Sitting of 15 July 1974

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    EASTBOURNE HARBOUR BILL [Lords]
    Read a Second time and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  TRADE

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the United Kingdom's trade deficit with the EEC since 1st January 1973.
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Trade what is the percentage increase in British exports to the
    2
    European Community since 1st January 1973.
    The Secretary of State for Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Peter Shore): The crude trade deficit—that is, the difference between exports fob and imports cif—was running at an annual rate of £2,000 million in the first half of 1974 following a crude deficit of £1,167 million in 1973. Over this 18-month period exports were, on average, 51 per cent. higher than in 1972.
    Mr. Marten: Does the Secretary of State recall paragraph 45 of the 1971 White Paper in which the then Government said quite clearly that they were confident that the effect on our balance of trade of entry into the Common Market would be positive and substantial? Has not that prediction turned out to be rather misleading? In the light of the distressing trends shown by the figures, apart from the increase in exports, is there not a danger in concentrating too much trade in one trading area, and would not it be better to go for a wider free trade area?
    Mr. Shore: I agree that the judgments on the trading advantage contained in the paragraph of the White Paper quoted by the hon. Gentleman have been shown to be seriously out. As for concentrating on a single trading area, I have taken the view—I have spoken recently to this effect—that we need to remember that

    3
    we are world traders and that more than two-thirds of our trade continues to be with countries and continents outside the EEC.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reality of the figures is a little removed from the dreamy-eyed prophecies of some Common Market zealots before our entry? As we were taken into the Common Market without the full-hearted consent of the British people, ought not the British people to be asked before too long to give a final verdict on the matter?
    Mr. Shore: There is no doubt that the trading reality of membership is wholly at variance with the confident prospects dangled before this House and the British people only two years ago. I have no doubt that this, among many other matters, will be taken aboard by the British people when they get the opportunity, as they will get it, to decide whether they wish to stay inside the EEC.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Do not the figures suggest that the British people are anxious to buy continental goods, and is not the purpose of the Government's renegotiation to cut off supplies of goods from the EEC—or do they think that renegotiation somehow will expand our exports?
    Mr. Shore: It indicates an interest by British consumers and British industry in European goods, but whether we can continue, and for how long, to run a trade deficit with the EEC of the order of £2,000 million is a question which will be and should be exercising us all.
    Mr. Tom Ellis: What proportion is this of our total world deficit, and is it in line with our trade with the EEC in comparison with our total world trade?
    Mr. Shore: I willingly give my hon. Friend that information. Although the EEC accounts for about one-third of our trade, it has accounted in the past 18 months for more than half our non-oil deficit, and this has happened in a period when commodity prices in the rest of the world have gone up to an extent that we have not known probably in our lifetime.

    Air Traffic and Airports
    Mr. George Gardinerasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will now
    4
    announce the outcome of his Department's inquiry into future air traffic needs and, arising from this, the Government's decisions affecting the development of existing and projected airports.
    Mr. Geoffrey Finsbergasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he has yet completed his review of the Maplin project; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Shore: I shall be making a statement shortly about the reappraisal of the Maplin airport project which I announced on 21st March.
    Mr. Spearing: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the debates in Committee on the Maplin Development Bill it was stated that a great deal of the demand for airports in South-East England was due to the fact that it was cheaper to send package tour passengers from the North of England to the South by motor coach than to fly them direct from their local airports? Will he ascertain whether this is confirmed? If it is found to be correct, will he take it into account in the statement that he is to make?
    Mr. Shore: One matter that has to be looked at very carefully in future is the part—I hope the increased part—that regional airports can play in handling our total air traffic.
    Mr. Allason: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity of reaffirming the decision by the previous Government that Luton should be phased out of international airport operations by 1982 as it is thoroughly unsatisfactorily sited?
    Mr. Shore: It would be wrong for me to give that assurance at present and it would certainly be wrong for me to make a statement of that or any kind in advance of the statement that I hope to make on Maplin.
    Mr. Heseltine: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that he must have given some remit to the inquiry which is now taking place and that included in that remit would be a direction at least to look at the possibility of Luton being phased out?
    Mr. Shore: The inquiry has been asked to look at a number of reasonable options, including the option of the retention of Luton.

    Concorde
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Trade what further discussions he has had with British Airways about the entry of Concorde into service with that airline.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis)I continue to keep in close touch with British Airways on their plans for Concorde services.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Has the Minister seen the statement by the chairman of British Airways that he now wants Concorde "the sooner, the better"? In those circumstances, may I ask whether he has discussed with the Chairman of British Airways the possibility of setting up a joint operation with Air France which would enable Concorde to come into operation many months sooner than is at present expected?
    Mr. Davis: I have seen the observations of the Chairman of British Airways. The operation of Concorde as between Air France and British Airways is a matter for their commercial judgment.
    Mr. Grimond: In view of the observations of the Chairman of British Airways, will the Minister give an undertaking that further subsidies will not be paid to cover the operation of this aircraft?
    Mr. Davis: When British Airways ordered Concorde the previous Government said that they would be prepared to review the board's financial position at the appropriate time in the light of the outcome of the board's operations and that, if necessary, steps would be taken to ensure that the board maintained a sound financial judgment. This Government stand by that undertaking, but I do not think that it is appropriate at this stage to discuss its implementation in detail.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend still stand by the figures given in this House on 18th March by the Secretary of State for Industry? If not, which other figures does he stand by?
    Mr. Davis: I stand by the figures.

    London and Counties Securities Group Ltd.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether the investigation
    6
    by his Department into the collapse of the London and Counties Securities Group Ltd. has been completed; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: The inspectors' inquiries are continuing and I have not yet received the report. I am not in a position to make a statement at the present time.
    Mr. Skinner: Perhaps I ought to give my hon. Friend something to tell the investigating team to further its inquiries. Does he recall that the Leader of the Liberal Party, as a director of London and Counties Securities Group Limited, had 10,000 incentive shares for little or nothing? Will his investigating team try to establish whether those shares were sold before the inevitable crash? Will the investigating team also take into account the question of the appearance money that was paid to the right for Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) and whether he should be morally bound not merely to resign his directorship but to pay that money back to the distressed shareholders of the London and Counties Securities Group Limited? Will he also ask the investigating team to look into the desperate take-over bid that was launched by the discredited London and Counties Securities Group Limited just before the coalition collapsed to take over this group at a time when it could be argued that that was a criminal offence?
    Mr. Davis: The fullest inquiries are being undertaken into the activities of this group. It would be improper for me to interfere at this stage. In any event, I should have thought that it would be wrong to castigate the activities of any one individual at this moment. Moreover, the Leader of the Liberal Party is more in need of sympathy than obloquy at present having taken on free transfer the hon. Member for Woolwich, East (Mr. Mayhew).
    Mr. Grimond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of what the Minister said in the early part of his reply, is it not an abuse of Question Time that a wholly improper attack should be made upon my right hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe) when the matter is under investigation?
    Mr. Speaker: I very much regret personal imputations against right hon. or hon. Members. Whether at this stage I am entitled to stop them altogether is a different matter. It is more a matter of taste and convention than of the rules of order in most cases.
    Mr. Skinner: I have had my share and I can stand them.

    Directors (Wound-up Companies)
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will seek powers to prevent directors of companies which are compulsorily wound up engaging in the subsequent formation and operation of corporate bodies and partnerships.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: It would be unfair to impose an automatic penalty on directors simply because they had been involved in the affairs of a company which had been compulsorily wound up. However, when new legislation comes to be prepared we will consider widening the powers of the courts to disqualify persons from taking part in the management of companies.
    Mr. Cryer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that in July 1970 my local paper, the Telegraph and Argus, pressed for some kind of company reform following some cenral heating frauds in the area? Is he aware that millions people would welcome firm action by a Labour Government to tighten company legislation and stop firms operating on the fringe of legality?
    Mr. Davis: Not being an avid reader of the Telegraph and Argus, I was not aware of its interest in the matter. However, I am aware of the concern which has been expressed throughout the nation about abuses of this kind. It would be unfair to assume that every director who had been involved in a liquidation was necessarily culpable. We must retain a balance. There are quite extensive powers under the 1948 Act to deal with this situation and more extensive powers were envisaged in the Companies Bill which the previous Government were proposing to introduce. We shall certainly look carefully at those provisions and I think that we would wish to implement them.
    Mr. Teddy Taylor: When reviewing company legislation, will the hon. Gentle-
    8
    man bear in mind the serious problem of liquidations of financial groups which have taken money from the public and that people, many of them elderly, do not know their rights and cannot get any answer to the situation? This is particularly evident in the National Life Insurance Company Limited affair. Will the Minister consider whether his Department or some other agency might set up an office which could answer telephone inquiries or letters from members of the public who want to know whether they have lost their money and what their rights are?
    Mr. Davis: We would have to look carefully at that suggestion. It would not be right for a Government Department to act as a legal adviser. Nevertheless I will take on board the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman and look at it. We would welcome in new legislation wider powers of disclosure which might go to the very heart of the matter. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel satisfied with that reply.

    France
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will pay an official visit to Paris to discuss matters of common interest concerning trade policy.
    Mr. Shore: I hope to visit Paris after the holiday period as part of a series of visits to my opposite numbers in other Community capitals.
    Mr. Tebbit: When the right hon. Gentleman goes there, will he take with him a list of this country's traditional customers who have been affronted by the refusal of the present Government to supply arms, so that the French, who are willing to do so, can get on with the job and the right hon. Gentleman can then see even more people in this country out of work as a result of the loss of arms orders and the loss of other orders that will follow from these rebuffs to foreign Governments?
    Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman must take on board the counter-possibility that there might be an exchange between Ministers on how far they can agree on limiting arms supplies.
    Mr. Jay: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that the French Government, in order to keep up the price of meat, have

    9
    banned lamb imports into France from Southern Ireland? As that is contrary to all the rules of the EEC, may I ask why, if the French can break these rules whenever it suits them, we cannot act similarly?
    Mr. Shore: I am not absolutely certain about the legalities of the French Government's position but I hesitate to say more about this because I think the matter is currently being discussed—with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in attendance—in the Council of Agriculture Ministers in Brussels. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will put the British position with great force.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: In view of the highly developed sense of elegance and fashion among the French, may I ask my right hon. Friend to draw their attention to the fine worsted suiting and dress materials which this country is willing to sell them at a very profitable price to ourselves?
    Mr. Shore: I guarantee that if and when I have a dialogue with the French Trade Minister I shall draw his attention to the need for this country to export more to France or, in other words, for France to import more from this country than it has been doing in the last two or three years.

    Motor Vehicles
    Mr. Hal Millerasked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his estimate for imports and exports of motor vehicles in 1974 and 1975; and what proportion exports of motor vehicles are likely to represent United Kingdom total exports in those years.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): It is not the practice to venture such estimates. However, in January to May this year 174,000 motor vehicles and chassis were imported and 297,000 were exported, the latter representing 4·3 per cent. by value of total United Kingdom exports.
    Mr. Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that unless our export trade in motors cars is kept up this year there will be a serious decline in domestic production, with consequent results on employment? Is he further aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
    10
    Industry gave a most misleading reply in the House a fortnight ago and published a bullish estimate of production the following week, to which I took great exception?
    Mr. Deakins: Questions about production in the motor car industry should rightly be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is that there is scope for further exports in world markets. At the same time we have to bear in mind that world demand is not expanding as rapidly as it has done in recent years, partly because of the oil crisis and partly because of the general economic situation, but we feel that our motor car industry, with its wide range of smaller cars, is well placed to meet this demand.
    Mr. Harry Ewing: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the needs of our own coach-building industry, with particular reference to public service vehicles? In connection with the export of chassis, may I ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that for a long time coach-builders in this country—and there is one in particular in my constituency—were on short-time working because so many chassis were being exported that the home demand was not being met?
    Mr. Deakins: It is of advantage to our balance of payments to export complete vehicles rather than merely the chassis and have the body put on overseas. I take note of my hon. Friend's point and I shall look into it.

    Russia and Chile
    Mr. Dixonasked the Secretary of State for Trade what was the volume of United Kingdom trade in 1973 with Russia and Chile, respectively.
    Mr. Shore: Published figures show imports from Russia and Chile as £331 million and £57 million cif respectively and exports £97 million and £17 million fob.
    Mr. Dixon: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, by their postures, the present Government are increasingly identifying themselves with the Communist views held by, for instance, the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and that there is every indication that

    11
    they are anxious to trade with Communist countries and not with other countries which happen not to appeal to their political prejudices?
    Mr. Shore: I think that the hon. Gentleman, apart from being offensive, is in a sense inaccurate also. The fact of the matter is that our trade with many countries is and always has been decided by the basic consideration of the ability of countries to trade and whether they have the kinds of goods that we need.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that, whatever else the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Dixon) had to say in his suplementary question, the answer to his comment about myself is that I, unlike some hon. Members, have never been a member of the Communist Party but have always belonged to one party only, and that is the Labour Party?
    Mr. Shore: I think that it was a somewhat unworthy remark by the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. Dixon), and I hope he will withdraw it.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As Chile is the main supplier of copper to this country now that Rhodesia has been turned off, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman what steps he is taking to safeguard our supplies of copper now that he has quite gratuitously and unnecessarily insulted the Chilean Government?
    Mr. Shore: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman gets his information, but the fact is that our trade in copper with Chile is continuing. The limitation on our trade with Chile arises basically from the fact that since 1972 Chile has been in a serious state in regard to her international payments and has been very much a debtor country.

    Third London Airport
    Mr. Gryllsasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has any plans for meeting members of the Surrey County Council to discuss the siting of London's third airport.
    Mr. Shore: I am well aware of the views of the Surrey County Council. They have been taken into account in the reappraisal of the Maplin airport project which I announced on 21st March.
    Mr. Grylls: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the increasing anger of residents in Surrey and other places near Gatwick and Heathrow airports at the possible consequences of the expansion of Heathrow and Gatwick if Maplin is not proceeded with? Will he get on and give us the statement that he promised in writing to give before the recess, and put these people out of their agony?
    Mr. Shore: I am aware of the anxieties of and real inconvenience experienced by thousands of people who live near airports, but I repeat my assurance to the House that I still have every intention of making a statement before the recess about the future of Maplin.
    Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend recall that the previous Government's proposals for Maplin, which were not discussed in a White Paper because one was not issued, included proposals for a new town to service this proposed airport? Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a new town would prejudice employment and the social fabric of areas of East London? Will he assure me that the proposal for a new town is not being considered by the Government?
    Mr. Shore: I think that the relationship between the new town and Maplin airport is a close one, and a decision on the one would almost certainly be bound up with a decision on the other. As I am not yet in a position to make a statement, I must leave my hon. Friend somewhat unsatisfied.
    Dr. Glyn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my constituents in Windsor and Maidenhead suffer considerably from the noise of aircraft and are very annoyed at any idea that there should be an increase in movements in and out of London Airport? Rather there should be a decrease, and they look forward to an early decision on Maplin as the third London airport.
    Mr. Shore: I fully understand the worries of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and many others, but even if a decision to go ahead were made there would still inevitably be a substantial build-up of traffic in the existing London airports over at least another decade.

    Manchester Airport
    Mr. Andrew Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the rôle which he proposes that Ringway Airport should play in the long-term future of civic air traffic in North-West England.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: I expect to receive the recommendations of the Civil Aviation Authority on the Central England Airport Study, which included airports in the North-West, later in the year. In considering the authority's advice I shall take account of the future rôle of Manchester Airport.
    Mr. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that such a statement only increases public anxiety in the area around Ring-way and in the rest of the North-West that other people may have to suffer from noise pollution? Does he also agree that much more should be done around Ring-way to combat noise pollution?
    Mr. Davis: The question of noise pollution at Manchester is primarily a matter for the airport management, which is a local authority responsibility. Various measures, including the restriction on night jet movements during the summer, and day and night noise limits, are in force there. We have had no cause to believe that the Manchester local authority is not carrying out its commitments. The wider matter will have to await the result of consultations which the Civil Aviation Authority is putting in train.
    Mr. Redmond: Will the hon. Gentleman put a gag on people who are always trying to muck about with the North-West? Is it not nonsense to suggest that the North-West's main airport might be moved from Ringway after fantastic sums of money have been spent on it? We admit that it should not have been built where it is, but now that it is there it is irreplaceable.
    Mr. Davis: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman is the best person to talk about gags being put on people. He is asking me to prejudge the result of consultations, and I cannot do that.

    Exports (Port Delays)
    Mr. Terry Walkerasked the Secretary of State for Trade what evidence his
    14
    Department has that goods for export are being delayed at Great Britain's ports; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Deakins: I am aware of complaints from exporters of their goods being held up in ports. In the main these are due to inadequacy of shipping space on certain long sea routes and also to local shortages of containers. The British Overseas Trade Board is in touch with the conferences concerned, which are taking all steps immediately open to them to alleviate the situation.
    Mr. Walker: Is my hon. Friend aware that a firm of sports footwear manufacturers in my constituency was unable to send a consignment to Australia within a reasonable time and that the order was lost? While it is admitted that these goods have been sold on the home market, it is at a cost to our balance of payments.
    Mr. Deakins: I take my hon. Friend's point. The major problem arises, at a time of increased international trade, from congestion experienced in some overseas ports, Australia being a notable example.
    Mr. Body: Is the hon. Member aware that one port where there is never any delay is Boston and that it could be used more often?
    Mr. Deakins: I am sure that the whole House will note that.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In view of the appalling delays in most of our public sector ports, will the hon. Gentleman say why he feels that nationalising the ports will help the situation in any way?
    Mr. DeakinsThe delays have nothing to do with nationalisation or private enterprise. The measures to alleviate the congestion in our ports are twofold. First, discussions are going on with the British Overseas Trade Board and the conferences concerned to try to predict more accurately future levels of demand for shipping. Secondly, there will be a meeting tomorrow of the Economic Development Council for the Movement of Exports, which will discuss the problem in great detail.

    Comecon Countries
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for Trade what visits he

    15
    intends to make to COMECON countriese in the immediate future.
    Mr. Shore: I have received invitations to a visit a number of these countries and am looking forward to doing so when my other commitments permit.
    Mrs. Short: In view of the disastrous deficit with the Common Market countries, where the reality has not measured up to the rosy propaganda put out before we entered, does my right hon. Friend accept that the COMECON countries constitute a much-neglected part of the world and that if he were to accept some of the invitations and show a little more interest than his predecessor did we might see an improvement in our balance of payments position next year?
    Mr. Shore: There has been an encouraging improvement in trade, but more with East European countries than with the Soviet Union itself, where I think our trade has remained stagnant and, considering the size of both the Russian market and our own, extremely small. As for the future, we shall certainly try, but this is a two-way business and unless the Soviet Union builds more external trade into its planning there will inevitably be limitations on what is available. I am glad to say that there are signs that more trade is being built into the Soviet Union's coming five-year plan.
    Mr. Wells: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread anxiety in the British horticulture industry about dumped horticultural produce from COMECON countries, notably tomatoes and cucumbers, which in a short time would so depress the British industry that there could be no home-produced tomatoes in two or three years' time?
    Mr. Shore: There have been many anxieties in the horticulture industry arising from many trading arrangements and not just from the possibilities of dumping by East European countries. But I shall certainly examine any particular problem about which the hon. Gentleman cares to tell me.

    Package Tours
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Trade how many representations he has received since 1st April from
    16
    people complaining of cancellation or alteration to pre-booked package tours.
    Mr. Deakins: One.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is it not evident from that reply that, notwithstanding a few well-publicised exceptions, the British holidaymaker continues to get a good deal from the majority of package tour firms in this country? In view of the difficulty through which the travel industry has been passing recently, will the hon. Gentleman encourage the continuing development of the package tour industry as the means whereby many quite ordinary people have been able to go abroad since the end of the war?
    Mr. Deakins: I can endorse the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for the achievements of the British package tour industry, which has done a great deal to give many people a holiday overseas that they would never have been able to afford otherwise. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not take my reply that we have had one complaint as any indication of Government complacency, because there are from time to time fringe operators where things can go wrong and it is only right that the Government should be concerned about these matters.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Is my hon. Friend aware that it would be as well not to be too complacent about the activities of his Department in overseeing the travel industry, as I informed it six weeks before the Court Line disaster that members of the tourist industry themselves were deeply concerned about the numbers of package tours likely to be affected and how holidaymakers would be in grave danger if anything went wrong?
    Mr. Deakins: Account was taken of my hon. Friend's advance warning. It was one of the reasons why we were able to react so quickly when the Court Line business came to a head.
    Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman's Department had six weeks' advance notice, why was there not time to consult the industrial advisers?
    Mr. Deakins: Until we had spoken to Court Line—
    Mr. Heseltine: Six weeks?
    Mr. Deakins: We were concerned about the holiday side of the business, not the shipbuilding side. It was only when the firm came to us that we had to take account of the whole of its operations and not merely the holiday part, which is the direct concern of my Department.

    Nuclear Plant (Iran)
    Mr. Palmerasked the Secretary of State for Trade what advice and assistance was given by his Department to British manufacturers in tendering for the nuclear plant now ordered by Iran from French firms.
    Mr. Shore: We have kept in close touch with the Iranian authorities about their plans. These orders were not put out to tender.
    Mr. Palmer: Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, that his Department appears to have completely underestimated the industrial potential of Iran, particularly in desalination, and that when the British trade delegation went to Iran five months ago—I think under the previous Government—it discussed everything except reactors? Has not a great opportunity been lost to this country? What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to see that such opportunities are not lost in future?
    Mr. Shore: I believe that last September the head of the Iran power generation and transmission company was informed about the various types of reactors of which British manufacturers had experience. There was also, I believe, a promise to make available to the Iranians certain studies that the then Government were conducting about our own nuclear reactors. But as the House will know, and as my hon. Friend well knows, we have been reappraising our nuclear policy, and it is only as a result of the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy a few days ago that we have been able to announce our conclusions. I hope that this will make it much easier for us to go ahead with possible export orders.
    Mr. Tom King: In view of the announcement of substantial orders being placed by Iran with France and the hesitant nature of the right hon. Gentleman's replies about what is going on,
    18
    may I ask him what he is doing to make sure that we get a fair share of the orders that looked possible under the previous Government and now seem to have disappeared?
    Mr. Shore: One of the first and most important things was for the British Government to go firm in choosing a nuclear system. We have done this. I very much hope that we will join with the Canadians as there appears to be a very good possibility of pushing what I am sure will be a good reactor in our export drive.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be general agreement on both sides of the House with what his hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Palmer) has said, namely that Iran, a Right-wing Government, represents by any measure a great and growing market for British goods? Is he aware that before the Labour Government took office there was good reason to suppose that a useful proportion of the $4,000 million worth of orders recently placed by the Shah in France would come to this country? Will he also recognise that the two things that have done most damage to our prospects of securing these orders are, first, the actions of the Government in forcing British companies to break their contracts for arms supplies abroad and, secondly, the actions of certain trade unions in preventing goods that have been promised from Britain going abroad?
    Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman is simply making propaganda. I have no reason to believe his assertion that the Shah had made up his mind—
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I said "there was good reason to suppose".
    Mr. Shore: Well, there may have been good reason to suppose. There might have been good reason not to suppose. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that a continuing and substantial effort is made by my Department, in association with others, in all the markets of the Middle East.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when we left office in 1970 we had the highest surplus this country has ever had, which in three and a half years was transformed into

    19
    the highest-ever deficit under the last Government? Will he ignore what the previous administration did and carry on the good work?
    Mr. Shore: We certainly have very good reason to believe that during the period of office of the party opposite this country plunged from a substantial surplus into a massive deficit. We shall be doing all in our power to get the country back on the level.

    Rolls-Royce (Cancelled Contracts)
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Trade whether he has yet had estimates from Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd. and other companies of the cost of the compensation due to overseas customers as a result of contracts broken on the instructions of Her Majesty's Government; and what proportion of such compensation will be provided by Her Majesty's Government.
    Mr. Shore: I have had no such estimates and the second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.
    Mr. Rost: Is that not a disgracefully unsatisfactory answer? Can the right hon. Gentleman quote any precedent for a British Government forcing the cancellation of a commercial contract between British companies and foreign Governments without offering full compensation both to the foreign Governments and the British companies? What possible benefit can this be to the British export trade? What encouragement can it give to people to place orders with British industry?
    Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman has not been properly briefed. The answer to this is that on many occasions Governments have for one reason or another had to introduce export or import licensing, both of which have frequently led to breaches of contract. To the best of my knowledge no Government have ever paid compensation in such cases.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Is my right hon. Friend aware that apart from compensation for overseas customers in the panic winding-up of Rolls-Royce by the last Government there arose the question of compensation being administered on a niggardly level to a number of long-service employees, some of whom were my constituents? Is he further aware
    20
    that this makes me suspicious that there was a breach of contract there? If such cases are brought before him will he undertake to look into them with great despatch?
    Mr. Shore: I was not aware of that point but I can give my hon. Friend the assurance for which he asks. If he wishes to bring any particular cases to me they will be looked at with care.
    Mr. Heseltine: If the Secretary of State has not received any estimates, may I ask what estimates he asked for from Rolls-Royce and what advice has he received from the company about the impact of the Government's decision on its overseas trading posture?
    Mr. Shore: That information would be relevant only if it had been the practice and was to be the practice of Governments to pay compensation in such cases. This policy is so generally well understood, not only by the present Government but by all post-war Conservative Governments, that most traders have a force majeure clause in their contracts which protects them against the imposition of import or export controls.

    Commonwealth Countries
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Trade what plans he has for increasing trade with the Commonwealth.
    Mr. Deakins: The British Overseas Trade Board is working for increased trade with our major trading partners, including the Commonwealth. I hope that my right hon. Friend's recent visit to Canada and his forthcoming visits to Australia and New Zealand will reinforce the board's efforts. Her Majesty's Government are also seeking improved access for Commonwealth exports as part of our renegotiation of the terms of British entry into the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Hamilton: Does my hon. Friend agree that for over 25 years under successive Governments two-way trade with the Commonwealth has decreased by more than half? If he and his right hon. Friends are successful in bringing us out of the Common Market, does he believe that this will have an adverse or favourable effect on Commonwealth trade?

    21
    More importantly, does he think that we shall get cheaper food as a consequence of coming out of the Market?
    Mr. Deakins: Commonwealth trade has declined since the war in terms of the percentage of total trade although it has gone up in value. One of the reasons why it has declined is that British firms have always, until recently, regarded the Commonwealth as a fairly easy market so that their competitors have gone ahead. Everyone would now agree that trading with any part of the world is not at all easy, as we are finding out in our present period of membership of the EEC. We do not anticipate any adverse effects on the Commonwealth in the event of our withdrawing from the Common Market. I would remind my hon. Friend that withdrawal is not the policy of the Government. [Interruption.] To answer my hon. Friend's last question, the issue is not whether we can buy cheap food from outside the Common Market. It is a question of whether we can buy cheaper food from outside the Common Market. We positively believe that we can and that we shall go on being able to do so.
    Mr. Body: Would not our food be very much cheaper now if we were to take off the import levies or the taxes we impose upon so many foodstuffs, including the exorbitant amount of £800 per ton on New Zealand cheese?
    Mr. Deakins: These matters are being dealt with as part of our detailed negotiating brief in the renegotiations. I know that the hon. Gentleman will not want me to go into details at this stage.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the great difference between trade with the Commonwealth and trade with the Common Market at present is that Commonwealth trade has given us a favourable balance of trade while Common Market trade has given us an unfavourable balance? Would he further agree that the increasing proportion of our trade with the Common Market is reflected in the enormous deficit we now have on our balance of trade?
    Mr. Deakins: I must correct my hon. Friend on the figures. Our true trading deficit with the Commonwealth is currently running at an annual rate of about £800 million. [Interruption.] I am talking
    22
    about current figures. That compares with the current deficit with the EEC which is running at an annual rate of £2,000 million.
    Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has made an important statement in saying on behalf of the Government that the Government do not seek cheap food outside the Common Market but rather that they seek cheaper food. Will he tell the House where in the world, without taking food from those who cannot afford to send it at all, he believes we can obtain cheaper food today?
    Mr. Deakins: I can think of several commodities straight away—butter, cheese, beef and New Zealand lamb. If there is no cheaper food available outside the Common Market—assuming for a moment that the hon. Gentleman is right—why is it that the Common Market has to impose import duties and levies to make sure that cheaper food cannot get in?

    Arab Countries
    Mr. Stanleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade what steps he is taking to secure major export orders from Arab countries.
    Mr. Deakins: The British Overseas Trade Board is actively engaged in drawing the attention of industry to export opportunities in the Arab world wherever they arise and in implementing trade promotion programmes agreed with industry.
    Mr. Stanley: Will the Minister explain why the efforts of French Ministers on behalf of French industry seem to be attended with so much more success than the efforts of his right hon. Friend in obtaining export orders from Arab Powers?
    Mr. Deakins: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's pessimism about the future of our export effort to Arab countries in the Middle East, if that is what his question is directed to. British firms are engaged in consultations with Arab countries on a number of major projects and we shall continue to give every possible further encouragement as we believe that the Middle East is one of the major areas which can be an effective market for our exports of consumer and capital goods.
    Mr. Richard Wainwright: In addition to the moves to which the Minister referred on promoting export trade with the Arab countries, will he request his right hon. Friend to attend to the problem of cash for industries in this country which can make the goods for Arab countries but which are desperately short of cash?
    Mr. Deakins: As the hon. Gentleman knows, questions concerning liquidity of companies are basically for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    Mr. Tebbit: In order to help our exporters, if the hon. Gentleman is too shy to publish a list of Arab countries which are too undemocratic to allow unrestricted trade will he at least go so far as to publish a list of Governments which are sufficiently democratic to allow unrestricted trade?
    Mr. Deakins: The issue in this House has not been non-arms trade but has been arms trade. We trade in arms with a number of Arab countries, although at the time of the recent Middle East war we cut off arms supplies to some of those countries. This has nothing at all to do with the democracy or otherwise of the Governments concerned.

    Hydrofoils
    Mr. R. C. Mitchellasked the Secretary of State for Trade under what circumstances licences are given to Russian-made hydrofoils to operate in British waters; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: I assume that my hon. Friend is referring to the Russian-made hydrofoil which is operating on the Thames. This is a British-owned vessel, registered in the United Kingdom, and has complied with the necessary safety requirements for the issue of a passenger certificate under the Merchant Shipping Acts.
    Mr. Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend aware, however, that this Russian hydrofoil was sold at approximately half the price of similar hydrofoils which are available in the Russian and Eastern European home market and was sold on credit terms that could not possibly be matched by people in this country? As it is in direct competition with British-made products—for example, the hovercraft—will my hon.
    24
    Friend look at the anti-dumping laws involved in this case?
    Mr. Davis: My hon. Friend has, of course, written to me about this subject. I am aware of his concern about it. The fact of the matter, however, is that we have received no representations from the hovercraft industry alleging that there has been dumping as regards the Russian hydrofoil. We can act only if representations are made to us. We have to assess the evidence that is presented in order to determine whether there has been a breach of the Customs Duties (Dumping and Subsidies) Act 1969.

    Tourism
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his Department's policy for the tourist industry.
    Mr. Anthony Grantasked the Secretary of State for Trade what proposals he has to encourage tourism in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Deakins: Our policy remains to promote the development of tourism both to and within Great Britain. To that end provision has been made on the Votes of the Departments concerned for expenditure in 1974–75 under the Development of Tourism Act 1969 totalling £22 million.
    Mr. Adley: I must first declare an interest in the hotel industry. Is the Minister aware that there is, or perhaps has been until his statement this afternoon, a vacuum in the absence of any definitive policy or statement by his Department on the tourist industry? As he has referred to the Development of Tourism Act, will he now recognise that that Act failed to give sufficient regional incentives in some parts of the country and gave too much incentive in London? Will he, for instance, now consider the proposal that has been put to his Department that tourism development areas as distinct from industrial development areas could be considered?
    Mr. Deakins: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I should like to mention that he was, unfortunately, not able to be present, although he tried to be present, for an Adjournment debate on this matter early last Wednesday morning when his hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young)

    25
    raised this subject. I did my best to reply to the debate.
    On the second part of the question, I am aware of the arguments for extending assistance under Section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act more widely than the present policy of confining it to development areas where the need is greatest. I shall certainly bear in mind the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot give any undertaking as yet that they can be accepted as decisive.
    Sir George Young: Is the Minister satisfied with the present division of responsibility between the British Tourist Authority on the one hand and the national tourist boards on the other hand? Does he see no risk in splitting the functions of marketing and development between the two completely autonomous bodies?
    Mr. Deakins: I took the hon. Gentleman's point in the Adjournment debate to which I have referred, and I take it again. There is a problem between marketing and distribution. The two major problems which may require—I do not yet know—some reorganisation are tourism strategy and Exchequer support, and these are problems to which we are bending our minds.

    Regional Airports
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Trade what is his policy regarding the development of regional airport facilities in Great Britain; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Allasonasked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on his policy for the development of regional airports.
    Mr. Shore: It is my objective to encourage the greater use of regional airports in general. The Civil Aviation Authority is presently undertaking a series of studies of regional airports and I expect to receive its advice on these later in the year.
    Mr. Renton: While that study is being undertaken will the Secretary of State bear in mind the example of France and Germany, where far greater use has been made of regional airports in association with the distribution of industry through-
    26
    out the country than has happened in Britain? Will he also bear in mind that if regional airports are not developed and if Maplin is not built, this is likely to lead to a far greater flow of passengers through Gatwick than was envisaged when the South-East strategic plan was prepared? The CAA has forecast a figure as high as 35 million passengers a year. Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that if this were to materialise it would lead to far greater increases in population, with stresses on housing and education, than the strategic plan allowed for?
    Mr. Shore: On all these very large consequences which may flow from a decision one way or the other on the future of Maplin I must resist commenting until I have made the statement about which I have already told the House. On the other point raised by the hon. Gentleman, there is undoubtedly a benefit to regions arising from airports. They help industry and industrialists, as we well know. I shall certainly ask my Department to have a look at the experience of other countries, including France, as the hon. Gentleman suggested.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend realise that rather than concentrating air traffic in the South-East and having a third London airport we should build up airports in the regions? Will he take into account the representations that have been made recently by three Glamorgan authorities about the Rhoose airport in South Wales?
    Mr. Shore: I would indeed wish that more of our air journeys both originated and ended at regional airports. There is, however, a problem that there appears to be an unusually heavy weight of air activity, as it were, originating in the South and South-Eastern parts of Britain. That is the heart of the problem. I shall certainly look at the contribution that regional airports, including the airport mentioned by my hon. Friend, can play in the future.
    Mr. Allason: As the proposals for the Midlands include two large airports rather than six small ones to obtain greater efficiency, is there not a grave danger in the Birmingham case of creating another environmental disaster on the scale of Cublington? Is it not clear that future

    27
    airports should to a large extent be on the coast?
    Mr. Shore: The hon. Gentleman is referring to the report that has recently been published on regional airports in central England. The report has been published, but we have not had the views of the Civil Airports Authority upon it and we are far from reaching any general view as to the future strategy for regional airport policy. We will take account of all points, including those the hon. Gentleman mentioned.

