of Northern Ireland and it can come only if it is approached with self-confidence. That was the theme of my hon. Friend's speech, and he was absolutely right.
      The Government are correct in not dealing with the whole development of this relationship until after the Assembly elections. I hope that any talks on a Council of Ireland will not be rushed unduly and will be left until the Executive is working in Northern Ireland. The Executive has a vital rôle to play. I emphasise that it is important to build up confidence. The new Government in the South are much more realistic than their predecessors. My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) referred to the interview with Garret FitzGerald in which there was much good sense about our position inside the United Kingdom with a close working relationship on matters of specific interest to Northern Ireland.
      I end with a prophecy. If the Bill works and if the Executive gets off the

      775
      ground and the parties indulge in power sharing, I believe that the Republic of Ireland will recognise Northern Ireland, and that is vital if this relationship is to develop. Of course, the question arises as to what form of recognition, and there are some who have said that a de facto recognition would be a great step forward. I agree, but it would not be enough. If we are to approach this relationship with confidence it will be necessary for the Republic to amend its constitution in order to recognise Northern Ireland and on that basis of much greater confidence the new relationship could be established.
      Mr. Whitelaw: Inevitably in discussion on this amendment we have tended to get involved in the whole issue of the clause and it has been something of a debate on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. In seeking to answer the points raised it is inevitable that I should approach it in that way. Perhaps I could begin by examining the parts of the clause on which there is agreement and clarify some of the procedural matters. It seems generally agreed that consultation is right and sensible. It would be surprising if that were not the case because consultation has continued for many years on a wide variety of matters. Therefore, it would be absurd if anyone were suddenly to say that consultation now is not a good idea because it was going on under the old Stormont Government, when there were consultations on matters of mutual concern. Indeed, it would be completely impossible if there were not consultation.
      So one starts on the basis that that is generally accepted. It is true that not all but nearly all the Northern Ireland political parties favour some form of further co-operation with the South and that they would like to see co-operation in such fields as tourism, regional development, electricity and transport. That, again, is, I think, accepted. Virtually all the political parties have said so and have accepted that such cooperation could indeed be very beneficial.
      I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) that it would be a terrible mistake for anyone, in the current feelings and emotions in Northern Ireland, to try to rush any of these developments. It
      776
      would be a great mistake to try to run before one walked with the result that one never walked at all. It has to be remembered that such institutions did not walk in the 1920s, and it was not Belfast's fault that they did not walk at that time, but, I think I am correct in saying, Dublin's fault. One has to look at the history of this and face the fact that one must walk before one runs. I hope that everyone concerned will take account of that.
      I move on to the amendment. Following agreement, there should be consultation, and my hon. Friend wishes to stop at consultation. I come to the different view which he took, supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder). I have had the benefit of some advice on this, needless to say, but I think the content of the Bill as a whole goes some way to answer my hon. Friend's point on exactly what happens under the transferred matters.
      I disagree with one point of my hon. Friend and that is that I believe that once the matters have been transferred to the new Assembly it will have very considerable legislative powers on transferred matters. I regard that as important and I want to see it. I know that he does not. I fully agree that there is a difference between us, but I still believe that important devolved powers can be transferred.
      Perhaps I could interpose here in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) that "executive authority" is defined in Clause 7(6) which sets out clearly the bodies which are involved.
      The executive authority can enter into an agreement or an arrangement with any authority of the Republic of Ireland in respect of any transferred matters. Of course, some such agreements or arrangements might need legislative power. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was going so far as to say that even if they did not need legislative power in the Assembly the executive authorities should not be allowed to enter into any agreement or arrangement. If he was, he was going a very long way, because surely on matters transferred to them it

      777
      would be a great disadvantage if the executive authorities were not able to make any arrangements or agreements at all even if these did not require any legislative backing in the Assembly. Probably he was not going as far as that. It is open to them, and they can do that.
      On that question I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North that on one point I slightly disagree with him—about lack of expertise for any agreements or arrangements which might be made. I would put the Northern Ireland Department in a very high position in expertise on any of these matters. I would have great faith in its expertise in such arrangements or discussions—very great faith indeed. I have had experience of seeing what it has done. I would be very confident of its powers in any discussions or consultations there might be.
      We come to the administrative position. Here I think I can answer my right hon. Friend's point. If any such agreement or arrangement required legislation in the Assembly—and it could only be in the Assembly if it were a transferred matter—under paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 the exercise of such legislative powers, if they were required to give effect
      "to any agreement or arrangement made under section 12 of this Act ".
      would then become a minimum reserved matter. Therefore, it would require the consent required in such cases, and the last word in such matters would rest with the House. That goes a long way to answer my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South and his amendments.
      Captain Orr: That is very interesting. Is my right hon. Friend saying that if any measure were required to be passed by the Assembly it would require authorisation in this House, either before or after? Would it be an Order in Council approving it, or what?
      Mr. Whitelaw: It would then come under the category of the minimum reserved powers, with all the filters which were discussed before of consent by the Secretary of State, answerable to the House for legislation by the Assembly on reserved matters as opposed to trans-
      778
      ferred matters. There would be all the safeguards that we have previously discussed and passed with regard to legislation by the Assembly on reserved matters. In fact, the Assembly can legislate on reserved matters only with the consent of the Secretary of State and with all the safeguards in this House. The whole point of paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 is that it moves legislation in connection with Clause 12 from the completely transferred field into the minimum reserved field.
      Captain Orr: As soon as it requires legislation?
      Mr. Whitelaw: If the agreement or arrangement requires legislation, my hon. and gallant Friend will find that that is so under paragraph 7 of Schedule 3.
      On that basis, I argue, first, that it is reasonable that there should be consultation; and, secondly, that it is reasonable that on transferred matters the new Executive should be permitted, without coming to this House, to enter into agreements or arrangements, provided they do not require legislation. But if such agreements or arrangements require legislation it can legislate only with the consent of the Secretary of State answerable to this House.
      I believe that that is a reasonable basis. In view of that condition and the answer I have given, I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Captain Orr: I had not appreciated what my right hon. Friend has just told us, that paragraph 7 of Schedule 3 gives that cover, as it were, to the House. It is possible, is it not, for the Secretary of State, at any time he wishes, to devolve that power upon the Assembly, as it is in Schedule 3 and not in Schedule 2?
      Mr. Whitelaw: Of course that is so, but, just as with the initial devolved order, any further devolved orders will have to come to this House.
      Captain Orr: I fully appreciate that.
      We have made the substantive case that we wanted to make about the treatment between sovereign Powers and so on. In view of my right hon. Friend's assurance, and subject to our having a chance to consider the matter again, I

      779
      beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 13

      CONSOLIDATED FUND OF NORTHERN IRELAND
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: I should like to raise a matter that I had hoped to deal with by way of an amendment. I tabled it today, but did not expect that we should make quite such speedy progress.
      There is much merit in ensuring that there is a method by which the Northern Ireland Assembly is directly involved with the Estimates. The point of my amendment was to consider whether a rôle in examining the estimates of Northern Ireland departments could be given to the Assembly. That would be an important and useful extension of its work.
      Mr. Howell: I think that my hon. Friend is referring to an amendment which I must confess I have not yet seen. I gather that he tabled it only today. I understand that he is concerned with the Estimates, and the way in which they should be dealt with by the Assembly. Is that right?
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: Are we discussing Amendment No. 29 or Clause 13?
      The Temporary Chairman: Clause 13. As I understand it, the amendment has not been selected.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: Perhaps I can clarify the matter. I fear that I may be confusing the Committee. The point that I am making is that there must be merit in considering whether the members of the Assembly should have power to have some form of committee or body to consider the Estimates of Departments. As I understand it, there is no such power under this legislation. I am availing myself of the opportunity on this Clause,
      780
      to put that matter to my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
      Mr. Howell: I am subject to correction, but I think that I am right in saying that the power exists to require members of the Assembly to set up a committee for the scrutiny of expenditure. I shall, with my hon. Friend's permission, and possibly during discussion on further amendments on the clauses related to financial provision, give him chapter and verse of where that arises.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have two questions, and it may help us in our consideration of the next few clauses if I ask them now. In the Northern Ireland Financial Arrangements and Legislation White Paper, which the Government helpfully published in June 1972, there was a reference to lending to the Government of Northern Ireland from the National Loans Fund. I apologise for not having chapter and verse but I am pretty sure that the White Paper talked about continued lending to the Government of Northern Ireland from the National Loans Fund. There are certain rules and regulations which we impose upon ourselves in this Parliament whereby moneys go to the National Loans Fund and then out to the nationalised industries and to local government. Is it under Clause 13 that the payment of money by the Government at Westminster to the Assembly is dealt with? In other words, would it come out of the Consolidated Fund or would it be under Clause 14, 15 or 16?
      Secondly, we have always been most interested in the work of the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation. I presume that the corporation would be responsible to the Assembly. Since direct rule a large sum of money has been paid by the Government to the corporation. How would that money be channelled into the new Executive under the arrangements in Clause 13, 14, 15 or 16? Those are complicated questions, but they may appear simple to the Minister of State. If, at some stage, we could be given the Government's views on the matter that I have raised, we should be grateful.
      Mr. David Howell: The question of the transfer into the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund of a share of United Kingdom finances—that is the way the system will be arranged—comes under

      781
      Clause 15. I should be happy, on the Clause, to discuss further in detail how the system will work, but I should probably be out of order if I went too far ahead of Clause 13.
      The hon. Gentleman is correct in what he says about the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation. If the Bill is passed and the Executive is formed, on the appropriate criteria, by the Secretary of State, this provision will come under the Assembly, the Executive, and all the appropriate committees.
      I turn now to the question of the financing of the activities of the corporation. I think that arrangements have been made to put aside, over the years ahead £50 million for the use of the corporation. That would be paid out under the procedures in Clauses 14 and 15, which require measures approved by the Assembly when fresh expenditure is incurred to be approved by the head of the Department of Finance. That would be governed by the procedures of the Assembly. It would be very much up to the Assembly to establish a working relationship with the corporation such as we have already through the Ministry of Commerce.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 14

      PROCEEDINGS IN ASSEMBLY IMPOSING CHARGE ON PUBLIC FUNDS OR FOR IMPOSING TAXATION
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Captain Orr: There is one small point on which I should like elucidation.
      The clause provides that
      "No vote, resolution or Measure shall be passed by the Assembly"
      making charges, and so on,
      "except in pursuance of a recommendation from the Head of the Department of Finance for Northern Ireland signified to the Assembly by him or by a member of the Northern Ireland Executive authorised by him."
      It is possible that the head of the Department of Finance would not be one of the chairmen of committees. He might be an appointed person—appointed, presume-
      782
      ably, by the Secretary of State, after consultation. I do not quite know how he would be appointed. Why should the power be confined in this sense to the head of the Department of Finance? For example, in the House of Commons only the Government can propose certain charges. The Opposition cannot; nor can a private Member. One understands that. An amendment that I put down, but which was not selected, would have deleted the reference to the head of the Department of Finance and replaced it by reference to the Northern Ireland Executive. I wonder why this provision is confined so tightly to the head of the Department of Finance. It seems unsual. Is there a good reason for it?
      Mr. David Howell: The reason for it derives from the practice of the House of Commons, which requires that Bills or resolutions creating new and distinct charges on public revenue require the approval of the Crown, which is signified by Treasury Ministers. Under the 1920 Act, there was a similar procedure for Northern Ireland. Clause 14 simply carries forward to the new Assembly that very important safeguard for the public purse. But the Bill says that this would normally be done by the approval or with the authority of the Department of Finance.
      This is conveniently achieved by specifying its head as the normal member of the Executive to signify the recommendation. Another member of the Executive could act for him under authorisation and it is not for the Government or for the Bill to decide that. The Executive would ensure that any recommendation about expenditure was handled in accordance with its agreed overall strategy.
      As drafted the clause simply allows the important procedure which is our practice at Westminster and was the practice of Stormont to be continued and sets out the arrangements by which this must be done. It does not necessarily force or commit the Assembly to a specific person to ensure that this authority is given any more than we are tied in this House by the specific Minister, although the practice is that it is a Treasury Minister.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 14 ordered o stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 15

      PAYMENT TO NORTHERN IRELAND OF SHARE OF UNITED KINGDOM TAXES
      Mr. Stratton Mills: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 10, line 25 after 'Treasury', insert:
      'in consultation with the Department of Finance'.
      This clause deals with the procedure by which Northern Ireland's proportionate share of United Kingdom taxation and revenue is calculated. This very much affects the spending moneys available to the new Executive. The previous situation was that there was a Joint Exchequer Board on which the United Kingdom Government and the Northern Ireland Ministry of Finance were represented under an independent chairman.
      While obviously the Departments did the bulk of the preparatory work and the regulations about the financial relationship were rather different, there was nevertheless a specific board which worked out the moneys involved. The procedure under this clause is that the Treasury will calculate this proportion of money and may, under subsection (3), make regulations setting out the basis of the calculation. There is much to be said for saying that the Treasury should be specifically requested to make regulations. If I had had time I would have tabled an amendment in those terms.
      In my amendment I argue that while the United Kingdom Treasury may work out the share of finance available for the Northern Ireland Departments this should not be done in a vacuum and that words should be put into the Bill saying that there is a specific obligation on the Treasury to consult the Northern Ireland Department of Finance. It is a matter of great importance to Northern Ireland that it should have its full and fair share of revenue and should feel that it has a direct involvement in the calculation.
      Captain Orr: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills). It seems that as it is drafted the clause gives authority to the Treasury to make the calculation of the Northern Ireland share. We are specifically abolishing the old Joint Exchequer Board. Whether that board ever met is another matter. I am not
      784
      sure that it ever did meet but there was some kind of machinery to enable the voice of Northern Ireland to be heard in making the calculation. It would not be unreasonable to say that the Treasury should have the simple duty of consultation laid upon it.
      The practical results may not be very dramatic but there would be some kind of reassurance to Members of the Assembly if they thought that the Ministry whose head would eventually be responsible to them had some kind of voice in this. It would permit a degree of discussion in the Assembly on the general subject of what would be a fair share. That would be useful to know and it would be useful for the Assembly to be able to discuss it. The Assembly could discuss it with the head of finance. To that extent I am inclined to go along with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North.
      [Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]
      9.0 p.m.
      Mr. Pounder: The amendment is important for a variety of reasons. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) referred to the Joint Exchequer Board, and I was tempted to ask the same question. But so complicated were the fiscal relationships between the erstwhile Northern Ireland Government and the Treasury that they were virtually incapable of being unravelled. I say this with some feeling, having spent intermittent periods over the last eight years in trying to work out exactly what was the basis of the financial relationships with the Northern Ireland Government and the Department.
      If we now seek to establish a new constitutional arrangement in Northern Ireland, let us try and work out a fiscal relationship which covers basically two points. The first is that the share of Northern Ireland taxation should be determinable. I realise that this is immensely difficult when dealing with companies whose head and registered office is based on this side of the Irish Sea but with branches in Northern Ireland, profitable or otherwise, and, with the general taxation calculations that arise on the annual profits of these branch companies. But it should be possible, if not to get an accurate figure, to give some reliable idea which can be

      785
      made public as to roughly the amount of tax revenue raised in Northern Ireland not merely by PAYE in companies registered there but by those companies and institutions which have branches in Northern Ireland, the share of dividends of Northern Ireland investors and so on.
      From a general political point of view if such a figure could be ascertained it would be helpful. As long as there is doubt and uncertainty as to the sums involved, so speculation inevitably will be rampant and therefore unhelpful. I am not happy with the idea of the unilateral determination of revenue in Northern Ireland by the Treasury, for this reason: if there are two ingredients in any form of budgeting and accountability, and if the Bill provides, as it does, the new Assembly with a say in the manner in which the overall figure of expenditure should be allocated—in other words, if power is being granted over expenditure—similarly consultation should be granted in relation to revenue. Revenue is every bit as important in the equation as expenditure. Therefore, if expenditure powers are being granted to the Assembly it follows logically that we should also have a certain say about the revenue in the consultations. I therefore hope that the Minister will accept this very reasonable amendment, which covers a most important subject and creates a further degree of logically in the Bill.
      Mr. Kevin McNamara: I wish to draw attention to the vague phraseology of the clause encompassed in the words
      "amount as, in the opinion of the Treasury"
      and later
      "may make regulations"
      It is incumbent on the Government to state the way in which the revenue will be apportioned.
      I am sure that the purpose of the vague and permissive phraseology is simply to leave the options open and to cover situations that may not be visualised. But because of the trouble we have had over this matter in the past it is important that the Committee and the public should know how the cake will be sliced.
      Mr. David Howell: I shall endeavour to show that in tis part of the Bill the proposals are set out with some pre-
      786
      cision. When I have explained how it will operate in practice, the Committee may agree that there is not much room for vagueness—nor should there be in this important area of financial provision—and that what is presented makes sense in a way that accords with the best principles of financial practice in public administration.
      Under the Bill the Northern Ireland share of United Kingdom taxes will be determined by the Treasury, but in each case the determination must be in accordance with a method of attribution to be set out in regulations that will be contained in a statutory instrument. That is the important point to establish.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: The subsection provides that regulations "may" be made. May we have a specific assurance that the intention is to make regulations?
      Mr. Howell: The Committee may have the assurance that the intention and aim is that there shall be regulations. They will be in the form of a statutory instrument that will ensure that Parliament is able to satisfy itself about the fairness of the tax share determination, because it will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
      The regulations mentioned in subsection (3) will be a good deal more precise than is indicated by the wording that is necessary to put the procedure in statutory form. There will be an annual determination, which will, in effect, be a mathematical exercise in accordance with the rules and formulae contained in the regulations under subsection (3) which can and will be scrutinised by the House of Commons. In practice, it is extremely likely that the regulations will be broadly similar to those that were adopted by the Joint Exchequer Board, and the Department of Finance will continue to enjoy its close relationship with the Treasury in such matters.
      In practice, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) shrewdly diagnosed, the actual procedure, the method of calculation and the sums that will be produced will be little different from those produced when there was a Joint Exchequer Board. As my hon. Friend suggested, the board worked in the spirit of approving the calculations already made rather than as a negotiating body to

      787
      batter out what the share should be. That was not the system in the past, and it is not intended to be the system in future
      The determination of the Northern Ireland share of United Kingdom taxes will be a tightly circumscribed process, executed by the Treasury once the regulations have been promulgated. It would be inappropriate and unnecessary for there to be consultations on something that will be closely governed by regulations and will be on the lines of a mathematical exercise. It will be possible to debate the regulations upon which the exercise is based.
      Captain Orr: Is there any mechanism by which the regulations can be discussed in the Assembly as well as in the House of Commons?
      Mr. Howell: No. The regulations can always he discussed in the Assembly. There is nothing to prevent the Assembly discussing anything it wishes to discuss. But the Assembly would not have the power that the House of Commons has to negative the regulations. Certainly, in the Assembly opinions may be ventilated and discussions may be held on the regulations and the way in which they operate, and whether they are operating reasonably.
      As we are, by the nature of the amendment, discussing the whole purpose of the clause and the mechanism by which the Northern Ireland share will be determined, I should say that in subsection (2) there is provision for "other appropriate costs" to be deducted when the calculation is being made of Northern Ireland's share, which will be the accepted tax proceeds after deduction of the cost of collection falling upon the United Kingdom. In case any hon. Member should think that there is anything sinister in the phrase "other appropriate costs", I should explain that it is intended to cover a deduction that might represent the Northern Ireland share of European Economic Community levies.
      Under this subsection it is not intended to make deductions that are not strictly relevant to the tax-sharing concept. The phrase "other appropriate costs" is not intended to refer to deductions for reserve services—the old Imperial con-
      788
      tribution that was featured in the previous deductions from the Northern Ireland share of reserve taxes under the outgoing procedure.
      I hope that that assures my hon. Friends that they can be confident that the share of United Kingdom taxes attributable to Northern Ireland will be worked out in observable regulations, which may be scrutinised, criticised and discussed and which will be subject to the control that the House of Commons can exercise upon a statutory instrument. For these reasons I believe the amendment to be unnecessary. I advise the Committee that the procedure will work, and will be seen to work, and I hope that my hon. Friend will agree to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for a very full reply, which has clarified our minds as to the way in which the procedure will work.
      In the light of my hon. Friend's assurance that regulations will be made which will be published and be available for consideration by this House, so that the basis of the relationship is set out clearly in those published documents, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 17

      DISCRIMINATION IN LEGISLATION
      9.15 p.m.
      Mr. Michael English: I beg to move Amendment No. 65, in page 11, line 21, leave out subsection (1) and insert:
      '(1) Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920, as amended before the commencement of this Act, shall apply to any Measure or any relevant subordinate instrument as it applies to any Act of Parliament of Northern Ireland'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this amendment I understand that it will be convenient for the Committee to discuss Amendment No. 64, in Schedule 6, page 36, line 7, leave out 'to' and insert 'and'.
      Mr. English: It may be convenient if I begin with some reference to Amendment No. 64. It relates to Schedule 6. In that Schedule there are about 340 separate repeals.
      Perhaps I might say in passing that I hope that the Minister will convey to the parliamentary draftsmen that in this case the results of their normal practices have been of the utmost inconvenience to hon. Members. I am aware that it is customary to set out repeal schedules in such a way that when a measure is passed someone can note up all preceding legislation simply by running through the repeal schedule. If we printed our Bills in the way in which the Americans do and reprinted all the provisions being altered by a repeal schedule, it would be simple. But the result of the practice adopted here has in this case been that the Library has had to do a colossal amount of work on my behalf to produce copies of the provisions proposed to be repealed.
      The majority of the repeals are purely technical. In most cases an Act of Parliament has been passed some time after 1920 which adds to the powers of the Parliament in Northern Ireland. By this Bill we are getting rid of that Parliament and replacing it with an Assembly which is to have rather different powers. For that reason it is necessary to repeal all these old sections in various Acts. However, hidden away there is the odd provision which in my view is of greater importance. This is where the difficulty arises. There is no mention of Schedule 6 in the Explanatory Memorandum, yet Explanatory Memoranda to Bills are intended to do exactly this job. Somewhere in the Explanatory Memorandum it should have said that Schedule 6 was primarily technical but that there were odd repeals to which attention should be drawn, and then some reference should have been made to them.
      In the schedule the second repeal proposed relates simply to Sections 4 to 6 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Amendment 64 proposes that Sections 4 and 6 should be repealed.
      I wish to question the Minister about Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. I say that I wish to question him because we are in Committee and, should I catch your eye, Mr. Mallalieu, I could no doubt speak again. Why is
      790
      Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 being repealed?
      Section 5 of that Act provides:
      "In the exercise of their power to make laws under this Act neither the Parliament of Southern Ireland"—
      those last six words are later deleted by amendment—
      "nor the Parliament of Northern Ireland shall make a law so as either directly or indirectly to establish or endow any religion, or prohibit or restrict the free exercise thereof, or give a preference, privilege, or advantage, or impose any disability or disadvantage, on account of religious belief or religious or ecclesiastical status, or make any religious belief or religious ceremony a condition of the validity of any marriage, or affect prejudicially the right of any child to attend a school receiving public money without attending the religious instruction at that school, or alter the constitution of any religious body except where the alteration is approved on behalf of the religious body by the governing body thereof, or divert from any religious denomination the fabric of cathedral churches, or, except for the purpose of roads, railways, lighting, water, or drainage works, or other works of public utility upon payment of compensation, any other property".
      I am aware—this is where I come to Amendment No. 65—that Clause 17(1) provides:
      "Any Measure, any Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland and any relevant subordinate instrument shall, to the extent that it discriminates against any person or class of persons on the ground of religious belief or political opinion, be void."
      But that is all it provides. If the repeal in the schedule were like others of the 340-odd repeals in that schedule, it would merely have been repealed because, roughly speaking, it was being replaced by some other provision in the Bill or because it was spent because the Assembly would not have a power that, for example, the old Parliament of Northern Ireland had.
      The words in Section 5 of the 1920 Act now being repealed are much more extensive than the words in Clause 17(1). I did not read the whole of Section 5. It further provides:
      "Any law made in contravention of the restrictions imposed by this subsection shall, so far as it contravenes those restrictions, be void."
      I am aware that the last part was modified by a later Act. Nevertheless, the earlier part is still the law until the Bill is passed. It seems to me that Section 5 of the 1920 Act is much wider than

      791
      Clause 17(1). Therefore, I wish to ask: why, in effect, is the Assembly being given more power relating to matters religious than the old Parliament of Northern Ireland had?
      As we all know, discrimination is a difficult matter in itself. The old section, to take one example, prohibits the endowment of any religion. The new one merely prohibits discrimination. Therefore, if somebody in the Assembly wanted to pour out money on the Churches of Ireland presumably, provided two-thirds was given to the Presbyterian Church and only one-third to the Catholic Church, he would now be entitled to do so because it could be argued that that is not discriminatory, whereas the old section would have prohibited that from being done.
      Furthermore, the old section totally prohibited the Parliament of Northern Ireland from preventing a child attending a school receiving public money without attending the religious instruction at that school. It may be that we want completely secular education in Northern Ireland, but if we do, I do not think that the argument should be hidden away in a schedule containing about 340 technical repeals. This is an important subject. Hon. Members, and people in Northern Ireland, have varying views on it. But whatever one's view on a particular point, the matter should not be dealt with by being tucked away in a repeal schedule as though it did not matter.
      I do not wish to press the point, but I should have thought that religion went to the heart of the difficulties of Northern Ireland. The Belfast Telegraph once did a poll among the people of Northern Ireland and found that two-thirds of the community, both Protestant and Catholic were in favour of desegregating education in Northern Ireland. It is a subject on which people have varying views, and it is an important matter.
      I do not wish to press this unduly, but I wish the Minister to explain why he is making this change. I have suggested in my Amendment 65 that he should keep Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. I have not heard any criticism of it. We need a provision such as one finds here prohibiting discrimination, but Section 5 of the 1920 Act does much more than that. It prohibits not only discrimination but also a whole series of
      792
      other things, including taking away the property of Churches without compensation.
      After all, by 1920 there had been a long period during the nineteenth century when education in Ireland had been discussed at almost inordinate length under grave difficulties due to the attitudes of Churches of all faiths. The Members of the House who then passed that section had a considerable knowledge of all the things that it was necessary to put in a section of that character, and they put them in. It seems to me that now we are quietly weakening the provisions of that section.
      I wonder whether the Minister can possibly explain why this is being done. There may be a good explanation for it but I, and, I think, possibly others, would like to hear what it is and why it is being done in this rather covert way.
      Captain Orr: The hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has raised an interesting point. I am sure that there must be a good explanation for this. It appears that by substituting the words in the Bill for Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act of 1920 we are saying that we are removing the obligation not to discriminate in favour of something, and that all we are saying is that the authorities shall not discriminate against.
      I do not know whether that is the effect of the change, or whether the answer lies in Clause 20, with a standing commission, but I cannot imagine that discrimination by any authority in Northern Ireland in favour of one sect or religion would not be caught under the Bill as drafted. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman has put his finger on an interesting point, and I agree that we should have been told more about this rather than have it put into a schedule in this way.
      Mr. Peter Mills: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I think that the best thing for me to do to begin with is to set out the effect of Amendment No. 64.
      If the amendment were accepted, the effect would be to remove Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 from the list of provisions repealed by Schedule 6. Amendment No. 65 would apply the provisions of Section 5, which prohibit

      793
      legislation which discriminates on the grounds of religion, to measures of the Northern Ireland Assembly, in place of the prohibition on religious and political discrimination which is made in Clause 17(1).
      Clause 17(1) gives effect to the Government's undertaking in paragraph 95 of the White Paper to embody in the Constitution Bill safeguards against religious or political discrimination in the use of the Assembly's law making powers. Both this undertaking, and the provision of Clause 17(1), refer to the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of political opinion as well as on the grounds of religious belief. Section 5(1) of the 1920 Act, which the hon. Member wishes to retain, prohibited discrimination only on grounds of religious belief.
      Mr. English: I agree that there is a flaw in the amendment, but it was a probing amendment. I am entirely happy to retain Clause 17(1) as well as Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920. In relation to religion, Section 5 appears to be a wider section.
      Mr. Peter Mills: I hope the hon. Member will let me finish, as this is a rather technical point. I hope that in the end I will convince him. Section 5(1) of the 1920 Act prohibited discrimination only on the grounds of religious belief. Clause 17(1) goes much wider and brings in the political provision. The Government feel that this is an important extension. While there has been a tendency in some places to identify religious belief with political opinion in Northern Irleand, a great number of allegations of discrimination refer to discrimination based on political rather than on religious grounds.
      The hon. Member argued that Clause 17(1) is narrower than Section 5(1) on the matter of religion. It is certainly shorter. There is no point in my reading out Section 5(1) but what the hon. Member read out was correct. These words spell out the concept of religious discrimination in some detail but it is not considered, on analysis, that they prohibit anything which would not be prohibited by the much simpler and shorter wording of Clause 17(1) which provides that any measure shall be void
      794
      "… to the extent that it discriminates against any person or class of persons on the ground of religious belief or political opinion …".
      Thus we have compressed the words of Section 5(1) in Clause 17(1) but it is at least as wide in relation to religion. The hon. Member need have no fear; this adequately covers the point.
      We shall have to reject these amendments because as drafted Clause 17(1) is shorter and simpler. This is important. Unlike Section 5(1), it prohibits political as well as religious discrimination. I can assure the hon. Member that we feel strongly that the words in the Bill cover the point about religion but adds to it and strengthens it because there is a political ground as well.
      Mr. McMaster: There is one point on which I am not clear. My hon. Friend will be aware that in the past substantial grants have been given to Roman Catholic Church schools in Northern Ireland. What would be the position on such grants and assistance under this provision? Would they fall foul of subsection (1) in that they may be interpreted as discrimination against Protestants and other religions? How can grants be given in favour of one particular class of school and not in favour of others?
      Mr. Peter Mills: With great respect, I do not think that we can accept what my hon. Friend says. I do not think that that is discrimination.
      Mr. English: I am grateful to the Minister. I entirely accept his point about political opinion, and for that reason I will not press the amendment, but I would ask him to have another look at my point about religion. On religion alone, the provision has been changed although I accept that the antidiscrimination provision is wider since political opinion has been added.
      As one example out of many, although Section 5 of the 1920 Act did not prohibit the giving of money to Church schools, it did prohibit the giving of money to Churches. The Clause does not prohibit the giving of money to Churches but says that one must not discriminate. How would that be ensured? Would one count heads or Church buildings? There is a difference here. Possibly, in struggling through these provisions—the draftsmen must have had a hell of a

      795
      job—someone may have regarded this as an identical provision, when it is not.
      I ask the Minister to take this back and to ask the lawyers whether they are absolutely sure that there is no change that we would regard as politically undesirable that has been brought about by change in the wording. I should be happy if that sort of inquiry were instituted. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would be well aware of the political point if one were brought to his attention, but there seems to be a slight difference. Would the Minister have another look at this?
      Mr. Peter Mills: A very short answer for once—yes.
      Mr. English: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: This is probably the appropriate time to raise a small but important point. The heading on page 24 of the White Paper was "A Charter of Human Rights". I believe that it was envisaged that there would be some form of charter. This may be a misunderstanding of the White Paper, but it is a belief that was widely held.
      It will also be recalled that a number of the parties who made submission to Darlington and at various other stages included this suggestion in their proposals. It is fairly generally accepted by the parties in Northern Ireland that there should be some codification or charter relating to human rights. This has not been included in the Bill, although a number of specific aspects of the subject have been dealt with. I should be grateful to know my right hon. Friend's thinking on this point.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I am tempted to ask why it was thought necessary to extend this provision to include discrimination on grounds of political opinion. We would all accept that no one should be hampered in his career, or in obtaining employment, by his political opinions, but if the meaning of "political opinion" is to be wide enough to include, for example, those who might support organisations that use violence to obtain political ends, it is reasonable to expect
      796
      employers in sensitive key areas to be permitted to exercise some discretion at least about the department in which they would employ such people. I am drawing the distinction between political opinion and what might be termed membership of, for example, some form of militant body expressing views or openly adhering to views which we, in the context of this place, would regard as other than political.
      Secondly, we have rather got away from the spirit of the Government of Ireland Act, which made it illegal to discriminate in favour of any person on grounds of religion. This is not as far fetched as it may seem. At present I have a problem concerning a Jewish constituent who has been refused an educational grant. Although such grants are freely given in Great Britain, my constituent, being a resident of Northern Ireland, is barred by the relevant section of the Government of Ireland Act, simply because he wishes to attend a Jewish college specialising in Jewish religious education. It seems monstrously unfair.
      It will be every bit as destructive if we push the pendulum too far the other way, saying that because there are four people of one religion in a particular department another religion should be represented. Then, whether or not replacements are of the same calibre, one feels that at all costs some kind of balance has to be preserved. Here is discrimination in favour of a particular religion. One suspects that this kind of thing is happening a great deal, and we should be very reluctant to encourage it.
      Captain Orr: We are dealing with the question of measures or Acts of Parliament of Northern Ireland. We are substituting for Section 5 of the Government of Ireland Act these shorter words. Section 5 of that Act was never invoked. Throughout its long history the Parliament of Northern Ireland never passed legislation of any kind that contravened Section 5 of that Act. Nor, I believe, would the Assembly ever want to pass any kind of discriminatory Bill.
      The vast majority of the people of Northern Ireland have no wish to discriminate against their neighbours on grounds of religion or political opinion—although I share the doubts of my hon.