CYPRUS
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. James Callaghan): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I will make a statement about the recent events in Cyprus.
The House will understand that information about events in Cyprus is still coming in and what I say this afternoon is incomplete.
The National Guard in Cyprus, claiming to be intervening in order to stop fighting between Greeks in Cyprus, has seized power. The presidential palace has been under attack, and it is reported that President Makarios has been killed. If this report proves to be well founded, the whole House will join me in expressing its very deep dismay and regret at the death in such circumstances of the President of a friendly country who was also the senior Commonwealth Head of State.
The Treaty of Guarantee, which was signed by the Greek, Turkish and Cyprus Governments as well as by Her Majesty's Government, provides for the recognition and maintenance of the independence, territorial integrity and security of Cyprus. I have drawn the attention of the Greek and Turkish Governments to these undertakings and have urged the need for restraint on all sides. I have asked for their urgent views on the situation. I am also in touch with the Secretary-General of the United Nations and with other interested Governments.
There have been no reports of injury or loss to British subjects. The airport at Nicosia is closed, and our High Commissioner has advised residents and holi-
28
day-makers to stay at home until the position is clarified. I am reviewing arrangements for ensuring the safety of the British community and their evacuation should that prove necessary.
I will keep the House informed of future developments.
Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for having come to us at the earliest possible moment with the information he has received. The House will also wish to associate itself with the right hon. Gentleman in his utter condemnation of this brutal and senseless assassination of a Head of State of a Commonwealth country, if this proves to be true. When will people learn that violence in pursuit of political aims does nothing to further social justice?
I join the right hon. Gentleman in expressing the hope that the Greek and Turkish Governments will jointly take action to calm an explosive situation. That, and that alone, would probably have an effect in the island. I hope, too, that the United Nations force will be able to keep order as is necessary there.
The only other point arises on our own bases. From my recollection I would say that the orders given in anticipation of a situation such as this in the island are explicit. If the right hon. Gentleman on further examination should think that anything else has to be added to these orders, no doubt he will say so.
Mr. Callaghan: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his appeal. This is potentially an explosive situation and very great statesmanship and restraint will need to be shown by both communities in the island if we are to avoid even worse trouble than has already befallen them.
The arrangements for the safety of British citizens and the security of our sovereign base areas are being reviewed. There are clear instructions at present. I have no reason to doubt so far that they will be inadequate.
Mr. Bottomley: Is it certain that Archbishop Makarios is dead? Rumour has it that he is alive and with the United Nations forces.
Mr. Callaghan: I have seen that on the tape, but there is no confirmation of it.

29
The only reports that we have are—I regret to say—that the Archbishop is likely to be dead.
Mr. Grimond: Is the Secretary of State aware that everyone will agree with him about the need for restraint? May I express the great dismay and regret of myself and my colleagues at the rumours concerning the Archbishop, a man whom some of us know and who has long played a rôle in Commonwealth affairs?
Under the treaty to which the Secretary of State referred, do we have any responsibility for internal security?
Mr. Callaghan: No, we have no such responsibility. We have a right to consult the other Governments who are signatories of the Treaty of Guarantee. That is what I have set in motion today to ensure that security is maintained in the island and that there is no attack from outside.
Mrs. Jeger: I appreciate that restraint is necessary on this very sad day, but may I ask my right hon. Friend to pay some attention to Article 4 of the Treaty of Guarantee which points out that, where common concerted action may not be possible, each of the three guaranteeing Powers reserves the right to take some action? Surely it is a fact that the setting up of the British sovereign base areas was part and parcel of our agreement to guarantee the integrity of Cyprus under the constitution as then laid down. Will my right hon. Friend bear this very much in mind over the next few hours?
Mr. Callaghan: I have read that article very carefully. As my hon. Friend says, it gives us rights; but the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetlands (Mr. Grimond) was asking about obligations. There is a difference. We are in the very early hours of this event. It happened only this morning. A declaration has been put out by those who led the coup saying that foreign policy will not change and that Cyprus will maintain friendly relations with all nations while pursuing a policy of non-alignment as happened in the past. I do not know how much reliance at this stage we should attach to any of the declarations that are forthcoming. I believe that it is the view of the whole House that the integrity, security and independence of Cyprus are vital.
Mr. Amery: May I, as one who worked very closely, both against and later with Archbishop Makarios for some years, take this opportunity of saying that from a bitter opponent of this country he became a great friend and that he was a great Greek patriot who realised that his goal of Enosis should not be rushed at but should be delayed, otherwise his own people and Greece as a whole in their relations with Turkey would have suffered deeply.
Mr. Callaghan: Yes. I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, whose name is also commemorated in the documents associated with the final settlement. I hope that what he has said about the relationship between Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, with which I agree, will be borne in mind by those who have responsibility for these affairs on the mainland.
Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend recognise the great obligation that is felt by many of those who represent large Greek communities in the House? Does he recognise also that this situation raises one of the important questions in foreign politics throughout the world, namely, the purpose of United Nations troops? Is it not the purpose of United Nations occupancy by troops to prevent a change of government or of Head of State by methods other than those approved by the United Nations?
Mr. Callaghan: I am not sure what obligations were laid upon the United Nations troops, but my recollection is that they were introduced to ensure that there would be no outbreak of violence between the Turkish and Greek-Cypriot community. As to their possible effectiveness in preventing a bloody coup of the sort that has taken place, my information is that there are 2,400 United Nations troops of various nationalities and that the National Guard alone is over 10,000 strong.
Sir G. Sinclair: Does the Secretary of State accept that many of us who served in Cyprus when Makarios's aims were contrary to the aims of the British Government had the experience of working with him later to try to establish an independent Cyprus, and it is because the independence of Cyprus is at present called into question by the National Guard's action in trying to achieve a

31
precipitate Enosis that the danger of serious disagreement, if not worse, between Greece and Turkey, is now only just over the horizon again? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that we greatly welcome his call to the Governments of Greece and Turkey to appeal for calm at this stage?
Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman and I note what he said. Of course we do not know at the moment whether the actions of the Greek officers and the National Guard were taken of themselves, or were inspired from elsewhere. We must reserve judgment on that for the time being.
Mr. David Watkins: May I put it to my right hon. Friend that the policy within Cyprus that appears to have gained most widespread support among the people of Cyprus is that that country should remain independent within the Commonwealth, which in practice has been largely Archbishop Makarios's policy? That being so, in view of the relationship that this country has with Cyprus, will my right hon. Friend and the Government use all possible influence to avoid what now appears to be a possibility of war between Greece and Turkey with Cyprus as the battlefield?
Mr. Callaghan: Of course. That is why I have taken an initiative this morning in all those directions. I was glad to see that in a speech he made this morning, a report of which I have just received, the Turkish Prime Minister indicated, in the words used by the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home), that violence of this sort could solve no problems. Talking to a Turkish audience, he made that quite clear in what he said of his feelings about the death of Archbishop Makarios.
Sir Frederic Bennett: As the Foreign Secretary has said, this is a difficult and dangerous situation. I am glad to hear, if I have interpreted what he said correctly, that there is no question of Turkish involvement and that, so far as can be seen, this is purely a matter of one section of the Greeks against another.
Mr. Callaghan: The Greek National Guard has claimed responsibility for the coup.

DOCK WORKERS (EMPLOYMENT)
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the statutory regulation of employment of dock workers.
The scope of statutory regulation has scarcely been altered since 1947. Yet since then, but particularly over the past few years, there have been considerable changes in the ports industry, especially in the patterns of trade and shipping and cargo-handling methods. The results of these changes have had a serious effect on industrial relations in an industry historically bedevilled by insecurity of employment. Successive Parliaments have recognised that in the special circumstances of the docks there is a continuing need for control over employment arrangements. We must ensure that the coverage of that control is appropriate to modern conditions.
The safeguards in the present Dock Workers Employment Scheme do not apply at many ports and wharves which have grown significantly in both size and economic importance. So I propose to use powers under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946 and to consult the industry in the preparation of a draft of an order to extend the present scheme to cargo-handling activities at those ports and wharves handling third-party traffic not at present covered by the scheme. Any objections to the order will, as the Act requires, be considered by a statutory inquiry.
I also propose to start consultations on possible changes to the statutory definitions of "dock worker" and "dock work" to take account of the introduction of new cargo-handling techniques and other changes in the industry and on new arrangements for resolving disputes about the application of the scheme.
In reaching these decisions, I have had regard to the desirability of bringing the law and practice in this country into conformity with the provisions of the International Labour Convention No. 137 concerning the social repercussions of new methods of cargo-handling in docks.
Mr. Prior: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is a very depressing

33
statement? No one can blame the Transport and General Workers' Union for pressing this development, but surely the House and the country could have expected anyone other than the right hon. Gentleman to stand against it. Is it not a fact that the ports to be affected have a very good record of service to both the customers and employees? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the statutory inquiry will be able properly to take into consideration the great contribution that these ports have made? Why, oh why, do we have a statement of this nature at this stage when it can do nothing to help our exports or our imports but is designed purely to please a small section of society not representative of the country as a whole? When will the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has responsibilities to the nation as well as to a small section of it?
Mr. Foot: I am not surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have welcomed the statement in such a mean spirit. However, I would have thought that the rest of the House would not share that attitude. I am taking into account partly the recommendations of the Aldington-Jones Committee. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that its report was a minority report. In its final report the committee said:
"It is wrong that the scheme ports should continue to be exposed to unfair competition on terms and conditions of work from certain ports and wharves outside the scheme. In particular the Committee were at one in deploring the practice of casual employment which is still in evidence."
That was one of the conclusions of the report. That was one of our reasons for proceeding in this way. Another was our desire that this country too should subscribe to the ILO Convention.
Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the long-term consequence of his action is likely to be the opening up of yet a further range of ports and harbours in this country outside the scheme in order to offer exporters and importers expeditious handling of their goods?
Mr. Foot: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman agrees with the assessment of the situation made by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). As the statute lays down, the inquiry will
34
go into these matters and will take them into account. We have taken into account the representations made to us perfectly legitimately by people who have a lot to do with moving goods in and out of the country—the dock workers.
Mr. Mikardo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his announcement will be warmly welcomed by the "bods" who shift the goods in both scheme and non-scheme ports? As they can make a greater contribution to our trade by their shifting of goods than can the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) by his words, will not my right hon. Friend be more concerned with their serious views than with the right hon. Gentleman's synthetic passions?
Mr. Foot: I hope that I have anticipated my hon. Friend's advice on these matters. However, I must say that I expected even the present Opposition to show themselves a little less mean spirited than that.
Mr. Peyton: Despite what he has said, does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there will be considerable regret at this rather retrogressive step towards regimentation? Despite the recent form that he has shown, many of us expected something bettter of him than this constant obsequiousness towards antiquated Arks of the Covenant such as this. Would he again read the report of the National Ports Council on this subject—Mr. Jones is deputy chairman of the council and every view was available to it when it made its report—which says that the non-scheme ports are efficient? Will he bear that in mind and understand that the effect of this announcement will be once again to raise this country's costs?
Mr. Foot: What would raise this country's costs considerably would be to take the risk of having again in the docks the kind of troubles that occurred during the administration of the Tory Party.
Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in areas where the dock industry is declining his statement will be welcomed by large numbers of people? Does he recall that Lord Aldington, who was associated with Mr. Jack Jones of the Transport and General Workers' Union, was at one time closely associated with the Tory Party? Might it not be better for the Opposition to take a

35
more measured view of what is a very difficult problem? Is my right hon. Friend aware that in some of the wharves in London there are container depots and stuffing agencies where people are employed and which are therefore taking work from others who might have been in the docks?
Mr. Foot: I will bear in mind what my hon. Friend says. It might have been wiser for the Opposition to have consulted Lord Aldington's report and possibly Lord Aldington himself before making their comments this afternoon.
Mr. Tugendhat: Will the Secretary of State say what representations he received from the dockers in the ports affected by his proposal? Does he not agree that the main pressure for this proposal has come from trade union headquarters in London and not from the "bods" referred to by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) who shift the goods in the docks concerned?
Mr. Foot: I entirely repudiate that suggestion. Of course I have seen representatives of the dockers in London, but I have also seen many dockers who put the case to me even more forcibly than did their leaders.
Mr. Harry Ewing: My right hon. Friend's statement will be widely welcomed especially in Scotland where with the development of the North Sea oil industry the non-scheme ports have been cashing in on what is basically a national enterprise. The ports in Scotland, particularly those on the Forth estuary, accepted containerisation without question, with the consequent reduction of many of the registers in those ports. With the expansion of industry and the growth in exports the men found themselves betrayed because the exports were sent through the non-scheme ports. Does my right hon. Friend accept that the inquiry should be speedy and effective?
Mr. Foot: The inquiry will be a proper one, as is laid down in the Act, but that does not mean that this is not a clear declaration of the Government's determination to carry through the extension of the scheme on the basis I have set out. Of course we do not think this proposal solves all the problems of the docks. For that we have to carry
36
through the much fuller programme of nationalisation, if I may mention that horrific word to Conservative Members, which has been so well understood by those who know the dock problems.
Mr. Fell: Since the right hon. Gentleman has become one of the most senior Cabinet Ministers of a Government which has recently been converted to a policy of asking everybody what they think about anything, will he take a survey of the dock workers at Yarmouth to see what they think about the scheme?
Mr. Foot: Of course, the inquiries have to take place, but that does not alter the intention which the Government have declared.
Mr. Prior: What is the point of the inquiry if the Government have already made up their mind? I always thought that the right hon. Gentleman believed in the sovereignty of Parliament. This is all a waste of time. We have a Government who decree what we have to do.
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman talks of the sovereignty of Parliament. He should have listened more carefully to what I said earlier. What I am doing is to proceed upon the basis of the powers given to me by an Act of Parliament, which is a perfectly proper parliamentary proposal. That Act lays down the limits under which consultation shall take place, but it gives a Minister the right to do exactly what I am doing and I am doing it because of representations from the people who do the job.
Mr. Heath: Is the Secretary of State saying that, given the opportunity, the Government will proceed with this policy regardless of any recommendations made by the statutory inquiry? If he is saying that, we should be told so clearly. What is the basis for the Government's policy when it is known perfectly well by all who deal with the industry that the non-scheme ports are efficient, that their industrial relations are good and that they are profitable, in complete contrast to those described by the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who said that the proposal would be welcomed by the declining ports, which have bad industrial relations and lack profitability?
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman seems to have passed his judgment on the matter without knowing anything about it and without any inquiry. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I never intended to do anything as foolish as what he attributed to me in his opening words. We are to carry out an inquiry exactly as laid down in Acts of Parliament, which give a Minister the right to make a general declaration of what he intends to do, subject to the holding of consultations about the details of the scheme thereafter. That does not alter the intention of the Government to proceed with the general extension which we are proposing and which I am empowered to do under Acts of Parliament.
Mr. Heath: The Secretary of State is avoiding the real issue. He said the Government are ready to discuss the details of their policy. That is not the purpose of a statutory inquiry. Its purpose is to enable all those concerned with the issues to give their views, and the inquiry may recommend against it. It is a question not just of discussing the details but of discussing the whole policy to be pursued by the Government.
The Secretary of State has reiterated that the Government will go ahead regardless of the recommendations of the inquiry, and that is deplorable.
Mr. Foot: I am acting on the basis of the 1946 Act. I am certainly acting in a much more creditable and supportable way than did the Conservative Government in 1971 over their Industrial Relations Bill when they said that they were going ahead with the principle of the measure whatever the consultations that followed. They had no power in any Act of Parliament to proceed with what they were doing. We are proceeding fully in accordance with powers given to a Minister in an Act of Parliament.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL (DIVISIONS)
Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There has been much public discussion about the circumstances in which a right hon. Member was nodded through a Division on Thursday night. Should not the House have all the facts before it, and would a reference to a Select Committee be appropriate? If not, what can be done to get all the facts?
Mr. Fell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I had heard that the Government Chief Whip and my right hon. Friend the Opposition Chief Whip were to discuss this matter later this afternoon. Unless this House on the whole can gel by these sort of difficulties, it is finished. It is absolutely essential that people should not cheat, and I am not in this context suggesting that anybody—anybody—has cheated over this issue—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] It is absolutely essential that the House should have some sort of agreement in this sort of situation and that an agreement between the Whips and hon. Members as to what may be done in various circumstances shall be absolutely clear. I hope—[Interruption.]—that the discussion that will come about this afternoon will reinforce the authority of the House and the agreement, since hon. Members have to live here together whether they like each other or not.
Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your endeavour to establish the full facts will you take into account that this practice has carried on for a considerable number of years under successive Governments, and that it would be as well to make clear not only the number of times during those years that people have been nodded through but the persons concerned? Perhaps it would be helpful to establish which Members of the Opposition were Chief Whips at the time that hon. and right hon. Members were nodded through. If we establish all those facts we shall be in a much better position to know precisely what the offence was last week.
Will you take into account, Mr. Speaker, that there is a theory that the Opposition wanted to lose the Divisions

39
anyway, albeit on your casting vote, because the right hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Chataway) was missing on one occasion, and it is suggested that in order to make sure that the Opposition did not win on the second occasion the Tory Chief Whip sent him back to his dinner engagement?
Mr. Atkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. So that we can assess the position correctly, will you tell us what Standing Order enables this sort of thing to be done, and what it says?
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will, if I may, intervene. This is not really a matter for the Chair at all. As far as the Chair is concerned, if there is a disagreement between the Tellers and that is reported to the Chair, it takes certain action and in the appropriate circumstances orders the Division to be repeated. But these matters now raised really are matters of custom, convention and courtesy and have nothing to do with the Chair. If the House decides to have some inquiry into what happened or what should happen in the future, that is a matter not for the Chair but for the House as a whole. I have no jurisdiction to rule on what is a courtesy or a convention.
Mr. Peyton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand what you have said, but you cannot be unaware of the practice, whether right or not, that many points are raised as points of order for you but with the hope that the Leader of the House might overhear. In the hope that the Leader of the House has been listening to this discussion, can we go back to the simple point raised by the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas), without any of the surrounding flummery which has occurred since, and ask him whether he will say something?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): I have listened to all that has been said. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) and the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) are to talk about the matter later this afternoon. I think that we should see how they get on and consider the matter in the light of
40
their talk. The whole matter is complicated because the Bill has now gone on its way. It is no longer in the possession of this House and it cannot be brought back until it has been dealt with by another place. That complicates the whole situation.
But perhaps I may add that this process has gone on for many years and has worked very amicably. I remember it from my own days as Chief Whip, and I am sure that others remember it too. It went on without checking up or snooping of any kind. There was a genuine mistake the other night.
I think that the simplest way out of the difficulty now would be for the Opposition to put down identical amendments in another place, but that is for them to decide. The two Chief Whips are to discuss the matter and I suggest that we see how they get on. Afterwards, I will consider the matter again.
Mr. Heath: We are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for what he has said, but perhaps I may revert to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I suppose that I am the senior ex-Whip in the House at the moment. I am a former Chief Whip. As the Leader of the House has said, this system has worked perfectly satisfactorily for a very long time, certainly for the 24 years in which I have been a Member of the House. To my recollection, on no previous occasion on either side has it ever been necessary, by evidence available to the Whips, to question the validity of the "nodding through" procedure. This is the first occasion on which it has happened. I do not think, therefore, that one should criticise the procedure, which I think is acceptable to both sides of the House—indeed, to all parts of the House.
As the right hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the Bill is now in another stage in another place, As the responsibility for the misunderstanding rests on the Government side, would it not be right for the two Chief Whips in their consultations today to adopt the procedure I put to the Prime Minister—that the Government should themselves move the amendments in another place so that this House can have an opportunity, when the Bill comes back to us, to settle them? The responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman is wholly accepted; the

41
responsibility, therefore, for giving this House an opportunity for deciding these questions again rests with the Government.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not certain how far we can debate this matter now.
Mr. George Cunningham: I apologise for extending the discussion, Mr. Speaker, but there is nothing more fundamental to a legislature's affairs than the question of what constitutes the passage of a vote. While fully understanding the circumstances in which it occurred, it seems that what happened is that a vote which should have gone one way, according to the number of valid votes cast, in fact went a different way. As a back bencher who is obliged, having no other friend, to look to you for protection of back benchers' interests, I find it surprising that it should be the case that you feel that you have no rôle in the matter.
As I understand it, the practice of "nodding through"—which, like many other things we do in this place, has no place in the order book of the House and it is high time that we placed it on the order book—is referred to in "Erskine May". Because the House does not have any other order book, I take it that the reference in "Erskine May" to "nodding through" is the procedure of the House.
It is clear that the person being "nodded through" must be within the precincts of the House. Therefore, as I see it, this vote was as invalid as it would have been if there had been a simple arithmetical error. I therefore, simply on that basis, ask that we should severely question whether it is right that you should not be in charge of what is to happen about the vote. What people care to do in another place to fix it up informally is another matter. I ask you not necessarily to respond now but to consider whether it is not right that you should—perhaps tomorrow—make a statement about whether this vote is valid. I am sure that I am not alone in saying that I should find it curious if the validity of the vote, and not just what is to happen afterwards, were to be decided between the two Front Benches. Very few back benchers would trust the two Front Benches, especially when they are agree-
42
ing with each other, to determine the proper procedures of the House.
Mr. Michael Stewart: Speaking as the person who actually is the senior ex-Whip in the House, may I say that the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House seems to me the most sensible suggestion so far?
Mr. Atkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition says that the validity of this process has never been challenged before. That is not true. It is, I am sure, within your recollection that on one occasion many of us believed that the death of one our comrades was caused through this archaic business of bringing people from hospital into the yard of the Palace in order that they can be identified by the Chief Whips for the purpose of "nodding through". This so-called rule has, therefore, been challenged before, and some of us demanded that it should be ended because of the tragedies it has caused in the House.
It is of great concern to many of us. Mr. Speaker, that you should now say that it has nothing to do with you and that it remains a purely private arrangement between the Chief Whips for the purpose of convenience and some arithmetical calculations. May we, as back benchers, appeal to you to intervene and insist that these things should be spelt our very clearly indeed as to the basis and the rules of the procedure? [HON. MEMBERS: "They are."] There are no rules governing this business of people voting in their absence. Therefore, it is high time that we stopped the utter nonsense of the archaic procedure of, on some occasions, bringing people from hospital when they are seriously ill while allowing some Member to trot off to a dinner engagement and nodding him through as though it were a normal procedure.
Mr. David Steel: Without commenting on the validity of the procedure, which will be considered again, I think that we have to accept that the Bill has now gone to the other place. That being so, it -nay be helpful to the House to know that any noble Friends have every intention of introducing the Liberal amendment in another place so that it might come back `o this House, when we shall have a chance to vote on it again.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to hon. Members for the points they have put, which are serious House of Commons points, but I must make it clear that I am the servant of the House, not its master. I cannot say what should happen apart from the Standing Orders. With regard to the Standing Orders, I rule and there it is, but as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said, there is nothing in the Standing Orders about this. This practice is a matter of convention, custom and tradition. If the House wants to put something in the Standing Orders about it, it is for the House, not the Speaker, to say so. I cannot order something to be put in the Standing Orders.
This discussion has shown that this is a matter which the House should seriously consider. I think that there should be discussions—perhaps going even wider than the two distinguished Chief Whips—about how it should be handled. There is some point in what the hon. Member has said, but I cannot issue a diktat that something should happen. I am the servant of the House and the House must decide.
Mr. Cunningham: I beg your pardon for intervening again, Mr. Speaker, but may I just put one point? Surely it would not be the case that the Chair would be indifferent as to whether a procedure which is stated in "Erskine May" but not in Standing Orders is obeyed.
44
Most of our procedures are not in the Standing Orders, but, as I recall, you have frequently ruled on points of procedure, basing yourself upon "Erskine May" as the recorded, authoritative and accepted statement of the rules of the House. May I simply ask you to consider that point further?
Mr. Speaker: I will certainly consider it, but there does not appear to me to be much doubt about it. I would have thought that there was a general opinion that it is not in accordance with the convention that a Member should be nodded through in his absence. I should have thought that that was the general view, judging from the questions which have been put. "Erskine May" states that the convention is that a Member should be nodded through when he is on the premises. There it is—and, of course, I support that convention. But it is for the House to decide whether there are to be new rules or different rules.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL (DIVISIONS)

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  NORTHERN IRELAND BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  4.12 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Bill, has consented to place her interests and prerogative, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
  The Bill gives effect to the proposals which the Government put forward in the White Paper published on 4th July. In the debate on the White Paper last Tuesday, we discussed at some length the policies which are proposed in the White Paper and the context in which they are put forward. In view of this very full discussion that we have already had on the White Paper, I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I turn immediately to the specific provisions of this Bill.
  The Bill falls into two parts. First, in Clause 1 and Schedule 1, the Bill provides a more effective machinery for the administration of Northern Ireland in the coming months. The second part of the Bill, contained in Clause 2 and Schedule 2, concerns the setting up of the Constitutional Convention and all that follows from that.
  The "direct rule" provisions in the Bill come into effect immediately the Bill becomes law. Clause 1(4) provides that they then remain in force for one year. There is power, however, for the Secretary of State to bring a draft order before the House either terminating the "interim period", as the period of direct rule is known, before the year is up, or extending it by a further period of up to a year. I emphasise that any order to do this is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  Schedule 1 to the Bill, which remains in force only so long as the interim period lasts, is intended to meet two specific
  46
  problems. The first is that, since the prorogation of the Northern Ireland Assembly on 29th May, it has in effect been impossible to make new laws for Northern Ireland except by means of a Bill taken through this Parliament. The parliamentary timetable here does not allow sufficient time for all the matters requiring legislation in Northern Ireland to be dealt with by means of a full Bill. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 accordingly provides that Her Majesty may make laws for Northern Ireland by means of Orders in Council.
  This procedure is modelled on similar provisions in the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972, introduced by the previous administration. Like that Act, this Bill provides that such Orders in Council are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. In cases of urgency, however, the Bill, like its 1972 predecessor, will allow an Order in Council to be made without prior parliamentary approval, provided it is approved by both Houses of Parliament within 40 sitting days after it has been made. Like the 1972 Act, this Bill will therefore provide for full parliamentary control.
  Some hon. Members have already expressed a fear that this procedure may not allow sufficient time for Parliament to debate issues thoroughly, and that the House may be inconvenienced by being unable to table amendments to the draft orders. We were conscious of this problem when it existed under the 1972 Act, but it was not easy then to see how the problem could be overcome, and it is not easy now. The Government are, however, actively considering what could helpfully be done to enable Members to have an opportunity of commenting on orders before they are formally laid before the House. Any more formal arrangements would, of course, be a matter for arrangement through the usual channels rather than a matter for legislation.
  I should also say that I am moved personally by the fact that I felt strongly about it in opposition. Bearing in mind what care was taken about legislation in the Assembly in Northern Ireland when some hon. and right hon. Members never bothered at all, to the point of not turning up, I hope that, whatever other arguments they put forward, they do not use that one in the hope that it will be supported in the House.

  47
  Paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 deals with the functions of government in Northern Ireland. As I have already explained to the House, the present arrangement of appointing junior Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office to be heads of the various Northern Ireland Departments is satisfactory only in the short term, since they are not accountable to Parliament for the decisions and actions they take. Paragraph 2 of the schedule therefore places all power of executive government in Northern Ireland under the control of the Secretary of State, who is accountable to this House. This seems to the Government to be a far more satisfactory arrangement. Under the new arrangements, junior Ministers will still retain responsibility for individual Northern Ireland Departments, but overall responsibility will rest with the Secretary of State.
  We have, however, been careful to draft this part of the Bill, and indeed other parts of the Bill, in such a way as not to bring about any amendment of the Constitution Act. Some provisions will be temporarily set aside during the interim period. Thus, in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 there is a provision that no appointment shall be made to the Northern Ireland administration or the Northern Ireland Executive during the interim period, and in paragraph 1 of the same schedule there is a provision that during the interim period the Assembly shall not pass any measures. These provisions are a necessary corollary of the other provisions in those paragraphs, but, as I said, have been so drafted as not to make any permanent change in the Constitution Act.
  Those who want to see the end of the Constitution Act must realise that, if that Act dies, so do all of its provisions. In urging the end of the Act they are urging the end of the pledge on Northern Ireland's continued membership of the United Kingdom in Section 1, and the end of the provision in Section 16 under which the grant-in-aid is paid to Northern Ireland.
  Turning back to Clause 1, the first two subsections deal with the Assembly. Subsection (2) continues the existing prorogation of the Assembly, and subsection (1) will enable Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to dissolve the Assembly. We recognise the importance of continuing to have elected representatives who can
  48
  speak for the people of Northern Ireland, and it is therefore the Government's intention that the Assembly should not be dissolved until an election has been called for the Constitutional Convention.
  The Constitutional Convention is provided for in Clause 2. The Convention is given very simple, but clear, terms of reference. It is created
  "for the purpose of considering what provision for the government of Northern Ireland is likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there".
  I would underline the words "throughout the community"; the Convention will not be fulfilling its terms of reference if it proposes a constitution arrangement which commands acceptance in only one section of the community. Moreover, as I am sure the House will agree is right, the terms of reference ask the Convention to consider the form of government which will command the "most" widespread acceptance.
  It will, of course, be for the Convention itself to decide on how to arrange its work and how to govern its proceedings. The Convention is its own master, and it is right and proper that the Convention itself, and only the Convention, should decide these matters. The Government will play no part in the deliberations of the Convention, but will, as I have said before, stand ready to give the Convention any assistance they can. There may be some help which the Government can give before the Convention is set up, and, as I announced during the debate last week, we propose to publish in due course some information on procedures, based on examples drawn from historical precedents.
  Although Northern Ireland is in the matter of this Convention, as in all other matters, unique, there has been a number of similar Conventions from time to time, and we intend to draw attention to the differing ways in which some of these Conventions have chosen to work—the question of dividing up into committees to conduct the work of the Convention, for instance, the question of voting procedures, the publicity accorded to the Convention's proceedings, the relationship between the Chairman of the Convention and the other members, and the types of assistance which might be made available to a Convention in the way of staff, constitutional experts, and so on.

  49
  The House will realise that it is far too soon for me to predict precisely what will be published, but this is the sort of thing we have in mind.
  For hon. Members who are already familiar with the content of the Bill, I should stress that the publication of this sort of information is in no way connected with the provisions in paragraph 11(2) of Schedule 2. That provision permits me to give directions for regulating the procedure of the Convention and its committees. Paragraph 11(1) gives the Convention itself the power to regulate its own procedure and to override any regulations made by the Secretary of State. Paragraph 11(2) is put in only to avoid the chicken-and-egg situation which would otherwise arise: some provision is clearly necessary to regulate the proceedings of the Convention during its first few meetings while it is deciding for itself what permanent procedures it wishes to adopt.
  I now turn to the earlier paragraphs in Schedule 2. These provide for the composition and election of the Convention. The Convention is, as the House will have noticed, modelled very closely on the Northern Ireland Assembly. The number of members is the same, the method of election is the same, and so on. It must be emphasised that it is not a legislative Assembly. It is a Convention for considering a simple but complex question—the future government of the Province.
  I had intended at this point in my speech to explain in a little more length the Government's thinking behind these provisions in the Bill, but since amendments have been put down on these points it seems sensible for me to defer my remarks on them until we reach the Committee stage rather than take up the time of the House with unnecessary repetition—although I have noticed that that is not necessarily an English or Welsh failing.
  Once the Convention has begun its work, paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 gives it a life of six months. If it completes its report, and the report is laid before Parliament, in a shorter time, the Convention is dissolved then. Alternatively, the Convention may need more than six months to complete its task. In that case, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to make an order extending the Conven-
  50
  tion's term by up to three months at a time. Such an order would be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
  It is possible also that, even after the Convention has submitted its report, it will be right to ask the Convention to consider some new question which it has not previously looked at, or even to reconsider some issue which it has already examined. In that case, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to recall the Convention at any time within six months of its dissolution. If it is recalled, any report produced by the recalled Convention is sent, like the Convention's original report, to the Secretary of State for laying before Parliament.
  Perhaps I could mention here, since I know one or two hon. Members were concerned about it, that it is this sort of possibility that has caused us to use the words "report or reports" in Clause 2(2) of the Bill. We want to make it clear that the Convention can nut in more than one report. It could, for instance, put in interim reports, so long as each report which it submits is a report of the Convention as a whole. These words are not intended to allow individual groups of Convention members to submit their own dissenting reports. The reports which come to Parliament from the Convention must all be reports of the Convention as a whole. There is no bar to the Convention deciding to include in its reports the separate views of any of its members if it wants to. But the reports must be reports of the Convention on conclusions it has reached under its terms of reference.
  Clause 2(3) provides a power to hold a referendum on questions arising from the Convention's report, or on other matters concerning the Government of Northern Ireland. We have put this provision in the Bill because we believe it right that we should keep open the possibility of having this further test of opinion in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, it is clearly impossible at this stage to foresee what report will emerge from the Convention, and what will be the situation in Northern Ireland at the time.
  We have therefore thought it right not to attempt to be too specific in this Bill about the precise details of the referendum. For instance, without knowledge of the report of the Convention, it will be impossible to decide what questions

  51
  should be put in the referendum. On the other hand, it is clearly right that a matter of this importance should remain subject to strict parliamentary control. We have, therefore, provided in Clause 2(5) of the Bill that the Secretary of State may make the necessary detailed provision in an order—but that he may make no order under this provision unless it has first been approved in both Houses of Parliament.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: May we be clear about who is to frame the nature of the questions asked in any potential referendum?
  Mr. Rees: The matter of the questions would be under the control of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Dalyell: So my right hon. Friend would do it.
  Mr. A. W. Stallard: My right hon. Friend is racing through this part of his speech, and I understand why, but, as I have no amendments down on specific points, will he answer three questions about the Convention?
  First, will internees or detainees be allowed to vote, as I believe they were able to do in previous elections? Secondly, will they be allowed to stand as candidates for the Convention? Thirdly, as many of the political organisers, certainly in some of the Loyalist and Republican movements, are incarcerated in Long Kesh, Armagh or Magilligan, will any arrangement be made for them to participate in the elections for the very important Convention? Will they be allowed out on compassionate grounds to participate in the election?
  Mr. Rees: I am extremely sympathetic about my hon. Friend's first point concerning voting by internees. However, the question of voting rights does not arise under the Bill. It comes under the Assembly elections Act, which was separated from the original Constitution Act. If internees were allowed to vote under that Act, then it will be possible under this Bill. If they were not allowed to stand as candidates under that Act, amendment would be necessary, not to this Bill, but to that Act. I shall see what powers I shall have in that respect.
  52
  On the third point, I should not wish to say that I have done aught else than note what my hon. Friend has said. I shall carefully consider my hon. Friend's first two points. I am convinced that they do not arise on this Bill. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State will deal with these matters later.
  The Government believe that this Bill will enable the whole community in Northern Ireland to make further progress towards peace and prosperity. The Bill makes provision for the better government of Northern Ireland in the immediate future, but the provisions upon which I would lay most stress are those which provide for the creation of the Constitutional Convention in Northern Ireland. This is an important step forward, and we have been at pains in this Bill to avoid crabbing or confining the Convention in any way which might impede its work. Indeed, we have striven wherever possible to make the provisions in the Bill flexible. Thus we have been careful to provide for the Convention's life to be extended if this is necessary—or to be recalled after it has submitted its first report.
  We have provided for the possibility of a referendum—but have been careful not to impose a requirement that a referendum shall be held if it does not seem desirable at the time. And we have left open the precise issues which might be tested at the referendum.
  The Bill is a carefully, and I hope thoughtfully, planned means of implementing the policy announced in the White Paper and approved by this House last week.
  I have gone quickly through my comments because, as we had a debate on Northern Ireland last week, I thought it better to allow hon. and right hon. Members to raise matters which could be answered as they were raised. I emphasise the purpose of the Convention, which is
  "for the purpose of considering what provision for the government of Northern Ireland is likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there."
  If the ladies and gentlemen who are elected to the Convention take that as their precept, they will receive a favourable wind when they report back to the House. It is important that whatever comes out of Northern Ireland should command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there.