      797
      Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) about that phrase.
      I want to put it on record—this is as good a place as any to do that—that the vast majority of our people have every wish to treat any man who wishes to obey the law with the same kind of equality of treatment before the law, whatever his religion. Anything else is unthinkable. One would almost hope that the part of the Bill with which we are dealing is unnecessary. I should not oppose its being put in to enshrine a principle, but knowing the Ulster people as I do and knowing the kind of people who will be elected to the Assembly, I profoundly believe that it is not necessary.
      Mr. Whitelaw: I follow the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). I am glad to associate myself with his belief that these provisions, which we are right to have in the Bill, nevertheless will not have to be invoked. I trust that that is so and I note what my hon. and gallant Friend has said.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) asked about a charter of human rights. We believe that the various measures which we have introduced in the Bill and, as I shall say, further in the area of discrimination in private employment, taken together with the various other safeguards such as the commissioner for complaints, and so on, add up to a charter of human rights if considered in the round.
      On the point about discrimination in private employment, the committee under my hon. Friend the Minister of State has completed its report, which will be published. The report has the unanimous backing of the employers and the trade unions in Northern Ireland, and I should like to thank my hon. Friend and all those who took part in the Committee with him for the way in which they have worked. The report will be published and we have undertaken to legislate on the basis of it. That is another measure that goes towards a charter of human rights. It is welcome not because it stems from our seeking in any way to impose it but because it comes from the employers and trade unions in the Province.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. McNamara: May I raise two points here so that I may avoid having to make a speech? First, we regret that the Government did not feel it possible to produce a completely new charter. We believe that a charter such as that might have had great political importance. On the Secretary of State's second point, about joint agreement between employers and trade unions in Northern Ireland and, more particularly, the legislation that will flow from it, we are delighted with what he has said. From the Opposition side of the House we hope that there will not need to be any further speeches on the remaining clauses, until we reach Clause 20.
      Mr. Whitelaw: Whether a collection of individual measures adds up to a charter or whether the charter, specifically produced as such, is the right approach, is a point for argument, but there is no disagreement about the principle of that charter. We believe that that is the best way to proceed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) made an appropriate point about violence. The answer lies in Clause 23(3) and (4). He will notice, for example, that subsection (4) provides that
      "A certificate purporting to be signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and certifying that an act specified in the certificate was done for the purpose of safeguarding national security shall be conclusive evidence that it was done for that purpose."
      That covers the points about violence, and it is clear and correct. There are clearly cases where there is no question but that it would be right, under such a provision, to discriminate against someone known to be connected with violence, in order to prevent his taking up a position that would be prejudicial to national security.
      On the point about my hon. Friend's Jewish constituent, if he would care to refer the case to me or to one of my Ministers we should be glad to look into it.
      Mr. Molyneaux: That is a real breakthrough. I have been fighting this case for two years and I have been stonewalled by Ministers in Stormont and in this House.
      Mr. Whitelaw: It is dangerous that on the spur of the moment I seem to have offered to do something that has caused considerable difficulty in the past. If, ultimately, I have to join the stonewallers I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand that it will be for a good reason.
      On that basis, I think that the points that have been made on the clause have been properly and, I hope, reasonably answered, and that the House will therefore be prepared to agree to the clause.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 18

      SPECIAL PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING VALIDITY OF LEGISLATION
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. McMaster: I have one point which I should like clarified. The clause provides that the Secretary of State shall determine whether any matter falls foul of the provisions we have just passed on Clause 17 and, if he considers that they do, that the question can be referred to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I wanted to inquire whether this is the only procedure under which validity may be questioned under the provisions of Clause 17. Is the Secretary of State the final judge whether a matter may be referred to the Judicial Committee? What representations may be made to the Secretary of State? Is it possible that any individual who is not satisfied with a decision of the Secretary of State may refer the matter directly to the Judicial Committee, and what remedy will he have?
      These are important matters relating to the provisions of the previous clause, relating to discrimination. It is important, if the provisions of Clause 17 are to have any effect, that as wide a procedure as possible should be laid down in the Bill allowing people who feel they have a complaint to go to the Privy Council. It should not be left entirely in the hands of my right hon. Friend and entirely at his discretion. I shall be interested to hear his comments.
      Mr. Whitelaw: Nothing in this provision inhibits in any way the individual's
      800
      right to go to the courts. This provision was put in as an additional and very important safeguard in that it would, in particular matters where a judgment would be necessary, remove the issue from the political arena of the Secretary of State to the highest judicial authority one can find, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was deliberately done for this purpose. References to the Judicial Committee would have to be made by the Secretary of State, but the right of the individual to go to the courts is preserved. That is totally unaffected by this provision.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 20

      THE STANDING ADVISORY COMMISSION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Powell: I have a query arising from the interpretation of this clause, and perhaps my right hon. Friend can deal with it. It relates to subsection (1)(b), by which the commission is to keep
      "the Secretary of State informed as to the extent to which the persons … mentioned in Section 19(1) above have prevented discrimination … by persons or bodies not prohibited from discriminating by that law".
      My difficulty is this. When I look at Clause 19(1) I find that it is unlawful for a Minister and other persons there listed to discriminate themselves or to aid, induce or incite other persons to discriminate. That I understand very well. They are neither to do it themselves, nor are they to aid, induce or incite others to discriminate. It does not, however, from that appear to me that they have the duty which seems to be implied in Clause 20(1)(b) of preventing persons who are under no legal prohibition against discriminating from doing so. In other words, Clause 20(1)(a) appears to give a new duty to the persons set out in Clause 19(1). That looks to me like an unexpected result. It probably arises from a misunderstanding, but no doubt, my

      801
      right hon. Friend will clear the point up when he replies to the debate.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is that paraphernalia really necessary? Northern Ireland has a Community Relations Commission, a Parliamentary Commissioner and a Commissioner for Complains, which is one more than we have in Great Britain. What useful purpose will be served by adding a Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights to the welter of organs operating in this field? I should like my right hon. Friend to consider that question on grounds of both efficiency and expense.
      Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is right to say that in Northern Ireland we have a considerable number of different agencies in this field. A body of the sort proposed would very much help to co-ordinate their activities. It would be of help to the Secretary of State and the community. It is important that the different agencies should be co-ordinated, and for that reason the commission will be valuable.
      I take the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). The example that I am given when subsection (1)(b) could be used is a Government contract with a non-discrimination clause. I shall further consider my right hon. Friend's point, which I think is covered in that way. It is a valid point, on which I am prepared to give my right hon. Friend further answers.
      Mr. Powell: I am much obliged.
      Captain Orr: Is it intended to have a department of community relations in the new Executive? In other words, is there the equivalent of a Minister for Community Relations in the new Government? If there is, any co-ordination that had to be done would best be done through his department.
      Mr. Whitelaw: The method proposed in the Clause is probably the best method of co-ordination. I believe that this approach will have considerable value.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 21

      UNLAWFUL OATHS, UNDERTAKINGS AND DECLARATIONS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. McNamara: On behalf of the Opposition I welcome this clause. It does away with what was a very real grievance for some people in Northern Ireland, who found the necessity to take oaths to obtain certain jobs a great burden. It is an important matter, when the taking of such oaths was not really necessary for the pursuance of the employment in question.
      Subsection (2)(b) contains provision for a subsequent measure to enact that an oath shall be taken. No doubt we are right to assume that this will be for purposes other than religious or political discrimination, because of the provisions that we have already passed. If there were any doubt, the matter would eventually have to go to the Secretary of State and the Privy Council. I mention the point in case anyone is thinking that the provisions leaves a loophole through which such an oath could be introduced. We read the Bill as adequately preventing the discrimination that existed before.
      Mr. Mills: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he said. Clause 21 prevents specific authorities and bodies from requiring persons to take an oath or declaration as a condition of employment of service or appointment, except in certain circumstances. It implements paragraph 64 of the White Paper. Following the White Paper those declarations required by the law of Northern Ireland were reviewed—
      It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress.

      UNLAWFUL OATHS, UNDERTAKINGS AND DECLARATIONS

        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. Fortescue.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Mr. Mills: The Oaths and Declarations (Repeals) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 repealed a number of provisions which imposed a requirement to take an oath or declaration in circumstances where it was not required in the remainder of the United Kingdom. Paragraph (b) is required to cover the possibility that because of changing circumstances an oath or declaration which would be required in comparable circumstances in Great Britain might be prohibited by the clause. Accordingly it provides a degree of flexibility. Subsection (1) does not prohibit an oath or declaration which is required or authorised to be taken or made under the Bill of a measure. Since oaths and undertakings are a reserved matter, any Northern Ireland legislation concerning oaths will be subject to the procedures for legislation on reserved matters in Clauses 5 and 6. It is therefore under our control.
  This is an important matter and I again welcome what the hon. Gentleman said. I can tell him that there are no loopholes.
  Question put and agreed to
  Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
  Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION BILL
    Clause 23

      INTERPRETATION AND SUPPLEMENTAL
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. McNamara: There is just one small item to raise on this clause relating to subsection (3), which reads:
      "No Measure, Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or other instrument and no act done by any person shall be treated for the purposes of this Act as discriminating if the instrument has the effect, or, as the case may be, the act is done for the purpose, of safeguarding national security or protecting public safety or public order.
      804
      We are using this basically as a tag upon which to hang a brief mention of the Flags and Emblems Act. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will know of the degree of unhappiness that there is in the minority section of the community in Northern Ireland about that Act. It is our information that the existence of the Act is in many ways an affront to people who quite legitimately, as is now recognised in the House, whilst being citizens of the United Kingdom, looked forward to the possibility of there being a united Ireland.
      We feel that there are adequate provisions under other legislation regarding the preservation of law and order and the preservation of public safety and of public order as termed under the subsection to render quite easy and possible the repeal of the Act by the Government at this stage. It would be a gesture, but an important one.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I doubt whether the Flags and Emblems Act comes under this clause. If the hon. Gentleman does not go too far with it, I am prepared to turn a deaf ear, however.
      Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to you, Mr. Mallalieu. The point I am making relates to the question of an Act of Parliament of Northern Ireland which concerns
      "… national security or promoting public safety or public order."
      I am seeking some statement of the Government's intention with regard to the Flags and Emblems Act. We feel that the circumstances covered by that Act could adequately be covered by other legislation. The Act is regarded as something of an affront to quite a number of Her Majesty's citizens.
      Captain Orr: Can my hon. Friend say a little more about the extension of the term "discrimination" to include political as well as religious opinions? There may be some kind of case law, for example, dealing with the definitions in the clause. I do not know. Supposing, for example, that one were to form a political club and to say, "We shall admit as members only people who hold our own political views." Would that be held to be discriminating on grounds of political

      805
      opinion? This seems a possible difficulty. Have there been examples of discrimination on grounds not of religion but of political opinion which have made this provision necessary? Upon whose advice was it felt necessary to extend it in this way?
      The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) criticised subsection (3). I very much welcome it. Without it, we would have very great difficulties indeed.
      Mr. McMaster: We have now reached the end of Part III of the Bill dealing with provisions on religious and political discrimination. Part III consists of seven clauses, all of them devoted to the subject of discrimination. It even appoints a committee called the "Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights". But the human rights seem entirely to consist of consideration of discrimination.
      There seems to be almost an obsession in the Bill with matters of discrimination. It provides that there shall be no political or religious discrimination. But there are other matters which concern human rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of arrest and equality under the law.
      What concerns us most in Northern Ireland is the disregard of the rule of law, but there are no provisions in the Bill to deal with that. It is a much more serious complaint and should have been covered in Part III, particularly as it refers to human rights. In the troubles in Northern Ireland over the past three years, ordinary rights have been taken away by assaults on individuals by members of the IRA in particular. People have been injured, maimed or killed and their property destroyed. These matters should be much more a concern of the Bill.
      It is certainly a matter of grave concern to me that these should be the only provisions set out here which concern my right hon. Friend and the Government. They seem to imply that the root of the trouble in Northern Ireland has been some form of discrimination.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. This clause deals with measures. The hon. Member is dealing with illegal actions by individuals. I will again turn
      806
      a deaf ear if he does not go on for too long.
      Mr. McMaster: I am dealing with Clause 23 which states:
      "For the purposes of this Part of this Act a Measure, an Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or any other instrument discriminates against any person or class of persons …"
      My complaint is that this Clause and others in this Part of the Bill are concerned too much with discrimination. This clause and the six preceding it do no justice to Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Peter Mills: I welcome what was said by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). He is right that subsection (3) makes important exceptions to the definition of discrimination. Actions are not discriminatory if they are done for the purpose of safeguarding national security, protecting public safety or public order. I believe that the question of flags is outside the scope of this clause.
      The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is not a problem at all. If he looks at subsection (2) he will see that it says,
      "For those purposes a person discriminates against another person or a class of persons if he treats that other person or that class less favourably in any circumstances than he treats or would treat other persons in those circumstances."
      This is a matter for the courts to decide.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 24

      PRESIDING OFFICER AND CLERK OF THE ASSEMBLY
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Captain Orr: Can my right hon. Friend tell us anything about the kind of person who it is expected will be the Clerk of the Assembly? It seems that he will have a very difficult and responsible job. He will presumably have to deal with the problem of the Standing

      807
      Orders and will also have to preside over the Assembly for all the time that it may take my right hon. Friend to form an Executive. He may have to preside over it for some considerable time and will obviously need to be a person of considerable talent. Has my right hon. Friend any idea whether he will consider the present Clerk of the Parliament at Stormont, a man of considerable experience?
      Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend for raising this matter. It enables me to say that, subject to the passing of this measure, I would intend to recommend the appointment of Mr. Blackburn, the present Clerk of the Parliament of Stormont, to this job.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 25

      PROCEDURE
      10.15 p.m.
      Mr. McMaster: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 17, line 40, leave out from first 'the' to beginning of line 43 and insert:
      'appointment of a chairman of each consultative committee'.
      My hon. Friends and I feel that the appointment of a chairman for each consultative committee should be separate from the appointment of members of the Executive. It is in the interests of good government in Northern Ireland that people who serve as chairmen of the consultative committees should not be part of the Executive. They should be independent from the Executive and as such better able to criticise the Government and to have more influence in framing policy.
      The purpose of this part of the Bill is that power should be shared with all sections of opinion in the Assembly. It is important that people who represent various types of opinion reflected in the Assembly should be independent of the Executive, and should sit as chairmen of important committees able to consider various facets of Government policy and to make their influence felt with the Executive. To provide that members of the Executive shall act as chairmen of the committees will inhibit the committees from acting freely and performing as useful a function as they might perform if an independent member became chairman of the committee.
      Mr. Powell: I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that it would be entirely in the interests of the objects he has in mind to accept the amendment. This subsection is part, so far as the Assembly goes, of the power-sharing policy implicit in the White Paper and in the Bill. Nevertheless, as drafted, the subsection imports a rigidity which, in practice and after experience, my right hon. Friend may come to regret.
      There is a certain contradiction and dual nature in the consultative committees as they appear in the clause. On the one hand, they are to be the advisers,
      810
      guides, philosophers and friends of the respective heads of Departments, or Ministers, as we would think of them. On the other hand, it is clear that they will be critical and investigatory, and the next subsection is designed to give them the sort of investigatory powers with which Select Committees of the House are rightly and necessarily endowed.
      I very much doubt whether it is possible successfully to combine the two functions. There are consultative committees known to the statute law of the United Kingdom. Several departmental Ministers for various purposes—I can think of them in the context of the Department of the Environment—are provided with advisory committees. Those committees are recruited not from the House of Commons but from individuals with specialist knowledge in different departments—housing, water, sanitation and so on—and are drawn into consultation of a kind which is expert rather than policy-making.
      One may contrast the case of the committee of the local authority, at the head of which is the party leader on that subject. He is the head of the committee by virtue of being party leader because that committee is itself the governing body, in effect, for that subject. The majority in case of dispute will carry the day and it is the policy of the majority party that the committee will put into effect. That will not be the case here. The chairmen are to be members of the Assembly, selected not for the purpose of carrying by a majority whatever may be the policy of the head of the Department but rather for the purpose of putting him in a different frame of mind from that in which he might have set out.
      There is the alternative kind of committee that is as separate as possible from the Department, which approaches its doings in a critical frame of mind with independent sources of information and presents not merely to the Department but to public opinion and to open discussion inside and outside the Assembly criticisms and alternatives which might not have been thought of in the ordinary way by the Department.
      We are here storing up trouble for ourselves by an unhappy attempt to combine these different kinds of committee. It may

      811
      in some cases be found possible, or it may experimentally be desirable, to try such a committee with the head of the Department as its chairman, but I seriously suggest to my right hon. Friend that this is an experimental field, that as time goes on no doubt changes will be desirable if the experiment begins to work and that my right hon. Friend may find it most inconvenient to be obliged in all cases to place these committees in the charge of the head of the Department.
      Nothing in the wording which my hon. Friend has proposed would prevent that happening, but the amendment will relieve my right hon. Friend from the embarrassment of being either obliged to carry on in that way or to come back to the House of Commons for an amendment of the law if he wants to try a different form of consultative committee. Without in any way criticising or entering into the larger question of power-sharing for the Assembly, I suggest that the greater flexibility which my hon. Friend's amendment would import is here desirable.
      Mr. Whitelaw: Here, again, there is a genuine problem of which is the right way to go. There are arguments both ways. On the one hand, there is the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) and developed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) for a committee which is entirely separate from the Department. On the other hand, there is the argument, particularly in a comparatively small Assembly of 78, that by divorcing the two one may produce a built-in area of conflict.
      On the basis proposed in the Bill it is also true that there is a strong argument for saying that the head of a Department has to carry the consultative committee with him in many of his legislative proposals. The fact that someone can carry a consultative committee with him, especially if he has to test some of the views of his Department before that committee, is a valuable process in a pre-legislation sense.
      I have thought a lot about this. I had considerable experience of it as Leader of the House. I have thought a great deal about the right way to proceed, and I have come to the conclusion that this
      812
      is the best way. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West makes the very fair point that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and that if I argue for flexibility in some cases I cannot argue for rigidity in others. For that reason it is fair to say that the point of flexibility is an important one to be considered.
      I am prepared to consider this matter, without commitment. Frankly I believe that the way we are proposing is right. I do not wish to fob off my right hon. and hon. Friends by saying that I am impressed to the point of changing it. But having heard their arguments, it would be wrong for me not to say that I shall consider them, without commitment, on the basis that it may be right to proceed in the way that we propose and that it may be wrong to be totally inflexible about it.
      Captain Orr: My right hon. Friend's open-mindedness on this subject is helpful to us. It is a matter of judgment and I agree that it is difficult to judge. I come down on the side of having committees which are critical in nature. It is better for the parliamentary process that this should be so. It is a better check upon the Executive. I have the feeling that if the Assembly and the committees of the Assembly are used to form policy or to advise upon policy we get away from the proper function of an Assembly.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) spoke about advisory committees. There was never any prohibition upon members of this House belonging to advisory or consultative committees. On one occasion I was a member of such a committee concerned with the Post Office. There would be no bar to heads of Departments inviting any member with any specialist knowledge of a subject to become a member of a consultative committee.
      I still come down on the side of the sense of this amendment. But I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments. There is a great deal to be said for not tying him. If the amendment were accepted it would still be possible to make the head of a Department the chairman of the appropriate committee without my

      813
      right hon. Friend tying himself. However, in the light of what my right hon. Friend said, I am inclined to advise my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. McMaster: I must thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the sympathetic way in which he considered my suggestion. In view of his remarks, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 26

      PRIVILEGES, REMUNERATION, ETC.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      10.30 p.m.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: I wish to raise one brief point, not in a contenious fashion, to establish the facts of the situation.
      My understanding of the clause is that somebody who was elected to the Assembly, standing as a wrecker on a policy of abstention, need not attend, yet would be entitled to be paid a salary as a Member of the Assembly. This seems an absurd situation. Is my understanding correct and will my right hon. Friend let me have his comments on it?
      Mr. Whitelaw: The position is as stated by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills). There is little value in making strict conditions about salaries, because they can so easily be got round. It seemed right to decide to pay the salary and to leave it at that. There are so many ways of getting round whatever rule we may have that I did not consider it wise to try to put anything like that in the Bill.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 27

      DISSOLUTION AND PROROGATION
      Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 19, line 21, after 'day', insert:
      'or on a motion requesting dissolution moved in the Assembly and approved by a simple majority of members of the Assembly'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I suggest that it will be convenient to discuss at the same time the following Amendments:
      No. 60, in page 19, line 43, leave out subsection (5).
      No. 35, in page 20, line 7, leave out subsection (6).
      Captain Orr: The amendment seeks to allow the Assembly, if necessary, to dissolve itself. The purpose is fairly plain. At present the provisions for dissolution laid down in the clause are that it will be dissolved
      "if an Order in Council is made under section 2 above before 30th March 1974, on the fourth anniversary of the appointed day"
      and so on.
      I think that there ought to be some method by which, if the Executive should lose the confidence of the Assembly, a motion may be moved in the Assembly which would result in dissolution. I do not think that at this time of night I need deploy a great deal of argument about it. However, I should like to hear my right hon. Friend's views upon that proposal.
      [Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I think that there is some sense in what was said by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) about trying to find a better method of dealing with dissolution and prorogation. However, I am not sure that giving that power to the Assembly in Northern Ireland at this stage is the best way of setting about it.
      I agree that this whole matter of dissolution and prorogation is difficult. Certainly in the context of this Parliament we have not found it possible to spell it out in legislative form. It has developed and grown over the years, and it is extremely difficult to formulate it for those

      815
      who come to study our parliamentary system de novo.
      There are many classical cases of dissolution, and the relationship between the Prime Minister of the day and the monarch sometimes adds to the reasons for dissolution being granted. In the context of this country, I have always thought that that is the best way of dealing with the matter, not least for the flexibility that it provides. This is one of the hallmarks of our constitution, and I get worried when we get involved in more formal Government in other respects.
      It is difficult for the Secretary of State to start afresh and to find suitable words to include in a statute to incorporate ideas that have developed over the years, bearing in mind that we are dealing with an Assembly. Given the curious nature of the Assembly that we are setting up, I wonder whether it is possible to ensure that if it has to be dissolved or prorogued that is done not by an Order in Council but by the Westminster Parliament via the Secretary of State. That would at least put back where it belongs the control of something that is vitally important.
      As I said on Second Reading, the Secretary of State has taken an enormous amount of power unto himself and his successors. I have no grumble about that in any personal sense, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to dissolve or prorogue the Assembly, the matter should first be debated in the House of Commons. In the short run, anyway, that might be the better way of proceeding.
      I do not want to develop the argument any further. I merely put it forward as something that has been on our minds since the Second Reading debate.
      Mr. Powell: I imagine that the Committee will not dwell for very long upon these amendments and this clause, but, perhaps ironically, it raises some of the most profound constitutional questions.
      If I might first take the point raised in the first amendment tabled by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), we are here creating a body which, unlike ourselves, is to be dissolved—if it comes into existence at all—after a fixed span of time.
      816
      It is commonly the view held by those who work our own constitution that it is one of our great blessings, in contrast with many others on either side of the Atlantic, that we are not bound to a fixed length of life in this House. In the first place the Executive can test the support outside for its policies, whether or not they still command support in the House, and obtain a renewal of its mandate, and, secondly, the country is not saddled with a broken-winged Administration which has perhaps lost the confidence of the country and yet must eke out its existence for that statutory term.
      Here we are creating a subordinate Parliament or Assembly, but in this respect we are doing it in the image of local government. That brings out again the contradictory nature of this strange hybrid which the Bill is seeking to create, It is not the subordinate nature of the Assembly that has brought my right hon. Friend into this difficulty. It is once again his central notion of power sharing that has done that. It is because, in accordance with his concept, with his policy, the Assembly is not to behave like any other representative Assembly—upon being elected to ascertain where the majority rests and then to support an Executive resting upon that majority, as long as it commands the support of the majority, or, at an election, the electorate at large. It is because we are trying to introduce some totally different external source of power, of authority and of decision that we find ourselves faced with the embarrassment to which the amendment points.
      Obviously, these three amendments stand on different levels. I would again, as in the case of the last amendment considered, appeal to the Secretary of State to consider whether the clause would not be better for some mechanism whereby the rigidities of a fixed term could be avoided otherwise than in the case of the sort of breakdown for which the clause already provides. I cannot see that he would lose anything if he could devise a means whereby the life of the Assembly could be terminated short of the four-year periods. The method suggested by my hon. and gallant Friend might not be the ideal, but if my right hon. Friend can avoid the rigidity of a fixed four-year term for his Assembly

      817
      come what may, he will find it potentially an advantage and it can hardly be a disadvantage.
      The other two amendments are the means whereby, although perhaps the Executive in the Assembly still commands the assent of the majority, indoors and out of doors, my right hon. Friend, in pursuance of the White Paper policy, can either put it into hibernation or execute it and terminate its existence. As I said to my right hon. Friend on Second Reading, these provisions and the policy of the White Paper mean in effect that he will carry the responsibility for the administration which is carried on by the new Executive and for the functioning of the new Assembly.
      Just because my right hon. Friend possesses these powers of regulation and of intervention, because he keeps in his hand the right of life and death over the new creature which this House tonight is forming, therefore he will be responsible, whether he likes it or not, negatively or positively, for the acts of omission or commission of the Executive and Assembly of Northern Ireland. That is one of the many reasons why I am by no means alone in fearing that the attempted scheme of power sharing will recoil upon its inventors and that we shall find that, however much we wish to disclaim it, direct responsibility for the governance of Northern Ireland will come back to us in this House.
      I have no intention of using these amendments as a means of reopening tile Second Reading debate, but this is a very important clause. It is always a solemn moment when this House sets about the task of creating another House, especially a House that is not in its own image. There are many instances scattered around the world where this House has set up Assemblies and made them different from itself, and has afterwards found reason to regret it.
      Although I realise that my right hon. Friend cannot share the philosophic doubts—I do not know whether they are Hegelian—which assail some of the rest of us, he will at any rate be sensitive to the practical difficulties, one of which has been highlighted by my hon. and gallant Friend.
      Mr. Whitelaw: Ever since Second Reading, I have had investigations made
      818
      into this clause and these powers. I was impressed by the arguments at that time about the difficulties and problems created by the clause. Therefore, I am further impressed by the speeches on this subject which have ben made tonight.
      10.45 p.m.
      I could not accept the amendments exactly as they stand. Nevertheless, in view of the work that has been done, I can go a good deal further than I went on the last occasion, and I should like to say this: it is essential that both the Assembly and the House of Commons—this Parliament—should at least contribute to the decision if a dissolution is in question.
      As a result of the work that has been done, I am fairly confident that I can put forward an amendment on Report which I hope would do two things: first, make sure that due weight is given to the views of the Assembly on the question of dissolution; secondly, preserve the interests of this Parliament, which would be closely involved in questions which might be of great political significance, and on which it would certainly be right for the House of Commons to pronounce and for a Secretary of State responsible to the House of Commons to be answerable to it directly under the terms of the clause that we could devise.
      I can bring forward a new proposal on Report which will meet those points. On that basis I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I hope that I have not infected in any way the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees). He described the Assembly as a "curious Assembly." If my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) were present, he could probably identify for us the passage in the Bible which contains a description of a "sorrowful assembly." I am not sure which is the more accurate description.
      The amendments would do much to remove from the minds of the electorate the main weaknesses, namely, that the Assembly has so little power over its operations and functions that it lacks credibility. The promised amendment that my right hon. Friend has mentioned may go some way towards improving matters.

      819
      However, if a future Secretary of State does not like the look of the representatives returned at an election or is at variance with their views, he can dissolve the Assembly and hope for better luck next time. As the clause stands, it would perpetuate the impression that the whole body was a creature of the Secretary of State.
      On another occasion I suggested playfully that if the Assembly were to be formed as suggested in the Bill it would inevitably mean that my right hon. Friend would find himself in the difficulty of writing the manifestos for all the political parties involved at the next election. I should like to spare him that punishment. I hope that his promised amendment will do something towards that.
      Captain Orr: Once again my right hon. Friend has been helpful. He has not gone the whole way with us. We did not expect that, in the light of the philosophy that lies behind the Bill. Nevertheless, if I understand him aright, he is saying in effect that there will be no arbitrary dissolution of the Assembly on the part of the Secretary of State.
      On Report my right hon. Friend is to produce an amendment which will give the Assembly some voice in the matter. I take it that in that sense it would also be giving considerable weight to the Executive so that, at a stage, an initiative could come from the Assembly itself, if necessary. In other words, one can envisage a situation in which, perhaps, the chief executive felt either that he was losing his majority in the Assembly or that he was losing some considerable confidence in the country, and would feel that the time had come to test the opinion of the electorate of the Assembly. He would then come to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State could make his decision in the light of that advice.
      In that sense we would be moving towards something a little more along parliamentary lines. I take it that this is a reasonably fair representation of the sense of what my right hon. Friend wants to do on Report. I take it that I not misrepresenting him.
      Mr. Whitelaw: My hon. and gallant Friend is certainly not misrepresenting me. That is what I want to do with regard to the Assembly and the House. The
      820
      moment to judge whether I have done it is when the proposals are on the Order Paper on Report. That is what I intend to do, and I believe that with the best legal advice available to me I can do it.
      Captain Orr: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He has gone a long way in the matter. In view of that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 20, line 14, leave out 'Her Majesty may' and insert:
      'the Secretary of State shall'.
      My right hon. Friend is being most helpful to the Committee. It may be when he comes forward with the new proposals on Report that the point behind this amendment will be coveted.
      As I understand subsection (7) if the Assembly is dissolved it might be open to the Secretary of State by not appointing a day before the first meeting of the new Assembly effectively to prevent that Assembly ever coming into existence. If one Assembly is dissolved it should be followed by another unless Parliament decides otherwise.
      Mr. Powell: Since my right hon. Friend evidently intends to think again about the drafting and shape of the whole clause, perhaps I might put a point to him arising out of the amendment. One of the constitutional safeguards enjoyed by this House for the past three centuries is that there is a very short limit to the time during which this country can be without a Parliament. It has been the case, I think since the seventeenth century, that it is not lawfully possible for this country to be without a Parliament for a little over three weeks.
      My right hon. Friend is in a considerable difficulty with his new creation. If it should prove unworkable he would want a considerable period of time for reflection before new legislation which would then become necessary was brought forward. Also, if, for reasons short of total breakdown, dissolution became desirable in the view of the Assembly, the Executive or the Secretary of State of the time, a period of three weeks might be inconvenient and unsatisfactory.
      Nevertheless I would ask him to consider when he reviews the whole working of the clause whether some period of

      821
      time, not just a positive order as is suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Bigg-Davison), but a specific maximum period of time in which a new Assembly is created, should be written into the clause.
      Mr. Whitelaw: I think my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), following my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison), has put his finger on a very important point. Perhaps I did not stress this point sufficiently in answering the previous amendment.
      My right hon. Friend is right: of course there is a difference between Clause 27(1)(b) and the first Assembly and the problem which might arise if that successful step is taken, and future Assemblies. As for Clause 27(1)(b), my right hon. Friend is perfectly correct there. If it is found impossible to find that one can establish the Executive and can transfer powers in accordance with Clause 2, then indeed the Assembly comes to an end on 30th March and it will be necessary at that time to decide what course should be taken. That might take time to decide. My right hon. Friend might then believe that one of the courses open would be the course which he most favours, and that would be open, obviously, as one of the matters to be considered. It would be wrong to have a mandatory general election quickly, because that might not be desirable.
      As to the further points, I think that they come within the proposals which I hope to put forward. I certainly take note of the points which my right hon. Friend made about limiting the period in which any part of the United Kingdom should be without an effective assembly.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 28 to 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 38

      POWER TO LEGISLATE BY ORDER IN COUNCIL FOR CERTAIN MATTERS RELATING TO NORTHERN IRELAND
      11.0 p.m.
      Captain Orr: I beg to move, Amendment No. 41, in page 26, line 9, leave out subsection (1).
      The Chairman: With this we can debate the following amendments:
      No. 42, in page 26, line 11, leave out paragraph (a);
      No. 43, in page 26, line 13, leave out paragraph (b);
      No. 44, in page 26, line 14, leave out paragraph (c);
      No. 45, in page 26, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
      Captain Orr: Here we are dealing with powers to legislate by Order in Council. The clause provides that Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for certain matters. They are:

      "(a) elections, including the franchise, in respect of local authorities in Northern Ireland:

      (b) local government boundaries in Northern Ireland;

      (c) the constitution of the Police Authority"

      Are they by virtue of their inclusion in the clause, included in Schedule 2, among the excepted matters? Does it make them permanently excepted matters? If it does not have that effect, we can leave to a later discussion the whole question of the powers to be devolved. But the advice I have had, which could very well be incorrect, is that the clause would prevent any of these three matters ever being devolved.
      I understand that my right hon. Friend is getting some advice on the question. I can produce the argument if it is necessary to produce it now. In the meantime, I should like to know whether my judgment of the matter is right.
      Mr. Powell: I rise on a rather different point, namely, the relationship not so much with the powers of the new Assembly as with the rights of this House. I do so particularly in regard to the content of subsection (1)(a).
      This House has recently legislated for the franchise to be exercised in local government elections in Northern Ireland.

      823
      Indeed, it has been a subject of considerable and detailed debate in the House. It appears that the proposals before us would enable the Executive simply by Order in Council to make further changes in the law governing the franchise for local government in Northern Ireland. If that is so, it is a matter objectionable in principle, unless there are very special grounds to the contrary, that what has been the subject of legislation here should subsequently be alterable by Order in Council. For this is not then subordinate legislation in the ordinary sense of the term, which dots the i's and crosses the t's of general principles laid down by the House; it is a power, in effect, to legislate over ground which previously the House of Commons has exercised the right to mark out for itself.
      It may be that there is a misunderstanding, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will take this point into account as well as the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend.
      Mr. Orme: I want to underline the point made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). The three matters dealt with in the subsection—elections, including the franchise, local government boundaries, and the constitution of the police authority—are highly sensitive in Northern Ireland, as well as being important constitutional matters. In that regard, I accept fully that in the present circumstances any changes must be in the control of the Westminster Parliament. But it seems a little perfunctory to deal with this matter through an Order in Council, because it could be extremely controversial. I hope that the Secretary of State will explain more fully whether that is the intention or whether it is just to cover a small alteration. That is not specified in the Bill.
      We are concerned about this matter and, had not the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West referred to it, it was our intention to do so. We should like to hear the views of the Secretary of State.
      Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: We are in a slight limbo. In some measure we are discussing delegated legislation, but we eagerly await the report of the Joint Committee on Delegated Legis
      824
      lation, which will have a considerable bearing on the matter.
      When the first Northern Ireland Bill had its Second Reading, certain undertakings were given by the Government which were cancelled subsequently. One, given by the Attorney-General, was that there would be 40 full parliamentary days—not 40 days including Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays—to debate any delegated legislation. Subsequently, in a mysterious way, that undertaking was withdrawn.
      I am not clear whether Orders in Council under this clause will be subject to the negative resolution procedure, the affirmative resolution procedure, or no procedure at all on the Floor of the House. For that reason, I ask the Minister to say specifically what are to be the procedures in this House which will be followed before any Orders in Council of this kind become law.
      We cannot ask what view the Government will take of recommendations which have not yet been made by the Joint Committee on Delegated Legislation, although they are likely to be helpful to the House. But, assuming the continuance of the present utterly chaotic regulation of delegated legislation, I should like to know the present state of the parliamentary art on it.
      Mr. Stratton Mills: With this amendment, we are discussing Amendments Nos. 42, 43, 44 and 45. Amendment No. 42 seeks to delete paragraph (a). My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has deployed the argument, and I shall not repeat it. His point is a valid one.
      Amendment No. 44 seeks to delete paragraph (c), which provides for delegated legislation on the constitution of the police authority. We should like to know the thinking behind the paragraph.
      Amendment No. 45 proposes the deletion of subsection (2), and again it provides an opportunity for some explanation of the purpose of the subsection. Its terms are very wide.
      Mr. Whitelaw: At the outset, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) that in the context of this Bill it would not be right for me to be drawn into matters that are properly the concern of my right

      825
      hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I must confine myself to the specific matters covered by the clause.
      I can give my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) the assurance that he seeks, that this provision does not do what he fears it might. Specific provision is necessary to allow some of these changes to be made by Order in Council. While they are part of the general scheme of the White Paper, they do not technically fall within the scope of Clause 39, which contains general powers to legislate by Order in Council for matters which are consequential on the Bill.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) made an important and major point, as did the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). The purpose of the clause as it stands is to deal with purely minor and not major matters. It is difficult, in a Bill, to state that it will be used for only minor matters. I am prepared to give the assurance that the clause will be used only for the purposes of minor matters. My words will make it difficult in future for the clause to be used for major changes either in the franchise or in major matters concerned with the police. I readily give that assurance.
      We had in mind, for example, some changes in local government boundaries. It would seem reasonable that that should be done by order in council. Paragraph (c) permits an Order in Council to amend the constitution of the police authority for Northern Ireland.
      Paragraph 70 of the White Paper stated that the police authority would be reconstituted following consultations with the Assembly so as to introduce into it an element drawn from elected representatives. That should be a great help. It is much desired in Northern Ireland that the members of the Assembly should be associated with the police authority. That is one of the matters of significance that could be done under the Act, and something that was promised. That is a change which might properly be made by Order in Council and not by substantive legislation.
      Mr. Orme: A rather disturbing matter arises. The right hon. Gentleman gives an assurance to the Committee. No
      826
      one doubts his word for one moment, but Secretaries of State come and go, and the Bill as it stands would give a Secretary of State power to redraw all the boundaries, re-organise the police and alter the franchise. On that basis, allowing for what the right hon. Gentleman has said, could not some form of words be found in time for the Report stage whereby the minor points that he has emphasised could be written into the Bill as a safeguard? I foresee that the provision might be misinterpreted by some people in Northern Ireland, perhaps for mischievous reasons and not to the advantage of the policy that the right hon. Gentleman is pursuing.
      Mr. Whitelaw: It may be difficult to do that. Nevertheless, we must seek to meet the Committee if it is possible to do so. I believe that the sanction lies with the House. I do not believe that the House would in any circumstances be prepared to allow a Government to legislate by Order in Council on a major matter concerning elections, the franchise or a major reconstitution of the police.
      I accept the difficulty that is inherent in the clause. The clause was inserted particularly to cover the minor matters that I have described. If it has a wider interpretation I am prepared to consider it. That interpretation must be considered in the context of the rights that the House undoubtedly has in such matters and the way an opposition or a government would regard major changes. It is always agreed in the end that these should be taken as major pieces of legislation. I see no reason to suppose that will be different in future.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I support my right hon. Friend's suggestion that some degree of flexibility should be preserved, particularly with regard to elections. I do not know whether that would be regarded as a major or minor matter. We must act in accordance with the experience that we gain from the proportional representation system in the Assembly elections. In my constituency we shall have eight members, few of them on speaking terms with each other. It may be necessary to make changes in the system. The Secretary of State ought to have the power of discretion so that he can return to what we regard as the more enlightened system operating on the other side of the water.
      11.15 p.m.
      Mr. Powell: What my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Molyneaux) has said has reinforced the anxiety of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and myself. My hon. Friend clearly not merely reads but desires subsection (1)(a) to be understood in a wider sense than was conveyed by the assurance—which I entirely accept—of my right hon. Friend. I do not think that my right hon. Friend would disagree that it is unsatisfactory that this House, in legislation, should rest upon the verbal assurance of a Minister as to how powers will be interpreted, of that we should renounce the attempt to put into statutory form what we actually mean.
      If the object is to use the Order in Council procedure for minor or consequential adjustments I cannot believe that there is no form of words that the parliamentary draftsmen are capable of devising which would have that result. It is unsatisfactory, in the context of elections and franchise, that an expression as wide as this should remain unaltered. I hope that my right hon. Friend will look again at the wording with the express object of including in the Bill the limitation we seek.
      Mr. Whitelaw: It might be helpful if I intervened here to answer that point. Both my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) apreciate the problem. On the one hand there are certain matters that it would be desirable to carry out by Order in Council, while, on the other, there are matters that would require major legislation. It is important to be able to use the Order in Council procedure for the minor items.
      On the other hand, the clause goes a good deal further and would permit major matters to be dealt with in that way, although I do not think that that would ever happen, under any circumstances. We must try to meet this point. The question of the future of proportional representation as a result of the experience of this forthcoming election and the question whether the Westminster Parliament constituencies are the right ones on which to base PR are bound to be considered in future. These
      828
      matters are referred to in the Bill because it was the only way we could achieve the speed that was needed. I know that some hon. Members do not agree with PR but this was the only way we could act speedily, on the basis of the Westminster constituencies.
      It would be a major matter if we were to change any of this, and any such change would require major legislation. I accept that as it stands the clause make it possible to do what lion. Members have said, and clearly that is not the wish of the Committee.
      Turning to the Amendment No. 45, it is important to realise that in the case of some trivial but consequential changes in the title of a Northern Ireland authority it would be absurd to proceed by way of a special Bill. It would be better to proceed by Order in Council. That is the purpose of the clause. I hope we can keen it that way. Having made clear what the clause is intended to do, I confirm that I shall consider the views that have been expressed.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: The Committee is grateful to my right hon. Friend. When he considers this matter again will he bend his mind to producing an entirely different wording of the clause to cover the points that have been raised?
      Mr. Whitelaw: I cannot commit myself. I might have to return to the House and say that I could not find different wording. If I were to commit myself on the way in which any Bill might be drafted I should not carry very much conviction.
      Captain Orr: In the light of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Captain Orr: Regarding the question of legislation by Order in Council, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend can say what will happen to the matters which are at present reserved so long as they remain reserved and not transferred. How will we legislate about them? Shall we still use the Order in Council procedure under the temporary provisions legislation, or shall we try to find some system of legislating in a better way?
      Mr. Whitelaw: Under the procedure set out in earlier clauses it will be possible for the Assembly, with the consent of the Secretary of State, answerable to the House of Commons, to legislate on some reserved matters. However, if it were the view that the House of Commons should legislate on them it might produce a complete piece of legislation, which I would envisage in the more important cases. If it were done by Order in Council, I had better run for cover on the exact procedure, under the guise of my previous appointment, and say that a system would have to be devised for that, but clearly it is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 39 and 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 41

      REPEALS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Pounder: May I seek your guidance, Sir Robert? A couple of hours ago I tabled an amendment—which, all being well, will appear on tomorrow's Notice Paper—to delete an item in Schedule 6. Not anticipating this rate of progress—
      Mr. Whitelaw: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. When we have dealt with the Bill to the end of Clause 43, I shall suggest that we report Progress, leaving for consideration tomorrow the new clauses and schedules.
      The Chairman: That should satisfy the hon. Gentleman. He will have a chance to raise the matter on the schedule tomorrow.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 42 and 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      To report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Clegg.]
      Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

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

  WATER SUPPLIES (ESSEX)
  11.25 p.m.
  Mr. Brian Harrison: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter, which is of vital importance to some of my constituents and of wider importance nationally. I refer to the damage caused to commercial tomato crops by the pollution of the public water supply. Not only has it caused a number of my constituents and prospective constituents to face possible ruin—and this is no exaggeration, as I shall show—but it is a matter of great national importance in this overcrowded island in an increasingly crowded and polluted world. Without more control of the chemicals that get into the water supply that we drink and use in our gardens, and which we use industrially and horticulturally, before long we shall face a situation which will increasingly jeopardise the existence of the human race.
  The problem raised its head in March this year at a nursery in Bocking, near Braintree, where unusual symptoms began to appear in the leaves of young tomato plants. Unlike the usual spray drip symptoms—which have, fortunately, occurred less frequently in recent years—the tomato plants on this holding all showed signs of what appeared to be selective hormone weedkiller application. The nursery takes its water supply direct from the River Pant, which eventually flows into the Blackwater.
  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food was called in. Plants were taken for laboratory examination and water samples were taken for analysis both by the Essex River Authority and the Ministry. The Essex branch of the National Farmers' Union was also involved from the outset, for obvious reasons. A few weeks later, following

  831
  Press reports of the difficulties experienced at Bocking, several further reports of similar damage were received by the Ministry of Agriculture from tomato growers in Essex. Again, all tomato plants, whatever their age, exhibited symptoms of selective hormone weedkiller application evenly over each crop.
  The worrying feature of these subsequent reports was that all the growers used public mains water supplies for irrigating their tomatoes. After exhaustive examination of all aspects, the Ministry of Agriculture was led to the conclusion that the only common factor in each nursery except the Backing nursery was that they all used public mains supply for watering their tomatoes.
  Almost every known type of husbandry was used by the growers—hot-house and cold-house cultivation; tomatoes grown in soil, peat, straw bales and manufactured compost; tomatoes grown with natural fertilisers and manufactured compounds. There were different varieties of plants, grafted plants and plants of differing ages. All showed typical similar symptoms of selective hormone weedkiller damage.
  The Essex branch of the National Farmers' Union was extremely concerned about the situation, which affected not only its members but several growers who were not members. The Essex Water Company was also extremely concerned, as was the Essex River Authority, which is responsible for the water supply. These authorities—particularly the public authorities—have shown equal concern about the problem and are trying to find a solution.
  Water samples have been taken and analysed by the Ministry. Soil samples from three holdings were analysed for a selective hormone type weedkiller, and 24-D in three parts per million was found in one nursery. Two other nurseries also had 24-D in the soil. The fact that three parts per million were found in one nursery gives some idea of the great difficulty in measuring the effect of this weedkiller or hormone in a water supply.
  As a result of this analysis, the pattern of damage was found to relate to the public mains water supply that had passed through the Langham and Langford treatment works, which take water from either the Blackwater or the Stour, both
  832
  augmented by water from the Ely/Ouse. Water from here passes direct into the supply and does not go through a storage reservoir.
  The two main areas affected were Hockley and Hawkwell, near Southend—in my prospective constituency—and Mayland and Latchingdon and Southminster—in my present constituency—and, I would add, for full measure, the 12 domestic plants at my home at Cop-ford were also affected. This is water from a special supply from the mains, which has a wayleave through my estate.
  After various experiments, it appeared to the Ministry that, bearing in mind the volume of water flowing through the various rivers supplying the public mains system, it would have been necessary for something like 100 gallons or more of some kind of weedkiller to enter the system to cause the degree of damage to the plants that had occurred. Initially, it was thought that the pollutant might have been 24-D, but recent analyses carried out by the Water Research Association on the best scientific equipment available in the United Kingdom indicate that a chemical called mecaprop is responsible for the trouble.
  I do not think it would be right at this moment for me to give the chemical analysis, even if I could pronounce it, of mecacrop and other chemicals associated with it, but it would probably be right to say that they are highly complicated and complex chemicals, which have tremendous effects even in very small doses.
  The damage has now been recorded by the Ministry on 36 holdings in Essex, spread mainly over the area already mentioned. The damage has varied, depending, apparently, on whether the crops were cold-house or hot-house, and therefore on the time of planting and when the crops were first affected by the polluted water. Crops have been affected in quality and in quantity—or ever, in some cases, have had to be pulled out and destroyed. The financial implications for many of the growers concerned are extremely serious and it is possible that unless we take action some of them will be forced out of business.
  At present, it is impossible to make an accurate estimate of the overall damage since the crops are still growing and, particularly in the case of the later cold-house crops, the effect is still uncertain.

  833
  But I will give, in financial terms—in so far as it is possible to quantify—three or four examples of what has happened to nurserymen in my constituency.
  In one nursery, with half an acre of hot-house tomatoes, the estimated loss of crop to date is £700, and the loss from the sale of tomato plants grown from seed is estimated at about £500. In another nursery, in addition to the crop being a month behind the usual harvesting time, fruit did not set on the lower two trusses of the 18,000 plants of the holding. The yield of the remainder of the crop is being carefully notes, as compared with past years' crops, and this is being done also in other nurseries. On this holding, the estimated loss so far is over £2,000.
  The third example is of a four-acre holding. On the advice of the Ministry, nearly two acres of plants were pulled out, as they were so badly damaged that there was no chance of recovery. These were the first tomatoes that would have cropped, and it is estimated that the grower has lost about £16,000 of income. He has expended manure, labour and heating on this crop when it had to be pulled out.
  The fourth case concerns a grower who has lost four trusses per plant—over 20,000 plants—and the financial loss is estimated at about £13,000, at current prices. The lower trusses in a crop like this come on first, and therefore they are the most valuable. These are the plants that have been lost.
  The legal position is extremely difficult. I am advised that there is no possibility of legal action on behalf of growers against the Essex Water Company to recover compensation for the disaster that they have suffered. Even if the Essex River Authority were to discover the person or body responsible for polluting the river it might not be possible to recover any moneys from that source.
  I am not sure, however, whether it is completely out of court to take legal action. I feel that, under the Trade Descriptions Act, it is possible that where water is supplied and metered to a horticultural holding it should be pure, potable and suitable for the purpose for which it is required. However, as there is some doubt about this matter, I hope that the Government will regard the
  834
  situation of these growers with great sympathy and will endeavour to alleviate the serious financial losses that they have suffered, through no fault of their own.
  Last Sunday a meeting was held in Mayland, in my constituency, and a group of growers set up an organisation to protect their interests. They had three objectives—first, to present a claim for compensation; secondly, to defend against similar occurrences in future; and, thirdly, to further the interests of all grower members in particular.
  It is the first and second of these objectives to which I want to draw attention. These growers are facing a most disastrous situation through no fault of their own. In other words, at present there is no way in which they can claim compensation. I feel that in circumstances like these the community at large—that is, the Government—should step in and help. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider this point.
  I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture here so that she may understand the case that I am making. It is an indication of the seriousness with which the Government regard this matter that we should have Ministers from two Departments present tonight. I certainly appreciate it, and I am sure that my constituents do. I hope that two Departments will consider sympathetically the representations being made by Sir Henry Plumb, the President of the National Farmers' Union, on this matter.
  I want to deal briefly with the problem of preventing similar occurrences in future. First, we must watch and improve our monitoring of water supplies and, secondly, we must be able to give a warning to growers if anything like this is likely to happen.
  All garden and horticultural suppliers—I must declare an interest, for I am one—have on their shelves packets and tins which are lethal to plants and, in some cases, to human beings. I do not think that it would be practical to have to sign a poisons register every time one purchased something from a horticultural supplier, but the availability of these explosive materials should be considered very carefully, to see whether there should be some tightening up.

  835
  Secondly, we must consider some form of early-warning system for detecting these poisonous chemicals both in the water supply to and in the soil in horticultural holdings. Currently, it takes anything up to three weeks to discover these minute quantities of material in the water. I hope that something will be done quickly to improve the situation, so that it will be possible to discover almost immediately whether these dangerous chemicals are present.
  Thirdly, I hope that an adequate number of soil analyses will be available, so that where soil has been affected by water like this it is possible to have the samples investigated quickly.
  We must do something to avoid problems of the kind that have arisen in this instance, and I hope that my hon. Friends will consider sympathetically the position of the growers and the national implications of pollution on this scale.
  11.41 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): Like my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Brian Harrison), who has so eloquently deployed the case on behalf of his constituents, I, too, am grateful to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for attending tonight, since a large number of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon are clearly for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to deal with—but I give the assurance at once that both my Department and that of my hon. Friend are working closely together. I thank my hon. Friend for taking note of the fact that our joint presence demonstrates that the Government are collectively concerned to assist where they can in this matter.
  I agree with my hon. Friend that a supply of clean and abundant water is one of the most indispensable things for any society. I think he will know that, generally across the nation, our rivers, far from getting dirtier are getting cleaner. This can be ascertained by objective biological and chemical analyses that are under way all the time.
  The rivers are materially getting cleaner, but, as this incident demonstrates, the complexity of chemicals in our society today is such that the tracing, monitoring and investigation of new trace elements
  836
  within the water supply becomes an ever more difficult task requiring ever greater vigilance, and it must be our duty to ensure that that vigilant monitoring is done on all our river systems.
  I say at once, in reply to my hon. Friend's well-documented case, that there is no lack of concern about this in my Department and elsewhere, for a number of reasons. The first is quite plainly that we recognise—how could we do otherwise?—the serious effect that this damage has had and is continuing to have on the growers whose crops have been affected. We are very much aware of their difficulties.
  I suppose that there can be few things more frustrating for a grower who has invested in glass and the other equipment required for tomato growing, and who is confronted with all the difficulties of overseas competition, and so on, to find that through no fault of his own his crop is severely damaged, or even destroyed, in the very early stages. We understand this problem very well, and I should like to extend my sympathy to those who have been affected.
  The second concern that the Government must have is to establish the precise cause of the damage. This search is now under way. Third, we must ensure that all possible steps are taken to prevent a similar situation from arising in future. The Essex River Authority and the Essex Water Company, as the statutory authorities concerned, have tackled this problem energetically from the outset and have spared no effort to try to resolve it.
  The damage to the young tomato plants was first observed when a number of growers found that many plants were malformed. I am advised that the fruit was small and in many cases of an elongated plum shape. I do not know whether my hon. Friend can confirm that from his own experience. In some cases, the second or third trusses failed to set. This was reported to the Ministry of Agriculture's Agricultural Development and Advisory Service, which diagnosed hormone damage.
  Extensive tests were started at that point by specialist staff from the Ministry of Agriculture and my Department, together with the Water Research Association and the Essex water undertakings. The tests have included bioassays on

  837
  tomato plants, and both soil and water analyses.
  Since it was suspected fairly early that the damage might be due to the presence of hormone weedkiller in the irrigation water, the Essex River Authority wrote to tell the growers what 'was being done. They explained that chemical and biological tests were being carried out and that a meeting of growers and all other interested parties would be arranged when the results were known. I understand that that meeting has now taken place.
  However, it has proved extremely difficult to trace this chemical in the water supply, even using the most sophisticated and modern methods of analysis available to us, such as gas liquid chromatography, known as GLC, and new techniques of mass spectroscopy. This is partly because the concentration found in the numerous samples taken is so very small—as small as one part in 1,000 million—that it is at the extreme limits of detection, even with the best microscopes available.
  Another difficulty is that a considerable number of chemicals can produce similar results. The segregation of one from the other has proved difficult. Therefore, I must say with some regret that we still cannot say positively what the chemical is. My hon. Friend mentioned mecaprop in one of the many analysed samples. This was found in a concentration of one part in 1,000 million. The Agricultural Development and Advisory Service has considered the position very carefully, but its present view is that this concentration would not be likely to affect tomatoes, so it may be that mecaprop is not the source of the damage. Investigations are continuing, but we are not yet absolutely certain what the chemical is.
  All the available evidence points to the damage having been caused by a hormone weedkiller and, through the incidence and general pattern of the damage, to the fact that it had been introduced to the plants through the irrigation water. The source of the chemical in the water has not been traced, but there is evidence that it would not have resulted from a normal agricultural use of the weedkiller. In other words, it seems to have been caused by some accidental spillage into the river system. That is where we are
  838
  —in the middle of a detective hunt. Where did the spillage take place, who was responsible, and when did it happen?
  In this respect the river authority is now checking with every manufacturer of hormone weedkiller on the distribution of bulk supplies of their products in or near the area over the relevant period. We shall try to trace the route over which any bulk supply could have been carried by a vehicle, one drum of which might have been tipped or spilled, or burst open, and have got into the river system. The river authority is also checking on waste tips in the vicinity of all the relevant watercourses which might have been or still are in use for the disposal of chemicals of this kind. These investigations are now being pursued as a matter of urgency. At the same time, the detailed programme of sampling and analysis of the rivers in Essex and of the relevant watercourses in the Great Ouse River Authority area is also going on.
  My hon. Friend will know—indeed, it goes through my constituency—that some of the water that comes into the Essex rivers arises from the Great Ouse and is carried down through the tunnel to Wixoe. Therefore, it is necessary to search in the area of the Great Ouse as well in order to make certain that the accidental spillage did not take place there.
  I am not complaining about the area of search, or the difficulty of it. I only ask my hon. Friend to accept that it is no easy matter precisely to pin down the cause.
  The British Agro Chemical Association is also working in very close cooperation with the river authority to obtain from all its members as rapidly as possible any information that might help to trace these possible sources of pollution in both the Essex and the Great Ouse river authority areas.
  I turn for a moment to the risks that are involved. First, I ought to assure the House that there is no medical risk from the concentrations so far found in the water. There is no risk to human beings, animals or fish. The Essex River Authority and the Essex Water Company, like the other authorities, have well-established methods of safeguarding the quality of the water, which include frequent and regular tests. Controls are imposed by the river authority on all

  839
  human discharges of trade effluents and dumping of trade wastes. The use of agricultural chemicals is tightly controlled by voluntary codes used by manufacturers and growers alike. Chemical, biological and bacteriological surveys of raw water quality are carried out regularly by the river authority. Similar tests are made on treated water.
  I am confident that the investigations are proceeding as vigorously as possible. But that leaves us with the problem of the individual growers who have suffered this loss. I must deal briefly with the points that my lion. Friend made about compensation, and about an early warning system.
  My hon. Friend was quite right in saying that the legal position in respect of compensation is clear, namely, that compensation cannot be paid unless there is some ground for legal liability. I am bound to tell him that in this case there is no legal liability on the river authority or the water undertaking, for they have carried out their clear duty. The important thing is to find out who allowed this poisonous substance to get into the river system. A case of liability could then well lie against that person. But I
  840
  do not disguise the fact that it will be extremely difficult to pin down responsibility.
  I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture the points that have been made by my hon. Friend about the needs of the growers for help. I know that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is present with me tonight, will herself be considering this question in some detail.
  No legal liability is established until we can find out precisely who put the material into the river, and where. A case might then lie against that person. In the meantime, the investigation is proceeding.
  I want again to express my regrets to the growers, and to say—
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT
  Shetland
  Shetland
  Goods Vehicle Drivers (Hiring)
  Goods Vehicle Drivers (Hiring)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Empty Houses
  Empty Houses
  London Housing Action Group
  London Housing Action Group
  Roads, Manchester
  Roads, Manchester
  Hearing Aid Batteries
  Hearing Aid Batteries
  Oil Refineries
  Oil Refineries
  Unlicensed Cars
  Unlicensed Cars
  Ordnance Survey Maps
  Ordnance Survey Maps
  Rates
  Rates
  EEC Environment Programme
  EEC Environment Programme
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Rent Rebates and Allowances
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Company
  Mersey Docks and Harbour Company
  Retail Planning Unit
  Retail Planning Unit
  Railways
  Railways
  A5/A428 Junction (Road Accidents)
  A5/A428 Junction (Road Accidents)
  House Prices
  House Prices
  Office Blocks (Rates)
  Office Blocks (Rates)
  Port of London Authority
  Port of London Authority
  Leasehold Service Charges Study
  Leasehold Service Charges Study
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Walgrave (Public Footpath)
  Walgrave (Public Footpath)
  Slum Clearance
  Slum Clearance
  Caravan Sites
  Caravan Sites
  Roads (Spray Hazard)
  Roads (Spray Hazard)
  Albert Bridge
  Albert Bridge
  Caernarvon Vehicle Testing Depot
  Caernarvon Vehicle Testing Depot
  Civic Titles
  Civic Titles
  Archaeology
  Archaeology
  Hampshire (Roads)
  Hampshire (Roads)
  Railways
  Railways
  Uskmouth
  Uskmouth
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Local Government Finance
  Local Government Finance
  Construction Industry (Self-employment)
  Construction Industry (Self-employment)
  Colliery Waste
  Colliery Waste
  Housing (Under-Occupation)
  Housing (Under-Occupation)
  Housing Starts
  Housing Starts
  Children (Safety Devices)
  Children (Safety Devices)
  A46, Lincolnshire
  A46, Lincolnshire
  A32–A333 Crossroads, Wickham
  A32–A333 Crossroads, Wickham
  Rent Appeals
  Rent Appeals
  Merseyside Development Area
  Merseyside Development Area
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Plaster and Plasterboard
  Plaster and Plasterboard
  Tied Tenants (House Purchase)
  Tied Tenants (House Purchase)
  Waste Materials
  Waste Materials
SCOTLAND
  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Ayrshire and Arran Health Board
  Oil Advisory Council
  Oil Advisory Council
  Coatbridge (Sports Complex)
  Coatbridge (Sports Complex)
  Occupational Centre Instructors
  Occupational Centre Instructors
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
  New Hebrides
  New Hebrides
  European Assembly
  European Assembly
  EEC Political Committee
  EEC Political Committee
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Maplin
  Maplin
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Computers (Chinese Manufacture)
  Computers (Chinese Manufacture)
  Aircraft Noise
  Aircraft Noise
  Japan
  Japan
  Company Accounts
  Company Accounts
  Bottles
  Bottles
  Waste Material
  Waste Material
  Coal
  Coal
  Architects and Surveyors (Fees)
  Architects and Surveyors (Fees)
  Scottish Petroleum Office (Director)
  Scottish Petroleum Office (Director)
EMPLOYMENT
  Public Holidays
  Public Holidays
DEFENCE
  Bircham Newton
  Bircham Newton
  Dockyards
  Dockyards
  Royal Navy (Welfare Services)
  Royal Navy (Welfare Services)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Battered Wives
  Battered Wives
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board
  Birmingham Regional Hospital Board
  Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton
  Queen Mary's Hospital, Roehampton
  Young Chronically Sick Persons
  Young Chronically Sick Persons
  Mentally Ill Persons
  Mentally Ill Persons
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Battered Wives
  Battered Wives
  Shotguns (Armed Crime)
  Shotguns (Armed Crime)
  Private Security Organisations
  Private Security Organisations
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Prices
  Prices
  HIGH COURT JUDGES
  HIGH COURT JUDGES
  TREASURY COUNSEL
  TREASURY COUNSEL
  MR. J. G. L. POULSON
  MR. J. G. L. POULSON
CIVIL SERVICE
  EEC Documentation
  EEC Documentation
  Naval Dockyard Staff
  Naval Dockyard Staff
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Autistic Children
  Autistic Children
  Schools (Management)
  Schools (Management)
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Economic Growth (Statistics)
  Economic Growth (Statistics)
  Weekly Incomes
  Weekly Incomes
  Tax Exemption Certificates (Labour-only Sub-contractors)
  Tax Exemption Certificates (Labour-only Sub-contractors)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Rubber Bullets
  Rubber Bullets
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Health Centres
  Health Centres
  Agriculture (EEC Price Agreement)
  Agriculture (EEC Price Agreement)
  Road Improvements (Ballylesson to Lisburn)
  Road Improvements (Ballylesson to Lisburn)
  Pigs (Smuggling)
  Pigs (Smuggling)
  Smokeless Fuel (Imports)
  Smokeless Fuel (Imports)
  Dangerous Driving (Convictions)
  Dangerous Driving (Convictions)
  Brussels
  Brussels
WALES
  Ports (Welsh Council Study)
  Ports (Welsh Council Study)
  Uskmouth (Industrial Development)
  Uskmouth (Industrial Development)
  Hospital Patients (North Wales)
  Hospital Patients (North Wales)
  Holiday Houses
  Holiday Houses

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.
The Lord Balfour of Burleigh—Took the Oath.