  53
  That is what the House wants. Here is a chance for the people of Ulster to talk and work together.
  4.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Secretary of State emphasised twice that we debated this matter in general in some detail last week. Like him, I made quite a long speech then, and I do not intend to trespass on the time of the House to a similar degree this afternoon, particularly as the Secretary of State has just explained the provisions of the Bill on the whole very adequately.
  It was generally agreed last week that since the fall of the Executive and the prorogation of the Assembly the arrangements for governing Northern Ireland have not been satisfactory. The Bill contains provisions for rectifying that situation which I think will prove acceptable to the House.
  As the Secretary of State said, Clause 2 is the crucial part of the Bill, and subsection (1) is probably the most important part of the clause. I hope that when he winds up the Minister of State will be able to expand a little on what the Secretary of State said about it. The key phrase in subsection (d) is:
  "likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there."
  The phrase in paragraph 55 of the White Paper is:
  "majority and widespread support from its members".
  I appreciate that in the White Paper the right hon. Gentleman was referring to the members of the Convention, while in the Bill the Government are referring to the community as a whole. But I should have thought that the original White Paper phrase would also have been suitable for the Bill. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us why the phraseology has been changed and what is the significance of the change. "Majority and widespread support" seems to me to have slightly greater precision that has "the most widespread acceptance". The phrase "most widespread acceptance" seems to be vaguer. The Government in the White Paper seem to be seeking the HCF—the highest common factor—and in the Bill they seem to be seeking the LCM—the lowest common multiple. In the Bill the Government
  54
  are not even seeking majority, let alone widespread, support. They are seeking only the "most widespread acceptance". "Acceptance" seems to be much less than "support", and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to explain this to the House.
  The word "provision" in the subsection instead of "provisions" seems odd. The plural is the more normal usage. Is there a misprint, or is there a reason why the singular has been preferred?
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Paragraph 50 of the White Paper reads as follows:
  "to consider what provisions for the government of Northern Ireland would be likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there".
  Those are exactly the words in the Bill.
  Mr. Gilmour: I was referring to paragraph 55 of the White Paper, which states:
  "In the event of the convention producing recommendations which command majority and widespread support from its members".
  That seems to be a rather better phrase, which demands rather more than the Government demand in the Bill. "Support" is a better word than "acceptance". There is a slight difference. As the Secretary of State said, the Convention is its own master, and he has properly allowed great flexibility. By leaving the Bill in this state he may actually be increasing the chances of unnecessary argument within the Convention on what is needed. There might be something to be said for laying down more clearly the limits within which the Convention must operate, while making it absolutely clear that within those limits the Convention is entirely free to recommend what it wishes.
  I turn briefly to Schedule 2, paragraph 7. Is it intended that the Convention should sit at Stormont? I presume so. Can it or its committees sit in secret? The House will remember that the Philadelphia Convention which produced the American constitution sat throughout behind closed doors. That would not be possible today, but it might be an advantage to have a secret session from time to time.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: My experience is that even if it were secret the proceedings

  55
  would all be in the Belfast Telegraph that evening.
  Mr. Gilmour: I agree. That is certainly a possibility that must be taken into account.
  The Convention will undoubtedly have a most formidable task. As John Adams, the second President of the United States, said just before the American Convention:
  "It is much easier to pull down a Government, in such a conjuncture of affairs as we have seen, than to build up, at such a season as the present."
  The members of this Convention, unlike the members of the Philadelphia Convention, will have to fight democratic elections to achieve membership. As happens at all elections, unwise things are bound to be said which will make agreement and correct action more difficult later.
  The Government have certainly set the people of Northern Ireland, particularly those who are elected to the Convention, an enormously difficult and intractable task, and if they fail the dangers will be very great. We must all profoundly hope that they will not fail and that those dangers do not materialise.
  4.38 p.m.
  Captain L. P. S. Orr: Like the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour), I do not want to traverse all the ground we covered in the debate on the White Paper. I want to speak primarily about the Bill.
  It is worth reminding the House why we are here. The House of Commons endeavoured to impose on the people of Ulster a constitution which was plainly not acceptable to the majority. It is a great pity that all that had to happen before we got where we are now. It would have been possible in April last year to have got where we are now, and that is what we should have done. We should have proceeded from the first election of the Assembly—as I then advised in the House of Commons—to regard the Assembly in a constitution-making way.
  In the debate on the White Paper on 9th July, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said one thing of great significance of which I will remind the House:
  56
  "But of one thing I am sure. We want Ulster to remain in the United Kingdom. We have been together a long time to the great mutual advantage of all, and that historic connection should not be severed now. We want to preserve the United Kingdom and we want to preserve Ulster as part of that United Kingdom. I am sure that it is possible to work out arrangements which will achieve that objective."
  It is worth reminding the House that that is now the official view of the Conservative and Unionist Opposition. I am entitled to ask the Secretary of State whether the bipartisan policy extends to endorsing what my right hon. Friend said during the debate on the White Paper. It will be interesting to know whether the Minister of State or, indeed, the Secretary of State himself takes exactly the same view—namely, that they want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The question of bipartisanship has worked for a couple of years on the basis of respect and, on occasions, of disagreement. It is clear that Labour wants Northern Ireland to be part of the United Kingdom in the terms laid down in the White Paper: it must be on terms which will gain the respect of the rest of the United Kingdom, and not on terms laid down in Northern Ireland.
  Captain Orr: That is a different view. That is not what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham said.
  Mr. A. J. Beith rose—
  Captain Orr: Now we are to have a third view.
  Mr. Beith: It is incumbent in this situation that the House should have a third view. Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman pause from healing his breach with the Conservative Party to say whether he thinks that it is for the people of Ireland to decide whether they want to remain in the United Kingdom or be part of some other grouping, and to recognise that the proposals we have discussed so far have been designed to secure that the people of Northern Ireland rather than the rest of the United Kingdom should decide the issue?
  Captain Orr: It is the view of any part of the United Kingdom that any other

  57
  part of the United Kingdom should remain a part as long as it so wishes. On the other hand, it is a strange constitutional doctrine that any part of the United Kingdom would necessarily have a right to leave it. I wonder what we should say if the Isle of Wight, because of troubles there, suddenly decided by a majority to leave the United Kingdom. What would be the attitude of this House? We shall maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom only if the Parliament of the United Kingdom says plainly, as my right hon. Friend made clear, that it is the intention of the United Kingdom Parliament to preserve the integrity of the United Kingdom and that that is the only way we shall proceed.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not my hon. and gallant Friend agree that the interpretation given by the Secretary of State today is contrary to the Constitution Act, which says that Northern Ireland cannot leave the United Kingdom except when a majority of the people of Northern Ireland want that to happen? It is nothing to do with this House at all.
  Captain Orr: I am obliged to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), but I did not pray that provision in aid because I do not believe in that kind of guarantee. It is no use the Secretary of State threatening us that if we attempt to do away with the Constitution Act we shall do away with the pledge. I believe the pledge is worthless. The pledge which the House should give is that the integrity of the United Kingdom should be maintained. I do not believe that declaratory pledges written into Acts of Parliament are of any value whatever.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): I should like to know what is the difference between the Constitution Act and what was said by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour).
  Captain Orr: The difference is that my right hon. Friend spoke without qualification. He said "We want Ulster to remain part of the United Kingdom". The fact that we want Ulster to remain part of the United Kingdom should be put on record. I hope to see those words
  58
  reiterated in the Conservative election manifesto when it is published.
  I turn to the Bill—and incidentally, what I said a little earlier was intended to be an agreeable introduction to my remarks on the Bill itself. We have now reached the situation where we are about to have an election to a constitution-making Convention. In my view that is a sensible step to take, and, whatever differences there may be between the Secretary of State and ourselves, he has taken an extremely wise course in setting up the Convention. However, there are certain defects in what he proposes which could, unless they are carefully handled, frustrate his good intentions.
  The first defect is that there is a danger in the Bill as drafted that the whole matter may be allowed to drift into the sand. In other words, if we do not have elections to the Convention fairly soon there is a grave danger of further difficulties. I argued in a debate in this House after the ending of the constitutional stoppage—I do not use the word "strike"—that the election should not be too soon and should not be too late. The situation in which we now find ourselves is that there is a danger of the election coming too late unless and until there is a fair determination to get on with the job.
  There are dangers in the organisation of the Convention itself. For example, there are dangers in the appointment of a chairman. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) deployed this argument in the debate on the White Paper. The choice of the chairman for the new Convention is very important. I hope that the Secretary of State will look at the precedents. I do not go to the precedent of the Philadelphia Convention, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham. It would be unwise to pray in aid a UDI situation where an illegal body was involved. I prefer to go to the Newfoundland Convention. There a High Court judge was involved. In fact, there were two chairmen on that occasion. The first chairman died; the strain evidently was too much for him. The second chairman had to resign because he was thought to be partial towards confederation with Canada. In other words, the chairmanship of the Newfoundland Convention was not a success.

  59
  We must be careful not to fall into the trap outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South. There is difficulty in having somebody who is absolutely impartial and whose background is that of a High Court judge. Such a person will lack the political experience required to steer a political body and preside over its deliberations. It is difficult to find somebody with political experience within a small community in Northern Ireland who at the same time can be impartial. I suggest that the Secretary of State should not necessarily confine himself to a Northern Ireland person for the chairmanship of the Convention. He should not tie himself too tightly on that matter. He should go quite widely and not necessarily exclude himself. It requires a gerat deal of thought. I suggest to him that the question of the chairmanship should be left until the Convention is elected and that very great care should be taken after the election to the Convention to consult those who are elected about the type of person or about the impartiality of the person chosen to take the chair at the Convention.
  We have heard all kinds of suggestions. One is that the chairman should actually be elected by the Convention. The Bill says that the chairman shall be appointed by Her Majesty, but I presume that that does not prevent the parties in the Convention from expressing a view about the chairmanship in advance or in giving advice to Her Majesty.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is important that issues like this should be discussed. I am interested in the analogy with Newfoundland. I assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman that when I wrote the paper on this matter the idea of Newfoundland was not in my mind. This is ex post rather than ex ante. I shall listen round, but consulting in the sense of getting people in the Convention involved and putting forward ideas as to who it should be would lead people in the end to say "That is the man whom such-and-such a group wanted". I thought that it should be very much for the Secretary of State to take this decision.
  Captain Orr: I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about the dangers involved in too formal a form of consultation. However, I recommend that sound-
  60
  ings of some sort should be taken. We should be careful in the first instance to get the right chairman for the Convention. If we do not get the right chairman, we shall really run into dangers. We might get a situation where the assembly itself decided that it wished to elect a chairman and that it wished to advise Her Majesty. We might get a situation where a chairman was appointed and the assembly itself as its first act passed a vote of no confidence in him. Anything of that kind would make the chairman's position very difficult.
  All that I am saying is that this is a much more difficult problem than perhaps anyone may have realised, and that there should be the greatest amount of consultation behind the scenes and in other ways to ensure that when the person concerned takes the chair for the first time all sections of the community have confidence in his impartiality in the first place and in his wisdom and skill in the second place.
  Mr. Dalyell: It may be that the last person who should be appointed is a High Court judge, not least because such appointments bring the High Court into disrepute in that people are appointed who are not trained to preside over a highly political assembly. Nevertheless, does it appeal to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that a chairman should be sought not only from outside Northern Ireland but from outside the United Kingdom, remembering that the English, the Scots and the Welsh have not been exactly successful? Might he not come from Canada or the United States, for instance?
  Captain Orr: Of course, everything depends on whom Her Majesty appoints. But I was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say what he did about the possibility of a High Court judge being appointed. Of course another difficulty, if it is suggested that we look outside the United Kingdom, is that someone like the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will suggest, sotto voce, that we appoint General Amin or someone like that. However, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) may well have a point. I hope that no possibility will be excluded in considering the chairmanship, because it is on the chairmanship that so much will rest.

  61
  I come to the most vital defect in the whole proposition. We are now proceeding once again to direct rule. In fact, we are in the direct position again. We have already had a year of direct rule. We shall have an indeterminate period of direct rule now. Taking the example of the Newfoundland Convention, that took more than a year. I think that it took two years. In any event, it was a long time. If some degree of pressure had not been brought to bear at the end, it might have been even longer.
  It is necessary to move fast to get the Convention set up, and thereafter there ought to be any amount of time for the Convention to conduct all the necessary inquiries, discussions and everything else so that it may come to its decision. We have to envisage the possibility of a year of direct rule and perhaps more. At the end of that time, if the Convention is successful, if it comes to a view and it makes a proposition finally to the Secretary of State, it will be this House of Commons which will have to decide what are to be the constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland. It is the House of Commons which will have to deal either with what the Convention puts forward or with the situation if the Convention does not come to any conclusion. In the long run, it is the House of Commons which must decide.
  We have a situation where for six months, a year, 18 months or two years this House will be the governing body for Northern Ireland. At the end of that time, it is this House which will make the decisions. It is quite impossible to understand how anyone in this House who is a democrat can possibly defend Northern Ireland's continuing to be under-represented in this House in the face of all that. What possible justification can there be for it? We are part of the United Kingdom. It looks as if we are to remain part of the United Kingdom for the foreseeable future. We have invited a constitutional Convention to decide what is to be the nature of our devolution within the United Kingdom. That is really all that the Convention will do. It will say that it wants this or that scheme of devolution but in the long run the reality of the situation is that we are part of the United Kingdom. For the lifetime of all of us here it is pretty plain
  62
  that we shall remain part of the United Kingdom. How we can continue to justify our under-representation in the House of Commons, I cannot imagine.
  Thus, I say to the Secretary of State that everything that we are doing today, every action that we are taking, the whole of the White Paper, the Bill and everything else will fall and be frustrated unless the House of Commons ensures that Northern Ireland is properly represented.
  I have warned the House of Commons before about its mistakes with regard to Ulster. Every time I have been tempted to come here to say "I told you so." I say this most solemnly to the Secretary of State and to the House as a whole: continue to keep Ulster under-represented in this House and you are building up danger.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is important to get this right. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is talking about a society where 1,000 people have died and where there has been …70 million-worth of compensation—tragic as it all is—resulting from the views of people who do not want to be in the United Kingdom. I have in mind the remarks of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour). Although any suggestion of that kind could not be dealt with under the Bill and would require other legislation, what matters in terms of the Bill is that a proposal should command widespread acceptance throughout the community. Is that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's assessment of Northern Ireland, given the past five years?
  Captain Orr: Most certainly. Here lies the misconception, and that intervention shows it. If there are people within any part of the United Kingdom who do not want to remain part of the United Kingdom, is that to be used as an argument for the rest of the people within that part of the United Kingdom, whose ancestors have been part of the United Kingdom for as long as the United Kingdom has existed and who themselves wish to remain part of the United Kingdom, being under-represented in the House of Commons?
  If the right hon. Gentleman carried his argument to logic, he should say "Let us abolish Northern Ireland's representation in the House of Commons and let

  63
  Northern Ireland leave the United Kingdom." That is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. The logical alternative is that, if we believe that Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland should be represented properly within the United Kingdom. There is no way out of that dichotomy.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Let us assume that it were the case that Northern Ireland had a devolved form of government. I was always told that it was that. Originally the people of Northern Ireland had a Parliament. Whether or not they wanted it is another matter. This is a factor in what the representation at Westminster should be. What the hon. and gallant Gentleman is asking for is integration, not finding a devolved form of government.
  Captain Orr: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he knows as well as I do that the 1920 Act devolved considerable powers upon Stormont but that those powers were steadily eroded over the years because of the complication of our society, because of the growing influence of the Treasury over the years, till we reached a point after the war where the under-representation of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons, Stormont notwithstanding, was no longer justified. All the fiscal power was here. Northern Ireland's citizens are taxed at exactly the same level as the rest of the United Kingdom.
  It is no use the Minister of State saying continually "Look at the money that is going there." That is a stupid argument, for I can point in return to the money that goes to North-East England, to Wales, to Cornwall, and to other parts of the United Kingdom. Let me quote Marx to the hon. Gentleman—
  "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
  That is the principle that underlies our taxation system within the United Kingdom. I hope that the Minister of State will eventually abandon that nonsensical argument.
  Either we are part of the United Kingdom or we are not—it is one or the other. If we are part of the United Kingdom, and pending any decision or recommendation by the Convention for any widespread
  64
  form of devolution, there is no argument in favour of keeping us under-represented in this extraordinary way.
  Mr. George Lawson: Has not the hon. and gallant Gentleman read what is called the Kilbrandon Report and, perhaps more important, what is called the Crowther-Hunt Report? In both reports, more especially in the Crowther-Hunt Report, it is argued strongly that if there is to be very substantial devolution in terms of the assuming of many responsibilities within separate areas, there must necessarily be a considerable reduction in representation in the House of Commons. Is not this reasonable?
  Captain Orr: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to the Kilbrandon Report, which said that if there were to be devolution to Scotland or Wales there should be a diminution in representation in the House. Kilbrandon's only recommendation about Northern Ireland was that Northern Ireland is grossly under-represented in the House and that its representation here should be increased. I am happy to have the hon. Gentleman reinforce my view. I hope that if we ever have a Division on the subject of increasing Northern Ireland's representation in the House of Commons he, with the Kilbrandon Report on his shoulder, will march behind us into the Lobby.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: This is an important subject to be discussed, but can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell me what part of the Bill could be amended to bring about what he wants?
  Captain Orr: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that I sought to table an amendment but that he drafted the long title of the Bill so skilfully that it was impossible for me to get an amendment to that effect within order. That is why I am making so much of this on Second Reading. However, he has saved no time by taking that action.
  This is a very serious matter. Why have people died in Northern Ireland? Why has there been so much bloodshed, violence and murder? It is because wicked men were allowed to create by force political uncertainty, to thrive on it, and to go on while political uncertainty

  65
  lasted. While there is political uncertainty, so long will evil men use violence to try to gain their ends.
  One way of getting political certainty about union is to make it plain that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and is properly represented in the House of Commons. The Secretary of State seems to find that a curious argument. It happens to be the fundamental argument. Until there is stability of government, backed by the Parliament at Westminster which says "This shall not be overturned. We do not wish to overturn it", for so long will violence feed upon the uncertainty.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree with me that the fundamental reason for the killing and the grave differences of opinion in Northern Ireland is that the minority community there has been grossly under-represented in Stormont for the last 50 years and that his new-found desire for proper representation—in fact, over-representationin—this Parliament does not in any way accord with his previous feeling about the under-representation at Stormont which has caused all the slaughter which is now going on?
  Captain Orr: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything. Nothing could be further from the truth. The minority was represented in Stormont in a perfectly fair and reasonable way. It is untrue to say that it was not. The hon. Gentleman is probably thinking about local government. In any case, nothing that could conceivably have been suffered could justify anything like the loss of human life that has occurred. If the hon. Gentleman really thinks that that is a reason for all the bloodshed and the murder and the bombs that are going off in Manchester, Birmingham and other places, he has another think coming.
  There will not be peace, nor a return to order, nor will the Army commitment be reduced, until such time as there is stability. It must be stability based upon the clear will of the majority, with magnanimity to the minority. Without those things, the problems will not be solved, there will not be peace and there will not be order. What we hope to get from the Convention is stability, but we
  66
  shall not get that unless Northern Ireland is properly and fairly represented in this House of Commons.
  5.10 p.m.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: I cannot pretend to welcome the Bill, coming as it does in the wake of the downfall of the Executive, the power-sharing Government and the Sunningdale Agreement which I believe had the support of many people in Northern Ireland who wanted to see justice and a fair Government.
  I believe that the introduction of the White Paper and the Bill today represent an abject and total surrender to those forces in Northern Ireland which set about using every endeavour to bring to an end the system of government that we had under the Sunningdale Agreement. That is the way in which this measure is being interpreted in Northern Ireland.
  I wish that I could share the optimism of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who hopes that the simple but complex task—that in itself is a contradiction—that is to be given to the newly-elected Convention in Northern Ireland will result in a form of government that is acceptable to everyone in Northern Ireland.
  I shall endeavour to the best of my ability to co-operate in every way to see whether my right hon. Friend's hopes can be achieved, but I think that one is entitled to refer to the short exchange after Question Time today following the statement by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about events in Cyprus. One is not unaware that there are certain parallels to be drawn between Cyprus and Northern Ireland. Both areas have majority and minority politics, and both have majority and minority communities. It is because of the differing aspirations and loyalties of the two communities in Cyprus that one has seen such tribal attitudes and violence, and the same thing can be said for Northern Ireland.
  The Bill is being accepted by the so-called Loyalist forces in Northern Ireland because they believe that when the elections take place their supporters will be elected by an overwhelming majority and they will then be in a position to dictate the terms under which they will accept any new political structure in Northern

  67
  Ireland. If that is their attitude, I predict that we are in for a series of continuing crises in Northern Ireland.
  The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) said that in the elections that would precede the setting up of the Convention certain things would be said which would be unfavourable to the creation of an atmosphere of confidence in the newly-elected Convention. The right hon. Gentleman does not have to wait for the elections to take place for that to happen. One has only to read the speeches—they were almost bordering on sedition—during the 12th July demonstrations to realise that there will be no confidence in the Convention.
  We heard the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) call upon his supporters to join the RUC reserve and the UDR because, he said, the day was coming when they would have to take security into their own hands. That is very near to sedition, and it does not give any member of the minority confidence to join either of those forces, yet that is what we were desperately advocating throughout the lifetime of the Executive to try to create an acceptable security force.
  A former Minister in the Ministry of Home Affairs, speaking on the national radio, expressed his sentiments and called for the creation of a Home Guard of 20,000 men. He said that they would have to build on the victories which they had achieved during the strike which led to the downfall of the Executive.
  Such sentiments may be acceptable to Loyalist Members in this House, but they are not acceptable to the one-third of the population in Northern Ireland who have lived their lives under a one-class ascendancy Government, except for a short period of direct rule and five months during the lifetime of the Executive. They now feel that they have lost everything, and they have no confidence in the decisions that may be taken by the Convention.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is rather pleased at what he regards as a change of policy by the Conservative Opposition. The hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted at length what had been said last week
  68
  about the Conservative Party wanting Ulster to remain part of the United Kingdom. The hon. and gallant Gentleman seeks to divide the Opposition and the Government by saying that my right hon. Friends are trying to place some qualifications upon Ulster's membership of the United Kingdom.
  In the absence of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham, I ask the Conservative Opposition whether they accept the terms and conditions laid down in the White Paper issued by the Government. Do they accept that any future political structure created in Northern Ireland must prove acceptable to this House and to the people of the rest of the United Kingdom?
  The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South says that his party will have a majority elected to the new Convention by sheer weight of numbers, that those elected will determine what type of assembly or local political institutions they will have, and they will then come to the Westminster Government and say "This is what we have decided by a majority vote in the newly elected Convention, and you will have to accept these terms". Given the history of Northern Ireland, and remembering that there has been a majority trampling over a minority for 50 years, which has led to the death and destruction that we have had to live with during the last five years, I must tell the House that that attitude is not acceptable.
  I believe that the Government at Westminster—and who knows which Government may be in office after the next election—must continue with the bipartisan approach that has been adopted so far. This must be done to ensure that the majority party in Northern Ireland does not achieve the insatiable lust for power which its members are beginning to demand, and here again I refer to the speeches that were made on various Orange platforms only last weekend. If one reads those speeches one learns which way the wind is blowing, and if it is allowed to continue to blow in that direction it will bring with it a hurricane of disaster.
  I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South on some points. During its five months in office, the Executive tried to govern in the interests of everyone in Northern Ireland. Every

  69
  elected Member of the Assembly had the opportunity to go to that House at Stormont and ask questions about his constituency or put forward a case on behalf of his constituents. But many Members decided not to attend, and now they are asking for added representation in this House. That again is a contradictory argument.
  As the Assembly is prorogued, will it be possible for me to ask Questions in this House about my constituency of Belfast, West and have those Questions answered here, or must the issues that I raise be dealt with on the telephone or by letter? Certain matters cannot be dealt with satisfactorily over the telephone or by letter. Questions that we ask should be answered in this House, because our constituents want to know whether we are acting in their interests. I do not believe that any private or semi-private system will be accepted by our constituents in Northern Ireland.
  Captain Orr: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman on this. I understand that the arrangements will be precisely as they were under the previous direct rule, and that we shall be able to ask any Questions.
  Mr. Fitt: I sincerely hope so.
  Mr. Orme: After the Bill has gone through the House, whilst a period of direct rule remains, hon. Members will be able to ask Questions in this House on any issues affecting their constituents or constituency.
  Mr. Fitt: There are a few points which some people may regard as minor but which may become major, as everything is inclined to do in Northern Ireland.
  Again, I agree with the hon. and gallant Gentleman that whoever is to be appointed as or selected chairman of the Convention must have the support of at least a majority of members there. We in our various political rôles in Northern Ireland could read an announcement in the Press or here in this House that someone has been appointed whom the majority of members of the Convention might find objectionable. My right hon. Friend will have to tread very warily to make certain that he gets an acceptable chairman.
  Will the chairman have a deputy, in case he happens to be knocked down by
  70
  a bus on his way to the Convention or overtaken by illness? Will he have one deputy or two? The Government cannot just appoint a single individual, because it may not be possible for him to be available at every meeting of the Convention. Much more thought must go into the appointment.
  Mr. Orme: As my hon. Friend knows, the chairman will be appointed upon a recommendation to Her Majesty the Queen. The responsibility for a replacement, if something unfortunately happened to the chairman, would be on the same basis. The Convention may decide that it needs a deputy chairman representative of the Convention. I do not think that it will be difficult for the Convention members to make such a decision.
  Mr. Fitt: I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend will look into these points, because they are very important.
  One other matter has been brought to my mind by the intervention of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who says that no matter what happens in this debate, and no matter what the Convention decides, last year's Constitution Act guarantees the constitutional position of Ulster within the United Kingdom. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said repeatedly that it is not possible to have Section 1 or Section 2 and dump all the rest of the Act. I have also heard repeatedly, not only from the hon. Member for Antrim, North but from all those associated with him, that the Act is dead. If that is so, every single section goes with it, and the only way in which Northern Ireland can continue to be related to the United Kingdom is by our creating political structures in Northern Ireland which will bring about social justice for all in that part of the United Kingdom and which will have to be rubber-stamped by this Parliament.
  I warn my right hon. Friends that there seems to be a mood developing in Northern Ireland, because of the success of the Ulster workers' strike, allied as it was with certain politicians, that they have shown that they can bring the whole country to a complete stop, and that in those circumstances British Governments will be prepared to concede their demands. If that is so, I can only predict a further series of troubles in Northern Ireland.
  5.24 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Amery: It is with some hesitation that I venture to intervene for the first time in some years' experience of Parliament in an Irish debate. My godfather was shot on the steps of his house for his associations with Ireland, and my uncle, who graced the Liberal benches—he was the last all-Ireland Secretary of State—had two detectives attached to him for 20 years after the 1922 treaty. Therefore, I have no illusions about the gravity of the problems we are discussing.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) censured the White Paper and the Bill as an abject capitulation to violence, referring, as I understood him, to what the Ulster Workers' Council had done to bring down the Sunningdale structure. But that is where we came in, because Sunningdale itself was a capitulation to violence. [Interruption.] I do not disclaim responsibility. My party supported many of the actions which the previous Labour Government took, and we carried them further.
  It was the diagnosis of both sides of the House that the way to combat the IRA insurrection was by winning the hearts and minds of the minority community. It must be said that each Government—the Labour Government first, and the Conservative Government afterwards—bent over backwards in their attempt to win the hearts and minds of the minority community. There can be arguments about whether they went far enough or too far. Different hon. Members in various parts of the House will take a different view about that. The fact remains that we were totally unsuccessful in winning the hearts and minds of the minority community to a point where the IRA insurrection was brought under control.
  There is a danger, which I have noticed in this debate and in the debate on the White Paper, of forgetting that the IRA insurrection was at the beginning of the problems we are discussing. Our discussion is not an abstract attempt to produce a better system of government in Northern Ireland but an attempt to produce a system of government that will enable the insurrection to be defeated. We must face the fact that so far we have totally failed in that respect.
  72
  The Conservative Government of which I was a member—I do not disclaim responsibility, although I think that I was at the Ministry of Housing at the time—took important steps, as the Labour Government have done. The Labour Government uprooted and destroyed the B Specials. There was much to be said against the B Specials, although I think that every military man today, and, I suspect, the Minister of State, would wish that we had the B Specials back again. I have had some experience of guerrilla warfare, both as a guerrilla and from the security side, and I have no doubt that only local forces can really help uproot and destroy an enemy who also has his roots in the local community. I am not saying that we should re-create the B Specials, but I would hope that membership of them is not regarded as a bar to anyone's being recruited into any of the security forces.
  That was a step taken by a Labour Government. We uprooted Stormont. We destroyed it as completely as the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State have now uprooted the Sunning-dale Assembly. It was a big step to take. There was much to be said against Stormont, but it had survived 50 years. It had weathered the depression between the wars, and the Second World War, when Dublin, certainly for the first two years of the war, was not too well disposed to this country in its most dangerous hour. It also survived the aftermath of the war and the severe economic depression that struck Northern Ireland.
  I do not know whether it would have been possible to amend or improve Stormont. Instead, we took the drastic step of uprooting it. It is quite easy to destroy institutions, but when we took that step we put in question every other institution that might succeed it. It is very difficult to put Humpty Dumpty together again. We cannot re-create Stormont as it used to be. The Assembly that followed it has been destroyed in the same way, and there is a great danger that, whatever comes next, there will be a feeling in Northern Ireland that pressure or violence could also lead to its destruction.
  The purpose of recrimination, as Winston Churchill once said, is to prevent the repetition of error. The only

  73
  reason I go back on what I think were probably mistakes—the disbandment of the B Specials and the uprooting of Stormont—is that it is important that we approach the Ulster problem with more humility than we have done. There has been a tendency to say "They are behaving like barbarians over there, not in the way they ought to behave. They ought to do what we say. They ought to have our standards of fair play."
  After all the mistakes we have made, it behoves us to walk a little more humbly and to look at the problem not from above, as if we knew we were right, but thinking that perhaps we are not. I could have wished, in some ways, that the Government had not summoned this Convention out of the blue. I could have wished that the question of Ulster devolution could have been considered in the broader context of Kilbrandon, as a progression from the direct rule which exists today in Scotland and Wales. That has not happened. What is important is that we should proceed flexibly, particularly where the parameters which have been laid down are concerned.
  I want to speak about two of those parameters, because the third—the acceptability of a decision to this House—goes without saying. It is only if this House acepts what is decided in Belfast that it will become law. That is the only way in which progress can finally be made.
  The first of these parameters is power sharing. The difficulties in Ulster between the two communities are fat greater than anything we can conceive of here between even the Left wing of the Labour Party and the Right wing of the Conservatives, or even the Liberals as they still exist. When some of us have advocated a Government of national unity, the Prime Minister has dismissed the idea as a squalid conspiracy. That is all part of the rhetoric of our politics. But to suggest that it is easier for the two communities in Ireland to embark upon a power-sharing coalition than it is for Labour and Conservatives to get together seems a little surprising. Their difficulties are real, because they go to the heart of things. We have to accept that the more emphasis we place on power sharing in this House the less power can be devolved. We have to face the fact that the more we insist upon
  74
  power sharing as one of the parameters to which we attach importance the fewer will be the opportunities to devolve powers. It may be that the Convention will reach agreement over a broader scope of powers than seems possible so far. I hope so. We must, however, have this very much in mind. If we insist on power sharing we shall not get very far with devolution.
  I am not sure about the merits of devolution—not only for Ulster but for Scotland and Wales. The trend is towards devolution. Whether it is in the best interests of the provinces or the nations concerned, or of the United Kingdom as a whole, seems far from sure. Under our present system the best elements from Scotland and Wales have made their contribution in this House. They have spoken here and worked here and served in Governments here, not only representing Scotland or Wales but, like David Lloyd George or my right hon. Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home), taking great positions in United Kingdom politics.
  With all respect to my hon. Friends from Ulster it seems that under the Stormont system some of the best men stayed in Belfast and did not come to make their contributions here. I am not sure whether big fish and little pools are a good combination. The fish tend to be too big for the pool, and ruffle the water. There is a lot to be said for devolution not going too far.
  I was a little disturbed by the exchange between the Secretary of State and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) on the question of increased representation. I can see that there was an argument—and might still be one, if Stormont had the powers it used to have—for saying that Ulster was not entitled to full representation here. I do not know what the Convention will decide, but if I am right in saying that if we insist on power sharing devolution will be fairly small, there is a strong case for increased representation. I do not see why the fact that part of the population of Ulster is against the union should be a reason for not increasing representation.
  So long as Ulster is part of the union it is here that both those who support

  75
  the union and those who oppose it should make their points. Personally, I think there could be worse solutions than a considerable degree of local government devolution, accompanied by increased representation in this House, with an Ulster Committee like the Scottish Grand Committee and with a Secretary of State for the Province who, by convention, would normally be an Ulsterman, with a deputy who might, again by convention, normally come from the minority community. There could be departments in Belfast, just as, with the Scottish Office, housing, agriculture and many other aspects of Scottish national life are administered through the Scottish Office by departments in Edinburgh.
  I realise that all this runs us into the problem of the Irish dimension. I wonder whether we are not slightly exaggerating the impact of this dimension. Already the links between the minority community and Dublin ensure that Dublin's interests cannot be overlooked in any devolutionary system which is based on power sharing. If there is any devolution, however slight, the representatives of the minority community will be in a position to ensure that Dublin's interests are not overlooked. Even if there were total integration—and there is not total integration with Scotland or Wales—representatives of the minority community would be elected and would be able to speak up for the Dublin interest. Dublin's voice would be heard and its interests would be protected.
  Our relations with the Irish Republic are already very close. It is a unique relationship. I can find no parallel relationship between any other two countries. It extends to free movement of population, economic co-operation and understanding between Governments on almost every subject. This has arisen not only because of the presence of a large Irish community in Britain, not only because of our historic associations, but because Ulster is part of the United Kingdom. Indeed, the presence of Ulster in the United Kingdom is the guarantee that the Irish Republic still preserves these special links with Britain which, so far as I can see, exist between no other two countries.
  76
  Dublin accepts, as we do, that Ulster's allegiance to the United Kingdom or to the Republic must depend upon the decision of the majority in Ulster. This does not stop Dublin from proclaiming its wish for a united Ireland, and it should not stop us from proclaiming with equal clarity that we want to see Ulster remain in the United Kingdom. I was glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) made it clear in the debate on the White Paper that we want to see Ulster remain part of the United Kingdom. He made it clear that we have not forgotten the contribution Ulster made in the war, both in the bases it gave us to fight the Battle of the Atlantic and in the long and honourable roll call of seven field marshals out of nine who came from the Province. It is perfectly fair that we should stake our claim and wish, and that our friends in Dublin should say what they would like in the future. After what has happened, I do not believe that a union of all Ireland is very likely in the foreseeable future. The question is whether there is, in the longer term, a possibility of reconciling the claims and aspirations of Dublin, London and Belfast. I believe that there is, but that it calls for the introduction of a third dimension.
  There are the English or British dimension and the Irish dimension. The reconciling factor could be the European dimension. The Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are both members of the European Economic Community. It is, or was, the ambition—certainly of the previous Conservative Government, and, as I understand it, it is still, subject to satisfactory renegotiation, the objective of the Labour Party, at any rate the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary—that the European Economic Community should evolve, as it must in the longer run if it is to continue at all, into a European political community. Economics and finance cannot be separated from foreign policy in the longer run. One does not have to be a Marxist to accept that proposition. If one day we achieve a European political community, and if the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are both members of that community, then we shall be members of one another.

  77
  If that situation should come to pass, I should have thought that the border between the Republic of Ireland and Ulster would be what already to a large extent it is—a purely administrative border. No one knows the time scale ahead of us towards the building of a European political community. At a summit meeting a year or so ago it was laid down that it would take 10 years. It may be done by 1980, or soon afterwards; it may take longer. But I suspect that it will be easier to produce a European political community than to resolve separately the complex of divided loyalties between Dublin and London and inside Ulster.
  It is, therefore, to European unity that we should look as the long-term horizon on which the differences between us will be ultimately resolved. Meanwhile, we must get on with the job as best we can, remembering that the more we insist on power sharing the less devolution there will be.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: It is common form in the House to put forward an excuse for not following the remarks of the previous speaker. On this occasion, however, the previous speaker, the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) has delivered himself of a very interesting speech. Therefore, I shall excuse myself by saying that I should like to comment on it in some detail, and not reply to it.
  First, the right hon. Gentleman said that it behoved us to talk in terms of a good deal of humility. He will forgive me for saying so, but I thought from all his assertions that his speech was far from humble. However, that has happened to all of us. Those of us who have claimed humility in the past, as I have, have gone on to make dogmatic assertions. The same applies to all of us. But I agree that at least we should attempt to start in the spirit of humility.
  The right hon. Gentleman then said that somehow or other the two communities were farther apart than were my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman. I wonder whether that is true. Some of us have interested ourselves deeply in Ireland over the past 18 months. Although we are told—on
  78
  this side of the water it has been accepted into the common mythology of the problem—that the two communities are this far apart, when one goes to Long Kesh, down the Crumlin Road and in the Shankill, what strikes one is how much the so-called two communities have in common. Therefore, as they have common problems, I should like to leave that part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech with a very severe question mark, as to whether, in all things, the two communities are as far apart as we think they are. I was very struck by the day I spent with the lion. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), in his constituency, to find that there were many aspects of the situation which belied the belief that we should accept without challenge the assertion that the two communities were this far apart.
  The right hon. Gentleman also said that he disagreed with some of the things that his Government had done but that as Minister of Housing there was very little that he could do about it. Here I have a great deal of sympathy with him, because we know how British Governments, and in particular Cabinets and Cabinet committees, work. We know that there are strong resentments and that there is a code of ethics which makes it very difficult for one Minister, even the most senior of Ministers, to interfere in a colleague's Department. One can see the advantages of not wishing to meddle on minor matters in the business of other Ministers. The memoirs of Hugh Dalton make that very clear. But, on the other hand, I really wonder whether it is good for government in Britain—I am not being personal about it—that the affairs of Ireland should seem to be kept within the orbit of one Department.
  I should like to see a system of government on this side of the water, in relation not only to Ireland but to certain other subjects, perhaps including defence, in which it is much more acceptable for Ministers to look into affairs which do not, perhaps, directly concern their Departments and to have a much more realistic view of Cabinet responsibility. If we talk about Cabinet responsibility, we must accept that all members of the Cabinet, on crunch issues, ought to be kept fully informed on matters for which they are nominally responsible, if not in fact responsible.
  Mr. Amery: I would not wish to have misled the hon. Gentleman in any way, or to claim that I saw the light at the time or during that period. I made my views known at the time and there was collective discussion within the Government circle. It was not only in one Department that it was done. As I say, I do not disclaim responsibility in any way from what the Government of which I was a member did. I merely say, looking back, that to some extent I sensed it at the time and that I thought that mistakes were being made.
  Mr. Dalyell: I accept that, and I pass to the next question raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which bothers me deeply. This concerns the way in which Irish people tend to regard themselves, rightly or wrongly, as second-class citizens within a United Kingdom framework. The right hon. Gentleman made the point about Ministers. I should like to go one step further. I think I am right in saying that apart from the last Secretaries of State for Ireland there has been no senior British Minister from Northern Ireland, with the exception, at the turn of the century, of one William Ross, who was a Postmaster-General.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: May I interrupt my hon. Friend on a very minor point? I believe that Carson was a member of the War Cabinet from 1916 to 1918.
  Mr. Dalyell: Not, I think, in peacetime. The point I want to make—I shall give way on points of fact—is that, as a Scot, I realise that Scotland has been brought into the United Kingdom orbit by having, for instance, in successive Conservative Governments, such senior Ministers as the right hon. Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Sir A. Douglas-Home). In the previous Labour Government George Thomson was a member of the Cabinet for a considerable period. This all helped to make the Scots feel that they had a say in the United Kingdom. It was not just a question of having a Scottish Secretary in the Cabinet.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: To complete the record, apart from the example of Lord Londonderry, was not Sir James Craig a Minister in a United Kingdom Government?
  Mr. Dalyell: I thought that he was chiefly distinguished as a senior civil servant. Again, I am open to correction.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: He was a Minister.
  Mr. Dalyell: To get back to the major point—I have a feeling that the House is granting the major point—there is a strong argument for Northern Ireland's playing a full rôle in the Government of the United Kingdom. Am I wrong in thinking that many people, to put it loosely, think that they are neither fish nor fowl? This is the position that we are in. Therefore, I must confess that I have considerable sympathy for the first amendment on the Notice Paper. Rightly, I understand that we are to discuss the amendments in more detail—
  Captain Orr: I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that, as I said in my speech, it is probable that that amendment will be out of order. I humbly suggest that if he has an argument to put forward we would like to hear it.
  Mr. Dalyell: In that event, I return to the point made in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Mr. Lawson). Some of us will have to think very hard if—personally, I do not want it—there should be a Scottish Assembly. If that comes about we shall have to think about the scaling down of Scottish and Welsh Members of Parliament if we are not to accept the scaling upwards of Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland. We cannot have it both ways It is rather contemptible to do so.
  Mr. Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that under the proposals that he has in mind, even if Scottish and Welsh representation were scaled down to a United Kingdom level there would still be scope for Northern Ireland representation to be scaled up to the United Kingdom level?
  Mr. Dalyell: I think that is true. I would go further, to another point—the attitude of the Catholic community and particularly, if I may presume to speak for them, of the Provisionals.
  I hope that the House will forgive me for quoting four or five paragraphs from a letter sent by Mr. John Quigley, the spokesman for the Provisional IRA in Long Kesh, to my hon. Friend the

  81
  Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and myself, but it is germane to this issue. Mr. Quigley ends his letter by suggesting that it is important for those for whom he speaks that there should be 25 Members representing Northern Ireland.
  If the House will forgive me, I want to go in some detail through this letter. The first point is the very one made by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion about the EEC. I do not know whether he likes to be in company with the Provisional IRA, but he is in its company at the moment. Mr. Quigley says:
  "None of our leading Irish politicians, North or South, seems to appreciate that in future social and economic direction will come not from London, Dublin or Belfast, but from EEC HQ. Brussels, and in the Common Market the people of Ireland, Protestant and Catholic, must work as a unit."
  This is the Provo view. Mr. Quigley says that this is inevitable and then he turns to the solution. This is not the time or place to discuss the merits or demerits of the Common Market, but it is of some interest that the Provisionals are on the same point as that made by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion.
  Mr. Quigley continues:
  "I suggest Westminster pass a simple Act of Parliament setting up Northern Ireland as one constituency electing, say 53 Members of Parliament (Stormont) by a system of proportional representation."
  Then he tells my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central and me:
  "You will note that under the present system Members are elected on a Catholic/Protestant basis. The trade unions, the farmers unions, the commercial associations are not represented as such. Under the suggested scheme the trade unionist of Belfast could vote for his nominee in Derry or Newry or Portadown. Similarly, the farmer from Antrim could vote with his fellow farmer from Tyrone, Fermanagh or Armagh.
  The first election under the proposed scheme might possibly be fought on the old sectarian basis, but the scheme would eventually result in Members of Parliament being elected on a social or economic or cultural basis and would eventually breach the forts of sectarian bigotry. The scheme should be extended to the election of Members for the Westminster Parliament electing, say, 25 Members instead of the present 12."
  I do not hold any brief for suggesting this should be the basis of selection. All I am saying to the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and to others who
  82
  have spoken is that it matters to a certain section of the men of violence that they, too, get what they conceive to be proper representation in this Parliament.
  I turn now to the speech by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and his exchange with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Frankly, I thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was speaking a good deal of truth, because it matters to people, not only of his viewpoint but to others, not in any sense to be second-class citizens but to be genuine members of the United Kingdom, no less than the Welsh, the English and the Scots. I wonder whether—I put this in an interrogative sense of humility—some people in Ulster, not necessarily only Roman Catholics, have in the past said that they want to leave the United Kingdom because they feel that they are not fully fledged members of the United Kingdom.
  Captain Orr: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Dalyell: I will give way to the hon. and gallant Gentleman if he wishes to intervene.
  Captain Orr: No. I was agreeing with the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Dalyell: I think that my right hon. and hon. Friends ought to take seriously, even if it is not in order, the substance of the amendment. We cannot go on like this.
  Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend talks about second-class citizens. Many people in the United Kingdom would say that the representation that comes from Northern Ireland, which was initially backed by devolution and representation at Stormont with a new Assembly and larger measure of devolution, is greater than in any other part of the United Kingdom.
  Captain Orr rose—
  Mr. Dalyell: I give way to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South.
  Captain Orr: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. The answer is absolutely plain. It was not a larger measure of devolution; it was considerably diminished. Power over internal security was taken away from the Parliament at Stormont. It was simply power to divide the cake without so much Treasury control,

  83
  but all the essential powers were reserved to it.
  Mr. Dalyell: If this is going on for some time—not my speech—I must insert the view that if the same thing were to happen to Scotland I should be pretty vexed with Under-Secretaries, Ministers of State and possibly Secretaries of State—Ministers of State and Secretaries of State may be different—who came from, say, Ireland. The Scots would kick up a great deal of trouble if Under-Secretaries were to be appointed from among other than Scottish Members. This is a normal gut reaction. Therefore, I get concerned about the time that Westminster will take, because trouble will fester.
  Breaking my own inhibition about humility, I should like to ask another question. As a visitor to Belfast I was struck by the fact that this beautiful architectural jewel—Stormont is a very beautiful place—is outside the city. It may be that there are too many ghosts about—I do not know—but I wonder whether, if this Convention is to be successful, it should have its venue at a place which is not only remote from the city but has many other associations. Stormont, by its very setting, strikes some of us as incongruous in relation to the realities of Northern Ireland. I should prefer my right hon. and hon. Friends to have their base not in Stormont Castle but in a more central place, if possible, even if this is sheer symbolism. Is it wise to have the Convention in a place which is not only remote from the city but has so many other remembrances?
  I am concerned with the conditions for success of the Convention, and I come to the question of the chairmanship. Here again, I do not wish to tell the Irish what to do. All I know is that I am not sure that I can name a paragon of virtue from Scotland, England or Wales who could act as chairman. Therefore, I wonder whether it would not be sensible to look across the water, far across the water, across the Atlantic to find someone who could not conceivably be thought to be acting on behalf of the Secretary of State.
  What we are looking for is some prestigious American politician. Because he is too old and probably too committed, sagacious old Sam Irvin would not do, but it should be somebody like that, con-
  84
  ceivably someone like the former Mayor of New York, Mr. Lindsay, or ex-Congressman Emelio Daddario, or someone else who could be thought to have the genuine interests of Ireland at heart, some American or Canadian not associated with us. I am not sure that anyone who might be thought to be associated with us on this side of the Irish Channel would have all that chance of success. Therefore, I put it seriously that we should think in terms of looking to the possibility—I put it no higher—of having an American or Canadian.
  Mr. Peter Rees: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's speech with great interest and with a certain amount of sympathy up to this point. However, it seems to me that there is an inconsistency. He says, and I sympathise with this view, that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should himself derive from Ulster. and yet he says that we should look to someone not only outside Ulster but outside the United Kingdom to be chairman of the Convention, a key rôle. Can he reconcile that inconsistency?
  Mr. Dalyell: If someone could be found internally who would be acceptable, that might be all right. However, in talking around at a recent conference—and I had better be careful because it was a private conference that some of us attended—I could not find any consensus about who ought to be chairman. Three or four names were mentioned, but as soon as one went to the next man and asked whether a name would be acceptable there was an ejaculation "No, not him; that would be ridiculous". Unless someone can come up with the name of an Ulster man who is acceptable—and I gravely doubt whether such a man exists—we have to go elsewhere.
  I agree with my right hon. Friends that the alternative to the Convention is so mind-boggling that we all have to hope that it is a success, even though to do so may be against the better judgment of some in the cold reality of the day after. But it is important to look again at the subject of internment. The other night I voted with my right hon. and hon. Friends because at least they had made a start, but I am sure that the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) is important. I agree that many internees should

  85
  be given the opportunity to participate in the elections if they wish to do so.
  There may be a balance of risk, but after what happened at Rathcoone the other night my belief is that this would be far more acceptable to the Protestant community than ever before, and it is worth considering. Let me say in passing that I am glad that the Commissioner—I do not know whether my right hon. Friends had anything to do with it—decided to release yet more internees and, in particular, the internee whose case was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond), Miss McKee, in the women's gaol at Armagh. I hope that all goes well, and I should like to say publicly to her that I hope that she will not in any way take advantage of what has happened, for she owes it to a great many people—I am not putting it pompously—to behave herself and not to get into trouble. I say to my right hon. Friends "Thank you; you are doing the right thing, but you have to understand that in the context of the situation with which you are dealing it is symbolically important that those in Long Kesh have the opportunity to participate in the election".
  This is neither the time nor the place to argue that the British Army has to come out fairly soon—although I still believe it—at short notice, although not necessarily from this point in time. If the Convention is to have some kind of success, my right hon. Friends must try to keep the soldiers off the streets as much as possible. When Britain is seen to be around in a military capacity, any idea that comes from the other side of the water is—I will not say damned—almost damned on that account. How right my right hon. Friend is to say that the Convention must be its own master. We must try to give the impression that in no sense is the Convention our creature. It must be, as I am sure the Minister of State wants, indigenous to Ireland and seen to be so.
  I hope that direct rule and the work of the Minister of State and the Undersecretaries will not go on too long, because time is not on our side. One can have nightmares about what might happen if they go on too long. A situation like this is bound to fester, and on that account speed and expedition are an absolute must.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: This debate has unexpectedly proved to be of greater substance and has occasionally ranged wider than some of us expected. I am happy to take part without making the kind of excuse rightly mentioned by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). Having been on occasions puzzled and on others irritated by his previous interventions and contributions, I am pleased to be able to pay tribute to a speech which many in various parts of the House will agree added greatly to the debate and will set the tone for much of what follows.
  It would be unfortunate if we were to reopen too widely issues over which we have gone previously. Whatever we feel about our arriving at this point and whatever we may feel about what has gone before, there seems to be almost total agreement that the Bill is a necessary next step, and even though some feeling was strongly expressed by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who thought that this situation should not have been allowed to arise, the fact remains that the Bill is the only direction in which we can now proceed.
  The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said that stability was the key to the situation, but he omitted to recognise, as his hon. Friends have sometimes conspicuously failed to recognise, that stability is a problem for both communities and that there will be no stability in Northern Ireland if the aspirations of each side are not recognised by the other. It is not enough to say that stability will be provided if the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the Union is recognised and seen to be recognised. There are other members of that community who have other aspirations, which are threatened by statements that Northern Ireland will remain for all time, or will in some way be pressured or forced by other parts of the United Kingdom into remaining, within the Union. Stability will be found only when each group feels that the other group is recognising its aspirations.
  Most of us are anxious to get on to the spadework of the Committee stage of the Bill. The only point I should like once gain to draw to the attention of the Minister of State is the issue of

  87
  under-representation as it arises in the context of the Bill. Although I strongly agree with the general views about under-representation and with the fact that even in the context of the Kilbrandon Report the case is irrefutable for a fair United Kingdom parity of representation for Northern Ireland, I can see the point of the argument that we must wait for the constitutional Convention to see what part of devolution, if any, arises out of it and, therefore, what degree of representation may be appropriate in that context.
  But that is not what the right hon, Gentleman has been saying today and in previous debates, and when the question has been put previously the strong impression has been given that that option is not open and that, whatever the constitutional Convention recommends, the representation of Northern Ireland in this House will remain below what it ought to be. At the very least the Minister must make his position clear in the context of the Bill. Does he want to close the option and say that the Convention cannot recommend a system which in any way depends on fair representation at Westminster, or does he not? I can see no argument for closing the option however much the Minister may feel that it is inappropriate to make a change at this juncture. I do not see how those who take the Republican view about Northern Ireland can possibly argue that as long as, and only as long as. the House remains responsible for the affairs of Northern Ireland they should not be adequately represented. Having argued on their behalf and in the general interest for proportional representation so that they should be fairly represented—and they are right to claim that they never were fairly represented at Stormont—I cannot agree with them that there would be anything undesirable in the Province being adequately represented at Westminster.
  The Minister must make clear in the context of the Bill that this option is not closed and that any settlement proposed by the Convention which might call for adequate representation here, if that were its recommendation, would not be opposed by the Government. That is not something which many of us would find acceptable.
  Mr. Orme: It is not possible to discuss this issue within the terms of the Bill. What the Convention discusses is its own affair and its own responsibility, but it is outwith the Bill for the Government to make any amendment to representation at Westminster.
  Mr Beith: I recognise that point, and I tried to deal with it earlier in my speech. I appreciate that the Bill cannot deal with the matter. The Government have been at pains to point out the sort of recommendations that are within the Convention's parameters—to use what is now a popular expression—and it is necessary to ask whether within the parameters comes fair representation in this House. I am asking not why this issue was not included in the Bill but whether it is one of the options which the Convention can recommend or whether it is entirely outside what is acceptable to the Government.
  With that qualification, and bearing in mind the many issues which can be raised at a later stage, I shall conclude my remarks and indicate general support of myself and my party for the Bill.
  6.13 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I shall be brief because I understand that it is hoped to pass the Bill through all its stages today.
  Both the White Paper and the Bill demonstrate that the man in Whitehall does not know best, and certainly not in Northern Ireland. When the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in a helpful and constructive speech which we all enjoyed speaks of people in Northern Ireland feeling themselves to be second-class citizens within the United Kingdom, I remember debate after debate when I felt most keenly the patronising attitude of some hon. Members towards our fellow subjects in Northern Ireland and their problems, and I resented that very much.
  The Constitutional Convention, which is the subject of the Bill, would have the opportunity of outlining a regional system of representative government designed by Ulster people for the people of the Province. Again, I agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian that between the two communities with their different cultures there is a great deal of

  89
  common ground, especially when they are confronted with a lot of Englishmen.
  The problem of who is to preside over the Convention is a difficult one. I hesitate to propose any names, except to say obliquely that the House probably knows that I was very much opposed to the abolition of the office of Governor of Northern Ireland. For half a century Northern Ireland was administered internally and for the most part had its own Government responsible to its own Parliament. The Stormont system has been built up into a tremendous historical bogy. It was, of course, imperfect, but what parliamentary system is not—including even the one at Westminster? But until the final prorogation of Stormont there was no Protestant backlash, no loyalist private armies stalking the streets and housing estates, and the security forces faced fire on only one front. The imposition of direct rule only served to make the violence worse.
  The Executive and the Assembly did good work, and I pay tribute to the devotion of Mr. Brian Faulkner and his colleagues—particularly to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—whether those colleagues were Unionist or not. The good work they did, however, has not endured, and now it is for Northern Ireland to find its way back from the wrong turning which was taken, back to self-government. To succeed, new institutions must take account of the predominantly pro-Union sentiment in Northern Ireland, but they must also—and I refer here to Clause 2(1)—give scope to the law-abiding majority of the Roman Catholic minority. In dealing with this problem the majority might remember the words of a great Irishman, once a Member of this House, who said
  "Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom".
  I speak of regional self-government. I am an Ulster "home-ruler". I do not entertain the solution of full integration such as is enjoyed—if that is the word, because it is not universally enjoyed by all the people—by Scotland and Wales. Integration, however, is certainly to be preferred either to independence or to absorption into the Republic, both of which solutions, if they are solutions, would imperil the security of the British Isles.
  90
  With Kilbrandon in mind, I believe devolution to be a likelier future than integration. We must also bear in mind what the Kilbrandon Report said about the numerical insufficiency of Northern Ireland representation in Parliament. I know that the Minister of State said that this was nothing to do with the Bill, and that it cannot be dealt with in the Bill. However, I see that a new schedule has been added to what passes for the Order Paper—
  Mr. Orme: It has not been selected.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Very well. The hon. Member for West Lothian spoke about getting the Army out, by which I suppose he means not out of Northern Ireland but back to its garrison rôle. It is particularly important that, whatever comes out of the Constitutional Convention, the policing of the Province should revert to Ulster hands. The formation in the Republic of a form of Home Guard illustrates the point that against people like the IRA the Ulster Special Constabulary was the sort of force suited to local conditions. For the future, of course, we need not a Protestant force but a people's force.
  The White Paper and the Bill represent, I suppose, a diminishing of what the earlier White Paper called the "Irish dimension". Yet the Provisional campaign is also a threat to Dublin, and if the Republic desires to conciliate and co-operate with the North there are actions it can take or from which it can refrain. For example, the Government of the Republic should refrain from litigious harrying of our troops at international tribunals. I regret that the hon. Member for Belfast, West should be mixed up in that. The Government of the Republic should also facilitate further the bringing to justice of fugitive terrorists. They could smoke out the IRA nests on their own territory. There is no border to subversion.
  I agree with nearly everything said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), but I believe that our common membership of the EEC will not necessarily settle problems of this kind. There is no border to subversion. There is a two-way movement of bombs. Partnership against terrorism could further intergovernmental co-operation in other practical matters.

  91
  Then again Mr. Cosgrave, following the example of his own father, could place beyond dubiety recognition of the present border with the United Kingdom and, in view of a recent magisterial pronouncement, the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.
  If, as a result of Conservative policy, there is at present a certain aloofness between the Conservative and Ulster Unionist Members of this House, it is clear and it is true—it has been brought out by the Conservative shadow spokesman in the previous debate—that Conservatives are also Unionists. We believe in the Union, and it is our faith and desire that the Cross of St. Patrick shall remain in the Union Flag.
  6.22 p.m.
  Mr. John Dunlop: I do not want to take up the time of the House in trying to analyse the White Paper and the Bill. That has been well done by others. We have heard several excellent speeches which have contributed greatly to the debate, and I merely want to deal quickly with one or two points which I feel need emphasis.
  First, I believe that a date should be fixed very early for assembly elections. I am saying this not just because I happen to think it but because I believe it to be the wish and the will of the people of Northern Ireland. There is a very strong feeling on the ground that elections should be held very soon in order to clear the air and implement the principles set forth in the White Paper and the Bill. I emphasise that fact, and I appeal to the Government to take steps to bring about early elections to the constituent assembly in the North of Ireland.
  More adequate arrangements should be made for by-elections in the Bill and in any forthcoming legislation. The situation in which the Antrim, North constituency was left unrepresented in the Assembly for nearly a year following the death of the Member shortly after his election in June 1973 was ridiculous. It was caused because of the reluctance or the inability of the Government to institute a by-election in Antrim, North. More definite and adequate provision should be made for by-elections in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Orme: In this measure we are not making any provision for by-elections because the Government do not believe that the constitutional assembly will be on all fours with the previous Assembly, which was, in effect, a parliament. The new Convention will be there to do one job only—to arrive at recommendations. It will not be a representative parliament.
  Mr. Dunlop: I understand what the right hon. Gentleman says but I am referring to the last Assembly, which was a constituent Assembly. There was under-representation in that Assembly for almost a year.
  Mr. Orme: I accept that.
  Mr. Dunlop: In any future arrangements for a constituent assembly, more definite procedures for by-elections should be included.
  The words "patience", "forbearance" and "humility" have been used in the debate. I do not know whether there will be much humility in what I have to say or much forbearance from the House in response. I am a junior Member of the House. I use the word "junior" advisedly in that I have not been long associated with the House as a politician. I use it not on account of age but in point of experience in the House. As a junior Member, I have been greatly intrigued by the oft-repeated words "power sharing" and "Irish dimension".
  I was rather shocked by the Leader of the Opposition when we were debating the White Paper. Even after his own nominated Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had, as we thought, presented the mind and will of the Conservative Party, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), in an emotional outburst, said that there must be power sharing and an Irish dimension.
  What about this Irish dimension? Why this positive insistence upon it at all times? The Republic of Ireland long ago declared itself an independent Irish Republic outside the British Commonwealth. It severed all connection with the British Crown and constitution. It introduced its own constitution and coinage—a nuisance to us in Northern Ireland. In every way the Republic of Ireland cut itself off from everything British. Yet

  93
  there seems to be an overwhelming urge on both sides of this House and among many people outside that the Government of the Republic must be involved in the government of Northern Ireland and have a say in many aspects of it. I would like to know why.
  This very Government of the Republic of Ireland are engaged in indicting the British Government, the British Army and, indeed, the British people on charges of cruelty and torture before an international court, and, despite his rather emotional outburst, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is one of the witnesses at that trial. He will be testifying against the British Government and the British Parliament. It makes me a wee bit tired when some of those people who want to serve Northern Ireland within the context of British authority engage in such actions outside the House of Commons.
  There is great talk about the boundary, which seems to be so significant, with Southern Ireland, and about why it should be so much taken into account. But Ulster is not the only place in the world with a land boundary with another country. Switzerland is surrounded by other countries, but there is no clamour inside Switzerland for another country to have a share in its government. Yet that seems to be the case with the boundary between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. After all, it has been reiterated time and time again in the House that these six north-eastern counties of the United Kingdom in the island of Ireland are British, that they belong to the British people, that they belong to the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Why should any foreign Government be involved in their administration?
  The White Paper and the Bill mention the UDR, the RUC and the RUC Reserve. I want to serve my country to the best of my ability. I have offered for service in the UDR and been turned down; I have offered for service in the Northern Ireland Police Reserve and been turned down. I have not been given very adequate reasons why. I want to serve my country, and I, along with some other public-spirited members of my little community, am engaged in a vigilante force in Moneymore and in County Londonderry. We work at night as an un-
  94
  authorised, unarmed and unhonoured group of people. We go out in rotation to patrol the streets of that little town to ensure that no unauthorised or belligerent people come in and that we can give the security authorities adequate notice of any such invasion.
  But this only highlights our demand for a third force, a genuine Home Guard which people like myself, who, perhaps because of age or general unfitness, cannot get into the regular forces, could join and thereby offer some defence against the depredations of the Irish Republican Army, with which all the people in the North are just about fed up. We do not want to face another winter of actions by the IRA without some local defence so that we can defend our homes and the districts with which we are familiar.
  I can understand the difficulties of the British Army, especially the new units, in trying to do police work, which should be done by local people. I was stopped one day by a young British lieutenant in Cookstown, which is only five miles away. He asked my name. I gave it and said that I came from Moneymore, County Londonderry. He asked "Are you a resident of Cookstown?" That shows that he did not know much about the local geography. I do not blame that young man, but the lack of local knowledge is a serious handicap when the Army is trying to carry out police duties. That is not its job. There should be some provision for a Home Guard to defend our homes and districts. We know not only the geography but where the people live and what they do. I appeal to the Government on these relevant points.
  I felt sorry for the hon. Member for Belfast, West, who voiced a strong note of pessimism. He seemed to be anticipating not only the make-up of the Constitutional Convention but its conclusions, and struck a hopeless note about how it would end and what the situation in Northern Ireland would then be. I do not take that view. If we can have early elections and bring the people of Northern Ireland together to talk among themselves, as the Secretary of State told us, with no interference from London or Dublin, we shall be able to resolve our problems and evolve a scheme to govern the Province to the satisfaction and with

  95
  the blessing of all its people and to its peace and prosperity.
  6.33 p.m.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: The key subsections of the Bill are Clause 2(1) and (2). It is my general view that they are nearly meaningless. Subsection (1) says that the Convention will consider
  "…what provision for the government of Northern Ireland is likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there."
  The term "provision" has not been closely defined, and it is not known what the powers to determine the provision will be.
  If, for example, acting under precedents, the Convention recommended straightforward "one man, one vote" constituency elections to a local parliament, that would be a provision, but it has been shown that it is unlikely to be an acceptable one. The Government have, therefore, charged the Convention to do something while at the same time they have set down strict parameters.
  What is meant by the phrase "what provision"? The only answer is one which is
  "…likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community".
  In most democracies, the test of widespread acceptance has been the ballot box, which has a long history of excellence as a means of testing the acceptability of a set of proposals or an individual programme. What we do not know under subsection (1) is how "widespread acceptance" will be assessed. Will it be done by counting heads, the normal democratic process, or by some subtle sliding scale'? Would it be proposed to lose a few at one end in the hope of gaining a few more at the other? Does one move towards some grand coalition by dropping the left wing of the Labour Party and the extreme right of the Tories, in the certainty that eveyone else would have widespread acceptance?
  If that is what we think we are asking the Convention to do, we delude ourselves beyond measure. There is but one issue that will come before the Convention, and that is the issue of the separate and continued existence of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. Until that is clear, no provision for the future govern-
  96
  ment of Northern Ireland is likely to command widespread acceptance. If that is doubted at any point, "widespread acceptance" ceases to be a possibility. We may as well accept that before we pass the Bill and ask the Convention to do the impossible.
  There are times when what is euphemistically called "power sharing" looks appallingly like unimpeded progress towards minority rule. There have been times when we on this side fought hard to ensure that there should be no independence for Rhodesia before majority rule. We are now fighting equally hard to pass a Bill which will provide that there will be no independence in Ulster with majority rule. If that is what we want, my right hon. and hon. Friends are capable of achieving it, but let us be clear what Clause 2(1) will do.
  We are asking the Convention to make provisions, or, later recommendations, and at the same time are telling it that that which we wanted for Southern Rhodesia and other parts of the world which were our colonies we will not allow for a part of our own United Kingdom. That is a curious constitutional doctrine. However bad the history of parts of local government in Northern Ireland under Stormont, however appalling the levels of discrimination against which the civil rights movement fought in the late 1960s, I see no reason why this House, the Mother of Parliaments, should be called upon in one day to shuffle through a Bill containing this underlying defeatism about the whole democratic process of "one man, one vote".
  Subsection (2) says:
  "The Convention shall transmit to the Secretary of State a report or reports".
  My right hon. Friend clarified his intentions to some extent today, saying that it was intended that the Convention should submit an interim report first and that then, if further questions arose on a different area of provisions, there could be a second report. But he then, as I understand it, suggested that in such reports it would be proper for the Convention to submit details of conflicting views expressed within it, even though the report was a report from the Convention as a whole.
  The one thing which I greatly fear is that this House, in which the Ulster

  97
  people are not over-represented, may be called upon to adjudicate on the reports of the Convention and to act as a court of adjudication for the Convention so that if there is a difference of opinion in the Convention the matter will be fed back to this House for a decision. I have grave doubts about whether this House is competent, except in the most strict constitutional sense, to perform such an act. No doubt constitutionally we must have that responsibility, but I question whether we have the technical competence on any other level.
  I welcome paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 dealing with the rôle of the Parliamentary Commissioner and Commissioner for Complaints in Northern Ireland. As a member of the Select Committee dealing with the Parliamentary Commissioner during the previous period of direct rule, I should like to know whether there is provision for the Convention's reports to be submitted to that Select Committee.
  May I once more ask that it should be made clearer how the Constitutional Convention is in reality to determine the phrase "widespread acceptance" when it is firmly indicated to it that it can accept only the British or Irish dimension and occasionally is not allowed to accept the Ulster dimension?
  6.43 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: The reminder of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) that majorities also have their rights is timely and will be helpful to our debates.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) suggested that perhaps someone from outside the United Kingdom or Ireland might be a suitable chairman of the Convention, and he mentioned a couple of names from North America. While the idea is an original one and there may be such people to be found, may I express the hope that the Secretary of State will not accept the two gentlemen to whom the hon. Member referred because, to my certain knowledge, neither of them is uncommitted in the Irish matter and would be disastrous if chosen.
  One trouble about discussing Northern Ireland is that phrases which are innocently descriptive in themselves acquire special meanings because of events which have taken place, and sometimes different meanings to different people. For example, "the Irish dimension", what-
  98
  ever it may have meant once, now means, in the view of many people, a gradual slide towards a united Ireland, and to harp upon this phrase evokes memories of Sunningdale. To insist on using it makes those who regard it with anxiety believe that we are trying to resurrect Sunningdale.
  Similarly, the phrase "power sharing" seems to mean that both sides of opinion should have a say. No one could quarrel with that. But as things have turned out it also means to a large number of people that the minority should have a permanent veto. To give a permanent veto to a minority is a drastic step for a majority to take and, I should think, as a matter of practice cannot possibly be imposed from outside. The vice of Sunningdale was that it sought to impose, after what was thought to be inadequate consultation, a solution which the majority could accept, and that is why Sunningdale died.
  It is true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said, that as each constitution falls it becomes more difficult to set up the next. However, I welcome the Convention in principle as it holds out some hope that a voluntary agreement about power sharing can be reached. There are many examples in the world where power sharing is systematised and made precise. A small country, about the same size as Northern Ireland, in which it works is the Lebanon, where the different Governments posts are strictly divided by traditions between the two religions and inside the religions. Therefore, everybody knows that the president must always be of one religion and the vice-president of another religion. The system is observed, and the Lebanon, which does not have every advantage in the world, manages to keep going in a way which gives satisfaction to its citizens.
  But power sharing is a very delicate operation, and I am glad that Her Majesty's Government appear not to be insisting too strongly on a particular course of action for the Convention. To do so would diminish the value which the Convention might have in the eyes of those who take part in it.
  That is not to say that this House and the Government have no responsibilities in the Convention and its decisions, for several important reasons. First, Ulster