RHODESIA: UNITED NATIONS AND SANCTIONS
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions have been reached by the Security Council of the United Nations for strengthening or extending sanctions against the illegal administration in Rhodesia.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, the Security Council adopted Resolution No. 333 on May 22. The United Kingdom, the United States, and France, abstained on the vote. Although the resolution contained recommendations about sanctions enforcement which had been agreed unanimously by the United Nations Sanctions Supervisory Committee, it also contained proposals which Her Majesty's Government and others could not accept.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while welcoming the noble Baroness back from America, and not wishing to be too severe on her after her all-night journey, may I ask her whether there were not two resolutions, and is it not the case that on the first resolution the British representative explained that it was opposed because it was desirable to tighten sanctions? How was it, then, that on the second resolution tightening sanctions the British representative abstained?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his welcome, I would point out that what we said on the first resolution was that although there was much in it with which we agreed, it did call for certain measures relating to conditions of contracts—for example, with South African firms—which we did not think would be enforceable because we already have controls to that end. On the second resolution, we, with the United States of America, vetoed it because it called for new sanctions measures, and we feel that what is necessary is to make the existing ones effective.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, why then, was it that the British Government opposed the resolution tightening sanctions?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, perhaps I did not make myself clear. The United Kingdom controls specifically forbid the sale of goods to Rhodesia through intermediaries. The first resolution called for new sanctions, and this was one of the things which we felt was impracticable.
LORD CARADON: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be good enough to tell us what action is contemplated by the Government in regard to the recent disclosures in the Press, particularly in regard to the sale of British goods through a Dutch firm to Rhodesia, reported in the Daily Mirror several weeks ago? Would she also be prepared to say what action is contemplated against the Lonrho Company, and whether prosecutions against the directors of that company are contemplated in respect of their financing of copper mining operations in Rhodesia and also the financing of the export of minerals from Rhodesia?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's question is concerned, Her Majesty's Government are investigating specific allegations about breaches of United Kingdom sanctions controls, and my Department is in touch with the newspapers. On the second question, I do not think that it would be right tor me at this moment to comment on a matter which seems likely to come before the investigation of

1353
Lonrho's affairs which is being conducted by inspectors appointed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie whether she will represent to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that it would be better to abandon these sanctions entirely, for the good reason that they do not help Britain, they do not help Rhodesia, and least of all the black people in Rhodesia? They are therefore out of date, useless, and should become a matter of history.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am afraid that I could not make such representations to my right honourable friend, who has said on many occasions that the status quo, including sanctions, must remain while we search for a settlement.
LORD CARADON: My Lords, would the noble Baroness make a comment on the fact that we seem to rely on the newspapers for our investigations and actions in regard to breaches of sanctions rather than on the efforts of Her Majesty's Government? In particular, would she say why Her Majesty's Government have opposed the appointment of a United Nations Commissioner on sanctions against Rhodesia?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I only mentioned that we were in touch with newspapers because the noble Lord mentioned it and because this particular matter was the subject of some publicity. But of course if we have reasons to believe that sanctions are being breached in other ways, we send Notes to the United Nations Sanctions Committee. On the second point, it is not a fact that we have opposed the appointment of a United Nations Commissioner. It was in fact a unanimous recommendation made by the Committee, and I understand that they are now considering the appointment of such a person who would advise and work with the Committee in sanctions enforcement.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, has not the whole attitude of the Security Council in the matter of sanctions against Rhodesia been deplorably weak; and is this not
1354
a reflection of the growing weakness and ineptitude of the United Nations itself?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the United Nations is only as good as its members, and I would agree with the noble Lord that it is most important that countries other than our own do their best to enforce sanctions if they are to mean something. We have ourselves had 18 prosecutions in this country of British firms, and we have sent over 170 Notes to the United Nations.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, one understands the delicate position of the noble Baroness in relation to the Lonrho inquiry. But in view of the fact that allegations have been made in regard to Lonrho subsidiaries, will she look at what I believe is the position, which is that the present inquiry does not cover the subsidiary companies of Lonrho, and that if the Government wish to pursue this matter further powers may be needed by the commission of inquiry?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, although the inquiry by inspectors does not specifically involve overseas companies, I understand that if the inspectors felt it was necessary to clarify the situation at the headquarters of the company in London, they would ask for such information.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the light of the noble Baroness's view on sanctions, are we to take it that the commission of inquiry will be looking into the operations of the subsidiary companies?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I could not give an assurance on that point, because it depends entirely on whether the inspectors investigating the affairs of the headquarters of the company in London feel that it is necessary.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, is it not true that our record on sanctions is quite a good one in all the circumstances? Is it not also true that we underestimate the effect which sanctions, however weak, have on the Rhodesian Government?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I would

1355
entirely agree with the noble Baroness that our record in the United Kingdom on sanctions is very good. If all other countries were as good, the problem would not be what it is to-day.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, while the observance of sanctions is of course of first importance, will my noble friend bear in mind that their effectiveness is not an end in itself, and that the end is to restore proper relations between ourselves and Rhodesia and to bring them back to the path of rectitude? Will my noble friend also bear in mind that most of us are really much keener on that than on seeing the complete observance of sanctions?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend realises that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has done his utmost to try to achieve a settlement between all Rhodesians. This is the object of keeping sanctions on at the present time, quite apart from the fact that they are mandatory under the United Nations.
LORD CARADON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for the replies she gave to the questions that I asked just now—and I appreciate the answer which were given may I ask finally whether she will confirm that it is the policy of this Government to maintain and strengthen sanctions against the illegal regime in order to achieve an agreed settlement in which all the people of Rhodesia can participate?
BARONSS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the policy of Her Majesty's Government is as it has always been stated, which is to do our best to encourage all races within Rhodesia to come together to try to sort out their differences, and to come to an agreement. During that time we maintain the status quo.

NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES AND THE PUBLIC
2.46 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the Statement given in the House on June 7 last to the effect that those nationalised industries covered in the Report entitled, Nationalised Industries Relations with the Public (Cmnd. 5167) were in almost all cases corporations set up as statutory monopolies for the supply of goods or services to the public with statutory consultative councils, they will clarify the term "almost".
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): Yes, my Lords. The word "almost" was used because the Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries referred to in the Question included one nationalised undertaking, the National Bus Company, which is not a monopoly.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I put down that Question only for clarification? I have now got it, and I thank the noble Lord.

PRESERVATION OF HOUSES OF MERIT
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what additional powers are required to prevent the destruction of Georgian and Victorian houses of merit in London; and whether the proposed destruction of such houses, details of which were recently published, in the interests of office construction, has been the subject of Government review and examination.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, since control of statutorily listed buildings was strengthened in 1968, and, in addition, Section 8 of the Town and Country Planning (Amendment) Act 1972 gave local planning authorities power to control the demolition of unlisted buildings in conservation areas, it is not considered that any additional powers are required.

1357
The lists of buildings of special historic or architectural interest are continually being reviewed and augmented.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that Answer, may I ask her whether she is aware that there appears to be some growing public disquiet at the ease with which permission is given to pull down certain buildings of merit, in the interests of office construction? May I also ask whether she sees something rather sinister in the large amount of money involved, when it is possible as a result of pulling down these old buildings to erect vast offices at huge prices?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, if planning permission was asked for to demolish a listed building it would go, in the first instance, to the local planning authority, and if they wished to give permission for its demolition then the matter would have to be considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. In 1972, in the Greater London area he gave consent for only nine listed buildings to be demolished. Furthermore, if it is a building of particular historic or architectural merit which appears to be threatened, a local authority can intervene and put a building preservation notice on it, which will give a respite for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to consider the matter. I would rather not comment on the last part of the noble Lord's question, which I think is speculative.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, may I further ask the noble Baroness whether it is not a fact that some planning authorities, or those authorities responsible for administering the Schedules, appear to be more efficient in controlling the situation than others? May I also ask whether her attention has been drawn to a recent publication which showed photographs of many buildings, some of them Victorian, which in this generation might not appear particularly interesting or of merit, yet in 10 or 15 years' time will be considered very meritorious?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Burntwood, is referring the recently published book, Goodbye London, which I have looked at, my information is that, of all the buildings referred to in that book, one-third are
1358
at present listed; there are some 19,000 listed buildings in the Greater London area; and 4,000 buildings were added to that list last year—which, as I said in my original Answer, is being continually augmented and added to. Perhaps I should add that in the newspaper report on the book the comment is made—and I quote from the newspaper:
"Not all are worth fighting to save, and not all will necessarily disappear".
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, arising out of what the noble Baroness said about not all buildings being worth saving, may I ask her what the Government's policy is towards preserving whole quarters, which I think is now allowed under current legislation?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the original Question I was asked in fact refers to Georgian and Victorian houses of merit. I appreciate the noble Lord's concern about areas of London, which I think is shared by many people, and if he would care to put down a Question on one particular area I shall do my best to answer it.

AIR PASSENGERS' CHECK-IN FACILITIES
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, in view of the fact that I have now discovered that the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry has a similar Question down for a later date, I will not pursue to-day the Question standing in my name; namely, To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will encourage B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. to combine in providing check-in in facilities for passengers, in London, in view of the intended removal of those facilities from Cromwell Road.
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

FORESTRY POLICY
2.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEErose to call attention to the need for a consistent Forest Policy which shall have regard to the future requirements of the United Kingdom during the Twenty-first Century and to move for Papers. The noble

1359
Earl said: My Lords, when I first put this Motion on the Order Paper it contained the words "particularly in Scotland", but some of my English friends felt this might be taken to imply that English forestry did not matter very much. I have gladly agreed to remove those words; and I am equally grateful to those of your Lordships from Scotland who have refrained from attending the Highland Agricultural Show to-day, and to those of your Lordships from England who have refrained from going to Ascot in order to attend this debate. The reason why I had made this special reference to Scotland was that the first Royal Commission on Afforestation—that is, the Guest Commission, which reported to Mr. Asquith's Government in 1909—recommended that 9 million acres of hill and marginal ground should be afforested in the United Kingdom, of which 6 million acres ought to be in Scotland, 21½ million acres in England and Wales and half a million acres in Ireland, all of which were then a part of the United Kingdom.
These figures may seem very large to some of your Lordships, and certainly there have been less ambitious planting programmes envisaged since 1909; but I think it has usually been recognised that Scotland has a far greater proportion than England of hill and marginal ground suitable for afforestation, and that there are many regions, both in the Highlands and elsewhere, in which it is particularly desirable to afforest on a large scale for the purpose of reversing the downward trend of population, making it go up again, and building a more balanced rural economy in which farming and forestry, and the various industries which are dependent on forestry, can be developed together. But in spite of this, in our twentieth century afforestation Scotland has until lately lagged a long way behind England; and if now, in 1973, the 1909 recommendations were suddenly to be accepted and applied, then England would now be only 1 million acres short of her target while Scotland would have nearly 4½ million acres still to be planted. In my view, my Lords, that is the measure of our failure to do what we ought to have done in the first three-quarters of the present century.
I think your Lordships are all aware that Britain is the worst wooded country
1360
in Europe (France, which is not a predominantly sylvan country, has 28 million acres), and Britain is a very large consumer of timber. I think some of your Lordships may be beginning to suspect that the world shortage of timber, which has been predicted for a long time by so many authorities, including the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, as being likely to occur about the end of the present century, is now showing signs of arriving, 20 or 25 years earlier than was expected. In the last twelve months timber prices have increased enormously, and if the publication of Hansard is ever resumed your Lordships will see in reply to a Parliamentary Question yesterday some of the figures given about our timber imports, from which it may be deduced that if they go on as they are for this year our timber import bill in 1973 will be over £1,100 million, compared with £750 million only two or three years ago.
My Lords, in opening this debate my sole purpose is to try to persuade your Lordships that we ought now to undertake a larger programme of afforestation in Britain than we have had up till now; and that we ought to begin this soon because there is no time to be lost. I think that we may have to pay rather dearly in the years that are to come for the time that we have lost in the first 73 years of the present century. In putting this case to your Lordships, I am afraid I shall be obliged to make some adverse criticisms of the action of the present Government in suddenly terminating the forestry dedication agreement last year. I hope that I am usually a loyal supporter of the present Government, but I must say frankly that in their forest policy, or rather their forest non-policy, the present Government have slipped up very badly indeed. They have even sat down on the ice, with what I think some skaters are accustomed to call "a regular flump on the fanny."
My Lords, yesterday morning I was looking up in an old House of Commons Hansard the report of a forestry debate in another place in the summer of 1933, almost exactly 40 years ago. The noble Duke the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, whom we are all glad to see here to-day and whom we look forward to hearing, spoke in that debate. He was then the Member for Roxburgh

1361
and Selkirk in another place. I also made a speech; I was the Member for West Renfrew. At that time our planting progress was miserably small, mainly because our forest policy had been changed no fewer than five times between 1919, when the Forestry Commission was established, and 1933 when this debate took place. It was pointed out in the debate that the recent severe and sudden cut in the Forestry Commission grant in that year had resulted in the Forestry Commission being compelled to destroy no fewer than 50 million good young trees in their nurseries, a shocking waste of national
property. I wish very much indeed that I could say that in these 40 years between 1933 and 1973 the ignorance and hostility of the British Treasury towards British forestry had diminished, or even mellowed; but I am afraid that, even were I to say that, it would not be true.
However, my Lords, we had a period of 25 years, prior to this crisis in 1972, when we did have a forest policy which, although not very ambitious, was at least consistent. It was inaugurated by the Forestry Act of 1947 which was based on the White Paper of 1943. I want to say a word about that White Paper, because my correspondence last year has led me seriously to doubt whether any of the Ministers responsible for forestry, or any of the Government officials who advised them, had ever read or heard of this very important White Paper (Cmnd. 6447) upon which the whole of our post-war forest policy was based.
This White Paper was a document produced by inter-Party agreement on behalf of the three Parties in the war-time Coalition Government. Tom Johnston was Labour Secretary of State for Scotland, and Rob Hudson was Conservative Minister of Agriculture. Before the White Paper was produced the Government took the trouble to ask the advice of all those people outside government in the country who had most knowledge and experience of forestry, including in particular the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry, and also Sir George Courthope, who was both a Member of Parliament and also a Forestry Commissioner. This White Paper recommended the dedication
1362
scheme for private forestry which was adopted after the war. It also recommended what it called a desirable programme of post-war planting, which consisted of 5 million acres to be planted in 50 years, less than two-thirds of the Royal Commission 1909 recommendation. Of course, this 5 million acres included woods which had been cut down in the war. But still it was something substantial to go on—5 million acres in 50 years.
The White Paper also proposed that this 50-year period should be divided into five decades, and it suggested a planting target for each decade—rather less than one-fifth of the required total in the first decade rising to rather more in the last. In these suggested decennial planting targets no distinction was made, I think very wisely, between State planting and private planting, but it was generally considered, both by the Private Foresters' Association in Scotland and in England and also by the Forestry Commission officers who administered the dedication scheme, that private forestry would probably contribute about 40 per cent. of the total and the Forestry Commission about 60 per cent. I want to stress this point because the Government's publication of last year, Forest Policy Review, makes a misstatement about this in paragraph 27 when it says that the purpose of the dedication scheme was mainly to replant the woods felled in the war. That, my Lords, was not so. Of course, if an owner possessed woodlands which had been felled in the war it might be natural for him to give their replanting priority before he proceeded to do anything more.
But the White Paper did not even recommend that. In paragraph 493 it said:
"The extension of the forest area should proceed simultaneously with the rehabilitation of existing woodlands."
And it was hoped that many owners who had never possessed any woodlands at all, but who did possess virgin soil suitable for planting, might apply to start a dedication scheme. I do not know whether any of your Lordships were members of any of the regional forestry advisory committees which existed for quite a long time after the war, but if you were, you probably spent many hours of your time going round with the private woodland

1363
officer, as he was called then, or the district officer, as he is called now, interviewing reluctant landowners and trying to persuade them that it was their duty to plant in the national interest; pointing out to them that if they registered their woodlands during their own lifetime, under Schedule D income tax they would receive tax rebate on their expenditure which would enable a larger area of land to be planted for the same expenditure, and that although they themselves could not expect to receive any financial return of their money unless they happened to be very young, this might eventually be a good investment for their grandchildren or great grandchildren in 50, 60, 70 or 80 years' time.
For the first 15 years or so of this 50-year period, beginning in 1947, progress was very slow and disappointing, but in the last seven or eight years, and particularly in the last four or five years, it improved until it not only became extremely good but even surpassed the expectations of most of us. In the forestry year ended March, 1971, for which I have the figures, the total planting in Scotland and England combined amounted to 126,000 acres. Some 87,000 of these were in Scotland and the remaining 39,000 were in England. By this time the balance had altered in favour of Scotland; and if you break this down between Forestry Commission planting and private planting in Scotland, you find that the Forestry Commission planted just on 49,000 acres while private planting amounted to 38,000 acres. That was an extremely good result.
The last year for which figures are available is the year ended March, 1972. Of course, this would be the year in which the Forestry Commission switched its figures from acres to hectares. I am not at all good at rapidly converting five or six tables of figures, each of which has five or six different columns, from hectares to acres; so I cannot promise your Lordships that I have done the sum rightly, but if I have done it rightly then the result is even slightly better than in March, 1971. I make out that very nearly 130,000 acres were planted; in Scotland over 90,000 were planted of which 50,000 were by the Commission and 40,000 by private planters.
There is a point here which I think may be of interest to noble Lords on the
1364
Benches opposite. Your Lordships may remember that when the late Prime Minister, Mr. Harold Wilson, went to Scotland in 1967, he went about in public proposing a number of steps to help unemployment and economic progress. He asked the Forestry Commission to aim at an annual rate of 50,000 acres a year in Scotland. This was supposed to begin in 1975. A great many people said that this was only one of Harold Wilson's gimmicks— although there are no votes to be got out of forestry: the average voter there does not care all that much about his unborn great-grandchildren. But many people said that Mr. Harold Wilson was just showing off and that he ought to have known that it was not practicable to reach such a large figure. If my hectare-acre sums are right, the Forestry Commission in fact reached this total of 50,000 acres a year at the end of March, 1972; and even if I am not right, which I must warn your Lordships is not at all unlikely, there is no doubt whatever about the previous year, 1971, in which the Forestry Commission planted a total in Scotland of precisely 48,804 acres—which is pretty near 50,000. I think that the present Leader of the Labour Party is entitled to draw a little satisfaction from the fact that his directive of six years ago to the Forestry Commission in Scotland has been virtually achieved four years ahead of the deadline that he gave.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, would the noble Earl give way? I am grateful to him for passing those remarks, but may I say, as somebody who at the time, after leaving the Ministry, was working with the Prime Minister, that there was no gimmick. It was due to a real love of the restoration of the woodlands to this country. As a statistician, his estimate was fairly good.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not think that I suggesed that there was any gimmick about it. I am always glad to give way; but there are a number of noble Lords who wish to speak and I do not want to give way too much.
This achievement in 1971 and 1972 was excellent. I am usually hard to please in these matters, but I should call it very good indeed. If it could go on —or if it could have gone on—we should have reached our five million acre target under the desirable programme

1365
not in 1997 but in 1988—nine years sooner than scheduled. Even if you allow for the unfortunate likelihood that the monstrous rise in land prices, which includes mountain and hill land, may begin to slow down the programme in the next five to six years, we should have comfortably finished our programme by the end of the century.
Now, at the moment when the dedication scheme was halfway through its young life—it had reached 25 years and had 25 years to run under the proposed programme—just when it was beginning to do so brilliantly, the present Government, for reasons that I have never been able to understand, chose, suddenly and silently, to assassinate the scheme—for all the world like a homicidal maniac or an I.R.A. bomb planter who kills without any rational motive. I find it very hard to understand the reasons which prompted this entirely needless destruction of our existing forestry policy.
The Government sought to justify their action by means of two publications. One was the small paper Forestry Policy Review, to which I have already referred, which having announced what had been done—for all the foresters awoke on the morning of June 28 to find the dedication scheme was already abolished and that no further applications would be accepted—asked the foresters for their views on the subject. To help them, the addresses were put in: in England, the Ministry of Agriculture, the Scottish address and the Welsh Office in Wales—almost as if the homicidal maniac had said to his victim: "I should like to have your views on this. Would you rather I shoved the knife in your throat or in your stomach?" The paper goes on to point out that this review was greatly assisted by a detailed cost/benefit analysis undertaken by a group of economists serving in Government Departments and
"the report of this group is being published separately and will, we hope, serve to illuminate the many major issues which underlie the conclusions of this review."
I have here the cost/benefit study produced by this group of economists serving in Government Departments which is said to illuminate "many of the major issues which underlie the conclusions of this review". I have studied both these documents as well as I can, but I have not yet succeeded in finding even
1366
one sentence in either of them which is not either quite irrelevant to the subject, or fatuous, or simply untrue. The best comment which I think I have seen on the cost/benefit study which I have here was written by a friend of mine who is a Member of the other place and who has a far greater experience of forestry and forest finance than I have. He says:
"Heaven help us from economists! The economic arguments against forestry are as they always have been, except that they are now dressed up in more sophisticated cost/benefit jargon with 'methodology' designed to make fiction appear stronger than fact. I do not deny that a great deal of trouble has been taken in this Cost/Benefit Study to produce the conclusions they wanted before they even began, together with the cloak of conviction required to sell them. Beneath the surface the same old guesses and dubious assumptions arc clearly visible as the foundation of them all. The trouble is that a false assumption will not produce a more correct conclusion simply because it has been processed by a million pound computer."
I do not know how many of your Lordships have looked through this study. Obviously it is not the sort of thing one could go through in a debate, but there is one passage that I should like to quote to your Lordships, on pages 38 and 39, where it deals with future prices of timber products. The authors say:
"Demand for sawn softwood (which forms 75 per cent. to 80 per cent. of world sawn-wood production) is likely to slacken and indeed fall."
Then they say:
"Paper products will become increasingly vulnerable to competition from oil based plastics. In plastic packaging the competition is already intense."
They conclude:
"The thesis proposed is therefore that there appears to he no reason to suppose that the prices of wood products will in the aggregate continue of rise."
My Lords, that was written 12 months ago. What has happened since then? Our timber import bill has risen apparently by 30 per cent. or 40 per cent. already, and we do not know how much more it is going to rise.
I got some figures from the Scottish Woodland Owners Association, who are engaged in selling timber all over Scotland, to give me the prices of different classes of timber last June and this June, and the answer is: for small wood—that is, the smallest stuff used for pulpwood or chipwood—last June £6·15, this June £7·40, an increase of 25 per cent. on

1367
the price; mining timber £6·50 in June, 1972, £10 in June, 1973, an increase of 55 per cent.; and millwood £7·00 to £8·50 according to quality in June, 1972 (this of course constitutes the larger bulk of our timber), and in June, 1973, £12·00 to £15·00, an increase of 75 per cent. in 12 months. I cannot help thinking, my Lords, that it might be a rather interesting historical study if Her Majesty's Treasury would examine their records, say for the last 200 years, to see whether they can find any previous instance in which so misleading a financial calculation as this has been so abundantly discredited in so short a time.
There is just one more observation in this cost/benefit study which I must read to your Lordships about timber supplies in the future. On page 49 they say:
"The vast areas of virgin forest in the Northern Hemisphere could more than meet the world's need for decades, if not for centuries to come."
This is rather as if the Government Whips were to say to the Opposition Whips: "I think we have enough speakers for to-morrow to keep the debate going for twenty minutes or even four hours". Your Lordships might perhaps feel that they could have been a little more precise in their estimate, but I wonder whether this group of economists working in Government Departments realise that if they really mean it is going to last only four decades, it is time we started planting now on a very large scale, because the trees we plant now, the fastest growing conifers, are not going to be ready to cut for 5 decades, and the slow growing hardwoods not for 12 or 15 decades. Perhaps the vagueness of the Treasury on this point may be due to the fact that they stated in evidence not long ago, in 1965, to the Estimates Committee of the House of Commons that they never look more than five years ahead in forestry matters. I should like your Lordships to read that if you have time, because you might not believe it unless you actually saw it. In 1965 the House of Commons Estimates Committee rather concentrated on forestry expense and the Treasury witness in that examination stated that the Treasury never looked more than five years ahead in forestry matters. If you do not look
1368
more than five years ahead in forestry affairs it is not surprising if your conclusions are such as to make people doubt whether you understand the difference between a tree and a turnip.
Now, my Lords, I also wonder about oil plastics, and how long this group of economists working in Government Departments think the oil plastics are going to last. I wonder whether any of them have heard of what is called the energy crisis which is supposed to be approaching; whether they have heard any complaints of people in the United States of America who say that by the end of the century the entire American oil supplies will be exhausted and they will then need the whole output of the Middle East to supply the needs of America. How long that will last is not quite certain. What is going to happen after the Middle East supplies are exhausted too?
Another thing which does not seem to have been appreciated is that timber is one of the very few industrial raw materials, one of the very few sources of energy which can go on reproducing itself for ever. If you put a lot of money into plant to extract oil out of the ground, or iron ore or any other kind of mineral, you have to get back your money in a not very long time; but if you put your money into building up a huge forest, then you establish something which can go on yielding fruit for ever. Lord Polwarth's special assignation by the Prime Minister to look after our oil supplies has been greeted with exceptionally warm and widespread approval, and we are all delighted by it. He cannot put back new oil into the North Sea Shelf after he has taken out the oil that is there now, but he can plant new woods on his own property from the seed of the trees which he has cut down. That is the great difference which I think the Treasury failed to perceive in this Cost/Benefit Study between timber and other kinds of products.
My Lords, I have concentrated entirely on the need to produce more timber in Britain, and I shall not talk about anything else, although there are many other important aspects of this subject, more particularly amenity. My noble friend Lord Arbuthnott will speak on this subject. My views are in agreement with his, but he can speak about it with far greater

1369
authority than I can, because not only is he a member of the Countryside Commission in Scotland but before he became that he worked for some years as estate manager to the Scottish Nature Conservancy. I shall look forward very much to hearing my noble friend. The only remark I would make about amenity is rather a Philistine one: I think that sometimes the public does not know what it wants until after it gets it.
I am old enough to remember a wood that was planted in the South-West Highlands in the 1920s. It was a very bare, beautiful looking hill, and when the Forestry Commission decided to plant it there was a considerable outcry from the local inhabitants. "Oh!", they cried, "that beautiful hill. How can you be so unperceptive and so destructive as to destroy the lovely, barren majesty of this wonderful hillside? And we are told you are going to plant it with sitka spruce, which we believe to be a very ugly tree." Sitka spruce is a tree which grows very fast in the south-west of Scotland, and by 1968 this had become fully matured and ready for felling, and as a few trees had been blown down in a gale the Commission decided to fell it. Immediately there arose from the inhabitants another outcry: "Oh!", they cried, "the beautiful wood. How can you destroy and take away this lovely wood?" This, my Lords, is one of the advantages of old age: if one is old enough to remember two precisely contrary protests, made within fifty years of each other, one is then in a position to tell those who make one or the other that their grandchildren will almost certainly make precisely the opposite complaint in fifty years' time.
I have concentrated only on the need for growing more timber both by the Forestry Commission and by the private planter. As for the Forestry Commission, the great difficulty for them at the moment in maintaining their programme is this enormous and monstrous inflationary increase in land prices which I have already mentioned and which was dealt with, I think very sensibly, by the noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, in opening your Lordships' debate on agriculture at the beginning of May. In forestry, the effect is that it is extremely difficult and expensive to buy land to plant, and, of course, according to the calculations of the Treasury, much less economic. I
1370
think in the national interest it is necessary to have a bigger programme than the 55,000 acres which the Government now suggest in their Forestry Review. I think we should stick to the 70,000 acres a year which the Forestry Commission have been achieving in 1971 and 1972, and that the Government should instruct the Commission that they should go into the market for land and, if necessary, pay these inflationary prices. If your Lordships think that that is a prodigal thing to do, may I give you one figure that is perhaps relevant? In the last Forestry Commission Report your Lordships will find that during the whole of the 54 years of the life of the Forestry Commission the total net sum expended on them by the Treasury is £280 million: that is exactly one quarter of what the cost of our timber imports from abroad will be this year. When it is looked at in that light, and when one considers the danger of timber prices going up, not only now but still more in the next century, I think it would probably be a good thing in the national interest to pay these high prices for land.
I have seen seven Prime Ministers fighting against inflation, with more failure than success. I feel that the present Prime Minister is fighting much better than any of his predecessors have done, and I devoutly hope that he will win. But even if he does win, for several years after he has won people will not believe that inflation has really been conquered, and I think we shall still get these high prices going on for a while, with what is called their inflationary expectation value. Until people understand that inflation really has been conquered, I think we shall have to endure paying higher prices for our planting land.
My Lords, I said a little while ago that the Government had acted with complete secrecy, which they did in respect of private forestry, but there were a few Members of Parliament who, in confidence, were told about this, one of whom I think was the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, who is on the list of speakers. As the conversations were confidential, one cannot know what was said, but I have no doubt in my own mind that the noble Earl and his associates did a great service to forestry, because I feel that if it had not been for these conversations the Government's action in 1972 would have been

1371
even more disastrous than it was. Now wider consultations are going on between all the forestry representatives, on the one side, and the Government, on the other. I would say to all those who are taking part in those negotiations with the Government: "Try to arrange for a scheme, if possible, better than the dedication scheme, which will ensure that the present rate of private planting is not reduced. Remember, and make the people with whom you are negotiating continually remember and be continually conscious of the fact that you are not negotiating on behalf of a few landowners who want help with their tree planting, but for an agreement which will be of economic benefit for the future needs of this country. That point must be kept in mind. If you get a good agreement, that will bring economic benefit to Britain in the 21st century: but if you get a bad agrement, then British economy in the 21st century will suffer." I would say, in addition, to all those taking part, including my noble friend Lord Lonsdale: "Be firm; stick to your point; and be of good courage." I beg to move for Papers.
3.40 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it is appropriate that this debate should have been initiated by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, because we have known over the years that in forestry matters he is not one who preaches one thing and practises another. He has been a very devoted exponent of forestry in Scotland. His speech has been perhaps a little longer than we are accustomed to in your Lordships' House, but I do not think it is necessarily any the worse for that because it enables the rest of us to diminish what we might have said.
He has covered the field very widely and I can adopt practically everything he said. The only statement that I could not have made myself is, "I am a loyal supporter of this Government normally". Normally, of course, I am not a loyal supporter of this Government. But almost everything else he said I could easily have said myself except that, not being a loyal supporter of the Government, it would not have been necessary for me to use quite such strong language as that used by the noble Earl from time to time. He referred to the visit made by the former
1372
Prime Minister (not, if I may say so the "late" Prime Minister) to Scotland. I believe it was in the Highlands that he made that speech in 1967 on forestry policy. The first job I had with the last Government involved responsibility for agriculture, fisheries and forestry in Scotland. The then Minister of State was my right honourable friend Mr. George Willis, who was, like the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, an enthusiast for forestry. He concentrated a very great deal of his time at the Scottish Office on seeking to achieve a change in this country's forestry policy, and I should like to say that it was very largely due to the efforts of Mr. Willis during the years 1965 and 1966 that decisions were taken to change that forestry policy, and I think most of those taking part in this debate would regard the change as being for the better. As my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek has said, there was indeed no gimmick about this at all. It was a statement—deliberately made at the time when it was possible to make it and in the area where it could most appropriately be said—of a decided change in Government policy.
I found myself immediately in agreement with the noble Earl in his references to the attitude of the Treasury in matters of forestry policy. I believe he used the words "the consistent hostility of the British Treasury to forestry." My Lords, I do not think that is too strong a statement. This was entirely the impression I had in the years 1965 and 1966. We had to overcome a definite hostility on the part of the Treasury to these matters; and this is amply borne out in this document, written in 1972 by economists under the chairmanship of a Treasury official. There is hostility to forestry throughout this document, and if it had been deliberately written by someone whose bias against the matter was obvious to all concerned—and I do not say that the writers of this document were in that position—it would not have been very different from its present form.
The noble Earl referred to the fact that in the last four or five years planting had gone ahead in a very much better fashion than in any of the preceding years. This is a direct result of what Ministers were then able to persuade the Government should be done. The one thing which is necessary in forestry matters is that the Minister of Agriculture

1373
who is concerned with forestry in England, the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is the forestry Minister in Scotland, and the Secretary of State for Wales, who is the forestry Minister in Wales, must be prepared at all times to fight vigorously against the opposition of the purely financial interests on these matters. I was not previously aware of the quotation that was given to us by the noble Earl referring to what the Treasury said in 1965—that in matters of forestry they normally look five years ahead. Yet in this document we have their statement on the resources of the Northern Hemisphere, where they blithely talk about the ability to provide for all our needs for decades, if not for centuries. It is that sort of statement which can only come from people who in their ordinary day-to-day activtities say, "We do not normally look more than five years ahead."
In another quotation from this document, the noble Earl referred to the ability of the Northern Hemisphere to provide for all our timber needs, and he quoted a passage about the Treasury's belief that in certain directions usage would fall. Having regard to a remark towards the end of his speech relating to energy needs in the United States, I would say this is another item which is completely out of date, because here they talked about the possibility of oil-based plastics supplanting wood in the foreseeable future. Already we are in a situation where we are having to gear our thinking to the fact that we are not going to have oil available in any quantities after the end of this century—and perhaps even before then. Therefore the estimate about price given in this document is not the only thing which has become almost immediately out of date. On this question of price—I myself find it extraordinary that they should have said this and I should like to repeat the quotation given by the noble Earl—
"The thesis proposed is, therefore, that, with currently available technologies, there appears to be no reason to suppose that prices of 'final' wood products will in aggregate continue to rise."
The noble Earl quoted differences in prices between June last year and June this year. I happen to be engaged in the building industry, and just before coming away from the North I looked at two price lists which I receive from one of the biggest
1374
firms of timber merchants in Scotland. The firm produces month by month a printed list of all their products, with prices. The one issued in October was the last for some months, being followed by the "freeze" because all they did was to issue from time to time some stencilled amendments to the printed document. Their next list was issued in April, at the end of the "freeze", and on some of the items most regularly used in house building—for example, 5X2s or, for the benefit of the English, 2X5s, and I shall not attempt to translate that into centimetres—the price increase between October and April was 60 per cent. Yet this document talks blithely about a possible 3 per cent. or so increase per year over the years. On the basis of a year's statistics we already have increases for the next 20 years in the last five months.
In another part of the document balance-of-payments considerations are mentioned and discounted. They say that for the purpose of this study they do not regard import saving as being a factor which has to be taken into account. I do not remember exactly on which page that appears, but the fact is—and this, for those who are taking part in this debate, many of whom are as interested in agriculture as in forestry, is perhaps not to be ignored—that in references to the value of import saving they lump agriculture and forestry together. If the next ploy of the Treasury in this matter is to discount values of import saving in agriculture, does this indicate the same sort of sudden change of thinking in relation to agricultural support as we are getting in relation to forestry support? I doubt it; but on the basis of what they say on forestry, it would be as logical to do exactly the same in agriculture.
I became firmly convinced in 1965 that it was sound policy for this country to expand its forestry resources just as much as it was sound policy to expand agricultural resources. I was persuaded, and nothing that has happened in the interval has made me change my mind, that there were large parts of the country where forestry could be pursued without fear of damage to agricultural interests. Some of the types of tree in which the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, has been a pioneer have enabled planting to be undertaken in parts of the country which hitherto

1375
had been regarded as being above the tree line, where no forestry tree planting could be carried out. Obviously the same land was not land which was going to be of high value for agricultural purposes.
We must resist any temptation to have a hunger and a burst in forestry policies. The review—and this is the point on which I shall conclude—says:
"If more cost-effective methods of job creation and maintenance in the areas involved can be found, this would point to a reallocation of resources from forestry, but unless and until concrete alternatives are available any drastic curtailment of new planting by the Commission would have serious consequences for employment."
Up to that point the statement is excellent. But it then goes on:
"On the other hand, the target put forward in 1967, which implied a total of new planting for Great Britain of 60,000 acres by 1976, compared with 50,000 acres in 1970 to 1971, no longer remains either desirable or realistic. The Government regard it as too high in the light of the results of the review, and in any case the difficulty of acquiring suitable land would make it difficult to achieve."
The statistics from the review were quoted by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and those to which I have referred persuade me that this review is a very poor basis on which to make the statement that the target put forward in 1967 is no longer "either desirable or realistic". Having regard to the changes which have taken place, not merely over the decades but particularly over recent years, it would be the height of folly for us to continue to plan our forestry on the basis that we shall always—balance-of-payments problems notwithstanding—be able to afford to pay for all the timber that we need as an import item. Nor would it be wise, having regard to world circumstances, to assume that the resources of the Northern hemisphere will always be at our disposal, provided that we are willing and able to pay for them. We ought to be planning on the basis that this is something which we can do in this country for ourselves. We ought not to work on the basis that 60,000 acres is too much and is neither realistic nor desirable. But if we were to be realistic, we should be going on the basis that it is something which can and ought to be expanded still further in the future. If we do not do this I
1376
predict—and I am certain that my estimate will be much more realistic than any of the Treasury estimates on this matter—that in a year or two, or three, five or ten years from now, some bright lad in the Treasury will say, "We need a lot of timber. Can anybody tell us in the Treasury where we can lay our hands on some 50-year-old forests?"
3.55 p.m.
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, I should like to add my thanks to the noble Earl for raising this important subject this afternoon. I hope that his remarks on the need for us to grow more timber did not fall on deaf ears with his colleagues. I also share with the noble Earl the need to find out this afternoon what is the present attitude of the Government towards forestry policy in general. I have, as some noble Lords know, asked the Government before about their energy policy and have had a singular lack of response. Forestry policy it is an equally long-term matter, and I should like to think that the question might be much easier to answer as there are many more statistics available, some of which have been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, already.
I should like to declare my interest as a private forester, and congratulate the Forestry Commission on the assistance, help, advice and wisdom that their men in the field give to private foresters. I feel that this will be said by a number of other noble Lords during the course of this afternoon. There is a clear distinction between the Forestry Commission in practice and the Forestry Commission as accounted for. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, put his finger on this in the Report, Forestry in Great Britain, compiled by a team of economists from the Treasury. The Report is clear to me in some parts, but in others it is totally incomprehensible. Economists, clearly, do not have an interest in trees, and have in fact a negative attitude towards forestry in general. It is the same when you look at the accounts in the 52nd Annual Report of the Forestry Commission. There is an apparently different attitude towards forestry from the author of the Report and auditors of the accounts.
I should like to look at this aspect as a shareholder. As taxpayers, we are all shareholders in the Forestry Commission. This Report and Accounts should in

1377
many ways be exactly similar to any published public company report and accounts that appear in the hand of a shareholder at an annual general meeting. If that is accepted, there is one point which stands out a mile. The main asset of the Forestry Commission is their land and their trees. And so I looked to see how much the Government's investment in the Forestry Commission was worth. Although there were many tables of immense detail on what I like to call the revenue account, on the capital account there is a net book cost of only £12·2 million for the land belonging to the Forestry Commission. I hope noble Lords will not mind but I have converted this to acres, and a total of approximately 3 million acres of land are owned by the Commission. It is shown in their accounts at a book value of only £4 per acre.
When the noble Earl opened this debate he mentioned the problem of buying land for expansion of forestry. I believe that to-day to buy land in Scotland suitable for forestry costs up to, and perhaps even more than, £100 an acre. Therefore I find it difficult to accept these figures. I am sure they are correct, but they are not practical. What company to-day shows its assets in land at book cost? No shareholder would allow it, and I do not think that we should do so. I hope to hear from the noble Lord the Minister a true valuation of, first of all, the land—that is, 3 million acres—shown in the books, and also whether or not the average purchase cost of £10 an acre shown is practical when in fact the Forestry Commission is paying up to, I would say, £100 an acre for new planting to-day.
I feel that when looked at in this way the Forestry Commission is one of the nation's most valuable assets; and again looking at it from the capital account, it has been a very fine investment for British taxpayers' money. This is why I share with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, the slightly incredulous view that the Treasury, who are, after all, very interested in conserving the nation's coffers, are taking this apparently hostile view to the efforts made by the Forestry Commission. I should like to think that this will be clearly discredited in the debate which is about to take place this afternoon; that this attitude will be
1378
thrown out of the window once and for all, and that the Government will reassess their forestry policy.
Finally, on this point, paragraph 11 of Forestry Policy, dated June, 1972, says:
"The result is that the current forestry estate is now worth much less, even with the effect of inflation of values, than the net cost including interest charges of creating it."
I would ask the noble Lord the Minister to confirm that he believes this: that the 3 million acres owned by the Forestry Commission at current values to-day are worth less than at the time of purchase. I just do not believe that this can be true. Nevertheless, I think there is an explanation for this a little further on at the bottom of the paragraph, where the accounts are described as "notional". I have never in any of my company dealings met with any accounts that could be described as "notional" and be allowed to be got away with by anybody who claimed to be an accountant. Either these are accounts. or they are merely a notional dream dreamt up by perhaps the Treasury, the Auditor General—or I do not know who. But I should like clarification from the noble Lord the Minister, who is after all an accountant, to define what a "notional account" is. Are these accounts notional, and should we pay any attention to them whatever?
I should like now to go back to the Chairman's Report. This is the side that I find more reasonable and agreeable be? cause this is the side that deals with landscaping, the problems of integration of hill farms and forestry units. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I run a hill farm and a hill forest as an integrated unit, and I am glad to see there is a small paragraph about the joint experiment that has taken place under the auspices of the Forestry Commission. But I would commend to the noble Lord the Minister the view that various experiments of this kind—and my own property is one—concerning the integration of forestry and hill farming can prove to be of more than academic benefit. I think the placing and siting of the forest areas can be of immense benefit to a hill farm. Those of us who live near Eskdalemuir will know that our main problem is the wind and the rain; wind forces of up to 70 or 80 miles an hour are quite common. The proper siting

1379
of a forestry area is essential and immensely beneficial to the stock you are trying to rear in this rather hostile part of the world.
Secondly, the road system is often forgotten in regard to forestry. The placing of roads can open up these rather barren hills and provide access to the hill farmer, to feed stock in places which otherwise would have been quite inaccessible. There are many other benefits which I will not go into now, but I should like the noble Lord the Minister to confirm three major points on the question of landscaping. I think he will have no difficulty in confirming them. As we all know, there are no right angles or rectangles in a natural landscape. I believe it is forestry policy that this principle will be implemented, in the sense that no further new plantings of a rectangular nature will be undertaken.
I was a little disturbed when I looked at the page of the Report dealing with new plantings that have been carried out. The picture on page 19 shows the planting of tubed seedlings at Farigaig Forest. From this picture it would appear that the planting is going right up to the march fence. It looks like a good old rectangle, and the straight lines are running up and down the photograph. I am happy to say (because I telephoned the Forestry Commission at Inverness just before the debate) that this is not the case. This was a trial plot. They have roughed up the edges; they have taken away the seedlings from the march fence and planted them up with hardwoods, and the shape is not a rectangle. But I should like to feel that this procedure is being carried out everywhere, especially in Scotland.
There are two other points which are not mentioned in the Report; they are small but other noble Lords may like to pick them up. There is no mention of rides and fire breaks. I should like to think that it is the Forestry Commission's policy, when planting a forest, that the rides and the fire breaks are shaped to the contours of the hill, because more often than not, they are not. They might well be fuzzing the edges of a plantation, but are they siting the rides straight down or straight across the hill? I should like to have confirmation from the noble
1380
Lord that a sensible policy in this respect is being carried out.
There is a new thought here and one that I should like to put into debate. There has been no mention of open spaces. This may sound a little absurd because as a forester, as I am, one does not like to see vacancies in any forest. But I ask noble Lords, and the Forestry Commission especially, to consider that when laying out a forest they allow for open spaces inside the forest itself, because without them it is no good talking about wildlife. Wildlife can hardly exist at all in the very tightly knit conditions of serried ranks of Sitka spruce. The only wildlife that will be seen in a forest must be in a clearing. This is not allowed for, or does not appear to be allowed for, in the Report. I mention it in passing, and should like the noble Lord to confirm that this is part of forestry policy.
I have just one other small point, which is vermin control. One of the biggest rows that I have as a forester and farmer, wearing both hats at once, is on this problem of foxes in my particular area. I believe that much of the bad blood that may exist between the forester and the hill farmer lies in vermin control or, as it is in most cases, inadequate vermin control. I should like to put a suggestion to the Minister. I should like to see every forester, private and public, put in a return to his local national farmers' union of vermin killed in his area. I should also like to see 10p per acre as a guideline to be put aside for vermin control of a forest. At the same time. it is important that where it applies, the local hunt should also put in how many foxes it has killed. If these ascertainable facts are put before the national farmers' union in each area, then all this "Who blames whom?" will be mostly eradicated. It will be quite easily seen who is not keeping un with his vermin control if these returns are adquately put forward. I would think that the National Farmers' Union is more than capable of administering something as simple as this.
Finally, the noble Earl said in the words of the Motion that we were looking towards the Twenty-first Century. Here is a final thought which may perhaps apply more in England than in Scotland. It is that as conurbations, as I believe they are called, grow steadily in size, and as our population increases and as housing problems increase, there

1381
will be fewer and fewer places for citizens to go. We shall all be urban citizens, I would imagine, in the Twenty-first Century. There will be very few places for us to go in order to get away from the noise, the dirt and the general stress factors that will make our life totally intolerable if it goes on in its present way, and I think a forest may be the one place where we shall be able to find some kind of solitude. I should like to feel that when we talk about wildlife and recreation in our forests, we are talking about something much more when we come to the turn of the Twenty-first Century, for by then our forests may be the only real havens of rest left in a disturbed and mad world.
4.11 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, your Lordships, and indeed many people outside your Lordships' House, will, I am sure, be grateful to my noble friend Lord Dundee for having initiated this full-scale debate on forestry this afternoon. In a curious way, despite the three previous speakers, so am I grateful. Looking through the list of speakers one cannot fail to detect a virtual barrage of my noble friends from behind me, and more specifically from North of the Border, who wish to take part in this debate and whose knowledge of, and interest in, forestry is well known and, if I might say so, greatly respected. I am bound to say that I have a curious inkling that I shall be looking for evidence during this debate of their "friendship". But modesty compels me to hope, rather than to believe, that I shall have more friends at the end of the debate than one might think at the outset.
My noble friend Lord Dundee referred to two specific documents—the Government Consultative Document entitled Forestry Policy and the cost/benefit analysis. There is of course, I would suggest, also a third document—the Wolfe Report which was commissioned by the Forestry Committee of Great Britain. I would suggest that it is these three documents which are at the core of this debate, and indeed at the core of the debate which has been continuing in forestry and allied circles over the last 12 months. It is almost exactly a year since the Government published their Consultative Document entitled Forestry Policy. It is not
1382
quite plain, and I would wish to make it abundantly plain, that the Paper is, and was, and was always meant to be a consultative document, and my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council, in his previous capacity as Minister of Agriculture, last year made that clear beyond peradventure to a delegation which included in its membership some Members of your Lordships' House. The Paper has stimulated discussion. We wanted it to stimulate discussion and the very debate which we are having this afternoon, which I know will be informed and I have no doubt whatsoever will be forthright, is the very type of discussion which we wish to have. I can assure your Lordships that what is said this afternoon will be listened to by the Government with great care. The document is not a thesis of the Government's doctrinaire and inflexible views. This Government have, more than any Government before them, adopted the "open government" approach to national problems, to an extent which is quite unprecedented in our history—and that this approach most certainly applies to forestry is demonstrated by the number of organisations which have asked to see one or other of the forestry Ministers, and have been welcomed by them.
It is some 30 years since we last had a thorough review of both private and State forestry and, although my noble friend's Motion calls for a consistent forestry policy, I feel sure he will concede that, after such a length of time, it is not imprudent of Government to say: What are we doing? What are our objectives? And is what we are doing, and have been doing, the right and the best thing to be doing for the future, both from the point of view of forestry and from the point of view of the much wider context of national interest, with all the cross-flow of conflicting and diverse interests which that involves?
This was the main reason why the review was undertaken and included the cost benefit analysis. I am hound to say this seems to have attracted—even for a Government publication—a quite unique and almost unanimous degree of castigation from all those who are interested in forestry as a productive enterprise. I would only say this about it. It is the first time—and I accept that many noble Lords may hope that it will be the last

1383
time—that a serious effort has been made to quantify the returns from forestry, both those which are readily ascertainable and those which are not so easily determined. Any series of calculations which relates to a period of years such as is covered by the growth of forests—of half a century or more—by its very nature must be loaded with a host of unknowns and uncertainties. The Government have always recognised this and have never considered that forestry policy should be governed solely by readily quantified, or by readily quantifiable, economics. This has merely been an attempt—and I accept that for some it has been a disagreeable one—to throw some light on to what were previously grey areas.
Whereas since the inception of the Forestry Commission some fifty years ago, all effort in both the State and the private side of forestry has been steered, with Government support, towards the rehabilitation of the depleted and sometimes neglected resources of national timber after the ravages of two world wars, it is right to consider whether this, on its own, should justify Government support for forestry in the future, or whether other factors, such as rural depopulation or amenity considerations. should replace it or should have equal recognition with it, or just part recognition with it. Apart from the taxation arrangements. the main channel of Government support to private forestry has been via the dedication scheme, and there was much general concern, as my noble friend Lord Dundee pointed out, when the Government Consultative Document announced that no new applications for dedications would be considered after June 28 last year.
My noble friend likened my right honourable friends to homicidal maniacs, asking their victims how they would best like to be destroyed. I concede that that was a graphic description, if a trifle unfair. I accept that the suspension of the dedication scheme has been considered by many as evidence of the Government's backing out of its support for forestry and as an indication of the Government's lack of interest in forestry. If there are noble Lords who still fear this, I should like to reassure them. It was done for one basic reason. As the Government were concerned that a new scheme should be drawn up, one which would take account of the more involved interests of a
1384
modern society, and as the Government had in the Consultative Document specifically instructed the Forestry Commission to consult with the interests concerned in formulating such a new scheme, it was considered only prudent to suspend new applications for dedication simply to allow the Government and the industry together to work out a fresh approach. It did not signify the end of all dedication, because land already dedicated (and there are a million acres of it and owners have had some 26 years in which to take advantage of the scheme) is still to retain the advantages of dedication.
Nor did it necessarily sound the end of support for new planting for all time. This has been running at some 50,000 acres a year. It merely suspended new dedications until the new arrangements could be worked out. There have been, and there will continue to be, extensive consultations throughout the whole of the forestry industry (as many noble Lords who are involved in them will know) on the preparation of a new scheme. These discussions are still in progress and when all the views have been considered the Government will announce their intentions. Meanwhile, my honourable friend the Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, as an earnest of the Government's concern for the importance of continuity to forestry, announced an interim scheme which will enable planting grants to be paid of the same size as those which have been previously available under the dedication scheme.
My Lords, the subject of increased timber production is a theme which is central to most of the views which are expressed by the private forestry interests. The maximum possible increase in home timber production is seen by many people as a desirable objective in that it would enable the United Kingdom to achieve both a greater inbuilt natural resource and a greater degree of self-sufficiency in timber. A number of arguments have been put forward in support of this, such as the need to reduce the high level of timber imports in order to benefit the balance of payments; the vulnerability of the United Kingdom in the face of possible world shortages of timber; and the steeply rising cost of imported timber (to which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred) such as we have experienced over the last year or so. I recognise that

1385
these are vitally important issues. Less than 10 per cent. of the demand for timber in Britain is currently being met from home produced supplies. Any increase in home production of timber will, of course, reduce the level of imports of timber and, on this count, it will relieve the balance of payments. But I would suggest that it is important to bear in mind that producing domestic timber absorbs resources which may be better employed in other industries, and increasing the country's self-sufficiency in timber may mean reducing it in other sectors. What the policy proposals in the Consultative Document have sought to do, therefore, is to suggest that the forestry programme should be at a level which will enable home timber production to make an increasing contribution to the total timber supplies without, at the same time, making a disproportionate call upon resources which may have an even greater call from elsewhere.
Here I wish to stress the importance of land, in this densely populated island, being put to the use which suits it best. I need hardly remind your Lordships of the 50,000 acres which are relentlessly being taken out of production every year in order to meet the demands for motorways and houses which was described so graphically once as, "the march of bricks and mortar over the fair plains of England". We cannot afford not to use land properly, and we must no longer think in terms of forestry or farming. Each can benefit the other as the Forestry Commission have demonstrated so effectively at Glenlivet, and as others have, too. Everyone knows how anxious we are to stimulate meat production, and we should welcome the fact that cattle, sheep and trees all grow well on the hills and uplands, and that trees planted with thought and foresight can enable more stock to be carried as a result of the shelter which they give. My honourable friend the Minister of State for Agriculture Fisheries and Food has been conducting most of the discussions with interested bodies, and I can assure noble Lords that the proper use of land is a thread which has linked them all. It is a matter which is featuring prominently in the Government's thinking. Your Lordships will wish to know that the ways and means of achieving further integration is a subject which the Forestry Commission and the Forestry Committee of Great Britain have
1386
been asked to include, together with considerations of amenity and depopulation, in their consultations over future grant-aid arrangements for private forestry.
One aspect of forestry which has caused concern to a large number of organisations and individuals outside the forestry industry is the effect which forestry has on the appearance of the countryside—and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw referred to that aspect. The Government believe that greater attention—and I will put it no higher than that—will have to be given to the part which woodlands play in the landscape. Since 1964 the Forestry Commission, for its part, has employed an eminent landscape consultant, Dame Sylvia Crowe, to advise it on more effective ways of merging its plantations naturally with the local topography. It has also instituted a new hardwood policy to ensure that only hardwood species are planted in traditionally hardwood areas where the soil is suitable. The private sector has also shown a growing willingness to modify its commercial aims in the interests of amenity, and this will no doubt be reinforced if we can devise a system whereby grants can be paid for amenity planting as proposed in the Consultative Document. It has to be recognised, however, that the environmental impact of forestry is something on which other interests, particularly local planning authorities with responsibilities in areas of high amenity, will wish to make their views known.
With the growing awareness of people to amenity, with the growth of leisure, and with the interminable spread of the ubiquitous motor car, we should be burying our heads in the sand if we did not recognise that there is, and there is bound to be an increasing public concern as to the effects of afforestation on the environment in general on the one hand, and on amenity in particular on the other hand. That does not mean that the one is antagonistic to the other, but merely that the one recognises the existence and the impact of the other. That makes one wonder: what is amenity? It is not a readily identifiable object like Big Ben. Nor do those who speak on behalf of amenity necessarily speak with the same voice—or even the same intentions. And I agree with my noble friend Lord Dundee when he said that the planting of bare areas of land can cause as much

1387
of an outcry as can the making of bare areas of land by the felling of mature afforested areas. It is the change from what has been known and accepted by the community to something different which is where society at large feels that it has a right, not to make its views necessarily prevail, but merely to allow them to be heard.
I cannot emphasise too strongly that the Government have no intention of abandoning forestry development. In fact, as will be clear from the Consultative Document, we are proposing to continue to finance out of national funds a planting programme for the Forestry Commission which, while it will incorporate an increasing share of replanting, will continue the extension of the national forestry estate until well into the next century. The programme is aimed at keeping planting within 55,000 acres per year inclusive of restocking. With the Commission's replanting expected to run at a level of about 10,000 acres a year for the next decade or two, this will mean, in effect, an initial level of new planting of about 45,000 acres per year but with a gradual decrease later on as restocking of felled woodlands increases. I know that there are those who would wish to see a higher output and target, but that would be impossible to achieve just now, so great is the difficulty of obtaining suitable land for planting. In 1971-72 the Commission managed to buy some 40,000 acres. Last year they could get only 16,000 acres—and the private sector is finding similar difficulties. However, every additional acre planted will eventually result in something like three tons of extra timber being produced each year.
So far as the private sector is concerned, we propose to institute a new system of grants, as well as retaining the old grant schemes for land which is already covered by them. Far from abandoning forestry development, therefore, we expect to see a continuing steady expansion of the area of land under trees, to be followed in due course by increased output of timber for processing. By the end of the century we shall probably be producing from our woods nearly three times as much timber as we are at present. It is, of course, always difficult to gauge what the demand for wood will be in the long term, but
1388
the general consensus of opinion seems to be that there will be a continuing increase in the demand at any rate until the end of the century.
My Lords, I think I can forecast that many of your Lordships will be emphasising that forestry has an important role to play in building up our national resources, as indeed it has in the recycling and regeneration of our national resources, as my noble friend Lord Dundee mentioned; that it provides supplies of raw material for industry; that it creates employment, both in the forests and in the processing industries; that it can run complementary with agriculture; that it enhances the amenities; and that it provides much-needed recreational facilities in a relaxed and rural setting to which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, referred. These are very varying roles. Sometimes the roles conflict and are not easy to reconcile. This is why we want discussion. This is why we are continuing to discuss. The Government look forward to hearing the views which your Lordships will express to-day. We are confident that ways and means will be found of striking a balance that will enable forestry to prosper in a manner which will satisfy the many and varied interests concerned.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, before the noble Earl finally resumes his seat, after a speech which included many conciliatory remarks on this subject, could he expand just a little on one point? He emphasised the fact that the document to which we have been referring, Forestry Policy, was not a White Paper but was a consultative document, and that the Government were taking account of the views which had been expressed and which will be expressed in the course of this debate. What will the next step be? Will the Government, when they have decided what they are going to do, issue a White Paper, or shall we be presented with an Order or Orders, or a Bill? I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the next stage will be the issue of a White Paper.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, as I explained to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, the Government are discussing these points at the moment. What the results of the discussion will be I cannot say; nor can I say what the method will be by which the Government

1389
announce their conclusion. Clearly it is right for the Government to take a decision, but the method by which that decision will be taken, whether by White Paper or otherwise, I cannot tell the noble Lord at present.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, would the Minister convey to his right honourable friends the possibility that the best way of conveying these decisions would be in a White Paper?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I will certainly convey that suggestion, together with every other word noble Lords are going to say this afternoon, to my right honourable friends.
LORD FORBES: My Lords, could the noble Earl give any indication as to when the decision will be made?
EARL FERRERS: No, my Lords, I cannot.
4.34 p.m.
THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH AND QUEENSBERRY: My Lords, I declare a personal interest in forestry and a keen national interest in its success. When Parliament has so much business and legislation, and when Members of Parliament are involved with so many vast issues of such complexity, very little attention is given to a small industry like timber production, and people seem to be annoyed if it tries to grow and to prove itself. We are indebted, therefore, to my noble friend Lord Dundee for his Motion to-day. I feel sure that all of us will be very much encouraged by the two speeches from the representatives of both Front Benches to which we have just listened, by their friendliness to forestry, by the great enthusiasm expressed once again by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and by the reassurance of my noble friend Lord Ferrers as to the Government's views about forestry. I feel that it will be very helpful to those persons who are negotiating for private forestry to-day to know that the Government have these good intentions towards it for the future.
With so many well qualified speakers on the list, I will try to refer only to a few of the many important aspects. There is clear evidence of the urgent need for much more timber. Prices of imported timber have risen fast. The shortage of timber is worsening in Europe and in
1390
other parts of the world. The demand here and elsewhere, is bigger every year. Wood producing industries, especially in Scotland, are under pressure to produce more, and are very short of timber already; and yet there is suitable land, soil and climate. Much land is under-productive and can be available with little disadvantage to farming. Whatever justification the committee of economists may have, or think they have, about the amount of money in timber production, that there is a long wait for any return and that this eventually is too little, when you compare the annual expenditure on imports of timber, increasing annually, and last year at a record figure of nearly £920 million, with the modest expenditure towards forestry and towards private forestry during the last 100 years, or even the last 50 years, and when you also compare capital grants and assistance for other industries, including farming, I submit that the value of the capital assets in timber, and the contribution which they will go on making continuously, is a full justification for a policy of forestry expansion, with necessary incentives.
With favourable currencies and a better trade balance, imports would presumably cost less and matter less. But there is no guarantee or sign of this, the opposite is more true. With such an acute shortage of timber this country will need to rely more on its own efforts. To meet the initial costs of growing good timber and attractive woods, in 1947 all political Parties accepted the need for financial incentives. The economic justification is greater now, with higher costs and greater consumption. Proposals last year by the Government were based mainly on the economists' report. They caused disappointment to everyone concerned with the promotion of forestry and timber production. But the Minister, fortunately, stated that the proposals were open to discussion, and the opportunity has been taken by all forestry organisations to assist with constructive suggestions. These all favour the continuity of forestry expanson and the improvement of existing woods, both in quality and in amenity. I urge support for their opinions and recommendations.
I think we should remember the felling of so many plantations during the last war and the mess that was left in them afterwards. The 1947 policy for their re-establishment and for the creation of

1391
a much larger and stronger forestry industry resulted from a long and thorough investigation by Ministers of all Parties in Parliament, by the Forestry Commission, private forestry, Chancellors of the Exchequer, and the Treasury, and was agreed in Parliament by all political Parties, who demanded a maximum response from forestry. If anyone may politically dislike in principle one or the other, I would emphasise that the best is needed both from the Forestry Commission and from private forestry. Before the Statement last year we were disappointed that there was no consultation, but this debate is helpful now, and I hope that after the statements this afternoon confidence will rapidly be restored.
Forestry and timber production are unlike any other industry, and different treatment is required for them. The extent to which woodland owners, timber merchants and the Forestry Commission had to begin again from scratch after the war will scarcely be remembered; but in contrast to the position then, I submit that remarkable progress has been made in the last 25 years, which is not a long period for timber production. The benefit of this to the nation will be immense; I do not think that that is sufficiently recognised. I predict now that there will be a need for the full use of all available land for food and timber production. If there is a continued effort for the next 25 years the situation will be much more favourable, and there will be a much more economic and helpful industry.
May I turn to hardwoods for a few minutes, because it is well known that there is a widespread public demand for the growing of more oak and other hardwoods, and that this is more costly than growing conifers on hillsides. I hope that attention is being given to this matter at a high level. The planning of landscape improvement and amenity is a customary objective of private woodland owners as well as the growing of good quality timber. The growing of hardwoods, especially oak, requires continuous attention and personal care, which can only be given by the owners of the woods. I am sure that in localities more suitable for hardwoods, encouragement from the Government will
1392
be welcome, and the response will be keen.
I feel that it is difficult to speak about hardwoods without saying a few words about the widespread destruction of hardwood trees such as beech, oak, and sycamore by grey squirrels in the southern half of England, and in a few parts of Scotland. I hope that persons with small, non-planting estates and families living in or near towns and villages who find grey squirrels attractive will become increasingly aware of this destruction of hardwoods, which is even worse than elm disease, and will not be resentful but will wish to co-operate with those who try to grow hardwoods in effecting a reduction of the grey squirrel population. If the forestry authority and the Government can face up to this delicate problem and can secure a willing support from many more people and organisations, the loss of hardwood trees will be much less and the growing of them will be more economic and successful.
Before concluding, I should like to say a word or two about the dedication agreement, which is partly the cause of this debate and which was intended to be permanent. It is understood by everyone in forestry. Amendments so far do not seem to be an improvement. It was a necessary part of a long-term post-war forestry policy designed primarily to make it possible financially for felled woodlands to be re-established, to secure better management with continuity and permanence, and to help in establishing a much larger and stronger forest industry. The dedication agreement is understood by everyone in forestry, and if amendments may possibly spoil rather than improve it, the Government could do well to confirm the policy previously agreed by all parties with a minimum of changes.
Finally, speaking as a farmer and forester with responsibility for good land use, I realise the value of a balanced policy and of integration for food and timber production, and the need to choose more carefully for forestry the land which is the least productive and the least economic for farming and the more suitable for timber. Farmers will be increasingly aware of the acute shortage of timber and its effects, and co-operation between the two industries, which is so

1393
much to be desired, could more readily become a reality. The increase of food production by farmers has been immense and is being bettered all the time, and equally foresters wish to do their share. Whatever mistakes may have been made in the use of land for forestry and in the choice of trees, I am sure they are few compared to the vast achievement of State and private forestry; and with more experience now, and also more knowledge of public demand, an improvement in every respect can be anticipated. Now that Her Majesty's Government have had this review of the forestry situation, I very much hope that they will take a good opportunity to put us all on the best course for the foreseeable future.
4.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: My Lords, I too must admit to an interest as an owner of a very small area of woodlands, for which I have taken full advantage of the dedication scheme. But, much as I should like to talk about that, I feel that it is going to be very adequately covered by subsequent speakers, and therefore I want to devote my remarks more to the question of forestry policy, which was referred to both by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in their remarks, in which, as your Lordships will remember, they were not at all kindly disposed to the cost/benefit analysis.
I should like to say to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, who gave us a very conciliatory speech and spoke of a consultative document—and I think that he may find this somewhat disturbing—that it is one thing to consult on ways and means, and quite another to consult on principle and policy; and I am afraid the Government will find that it is on principle and policy that they will have to think again, and not on ways and means. Much was said about this cost/benefit analysis. I have no idea whether the explanation offered by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and also by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for its form is a fair one, but the fact is that any operation of that sort has to proceed on terms of reference, and it is Ministers' responsibility to see that the terms of reference are correct. In this instance, I am sorry to say that I do not think they have taken that precaution. The result is the appalling muddle into which their argument has got, which
1394
makes the cost/benefit analysis not only largely irrelevant but, to a considerable extent, inconsistent with itself.
Great stress is laid from place to place in the documents on the long-term nature of forestry—something which of course we all know to be true. But it seems to me that the implications of that have not been properly followed up, either by the Government or by the cost/benefit analysis. In the case of an industry like this one, where there is a rotation of anything from 50 to 100 years, who on earth would think of taking a criterion for it in the form of a test discount rate of whatever amount? Who has any idea what will be an appropriate rate 50 years from now? That part of the inquiry could have been answered immediately by anybody who knew about forestry. All the Government had to do was to ask, "Do you think we shall get a 10 per cent. return on our money from investment in forestry?", and the answer would have been, "No". But, instead, this elaborate procedure has been gone through. The result of putting this emphasis on a test discount rate is that the real object of forestry has never been properly defined in these documents, although it was defined clearly enough in 1948.
Incidentally, it is not a particular mark for the documents that they made the specific statement that the main object of the dedication scheme was to make good the losses of timber in World War II. I think that was a mis-statement. It was not true, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, gave us some evidence of that. But I think one can also get some evidence by looking at the facts. The position at that time was that there had been neglect of forestry, not only in World War II but in World War I, and many woodlands had not been re-stocked. There was neglect of forestry all through the 'thirties, for very good economic reasons; and the problem went very much wider than the World War II problem. There is some evidence, too, from the dedication scheme itself. Surely no one, either Government in proposing it or the owners in accepting it, would put their names to a dedication in perpetuity to remedy a situation which could certainly have been remedied in 15 years. Obviously, that was a mis-statement of fact, and the intention must have been at that time to establish, at least for existing

1395
woodland areas that they would be kept under timber not for 15 years but from generation to generation; and no owner would have willingly signed that without being confident that that policy anyway would be continued. So I think that the argument about the discount rate can be largely left out of account.
The other extraordinary factor in the cost benefit analysis is the treatment of import saving. I should not have thought that any body of economists, Treasury or otherwise, could suggest that an industry which is supplying only 10 per cent. of the country's requirements of timber was not going to try to do better than that, but there is no suggestion in this document that they are going to try any such thing. It seems to me that a little common sense would have answered that point, without many elaborate investigations. It is not fair to say that all the proposed policy is objectionable to those of us who are interested in forestry. There is a wide area of agreement. I think we are all agreed that from the financial return point of view it is not a wonderfully remunerative investment on past and present statistics. A point which is not dealt with in the Paper is what is to happen in the future, and one of the criticisms of it must be that quite inadequate attention was given to the assessment of the future timber market, both in this country and elsewhere—to supplies of timber in the United Kingdom, to supplies of timber in Europe and on a world basis. Of course, that has now been overtaken by events, although none of us knows to what extent the present extreme shortage of timber will be permanent and to what extent it will be temporary.
Another point that has to be considered in this economic problem is that you cannot consider the viability of a forestry industry, except by taking it as a whole. You cannot, for instance, consider only the afforestation of new land in isolation. Since this Paper was written, there have been major developments in the economic situation. It is only within the last few months that one has been able to see signs that at long last some reasonable money will be available for the thinnings, which will completely alter the picture of forestry in the future if it succeeds. Much of that is the result of new timber-using industry starting up,
1396
We have had the pulp mill, which had a value in a limited area. We now have chipboard industries starting, and there is acute anxiety in case we do not have sufficient timber to supply them. Indeed, at the moment there is such a famine of timber that many sawmills in Scotland are not even able to obtain it. Whether or not they are unwilling to pay the price I do not know, but that is the present situation.
So one really has to consider the subject in this way: that if we are to have a timber industry which will even keep the existing woodlands under timber from generation to generation, and, if possible, do so on a viable basis—that is to say, without subsidy—then we have to make sure that we can produce sufficient timber to satisfy the timber-using industries. Otherwise, if they fail—for instance, if the chipboard industry does not come up to its expectations—we shall be back to the position where there is no cash flow at all in the forest until it is well over 25 years old. So it works both ways. You have to make sure that you have sufficient reserves of timber to keep the industries going, and you also have to see that they will have sufficient growth and capacity to take the timber that you are supplying. It is by no means certain what will be needed in the future, but there is one reason why one should tend to over-estimate rather than underestimate the amount of timber which has to be grown.
As has been said, we are at the moment half-way through a timber rotation for most of the post-war plantings; that is to say, the first of the post-war plantings are now about 25 years old. At that stage, there is remarkably little elasticity in what you can do about producing timber suddenly for the market, because it has not reached the necessary stage. But when you reach 50 years (taking that as a round figure) and you begin the process of felling your fifty-year timber and restocking, then you have a situation in which you have a certain amount of elasticity, because in fact you do not require to cut all your timber in year 50, and you have quite a wide spread of years in which you can bring it on the market. Therefore, on that ground alone, I think this is entirely the wrong moment to fiddle about with the timber industry and to put it out of the stride which it has only just got into.