  99
  is part of the United Kingdom, and I very much hope will remain so. It is just as much part of the United Kingdom as is Wales or England, and that is a matter of sentiment and patriotism. I was sorry that the Prime Minister, in a moment of anger, I suppose, or perhaps anxiety with his many duties, should have referred to our fellow citizens in Northern Ireland as spongers. In my view, they are no more that than the people in the development areas of Cornwall, Wales or Salford.
  Secondly, it is important that we in this House should have a say in these matters because the integrity of the territory of the United Kingdom is of prime United Kingdom interest it is important for the strength and defence of the country. From the defence point of view, we need the bases and garrisons which exist there in normal times. Now, negatively speaking, we do not wish so large a proportion of our troops to be involved in Northern Ireland. Unless we can extract them in due course, our interests are very much at risk. Therefore, if the Constitutional Convention can agree and thus reduce the tension, it will be desirable from the point of view of the defence of the United Kingdom.
  It has been observed, and it is perhaps a truism, that guerrillas are much more easily dealt with by local people with local knowledge than by visiting troops. The Regular Army is much better used to guard the frontier and the integrity of the national territory than to undertake police duties such as those it is performing now. I therefore hope that the Government will not neglect any step which they can take to increase security before we have to make further constitutional decisions—whether by increasing the local defence forces, whether by taking further steps for the security of the border, or whether by issuing identity cards, if that is useful.
  Psychologically speaking, it is desirable that the convention should assemble with a firm background and that there should be an end to the constitutional uncertainty. One way in which that could be done would be to say that Ulster is regarded as part of the United Kingdom, as in fact it is, and that there should be no more ifs and buts and no more talk of periodic reviews or border polls. Those
  100
  are nothing less than an invitation to extremists to go on trying to get their will by force.
  In pursuance of this air of certainty, I go along with the proposition that Ulster should be properly represented in this House, perhaps not immediately, because we have the Convention to consider, but it would be intolerable if Ulster alone were not to be properly and decently represented here. If the Secretary of State gave assurances on these lines, the Convention could feel that it was building not upon sands which might shift at any moment but on solid foundations for the citizens of Northern Ireland and their children.
  I have not spoken of the long term. Many long-term solutions have been offered in the past, but each has vanished as a mirage. Let us see what the Convention brings. After the long confrontation over the past few years, each side in the conflict may now have a more precise idea of the strength of the other. It may be that both sides will realise that neither can have absolute victory, and in those circumstances they may make a success of the Convention—the success which has eluded us during the past 10 years. It is indeed a daunting task, and I hope that the House will give a message of good will to the Convention and of hope that it will succeed in its task.
  6.52 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: However much good will there may be for the Convention—and there is a good deal on both sides of the House—it is right that the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) should strike a note of scepticism, which will be shared by all those who have examined this seemingly intractable Northern Ireland problem. If the Convention, with the majority that will inevitably be thrown up within it, is to come forward with the kind of proposals which I suspect are looked for by the Secretary of State, only if the most careful guidance is given to it all the way through its deliberations will it produce a solution which is acceptable to the House.
  The Convention will require time, and for that reason I want to refer briefly, though in slightly different terms, to what has been urged on the House this afternoon by many speakers. The Bill is not

  101
  a vehicle by which we can change the representation of Northern Ireland, but. it should be considered within the terms of whether that representation is or is not to be changed. Both parties in their day have rejected any change in the present representation, and I understand the Labour Party's concern that there might be such a change; but what is proposed?
  The proposal is not for integration. All one can ask is what Kilbrandon thought was fair on the basis that there was a devolved assembly, and that would probably take the figure up to 18 or 19. Full representation in the House would take the figure into the twenties.
  What would happen if we changed the representation here? It is often thought that the Opposition benches would be reinforced, but nothing could be further from the truth. If the representation from Northern Ireland were increased to 18, inevitably west of the Bann there would be smaller constituencies, but all the best electoral studies show that the balance would not be greatly different from that which pertains today. There would be more Members from west of the Bann and there would naturally be more from Ulster and Down, but on balance the difference would probably be only a seat or so in party terms.
  It would be of great advantage if there were a more diverse representation. I suspect that I should take with me several hon. Gentlemen who represent very different interests in suggesting that in return for greater representation for Northern Ireland it would be nothing but an advantage to the House to have three or four SDLP members.
  Captain Orr: My hon. and learned Friend would no doubt concede that it might be a great advantage to the House to have a member from the Northern Ireland Labour Party?
  Mr. Miscampbell: Certainly, if it were possible, it would undoubtedly be an advantage. I leave that aspect with this one observation. It would not be an obvious disadvantage or disaster to one party or the other for the representation to be changed. There is not much to be gained or lost one way or the other in internal British terms.
  102
  There are other advantages. It has been said that in the end the House will have to decide whether it accepts or rejects what is produced by the Convention. It is right that those who will have the advantage or disadvantage of that new constitution should have at least reasonable representation in saying "yea" or "nay" to it.
  There are two reasons for considering changed representation. I do not believe that the Convention is likely to produce an acceptable solution in the short run. It may be impossible to produce an acceptable solution—I do not know. In any case, it will take time, and if it takes a year rather than months it is wrong that there should not be representation here.
  The last and most powerful reason is that if in the end there is to be some form of power sharing—I would rather say shared responsibility—in Northern Ireland, the only way in which that can come about is by growth from a small beginning, so that when it is seen to work more and more powers are taken. One recipe for disaster is to place upon the assembly full responsibilities for matters which are highly controversial. If there is shared responsibility it will be difficult for the assembly to stick together.
  Some local councils in Northern Ireland work well with a degree of power sharing. That is not just because of good will but because, unfortunately, local councils have had so much responsibility taken away from them that they can easily decide who should or should not empty the dustbin. If the assembly which we hope will come from this Convention is to succeed it must grow from reasonably modest beginnings. If we take that view, we cannot at the same time say that there will be modest beginnings in Belfast and modest representation here. If we were to say to the North of Ireland "So far as the imperial Parliament is concerned, you will go to the standard which Kilbrandon thought reasonable, and after that we shall start slowly in the North of Ireland to build an assembly with shared responsibilities", that would seem to be a hypothetical approach. Bearing in mind how little change it would make here, I would regard it as wrong for that to be ruled out of court, as happened in

  103
  the past on the part of both major parties.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Harry West: I have been greatly impressed by the degree of sympathy expressed on both sides of the House for the measure we are now discussing and for the note of realism in many speeches. Admittedly, one of the speeches from the Labour benches rather spoilt the picture by introducing the allegation of discrimination in local authorities. I hope that when hon. Members feel disturbed about the political propaganda which has been put out in the past about discrimination in local authorities, and, indeed, in central Government, they will take the trouble to read the Cameron Report in respect of allegations made against discrimination in central Government and also Professor Rose's report on his investigation into alleged discrimination in local authorities. Those reports clear both central Government and local government of any allegations of that nature. I hope that hon. Members will turn up those reports to verify what I have said.
  We are in this debate discussing the future structure in Northern Ireland, and there has been speculation about what will come out of the Constitutional Convention. The burning issue of under-representation in this House will undoubtedly get an airing. We did not campaign on increased representation in this House from a selfish interest, because we well know that if there were increased representation in this House the minority parties would benefit.
  I should like to put on record what under-representaion in this House means in terms of the United Kingdom. Scotland, with 71 Members of Parliament in this House, has a representation of one hon. Member per 73,000 of population. In Wales, with 30 Members of Parliament, the representation is one per 75,500 of population. In England, with 511 Members of Parliament, the representation is one Member per 89,700 of population. In Northern Ireland, with 12 Members of Parliament represented here, the figure is one Member per 128,000 of population. The House will appreciate from those figures the degree of under-representation that exists for Northern
  104
  Ireland in this House. I appreciate that this is not a matter for discussion today; it arises out of speculation which might accrue from the discussions in the Constitutional Convention.
  We have been treated in Northern Ireland recently to a half-page advertisement which has appeared in most of the Press. It is a Government publication. I question the correctness of financing a political document from public funds; I believe that this should not be done. I admit that it was done also by the Conservative Government, but it is undoubtedly a political document which does not set out all the facts, and I repeat that it should not be financed from public funds.
  The document makes the point that the first step is to allow time for discussion among various political groups before elections are held. I take it that this refers to the elections in respect of the Constitutional Convention. I wonder what merit there is in allowing time for political groupings to get together for discussion. I thought the whole reason for an election was to allow political groupings to get together representative of the people. The business of delaying the elections is ill advised. The party I represent, and my colleagues in our coalition, will not engage in political discussions until after the election has been held.
  The other point I wish to raise relates to the financial relationship that exists between Northern Ireland and the the United Kingdom. I detected in the Secretary of State's speech a note of threat if we did not accept the situation. Feeling in Northern Ireland is hardening over these threats in respect of financial aid from Britain. I should like to deal with the threat or intimidation or browbeating that is taking place. In the United Kingdom as a whole all regions need each other and we all have a part to play. In spite of the recent disagreement, North Sea oil should be at the disposal of the whole of the United Kingdom. England depends very much on Wales to supply water for the industrial areas of the Midlands.
  In Northern Ireland we occupy a strategic position, but that is not our only value to the whole of the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland we have

  105
  one of the most efficient agricultural industries in Europe, if not farther afield. This should occupy the attention of Her Majesty's Government in a very real way. If the agricultural industry of the United Kingdom is allowed to drift further into the doldrums, and if some long-term measure is not introduced to cope with the situation, the national situation will suffer in terms of cost of living and other matters. Northern Ireland makes a great contribution to the national larder through its agricultural industry, and I hope that the Government will tackle the situation realistically so that the confidence of the United Kingdom as a whole will be restored and so that production will be increased. This must happen if we are to avoid disaster in two or three years' time in respect of the supply of food in these densely populated islands.
  I should like to deal with one or two further points touching the financial relationship between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. In the past, and indeed up to March 1972, nearly all Government expenditure in Northern Ireland was made through the Northern Ireland Government on the basis of an annual budget presented to Parliament. That budget was discussed and negotiated between the Northern Ireland Ministry of Finance and the British Government. Once direct rule was imposed, the United Kingdom Government made large increases in expenditure in Northern Ireland which were no longer subject to the scrutiny or direction of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Some may say that this was done partly to reinforce a political argument to strengthen the case against a hypothetical claim for independence, or to stress Northern Ireland's dependence on Britain and to reflect the fact that such political aspirations as were apparent in Northern Ireland were expensive and unprofitable. There is no desire for independence for Northern Ireland among the political groupings with which I am involved. My colleagues and I in the coalition value membership of the United Kingdom, and we have repeatedly said that we will campaign to stay within the United Kingdom. But we shall also ensure that no policies will be applied to us by the present Government, or any other Government, in an effort to draw our country
  106
  into a United Ireland. Our financial relationships are of great importance to us.
  We also understand that the power to go on making additional expenditures in Northern Ireland and appropriating them to specific objects without consulting the elected representatives of our Province lies in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973.
  The simplest and possibly the most accessible source of facts and figures about Northern Ireland's public finances is provided by the successive volumes of the Ulster Year Book. There hon. Members who are interested will find references to the parliamentary papers and public accounts to substantiate what I say and these will give fuller details if they are required.
  We have heard several references to industry and commerce. We have the Prime Minister's allegation that the people of Northern Ireland are spongers, and this is fallacious in more than one way. In this House the Prime Minister spoke as though we were to imagine that Government expenditure and the collection of taxes represented the sole flow of payments either way between Britain and Northern Ireland, and as though the economic worth of Northern Ireland was limited to its taxable capacity, which is very far from the case.
  There are two other flows of Government money. They are commerce—exports and imports—and the profit from investment in Northern Ireland. Both these are larger in cash realities than the inflow of Government money into Northern Ireland.
  I take my facts from what I regard as a reliable source. It is the Journal of the Institute of Marketing. The facts are that since 1969 manufacturing output in Northern Ireland has risen by more than 22 per cent. while productivity has increased by more than 28 per cent. Moreover, in 1972, which is the last year for which precise details are available, the 1½ million people in Northern Ireland exported £937 million worth of goods, and the total trade of the Province was worth £1,854 million. That is not a bad effort for 1½ million people. It represented increases of 9 per cent. and 7 per cent. respectively compared with 1971.

  107
  Proportionately, it can be shown, those figures are very much better than those for the remainder of the United Kingdom. In 1972, which is the latest year for which Government figures are available, Northern Ireland's visible exports were £935 million, whereas imports were £937 million. The corresponding figures for the United Kingdom as a whole in 1972 were £9,749 million for exports and £11,155 million for imports. I make no attempt to relate those to the Northern Ireland figures. I content myself with reminding the House that the population of Northern Ireland is about one thirty-fifth of that of the United Kingdom.
  As I said before, information on these subjects can be obtained from the Ulster Year Book and various publications of the Northern Ireland Ministries of Finance and Commerce. They can be obtained also from standard reference books, such as the Statesman Year Book.
  A large proportion of the produce exported from Northern Ireland comes to Britain. However, much of this consists of goods in transit for further export, and in many cases they go to hard currency areas. The extent of it is not sufficiently quantified, but reasonable estimates can be obtained from year to year.
  Against these very high Northern Ireland export figures, which amount on paper to more than three times the value of exports per head from the United Kingdom as a whole—and the Institute of Marketing figure discloses that it is four times—nevertheless our standard of living in Northern Ireland is lower. In 1972 the gross domestic product for Northern Ireland was only £725 per head, against £959 per head in the remainder of the United Kingdom. Personal income per head in Northern Ireland was only £781 as again £993 in Britain.
  I admit readily that, as a basis for reaching conclusions, the Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom export and import figures have to be looked at with many reservations and qualifications because we are comparing a much larger area with a part of the whole. But they are in sufficiently striking contrast to in-dictate that the people of Northern Ireland are producing for export from their own region on a much bigger scale proportionately to their numbers than the people in most of the other regions of the
  108
  United Kingdom. At the same time, while they are thus producing more wealth and delivering more goods to others, people in Northern Ireland remain poorer than people in Britain.
  One obvious major reason for this is that, although Northern Ireland enjoys the wages and other local expenditures of its industries, the profits go elsewhere. They go mainly to Britain, whence most of the initial investment came.
  On the question of investment generally, apart from the profits of industry, wealth also leaves Northern Ireland in other forms. There is an enormous British investment in Northern Ireland. But, in the absence of a special survey, we can but speculate as to its total extent. A speculative estimate at the beginning of 1973 put the total value of British property in Northern Ireland at £10 million. Certainly a great part of Northern Ireland in terms of land, buildings, business enterprises and other property, much of it the subject of rapid appreciation in these times of inflation, is owned by persons and interests in Britain, and over the years take-over operations have left almost no large locally-owned enterprises in Northern Ireland. On most of this property and investment there must be substantial returns, and, since Northern Ireland is not the home of any substantial rentier class, there is relatively little corresponding flow from Britain to Northern Ireland.
  Thus, Northern Ireland is economically very active, is highly productive and has a faster growth rate than Britain, yet it is relatively improverished, like a number of other peripheral areas in the United Kingdom. Its low taxation yield follows from this, and a relatively higher Exchequer expenditure represents only a modicum of justice to a region which, far from being a poor relation or a community of spongers, makes a better proportionate contribution to the trade balance and the balance of payments of the United Kingdom than most other regions.
  I make these points to show that the productive energy of the people of Northern Ireland and their exports per head of the population are such that if we had to leave the United Kingdom or were forced out of the United Kingdom and had to plot our own economic course outside the United Kingdom we should succeed.

  109
  There is no point in issuing figures to try to threaten the people of Northern Ireland into thinking that if Britain as a whole withdrew support from Northern Ireland the Province would founder. A country with the ability to export produce at the rate that I have mentioned could plot its own economic course. I stress that we do not want to leave the United Kingdom. There are other reasons why we want to stay. But I hope sincerely that what I have said will end the threat, which seems to have cropped up in the various speeches that we have heard, about Northern Ireland having to do this and that—or else.
  Now that the Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber, I should like to offer him a little advice which I sincerely hope he will take in the spirit in which it is given. I give it to him as I have given it to other Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland. I said to a previous Secretary of State that it was well known that Ulster was a political graveyard of many British politicians, even in recent times. I ask the Secretary of State not to appear to do down the Protestant population in Northern Ireland. I am offering this advice in the hope that relationships will improve.
  Since coming to this House I have noted on many occasions that the Secretary of State, when making statements about happenings in Northern Ireland, has referred to the Protestant/Catholic element. I hope that that distinction between religious groups will not occur in future. There is a minority and a majority in Northern Ireland. The longer we go on pinpointing the religious difference, which has little relevance, the longer will this unpleasantness exist.
  For example, in mentioning bombed public houses the Secretary of State should try to avoid talking about Roman Catholic public houses having been bombed, thus inferring that it was done by Protestants. That kind of thing is distasteful to the community in Northern Ireland, and I sincerely hope that it will not happen again.
  Northern Ireland has been destroyed. Our property has been bombed and some of our friends have been seriously injured or killed. There is something in each of us that gives a degree of loyalty and patriotism to our native soil. In the
  110
  1939–45 struggle everybody in this House of the proper age made his contribution in one way or another to save this country from being overrun. The people of Ireland, without conscription at that time, also played their part. The cenotaphs play silent memory to those who flocked to the colours to save the mother country from disaster.
  We in Northern Ireland are just as patriotic and loyal to our native soil as are people in Britain to theirs. We will fight to the end. Sir Winston Churchill, when stimulating the nation and mentioning the possibility of a German invasion of Britain, said that Britons would fight in the lanes, the roads, the ditches, and all the rest. We in Northern Ireland will do the same if there is any threat of a take-over by Eire.
  I have always maintained that there are more ways of taking Northern Ireland into the Irish Republic than physical force. The mishandling of the situation during the last five years and the dreadful conditions that we have experienced have driven many young progressive people from the Province altogether. By this means and by the continuation of this trouble many more of our young, valuable citizens will leave. Our young people, the cream of our community, are leaving the Province. We want a country in which these young people can grow up and prosper. But we must make it plain that if, as a result of the Constitutional Convention, the terms at which we arrive in the final analysis appear unacceptable to this House, we can do little about it. We must be the final judge of the threat to Northern Ireland by a hostile neighbour.
  The Eire Government, by claiming sovereignty over our part of the United Kingdom, are offending against the rules of the European Economic Community. I have mentioned this matter previously to the Secretary of State but have had only a feeble answer. It is a fact that this is going on. All these matters are bound to aggravate people in Northern Ireland.
  Those of us who may be re-elected will undoubtedly welcome the opportunity of sitting down with newly elected representatives from all sections of the community to work out the salvation of our Province. Whether the coalition in which

  111
  I find myself at the moment comes out as the majority party or not, we support the idea of this Convention. If another majority party is thrown up in the suggestions which come from the Constitutional Convention, we will take our place as the official Opposition in a properly constituted and democratically elected assembly in Northern Ireland.
  7.25 p.m.
  Sir Michael Havers: This has been an interesting debate, with a number of thoughtful and useful contributions. I shall serve the House badly if I take any time, because there is a lot of business to be dealt with.
  I should like to ask the Minister of State for an assurance on one matter that concerns me. In opening the debate the Secretary of State said that the rules for the Convention were flexible. I agree. Flexibility is the key here. But I am a little fussed about the time that can be taken before we get finality.
  For example, in Schedule 2, paragraph 15(1), we have up to six months. There could be endless extensions. If we had only two extensions under sub-paragraph (2), that would be 12 months in all. There could then be a reference back as late as another six months and two more extensions of three months. Therefore, we could easily reach two years, and that two years would start only after the poll, and we do not know when the poll is to be.
  What worries me is that if a committee is asked to consider and report and is told that there is no time limit within which it must report, in my experience it takes much longer than it otherwise would. I hope that some pressure in a proper way will be put upon the Convention to report quickly and not allow it to spin out its proceedings because finality is vital.
  I think that anxiety about delay has caused many hon. Members today to speak of increased representation. That argument must be based on a pessimistic prognosis for the future. If we had an Assembly with anything like the power of Stormont, which we hope may eventually be the result, the argument for more Members would be much weaker. But it is impossible to reach a solution until we know what powers the new Assembly
  112
  is to have, and that we shall not know until the Convention reports.
  The legitimacy and effectiveness of the Government is the crucial issue at stake In the present situation in Northern Ireland any solution can only be a compromise which, by its nature, is unlikely to please everyone. However, it must be a solution which does not leave large sections of the community permanently alienated or disposed to resist by force. In these circumstances, I join many hon. Members who wish well this attempt to find the solution, and pray that it will succeed.
  7.29 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): First, I should like to answer the question asked by the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers), about the pressure or the time limit on the Convention.
  In the proposed Bill there is a six-months' limit, which can be extended by three months and subsequent periods of three months. The pressure, as the Government see it, is that both Houses of Parliament will have to renew the terms of any extension. If the Convention comes back after six months for a renewal, hon. Members will, without passing a final judgment, naturally want to review the progress which has been made and to comment upon it. I think that any Government would allow time for debate on that point. Therefore, without wanting to appear to be exerting pressure from the Government, I think that Parliament would have to be the body that takes note of that point.
  The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) emphasised the difference in wording between paragraph 55 of the White Paper and Clause 2 in the matter of power sharing. There is no real difference. We do not want to get involved in an argument about semantics. When we talk about acceptability and being representative of the community as a whole, we mean that any solution must be acceptable to both communities. I thought that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition made this clear when he passed his first judgment upon the White Paper.
  We want a solution to be arrived at by the people in Northern Ireland themselves, through the Convention and

  113
  through any proposals that are put forward, and it would be naive for any hon. Member to think that we mean anything other than a solution that is acceptable to both communities in Northern Ireland. The Convention may come forward with proposals which do not meet the terms of this wording, but it will be for this House to decide whether what is proposed meets the standards in the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not think that we can dodge that issue, and the Government have no intention of doing so.
  Mr. Kershaw: The right hon. Gentleman's last words have to some extent quietened my anxieties. I thought he was saying that unless both communities accept the conclusions of the Convention the British Government will not accept them either. Is that not too rigid a position to take up?
  Mr. Orme: We are not saying that. The Government have gone out of their way—members of the UUUC coalition have acknowledged this—to set out the matter in the most open way and leave it to the Convention to arrive at its decision. I think it is recognised that within the specified parameters there have to be standards which Parliament is entitled to ask people to bear in mind when corning to their decisions.
  There are those who claim that they want to remain members of the United Kingdom. That view has been emphasised this afternoon. It would therefore be right for the Parliament of the United Kingdom to say "You must make your own decisions, but there are standards which appertain in England, Wales and Scotland and these cannot be ignored in Northern Ireland". That is the point that we are making.
  Captain Orr: I wish that the Minister of State would not set up Aunt Sallies only to knock them down again. Nobody in Ulster wants a constitution which does not have standards which are normally acceptable throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Orme: I welcome the hon. and gallant Gentleman's intervention. I noted the forcefulness of his interesting speech, but I must tell him that some of the speeches made in this House, and certainly some made outside it, do not measure up to the standards that we have
  114
  in mind. Certainly on Friday there was one speech which did not measure up to these standards. I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman would not want to defend that kind of view, but it is right that the Government should state clearly what is in the Bill. This is not said in the form of a threat. We are merely setting out the parameters within which any constitutional conference should consider how it proposes to go forward.
  Mr. West: The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about standards that are acceptable to this House. If, in the event, the Convention decides by a majority against power sharing, how will the Parliament at Westminster be able to reject that finding, seeing that it does not accept power sharing in its own institutions?
  Mr. Orme: This is not a numbers game. When we talk about majorities and minorities, we talk about two communities. The right hon. Gentleman does not like my right hon. Friend referring to Catholic and Protestant communities, but that is what we are talking about. We are talking about what was acceptable under the Constitution Act of 1973, which the Labour Party supported. We are talking about standards that are normally acceptable. We are going into this in the hope that both communities will accept what comes out of the Convention and that the standards of the proposals will be acceptable to this Parliament. That is what we are talking about, and that is what we mean by that form of power sharing.
  The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham asked whether the Convention would be held at Stormont, and my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) asked whether the Convention should be held in a different place. There are security problems here. It is not possible for the Convention to meet in the centre of Belfast. I do not think that the Europa Hotel would be an ideal site for the Convention. Stormont has the facilities for the Convention. The rooms are available, and the necessary staff are there. It is more than likely that the Convention will be held at Stormont, but no final decision has been made.
  The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether the Convention would sit in

  115
  camera. The Convention will have to decide that for itself. There may be occasions when it wants to meet in private, as opposed to meeting publicly. We have found that it is difficult to keep things private or confidential in Northern Ireland because, quite naturally, on occasions there is a certain inquisitiveness for information.
  The Convention will have to regulate its own meetings. It will be for the Convention to decide whether to sit in public or in private, in the knowledge that people in Northern Ireland will want to know what is going on, just as people in the rest of the United Kingdom will want to know what is happening. There may be occasions on which, irrespective of leaks, it would be advantageous for the Convention to meet in camera, but I repeat that the decision will be for the Convention itself.
  One of the issues that has been raised today in some detail is that of the chairmanship of the Convention. The Government considered this matter for a long time before finally coming down to what is proposed in the White Paper. Our view is that the chairman should be an independent person appointed by the Queen, on the recommendation of the Secretary of State, and be, as it were, divorced from what in that sense will be the elected representatives of the Convention. Naturally, the Government would not appoint someone who was not acceptable to the vast majority of people on the Convention. It will be very difficult to find a suitable person. It is odd that some hon. Members have suggested on one occasion that it is for the people of Northern Ireland to resolve the difficulties and then on another occasion have wanted to go to the other end of the world to find someone to chair such a Convention.
  I am sure that the members of the Convention will not want a protracted battle over the chairmanship. That is why my right hon. Friend must be in a position to act fairly swiftly, while naturally taking into account the representations made to him not only in this debate but when the Convention has been elected. It would be wrong to say that consultations should take place, because they could be protracted. If Northern Ireland is to resolve its own
  116
  problems, and the people are to do it through a Convention and make proposals to this House, it would be rather contradictory if they could not accept a chairman from Northern Ireland whom they might find it difficult to work under. Therefore, there is a responsibility on Northern Ireland people themselves.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Do we take it that the chairman will not be appointed until after the election and that there will be consultations with the newly-elected members of the Convention about the person who shall preside over it? I have always held the view that it would be better for the chairman to have been elected, but I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has done. He will pick an Ulster man to preside. However, there is a general feeling in Northern Ireland that the people would like the Secretary of State to preside. Whether or not they want to get at him I do not know, but that is the general feeling.
  Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend has ruled himself out by the terms of the White Paper. He has in mind to listen to representations and possibly not put forward the chairman for nomination until after the election, though that is not the hard and fast position. That will, in effect, allow him to take the feelings of suitable people and listen to representations. We are far from having any name or names yet from which to consider the nomination.
  Captain Orr: I very much welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said. It is very sensible not to proceed to the chairmanship until after the election. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that the terms of the Bill, although slightly different from the White Paper, do not rule out the Secretary of State? There is something to be said for his involvement with the developing situation from day to day rather than leave the possibility of an ultimate clash between the Convention and the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Orme: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is absolutely right. The terms of the Bill do not preclude anyone's being appointed, but the White Paper guidelines state that the chairman should be a Northern Ireland person. There are obvious reasons for that.
  Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend rebukes me, albeit gently, saying "Here is a man who believes that the problems of Ulster should be settled by Ulstermen but wants to go across the Atlantic to find the chairman." Both my right hon. Friend and I attended a conference where it was agreed that there was no obvious Ulster man for the position of chairman, and believing that an Englishman, Scotsman or Welshman might be resented, I thought that it might be a good idea to go across the Atlantic.
  Mr. Orme: I do not want to get into a debating situation with my hon. Friend. He and I were at the Oxford conference, but there were distinguished people, some of them hon. Members, who were not present. Therefore, I do not believe that it was fully representative of Ulster opinion. It is a difficult question. I have tried to show that we are neither being pedantic nor trying to rush the matter. We must try to get it right.
  Mr. Stallard: We are all very interested in the question of the chairman. I recognise the precision that is used when we talk about Northern Ireland. I know from the exchanges so far that an Ulster man could be a man from Donegal, Cavan or Monaghan. [Interruption.] This is a serious point. Carson was a Dublin man. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) mentioned Ulster. Ulster means nine counties. Does this imply that we could have a chairman from one of the three out of the 26 counties?
  Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend is being as subtle as the hon. and gallant Gentleman. The Bill precludes nobody. The White Paper states specifically that the recommendation should be a Northern Ireland person. But, unless, it became almost impossible, it would be the Government's intention to proceed along the lines I have indicated.
  I come to the next of the major points which are not strictly germane to the Bill, but which have been raised very forcefully by hon. Members, concerning representation at Westminster. I spoke in an intervention of 50 years of Stormont rule, with a large measure of devolution, which in those days included security, and then the election of the Assembly, which again allowed a large
  118
  measure of devolution, certainly on economic matters, and which could have led to matters including policing, if suitable agreements had been arrived at. Allowing for those matters, many people could argue that Ulster, both in Northern Ireland itself and at Westminster, was well represented.
  I should make it clear that from the Government's point of view, and not least the Labour Party's point of view, increased representation would be strongly resisted at this stage, certainly before the Convention had made recommendations. It is open to the Convention to consider any issue. It is very unlikely that the Government could agree to increased representation outside the terms of the Bill.
  It could be argued that increasing representation, rather than allowing Northern Ireland people to resolve their problems in Northern Ireland, would simply transfer the matter to the House of Commons. Rather than diminishing the problems, that could increase them, not least if, as hon. Members opposite suggest, it could mean increased representation for minorities, which might be completely opposed to the policies being put forward by the Government. It is a highly contentious point, and there are strong feelings on both sides.
  In the Government's view, to increase representation would be to fly in the face of history and would not resolve anything. Ulster Members must take into account feelings of people in the test of the United Kingdom who might think that the problems should not be transferred to the Floor of this House.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: As the right hon. Gentleman says, this is an important point. He is not, however, coming to the real problem, which is that this House will be the final arbiter of the Northern Ireland situation, being the sovereign Parliament. Therefore, when the recommendations come from the Convention the Northern Ireland people should be properly represented in this House, because it has the final say. That is the nub of the argument.
  Mr. Orme: I see that. This argument is not strictly related to the debate, but I thought it would be wrong to avoid the strong points that have been put forward

  119
  and pretend that they do not exist. The hon. Gentleman is saying that there ought to be representation here to consider the recommendations which come from the Convention. That Convention will have a 100 per cent. Northern Irish membership, including its chairman. I would have thought that, that being so, Parliament at Westminster could consider any recommendations without further representation from Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Miscampbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman make one thing clear? In his clear rejection of increased representation for Northern Ireland so that it may achieve equality with other sections of the community, is he also rejecting any increase in representation which would be required if Kilbrandon were implemented? Does he reject an increase of the number to 18, with devolution?
  Mr. Orme: Kilbrandon is being considered by the Government. It will need legislation. It is not for the Government to decide these matters. They might decide in principle that some changes ought to be made but it would be for a boundary commisison to deal with the matter. That could have a delaying effect upon the Convention. I know the strength of feeling on this issue in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend and I feel that by meeting the immediate demands for a Convention elected in Northern Ireland drawn from the people of Northern Ireland we are going a long way to meet this point.
  Captain Orr: The Minister of State has misunderstood the situation if he thinks that the only demand was for elections to the Convention. The other leg of the demand was proper representation in this House. It is vitally important that he should understand that. With great respect, the argument that this would delay the work of the Convention does not hold up, because elections to the Convention can go ahead. The right hon. Gentleman can ask the boundary commission to determine what would be a fair representation for Northern Ireland in this House on any basis that might be thought necessary.
  Mr. Orme: I am afraid that I have to say clearly, on behalf of the Government, that this policy is absolutely clear. We cannot at the moment countenance
  120
  any change in representation. I say that in the fairest manner. I have heard the argument about Kilbrandon. There are hon. Members, not least the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who came to see the Government at the time of the Ulster Workers' Council strike. The demands then were purely and simply for fresh elections and an ending of the Sunning-dale set-up. They had nothing to do with any other points of view. I do not say it is wrong for Members to develop such arguments. But it is not in the Bill. On a Second Reading debate it is probably in order for us to discuss this, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we have discussed it all afternoon I think it would be a bit late now to decide that it was not in order. I must make it clear that this is not my point of view, not the point of view of the Secretary of State—it is the Government's view that there can be no legislation at present.
  Mr. Beith: While I recognise what the right hon. Gentleman has said about "at present", may I ask him to do something to dispel the impression he is creating that if the Convention were to recommend, as part of its package of proposals, that Northern Ireland representation in this House should be at parity with that of the rest of the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom would not find that acceptable? Will he make it clear that that is not what he is saying?
  Mr. Orme: I am not closing that argument at all. What I have said is that these decisions cannot be taken ahead of the Convention. If the Convention were to produce recommendations representative of both communities on this point, Parliament would obviously have to consider them. It would be foolish for any party to say that such matters could not be considered. The Government are saying that extra representation cannot be considered at the moment. That is Government policy.
  Another major point made during the debate concerned the link with the United Kingdom, the responsibility of this Parliament and the Constitution Act. There was talk about the words of the right hon. Member for Belfast, East being more important than the words written into the Constitution Act. The Government want

  121
  to make it absolutely clear that the Constitution Act remains on the statute book. The provisions of Sections 1 and 16 will flow. If the Convention comes forward with proposals making it possible to reactivate Section 2, the Government will reactivate it.
  I have heard impassioned arguments about the strength of feeling in Northern Ireland. We are under no illusion as to that. Any Government would have to take that into account. However, the rest of the United Kingdom also has a point of view on this issue. Some hon. Members opposite, including the right hon. Member for Belfast, East, have said on occasion that if all else fails UDI is the only alternative. I have had it put to me strongly by those representing working-class Protestants that such people saw a form of UDI as being the answer for Northern Ireland.
  I know that that is not acceptable to a great number of people in this House. I know that there are people in the community who support that point of view and the hon. Member for Antrim, North is honest enough to admit it. When we have one argument posed against the other we have also to take into account the views of the rest of the United Kingdom. I have met people in my constituency and elsewhere who have raised this matter with me when I have been speaking about matters other than Northern Ireland. There is a restiveness about the situation which the House and the people of Northern Ireland ought to take fully into account.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the elected representatives in this House who have spoken about this point have made it clear that only in the event of a choice having been made by the majority of people to go into a united Ireland would they prefer to go it alone? We in this House who are from Northern Ireland come here as Unionists and not as nationalists. I completely repudiate Ulster nationalism in that sense. We are not Ulster nationalists but Ulster Unionists. Therefore, we want more representation in the House. It would be churlish of me not to say that uninformed people may say "Yes, we wish to have a UDI", but those of us who believe that we should remain within
  122
  the United Kingdom, and who would go for independence only if we were pushed into a united Ireland, have always said that that would have to be by negotiation. It could not be by a unilateral declaration.
  Mr. Orme: I accept the hon. Gentleman's sincerity on this matter. I am not imputing any motives to him. However, I quoted the right hon. Member for Belfast, East in this regard. I could also quote members of the Ulster Workers' Council who made this point to me during and after the UWC strike and who said to me that they were Ulster nationalists. My right hon. Friend was criticised for using that phrase. It is not just one block as it were. There are differing views among both communities on central issues. All that I draw the attention of the House to is the fact that it exists.
  Captain Orr: The Minister of State is very courteous in giving way. Will he take it from me that only a tiny minority would fancy any such thing? The vast majority of the Protestant population of Ulster want to remain part of the United Kingdom, with all the obligations and all the lights that that entails—and that goes for many of the Catholic community as well?
  Mr. Orme: I am interested to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman say that. We shall wait for reactions from people, not least some in this House and some in Northern Ireland, to see whether they measure up to that point of view. However, we can leave the matter in that setting.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) asked about the position of Sinn Fein and the Provisionals, and detainees during the election, and about Loyalists and Republicans who are in the Maze at present. There is nothing at present in the law to prevent any person standing for election. Moreover we de-proscribed Sinn Fein and the UVF, and there is no reason why a candidate should not put himself forward as a representative of one of those organisations or advocate the views of such an organisation. There is, therefore, no bar on persons standing for election who wish to advocate the views of, for instance, extremist organisations. We all want advocacy by political means and not by violence. Detainees can vote and

  123
  stand at an election conducted in accordance with the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962, which is a statute that will apply for the election of the Convention. Detainees can vote if their name is on the register and they are not otherwise disfranchised. It is important to point this fact out because there may be convicted people who would not qualify on this point.
  My hon. Friend may ask about the position of candidates and whether they would be allowed to campaign or to come out on parole. That would be a matter for my right hon. Friend. He would obviously look at it in the interests of the election as a whole. But there are certain responsibilities upon him which it would not be possible to decide in this House this evening.
  Mr. Stallard: My right hon. Friend has replied to a very important question. I think that the whole House would agree that we would want to leave no excuses for anyone saying that he could not participate in the election to the Convention. One of the problems raised by members of both communities when I was last in the Six Counties was the question of political organisations. Many of the people at present detained or interned in Long Kesh, Magilligan and Armagh are there for purely political reasons or be-because of their political backgrounds.
  I am talking not of the convicted people but of the detainees and internees. Some of those who were detained in August 1971 are still there, and have never committed a crime. Those who are detained for purely political reasons would have difficulty in organising a political campaign from there.
  Mr. Orme: I know the strength of my hon. Friend's feelings about internment. No one would deny that. He is not the only person who has strong feelings on the issue. No one is interned for political views in the Maze at present.
  Mr. Stallard: In August 1971 people who had not been involved in anything were detained. Why were they sent there?
  Mr. Orme: I ask my hon. Friend to watch this position, or to wait for a while. I do not think that he will then be able to make that allegation.
  124
  I come now to the very interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). He made some interesting observations. We may all be in the interesting position of having been a member of a Government which took decisions for which there was a collective responsibility when at a later date we have to express what our feelings were at the time that the Government took those decisions. The right hon. Gentleman put forward his views in a very fair manner. I listened to what he said about power sharing. I refer him to what I said originally about this issue. Much depends on it. I know that the right hon. Gentleman was not making a political debating point about Labour or Conservative policy. But when we talk of power sharing in the context of Northern Ireland, we are not talking about coalitions in a political sense in which parties may or may not become involved on this side of the Irish Sea. We are talking about a power sharing which, in a sense, brings together the Protestant working class and the Catholic working class, we hope, who probably have economic aspirations which are identical but can find no means of politically expressing them together.
  That is the difficulty as we understand it. It goes just as much for people with Conservative leanings or Liberal leanings. I make no party political point in that regard. The Government see this issue of genuine power sharing as a first step towards normal political activity within Northern Ireland. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will understand that there were people of different political persuasions in the previous Executive, but they were there as a stepping stone to what we should like to see as normality in political expression. The most important thing that has happened in Northern Ireland flowing from the recent upheaval is that the Protestant working class is beginning to associate itself in economic and in political terms in a manner which we would understand in this country. We want to see that develop.
  The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and others raised the question of the date of the election. There is an amendment down on this question. The hon. Member for Antrim, North misunderstood our interpretation. It is not our intention that people should start the

  125
  political dialogue before the Convention if they do not want to. We hope that new groups will be formed which are more representative and which have—dare I say it?—a more Socialist basis than exists now.
  Again, I say with all sincerity that this point of view has been pressed upon me by leading members of the majority. The strongest arguments we hear for almost immediate elections come from elected representatives in this House. My right hon. Friend and myself do not receive such representations when we are in Northern Ireland meeting representative groups.
  Mr. West: I hope that the Minister of State recognises that we 12 elected Members have a mandate from the people of Northern Ireland to speak on their behalf. He does not have such a mandate. The House should listen to our view rather than the views of people who have not been elected by the people of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Orme: I do not think that someone who sat in with the UWC should talk about a mandate. We received representations from the previous Northern Ireland Members that they had a mandate. The right hon. Gentleman was elected on 28th February. Events have moved on since then.
  The most interesting point in the right hon. Gentleman's speech was when he, having gone on against any form of Irish dimension, finally arrived at it when he talked about the Common Market and the fact that this could melt away the border and all else that exists. I noticed that there was a silence from behind me. On this issue I join forces with most hon. Members opposite. I see no future in this regard. It is not strictly relevant to the problems facing Northern Ireland.
  In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes), the Parliamentary Commissioner was due to report to the Assembly. He will now report to this Parliament when he has any reports to make. No doubt Northern Ireland Members will want to make representations on the question whether the matter should go to a committee. In other
  126
  words, just as the other matters have been regularised by my right hon. Friend in the Bill, so is the matter of the Parliamentary Commissioner in this regard being regularised.
  I have taken far longer than I intended. I have not made a speech. I have tried to answer some of the serious points that have been raised. I may not have satisfied all hon. Members. We believe that the Government's policy as laid down in the Bill meets the main points which have been raised with us. We have stipulated what we believe the safeguards should be. I therefore hope that the House will accord the Bill a Second Reading.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Coleman.]
  Further proceedings stood postponed pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

  NORTHERN IRELAND [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the dissolution of the existing Northern Ireland Assembly and its prorogation until dissolution; to make temporary provision for the government of Northern Ireland; and to provide for the election and holding of a Constitutional Convention in Northern Ireland, it is expedient to authorise—

  (a) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any costs incurred by a government department (including a Northern Ireland department) in connection with the election of that Convention or any poll held by virtue of that Act for the purpose of obtaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland on any matter contained in or arising out of a report of the Convention or otherwise concerned with the future government of Northern Ireland;

  (b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State in connection with that Convention, not being costs falling within paragraph (a) above;

  (c) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums required by that Act to be so paid.—[Mr. Coleman.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND BILL
  Considered in Committee pursuant to the Order of the House this day.
  [Mr. GEORGE THOMAS in the Chair]

  NORTHERN IRELAND BILL
    Clause 1

      DISSOLUTION AND PROROGATION OF EXIST ING ASSEMBLY AND TEMPORARY PROVISION FOR GOVERNMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      8.15 p.m.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I had an amendment down which has not been selected. I should like the Secretary of State to think sympathetically about the amendment.
      We are in a peculiar position about the Assembly now prorogued. The Secretary of State said in his opening speech earlier—I appreciate it—that he would not dissolve the Assembly because he felt that people should retain their elected representatives and that the elected representatives were entitled to carry on as such in regard to those matters on which they could make representations to him.
      We in the United Ulster Unionist Party have grave doubts about whether those people represent the people of Northern Ireland, but we have a situation where another Member has been returned in a by-election to the prorogued Assembly. I remind the right hon. Gentleman—it was the fault not of this administration but of the previous one—that this seat was kept vacant for over a year and the people of North Antrim were not permitted to have their full representation because the previous administration felt that the seat would change hands and Mr. Faulkner's party would be one fewer in n umber.
      As it transpired, Mr. Faulkner's candidate forfeited her deposit and a United Ulster Unionist was elected with almost 30,000 votes. This gentleman now finds that he is having difficulty even in getting back his deposit. We expect a candidate who does not get the required number of votes to lose his deposit. However, under the rules of the Assembly the only way in which a person can get his deposit back is by signing the roll and being admitted a Member. I am sure that the Secretary
      128
      of State would not agree that a person would want to forfeit his deposit and not be able to withdraw it—in fact, he would have sympathy with such a person.
      I understand that there is a provision which says that if the person has some physical or mental disability or some other cause—evidently a physical cause—he can get his deposit back. This matter must be dealt with by the present administration. The Secretary of State has graciously said that he will look upon this person as a representative of the people. I think that the Government could in some way—probably by an Order in Council—recognise this man as a properly elected representative. He has been elected by over 29,000 votes. I represent this area in the House of Commons. When I was elected to the Assembly I had only 14,000 votes. The quota was only just over 10,000. Yet others who do not get the quota are regarded as Members and draw pay and allowances, while this man is forbidden by the law to do so. I should like the Secretary of State to consider that carefully and sympathetically.
      I am sorry that we are unable to discuss this matter on an amendment. I have taken the way that any parliamentarian would adopt to raise the matter. I hope that after the Glorious Twelfth the Secretary of State will be in good form and will sympathetically consider what I have said—and I hope that I have not riled him by saying that.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has raised a matter that greatly concerns me. He pointed out that there was not a by-election for some time. I have not checked the date, but I think that it was because an order dealing with by-elections was made shortly after the present Government took office.
      So far as I am aware, the subject of the remuneration of a Member is a matter for the assembly concerned, and the Assembly is still in being, although prorogued. I am therefore on difficult ground in having to reply. I assure the hon. Member that I shall look into the payment of the gentleman who was elected. At the same time—I am choosing my words carefully—whatever has been done, and I will look into that, this is a matter for the Assembly, and it would be wrong for me to be positive beyond that.

      129
      The hon. Member has raised this matter very properly, and I assure him that it will be considered. My advice is that the gentleman concerned should write to the Clerk of the Assembly. My feeling is that this matter is within the purview of the Assembly, just as matters of pay for Members of Parliament here are within the purview of the House of Commons.
      The deposit is a matter that concerns me. Although remuneration is properly a matter for the Assembly, as it is for Members of Parliament here, matters pertaining to the electoral rules are for the Secretary of State. This is one of the powers reserved for this House.
      I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look at that. It seems to be a technical matter of getting the deposit back if the Assembly is prorogued, because it will eventually be de-prorogued—or whatever the correct legal term is—and the deposit will then be refundable. I should like to look at that, because it seems that it will need legislation.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 2

      CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION ON FUTURE GOVERNMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Captain Orr: There are two small matters that I want to raise before we come to the main bulk of this argument. Earlier, the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. Hughes) asked about the reports of the Convention and expressed some anxiety that from time to time the House of Commons should be able to judge between, say, majority and minority reports. I understood the Secretary of State to say that the reports would definitely be from the Convention. It would therefore be useful to have some indication of the majorities if decisions are taken, so that we have some idea of the strength of a majority and of the minority dissenting.
      130
      The second matter concerns polls. Subsection (3) is slightly alarming. What is worrying is that this great power in the hands of the Secretary of State, if used irresponsibly—I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to use it lightly—could result in a whole series of polls on a whole lot of questions which an irresponsible Secretary of State might think useful to try to influence the deliberations of the Assembly.
      I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say a little more about how he envisages the polls being used. Unlike the Newfoundland poll, a single poll, these are not to be mandatory, but we should have some idea of what the right hon. Gentleman intends.
      Mr. Dalyell: I should like to take up a matter that was raised earlier—namely, the precise criteria on which these questions are to be framed. That is an extremely important consideration, for answers can be influenced by the way in which questions are framed.
      I do not accuse the Secretary of State of ill will, malice or anything else, but, as hon. Members know, it is easy to frame questions to get the answers one wants,. and there are many examples of that. It is less than satisfactory to resort to this kind of polling without being clear about the basis of the framing of the question.
      It may be said that this is a matter for the future, that it may never happen, that it is a recondite argument. I am not so sure that it is such a recondite argument, for even in this House we have unsuspectingly allowed provisions to go through, rather like Mr. Micawber, only later to find ourselves hamstrung. As others could, I could develop all sorts of pictures of what questions could be asked to create tremendous resentment, and I therefore want to be clear about the basis of the questions.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) asked about the Convention's reports and how they were to be presented. A great deal must be left to two factors. First, I intend to publish a document about the procedures of the Convention. It will be a discussion document—perhaps that is the best way to describe it—allowing the subject to be

      131
      opened up. It will be concerned with how the Convention is to report to the House.
      The voting will be a matter of public knowledge. However, I do not foresee the future of Northern Ireland being determined by a legislature voting late at night by 290 to 278 with the Whips on and so on, as occurs here. I do not foresee the Convention working in that way. Of course there are bound to be votes, and, of course, the voting must be taken into account, but we shall also have to take note of the fact that the future of Northern Ireland could be determined by 40 votes to 38 in favour of a particular process. A Convention is a more civilised way of dealing with it than is normal in a legislature because, after all, there are understandings about the way in which the House votes by the nature of the determination of an election. We used to notice how the Press made a big thing about the result of a vote in the House—and understandably so. There are bound to be votes in the Convention, and the result of the election to that Convention is important, but I do not see matters being completely determined in an arithemetical sort of way.
      I was in some doubt whether to include the poll in the Bill. I thought it was good sense, however, to put it in in case it was needed. Who knows what the timing will be? Too often in my short period in office have I wished that I had certain powers. On the wording of any poll, let me say that I had my doubts about the wording of the border poll. I draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) not merely subsection (2) but subsection (6), which says:
      "The power to make orders under subsection (3) above includes power to vary or revoke a previous order and shall be exercisable by statutory instrument but no such order shall be made unless a draft of the order has been approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
      There will, therefore, be control by this House. All the matters my hon. Friend raised are important. I hope that my hon. Friend and the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South will see the force of what I say, and I hope that public discussion will follow publication of the document.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: May I draw attention to subsection (7)? On reading that, I cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman can justify his speech this afternoon when he said that if the Convention came up with something which was not acceptable to this House, the guarantee in the Constitution Act would have to go by the board. The subsection makes it clear that the constitutional issue cannot be put before the people in any poll from the Convention—and is that not a good thing? One Labour Member said that the real burning issue was the settlement of the union. Surely that will come within the scope of the Convention. The subsection seems to undermine the Secretary of State's position this afternoon.
      Mr. Rees: In the good book that I have written on this matter I carried the matter very much in mind. Subsection (7) is in for very good reasons. I decided that the subject matter of polls should be that which was relevant to the discussions which took place in the Convention. My argument, strongly based on that premise, is that there is now Section 1 of the Constitution Act. If there is a need for a poll on the link with the United Kingdom, there is the provision concerning the 10-year poll which cannot be held under the powers in this Bill. Powers would have to be sought from this House to carry that out. There are strong views about the Constitution Act. I have always felt that the North could not be pushed into the South. However, the question of the link with the United Kingdom is not one for Northern Ireland alone; it is for the whole of the United Kingdom and, not least, for this Parliament. For that reason, subsection (7) is carefully included. It provides that there can be referenda, but if there are to be referenda on the border or on the link with this country, they will require separate legislation in this House, because that is a matter not for the Convention but for the United Kingdom as a whole. While there may be a glint in the eye of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I can assure him that the subsection is included for very good reasons.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: We believe that the majority of the people of Northern Ireland can retain their position, but we have had many assurances from this

      133
      House and they have all been torn up and destroyed—some of them overnight. However, we believe that the will of the people will eventually prevail. I am only pointing out to the right hon. Gentleman—he did not even take it up—that earlier, he said "If you come up with some suggestions that we do not accept, remember that your guarantee and finances will go." But the right hon. Gentleman could not do that under this Bill. As he has now admitted, he would have to introduce another Bill. He could not do it under a constitutional referendum. He would have to amend the Constitution Act 1973. That is the point I make.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 1

      TEMPORARY PROVISION FOR GOVERNMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND
      Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 4, line 24, at end insert:
      'and no draft of an order shall be brought forward for approval under paragraph (a) above unless and until it has been approved by a Standing Committee established for the purpose'
      The purpose is plain. It is to avoid the situation that we had under the previous direct rule provisions for dealing with Northern Ireland Orders in Council. There is no need for me to weary the Committee with the long story of the way the last Parliament dealt with the vast amount of legislation introduced by Order in Council, but I will recall to hon. Members briefly that a great deal of legislation—very much of it new and reforming—was on the stocks at Stormont when Stormont was suspended, and that legislation had to be brought before the House of Commons.
      The Order in Council system of dealing with Northern Ireland legislation was instituted and proved highly unsatisfactory. It was all right for minor legislation but we had great difficulty, very often late at night, in dealing with highly complex and sometimes massive measures. For example, planning legislation and
      134
      complex planning procedures went through the House by Order in Council early one morning. What was wrong was not so much the brief time available for debate but the fact that there was no possibility of amending the legislation.
      What does the right hon. Gentleman envisage as the kind of legislative programme expected during, say, the next six months? Is there a great deal of legislation awaiting us which would normally have gone to the Assembly? Does it include any matters of great substance? If there be anything like the volume we had during direct rule, or any legislation of comparable importance, there is great force in the amendment. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not use the argument—
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: Not any more.
      Captain Off: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman, because there is an excellent answer to that argument. The Secretary of State has been using the argument that it ill becomes those who opted out of the Assembly on detailed discussions of measures in the Assembly to tell the House of Commons now that we ought to have adequate means of debate. It is one thing for Members of the Assembly to decide that the Executive was improperly formed and to have nothing to do with it; it is quite another for hon. Members of this House, in which Northern Ireland is under-represented, to say, when the Secretary of State brings legislation forward, that their electorate should have proper democratic methods of moving and voting on amendments.
      Even if the Secretary of State cannot accept the amendment as it stands—as I imagine will be the case—he has already said something on Second Reading, but in rather vague terms. When he was in opposition we got the same kind of vague assurances from the then Leader of the House and in the event they came to nothing. What we want from him is an assurance that when it is in mind that a draft Order in Council will be laid, some means will be found for the elected representatives of Northern Ireland to move and vote on amendments which their constituents think important.
      As time goes on, there is bound to be trouble about the legislation which went through this House by the Order in Council procedure. There is no opportunity

      135
      now, other than new legislation, to put that right. The right hon. Gentleman was sympathetic to this argument when in opposition. We used to operate together in deploring the way in which Northern Ireland business was treated. Now that the mantle of this responsibility has fallen upon him, I hope that he will show that same generosity of spirit.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: Hon. Members will know what the order procedure and the urgent procedure entail. We are certainly not faced with the spate of legislation which arose from the Macrory Report, which required large numbers of detailed orders running into many pages. However, before the Summer Recess we shall need an appropriation measure so that Northern Ireland may have some money. I am in a difficult position, but it is in my mind to do this, when the Bill becomes law, by the urgency procedure. I should have thought that few would object to that laudable aim.
      I am also of a mind shortly to deal with the question of social security payments during the strike, which the Executive was given permission to make under the 1926 Act. That matter needs to be tidied up and there will have to be an order on that. We certainly need to do something on the pensions increase. There is no great urgency on that, but it will need to be done by 1st January. There was a measure on its way through the Assembly. It was on exactly the same lines as the English Pensions (Increase) Act and dealt with the pensions of people who retired after 1st January. I am sure that the matter is of great urgency to them and I wish to do something about it.
      Other legislation on, for example, extraterritorial offences and fair employment will arise. But there is not the great spate of legislation which was involved under the previous administration.
      Mr. Biggs-Davison: Shall we have a one-and-a-half hour debate on the appropriation measure?
      8.45 p.m.
      Mr. Rees: That would be a matter for the Leader of the House, but the procedures matter would necessitate only a one-and-a-half hour debate—and very quickly in time.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I take it that the extra-territorial offences legislation arises from the Law Commission's recommendations and that a Bill will be presented.
      Mr. Rees: I was asked about the legislation, not the form which it would take. It would require a Bill to be passed through the House of Commons.
      I sympathise with and understand what is involved in the amendment, but to regulate the House's procedures through a Bill would be the wrong way to proceed. The matter is normally dealt with through the procedures of the House and the Committees which are set up, and it is much better that the matter should be left in that way. How it should be done is a matter for discussion. However, I feel sure that it would not be appropriate to set up a Committee at the fag end of this Session and that it should be left for later in the year. A marginal thing which could be done is that we could place the draft orders in the Library a little earlier so that people might be aware of what was coming through.
      I shall look at the matter most sympathetically. I understand the nature of the problem. I have no idea what events will take place in the autumn, but we should look at the matter when the House returns from the Summer Recess. I do not take precisely the point about the voting procedure and the suggestion that the matter should be voted upon. It would be simple to arrange a Committee in which the vote was always lost. There is nothing clever about that. What matters is that the subject is discussed, and that is what moves me, rather than the question of the voting procedure.
      I am aware that now that there is no Assembly meeting there must be appropriate means of discussion, but it is clear that many major measures will not go through in the form of Bills. That is the matter about which hon. Members are concerned.
      Mr. James Kilfedder: I regard this Bill as a stalling measure. I may be incorrect in saying that, and the Government may be sincere in their intentions. Nevertheless, I cannot see another Assembly being created in Northern Ireland for a considerable time. For that reason, it is vitally important that an Ulster Standing Committee

      137
      should be created in the House of Commons.
      The Secretary of State has said that there is not much Northern Ireland legislation waiting to come forward. The Solicitors (Amendment) Bill went through its Committee stage a short time ago. We have no equivalent measure in Northern Ireland. A Solicitors Bill was being debated in the Northern Ireland Assembly, but it contained no provision for ombudsmen to investigate clients' complaints against solicitors. That measure should be brought quickly before the House, so that Northern Ireland has the benefit of legislation which is available in England. I will not go through the catalogue of legislation, but there is a measure dealing with children which, perhaps not in its present form but in a similar form, should be proceeded with.
      It is totally unsatisfactory that we should have to face a long period during which we shall be unable to amend draft Orders in Council. The right hon. Gentleman says that he will place the orders in the Library beforehand, but he will not withdraw a draft order if any right hon. or hon. Member tells him that it is unsatisfactory.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: What I said was that in the autumn we shall look seriously at this matter. In the short run, which is a matter of weeks, I shall see whether it is possible to put in the Library beforehand any orders which I lay. That will enable Northern Ireland Members to see what is contained in the orders.
      Mr. Kilfedder: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says. I hope that he will consider machinery for the creation of an Ulster Standing Committee to discuss matters which are important to Northern Ireland. We are debating the creation of a constitution for the Province, but the health and prosperity of the Province depend upon legislation which affects Northern Ireland going through this House. We must make sure that reforming legislation brought before the House is debated upstairs.
      Mr. Dalyell: It is exceedingly unsatisfactory that debates on Northern Ireland often take place late at night. I accept the Secretary of State's view that it is difficult to do anything at the fag end of
      138
      the Session, but if changes are to be made preparations have to be undertaken soon, and the sooner the Clerks are told that something may be possible the more likely it is to happen.
      There is a serious case for a Northern Irish Grand Committee along the lines of the Scottish Grand Committee. Although there are many sneers at the Scottish Grand Committee, on the whole the procedure has few disadvantages and many merits. Irish Members will be aware of the complaints made by colleagues about the amount of the House's time that was taken up by Northern Ireland matters last week and again today. They fairly point out that there has been no proper debate on Kilbrandon, oil policy, reactor choice or the negotiations that the Foreign Secretary is conducting on membership of the EEC. If Ulster affairs are debated properly, the time will come when colleagues will say, understandably, that it is not fair on the rest of the House.
      Furthermore, it will be of advantage to Ulster Members to have morning sessions upstairs, because they will then find that, in the nature of Press timings, they will be very much better reported both in evening newspapers and in the Ulster morning papers than they are reported late at night. The arguments about having a Grand Committee on Northern Irish affairs are very seductive.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had long experience when in opposition of dealing with Orders in Council. On many occasions he told the House how many Orders in Council were outstanding, how many pages they occupied, the number of clauses they contained and the late night sittings involved.
      We in Northern Ireland would like to see Northern Irish business worked in the same way as business for any other part of the United Kingdom. We feel that there would be value in having a Standing Committee on Northern Ireland. We pressed the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and also the Leader of the House for such a Committee. We were promised time and again that this matter would be looked into and all parties would be consulted. No party from Northern Ireland was consulted, and

      139
      the proposal died. We never had a Grand Committee for Northern Ireland.
      It worries Northern Ireland Members of Parliament that we are not able to amend Orders in Council. Although many aspects of orders may be favourable to Northern Ireland, there are matters on which we receive representations from constituents. The Minister concerned, no matter how favourable he may be towards us, can give us only nice, pious platitudes on Orders in Council, for they must go through as they stand. Therefore, we welcome what the Secretary of State has said and especially the fact that he will look into the matter. We are probably at the end of the present Parliament, and we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will still take that view if he finds himself in his present office on our return or if he is then in opposition.
      Mr. James Molyneaux: Since I have served on the Scottish Grand Committee, my natural affection for Scotland has increased. I can see the value of such a Committee, although at times I may have been regarded by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) as an obstructionist in legislation affecting Scotland.
      Mr. Dalyell: No.
      Mr. Molyneaux: It was most infuriating when we discussed Orders in Council on planning and on health and social services affecting Northern Ireland to realise that we could not alter by a dot or a comma anything in those measures. Unfortunately, a number of our criticisms expressed in those discussions were later proved to be justified. It looks as though at some time we shall have to find time for amending legislation, Therefore, it would be a step in the right direction if we could have a Committee of sorts and consultation prior to the laying of an order in its final shape.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) need not encourage Ulster Members to get to the House early in the morning to obtain Press publicity. They are well versed in that art without any need for a change in procedure. I shall take very seriously what has been said in this short discussion, whether in my present office
      140
      or in any later guise in carrying on my work for Northern Ireland. I will see that this debate is drawn to the notice of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House straight away.
      9.0 p.m.
      Captain Orr: Although the amendment would be in order if we chose to press it, I take the right hon. Gentleman's point that it is not desirable to alter the procedures of the House by amendment to legislation.
      The Secretary of State says that he does not propose to do anything for the fag end of this Session but that when we come back he intends to consider the two problems to which reference has been made: first, the discussion of legislation before it is drafted, and, secondly, the discussion of a draft before an order is laid. We understand that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind some kind of procedure by which hon. Members representing Northern Ireland can be consulted about a draft and asked whether they wish the draft to be amended, and by which we can discuss amendments before the draft comes before the House. I think that is what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: I mean what I say. Of course I cannot commit my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but this is the view that I shall put forward.
      Captain Orr: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. In the light of that, and in the hope that he will also convey to the Leader of the House our views about the times at which we discuss Orders in Council, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Schedule 1 agreed to.

    Schedule 2

      CONVENTION ON FUTURE GOVERNMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND
      Mr. West: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 7, line 35, leave out seventy-eight' and insert 'eighty-one'
      The Chairman: With this amendment we may discuss Amendment No. 5, in line 43, at end insert
      'except that in the constituencies of Antrim North, Antrim South and Fermanagh and

      141
      South Tyrone one additional member shall be added in each case'.
      Mr. West: The purpose of the amendment is to increase the representation in the Northern Ireland Assembly of the three constituencies referred to in Amendment No. 5.
      I heard the arguments earlier about increased Northern Ireland representation in this House, and I heard the case put forward that it would mean calling in a boundary commission to readjust boundaries. However, the present case is one in which the boundaries do not have to be readjusted. There is an imbalance between the average representation of the other nine constituencies and that of the three to which the amendment refers.
      Antrim, North has a representation of 14,881 constituents per Member. Antrim, South has 14,810 constituents per Member. Fermanagh and South Tyrone has 14,357 constituents per Member. Those figures compare with an average of 13,000 per Member in the other nine constituencies in Northern Ireland. We propose that one additional Member should be given to each of the three constituencies.
      I understand that it is normal British practice to give a greater representation to rural areas where the geographical area is large and the population on the ground is sparse. Fermanagh and South Tyrone, which I represent in this House, is the most rural constituency in Northern Ireland. Geographically, it is the largest constituency. It stretches from Lough Neagh to Belleek. It is peculiar that this is the only constituency out of the 12 that requires a quota of over 9,000. Therefore, I propose that in Antrim, North and Antrim, South and Fermanagh and South Tyrone the schedule should be amended to allow one additional Member for each constituency.
      Mr. Molyneaux: When I questioned the previous Secretary of State about Antrim, South he said that we could not have more representatives because eight was the maximum number fixed for all the constituencies. I could never discover why he should have picked on that magical number. It seemed to be plucked out of the air for no apparent reason. The theory seemed to be that if we had
      142
      more than eight Members there might be a great deal of confusion. I should have thought that, with the peculiar set-up of proportional representation, the size of Antrim, South, with all the interests and different bodies represented that made for the maximum confusion, one more Member would not make all that much difference. Is there any valid reason why the ceiling should still apply after our experience of the last year?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: We are coming back to an old theme. This matter was ventilated on the Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill. We went over the ground then.
      It seems unfair that hon. Members should talk about Stormont's hands not being clean regarding the giving of fair representation to the people of Northern Ireland. That suggestion has been made and refuted in this House. One hon. Gentleman opposite said that all the trouble and bloodshed in Northern Ireland was the result of the minority not being properly represented. The minority representation in the Assembly was exactly the same in percentage figures as in Stormont. A PR, STV or any other electoral system that is fair does not alter the situation one iota. It may strengthen the minority in a majority party, but it does not alter the population of the country. If it did, it would not be a fair electoral system. I do not think that hon. Members should say that Stormont was unfair when the hands of this Parliament have not been strictly clean regarding the number of Members returned to the Assembly.
      My constituency deserves an additional Member. In the previous debate—I have HANSARD here, but I will not weary the Committee by repeating what I said—I pointed out that a minority representative would be returned for Antrim, North. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) knows that the results for Antrim. North showed that there would probably be two Members from his group returned if there were the proper number of seats. In Belfast, West only 11,865 votes are need to return the candidate. However, in Antrim, South another seat should be added on the ratio of the figures, which means that there should be nine representatives for Antrim, South. The same goes for Antrim, North. When we go to Fermanagh and South Tyrone the figures

      143
      show that there should be another representative there. Does the Committee want to be fair? If it does, it should agree to add three seats.
      If this Committee wants minorities to be represented, the Convention should be enlarged to 100 members. That would provide a better opportunity for various people to be represented. It was my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) who suggested that there should be a larger Convention.
      I ask the Secretary of State to consider why it is that North Antrim, South Antrim and Fermanagh and South Tyrone are under-represented in the Convention. There should be equality of representation, and it ill becomes hon. Members to make snide remarks about the old Stormont when they have here an opportunity to remedy the situation but are not prepared to put the matter right.
      We urged this proposition on the previous Secretary of State, and he came up with the magical figure of eight Members. I do not know where he got the figure eight from. I thought that, according to the scriptures, seven was the number of perfection, but the previous Secretary of State evidently went beyond perfection.
      I hope that people will not think that we are asking for three more seats in the sure knowledge that nobody else could win them. In my constituency, the extra seat would probably go to one of the minority parties. As I told the right hon. Gentleman who is now the Minister of State during the previous debate, we are not interested in who will be returned to these seats. We are interested in getting fair play and fair representation.
      I ask the Secretary of State to consider the matter sympathetically tonight to see whether he can do something to help. If he makes this gesture, the people of Northern Ireland will see that he is prepared to give them equal representation in this Convention. We have to realise that this Convention will come up with plans for the future of our Province. I believe that everybody should be fairly represented on the Convention, and I ask the Secretary of State to consider the matter favourably.
      Mr. Kilfedder: I intervene briefly to support the amendment. It is a worthy amendment and the Secretary of State should accept it.
      United Unionists from Northern Ireland are fighting for a fair representation for the people of the Province. What is more, we are virtually asking for extra representatives who will not belong to our party, so that in the Constitutional Convention there will be people who can voice opinions other than our own. It is to our credit that we are fighting for this extra representation, and I hope that the Secretary of State is not smiling, because I am—
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: It is an appreciative smile.
      Mr. Kilfedder: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. Plaid Cymru might interpret it differently.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said, this Convention will shape the future of our Province. He referred to the fact that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) suggested that there should be 100 Members. In the previous debate I advocated a Convention of 150 members.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is paying us one of his rare visits. The hon. Gentleman has woken out of his sleep, and I am glad to see him here, asleep or not. When I advocate 150 members the hon. Gentleman is afraid that there will be elected to the Convention to represent the minority people who do not belong to that misnamed Social Democratic and Labour Party. They thought up a name that would take in everybody. He is afraid that the minority will be represented by people other than the SDLP.
      9.15 p.m.
      I tabled an amendment asking that the present membership should be doubled to 156. In reply I had a letter saying that the Chairman of Ways and Means regretted that he was unable to select my manuscript amendment. I am sorry that it was not accepted. I put it forward in all sincerity. People may think "Why have 150 people sitting in Stormont when there were only 52 in the old Stormont Parliament and 78 in the Assembly?" But we are not here providing for an

      145
      assembly. We are providing for a body of men and women who will, I trust, try to work out with good will an arrangement satisfactory to the majority and minority.
      It would be worth the Government's spending extra money to give the salaries to the additional Members. We should then have not only the DUP, Vanguard Unionist and SDLP but representatives of other people who perhaps would not reach the present quota. It is sad that when we want everybody represented in the Convention we shall not have enough people there.
      Unless every spectrum of opinion is represented in the Convention—people we may not approve of—they will afterwards say "We had no part in shaping that constitution. We reject it in the name of the people." That is why I put forward the notion that we should double the number of Members. As that amendment was cast aside by the Chairman of Ways and Means, I have pleasure in supporting the proposition that there should be three additional Members.
      Mr. Flit: The Committee has just been subjected to the most ludicrous set of arguments we have ever heard. There is a sizeable minority of people in Northern Ireland who do not want increased representation in either the House of Commons or the Convention.
      The amendment allegedly asks for an extra three Members of the Convention. We have been told of the magnanimity of the right hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West) who says that the seats may go to his political opponents. Whether or not that happens, Northern Ireland must be the most expensive part of the United Kingdom to govern. If there were 150 Members, as the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) would like, it would rise to 200, and there would be representatives of the North Down Harriers Association and the Crossmaglen Greyhound Association. People would be desperately seeking names to make them eligible for a seat.
      We see the crocodile tears of the hon. Member for Down, North, who is desperately afraid that minorities in Northern Ireland may not be able to express their view on a Constitutional Convention. What has been happening these past 50 years? Under Unionism minorities in
      146
      Northern Ireland were trampled into the ground. Now all of a sudden we have this great change of heart and the hon. Member wants all the minorities, all the pigeon clubs and the darts clubs represented in this Convention. This amendment should be rejected with the contempt it deserves.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). This proposal was put forward in 1973 when the previous administration was introducing what is now the 1973 Constitution Act. In the constituency of the hon. Member 11,865 voters can return one Member to the Assembly or to the Convention, whereas it takes 14,394 voters to do so in South Antrim. For him to say that it is arrant nonsense for us to put forward this proposal is to fly in the face of his profession of civil rights for the people.
      I said in 1973, before there was an Assembly, that the number of people returning Members to the Assembly, and now to the Convention, should be the same all over Northern Ireland. Why should my people in North Antrim not be entitled to another Member? Why should the hon. Gentleman's constituency have a special privilege? Is he so worried about the result of the election? It would be far better to have more people attending the Convention. The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that as many people as possible should be at the conference table so that every possible view can be put. We are simply saying, and we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) that you, Mr. Thomas, have ruled out his amendment and we cannot speak on it—
      The Chairman: Order. I did not rule it out. I did not select it. There is a difference. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) spoke to his amendment as he was able, under the terms of this amendment.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I defer to your ruling, Mr. Thomas. I am glad that the way in which you ruled the amendment out was by saying that it was not selected. It lets us down a little easier but it is the same thing in the long run.
      This is an important issue. The House of Commons has lectured the people of

      147
      Northern Ireland and we have been told that the Unionist Party in Stormont jackbooted the people and would not give them votes and so on. The same percentage was returned to the Assembly as to the old Stormont. I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I say that Governments can change the electoral system, they can have PR, the list system, whatever system they like, but if people are in the majority they will come out as a majority.
      Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has raised an important issue of cost. We see from paragraph 14 of the schedule that remuneration is to be at the rate of £2,500 a year. Those who come from Ulster must realise that if 78 people or 81 people, or whatever, are paid £2,500 a year for being Members of the Convention some people on this side of the water will begin to ask a few questions.
      The Strathclyde region of Scotland, give or take a few thousand, has roughly the same population as Ulster. There are people on the Strathclyde council who will be spending as many hours doing council work—particularly if they hold convenorships of committees, and so on—as many of those who attend the Convention. Therefore, the question of costs is legitimate. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) was quite fair in that on a previous occasion I made something of a meal of the fact that everyone ought to be represented. I would hope that the various shades of minority opinion are represented, and not least the men of violence on both sides, by those who are most congenial to them. Therefore, there is an argument on the other side as well.
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: Questions of the size of constituencies and under-representation and over-representation are not applicable merely to Northern Ireland. One of the first Bills that I had to pilot through the House in the 1966 Parliament was about a procedure arising out of a Boundary Commission report and based on the fact that those reports are often five years out of date in their population projections. Something then had to be done for a certain number of very large constituencies in this country. It did not happen to receive universal praise at the
      148
      time, but it was based on the fact that there were grave differences, as there are now, in the United Kingdom. This matter does not relate only to Northern Ireland. The Meriden constituency has an elecorate of about 100,000. The Brigg constituency has about 90,000. I think that there are constituencies of over 100,000 but I have not checked, so I do not offer any as examples. I see one hon. Member shaking his head. There are arguments based on the fact that the figures given in The Times book are always out of date. They are always based on the last Boundary Commission report, for obvious reasons.
      First, therefore, there are differences in size, and there are differences between city constituencies and rural constituencies. With the suburban developments and new town developments in the United Kingdom as a whole there are bound to be differences in size. It would be impossible to achieve a situation in which that was not so.
      The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) quite successfully sought to argue the case for 150 seats. I am not necessarily agreeing with his argument, but he put it forward. However, he then fell back on the 78 figure. Three is better than the extra 80 for which he argued originally. The extra three seats, while proportionately supporting his argument, do not add up to a great deal. I concede that if it were 30 or 40 extra seats it would be a different argument, but we are talking about three extra seats, for Antrim, North, Antrim, South and Fermanagh and South Tyrone.
      Everyone has been talking about the Newfoundland Convention. In my historical searchings since we drew up the White Paper—I assure hon. Members that it was not before then—I was looking at another Convention held in Ireland in 1918. Strange as it may seem, it consisted of 78 members, so there may be some biblical connection, or something about the figures 7 and 8 or 8 and 7. But 78 it was.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Did the right hon. Gentleman read about the Hibernians?
      Mr. Rees: I shall not go any further than saying that 78 seems to have some connection with Ireland.