1397
I really have not time to deal with the other main item in this policy document—that is to say, the regional employment figure—except to say that I do not think you need to be an economist to know that of course if you have a production of timber well spread over the rather more backward areas of the country, then obviously it has a good effect on regional employment. Again, the full effect of that will be difficult to assess until we get on a full rotation basis, which is not until another 25 years' time.
Finally, may I say one word about the amenity question, which is, I admit, very important. I am not going to go into it in detail because it is clearly going to be dealt with by subsequent speakers. All of us in the forestry industry recognise the importance of amenity, but I think here again that the cost/benefit study made a complete mess of its account of amenity factors, and the reason was this. It made an attempt—I think an abortive one—to quantify in money terms the value of recreational amenity, but when it came to scenic amenity it decided (quite rightly, I think) that it could not even try because it was too difficult. The result was that far too much emphasis, in my opinion, was put on recreational amenity, which is very limited. It is limited both by supply of suitable places and by the demand for particular kinds of recreational amenity. But scenic amenity is quite a different thing. It affects everybody in the country, it affects all our foreign visitors, and it is of the utmost importance. In fact, it was not given nearly sufficient importance in the Papers we are now discussing. My Lords, that is all I have to say, and I shall listen with very great interest to subsequent speakers.
5.3 p.m.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, the first six speakers have taken two hours to contribute their most interesting speeches to this important debate, for which we are all extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. Private forestry, as it seems to me, stands at the crossroads in this debate, so we are extremely grateful that the matter should be thrown open to discussion and the future of forestry given a fair ventilation in this House on one of those rare occasions when we can talk about this vastly important industry of the United Kingdom. If I may say so, apart from the importance and length of
1398
the speeches they have been unanimous I think, both on the Opposition and on the Liberal Benches, and the only point of disagreement that I can see, with respect, is on the Front Bench of the Government. My noble friend Lord Ferrers still seems to reiterate the points in the White Paper which has filled us all with alarm and which, I think, is now wholly out of date, apart from being extremely inaccurate.
My Lords, there is a world shortage of timber; I think everybody knows that. but it is a curious thing about raw materials that the shortage of these materials is never fully realised until the event is upon you. I can instance many cases. The noble Earl, Lord Dundee, mentioned oil in the United States. They have only just discovered that there is a great shortage of that vital commodity in the country. The same could be said about the Argentine, which had all the meat in the world and now has two meatless days a week. Then, when the harvest failed in Russia, although Russian wheat was said to be unlimited, they put up the price of our timber; and, of course, we have not enough timber here. We are soon going to have no herrings in this country, although the Herring Board will not tell you that until there are no herrings left in the North Sea and the Minch. But that is the background to the timber shortage in Europe to-day.
Many speakers have told us that we can grow only 8 per cent. of our national timber requirements, and that is a hopelessly small and inadequate figure, Surely the Government should makeevery effort to try to rectify this state of affairs. Those of your Lordships who have attended the F.A.O. conferences in Geneva will have foreseen for the last ten years that this was going to happen. We cannot really blame the Treasury, who have taken the brunt of the hostile critics who have already spoken and who are going to come after me. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, whose hands are tied by the Forestry Commission, cannot defend himself, because I know he is a good friend of this side of the House who is leading without troops for most of the time. He must know that the Forestry Commission have fallen behind the clock in failing to appreciate that we must grow more trees,

1399
and the Government must appreciate that it takes sixty years to grow a tree. This seems to be one of the main weaknesses in the present White Paper, and I hope the thing will be torn up and that the Government will think again after the next 15 speakers have had their say in this matter.
I will not say more about the homegrown timber deficit, but I should like to mention that from the year 1975 there will be a falling short of 250,000 tons per annum of timber. No person has yet mentioned the fact that people are going to be out of jobs and that the confidence of the industry has fallen to zero. I am talking about the man who germinates the seed in the nursery garden right up to the man in the pulp mill at Fort William, which is working 20 per cent. below capacity. We have been very considerably shaken, and I hope that the Government have been shaken, too. With the balance of payments all awry, we are now paying up to nearly £100 million a year for imported timber; so surely we must think in terms of expansion.
Now we have missed the boat in many ways. Land use, as many speakers have already emphasised, is a vastly complicated affair. The noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch, and my noble friend Lord Dundee mentioned a debate forty years ago in the House of Commons, when forestry was in the doldrums and the Government thought that something should be done about it. I remember making my maiden speech, which must have been a complementary one to that same, more important affair in another place. My father had just died, I had not come of age, and I got up in a very timid way and suggested that the Forestry Commission might consider paying more than ten shillings an acre for land, because a deer forest made fifteen shillings at that time. If your Lordships read the Financial Times of ten days ago, you will have seen that the market value of a deer forest is now £10,000 a stag; the price of a salmon is £1,000; and the price of a brace of grouse, more extraordinary still, is £800. These are market values, and they are fantastic and pulpably absurd, but they show how far the Forestry Commission and the policy of afforestation have lagged behind.
1400
You will have to put up your sights to buy more land—I am now speaking to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, and the Forestry Commission. The Government must appreciate that they must give Lord Taylor sufficient funds to go about acquiring land. One speaker has already said that you cannot get land for planting trees at less than £100 an acre. I do not think the Forestry Commission, whose valuations in different parts of Scotland, at any rate, are very different, would contemplate that figure; but they must be given the wherewithall to do so, just as one must get increased planting grants to meet the rising cost of production. All these matters must be looked at in a new light. The way the price of timber, the price of land and the price of different forms of country valuations have rocketed in the last six months came as quite a surprise to me, and I am sure it did to all your Lordships, and I do not think they are likely to go down.
I now come to deal quickly with certain points in the White Paper, having discussed the wider interprepation of forestry in this country. There are certain considerations which I think could help the Government in their appraisal of forestry. First, if land is so expensive, why do not the Forestry Commission buy smaller woodlands? This is something which does not appeal to them, but it might be considered. I do not think that in the White Paper it is necessarily a good thing to insist on private access to woodlands at all times. This matter might be considered in a different light. It is not a case of denying access at all times but of denying access at certain times. This seems to be commonsense for obvious reasons. There is something I think wrong in the management grant, something which has struck me forcefully over the years. I am concerned with property and the one I know best plants 200 to 300 acres a year. You cannot keep up with dedication; and the Forestry Commission expect you to comply. One always does so; but they pay out the grant before the bare areas on the map are actually planted. This to me seems to be a burden on the Treasury. I see no reason why this system should not be improved so that the grant is payable only after the land has been planted.

1401
I now come to sport which has its importance in the integration of hillside or farm or woodland areas. The noble Viscount, Lord Arbuthnott, is to speak later. He is the chairman of the Deer Commission. I feel that the private woodlands and the Forestry Commissioners might consider opening their woodlands to the red deer when the trees have thinned out and the danger of their destruction by the deer is unlikely. You cannot let red deer into young plants. In our bigger woodlands we have different age groups of timber; some young, some old. We do not mind the deer among the old timber, but they could damage the young. This brings me back to the point I made about smaller woodlands. They are much more attractive anyway than vast areas of different growths all inside a ring fence.
My Lords, to sum up, this White Paper is a year out of date. It is a severe blow to confidence in the private sector of forestry. If the Government wish to nationalise forestry then they had better say so. Some people think it is a way of stopping private planting going any further. In the meantime, on advice that appears to stem from the Treasury, the Government have abandoned the purposeful build-up of timber resources in this country. If the Government can spell out a hold policy—we have the land, we have the climate, we have the soil and we have the expertise—we could step up national production from 8 per cent. to 25 per cent. by the year 2025, and meet our requirement of 50 years' hence. In view of the trade deficit and the present state of the pound this seems to me a national necessity.
5.15 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I begin with two apologies. First, I have an unbreakable engagement, and in view of the state of travel at the moment I doubt whether I shall be able to remain to hear the end of the debate. I hope I shall. Secondly, I am not going to follow the main line of the debate. There are many reasons for this. In the first place, my noble friend Lord Hughes and I are probably the only two speakers without vested interest in this matter. Therefore I think it is up to us to bring out some of the marginal aspects which people who are deeply concerned with their own affairs are apt
1402
to miss. The noble Earl provoked me a little in his opening by, as it seemed to me, slightly overstating his case. But this is to be expected when one is deeply interested and involved in something; it is almost impossible not to do so. I have done exactly the same often enough when speaking against Treasury critics on behalf of agriculture. "Treasury-bashing" is a favourite sport, here and elsewhere—and rightly so; for they are nearly always wrong. My noble friend, Lord Hughes suggested that they were especially hostile to forestry. I can assure him that this is not the case; they have been especially hostile to every cause I have ever supported. I do not think that one wants to overdo this suggestion about their picking on forestry.
With my noble friend Lord Hughes, I thing it is a pity to start reducing targets when the price of land is almost certain to reduce them anyway. I level some criticism at the White Paper and Government policy on those grounds. But primarily I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that, whatever you may think of cost/benefit analysis, there is a case for trying to have a cost/benefit analysis of the cost of producing anything against the cost of producing something else.
The "Grey Paper" that we have all been discussing contains a fair degree of non sequiturs. But it was probably right to attempt to do it. It took—and the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, wondered what this meant—a figure of 10 per cent. as the test discount rate. I, too, have not the slightest idea what that means but I take it that it means the rate at which money could reasonably be invested. What is interesting about this Treasury doctrine is that it says that 3 per cent. of the 10 per cent. can be covered by the true economic results of forestry and the other 7 per cent. must be covered by intangibles. Most of us believe this to be true. The employment question is vital. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, who said that there was no reason to put an economist on to tell us so. The amenities are vital. Strategy is important.
I want to talk about two parts of this Paper only: shortly about one, and at slightly greater length about the other. First, the integration of agriculture with

1403
forestry; and, secondly, recreation. As regards the first, this has been a constant disappointment to people who study agriculture—one of whom to some extent I claim to be—and the Report of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, Land Resources Use in Scotland, an interesting document, has a few sharp things to say about this. They say:
"A highly unsatisfactory situation … positive steps should be taken to promote integration".
So I should hope. This suggests that such steps have not been taken. But this is 16 years after the Zuckerman Report, which was entirely devoted to this end, and it is eight years after the Labour Government's Paper, The Development of Agriculture, both of which insisted strongly on the importance of integration. My information is not very up to date, but I feel that this is not happening as it should, particularly in Wales, though probably the position is better in Scotland than in Wales.
I take the view that farmers and foresters are not natural collaborators. Some overall reference is required to made them work together. I thought the last Government got it about right when they set up the Northern Pennines Rural Development Board which was supposed to supervise the integration of agriculture, forestry, amenity and recreation in what is a difficult area. This Board was just beginning to show its worth when it was savagely dismembered, in those far-off brutal days before the Government changed their spots. But there is no use in looking back now. Let us hope that the Government will accept what the Select Committee has recommended, which could be almost as good as, and is not significantly different from, the Board—that is, the Land Use Council. This would be a central forum for discussion of rural land use affairs; its bite would be in its direct access to the Secretary of State. This, in my opinion, is the way that any increase in planting should be justified. It should not be justified basically by economic argument alone, but by showing that in certain areas there are places that would be best used for planting. We shall not get that until we have some kind of overall body looking at it, and this is what I hope we shall do. There has been some talk of amenity of access.
1404
I criticised the Forestry Commission very much in the old days for its straight lines and right angles, but since Dame Sylvia Crowe has been there I think we must say that things are quite different and really rather good.
Now, my Lords, let me turn to recreation, which I think has the greatest potential of all the intangibles and is probably the least understood. The White Paper lays down specifically (the Government have not been given credit for this and I wish to give them credit; perhaps it is the first credit that they have received to-day) that the Forestry Commission is to provide greater access to the countryside for recreational purposes. The Commission's current Report shows that it spent something over £500.000 on amenity and recreation. As I understand it, there is no guide as to how much the Commission should spend; it is left to the judgment of the Commission and 1 am happy to leave it in the hands of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe. Incidentally, / am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, referred to the absurdity of the Addison Rules, by which we are not allowed to hear the noble Lord, who has more to tell us than anybody in the House. I think that £500,000 is a modest sum and that we could look for a good deal more. Here I agree with all noble Lords who have criticised the Treasury attempt at cost/benefit analysis of the unanalysable. It seems to me that to try to quantify the recreational benefits is too silly for words. The Treasury calculated a figure of £14 million for 1968, rising to £6 million by 1980. In my opinion this is simply a random guess. I do not believe that calculations of this sort are useful at all. Without going so far as Wittgenstein, who startled philosophers while I was at Cambridge by suggesting that all value judgments were meaningless, I would assert absolutely firmly that accountants' attempts to put cash values on pleasures and pains are absolutely meaningless. I think this is an instance of a great deal of totally wasted work for a result which, while not actually misleading, because they give quite a lot of weight to it, they could have got it without this calculation. I think the story of the widow's mite ought to convince us that sums are not equal to values. In any case, after Roskill, I should have thought that we had got

1405
over that by now. It seems that we have not. But if the problem is not subject to quantification, it is subject to common sense, and on this basis certain conclusions which are quite encouraging may be drawn.
In the first place, there has been a steady increase in the use of forests by campers. There were over one million camp-nights in 1972, which is up nearly 20 per cent. over the last two years. Over the same period the Commission has added 60 new picnic sites, making nearly 200; doubled the number of forest trails; increased car parks by 20 per cent. and doubled the number of information centres. So the Commission has not been backward in responding to the Government's invitation. But we want to see a good deal more done. This whole exercise is taking place against the most extraordinary explosion of tourism both native and foreign. The total demand for all forms of over-night accommodation in Great Britain is expected to grow by 40 per cent. to 740 million bed-nights by 1980. This includes an expected rise of 120 per cent. in the number of foreign visitors. One could not bet on these figures. They are not certainties, but they are an intelligent guess and they show a trend. The Nino Report, Hotel Prospects to 1980. predicts a demand over and above existing availability for beds in the lower price range—that means under £5 a night at to-day's prices—and of no fewer than 120,000 at peak. This is described by the trade rather quaintly as "unsatisfied bed-nights". It is true that most overseas visitors begin with determined sight-seeing—London. Stratford, Edinburgh—but most of them want to get away from it all, at least for some part of their holiday. And the natives certainly want to get out of their urban prisons. The more people we can persuade to take a forest holiday, the better for our balance of payments. Continental prices are rising, and there is no time to be lost. The 3 million acres of Commission forest, with 600,000 acres of forest park and over 10,000 miles of road where not a car can be seen, is ideal for getting away from it all. You can obtain isolation; you can lose 100 people in an acre of forest who in an acre of open space would make it look like Margate.
Where are all these visitors—the great potential in those unsatisfied bed-nights—
1406
going to sleep? The Commission has made a start. It has built 12 family cabins, each with five beds, in Strathyre Forest in Perthshire. These have now been fully let for more than a month and so far everything is all right. There is access to the shores of the loch, to boating and swimming, to mountain walks and forest walks, to nature trails and to marvellous scenery. It seems to me that this is the sort of initiative we want to see, forest by forest and district by district, not only throughout Scotland but also throughout the British Isles. There will have to be heavy capital expenditure, but it should bring good returns and meet a real need. I do not know how easily the Commission can raise money and I do not think it ought to go into the hotel business in a big way. I should have thought that carefully contrived concessions, keeping overall control in the hands of the Commission but leaving the specialist provision of beds and food to specialists, would be the right sort of approach; and I hope that bodies like British Rail, which have shown great expertise in this business, would not be precluded from tendering for this in order to produce something for another Government perhaps to hive off at a later stage. This, I think, is the line that we should work on.
What is true for the public sector is also true for the private sector. Every encouragement should be given to private landlords to develop in the same direction. But I wish the White Paper had been a little more specific about questions of access to private forests and recreation. In paragraph 42, it says that grant aid to private forestry should have to meet one of two conditions; the first relating to providing employment and the second to an environmental gain, such as creating or preserving amenity. I should like to add a third, the provision of access to recreational facilities.
My Lords, this is not the occasion to debate the very strongly worded new paragraph which was proposed and turned down in the Select Committee's deliberations, and which is recorded in full at the end of volume 1 of the Report. I think it would be a waste of time to try to persuade a Tory Government—even this one with their new look—to enter into wholesale nationalisation. My Party is not committed to expropriating

1407
landlords who do their job well. However, I am not averse to putting pressure on them to use their assets to make some contribution to the public weal. Here I would use the carrot rather than the stick. I would tempt rather than threaten. I think that people with adequate resources are more susceptible to the pleasures of profit than to the pain of loss. Generally speaking, it is the poor who miss the quick profit because they cannot afford the catastrophe of loss. I would assist landlords generously to make proper and effective arrangements for access and recreation, as the Forestry Commission is already doing, but I would not give them a penny if they did not. So I should like to see access and provision for recreation as a necessary condition for grant aid. I certainly do not mean that there should be no private woods at all, but that a reasonable readiness to provide access, with car parks, picnic sites and the rest on some parts of their estates, should be expected of landlords before they qualify for State assistance. Of course, many are doing this already, as noble Lords opposite know, and some in a most imaginative way. But this does not affect the principle.
My Lords, I believe that the prospects for growth in the provision of forest reclamation is not only great but also greatly in the national interest. I repeat that I applaud the Government's inclusion of recreation and amenity as planks in their forestry policy and I am grateful to the noble Earl for having given us this opportunity to discuss it.
5.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF BRADFORD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Dundee has once again earned your Lordships' thanks for introducing another Motion on forestry to this House, and with such a powerful speech. The noble Earl has called for a consistent forestry policy, and in support of this I would say that in an operation so long term, consistency in policy is the first essential for planning. And in adding my thanks to the noble Earl I would also thank him for slightly amending the terms of his Motion—not because I disagree with them in the first place, but because, seeing my place on the list of speakers as a somewhat lonely Englishman between two batches of noble
1408
Lords from North of the Border, I was fearful that I might see a flash of claymores or possibly of axes or chain saws if I said something exclusively Sassenach.
However, perhaps I can reassure your Lordships, in declaring an interest, by saying that my forestry operations are not confined exclusively to South of the Border but extend to the wilds of Inverness-shire and include the integration of a hill farm with forestry operations. In declaring this interest, too, I must say that I have taken advantage of grants under the Dedication Scheme and have therefore been helped by public money. But I can also say that I have put far more by way of my own resources into these operations, and in the course of them have derived far more aesthetic pleasure than I have been able to derive financial advantage, though I hope that the latter may be the lot of my successors in time if they are permitted to enjoy the woodlands which have been created over the last generation.
My Lords, I have participated, I think, in most of the debates on forestry that have taken place in your Lordships' House since I became a Member. I think I have been consistent in advocating a forward-looking national policy and assessing the opportunities and advantages of a dynamic approach to the subject. I have also stressed the potential gain to our balance of payments, the great asset of our oceanic climate for tree-growing and the vital qualities of timber as the most important self-renewable raw material that we possess, especially now in the light of the growing energy crisis. I have also stressed the strategic value of those timber resources, in the light of approaching world shortages and the vulnerable position in which we find ourselves as the largest importer, particularly in view of the growing needs and the policies of developing countries, many of which are among our principal suppliers. We have already been told that our imports of timber products are rapidly approaching the 1,000 million mark in one year and amount to many times more than the total spending on the development of forestry resources over the last 50 years. I am not aware that any remarks which I may have made have caused any ripple on the surface of that sea of serenity and complacency in which the Treasury seem to engulf themselves

1409
when forestry matters come up before them. If this is Treasury batting, I am delighted to hear that there are many other opportunities given.
In June last year we had the latest review of forestry policy in the form of the White Paper intended for discussion. This, as we have heard, caused considerable alarm and despondency within the industry and was challenged by the forestry societies and also by the timber trade. The economic arguments which it advanced, if applied to other Government supported enterprises, would I think bring most of them to a standstill. They were applied in the case of forestry to unrepresentative areas in an era of immaturity and imbalance of age and classes and therefore of low productivity. Their conclusions therefore must be highly misleading and, as we have heard, have been largely vitiated by subsequent events.
The White Paper, too, brought the Dedication Scheme to a halt and, as we have already heard, showed considerable misunderstanding of the purpose of that scheme. It was not just for the rehabilitation of war-time damage and destruction but was intended as a framework of orderly long-term management and control, with financial assistance to the owner in return for considerable sacrifices by him. There is the greatest need for continuity, either in the present form or in some similar form. The White Paper, too, introduced a degree of respectability for forestry through provision for employment in development areas, and also for amenity. Though highly desirable aims in themselves, these can hardly be said to be the main ends of policy. The basis of any successful policy of forestry must be a prosperous industry right through, from the growers and the processers to the users; and here I would say that forestry production does not end, as is sometimes thought. when a tree is felled. The industry includes processors and users, as well as growers and the total production of the industry is far higher than that shown in the cost/benefit study which shows only raw material values and not overall output values.
Since publication of the White Paper, as we have heard, discussions between interested parties have been taking place, and one can only hope that a sensible agreed policy will emerge; but in the same period other very important events
1410
have occurred. There has been a very steep rise in timber prices, making the economic arguments of the cost/benefit study sound even less valid. Secondly, the countries of the European Economic Community, already much more heavily forested than we are, have called for a vastly increased forestry programme; and in the light of fast approaching world shortages almost all other countries in Europe are stepping up their forestry efforts. They all seem apparently blissfully unaware of the economic arguments against forestry advanced by Her Majesty's Government.
Thirdly, there has been a much greater realisation of the finite nature of most of the natural resources of the world—for example, coal and oil—and therefore of the increasing need for timber, the most important self-renewable resource. Fourthly, there has been published a most interesting paper, entitled Forestry in Britain: the Pattern of Industry, by Kenneth Rankin, Director of the Economic Forestry Group. This paper shows that if we were able to count on the sustained yield of 4 million acres of fully productive forest, with the supporting industries well integrated, we could count on an imports saving of around £500 million. I would point out, too, that if the recommendations of the Royal Commission of 1909 had been accepted our productive forests would be very much larger still.
My Lords, the mistakes of foresters, though long lasting, are perhaps not so serious as those of doctors, and are perhaps comparable to those of architects in their effect on the environment. The effects of grey squirrels and their depredations are even more obvious in their effect on the environment. I should like to support the plea of the noble Duke, the Duke of Buccleuch. for even more energetic action against this pest. Much more serious, however, are the mistakes of central policy, especially if the architects of that policy fail to enable full use to be made of our unique natural resources and our climatic advantages. It is still not too late to make up some of the lost ground, and I very much hope, with other noble Lords, that on this occasion the chance will not again be missed.
5.41 p.m.
THE VISCOUNT OF ARBUTHNOTT: My Lords, I should like to join others of your Lordships in offering thanks to my

1411
noble kinsman Lord Dundee for introducing this Motion this afternoon, which of course has centred round the White Paper, or, as we should now call it, the Consultative Document, which required some pretty far-ranging decisions without consultation before it was produced. I think we ought also to realise that in some quarters that document was welcomed, and it is about some of the criticisms of forestry that come from those quarters that I should like to speak this afternoon. I have to admit an interest, like others of your Lordships, in that I am the owner of 360 acres of dedicated woodland. But my interest in forestry is even greater as a former employee of the Nature Conservancy, as my noble friend Lord Dundee has already mentioned, and as a former member of the Countryside Commission for Scotland. Presently, my interest is almost entirely confined to that of a farmer with a main interest in sheep and cattle farming in upland conditions.
In 1973 I planted my tree along with all the members of my family, the members of the village school and the members of our youth club. I have also felled some mature woodland in order to replant it. I have taken some bare upland grazing out of agriculture and put it into forestry. I have tried to improve amenity and some of the conscience of the young people towards the environment and forestry in particular. I have also destroyed amenity and wildlife habitat. So, at the same time, I have committed all the sins that are held against foresters and tried to carry out some of the virtues that they extol for themselves. But, in fact, this is the normal pattern of integrated management on many, if not the majority, of the landed estates that I know: an integration of farming, forestry and amenity, with a consideration always for wildlife. It` is a matter of finding the right balance; of preparing a plan, sticking to it and trying to see it through. What throws one is if the outside factors are subject to drastic change; and Government policy is about the most crucial of these. Then your plans are almost certain to go awry. This was the situation that faced most of us in private forestry in June, 1972, when we contemplated the future as a result of what was apparently Government policy at that time. But
1412
many others of your Lordships have dealt with this matter much better than I can (and no doubt others will, too) and I should like to confine my few remarks to the other phase of forestry that so often comes in for criticism: its compatability or otherwise with conservation; its relationship to amenity and the opportunity for recreation; and, perhaps most important, the degree to which it can fit into the plans of the farmers.
On conservation, I should like to make just these few remarks. Recently I had the good fortune to read of an exercise that was carried out by a group of foresters, farmers and conservationists in upland Wales, where a large area of farming country was taken and it was demonstrated what the three different groups would do if they had a free hand. I am glad to say that the outcome was a compromise plan. But I think it is worth noting that the naturalists found in this upland area some 700 species of plant. It will not surprise the foresters among us that nearly 70 per cent. of those could be found in the hard woodland, but perhaps it might be a surprise to know that nearly 50 per cent. could be found in the coniferous forest; that the percentage increased as the forest grew older, and that that percentage was higher than what was to be found of those species on the open moorland and grassland outside. This was true not only of plants, but of birds, and I think probably should lay the lie that afforestation, and even coniferous afforestation, can be harmful to the interests of wildlife.
There is another point about wildlife to which I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships, and it concerns the size of the blocks that are being planted. It is generally true to say that the larger amount of a particular habitat you have the more opportunity there is for a variety of animals and wildlife to be found within it. Roughly, you will get a greater variety in one 100-acre wood than you would get in four 25-acre blocks. This, again, I think lays the lie that stresses the fact that large blocks of woodland are less desirable for wildlife: in fact, the larger the block, the more opportunity there is for the open space to which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, was referring—and I entirely agree with him.

1413
My Lords, I have spoken of the advantages of hardwood for wildlife. Equally, there can be no doubt of the attractiveness of hardwood trees from the landscaping point of view. Here I think one ought to recognise the part that has been played by the private sector, which even the White Paper admits has nearly 45 per cent. of its woodland area under hardwood trees. The trouble, as other speakers have pointed out, is whether this percentage can be maintained unless genuine recognition of the difficulty of planting and maintaining hardwood trees is recognised in future.
I am sure it is what you seek to enjoy which creates the amenity point of view. The landscape to which you are attracted does so much to increase your enjoyment of your day in the country or your country holiday. This fact has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, and by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. The White Paper in this respect—and I rather felt that this was, to some exent, being echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson—makes derogatory reference to the opportunity for public access to private sector woodlands. I should like to comment on this aspect in two ways. First, the majority of Forestry Commission woodlands have only recently reached an age in which access is safe and practical. Certainly they can now, and should, take advantage of that situation, which many private woodland owners have done for years, and I stress again, particularly in their hardwoods.
The other charge, that the private sector is dragging its feet, just will not stick on such evidence as I can ascertain. From a sample of some 83 land holdings in Scotland (I take Scotland alone at this point), all of which cater for a wide range of recreational opportunities. the vast majority of those who provide 1,000 touring caravan and tent pitches, 700 static caravan sites and over 200 holiday cottages or chalets rely on a woodland setting. It is increasingly becoming a fact that a private forestry owner is taking advantage of his woodlands, which he has planned and developed in the past, to make use of the recreational opportunity they afford. That is not fully recognised in the White Paper, and I think the Record should be put straight.
1414
It is not surprising that the Countryside Commission for Scotland in their last Annual Report criticised the Forestry White Paper for not giving more strength to the arm of both private and public forestry, when so many countryside planners can see woodland, as the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has mentioned, catering for so many of the recreational needs of the public, and conveniently absorbing so many people without them getting in the way of each other. Quite apart from any long-term role that forestry might play, there is also the fact the Countryside Commission mentioned— that it can and should form a sound basis for many rural communities. That did not seem to be fully recognised.
This leads me to my final and perhaps most contentious point on the subject of forestry and its effect on the major alternative land use of the uplands: that of agriculture. I think the greatest disservice the White Paper does—
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I wonder whether I might interrupt my noble friend for one moment? This is just for clarification—my noble friend made a slip of the tongue, and a number of other speakers have made the same slip, in referring to the document as "the White Paper". Of course, it is not a White Paper: it is only a Consultative Document. I think it is right that we should remember that.
THE VISCOUNT OF ARBUTHNOTT: My Lords, I accept that, and perhaps we might hope for a White Paper to come in the future. This document does not say enough to remedy the sad situation which I think it must be admitted does exist; namely, that so many farmers, and in particular upland farmers, have a strong antipathy to forestry. There are a number of reasons for that, including an erroneous belief that the forester is better treated than his farming neighbour in respect of Government aid and on fiscal grounds. But one has only to look at the portion of any hill farmer's income that is applicable to subsidy—and perfectly correctly in my view—to see that there is a pretty fair balance in this respect. Nevertheless, I feel there is a case that can be made for the average upland farmer who may well think of planting 1,000 trees to the acre where one-third of a sheep

1415
"grew" before, who may feel inhibited in doing this by the fact that his return on sheep is relatively quick and tangible and his return on his planting is so far ahead. I am convinced that, as agriculturalists, we must become more tree-minded, and that this happy state of affairs would be helped if some form of funding arrangement could be devised whereby a farmer could get an earlier return on his capital invested in forestry. I am sure this would help many upland owner-occupiers, if it were possible to work on these lines. I hope that any new forestry authority will be given every encouragement to take up this point within whatever terms it may be given for the purpose of conducting a sound and long-term forestry policy in the future.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I clear up one point? He suggested earlier that I had made charges against the private sector. But I did not: I simply said that behaviour of a certain kind should be a necessary condition for the granting of aid. I never suggested that most people would not fulfil that condition.
THE VISCOUNT OF ARBUTHNOTT: My Lords, the point I wanted to make was that there has been so much done in earlier years which has not been fully recognised.
5.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, I should like first to thank my noble friend Lord Dundee for bringing this Motion before us and thus enabling us to discuss forestry fully. The noble Viscount who preceded me has given us a graphic description of his sins and also of his merits. The only part I took in the situation he described was to supply him with the posts necessary for fencing his new plantations. But I am thoroughly committed to forestry and farming and therefore must declare that as an interest.
There seems to be a growing shortage of timber, and perhaps one thing we are apt to forget is that paper is made from timber: in fact, it is one of its biggest uses. One could quote a lot of boring statistics about this, but it is a fact that you can, if you are clever enough, work
1416
out the state of "civilisation" of a country by the weight of paper used per head of population—I believe the American figure is something over one ton of paper per head per year. We are getting fairly "civilised" ourselves in this respect. I have just been on a month's holiday, from which I returned yesterday. It took me four hours—I cannot afford a secretary—to open the mountain of accumulated mail that I found awaiting me. I weighed it, as a matter or interest, and it weighed 1 cwt. That, very roughly, works out at a rate of 12 cwt. of paper a year, and if you translate that into terms of trees it represents something like nine or ten average-sized twenty or twenty-five year-old trees—just to go into my wastepaper basket. That shows how "civilised" we are. Nevertheless, joking apart, if one follows that up one finds that it represents a vast amount of timber which is used and which, in very many cases, is wasted.
A forestry policy cannot really be worked on a stop and go basis, because these nine or ten trees that I shall be putting into my wastepaper basket had to be planted about twenty years ago. Certainly if someone had not planted them at that time I should not have been receiving that amount of paper—which might, of course, have well been an advantage. Nevertheless you must keep on planting to sustain your yield. In developing countries, which we are all pleased to see are developing very rapidly, people are being taught to read and write; but what is the point of teaching people to read and write if you cannot give them the paper to read from and write on? It is clear that the use of timber is going to grow, and to keep on growing. Someone has to plant those trees in order to produce the paper that will be needed. A food shortage can be caused by a drought or by a pest in one year; but often the damage can be put right the following year, if one is lucky. Forestry is quite different. A forest crop may take something like seventy years to mature: at least that is so in Europe.
I recall that a few years ago in Scotland we were desperate to find a market for our timber. Pitwood was being used less and less, wagon bottoms had disappeared, fish boxes were being made from plastic and nobody was interested in buying wood. To-day they are queuing