      149
      The existing provision of the Bill is based, quite simply, on the existing provisions for the Northern Ireland Assembly. That Assembly was created by the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973 and was then given 78 members, allocated between the 12 constituencies in the way set out in the Schedule to that Act. The Northern Ireland Assembly Act was separate from the main Bill, for what I regarded as very good reasons, because it was a suggestion that I put forward which the then Government accepted; but they both knit together to make the procedures for the Assembly. The Northern Ireland Constitution Act, which followed the Assembly Act, introduced a provision to enable the number of Members returned to the Assembly by each constituency to be amended. The procedure chosen was to permit the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland to make a supplementary report on the membership of the Assembly in the course of its normal examination of constituencies in Northern Ireland.
      9.30 p.m.
      The Boundary Commission's prime terms of reference are to advise on the boundaries for parliamentary constituencies for the purpose of elections to the House of Commons. The commission makes reports on these boundaries for 10 to 15 years, which means that the next Westminster re-boundarying will be in about 1980. I know that from what happened under the previous administration, because I was interested in this matter and tabled a Question at that time.
      As the boundaries on which the number of constituencies is based were the same, it was thought by the previous administration that the same Boundary Commission should be charged with the duty of considering, in the course of its normal consideration of boundaries, what changes, if any, were required to the representation in each constituency in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      It would require a change in the Act whereby the Boundary Commission could do it in a number of years' time—say, by 1979 or 1980. Section 28(2) provided that changes in the numbers should be hooked on to the Boundary Commission changes which would be made by the Westminster Act.
      Captain Orr: I am not a lawyer. The right hon. Gentleman's argument appears to be misconceived. What Section 28(2) is dealing with is simply where the Boundary Commission is, in its normal course, dealing with the ordinary constituency boundaries for the House of Commons. This legislation is absolutely necessary. Obviously it would have to do something about the constituencies for the Assembly. It was a piece of legislation which was vital. It would not be affected if the Secretary of State simply took the power by Order in Council to alter the schedule to the Constitution Act. His argument about the difference in constituency sizes for the House of Commons is totally irrelevant.
      Mr. Rees: I do not think that it is irrelevant. It is the same argument—that there are differences. In the Constitution Act the previous administration decided—I think rightly—that changes in the numbers should be considered when the Boundary Commission was looking at the size of constituencies in Northern Ireland. I admit that I could introduce legislation, no doubt in advance of the Northern Ireland Grand Committee which would look at it in detail later in the year.
      I would not want—nor do I believe that any politician would want—to say to civil servants "Look at that constituency. Let us get an extra number there." It must be done outside the purview of politicians. We have always done it through boundary commissioners or, following reports of boundary commissions, through legislation.
      There used to be a separate Northern Ireland Boundary Commission. If the amendment were accepted, I do not believe that there could be an election for about a year, because I would put all the seats in Northern Ireland up to the Boundary Commissioners. Not only Antrim, North and Antrim, South and Fermanagh and South Tyrone are affected. It is not my job as Secretary of State to alter the number of seats in Northern Ireland; that is the job of the Boundary Commissioners. If the amendment is passed, it will delay elections even more.
      Captain Orr: The Secretary of State is making a very odd argument. He is saying that because the Boundary Commission has power to make changes, when

      151
      constituency boundaries are being redrawn the Boundary Commission should amend the number of Members in the schedule, and that that has always been done by the Boundary Commission. He is saying that in his opinion that situation should continue. Was the schedule originally drawn up by the Boundary Commission?
      Mr. Rees: In the first place it was drawn up by the Boundary Commission—that is, the figure of 78—in the spirit of the Act. This is not a job for me. If I were to start on it, others would be asking for this representation. The matter is best left to the commission.
      Captain Orr: I can see certain pragmatic reasons, but no reason in law or logic, why the right hon. Gentleman should go to the Boundary Commission to make these minor changes. I do not think that his arguments are good, and it appears to me that the case made by my hon. Friends has been made in equity. I cannot hear any complaints from anywhere else, and I would have thought that the change could easily be made by administrative action. I hope that my hon. Friends will continue to press the matter.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State has played around with the figure of 78 as though it came out of the air. However, there were 52 seats in the old Parliament and 26 seats in the Senate. The two were added together, which is why we now have 78 seats. The decision to divide Northern Ireland into 78 seats was made not by the Boundary Commission but arbitrarily by the Secretary of State. We are now asking whether this Parliament can do something to give fairer representation. Should not this Parliament be leading the way?
      Mr. Rees: Arbitrary though that decision may have been, it would now be wrong for another Secretary of State to take another arbitrary decision. The decision should go through the Boundary Commission and not be applied just to the three constituencies that have been mentioned.
      If the amendment were to be pressed successfully, it has been calculated that the election could not take place for
      152
      more than a year. Perhaps that is what hon. Gentlemen want.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman says that it would be an arbitrary decision, but he would be looking at the facts. The previous Secretary of State had no regard for anything but the Senate and the Northern Ireland Parliament. He added the total seats together and came up with the figure of 78. We said earlier that that should be looked at. It was discovered that South Antrim, North Antrim and Fermanagh and South Tyrone had too many electors. If the House carried the amendment tonight, the Boundary Commission would have nothing to do with it.
      Mr. Dalyell: After all the odium that he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) went through in the mid-1960s and the unjust attacks upon them of fudging the Boundary Commission, I can well understand that my right hon. Friend is sensitive on this issue. I should like to ask a factual question. Is it the Boundary Commission that makes these decisions? Is there any difference between the Boundary Commission operating on the Convention, which we have been led to believe is of a temporary nature, and the Boundary Commission operating in circumstances that are far more permanent? I have sat here for the last 10 minutes a little alarmed about another matter. Here we are talking about things that are far more permanent than we were led to believe three or four hours ago. That is the fear that I have.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I repeat what I said last week, that I have always respected the fairness of the Secretary of State. I believe that he acts in what he believes are the best interests in Northern Ireland, but, again, he has misinterpreted Section 28(2). It seems to me that the provision at the end of that subsection is simply a consequential action following the normal course of the Boundary Commission's activities in periodic revision of boundaries, and that when it simply redraws constituency boundaries it then introduces a supplementary report dealing with the Northern Ireland Assembly representation. It is as simple as that. But it does not seem to say anywhere that the Secretary of State shall not, on the basis of the existing constituency

      153
      boundaries, vary representation in the Assembly or the Convention.
      Mr. Kilfedder: The Secretary of State said that I had abandoned my claim for 150 seats and was supporting a claim for three. Of course, I am in no position to press the Committee to a Division on 150. I still believe that 150 is the right figure, and I was only hoping that the Secretary of State, wishing to take in a wide stretch of opinion, would accept my recommendation. The other point I wish to make is that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has left after his brief intervention.
      Mr. Dalyell: Will my right hon. Friend simply confirm whether this is a question for the Boundary Commission or for the Secretary of State?
      Mr. Merlyn Rees: All I am saying is that Section 28(2) of the Constitution Act hooks the matter on to the Boundary Comission, and subsection (3) says that
      "The recommendations in a supplementary report shall not be such as substantially to alter the number of members specified in section 1(1) of the said Act of 1973 (total number of members of Assembly); and those recommendations shall be such as to secure, so far as practicable, that the ratio of the electorate of each constituency to the number of members to be returned by that constituency is the same in every constituency."
      I believe that the previous Government were right. They took their decision on 78 and that in future the matter should be handled by the Boundary Commissioners. If I were to take this matter
      on I could not do it simply for three seats, because there are 12 constituencies. I realise that the leader of the official Unionists is keen that the Secretary of State shall never get involved in these things but that they should be left to an independent person. I cannot be independent. That is not my rôle in terms of dealing with these matters. I must advise the House that these questions should be left to the Boundary Commission.
      Mr. Ian Gilmour: I welcome the Secretary of State's conversion to the belief that these matters should be left to the Boundary Commission and not interfered with parliamentarily. We all remember very well what happened in the 1965–70 revision. It happened to benefit me personally very much, but it was a most unfortunate piece of gerrymandering by time rather than by district. While I understand the arguments that have been put from my side of the Committee, I welcome the principle of the Secretary of State not deciding the number of seats as more important, and therefore the slight mathematical unfairness, which I concede exists, seems to be less important than having the Secretary of State follow the recommendations of the Boundary Commission.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 131.

      Division No. 82.]

      AYES

      [9.45 p.m.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      McCusker, H.

      Bradford, Rev. R.

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.)

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Mr. James Molyneaux and

      Dunlop, John

      Taylor, Edward M. (Glgow, C'cart)

      Capt. L. P. S. Orr.

      Fairgrieve, Russell

      West, Rt. Hn. Harry

      Kilfedder, James A.

      NOES

      Armstrong, Ernest

      Colquhoun, Mrs. M. N.

      Ennals. David

      Ashton, Joe

      Conlan, Bernard

      Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

      Atkins, Ronald

      Cook, Robert F. (Edinburgh, C.)

      Evans, loan (Aberdare)

      Atkinson, Norman

      Cox, Thomas

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Bates, Alf

      Craigen, J. M. (G'gow, Maryhill)

      Ewing, Harry (St'ling, F'kirk & G'm'th)

      Beith, A. J.

      Cronin, John

      Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

      Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Davidson, Arthur

      Flannery, Martin

      Bishop, E. S.

      Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)

      Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

      Blenkinsop, Arthur

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

      Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

      Booth, Albert

      Doig, Peter

      Ford, Ben

      Broughton, Sir Alfred

      Dormand, J. D.

      Fowler, Gerry (The Wrekin)

      Brown, Hugh D. (Glasgow, Provan)

      Dunn, James A.

      Galpern, Sir Myer

      Buchan, Norman

      Dunnett, Jack

      Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

      Callaghan, Jim (M'dd'ton & Pr'wich)

      Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

      George, Bruce

      Clemitson, Ivor

      Eadie, Alex

      Graham, Ted

      Cocks, Michael

      Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

      Grant, George (Morpeth)

      Cohen, Stanley

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Coleman, Donald

      English, Michael

      Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

      Harper, Joseph

      Marks, Kenneth

      Spearing, Nigel

      Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

      Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Hatton, Frank

      Mendelson, Jonn

      Stallard, A. W.

      Hooley, Frank

      Millan, Bruce

      Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)

      Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

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

      Strang, Gavin

      Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Moyle, Roland

      Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley

      Hughes, Mark (Durham)

      Murray, Ronald King

      Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy

      Hughes, Roy (Newport)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Tierney, Sydney

      Hunter, Adam

      O'Malley, Brian

      Tinn, James

      John, Brynmor

      Orme, Rt. Hn. Stanley

      Tomlinson, John

      Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)

      Ovenden, John

      Tyler, Paul

      Jones, Dan (Burnley)

      Palmer, Arthur

      Urwin, T. W.

      Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)

      Park, George (Coventry, N.E.)

      Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)

      Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

      Pavitt, Laurie

      Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)

      Kaufman, Gerald

      Pendry, Tom

      Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

      Lamborn, Harry

      Perry, Ernest G.

      Watkins, David

      Lamond, James

      Prescott, John

      Whitlock, William

      Latham, Arthur (City of W'minster P'ton)

      Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

      Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)

      Lawson, George (Motherwell & Wishaw)

      Roderick, Caerwyn E.

      Wise, Mrs. Audrey

      Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

      Rodgers, George (Chorley)

      Woodall, Alec

      Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

      Rooker, J. W.

      Woof, Robert

      Loyden, Eddie

      Rose, Paul B.

      Young, David (Bolton, E.)

      McCartney, Hugh

      Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

      MacFarquhar, Roderick

      Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Mackenzie, Gregor

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mr. John Golding and

      McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)

      Small, William

      Mr. Walter Johnson.

      Madden, M. O. F.

      Snape, Peter

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Captain Orr: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 36, at end insert:
      'and
      (c) Members of the House of Commons for constituencies in Northern Ireland'.
      The amendment speaks for itself. It simply proposes that Members of the House of Commons who represent Northern Ireland constituencies should automatically be members of the Convention.
      It appears that the Secretary of State will opt out. We have had considerable discussion about the chairmanship of the Convention and it seems that the right hon. Gentleman will not be in the chair. But it is important to the Convention that it should contain people with experience of the House of Commons and who have views about what might or might not be acceptable to the House of Commons in order to advise the Convention.
      We who represent Northern Ireland constituencies fit into both categories. We are the most freshly elected people in Northern Ireland. In addition, some of us have considerable experience of the House of Commons. Even those who have recently become Members of the House of Commons have, as a result of our debates here, been able to learn something about it and about what might be acceptable to the House of Commons. It would be sensible if people who represented Northern Ireland constituencies had the right to attend the Convention,
      156
      to listen to the arguments and to give the Convention advice from time to time.
      Mr. Beith: The experience of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) is well known and well respected, but I find it difficult to follow his argument. If he felt the need for what he proposes, he could stand for election to the Convention and might be elected. But it would be far from desirable to add to the Convention a block of Members who, in their representation, were very much less proportional than the Convention would be. It would, in effect, distort the representation of the Convention if a block of Members from the House of Commons were added to it.
      The hon. and gallant Gentleman made a point which was different from the point of the amendment when he suggested that it might be possible for Members of the House of Commons who have an obvious interest in the matter under discussion to attend the Convention but not to be Members of it. It is difficult to understand the case simply for adding a group of 12 Members, elected under the Westminster system, to the proportionally-elected Convention.
      The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle): I wish to reply to the amendment in the spirit in which the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) moved it.
      The hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he would like Members of the

      157
      House of Commons to be in the Convention so that they could advise the Convention about what would be acceptable to the House of Commons. We have given the parameters in the White Paper, but the alternative has already been put forward by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith): namely, that if the people of Northern Ireland felt that it would be of advantage for Members of the House of Commons to advise the Convention they could elect such Members as offered themselves for election to the Convention where they would be able to make constructive contributions.
      That would have the advantage of allowing them to give advice and to attend the debates and, as the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said, it would not distort the representation of the Convention, which would be directly answerable to the Northern Ireland electorate. The great thing about adopting that solution is that Parliament would not tell the electorate of Northern Ireland who should represent them in the Convention, even to a moderate degree; the people of Northern Ireland would decide that for themselves.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I find it hard to believe that the spokesman for the Liberal Party should be so much against the amendment, because his Leader put it forward when we discussed the Northern Ireland Assembly—
      It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to re port Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report progress.

      CONVENTION ON FUTURE GOVERNMENT OF NORTHERN IRELAND

        BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
        Ordered,
        That the Northern Ireland Bill, the Policing of Airports Bill, the Railways Bill and the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Walter Johnson.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND BILL
  Again considered in Committee.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know whether this is the first time that the Minister of State has been at the Dispatch Box, but I congratulate him on his appointment to office. I hope to meet him in Stormont Castle because I have many constituency problems for him.
  The Members of the Convention will not be answerable to their constituencies because they will not be seeking further election, whereas Members of this Parliament have to resubmit themselves to their constituents who would be able to decide whether or not their Members adequately represented them. I understand that when the Convention finishes its work it ends and its membership is cancelled.
  Captain Orr: In the light of the discussion we have had, and, as it is obvious that the Minister has not been in the least impressed by my comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Michael English: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 7, line 37, leave out from second 'the' to end of line 43 and insert:
  'electors of Northern Ireland under a list system of proportional representation'.
  I need not detail the House long in arguing this case because I have given the details of it on a previous occasion.
  I am wholly in favour of the principle of the Bill. In my last speech on this subject I said that I hoped that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would do what he is doing; namely, set up a body in Northern Ireland with which to consult, so that the people of Northern Ireland through their representatives could give advice and ultimately decide how they wanted the Province to be run. That provision is in the Bill, and that is why I did not speak in the Second Reading debate.
  I also said that I believed that the election should be under a list system of proportional representation, because that is a fair system, but that provision is not included in the Bill. Even Liberal Members privately, not publicly, are coming to realise that the single transferable vote system is not a proportional representation system. The result of the last election in the Republic proves that. The vote for Fianna Fail went up to 51 per cent. on first preference and Fianna Fail lost. That illustrates the proportionality of the system. I accept that theoretically the STV system would be proportional if all the constituencies were abolished and the system were extended to the whole of Northern Ireland, but it would still be a silly system because one ends up by supporting the man in the middle.
  Since that time I have asked the leaders of all political groups in Northern Ireland, whether elected or not, for their opinion. I have not had a reply from them all, but I understand there is a substantial measure of agreement that there should be a proportional representation system of this type.
  It is perhaps worth noting that the only party with a substantial representation which has written to me objecting to this system is the Alliance Party, and
  160
  I have a letter from Mr. Napier to that effect. This does not surprise me, because if somebody is being under-represented in due proportion—in this case perhaps the extremist parties—somebody else must be over-represented. It is most likely to be the Alliance Party, which strongly objects to the change.
  I should like to know whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consulted every party in Northern Ireland, as I did, what were their views, and whether he found it as easy as the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw) said it would be to convert to proportional representation. It could be better if we had a system that represented in exact proportion to its votes every view in Northern Leland rather than the present system, which is not a proportional representation system.
  Mr. Beith: We all recognise the erudition of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) in the matter of proportional representation. We also sympathise with his present discomfort and hope that he will soon recover. We have all experienced over a period of time the extent to which the hon. Gentleman's purity of thought on matters of proportional representation may seem to confuse the issue. The hon. Gentleman uses the term "proportional representation" most carefully and has mentioned the list system; but he fails to recognise that proportional representation is relative in the extent to which it is provided in the various systems, and that the single transferable vote system provides a high degree of relative proportionality and combines with it a constituency link—in other words, the ability of Members to represent constituencies for each of which there is a group of Members. The constituency link is often advanced as the major feature of our own traditional system. It is about the only thing one can say in its favour, but it certainly represents an argument for a system with a high degree of proportionality which preserves an element of constituency contact for a Member. It can be argued that the Constitutional Convention has not so great a need for the constituency link as has a permanent assembly dealing with administrative matters. But in the Northern Ireland situation, this advantage, having

  161
  been brought to the Assembly elections, it is now a system to which people have become accustomed. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman asked the Minister to say how quickly Northern Ireland had accustomed itself to the STV system and how smoothly the election had proceeded.
  The list system has the strong disadvantage that it tends to place power in the hands of the party organisations which draw up the lists and so limits the ability of the electors to choose between the various elements. Clearly that was a choice exercised in the election to the Assembly. In that case, the STV system enabled electors to choose certain of the Unionists before them, for example, in preference to some of the others. At those elections certain individuals lost and certain others polled very well as a result of their reputations.
  The STV system in Northern Ireland has shown that it has many advantages. In the Assembly elections it represented accurately the proportions cast in the first preference votes. I find no argument for changing it at this stage.
  Mr. Moyle: My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) was right not to go into the details of his amendment, because I had already taken the trouble to read the speech that he made on 16th April during our debates on the Northern Ireland Assembly Bill and made myself conversant with the general drift of his arguments.
  There is one difference between this amendment and the one that my hon. Friend moved last year. His amendment last year was designed to give the benefits of the list system plus an opportunity to choose an individual candidate. On this occasion, he has decided to go for the list system without saying that there should be an opportunity to pick a particular candidate. In the circumstances, that might be regarded as a defect in terms of the selection that an elector may exercise, although it means greater simplicity in the electoral process.
  The fundamental argument for the single transferable vote is that recently there have been changes in Northern Ireland from time to time. We selected the process of the single transferable vote
  162
  for the Assembly elections. That operated for the last Assembly elections. Unless there were very powerful arguments against it, we believe that it would be wrong at this stage to remove that system and to adopt a list system, however mathematically attractive it might be.
  For that reason, we wish to stick mainly to the STV. The proposal to change it might delay the opportunity to hold elections and would possibly take up some further legislative time. I do not think that we can rush into a matter like this without consultations in the Northern Ireland community generally.
  For all those reasons, we prefer to stick to the single transferable vote. In saying that, I am probably not surprising my hon. Friend, but those are the arguments on which we base our attitude.
  Mr. English: I do not think that the effect of my amendment is that which my hon. Friend has described. If it is, that was not my intention. By the amendment, I intended merely to direct my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—in making the various regulations which we always have to have in order to set up an electoral system—to create a list system. In trying to keep my remarks brief, it may be that I did not explain that I had not changed my views, and that is the answer to the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
  In some countries where list systems exist, they have the highly centralised system which the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed took as the extreme example. But it is possible, and common in the more democratic countries, to have a list system in which the voter is allowed to vote, apart from the party, for a person on the party list, so putting the list in order and so deciding who gets elected and who does not.
  Such a system cannot operate readily in very large countries. But we are not discussing a very large country. In practice, an enormous number of people in Northern Ireland are familiar with their politicians all over the Province, just as in Israel or in the Netherlands people are in close communities where that is possible. It was not my intention to deprive the voter of his choice of candidate as well as party. I hope that is clear.

  163
  10.15 p.m.
  I turn now to the remainder of my hon. Friend's remarks. I made this point to the previous Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Penrith and the Border (Mr. Whitelaw), who went far towards saying that it was not his desire that we did not have a list system. I made the point again last year, as my hon. Friend said, and I made it again a few weeks ago in the first debate on this subject in this Parliament. Contrary to the remarks of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, I suggest that if he looks at the figures he will see that the real extremists in Northern Ireland would have gained one seat apiece under a truly proportional system.
  Mr. Beith: With 1·8 per cent. of the votes?
  Mr. English: With 1·8 per cent. of the votes and 78 seats they would clearly have gained a seat. Therefore, they would have had one person capable of expressing their view by legal means. That is the point. That is partly what is not happening. We all see the dangers of over-representing the moderates, which is what the STV system is inclined to do, and of under-representing the extremists by legal means. The dangers are obvious. People in that situation will take extralegal means if they have no legal means of expressing their view.
  It is also true that in Westminster we get a false impression about who is governing Northern Ireland. That is a situation that we have only recently seen with the fall of the Executive. I will not go into detail. I merely wanted to answer that point. I regret my hon. Friend's decision.
  Nevertheless, having made my point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 8, line 3, after 'instrument', insert 'but such date shall not be later than 31st December 1974'.
  It is vital that Northern Ireland has the Convention brought into being as quickly as possible. The people of Northern
  164
  Ireland for the past 50 years or more have had recourse to a Parliament and an Assembly, and the absence of representatives in a devolved Parliament or Assembly is a great psychological blow at this time.
  I should like to expand the argument by drawing attention to two important factors. The first is the need to control and assist local government by an assembly. That assembly would be brought into being very soon if we could have our Convention quickly. The assembly is needed to control and assist local government. At present we have two Ministers of State, two Under-Secretaries and a Secretary of State who cannot possibly cope with all the work that is being brought to their attention.
  I will illustrate the situation by giving one or two examples. There is a tremendous need to stimulate interest in the great housing problem in Northern Ireland and to produce some concrete results in terms of community amenities. This is absent, and we believe that the sooner there is a Convention that will lead to an assembly the sooner will local government be controlled and assisted to produce these dire needs and necessities.
  The second reason for wanting the Convention to be brought into being immediately and to produce a new legislative body as quickly as possible is the need for security. The present political vacuum affords the subversives tremendous opportunities. They see this vacuum as an expression of the weakness, confusion and impotence both of this Parliament and of any proposed assembly in Northern Ireland.
  The Convention will be much concerned with security problems. It must tackle immediately the great problems of policing, of the UDR and of the proposed Home Guard. All these security matters must be discussed urgently, and this can be done only if the Convention is brought into being as rapidly as possible.
  Whether one likes it or not, the Convention will have to consider the dreadful problem of the bomber in Belfast and other rural towns. The absence of a Convention projects the feeling of weakness, of confusion and of impotence, and it seems to me that we must quickly dispel these misconceptions. The Convention will need to consider not only

  165
  policing, the UDR and the Home Guard, but the return of capital punishment for those who are guilty of maiming or killing through the planting of bombs. Only by the Convention dealing immediately with security and by the assembly that will follow pursuing the matter can we get across to the subversives in Northern Ireland that their tactics will never pay.
  I believe that the Parliament of Northern Ireland, however that Parliament expresses itself, will be impatient to come to terms with terrorism because of the social and economic problems and because of the security issues, but we must stress that social and economic stability is completely dependent upon successful security measures. These measures are needed immediately, and only the immediate setting up of the Convention will satisfy the people of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Dalyell: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave us to understand earlier in the day that some feeling had been expressed that perhaps it would not be a good idea to hold the elections in the immediate future. A number of us believe that there is every reason for holding them as soon as possible, so that the situation should not fester. I hope to hear from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State convincing reasons why we should not go ahead at the earliest possible moment.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Just in case the Minister of State might think that there was any slacking by the United Ulster Unionists about the call for an election, I should like to put the record straight. The elected representatives to this House, the United Ulster Unionists, are one in this matter.
  It is also true that, while the right hon. Gentleman may have heard representations from some people connected with the Ulster Workers Council, the council as a body has called for an immediate General Election, and it has also said that it was the purpose of its strike to have an election as soon as possible.
  The amendment leaves it until the end of the year. That is reasonable. Certain spadework has to be done. If people want to get their political organisations going, well and good, but we are saying that the election must be this year. I agree with the hon. Member for West
  166
  Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that it should be as soon as possible, for as soon as the people have the opportunity to send their spokesmen to the Convention, and as soon as the Convention can get under way, the vacuum will have been filled in a measure. I think that the Minister will agree that it would be better to have the talks as soon as possible.
  The vast majority of people in Northern Ireland feel that there should be elections. The Minister of State would be doing a service to the country by heeding the voice of the elected representatives and giving us an assurance that the elections will be held before the end of the year. I know that there are difficulties, with an election to this House pending. Some people may say that it would be a bad thing to have an election in Northern Ireland before the election here. I am not sure about that. After an election in Northern Ireland, the parties could go to the country and say "The Northern Ireland people are down to business around the conference table at least to try to find a constitution for themselves."
  The Secretary of State for Defence has said publicly that the election must probably be early in October. The Government are probably saying that if that is so the Northern Ireland elections must be later, but we are asking for them before the end of the year, which is reasonable. We would not ask the right hon. Gentleman to call them on Christmas Day.
  Some of the parties whose representatives were elected to the Assembly were not invited to the Oxford conference. They would have refused anyway, but they did not have the opportunity. Representatives of a foreign country were present, a country which is now taking action against the Government here on allegations of torture, and which has as its chief witness the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). How can he reconcile that with the oath of allegiance he took when he entered the House? How can he give evidence against this Government and this Parliament on behalf of a foreign country? However. I shall not stress that matter tonight.
  We need an election, and we are still calling for one, although we are not at Stormont Castle every day knocking on the door about the matter. We are knocking at the door on other matters vital

  167
  to our constituents. We are still united, and I believe that we speak for the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland I am sure that the Minister will pay attention to this call.
  10.30 p.m.
  Sir Michael Havers: It will be recalled that on Second Reading I was anxious to get an undertaking from the Minister of State that the Convention, once established, would be able to report as soon as possible. It is right that I should express my view that we think that this amendment is unrealistic. In the present political climate no one knows what the position may be towards the autumn.
  The months of August and September would obviously be unrealistic months in which to hold the election for the Convention, even if all the procedures could be set up in that time. It would be wrong in those circumstances to attempt to fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State, whoever he may be in the autumn. It would also be wrong to impose upon Northern Ireland what might well be two elections within six weeks or two months. For those reasons I say that it would be wrong for the discretion of the Secretary of State to be fettered in the way proposed.
  Mr. Orme: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) for his kind words. He has put his finger on the crucial point. There is nothing to prevent the Secretary of State from holding elections before 31st December. We have not adopted this procedure so that we can say that there will not be elections for two years or some such time. As soon as elections can be held in what we consider to be unfettered conditions they will be held. We have to take into account the problems of a possible Westminster General Election and the effects of that upon the electorate in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) moved the amendment in a reasonable way but strayed on to the security situation and said that the Convention ought to be discussing that issue. I do not need to remind him that the responsibility for security in all its aspects rests with the Westminster Government. That is not the business of the Convention at this stage.
  Captain Orr: If the Minister intends that the Convention should be reasonably unfettered it would surely be possible for those in the Convention, when it meets to argue that control of the police and of internal security ought to rest with whatever institution is set up in the future. In that respect internal security could reasonably be discussed.
  Mr. Orme: If the hon. and gallant Members wants me to reiterate the words of my right hon. Friend, that no doubt the policing of Northern Ireland will be discussed in the Assembly, I will gladly do so.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State told us, in discussing the White Paper, that the matter of policing would certainly be discussed in the Convention.
  Mr. Orme: I think the hon. Member is misinterpreting the situation. I was dealing with a question from the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr). My right hon. Friend said the Convention would not necessarily, by prescription, discuss these matters, but it would not be prevented from doing so. If members of the Convention wanted to discuss such matters it would be within their rights to do so.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, South also raised the problem of the duties which the Government will have during temporary direct rule. He referred to the two crucial issues of housing, which will be the responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, and community relations, which will be the responsibility of my noble Friend the Under-Secretary.
  I cannot see how the Convention affects these issues. It will not be there to discuss these matters. Rather it will discuss the political issues. It will be trying to arrive at proposals for a new form of government in Northern Ireland which will encompass these issues. If the hon. Gentleman or any of his hon. Friends or members of his party are elected to the Convention, they will be responsible for discussing the specific political issues for which the terms of the Convention have been drawn up. That will not prevent members of the Convention being able to operate and represent their constituents in a way which would be acceptable to this Parliament and Government.
  Mr. Bradford: My point was that it was important to get the Convention under way because we cannot have the legislative body, be it a Parliament or an Assembly, until the Convention has successfully concluded. In a debate in 1973 on the then proposed constitution, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said that it was vital that the Assembly in Northern Ireland should have control over local government even if it meant executive control being postponed for some time. I represent a very largely residential constituency. It contains some very palatial homes, but also many dreadful housing conditions, and I am thinking particularly about that problem. Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that if we do not begin the Convention and successfully conclude it and bring into being a legislative assembly of some kind these deplorable problems will not be tackled as expeditiously as they ought to be?
  Mr. Orme: We welcome the hon. Gentleman's pressure for speed in getting some form of legislative assembly established in which these matters can be discussed. But I assure him that if he makes representations to the appropriate Ministers who will be operating under the present Government in the intermediate period, matters raised will be looked at urgently and sympathetically. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's idea—it is also the Government's idea—that the Convention and temporary direct rule should not operate indefinitely, and that we can move forward to some form of government in Northern Ireland which is acceptable.
  For the reasons I have given, I ask the Committee to accept that to stipulate a date would tie any Government down to a position that was completely unacceptable. In those circumstances I ask that the amendment be withdrawn. If it is not withdrawn, I shall have to ask the Committee to reject it.
  Captain Orr: I understand the point about tying the hands of the Secretary of State. In normal circumstances one would not have wished to do so. I think that we would have said that the Secretary of State's intention was to have the elections to the Convention as soon as was reasonably practicable. One would have accepted that. The trouble—and the
  170
  reason for the amendment—is that we have heard noises from Government sources which suggest that the election might be postponed not by questions concerning the possibility of an election to the House of Commons or for reasons of security or otherwise but because of the mistaken view that there is a large body of opinion in Ulster which would prefer the elections to be postponed.
  I cannot emphasise too strongly what has been said by my hon. Friends, who, after all, are the elected representatives from Northern Ireland. We are all agreed that we represent the views of the majority of our constituents when we say that delay is not to be encouraged. I do not tie the Secretary of State to a date, but there is nothing to be gained from inordinate delay.
  We have heard it suggested that members of the prorogued Assembly might retrieve their fortunes if there were delay. That is a totally mistaken hope. The Secretary of State would be gravely mistaken to believe that there will be any weakening in the views of the Ulster people about the matters on which they expressed their opinions in elections to this House and in subsequent actions, such as the constitutional stoppage. If Ministers think that in some strange way, by some strange kind of metabolism, the Ulster people will change their views, they are mistaken.
  Mr. Orme: The hon. and gallant Gentleman has put his views very fairly. It is only right that I should say from whom we have had representations. They have come from the Ulster Workers Council—not all of them—Mr. Brian Faulkner and the Alliance Party. Hon. Members may smile, but in a democratic society all views must be heard. I am not saying that my right hon. Friend accepts those views. The point is that the view that elections should be held almost immediately is not unanimous. In fact, we are being asked by some people to postpone the elections for so long that that request is completely unacceptable to the Government. As I have said, we should not have embarked upon this course if we were not to have elections in the forseeable future.
  Captain Orr: I am grateful to the Minister for that intervention and for making plain what he had in mind. We