1417
up, trying to get timber from us. But at the same time that we could find no encouragement to grow more timber, the O.E.C.D., from the statistics they had available, were predicting a world shortage of timber, and it seems to me that perhaps for once they were right, because we are getting a bit short of wood. I maintain that this is no time for Her Majesty's Government to get cold feet and pull out of forestry, or to become uninterested in it. We have invested, rightly in my opinion, a very large sum in forestry. We have enormous capital assets and we are just beginning to reap the benefits. I hope we shall go on. Forestry I am sure, should be planned from the point of view of supplying raw material to the forestry industry, and not the other way round. If we consider forestry as an industry, we ought to be allowed to consider a 5 per cent. growth rate, a concept we are always getting rammed down our throats for every other industry.
I was privileged to see an enterprise in Finland a month ago where the paper works dealt with the whole product. It started with the seed orchard and the growing of the trees. Everything was in one co-operative private enterprise ownership. There was not a middleman in the whole system. They dealt with the whole process and successfully sold paper to us here because they could compete. Their wages are higher than ours and their cost of living is high, so far as one can compare these things. They told me that there would be no question of selling pulp or wood to the United Kingdom if they could sell paper, and I do not blame them.
Finland is a country which is 70 to 75 per cent. forest, but they say they are running into a shortage of timber. Their rotation is similar to ours: 70 years for pulp wood and 100 years for saw logs. If a country which is 70 to 75 per cent. timber is looking ahead, reckoning that it is going to be short of timber and designing its policies thereby, we should take note of that. Finland is full of small farms; they are all tiny, but they have not only a small acreage of land with two or three cows, but also a reasonable area of timber. They work this on a co-operative basis. It occurs to me that with the cost of viable farms rocketing and the size of farms increasing all
1418
the time, we might well look at the possibility of integrating forestry with smaller farms in certain cases and getting over the problem as people have done in Europe. Whether that is possible or not I do not know, but it is well worth looking at it.
I do not think that enough emphasis has been put on the imponderables, the amenity values, shelter and improved environment for wild life. I think a lot of encouragement should be given for planting up reasonably sized clumps of hardwoods on the edges of plantations. We have some very pretty native hardwoods. In Scotland, for example, we have the rowan, the birch, the gean, and if you mix those in with a few Scots pine you can get a very pleasing effect indeed. This type of tree on the edge of plantations make a good rise for pheasants as well. That should be encouraged. Grey squirrels were mentioned. I have done some work in the past on grey squirrels. They are controllable by the use of Warfarin. The use of Warfarin has always been legal in Scotland, and I believe it is now legal to use it in England, so I mention that for what it is worth.
Her Majesty's Government should take pride in what has been accomplished to date. They should look at the shining example of the Forestry Commission and private enterprise working together hand in hand with mutual respect one for the other, as these things should be. It is right to take stock of how much has been accomplished and have a look at the future. But you do not want to throw spanners into the works too much; you do not want too many economists. All the timber growing interests, the timber using industries, the farmers, the farming communities, the amenity people, and everybody concerned should come together. Consultative documents are usually green, and if instead of a white document we could have the right people consulted and keep the wrong people out of meddling with these matters I am sure Her Majesty's Government would get on very much better.
6.5 p.m.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount will not think that in speaking about amenity I am meddling too much in commercial forestry. The future requirement to which

1419
I should like the forest policy to have regard is visual amenity. A number of noble Lords have touched upon this in passing. I welcome the change of emphasis, not only in the Forestry Commission itself but among private woodland owners, from commercial to amenity planting. I do not feel there need be any hard distinction between amenity and commercial planting: the two things should be able to go hand in hand together. I believe that in the future we may be able to do that. Reference has been made to Dame Sylvia Crowe. This is an indication of the way the Forestry Commission are thinking: to try to improve the square and rectangular blocks which we have already mentioned this afternoon from the point of view of large-scale commercial planting. But the Consultative Document makes no mention of the small woodlands, the hedgerow trees, farm trees and amenity planting which makes up the landscape of England. As has already been said this afternoon, we are not a country of great forests; we are a country of small-scale woodland, of scattered tree cover, of clumps and spinneys, most of which were planted for shelter or ornament or sport. Most of them were planted in the early part of the 19th century, and are mature or over-mature and have suffered from the devastation of two wars.
Staffordshire is one of the few counties that has made a survey of its trees. The result of that survey reveals the state of affairs which exists not only in that county but over the whole of England. The survey found that there were some 33,000 acres of private woodland, and that nearly half of that area—a big area—was derelict; it was either felled, scrub, or in a state which would be difficult to replant. They also found that the average size of ownership of these private woodlands and small spinneys on farms and on owner-occupier properties was something like four acres. The cost of rehabilitating those small woodlands, which are often of awkward shape and rather scattered, is astronomic. You can make a calculation of what it is going to cost you to plant bare land; you can make a calculation of what it is going to cost you to plant a big area. But when you try to find out what it is going to cost to replant a small area, where there may be all sorts of factors concerned,
1420
it is almost impossible to get any answer. When you have done it you find that the cost is out of proportion to anything you thought possible. We have to do something about this; we have to take some positive action. First of all, a good deal of doubt has been thrown on the questionable economic value of commercial forestry to the nation. I do not want to enter into that argument because I am not equipped to do so; but if the cost/benefit analysis has validity, I suggest that one of the first things we should do is switch our emphasis from large-scale planting towards the making good of these small amenity woodlands.
The next thing is to look at the grant structure for small-scale tree planting. The shelter belt grant has been withdrawn; so has the small woods planting grant. The grants it is now suggested we should have for small woods are to be channelled through the Countryside Commission. I think the Countryside Commission would prefer to see them dealt with through local authorities as part of a comprehensive scheme. The criterion for obtaining a grant is to be environmental gain. It is difficult to say exactly what environmental gain is. We all know what it is—it is what I am speaking about: it is all these small clumps, spinneys and woodlands, which make up the beauty of the English countryside. Then the planting has to be something which significantly enhances the landscape. What exactly does that mean? If a man is going to apply for a grant, for something which significantly enhances the landscape, does that mean it has to be in a prominent position, or part of a comprehensive scheme entered into with all your neighbours and possibly through local authority?
Again, if a local authority is going to enter into a scheme of this kind, or indeed if any body is giving money to somebody to do something, it may want some return. That is the question which has been raised already by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Arbuthnott—public access. I can quite see that if you give money from public sources for rehabilitating these very small woodlands you may want public access; but public access is a difficult matter when it comes to these small, scattered woodlands. Landowners

1421
and the Forestry Commission have been very good about opening larger woodlands at certain stages of growth and at certain times of the year to the public, but would it be practicable to open every little, under-four-acre clump of trees to the public? My Lords, I think not.
There is another difficulty with regard to the local authority's operating a comprehensive scheme, which is: How do you supervise the competence with which the planting of these tiny areas has been undertaken? It is almost impossible—perhaps it cannot be done. You can only accept that it will be done in good faith and hope for the best. But who is going to do that? I do not think many authorities will. And what this is going to mean is that 90 per cent. of the woodlands which I am suggesting it is so important to try to rehabilitate will not be rehabilitated because the means will not really be open to a landowner, particularly a small landowner—and I am talking mainly about the small landowner—because he will not be able to enter into access agreement here, or he will not be willing to entertain the possibility of access, and the local authority will not be able to supervise what he has done. That is fair enough, but it means that 90 per cent. of these areas are not going to be replanted.
The amount of money that has been put forward, or that has been suggested by certain local authorities to pay for these grants, which are up to 75 per cent., is derisory. One of the best counties, which is taking this matter more seriously than most, has suggested a figure which I calculate would pay for something like 1 per cent. of the rehabilitation of these woods. So I do not myself feel that the suggested grants are going to get us anywhere at all. I want to make that point quite clear because it has been said to me: "Oh, you needn't worry about these small woodlands now. They are taken care of in the Government's new suggestions as to grants." That is not so. These grants are not going to rehabilitate these small woodlands. All right. What are we going to do instead? We might try to get back to the Dedication Scheme. This is a Consultative Document and, although we are told the Dedication Scheme is dead, if there is any virtue in the suggestion which has been put forward from the Front Bench that this is a
1422
Consultative Document, perhaps they will look at this matter again.
I believe that the Government want to escape from the idea of a continuing commitment; they would like to have a once-and-for-all payment and leave it at that. But one of the great difficulties about small woodlands is not just the planting of them—and that is difficult enough: it is their maintenance. Therefore, I think you must have some kind of scheme which will encourage an owner to do it; which will pay him to do it, and which will ensure that if this is channelled through the Countryside Commission and the local authority some kind of supervision is possible.
Next, we must also use tax assessment. It ought to be possible for a woodland owner to opt for being basically commercial or primarily amenity. I do not believe that it is impossible to devise a scheme by which that could be done. That brings me to a suggestion which the Consultative Document puts forward, which is that the Forestry Commission should have two wings. One could make an extension of this idea: the White Paper two wings are for forestry enterprise on the one hand, and forestry authority functions on the other. If you extend that suggestion you have the forestry authority functions, in their relation to private woodlands, dealing with the two aspects I suggest; that is to say, the basically private commercial woodland and the kind of woodlands I am speaking about which cannot be commercial, must be on a very small scale and could be regarded as primarily amenity.
Lastly, I think we want to look at the whole problem of tree preservation orders. We want to get away from the idea of trying to preserve what is not preservable. As I have said before, a great many of these old woodlands are mature or over-mature, and the question is not whether to keep them standing—because they will fall down themselves if we leave it at that—but to try to devise means, through, if you like, a different kind of tree preservation order, which ensures that one is replacing rather than merely preserving. In trying to do all this, it seems to me there is room for some kind of Tree Council. There seems to be a lack of liaison between all the bodies which are going to be involved. There is the trade itself, the nursery trade which produces the trees; there are

1423
the local authorities who inevitably are going to be much concerned. There are the arboricultural societies; the amenity bodies and the Forestry Commission itself; the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association, the Timber Growers' Association and the Home-Grown Timber Merchants.
All these have a part to play in doing what I am trying to find the means to do. None of these bodies are co-ordinated in any way. To give one example, we have "Plant a Tree in 1973", which is a very good, gimmicky idea to get something "off the ground", but it runs into difficulties because the trade was unready for it, has not the trees available and does not quite know what trees are wanted, and so on. This situation runs right through all the other organisations I have mentioned, and most of all that of the small owner-occupier. One must convince the small owner-occupier that it is worth his while spending a great deal of trouble and a great deal of money, however much we manage to give him by way of grants and tax concessions, in preserving and enhancing and maintaining these small clump woodlands all over the country.
When the old, bigger estates broke up they were often bought by smaller men who were pushed for cash, who had to make the last £5 note they could, cut the trees, and were left with small patches of derelict woodland. Again we get the difference of approach: in the old days the trees on a tenant's land and around it were looked after by his landlord and very often the tenant looked upon them as a nuisance: they got in the way of cropping, they got in the way of grazing, they got in the way of hedgecutting. So When one got a change of land tenure one got running through it the idea that trees are nasty, untidy things, however much you might like them. I think there is now a change of attitude but we have to try a great deal of persuasion in order to persuade a man who is making his living by agriculture and on a not very large holding, that it is worth his while. There are many ways in which I try to do it: by looking at it purely from the point of view of money, saying, "Now the capital value of your land is enhanced because it will look nicer—and your sport will perhaps be improved". There
1424
is the job of enhancement for those who work on the land, including yourself, because it is so much more pleasant. There are the agronomics of wind-blow and micro-climate—little animals and little insects. They are all better. Lastly, of course, there are vastly improved timber values.
Co-ordination of these people with amenity bodies and with local authorities, with arboricultural and forestry societies, needs to be brought about. I have a feeling that there is a gap here and that something might well be devised, possibly through the amenity societies, to try to make things better. As I have said, it is an extremely difficult problem to know how to set about saving these small woodlands. I do not begin to know the answer, but these are just some of my thoughts.
I want now to end on a note which has nothing to do with forestry although it has something to do with the Chairman of the Forestry Commission, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe. who is sitting behind me. The two noble Lords have said in terms they are so sorry he cannot speak because the Addison Rules prevent him from doing so. I do not believe this to be the case. It seems to me that a proper interpretation of the Addison Rules would allow the noble Lord perfectly properly to give your Lordships the benefit of what he has to say about all the problems under discussion to-day. I agree that there are certain dangers. One of those dangers is that the chairman of such a body must not allow himself to get into a position in which he is subject to cross-examination in Parliament about the day-to-day running of his Board or Commission, or whatever it may be. The other danger is because of a certain difference between your Lordships' House and another place. The noble Lord is a Member of Parliament and the Chairman of the Forestry Commission. He could not be that and sit in the Commons. Therefore there is here a slight area where one might get into difficulties because one must not try to obtain advantage from having such a man in our House when that advantage is not available at the other end of the building. But I do not believe that in this particular debate there is any danger whatsover of that sort. I am not quite sure when we last

1425
debated forestry, but it was a very long time ago, and I see no danger whatever of there being any possibility of jealousy here or of the noble Lord being cross-examined.
It is not only in connection with forestry that I have felt this. I have felt it half a dozen times when Members of your Lordships' House have said that they did not like to speak because of the Addison Rules. I have always felt, when I have looked at them, that this was a misinterpretation of the Addison Rules. I do not imagine for one moment that this will bring the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, to his feet because I am quite certain that he would want to go back and look at the Addison Rules or get advice on them; but at any rate I put this idea before him because I think it would have been valuable to have heard what he has to say about forestry policy in general, and indeed about the small aspect of it on which I have spoken to your Lordships.
6.25 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONSDALE: My Lords, we are most indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for speaking particularly about the countryside because his work with the Council for the Protection of Rural England gives him great knowledge of these matters. Until his speech, no mention had been made of the problem of the small hardwood areas scattered about England as a whole, and Southern England in particular, which create the appearance of the countryside. To-day is the first debate on forestry that I can remember for a very long time and it has left us all, and me particularly, deeply indebted to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for introducing his Motion. I know that many of my colleagues in the forestry world will be very pleased with this debate. I see present to-day no less than five of the nine members of the Forestry Commission and no less than seven members of the Forestry Committee for Great Britain. In other words, 50 per cent. of the "top brass" of the entire forestry industry is to be found here to-day.
We have also several members of the Home-Grown Timber Advisory Committee who are appointed by Her Majesty's Government and several members of the Regional Conservancy Advisory Committee, again appointed by Her Majesty's Government. I think it is fair to say
1426
that all these organisations have at one time or another advised Her Majesty's Government and, in the somewhat unparliamentary language of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, apropos of using skaters' language, have "taken a toss on their fanny" over this Consultative Document. At one time or another, all the organisations have said that the Government ought to think again and start these consultations about forestry all over again. My noble friend Lord Ferrers has helped us: he has added a third criterion to the Consultative Document. He has added the criterion of proper land use and integration with agriculture to the criterion of employment (whatever that may mean, particularly in the present state of the economy of Scotland) and the other criteria of the enhancement of the environment, with which nobody would disagree.
I support this Motion but I must state, like so many others, that I am a timber grower and have an interest. My more particular interest is as chairman of a medium-sized company which converts home grown softwood and, therefore, a particular interest in the health and viability of the home grown industry. But perhaps more relevant to to-day's debate is the fact that as President of the Timber-Growers' Organisation, which is the representative organisation for growers in England and Wales, and as a member of the Forestry Committee of Great Britain, I have been, and am, engaged in negotiations arising from the Consultative Document of June 28 last. I feel that I should say little or nohing about these negotiations, particularly as my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe, with whom I have many discussions, cannot join in this debate, and particularly since we are due to meet Ministers for formal discussions next week.
I shall avoid speaking about leisure and recreation, although I have a particular interest again in the value of forests for leisure and recreation and believe they have a very great part to play. I have a particular interest as a member of the English Tourist Board and also as a member of the Sports Council. So one way and another it is somewhat difficult for me to speak. But I want to speak about three or four general points which I think are relevant to all the discussions which are going on—general points which in

1427
some senses have already been mentioned.
The current review is, after all, the first time that a comprehensive look has been taken at the aims and objects of the industry since the White Paper of 1943 and since the subsequent Forestry Act of 1947. Several new factors have also obtruded themselves into the scene since the Consultative Document was published in June, 1972. First, the availability of timber for the consuming industries in this country and the world shortage that has appeared to develop is mentioned many times—a world shortage which has long been forecast by the F.A.O. Why it has developed now I do not know and it is difficult to say. Perhaps it may not be of a permanent nature, but I believe that an investigation into the current shortage situation is called for.
As I understand it, softwood from North America is not readily available, particularly from the Western States of North America, because of the enormous demand that has grown up in the last year or two from Japan and Australia. That means that that softwood from Western North America is not now so easily available to us. Furthermore, such softwood as was shipped from one side of the United States to the other is suffering from transport difficulties because of the congestion caused by the shipping of wheat to Russia. There was also a bad winter in Canada last winter when it was impossible to extract timber. Those factors may be only temporary, but the fact of the matter is that it has given a field day to the other major supplier of timber to this country, which is Russia.
Added value is another factor in many countries. More and more countries, on the advice of the United Nations, instead of exporting their raw materials are moving towards processing them themselves. That is beginning to happen in the ease of timber. For instance, Portugal has long been a source of packaging timber. But it is thought that they are now going to turn that timber into pulp. Again, for a long time we have made most of our newsprint at home from imported pulp, but now many countries are turning their timber into pulp and the pulp into newsprint, adding value in sending it to this country. That is creating a different situation all the time. At
1428
the same time we are in a danger here with our own hardwoods, because the prices are so good that there is great pressure to ensure that they shall not all disappear too quickly. There is great pressure from France, Germany and Czechoslovakia, in particular, for our oak and beech. That again is a new feature. We were importers of beech, but now to some extent we are exporters of beech because there is a dearth of tropical hardwoods throughout Western Europe. That has created a much greater demand for United Kingdom grown timber from the various industries that consume it. The building industry has already been mentioned. I myself have an interest in the building industry, and it is almost impossible to get imported nine by fours. But the timber trade journal, none the less, is worth looking at. The opinions and the statistics of the import picture are available but there appears to be too little known about it among the home-grown side of the industry and among many of the consuming industries. The statistics and information are available and I think that a much wider look at the overseas supply position needs to be taken.
Secondly, of course, there is the question of price. I do not want to say too much about that because it has been mentioned so often and time is getting on, but due to the dearth of North American supplies the Russian trading organisation has had a field day. The system adopted by importers or by the exporting countries is for the negotiation of contracts for the year ahead to take place betwixt about October and April of each year for the subsequent year. The third series of Russian contracts of April this year were negotiated at a price of 102 per cent. above the Russian contracts negotiated at the same time last year. It is reasonable to assume that the impact of these contracts on our import bill will not be felt until later in these 12 months, because we are only three months through the current 12 months. Yet at the same time, with a balance of trade deficit of £209 million, one wonders to what extent these much higher timber prices are already having an effect.
The result of this, as has been said, is the demand for home-grown timber. At the same time, the Forestry Commission auction sales of February, March and April were reflecting this 102 per

1429
cent. increase in the price of Russian timber. The prices at those Forestry Commission auction sales were up to 100 per cent. above the prices of the same period last year. I think therefore—and here I am trying to get the answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Dundee, yesterday—that there appears to be some confusion over the figures. But if the imports are now running at the rate of £1,100 million, and if in 1971 they were £790 million, I believe that we are not yet feeling the full weight of the increases in the overseas prices and that the turnout for this full year through to next March 31, might be much worse—it might be £1,300 million or £1,400 million for the timber import bill. Surely that is as good a reason as any for expanding our United Kingdom forestry industry.
The great demand for timber is having au effect on the processing industries due to the diversion of supplies from the forests to industries which have not normally taken home-grown timber, such as the softwood furniture manufacturers, the wood wool industry, the packaging industry and so on. The normal processors—the sawmillers, the chip-board manufacturers, the pulp manufacturers—are finding themselves in supply difficulties. The Scottish sawmilling industry is operating at only about 80 per cent. of capacity. Admittedly much of their excess capacity was put down in response to an urgent demand for more capacity at the time of the Scottish windblow, hut none the less it looks as if this over-capacity will persist well through towards 1980. Wiggins Teape at Fort William is operating to only about 75 per cent. capacity, or is likely to in this 12 months. It seems a strange anomaly that all these processing industries which, because of the location of the forests, are established in development areas, are obtaining very large grants and tax relief to establish themselves in development areas. They get large assistance from the taxpayer to do so and yet the taxpayer who owns most of the source of the timber cannot supply it to keep them going. The net effect on the import bill may be £1,300 million or £l,400 million in the year.
I suggest that there is a need for a wide-ranging investigation into the availability and sources of timber and of estimates
1430
of consumption over the next twenty or thirty years. The cost benefit analysis did little except to make sweeping statements which have already been referred to and a professional industrial or D.T.I. investigation should take place. Also, that investigation should include the availability of possible alternative sources of supply. Sub-tropical areas have been suggested where, as many of us know, timber of certain species which cannot be grown in this country grows very fast indeed and one gets enormous quantities of timber in a very short space of time. I myself have seen what has been done by the Colonial Development Corporation in Swaziland for instance. This might well be looked at. I think that before we arrive at a firm forestry policy to hold water for the next twenty or thirty years we ought to study the demands, the availability and the requirements, and the possible alternatives that may exist.
Another factor which has obtruded itself since June last year is the publication by the Brussels authorities of an E.E.C. directive on forestry. It is only a draft directive at the moment, and it may be that it will not be discussed fully and, if agreed to, come into effect before the next two or three years. It is a draft directive concerned with the conversion of devastated woodlands into productive woodlands, and concerned also with the conversion of marginal land to forestry land. This could have a great effect on our upland areas. It arises from the Mansholt Report of two or three years ago. That has not been studied yet. It has appeared on the scene only in the last three or four months. Again, I believe before we arrive at any long-term policy for the next twenty or thirty years this E.E.C. draft directive must be taken into account.
Lastly, while some progress in arriving at a long-term policy must be made soon, it must be made with caution and with much deeper study. I think it must be made fairly soon to clear up the planning and land-use muddle so far as forestry is concerned; it must be made soon to relieve the current uncertainty in the industry. But it should be achieved, I believe, as a result of a large measure of political agreement. In an industry where, because of the long cycle between planning and harvesting, short-term

1431
changes of policy or of emphasis are undesirable, disruptive or disastrous, a strategy and a policy which will hold water for twenty or thirty years must be arrived at, one which will be believed in and will be adhered to by all parties, if it is to give confidence to growers and processors and to the very large number of people employed in the industry and its ramifications.
6.42 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I am sorry that this most interesting and timely debate on forestry should be taking place under the shadow of two Government publications which would appear to anticipate a check in the development of forestry rather than to give it encouragement. My noble friend Lord Ferrers in his speech gave a spirited defence of those two documents and he was using his voice with skill and conviction, but he said nothing very new, and I fear that foresters throughout the country will remain dismayed. Personally I have been interested in forestry for rather over forty years, and I should say that there has never been a time during those forty years when forestry in this country has been in better shape. I think it hard that that confidence should have been dealt this blow. It is worth repeating, even in a speech as short as I hope this will be, that only a very small percentage of our land surface is carrying a crop of trees, compared with that of our Continental neighbours.
I believe that there is every commonsense reason for further steady expansion. And when considering this matter we must take care not to get lost—which is all too easy to do—among figures: how many acres are being planted in this decade or the next decade by the private sector or by the syndicates or by the Forestry Commission. What I find really important is that we should keep moving in the right direction, and that means better woodland management as well as increased acreage, and not least ensuring, as the noble Earl, Lord Lonsdale, has just said, that the supply of raw material for the industries now being set up in this country is not interrupted.
A wooded countryside is a much more pleasant place to live in than a bare one, and I think it is becoming much more widely appreciated in this country.
1432
Therein lies a large part of what is now called the amenity interest. But I submit that we shall not get very far in furthering the amenity and recreational interests, which are of increasing importance (I am sorry the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, is not in his place), if we neglect the main objective of all forestry operations, which is timber production. Few private owners could plant and maintain woods for amenity or recreation alone with any financial support such as one could imagine. It is nonsense to suppose that woods which are naturally beautiful—trees are naturally beautiful—should be divided in the minds of the more ignorant into commercial woodlands and others, as they all too often are, as though they were two quite different things.
I have spoken of my long interest in forestry, and that has included two terms of service in the Ministry of Agriculture. What I saw there leads me to support what my noble friend Lord Dundee said and what the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, also said, and that is that Treasury influence lies behind the publication of the Cost/Benefits Study and some of the sentences in what I am told I may no longer call a White Paper but would call an off-White Paper, because even though it may be technically a Consultative Document it also reports a number of decisions about which no consultation is accepted. We know that the Treasury dislike dedication and that the word "perpetuity" is a bad word, but this does not commit any Government to any particular sums. In fact the sums of money involved have been relatively small compared with those which are accepted so easily and willingly for support of other industries. Again, in the field of taxation the Treasury refuse to see that the very long-term nature of the industry in fact requires different treatment. In my time in one House of Parliament or the other I have seen three attempts to upset these concessions, words put into the mouths of Chancellors of the Exchequer in their Budget speeches. Three times they have been defeated after there has been not only debate in this House but indignation in the country.
Not many years ago, too, we saw the results in the Midlands of England of another form of Treasury appreciation of forestry finance. The Forestry Commission were encouraged to destroy 4,000

1433
acres—or the area may have been larger; perhaps when the Minister comes to reply he will give the right figure—of flourishing young oakwoods in the Midlands and to replant them with other species, because it was supposed to be economically preferable that that should be done. It is very sad that the Forestry Commission gave in on an issue of that sort. So one cannot blame the Treasury only.
Rarely have I seen a document such as this so-called Cost/Benefit Study which has received such universal criticism in an industry. I would ask the Government to put it quietly on one side and let us all forget about it. We are told that it commits us to nothing because it is a Consultative Document. We need not consult. They can quietly leave it on one side and restore the dedication scheme which has been of such very great service to the industry. It would seem clearly an advantage to have one scheme of grant-aid rather than two, which the noble Earl's speech led us to believe might be the future plan. There could well be an advantage in the dedication scheme if the rates of grant were varied to take into account such things as access agreements. If so, I would commend the suggestions in the document submitted by the Royal Forestry Society of England and Wales and Northern Ireland, which I think cover nearly all the points raised in the course of this debate and offer simple and clear, and, I am sure, universally acceptable, solutions.
6.49 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, like many other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, I, too, must declare an interest in that I am a woodland owner. Other noble Lords, I am pleased to say, have covered many of the points I wished to touch on, and far better than I could; so your Lordships will be very relieved to hear that I am cutting my speech down considerably.
The trouble with the Consultative Document was probably not so much what it said, although that was bad enough, but the crisis of confidence which it caused among woodland growers, I do not think one can say this too often. I fully appreciate that other people have said it, but I should like my voice to be joined with theirs in saying it once again, because this is the basic trouble behind
1434
the whole of this debate. The Government may not have intended to diminish the effort put by private owners into woodlands, but the Consultative Document has had this effect. This was largely due to the shock of waking up one morning and finding that no new dedication schemes would be accepted—they had to be in before that day.
We know that alternative schemes have been mooted, and that the Government say that they are looking at other ideas and that they are consulting with people now, but I still do not understand why they could not have done this before they published this Consultative Document. That would seem to me to have been the logical way to have set about it. I will now leave that point, because I wish to be constructive in what I have to say.
The two criteria which they suggest in their Consultative Document should act as considerations for planting and management grants, or some such scheme in the future, are the employment that the woodlands are likely to give and the amenity. For an industry with a cycle of 60 to 70 years, three-yearly reviews based on employment are hardly going to make it easy to run the industry efficiently. We must plant our woods on the most suitable land having regard to the other uses to which the land can be put. We simply cannot afford to put forests on land that could be far better used for agriculture, or on land that is too far from the existing markets. The transport costs of timber are very considerable; therefore it is essential that the bulk of it is grown within easy reach of the markets that it is designed to serve. Employment is obviously important, but in my submission it cannot be the major consideration about where our forests are situated.
The second consideration was amenity. I think we are all agreed that this is of extreme importance. However, it seems that the Government do not consider that private forests contribute anything at all, or hardly anything at all, to amenity. In paragraph 30 of their Consultative Document they say:
"In terms of economic costs and benefits, state and private forestry can therefore reasonably be regarded as roughly on a par. There is, however, an important difference so far as recreational considerations are concerned. Private forests are in general much less readily accessible to the general public."
In paragraph 40 they go on to say:

1435
"The costs and benefits of new planting in private forestry appear in resource terms to be generally comparable with those in State forestry—with the reservation, already noted, that there is a major difference in the recreational opportunities provided for the general public."
It seems to me that in this document they make no attempt to justify either of those statements. It is not the first half of those statements with which I disagree; I strongly suspect that it is perfectly true that in economic terms State and private forestry are much the same. It is the second half with which I disagree. I do not believe that private forests contribute much less from the recreational and amenity point of view than the State forests do. I admit that the Forestry Commission—and I am delighted to say this—have introduced some very useful recreational facilities into their forests. I know of three or four locally, including the log cabins at Strathyre, which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has already mentioned. They have also opened up a very useful information centre at Queens View, and started a picnic site and nature trail at Fascally, all in the county of Perthshire, I am pleased to say. I mention them because I happen to know what they have done in that particular county. These are of great help towards the enjoyment of the public, but I think that private forestry has done just as much. There are many nature trails in private forests. There are in Scotland very few forest owners, so far as I know, who are not prepared to have the public in their woods, provided that the woods are at a suitable stage of development and that the fire risk is not too great—and one has always to remember that at certain times of year the fire risk in woods can be quite considerable—and provided that the members of the public behave themselves and act according to the countryside code.
I should like to know from my noble friend Lord Polwarth, when he replies to this debate, on what was based the sentence—
"Private forests are in general much less readily accessible to the general public"—
at any rate so far as Scotland is concerned. I suspect that it may have something to do with the fact that in this document it seems to be assumed that
1436
"amenity" equals "access", which of course it does not. Amenity is also the visual beauty of the countryside, and I think that until the last few years it was certainly true to say that private forestry was visually more attractive than State forestry. I admit that since Miss Sylvia Crowe has become the adviser to the Forestry Commission on those matters there has been an enormous improvement, and I think that it is only right that we should recognise this. But I still think that private forestry is very often better visually, because it is in smaller blocks and it is often more integrated with the farming, and it possibly has a greater variety of species. In fact, it might interest your Lordships to know that in Scotland 94 per cent. of the broadleaved woods are in private hands, and only 6 per cent. in those of the Forestry Commission, and yet the Forestry Commission own approximately three-fifths of the woodlands of Scotland. I think that the variety that these broadleaved woods give to the countryside is one of the greatest considerations from the amenity point of view that the Government should take into account when they are thinking about their new scheme.
I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, that we try as much as possible to integrate forestry and agriculture. I agree with him that this is a very important subject, and I think that it could very well be the subject of a debate in itself. I think that it is easier to integrate where the farm and the woods are in the same ownership, and therefore that it is much easier for a private forester to do this than the Forestry Commission. I am sorry that, thanks to the Addison Rules, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, cannot tell us what plans the Forestry Commission have for this aspect—because I am fairly sure that they have some. I think that this is one of the ways in which the private woodland owner can, and should be, in the van.
I was going to say, "Let us tear up the cost benefit analysis". Even were it correct when it was published last year, since then the price of imported softwoods has doubled, and much of the analysis has been disproved, or at any rate had doubt cast upon it by Professor Wolfe's study. Let us rethink the Consultative Document. The Government

1437
should produce their ideas as soon as that is practicable, given the need for full discussion with all interests, so that new land which is both suitable and available—and I am afraid that very little is—can be brought into forestry as quickly as possible.
7.0 p.m.
LORD DULVERTON: My Lords, like my noble friend the Duke of Atholl, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Dundee for initiating this debate. Like him, too, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to try to be brief at this time of the evening, but I must confess that I, also, have an absorbing longstanding interest in this subject in which I have indulged for over a quarter-of-a-century. A quarter-of-a-century is a very short period for a forest and may embrace only the conception of a new forest enterprise, the gestation, the birth and the infant's care, and little else. But during the last quarter-of-a-century there has been a change in attitude towards forestry in a number of important respects.
Just after the war, our forests had been depleted by the war-time fellings, the Forestry Commission was itself just emerging from infancy, which had been delayed or retarded by the war itself, and the private sector, which bore the brunt of the war-time fellings, was exhorted to restock and expand. There was no doubt in anybody's mind in 1947, when the Forestry Act came into operation, embodying the dedication scheme, about the need to expand our national forests. But it was not until the 1960s, as I think my noble friend Lord Dundee said, that, after a slow start, we saw a growing confidence in forestry which was largely owing to the pioneering which the Forestry Commission has done in acquiring the knowledge and technique for establishing trees on difficult ground. It was owing, also, to the growth of a new timber processing industry in the country, and pulp mills and modern sawmills began to find their way into the British scene. I daresay, too, that that confidence was to some extent influenced by the F.A.O.'s prediction of a world shortage of wood and a growing demand for it.
We now come to June, 1972, and the Consultative Document, backed as it was by the Cost/Benefit Study. I think we have heard enough about both of those papers this afternoon for me not to make
1438
some of the points which I intended making, which were very similar to those made by my noble friend Lord Dundee. Suffice it to say that men who have made a long study of forestry matters, foresters themselves and forestry advisers, university professors, eminent ecologists, learned scientists and consultants and even economists themselves have, jointly or severally, expressed a flood of opinion that the data and the arguments on which the Government have been advised are superficial and sometimes uninstructed, and on many broad issues are impracticable or simply erroneous.
That is not to say that all is bright and beautiful in British forestry to-day, and perhaps one of the most important matters to which other noble Lords have referred, is the apparent conflict between forestry and farming, particularly hill farming. It is more than an apparent conflict, because it is real in places, and it has grown largely because of the fact that forestry in recent years has followed the pattern originally developed by the Forestry Commission. It is not the fault of the Forestry Commission that it was established with the one objective of planting trees. Only gradually in recent years has it widened its viewpoint, and, in fact, the Government have exhorted it to do so, but I feel quite sure that it will be seen to grow apace under the wise leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who I also regret will not be addressing us here to-day.
I should like to detain your Lordships for a moment on the conflict between hill farming and forestry, because I believe that much more can be done to make the two go together. There are many instances, particularly in the private sector, of the two going together. As my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has just said it is much easier on a private estate to integrate all the aspects of rural land use. In fact, that is good estate management and it has to be done on a private estate. I know that the noble Duke and his ancestors have set a fine and beautiful pattern of mixed forestry, farming and other land use up at Blair Atholl. I have been fortunate to see what the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, is doing, to which he himself referred earlier, in putting forestry and farming together. I was also fortunate to be invited to go to Wales a short time ago to look at the Ministry's

1439
hill-farming station at Pwllpeiran. A conscious effort is being made there by the Forestry Commission, who own woods around this hilly area, and by the Welsh Agricultural Department to fit their two enterprises together and to collaborate in the provision of roads, the fitting together of fences and the improving of shelters, with foresters using the wet bogland which is of no use to the hill farmer, with the farming unit developing the pastures on the drier land by using reseeding techniques, and so on. That is a pattern which we must make a conscious effort to strive for on a far wider scale than has happened so far. Otherwise, because of the rate at which forestry ought to be expanding, we may almost be too late.
I should like to refer to my own experience, because on an estate in West Inverness-shire for which I am responsible we have made a conscious effort, in addition to doing a lot of forestry, to carry out an intensified form of hill farming, using the principles which have been demonstrated by the hill farming research organisation. We have succeeded in keeping up with, and even raising, the previous level of stock production—lambs and calves—on the whole of this little hill estate. But we are doing that on only one-tenth of the estate, and most of the rest of it is under productive growing forest. You can vary the proportions. You can put one-tenth of any given land area to intensified farming, or a half or three-quarters; but the point is that forestry and farming can go together and can even help one another by sharing certain fixed equipment and expenses.
My Lords, I turn from there to a very brief reference to the environment in general, because environment and ecology and the place of forestry therein have not really been touched upon by either the Cost/Benefit Study or, hardly, by the Consultative Document. Yet there is plenty of evidence and scientific argument available to show the important and beneficial place of forestry in our sparselywooded islands. Quite recently the Government published the conclusions of Mr. Ralph Verney's report on this very subject to the then Minister of the Environment, and this is ignored by the two Papers referred to. Likewise, the
1440
work and published writings of ecologists of world eminence, such as Sir Frank Fraser-Darling, are completely ignored. Both he and Professor Fullerton of Glasgow University described with great clarity the long-term deterioration of Britain's upland soils due to the removal of the once extensive forest cover, and with equal cogency argued the need for its replacement. All this is apparently a closed book to the writers of the Cost/Benefit Study; and, as I say, it is given scant attention in the Consultative Document.
The arguments on financial and economic grounds have been so well dealt with by other noble Lords that I will not touch upon them except to refer to the figure which has been mentioned already, and that is that the total expenditure by the Treasury since 1920 on the establishment of forestry now amounts to less than one-third of the value of the annual timber imports, which are going up. I also refer briefly to the fact, as I know to be true, that the new timber industries which are growing up are already short of wood, and they are going to be shorter still unless we continue to expand our forests rapidly. They are an infant industry, in a way: they must either be nourished or they will be in danger of dying. What a time to rock the boat, as the Consultative Document, with its threatened abandonment of postwar Government policy, has done; and what an unfortunate point of time for the confidence of all concerned, including Government, to be shaken by the dubious, albeit officially sanctified, arguments of the Cost/Benefit Study! Forestry is a growing art in this country; and investment is going into it, not only for the present but for the future crops. But the words in which my noble friend has set down his Motion today are wise, as one would expect from him. With his long experience of the country's affairs and as a forester himself, I hope, and I dare to believe, that Her Majesty's Government will take note of their wisdom.
7.15 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I speak from the Cross-Benches. I think this is quite a good place from which to speak in a forestry debate because surely forestry, above all things, ought not

1441
to be discussed on Party lines, nor indeed has it been discussed on Party lines to-day. I have the honour to be the chairman of the Forestry Society in Yorkshire, and my home is on the North Yorkshire Moors. This is a very sparsely-populated area; indeed, the population of our own parish has gone down from 260 twenty years ago to 130 to-day. I look after some 600 acres, mostly of young plantations. There are some thousands of sheep which graze on our moors, and we have thousands of visitors during the summer, too.
I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, touched on the point of soil deterioration. Perhaps some Members of your Lordships' House may not be aware that the rolling moors which we all enjoy so much were once covered in forest, and the trees were almost all hardwoods, except for Scots pine. It is only the continual burning and grazing over the centuries that have reduced the moors to their present tree-less state. The burning is carried out in order to produce a lush growth of young heather for the benefit of the sheep and the grouse, and although it may be beneficial in the short-term I am sure there are places whore it is in fact harmful in the long-term. We are taking minerals out and they are not being put back again. It would not be so bad if the ash stayed On the ground where it fell, but most of our moorlands are so exposed, and are areas of fairly high rainfall that a great deal of the ash in fact gets carried away. I know a little about this myself because I have carried out quite a number of soil tests on areas of adjacent moorland, comparing those which are still open moorland with other adjacent areas which have been under trees for the last 50 or 100 years. The contrast between them in the soil is striking. I am quite sure that the right sort of forestry is a very good way of restoring the fertility of the soil. I think mixed plantations are probably best from this point of view, even pure hardwoods in some cases, because the leaf-fall adds more to the fertility of the soil than the needles of the fir trees.
I was delighted that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, talked about the right use of land. The right use of a particular piece of land is, I think, something which we all ought to be trying to follow. Certainly
1442
in our part of the world there are large expanses of hillside covered in bracken and it is difficult to think of a better use for these than forestry. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, touched on the point of public access to private woodland. As a private woodland owner I feel that I ought to be doing more than I am in this way. I have not put up any "Keep Out" notices and I have not put up any barbed wire, but when one compares what we do in this country with what is done in other countries, I think that perhaps we are a little backward. I understand that in Sweden there is full public access to all woods; in Denmark, in woods of over five hectares—which, if Lord Dundee's arithmetic is right, works out at about 12 acres—there is free access; and certainly in Holland you get considerable tax relief if you allow public access to your woods.
I understand that where public access has been allowed there has in fact been very little complaint. Of course, there are things for which we have to watch out. So far as we are concerned, we have to make sure that gates are shut, otherwise sheep get in and all the young trees get eaten. It may be necessary to have somebody going round collecting litter. It may be necessary, too, if you open your woods, or a particular wood, to make hard standing for cars. This involves extra expense, and I would suggest that where this occurs there is a good case for a Government grant. So far as looking after the people who come to the woods is concerned, this could be a useful form of employment for retired farmers or retired foresters. I feel that the right kind of forest in the uplands deserves Government support, both from the point of view of maintaining the population and of preventing deterioration of the soil—in fact, for restoring fertility to it.
7.20 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I hasten to add my thanks to my noble friend for initiating this debate. I should like to declare an interest. I have been responsible since the war for planting 600 or 700 acres, or 10 million trees. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, as is the wont of the Opposition Front Bench, gave undue credit to the forestry policy of the late Government. The speech by Mr. Wilson

1443
in lnversness, to which he and my noble friend referred, only confirmed continuation of a trend which already existed at that time. Alas! the current Government were sadly ill-advised on forestry; but the Ministers concerned were English farmers. There is little doubt, if one heeds the words of my noble friend Lord Ferrers, that they have been duly enlightened, and surely it is significant that this debate is being wound up by our Scottish Minister—and I am sorry that he is not in his place at the moment. We are grateful that this should have happened. He is a very busy person with his new job as "Sheikh" of Scotland. However, in spite of the already stated comment in the Government's Consultative Document that it was consultative, the Paper certainly created no small flutter in the private forestry dovecote.
The key to all successful forestry operations is the labour force, and the shortage of labour is, I believe, part of the reason for the current shortage of timber. There is timber there which cannot be got out. I understand that the Forestry Commission has difficulty in fulfilling its contracts to the pulp mills not because the timber is not there but that there is no labour to take it out. It is specially hard to get good men to work in the woods in this day and age, and it is even harder to get a foreman, for no one appears to be willing to accept responsibility. It is to be hoped that this state of affairs will soon change, for with the rise in the value of forest products it should be possible to pay far better wages which should encourage workers into what is otherwise a most attractive job.
Perhaps on a note of how attractive is this work, I might digress on a little story for a minute. My head forester recently went to visit one old boy whom we have employed for some years in our woods. The old man was having lunch and the forester called out to try to find him in the wood. The old man appeared, complaining that by shouting for him the forester had frightened his pets away. It seems that he has now got into the habit of giving the crusts of his sandwiches to three deer which now feed from his hand.
I believe that our main labour troubles stem from our educational system and it is to be hoped that the Education Department
1444
will consider this and the quality of life available in forestry and agriculture rather than producing more and more planners and non-productive workers from our schools. To whatever price timber rises it will be necessary to keep the amount of labour to the minimum. Constant research and development of mechanisation will be vital. There is now talk of giant combine harvesters which will chew whole trees into chips. But we shall have to be careful, if such machines are to be developed, that we do not make it uneconomic transporting of timber. Huge slopes with trees. We must also plan our forestry infrastructure well ahead. To date there has been little planning and such items as the siting of saw mills have been almost haphazard. There is much uneconomic transporting of timber. Hugh and heavy loads are running all over the country and, apart from the obstruction ou our roads, they are doing considerable damage; for many of our side roads were not built for this type of load. There was a time when the Government were giving our Highland county councils a special grant for the strengthening of some of these roads. This, however, was stopped, but I hope that our present Government may consider re-instituting some such scheme. However, with ever-shortening working hours for the drivers of these lorries, they are travelling all the faster. Another unsatisfactory situation which is developing is for a driver to unhitch the trailer portion of his articulated lorry and leave it loaded in a layby while he runs home in the cab portion. Apart from blocking the lay-bys it is also damaging them, for when the time comes to re-hitch the trailer it gets wriggled around and the jacks dig into the tar surface.
It is obviously necessary for vast factories like pulp mills to draw their supplies from wider areas, but the conversion of timber to chips is not such a mammoth operation. Soon after the pulp mill opened in Fort William I suggested that perhaps, since much of the timber came from the East of Scotland, there should be a chipper situated at the North end of Loch Ness and the chips blown into barges from which they could be sucked out at the Fort William end, thereby relieving our roads of much of the heavy timber transport down the "high amenity" Loch Ness side. At that time, apparently, such an operation was not

1445
economic for the pulp mill, but since then there have been many changes and a particularly significant one will be the shortening of drivers' hours and the increasing volumes of timber coming on the market so that it may well be that such a project is now a viable proposition.
Forestry can lend itself well to parttime work, and forestry workers could well do other work in the summer, such as fishing, ghillieing and work with the tourists and in agriculture. But I gather that Civil Service rules do not cater for this type of part-time employment and therefore the Forestry Commission frowns upon part-time employment, in particular because it creates difficulties with the pension schemes. This surely, should not be difficult to put right and I would ask that the matter be looked into.
There is much to be said for private forestry and it is gratifying to know that during this past year in the Highland area there has been the biggest ever acreage planted by private woodland owners. However, I should like to see the grant system for private forestry altered. Here some noble Lords may disagree with me. To me it has always seemed wrong that investment companies can come along, pay very high prices for open hill ground, so inflating land values, plant vast acreages, possibly without consideration of good land use on neighbouring areas, and get the same Government grant as someone who has been clearing up patches of scrub and rough ground, and planting patches which are good for amenity and general land use.
On land prices may I give just one instance. In 1958, I bought forest ground at 15s. an acre. To-day adjacent ground is offered for by woodland companies at £117 per acre. The price has risen from 15s. to £117 since 1958. This is terrifying. I do not think it is a healthy position. Grant could well go from this open hill planting and be replaced by capital grants for roads, fences and scrub clearance. Grants for roads can open up areas now not accessible for planting and amenity. I think this is most essential. My noble friend Lord Ferrers spoke of the difficulty of finding planting ground. Where fences are mutual to forestry and agriculture they should most certainly be assisted by the Government—unlike the present arrangement. Finally, there is reputed to be a timber shortage.
1446
Timber is necessary for paper production. I regret that the amount of paper which comes on to our desks is not diminishing.
7.30 p.m.
LORD LYELL: My Lords, I should like to take this opportunity to thank the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for giving us a chance to discuss this Green Paper, or Forestry Statement or Consultative Document—whichever is the correct term. I think it is of major importance to many parts of Scotland. I should also like to declare an interest as a farmer and an operator of a limited amount of forestry operations in East Scotland. Turning to the content of this Consultative Document, I was most interested to note that on present estimates timber consumption in the United Kingdom should rise from approximately 1,500 million cubic feet in 1971 to approximately 2,000 million cubic feet at the turn of the century and that the home produced timber content will, it is hoped, rise by about 250 per cent. That means that the percentage of our timber needs grown in the United Kingdom will rise from 7½ per cent. of the total to about 13½ per cent. If that total is reached it will be a spendid achievement.
Next, my Lords, I should like to comment on what I regard as eminently clear thinking when the financial position is discussed. The accounts of the Forestry Commission are being recast so as to show the target rate of return on the notional capital employed together with the actual rate achieved. Many of us will see every day in our newspapers that accounts can be made to present various facets of the performance of any business. But in this case there is a yardstick, so that Government money may be seen to be effectively employed and different reasons for a lower rate of return can be identified. I consider that the accounts of the Forestry Commission and all the other concerns should not seek to hide the financial truth, however unpalatable this may be. The document attached to the main Paper, Forestry Policy, is concerned with the costs and benefits of all kinds of forest policy. I think that its complexity and detail are admirable, but nevertheless several major questions arise.

1447
First, will there ever be a time when the return on the Forestry Commission's capital will rise beyond 3 per cent. or even 4 per cent.? Sadly, I must doubt it. Thus we have to justify the gap between our figure of 4 per cent. and the minimum rate accepted by the Treasury when talking of public sector investment. The usual pitfall arises when speaking about the social and political and demographic factors arising from the continuance of forestry operations in remote areas and on poor land. As ever, the danger of pouring balm on to troubled consciences can be seen when we mention social problems and environment. Nevertheless, it is right that the public should be able to see what is spent on forests in its name. The second question arises on the cost of creating and maintaining employment in areas where forestry is carried on. The Report brings out the problem that there is definitely a higher cost to public funds of a forest job compared with a similar job in hill farming in the same area. I consider that such costs should be borne so as to prevent large areas of the United Kingdom becoming a barren desert, producing nothing and giving no pleasure or benefit from sporting or forestry operations.
I would now turn to the great efforts made by private individuals and firms in sylviculture and other allied timber operations. There are nearly two million acres of productive woodlands owned privately, in addition to 800,000 acres of scrub and unproductive wood. To help with the redevelopment and replanting of these acres various tax concessions are aimed at encouraging private owners to invest in forestry. But even with a reduction in these tax incentives it is doubtful whether there would be a corresponding fall in planting, since so much sylviculture goes to assist the ecology, soil drainage, shelter, prevention of soil erosion and other factors which are not directly related to forestry. Nevertheless, private woodland owners are to a large extent dependent on grants and various other incentives to make the cost of planting, replanting and maintenance less harsh.
Private planting has shot up over seven years from 17,000 acres in 1965 to nearly 50,000 acres in 1972, as we heard from the noble Earl. But at the same time there is still a sizeable financial deficit at the end
1448
of each year. We are told that in 1968-69 expenditure on private timber operations was £10.8 million and income arose of £6.1 million. The large deficit of £4.7 million, which was only partly covered by grants, left over £3 million to be found by the owners. There can be no doubt in any of our minds that these large sums could not be found without the incentives available to private owners. We must all be grateful for the comment in the Paper that these incentives should remain unaltered for the moment.
So far as future policy is concerned I should like to take issue with the planting programme, in common I think with several other speakers. Surely it would benefit the balance of payments to maximise planting, as land and seedlings are available, rather than to scale down the present superb rate of planting achievement to an arbitrarily fixed limit. I am wholeheartedly in support of the noble Earl on this point. Further on in the document we come to a point that has been discussed, and which becomes ever more important as we get nearer to the turn of the century—the importance to the public of recreation in forests and our Forestry Commission land. Already, we are told, sportsmen, campers, tourists and walkers are warmly welcomed in forest lands, in caravan parks and in forest parks run and administered by the Commission. I should perhaps also add that there are admirable operations run privately.
The Report brings out the projection that time spent in recreation in forests will quadruple within the next 10 years, which is astonishing. Within the last fortnight I have been able to enjoy one particular form of recreation in Commission woodlands. For four days nearly 200 cars took part in the Royal Scottish Automobile Club's Scottish Rally. Thanks to the generosity of the Commission and several private woodland owners, the competitors were able to test their own skill and the durability of their vehicles in almost complete safety over approximately 60 special stages. All of these consisted of forest roads, owned either privately or by the Commission which had been built to various specifications and were of varying lengths, according to the size of the plantation.
My Lords, lest it be thought that this sport of motor rallying means the spoliation of forests, roads and trees, together

1449
with the accompanying noise and danger, I would point to the very genuine enthusiasm of the forestry staff, together with their wide knowledge and their willingness to see that all concerned, competitors and spectators, were able to obtain the greatest benefit from their visits to forest lands. I understand that there is a great deal of co-operation between the R.A.C. and the Commission and private owners. Apart from the specialist forms of recreation which apparently brought in between £30,000 and £40,000 to the Forestry Commission during this year, it seems that the Commission wishes to encourage members of the public to enjoy the peace and solitude and the beauty of the woodlands and the countryside, wherever that is possible.
Nevertheless the main theme of this Paper is to ask the Government to continue with a consistent policy, and as at present laid out, the Consultative Document seems to show some indecision on the part of the Government as to whether the bipartisan policy of the last 30 years should be carried on. I should like to add my support to that of other noble Lords in asking that as far as possible timber production should be increased. Two factors which must be taken into account are first that useless plantations, regardless of cost, should not obscure the immense long-term benefits to those parts of the United Kingdom which will follow from a consistent expansion of all reasonable timber planting. Many arguments may be raised against public investment which does not show a reasonable target rate of return, but the policy document contains enough to show that such criteria should, in this case, not take a dominant position.
The second factor that I think is relevant to a consistant policy is one of land usage. There is still room for further cooperation and removal of mistrust between hill farming and forestry interests. Even in the main agricultural area of Scotland there is still a large amount of sylviculture carried out to provide shelter and drainage as main benefits rather than as forestry itself. In conclusion, I should like to say how glad I am to have been able to support the noble Earl and all the other noble Lords who share our great interest and concern in forestry policy right on into the 21st century.
7.42 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH): My Lords, it is a somewhat daunting task at the end of a debate with twenty speakers of such distinction and experience to endeavour to sum up all that has taken place, but one thing on which we are all agreed is our deep debt of gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, for giving us the opportunity of discussing this fascinating and in many ways unique subject this afternoon. Those of us who have known him for some time, as I have, will realise that his faith in forestry and its future in this country is only equalled by his experience and knowledge, as witness his reference to his participation in the debate in another place forty years ago; and those of us who have visited his property in Scotland will have seen what he has done to put his theories into practice. I would say that on those grounds what he has said in moving this Motion calling attention to the need for a consistent forestry policy, and what he has said in support of this Motion, deserve the greatest respect from your Lordships' House.
I doubt whether there was ever any question of the response which this subject would evoke among your Lordships, and we have certainly had a remarkable round of speeches from people with knowledge and experience of different aspects of the industry. It has been a striking fact that such a substantial number of speakers—well over two-thirds, on my reckoning, if not three-quarters—have experience of forestry or are established in Scotland. Taking into account those North of the Mersey/Humber line, I think we were left with only two other noble Lords. This is a remarkable indication of the centre of gravity of the forestry industry in this country. I hasten to say that the contribution of those South of that line was none the less quite outstanding. I have only one regret over this debate and that is that the interests of Wales were not voiced by anyone in the course of the afternoon. That does not diminish the importance of Wales in the country's forestry industry, which is a very considerable one.
My Lords, I must, like many other noble Lords, declare an interest. It has

1451
always in fact, particularly recently, struck me as somewhat peculiar that the ownership of certain shareholdings with extremely remote interests in particular industries should be considered more reprehensible than owning land and woodlands and then participating in debates—or, indeed, as others do, to hold offices connected with those subjects—but that appears to be a political convention. I do declare my interest as an owner of woodlands, albeit small, and a member of the Scottish Woodland Owners Association. In the debate many of your Lordships have quite rightly stressed the very important part which forestry has played, should continue to play, and I am sure will continue to play, not only in the life of the rural community but in that of the country as a whole. I should like to start by assuring them that the Government fully recognise the need to ensure that future forestry policy should preserve and build up on the undoubted achievements of the forestry industry in the years since the war.
It is only right and proper that the policy proposals which have been put forward should be subject to the very detailed kind of scrutiny which they have had to-day at the hands of your Lordships. I think it would be fair to say that there has been a remarkable consensus of opinion against the content of these documents that are before your Lordships to-day. I do not think that I can recollect an occasion on which such a consensus was held from both sides of your Lordships' House. As to that poor creature, the Cost/Benefit Study, I have a great deal of sympathy. as an accountant, with the experts who had to endeavour to put together that information, because forestry woodland accounting has its own very peculiar problems on account of the time scale, and when combined with the conventions of Government accounting I, as a purely commercial accountant long ago, find that my mind boggles at the problems involved. I am afraid that that poor creature, that document, had only one friend or sign of a friend in the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who has explained to me why he cannot be with us now.
Nevertheless, I think this exercise is very worth while because surely, while a
1452
policy that may have been right twenty years ago is still in many respects doubtless right, it is only reasonable that we should from time to time, and at fairly long intervals, take a look again to see whether we are going in the right direction. I am not suggesting for a moment that we should pull up the tree by the roots to see how it is growing—far from it. That is not what we are putting forward as a proposition, and I would emphasise again most strongly, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers did earlier, that this is not only a knotty White Paper but a Consultative Document, and while on account of a technicality I understand that it could not be given the green covers, which would have been very appropriate to a document on forestry, it really has to a great extent that status as a Consultative Document. I should like to say that the time taken already in talks on the content of that document since publication is, I think, an earnest of the Government's intention that there should be the fullest possible consultation and, what is more, this debate is taking place in time for the views of your Lordships expressed so fully and forcibly to-day to be taken fully into account before final decisions are reached on the Government's policy. Everything that has been said to-day will be available—I will be bringing it home to those Ministers and others who will be engaged in the final discussions before the proposals are put forward. As to the exact form of that final putting forward, I do not think I can give a promise to-day that it will be in the form of a White Paper. Much will depend on the trends of the discussion.
My Lords, we are dealing with a remarkable subject here because there are few other subjects where we are discussing policies, the proof of whose rightness, or otherwise, will only be available probably to our grandchildren. This outlines the difficulty of prognostication. There must be a great element of faith over forestry. That, I suggest, is the first point. This applies to all the different aspects. I should like to say one word in particular on the situation in Scotland. I emphasised earlier the extent of the Scottish interest, and I think that nowhere have these achievements of the forestry industry had greater impact than in Scotland. The Commission, starting at the end of the war with only 176,000 acres of forest in Scotland and double

1453
that amount in England and Wales, is now approaching the 1 million acre mark in Scotland, having overtaken the combined English and Welsh total. That is a great achievement. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, has had to leave us, because I think it is an interesting illustration of the time span of this great operation that the timber supplies for the new sawmilling industry being set up in the Great Glen near Fort William are coming from the felling of mature forests, the planning surveys for which were made by the noble Lord's forebear prior to the First World War, before the establishment of the Forestry Commission of which he was later to become a distinguished chairman.
I do not think your Lordships expect me to go into great detail on the many points raised to-night, because I should be keeping you here a great deal longer than would be convenient. I will undertake on specific points that I am unable to deal with to-night to see that they are answered in correspondence later. On the major question raised by my noble friend Lord Dundee and other noble Lords, of increasing our self-sufficiency in the production of timber, there are considerable problems. I think that perhaps a number of noble Lords have tended to panic somewhat. and to form the opinion that what we are proposing or putting forward for discussion is a great clamp down on timber production in this country. That is not the case, because even with the existing woodlands in Britain, which are young and are nowhere near full production, the output from them at the turn of the century is expected to be three times as much as it is from our woodlands at present. Even with a vast increase in new planting it would be difficult to make a very large increase in the proportion of our probable requirements in the next century. Nevertheless, that does not rule out the possibility of increasing our planting programme.
I would suggest to your Lordships that, whatever we decide on ultimately as a programme, it must be a flexible one and liable to adaptation as we move ahead, because so much is unpredictable to-day. Take the problem of the scarcity of timber, and the price. There has been this vast increase in the last year, as I know only too well, having had a
1454
thorough thinning of my own young woodlands approximately 18 months ago, when I realised that the proceeds only just about paid for the cost of carrying out the thinning: if only it had been a year later! I do not think we should be panicked by what has happened. Prices have soared, and the supply has become very difficult, but it could be that this is a conjunction of circumstances at the present time. I think we should be rash to base our assumptions for the future on what has happened in this short time. We must watch the situation closely over the next year or so, and see whether in fact, as I believe could be so, it will stabilise itself and we shall not be so disturbed.
There is then the problem of the price of land, and here again the trend has been rather alarming. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked what was the market value to-day of land in the hands of the Forestry Commission. I think this is a virtually impossible question to answer, because you say: "Market value for what purpose? Land if you were buying it to-day to plant anew in to-day's conditions of scarcity? Anyway, can you value land separately from the timber growing on it?" It poses considerable problems trying to place a market value on the land comprising the Forestry Commission's estates to-day. The noble Lord also referred to the term "notional" in the accounts. I have never liked that term, but I am informed that the only figure that is notional is the rate of interest applied to the total expenditure; that the actual items of expenditure are far from notional and are, indeed, factual. I understand, also, that the Government intend to revise the shape of the Forestry Commission's accounts, and possibly this may bring us all some more enlightenment in a difficult situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, raised also questions of landscaping, rides, firebreaks and open spaces, and this takes us into the whole field of amenity which was so important in the minds of many noble Lords, and rightly so. I realise what concern there is in my own part of the South of Scotland at the extensive planting of many of these so far bare hills. But again we come back to the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and the fact that, as he said,

1455
equally when you clear a hillside that has been wooded for many years you have loud cries of protest from those who have got used to it.
We must face that fact that what people do not like is change; but they usually get used to it quickly. I understand that the Forestry Commission employ a very eminent landscape consultant, advising on the design of their planting, and nowadays the policy is to make rides follow the natural contours of the land and to allow more at the present time for open spaces, particularly from the point of view of wild life, as well as amenity.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who raised the point of the Commission having cleared away and destroyed a large area of young oakwoods in the Midlands in order to replant with conifers. I understand that this took place in the 'sixties. It was done at a time when economies in timber production were considered to be a dominant consideration, and I am assured by the Commission that under its present hardwood policy this kind of thing would not be allowed to take place: and I am delighted to hear it.
Moving on, my Lords—and there is so much one can move on to in this field, because so many points have been raised—the future of the dedication scheme was very much before your Lordships. I will undertake to pass on the strong views expressed on this front. I would only point out that one must wonder whether the present scheme in its present form may have served its purpose, because I notice that in the last few years the area of planting has increased annually in the private sector, but the area of new dedication has been actually declining. Could it be that a large amount of the suitable area has been dedicated already? I leave that thought with your Lordships.
We have had a number of thoughtful speeches on the problem of integration of forestry and farming, and this is an enormously important subject. It was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Donaldson, Lord Lyell, and others. There is clearly great scope in this field. I think the noble Lord, Lord Dulverton, is known for the remarkable work he has done in
1456
developing this kind of operation in the West Highlands, as some of us will have seen.
My noble friend Lord Stonehaven told us about the substantial quantity of timber that finds its way in its ultimate form into his wastepaper basket month by month. I can only say that I shudder to think what the equivalent used by the Government for these purposes must be: it must amount to many acres of forest per annum, and be a great support to the timber prices, too.
My Lords, I think I should be wise simply to bring this debate to a conclusion by saying that we have had the benefit to-day of a remarkable amount of experience of people who have given a great deal of their lives to forestry in all its aspects. There is no doubt that the private sector of forestry has done a quite remarkable job. There are many people who have inherited woodlands; they have kept them up, replanted them, and are handing them on to the next generation as a heritage. At the same time, I should like to pay tribute to the remarkable work of the Forestry Commission. It was suggested by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, as Chairman of the Forestry Commission, might have spoken in this debate despite the Addison Rules. The noble Lord has informed me why he cannot be with us until the end, but your Lordships will have observed that he sat through the greater part of this debate. Whatever the niceties of those Rules, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, was well advised to sit and absorb the contents of the speeches, as he did, without participating at this moment in discussion or consultation, because I am sure that he was thus better able to take in fully the views of your Lordships.
I am glad that several speakers referred to the work of co-operation by the Forestry Commission in helping the private sector. I have personal experience of their work, and should like to add my tribute to the part they have played, not merely as forestry estate owners but as a helping hand to the private sector; and I should also like to add my tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, as the Commission's Chairman.

1457
We have had this debate. The discussions are still open: the Paper is one for consultation. I would simply assure your Lordships that everything you have said to-day will be brought to the attention of the Ministers and others concerned. I believe this debate will have played a most valuable part in the shaping of our forestry policy. I believe that the future of our forestry is a bright one: whatever changes may occur in the arrangements, it has a great future ahead of it. Unfortunately, I suspect that none of us present will be here to judge the final outcome: that will be something for our children and our grandchildren.
8.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, all I have to do is to thank those of your Lordships who have contributed such a great wealth of interesting things to this debate, and particularly my two noble friends on the Front Bench who have helped so much with all the criticisms, but without giving anything away. I thought it was rather a shame that the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, should be dragged down from Edinburgh, where he is so heavily engaged. He has been sitting here most devotedly throughout the debate, and it was rather a pity that at the one moment when he was out of the Chamber he missed the reference to himself as "the Sheikh of Scotland". I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for agreeing so thoroughly with almost everything I said, because the noble Lord is the kind of man who, when he agrees with you, makes you feel that everything must be all right with the world.
Finally, may I again express my good wishes to my noble friend Lord Lonsdale, who is meeting the Government representatives next week with his colleagues from S.W.O.A. and other representatives of private woodlands. He has a very heavy and responsible task. I know he realises, and I hope he will be able to help the Government representatives to realise also, that he is speaking not for ourselves of this generation but for the next two generations. I wish him most warmly the best of luck for next week and afterwards. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
DEE AND CLWYD RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and referred to the examiners.
KING'S LYNN CORPORATION BILL
Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered, and agreed to.
  WAGE RATES IN INDIA AND AFRICA
  WAGE RATES IN INDIA AND AFRICA