  171
  do not object to his having consultations with the people he has mentioned. What we are asking is that the views of the elected representatives of Northern Ireland should prevail.
  Mr. Kilfedder: Is it not obvious that when everything is in a state of flux we should have an election as quickly as possible so that the politicians do not get into a rut and do not take up a stand from which they cannot shift? Delaying elections means that politicians throughout the Province—and I am not mentioning parties—could easily take positions from which it would subsequently be difficult to move.
  Captain On: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. There is every argument for having elections to the Convention as soon as possible. I understand that the Minister should consult others. Naturally, people who are associated with policies that have plainly failed—
  Mr. Orme: Not all of them.
  Captain Off:—perhaps not all of them—predictably will say "Give us a little longer and we shall retrieve it all". But it is a forlorn hope and it would be absolutely wrong for the Secretary of State to leave the Province without any form of top tier of local government, without any hope of a final constitutional settlement and with further uncertainty, for patience would fail, with the danger that people would take up more and more rigid attitudes. There is everything to be said in wisdom for proceeding reasonably soon with the election. I do not want desperately to tie the Secretary of State to the date proposed, but I should like some assurance before we leave the matter that it is not his intention simply to pospone the election until those people who have been associated with policies that have failed have time to regroup their forces in some kind of forlorn hope.
  10.45 p.m.
  Mr. Orme: No date is at the moment in my right hon. Friend's mind. He will not commit himself to a date either before or after 31st December.
  Captain Orr: That is an uncompromising attitude. I was endeavouring to be helpful to the Minister of State. I was
  172
  trying to get him off the hook. He might have said that it was proposed to have the election as soon as reasonably possible. We do not want the Secretary of State to commit himself to a particular date, but he could have given the assurance I sought. If he will not give it I cannot advise my hon. Friends to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Orme: As always in matters of this sort my right hon. Friend will be reasonable, but he cannot be committed to a date.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: We want to convert him.
  Amendment negatived.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 8, line 20, at end insert:
  "6A. Provisions for by-elections to the convention shall be the same as would apply for the Northern Ireland Assembly".
  The Bill makes no provision for a by-election to the Convention. The amendment provides for a by-election on the same basis as would apply to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
  My constituency has suffered already from under-representation in the Assembly. There was a sad calamity concerning our Assembly representative, Mr. McCarthy from the town of Ballymena. Before the Assembly met he had a fatal accident. The Government of the day made no provision by a by-election. It was scandalous that this House took no action to allow the people of Antrim, North to elect another representative. The then Secretary of State acted that way because he knew that he would not like the result of the election. He knew that the result would go against him. It is ridiculous for a Minister to take that line. Some hon. Members in this House may not like the outcome of the new elections, but that is the democratic system and we shall have to agree with it. Many are rejected at the polls, and there is nothing wrong with that. Many a good man is not elected, but he still has his principles.
  The Secretary of State should make some provision in this respect. We live in a day when assassinations take place in our land. If my information is right, in the next few months there could be political assassinations. That is why some of us feel that the leaders of the parties

  173
  should have proper personal security. I am alarmed at the fact that while some members of parties in Northern Ireland have been given heavy security others whose homes have been threatened and attacked have not been given adequate security. This perhaps is a matter to be dealt with on another day.
  I feel that some provision should be made if because of death a seat is left vacant. Somebody should be given the opportunity to take that place so that there is somebody to speak on behalf of the people. There are forces in Northern Ireland which would like to remove certain voices from the Convention. It would be an encouragement and an incentive to those people if they knew that if they removed somebody from the seat that place would not be filled. The Secretary of State has a duty to make provision on this important matter.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has raised an important point. It would be idle of me to pretend that I have not given a great deal of thought to it. I am not unaware of the problem.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned the question of security. I do not decide who receives security protection in Northern Ireland or in this part of the United Kingdom; it is a matter for the security authorities. The fact that one has to consider these matters makes one aware of what could or could not happen. Perhaps we should leave the matter there. I have discovered in my security responsibilities that the more publicity given to something the more is the chance of something happening.
  Let me seek to explain why I have left the matter as it is at present. Let me make clear that I have not taken the course because I did not wish there to be by-elections. We are not dealing with an assembly with a four-year life. We are dealing with a much shorter-term body; it is a short-term Convention. Of course, the reason for somebody being elected matters, but when one person is missing the matter will not be determined on a numerical basis.
  I accept that there may be problems, given the situation in Northern Ireland, if people are killed because of their political views. I take the point about the period following the Convention. I do
  174
  not believe that it will all be done speedily, but if it is not done on a relatively short-term basis it will show that weaknesses have arisen in the Convention. I do not think that it will go on a long time: the people of Northern Ireland will come to terms with each other, I believe, in a short period.
  The Bill deliberately excludes by-elections, and I stand by that. It will be done on the PR basis. The original Act provided for 90 days, and here we shall have six months. The Amendment could lead to the type of discussion which I would prefer to be left to a referendum if that were necessary. If there were problems as a result of death which needed the attention of the House, it would be given, and I believe that it is best left like that. This is a macabre subject. There are hon. Members with whose political views I profoundly disagree, but none of us wants it to go that way. However, those who live in Northern Ireland know that it can go that way.
  If I were given this freedom of action. I would take such circumstances as have been mentioned into account, if necessary, although the body concerned was a convention. I am talking of the problems which would arise if a number of people were affected. I will look at these matters in a reasonable way. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take my word for that.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the Secretary of State for those words. The amendment goes right to the stark reality of the Northern Ireland situation. It is as well for the Committee to know what the political climate might be. Many people would not want the Convention to succeed; they would not want the Ulster people to settle the Ulster problem.
  I accept the right hon. Gentleman's words in the spirit in which he uttered them. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Bill reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  POLICING OF AIRPORTS BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  POLICING OF AIRPORTS BILL
    Clause 1

      DESIGNATED AIRPORTS
      11 p.m.
      Mr. Norman FowlerI beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 5, leave out from "state" to "in" in line 8 and insert
      "shall by order designate for the purposes of this Act all aerodromes used for the purpose of civil aviation unless. following inspection of the arrangements made for policing any aerodrome, he is satisfied that the policing of that aerodrome need not".
      Essentially, the amendment proposes a change of emphasis. The clause as it stands permits the Government to put the security of airports under the charge of the regular police if they believe that to be necessary in the interests of the prevention of crime. The amendment would go further and would require the Government to put United Kingdom airports under the regular police unless they believed the security to be adequate. It would require the inspection of security arrangements at airports. We believe that in practice it would bring more airports under the charge of the regular police.
      It is fair to say that this amendment reflects the division that there is between the Government and the Opposition in the passage of the Bill. The Government have made it clear that the only airport they intend to bring under the regular police is Heathrow, where the Metropolitan Police will be given the task. We entirely support that policy, but we believe that there is an urgent case for applying the Bill to other airports in the United Kingdom. Thus, I think there is a real difference between the two sides.
      The first reason for the amendment is that the threat of terrorism is not confined to one area of the United Kingdom or to one airport. It is a national problem, and the bomb outrages last night at Birmingham and Manchester have underlined this fact. These were not the first bomb incidents to have taken place in these cities, nor was it the first time that terrorists have struck in major cities outside
      176
      London. The fact must be faced that a terrorist may as easily strike in a major city in the Midlands or the North as in the capital.
      Unfortunately, what can happen in our provincial city centres can also happen in our provincial airports. Birmingham and Manchester also have their airports, which could become terrorist targets, and they are not the only provincial airports we have. There are the remaining British Airports Authority airports like Gatwick, with a major international airport role, Stansted and the two Scottish airports at Prestwick and Edinburgh. All those airports share common features. They are possible terrorist targets. They are not under the charge of the regular police and there are no plans to change their policing arrangements.
      No one wants to be alarmist about the terrorist threat, but it is essential that we should seek to understand the risk. Terrorists, being what they are—a cowardly breed—will strike at what they regard as the softest target. It is at least possible that if security at Heathrow is improved they will transfer their attentions to other airports, and it is that risk that we should guard against.
      The second argument we would advance for the amendment is about the quality of policing. At present the policing of our airports is in the hands of forces outside the normal bloodstream of the regular police. The biggest of these forces is the British Airports Authority police, while some of the municipal airports have their own small forces. Let us take the British Airports Authority police. The Government have announced their intention to take those members of that force who now serve at Heathrow into the Metropolitan Police. That means that no fewer than 380 out of a total strength of 460 will become regular policemen in the Metropolitan Police. This reduces the BAA police to a total strength of 80. The force will become a mere shadow of its former self. These men will be spread between four airports hundreds of miles apart.
      The question must arise whether this can possibly be a viable police force. The BAA has made no secret of the fact that it does not believe that it would be a viable force. Some might think that the BAA in this respect would know best, but

      177
      we have had no statement of intent from the Government that these 80 men will be brought into the regular police and that these airports will be put under police control. Nor have we had any indication of which other airports, if any, the Government intend to bring under the regular police. Is Birmingham, for instance, an airport at which the Government intend the functions to be carried out by the regular police?
      The merit of the amendment is that it brings more certainty to the Bill. It places on the Government a duty to be satisfied that the anti-terrorist security measures in British airports are sufficient. It requires what so far the Bill does not require; namely, that inspections shall be made of the security arrangements in all the airports. The amendment protects the public interest more surely than does the present wording of the Bill, and I urge the Government to accept it. I believe that it expresses what the Government intend.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): As a matter of principle, I do not think that there is anything between the two sides. We share the detestation of terrorism and everything that it stands for that has been expressed in the Second Reading debate and in Commitee. What we are arguing about is the most effective way of dealing wiht that potential menace, and we have to decide whether what the Opposition ask us to do would be an effective way of dealing with the position here and now. While I well undertand the reasons which have motivated the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) in moving the amendment, I believe it to be misconceived for several reasons.
      The first misconception is that the present arrangements for ensuring the security of our airports are ineffective. That is not right. The whole basis underlying the Bill in relation to Heathrow is not that our security measures are ineffective but that they can be enhanced by the procedure that we propose in the Bill.
      Unity of command at Heathrow is important because, whatever the hon. Gentleman may say, the nature of Heathrow is different from that of other airports. To put the matter in perspec-
      178
      tive, I will recount some of the developments that have occurred since we debated this matter in Committee a fortnight ago—developments which I think will please the hon. Gentleman.
      In Committee we undertook to open consultations with the people concerned about the designation of BAA airports other than Heathrow. Those consultations have already been put in hand, and I give an assurance that the Government have no intention of allowing the situation to drift. We are aware of the urgency of the matter, but it always has to be borne in mind that if the Bill is to be enacted before the House rises for the Summer Recess—as I am confident it will be—it will be possible to deal only with the principal airport in respect of which the threat primarily exists, and that is Heathrow. To go further would involve the process of consultation, and would mean that we could not introduce the Bill at this stage.
      The amendment, unlike some of those we discussed in Committee, would not bind the Secretary of State to a course of designation, nor alter the criteria on which he might act, but he would have to designate or satisfy himself that existing policing arrangements were adequate in the case of each and every aerodrome in the country.
      We recognise the importance that the hon. Gentleman attaches to the need for the Government to satisfy themselves of the adequacy of the security measures at airports, but during the past two years the House has been advised of the programme of security of surveys of all our international airports undertaken by my Department and the Ministry of Defence. The initial surveys are complete, but the advisers to the Department maintain a comprehensive series of follow-up visits to monitor the implementation of their recommendations, to check that existing measures are being maintained, to determine whether further measures in the light of the circumstances, which change from time to time, are necessary, and to make available all possible advice and guidance.
      It is clear that these steps have been welcomed by the airlines and by the airport authorities, and I emphasise that this activity applies to all our international airports and that all measures are kept under continuous review. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that

      179
      the steps we take in this regard are inadequate, I hope he will accept that we maintain the closest surveillance of the position.
      Mr. Norman Fowler: Does this survey include the policing arrangements of these other airports?
      Mr. Davis: It relates to the entirety of the security measures, including policing. There is another factor, which relates to the Protection of Aircraft Act. Under Section 17 the Secretary of State has power to inspect the security measures at any aerodrome in the United Kingdom. We have not found it necessary to rely upon that provision because we have had the voluntary co-operation of the airport authorities throughout the country.
      The amendment would require us to have security inspections of all aerodromes, whether they have international services or not, regardless of the size of the aerodrome or of the aircraft using it, and it would insist that the inspections should be carried out without regard to whether there was any reason to believe that the aerodrome was under threat—and in order to ensure an efficient deployment of resources we have to take into account the fact that all security measures must be related to the current threat. If we failed to do that, we should not be making the most efficient use of the resources available.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman will realise that the effectiveness of what he proposes is, therefore, seriously in doubt. I do not believe it to be a realistic way of approaching the matter. We have, in addition to those matters to which I have referred, the closest contact with the police services throughout the country, and they keep us closely in touch with the assessments they make of the security threat.
      I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are not complacent about this matter but we have to keep it in proportion. We have to determine, in taking action under the Bill, how most effective that action can be. There are 126 aerodromes licensed by the Civil Aviation Authority and there are several hundred other, unlicensed, aerodromes. Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting
      180
      that we should take action in relation to all those here and now? I cannot believe that that is the case.
      11.15 p.m.
      If hon. Members reflect and recognise the real security threat, I hope that they will think that the way in which we are dealing with the matter is the best way of deploying our resources. If we were to operate the plan envisaged by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield we should be deflecting our security personnel from the serious problems which present-day threats have created at major international airports like Heathrow.
      I have given an assurance about consultations on the designation of other BAA airports. I have referred to the vigilance of the Government in reviewing all these matters. I have explained that the present drafting of the Bill need not inhibit action in any of the circumstances envisaged in Committee by hon. Members on both sides. Assurances have also been given about the British Airports Authority Constabulary "rump" to which the hon. Gentleman referred. This is a matter which will necessitate the most careful consultation between chief officers of police, police authorities and airport authorities. Any bypassing would be a grave error of judgment. It would not be acceptable to those authorities? I do not think it would be acceptable even to the BAAC, whose members would wish to have these matters thought out and worked out. I think that it would be contrary to the best interests of Parliament, which needs to discuss these designations, because different problems arise in different parts of the country.
      For all those reasons, I hope that the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Norman Tebbit: I am sorry that the Minister was quite so unkind to the amendment, although I was fascinated to hear him say that one of the many reasons why it should be rejected was that Parliament needed to discuss the making of other designation orders.
      The Bill is designed carefully to allow designation orders to go through on the negative procedure, and very few hon. Members regard that as the way in which Parliament normally gets a great deal of discussion about these matters. I do not

      181
      know whether the hon. Gentleman was hinting that the Government intended to enable the House to debate each order at a reasonable time of the day. If he was not, it was unkind, not to say unfair, to introduce that as an argument against the amendment.
      I welcomed what the Minister said about the Government having no intention of allowing the situation to drift. However, he appeared to take a stand on the situation at Heathrow, where, he said, security measures were not ineffective but could be enhanced. If that is the criterion on which we are working, surely it is fair to point out that the other main airports in the country have security arrangements which, although not ineffective, could certainly be enhanced. We seek merely to urge the hon. Gentleman along this route.
      Then the Minister said that to go into other fields would involve a long process of consultation, and that that was why it was not possible to express an intention to designate the four other BAA airfields. We can understand well enough that the completion of consultations is bound to take some time. But the decision to designate does not have to await the completion of consultations.
      I return again to the answer to Written Question No. 137 on Monday 29th April by the Secretary of State for the Home Department to the hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies). The right hon. Gentleman said:
      "As a result I have agreed that the Metropolitan Police should assume responsibility for all policing at Heathrow. The necessary consultations are in progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April, 1974; Vol. 872, c. 371.]
      The consultations have not been completed but have been started. The right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that designation was right before the consultations were completed. Why could he not come to that conclusion regarding the other airfields?
      I am still puzzled. I am still not satisfied about this matter. I should be happier if the hon. Gentleman could give us a clear indication of how long these consultations will take, their pace, and who is engaged in them. Are Ministers giving them their personal attention? Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that every Monday morning he says "How far have these consultations got?" Will reports
      182
      be made to him regularly, or will the matter drift on in a gentlemanly fashion until some threat manifests itself at one of these airports?
      These threats are made swiftly and cannot be foreseen. Only yesterday the Army arrived again at Heathrow. We do not know why. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman knows. We certainly would not ask him to tell us. But few other people know. The Army appeared at the airport, stayed for a while, and then went away. The threat had arrived suddenly. Presumably it went away suddenly, like the Army.
      I remind the hon. Gentleman that these threats are made not against aerodromes but against aeroplanes and their passengers. If he thinks that by closing one bolt hole he can take it easy in the process of looking at the others, he is much mistaken.
      I hope that even if the Minister feels that there are defects in the amendment—clearly, to ask for 120 airfields to be examined in this way is a bit much—he will give us an assurance that consultations will take place with great urgency, that he will call for reports on how they are progressing, and that he will report back to the House on the process of consultations and will designate the four other airports certainly before we meet again after the Summer Recess.
      Mr. A. J. Keith: It should not be difficult for the Under-Secretary of State to see why various hon. Members feel drawn to the substance of the amendment, even though they recognise some of the problems which he has specified.
      If the process of inspection of security arrangements in general, including policing, on a continuous basis at all aerodromes is as the hon. Gentleman described, it ought not to be so far-fetched to suggest that the information is available, at least in part, on which designation decisions could begin to be made for some of the airfields to which reference has been made.
      It is difficult to be satisfied with what the hon. Gentleman said about the remaining British Airports Authority's aerodromes or airfields and those about which he said almost nothing; namely, the local authority airfields, the non-BAA civil airfields, which in some cases carry

      183
      an increasing volume of international traffic.
      While no one expects an instant overnight designation of the whole of these airfields, involving a number of different police forces, I think that many of us feel that more should be forthcoming about the Government's intentions for both these sectors.
      It should be stressed that it is not necessarily a criticism of the present work or the activities of the various police forces which operate at these airfields that we are asking for the designation to be made. It is not necessarily an indication that they are falling down on their job. It is not said in that spirit.
      Indeed, the argument ought to appeal to the Minister that if we are asking the public to co-operate increasingly with more and more stringent security measures, it is reasonable to ask that these measures should, wherever possible, be enforced by a public police force. The kind of contact with the general public and the kind of measures that are called for by situations in which we are threatened by terrorism require both the experience and the attitude of the public police towards members of the public and the accountability which we associate with the public police.
      For those reasons, rather than any sweeping criticism of the work of non-public police forces, of local airport security police and other bodies, I ask the Minister to recognise the extent of feeling and accept that he must look at other airports more carefully than he seems to have done so far. I join other Members in asking the Minister to go a little further than he has done.
      Mr. Norman Fowler: I think the Minister will have noted that there is support for at least the spirit of the amendment from my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). The Minister said that he was acting at Heathrow not because security was insufficient but because it could be enhanced. To a large extent that is a terminological argument. I am prepared to rest our case on the ground that security at other provincial airports can also be enhanced.
      184
      The Minister said something about British Airports Authority airports, but he said nothing about provincial airports, or about municipal and local authority airports, particularly the major ones such as Manchester and Birmingham.
      May we take the consultations that are going on with the BAA police in the other airports as a statement of intent? We are trying to get from the Government a statement of their intent in relation to these four other airports which have the 80 remaining members of the BAA police. May we take it that if, after the consultations have taken place, the Government's view is that security could be improved the Minister intends to designate these other airports as well as Heathrow?
      Mr. Clinton Davis: The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has taken what I said in my opening remarks as envisaging a full-scale debate on the question of designation. What I was trying to say, perhaps inelegantly—certainly not as elegantly as the hon. Gentleman would wish me to offer my remarks—is that Parliament has a right to consider these matters. I think that that right must be preserved, and that is what we have sought to do in the Bill. I do not go any further than that, but whether it is the negative or the affirmative procedure the fact is that Members have a right to raise these matters.
      The points made by the hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), Ching-ford, and Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) were similar in certain respects. I accept the integrity of their observations. Of course they are trying to improve the Bill. I do not say that the Bill is incapable of improvement, but I do not believe that the amendment would be effective. I think that it would be far too wide and would destroy the efficacy of what we are trying to do.
      11.30 p.m.
      However, it is the spirit of the amendment that the hon. Gentleman asks me to consider. The Government will give every consideration to the observations about security which have been made on both sides of the House. If it is thought that we are going too slow on the question of determining whether designation should take place, hon. Members are at liberty to give us a kick in the appropriate place.

      185
      The hon. Member for Chingford asked me whether we shall receive a letter every Monday morning on the pace of the consultations. We may receive a letter from him every Monday morning. I would not complain; at least the hon. Gentleman would be doing something useful. But I must not be too provocative, because I want to engage his support. I have tried to assert that we are not relaxing. I repeat my undertaking that we give this matter the highest priority.
      We are also asked to decide to designate as a matter of principle. I do not think it would be right to do that. The hon. Member is factually incorrect when he says that we decided to designate Heathrow as a matter of principle before any consultations. That is not right. In fact, we entered into the closest consultations with the Metropolitan Police to determine whether that was an effective course of action. They were undertaken by the Conservative Government before we took over in March.
      Mr. Tebbit: The hon. Gentleman must have misheard me. I did not say "before any consultation took place" but made the point that the designation decision was reached before the consultation process was completed, because I was told in the Secretary of State's reply:
      "The necessary consultations are in progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th April 1974; Vol. 872, c. 371.]
      Mr. Davis: We did say that they were in progress, but it is a question of degree. It may be that the decision was taken before we went into discussions with the trade unions and finalised the discussions with the airport authorities. But the question whether this was to be an effective procedure was dependent upon the co-operation of the Metropolitan Police and whether it thought that it would be an effective procedure.
      It must follow that if that was the case at Heathrow it must be the case at other airports. We have to consider with the other constabularies which would be involved in designation whether they feel that their local problems would render the procedure ineffective or whether it is compatible with their local situations.
      Mr. Tebbit: It is now about 10 weeks since the announcement of the intention to designate Heathrow. Can the Minister say how many chief constables of other
      186
      police forces have been consulted during those 10 weeks?
      Mr. Davis: To the best of my knowledge, all the chief constables who would be responsible for the areas involving other BAA airports have entered into preliminary consultations with the Department. If I am wrong—and I could be, because this is not a matter on which I have taken any specific instructions—I will put it right by writing to the hon. Gentleman and to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield.
      The hon. Gentleman referred to the threat of 27th and 28th June at Heathrow. I do not know with what purpose that allusion was made, except to say, I suppose, that if the situation could occur at Heathrow there could be a sudden development at any other international airport in the country. That may be right, but looking at the balance of probabilities in this matter—looking at the situation that has occurred internationally—what we have seen is that, I think, virtually all the incidents have taken place at the premier international airports in the countries concerned. I do not rule out the possibility that we could have an attack at Birmingham or any municipal airport; of course we could. But the Government take the view that they must be sensitive to the views of local authorities and the constabularies concerned before making decisions in principle.
      Mr. Norman Fowler: The hon. Member is making a broad generalisation. He is saying that it is the Government's view that almost the entire threat of terrorism is now centred on the major airports, and he prays in aid the experiences in various other countries. If that is the case, why in Germany do the police force police not only what the hon. Member considers to be the major airport but all the major airports in that country?
      Mr. Davis: The experience of other countries in Europe and elsewhere varies from one to the other. It is true that in Germany the police force oversees the whole question of security, but in other countries it does not happen in that way. In any event, in this country we have effective police supervision of the BAA airports. Local authority airports employ their own local constabulary, or some form of constabulary, to deal with the

      187
      situation affecting them. It is not as though there was no police presence; there is. It would be wrong for the House to come to any other conclusion.
      We are considering how to achieve the most effective police presence, and how we can do that depends to a large extent upon the voluntary co-operation of the local constabularies.
      I have taken to heart what the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed said in that regard. There is one other matter to which he referred, which has little to do with the amendment. It is the question of the public response to private security organisations operating at various airports, the question of public accountability and the rest, which we have discussed both on Second Reading and in Committee. I can only repeat in this connection that within a matter of a week or so of coming into office we put in hand within the Department an examination of the rôle of private security organisations. I have had the report presented to me, as I indicated when the hon. Member raised the matter on a previous occasion, and I assure him that I am giving the matter proper consideration. I cannot, however, give it the degree of active priority which the Bill demands. I think that the hon. Member will accept that.
      Mr. Beith: The observations that I made on this occasion were with respect to the police forces operating at municipal airports rather than to private security forces. When I described private or non-public police forces I meant the various forms of police force other than the public constabulary and those which are operating in some non-BAA airports.
      Mr. Davis: I take the hon. Member's point and I shall look at the question seriously.
      I think that I have dealt with the major points that have been made. I am sorry that I cannot go as far as the hon. Member would like in making a statement of intent, for the reasons that I have given. I hope that the House will accept those reasons.
      What divides us is not a matter of principle; it is simply a question of tactics in dealing with this threat, which we all abhor. I urge the House to recognise
      188
      that the amendment, as drawn—and we have to deal with it as drawn—would represent a very ineffective way of dealing with the position and would not result in a satisfactory deployment of the resources that we have available. I therefore invite the hon. Member to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Norman Fowler: I would not like to pretend that I am altogether happy with that reply. It still leaves unsettled the question of the four airports, the British Airports Authority and the 80 men there. We still have not had a statement of intent. We have had no statement whatever on the future policing arrangements in the municipal airports. We do not want to delay the Bill, however. We welcome the consultations that have taken place. We want to see the security arrangements the hon. Gentleman has described taking place at Heathrow. Accordingly I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 6

      SUPPLEMENTARY ORDERS
      The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Dr. Shirley Summerskill): I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 6, line 21, leave out 'authorise' and insert 'require'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): With this we can also discuss Amendment No. 3, in page 6, line 27, leave out from 'be' to end of line 28 and insert
      'specified by or determined in accordance with the order'.
      Dr. Summerskill: In Committee it was strongly argued that Clause 6 should give aerodrome constables and supporting civilian staff who were adversely affected by the designation of an airport a complete assurance of compensation and some right of appeal in case of any dispute as to their qualification for compensation or as to its amount. I undertook to look again at these provisions.
      I have already given the assurance that the supplementary order in respect of Heathrow will include compensation provisions. I think it would be in accordance with the views expressed in Committee that I should take this opportunity

      189
      to put on the record that this assurance extends to the supplementary order in respect of any BAA airport that may be designated. I hope that the House will therefore accept that the Government will take the necessary action.
      The view was expressed in Committee that the Secretary of State should be required to include provision for compensation in the supplementary order. The purpose of Clause 6 is to enable the Secretary of State to make the necessary provisions for a whole variety of circumstances which could arise on designation, or on "de-designation". If the Secretary of State were required to include provision for compensation this would have to be done on every occasion, whether or not there were staff requiring compensation. At some airports—for instance Southend—there are no aerodrome police. At other airports there are no civilians who would be affected by designation in the sense envisaged by the clause. Furthermore, the provision would have to be included if it were decided to "de-designate" an airport. It does not seem sensible to the Government, therefore, to proceed by placing a requirement on the Secretary of State. Nor does that seem necessary in order to give staff the protection that we all agree is desirable.
      Nevertheless, on reconsidering the matter the Government accept that Clause 6(2)(e) could be improved. If the power as it now stands in the Bill was exercised, a person affected would have no right to compensation; the airport authority would merely be authorised to pay compensation. It could choose whether or not to do so. In the unlikely event of its choosing not to do so, an individual affected would have no remedy, nor could the Secretary of State do anything about it. Thus, requiring the Secretary of State to authorise the compensation provision would not necessarily change matters. Even where the authority chose to implement a compensation scheme—a more likely situation—in case of a dispute relating to compensation the individual would have no legal remedy unless the scheme had been incorporated in his conditions of service.
      11.45 p.m.
      These amendments are intended to improve that state of affairs. If the first amendment is carried, the Secretary of State will be empowered to require,
      190
      instead of to authorise, the payment of compensation. The individual affected by a designation order will not be dependent for compensation on the good will of the airport authority. Further, since the authority will be required to make payments in accordance with a scheme for compensation the individual will be entitled to receive such payments. Any dispute as to his right to compensation could, therefore, be the subject of legal proceedings; in effect the individual is given a right of appeal to the courts. I commend the amendment to the House as a significant improvement in the clause. Given the undertakings I have just made about Government action, I hope that it meets the substance of the criticism levelled at subsection (2)(e) in Committee.
      The second amendment is, in the main, consequential on the first. If the airport authority is to be required to give effect to a compensation scheme, it must be told what it is. It would not be appropriate to leave it to the authority to prepare a scheme and submit it to the Secretary of State for approval as would be the case under the present provision. The second amendment therefore provides that the scheme shall either be specified in the order or shall be in accordance with the provisions of the order.
      This second amendment will give the Secretary of State the power to set out the scheme in full in the order. I doubt, however, that there would be likely to be a sufficient number of persons adversely affected at any particular airport to justify this. Hon. Members may be aware that a typical compensation code, such as that contained in the Local Government (Compensation) Regulations 1974, extends to something like 30 pages of print. Where only a handful of people were candidates for compensation, it is more probable that the detailed scheme would be settled in accordance with the terms of the supplementary order; the order could well provide that the compensation scheme should be such as was agreed between the airport authority and the Secretary of State or, in default of agreement, as was determined by the Secretary of State. This, however, is largely a matter of machinery and the provisions to be included in a particular supplementary order would be a matter for consultation with all concerned; this would include

      191
      consultation under Clause 6(6). Whatever arrangement was adopted would not affect the right of appeal to which I have referred.
      Mr. Norman Fowler: We are very grateful to the hon. Lady. Bearing in mind what has been said about security previously, I was fascinated to learn that there are no policemen at Southend airport. However, perhaps I should not push that matter on this clause. As the hon. Lady said, the Opposition were concerned about the compensation entitlement of members of the BAA police who were affected by the decision to take the police into the Metropolitan Police. We were concerned first that there should be an entitlement to compensation. That, as I understand it, the hon. Lady has given them. We were concerned secondly that there should be some form of appeal, and that, I understand, is through an entitlement to take an action in the courts. Therefore, we are grateful that the hon. Lady has gone so far to meet the points that we put forward in Committee on this question.
      One should again stress that the fact that the BAA police are being taken into the Metropolitan Police is no criticism of the BAA police. Therefore, compensation certainly must be their entitlement.
      I have two questions to ask the hon. Lady. First, on the appeals procedure, she has said that the appeal entitlement will now be an entitlement to appeal to the courts. I am sure she will understand that this can be an expensive business for a litigant and that the possible cost of losing an appeal may outweigh the money to be gained. Is any arbitration machinery open before that step is taken?
      Second, the hon. Lady has made it clear that power to pay compensation will be used not only at Heathrow but also at other BAA airports. Under the terms of the Bill, however, it is quite possible that the police will take over other airports besides those run by the BAA. In other words, they may take over airports that at the moment are under municipal control—Manchester and Birmingham, for example. May we assume that this assurance about compensation will extend to those other airports as well as to BAA airports?
      Mr. Tebbit: I should have reminded the house earlier that I act tonight as the adviser and representative of the British Airports Authority Police Federation. I am delighted with the progress that we are making towards seeing that federation disappear, and that job of mine disappear with it.
      I can tell the hon. Lady that her amendment will get at least two and a half cheers from the members of the BAA police, because she has gone a long way towards meeting what we asked. The argument in Standing Committee turned, as so often happens, on the question of "shall" and "may". I have now conceived the ambition to go to the wedding of a parliamentary draftsman. I want to see what happens when the preacher asks him "Do you take this woman to be your lawful wedded wife?" and he answers "I may". One day perhaps we shall all be invited to such a function.
      There is one serious matter that I should like to raise with the hon. Lady It is the suggestion that when an agreement for transfer is negotiated with employees and an employee accepts that agreement and transfers, he thereby disqualifies himself from any compensation. I cannot believe that that is so.
      A number of employees are affected. The rent allowances of some policemen may be affected. In some instances those allowances are higher for a BAA constable than they are for a Metropolitan constable. It would be totally wrong for an officer accepting transfer to suffer a sudden reduction in his take-home emoluments, of £2 or £3 a week in some instances, and to be told that he has accepted those conditions. The hon. Lady seems to suggest that it is the intention that compensation could be and will be awarded in such cases, presumably by the authority, but I should be grateful for confirmation.
      There is a rather wider effect in that I understand that traffic wardens employed by the BAA have considerably higher pay than those employed by the Metropolitan Police and, unless some arrangement of this sort is made, when the transfer is effected there will suddenly be a great shortage of traffic wardens at Heathrow. Although that may be enjoyable for some of us for a short time, it

      193
      will no doubt cause considerable inconvenience in the longer run. Perhaps the hon. Lady will clear that up.
      Dr. Summerskill: I appreciate that there is a cost factor in going to court, but I have simply set out the principle of the scheme. Naturally, in the details the possibility of arbitration would have to be worked out. There is provision for compensation at other designated airports. As I have said, we have given an assurance that the supplementary order in respect of Heathrow will include compensation provisions, and I extend that assurance to the supplementary order in respect of any BAA airport that may be designated.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 1 in page 6, line 27 leave out from 'be' to end of line 28 and insert:
      'specified by or determined in accordance with the order.'.—[Dr. Surnmerskill.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      11.55 p.m.
      Mr. Norman Fowler: This is an important Bill. The Opposition have sought to offer constructive criticism while supporting its general principles. The Bill gives the police wide powers, like the stop and search powers over airport staff, the public, vehicles and even aircraft. We have supported the transfer of these powers not only because of the crime problem but because of the terrorist threat. It is regrettable that the activities of terrorists make it even more essential to have checks of that kind, and it is important that the Government should emphasise this in public discussion on the Bill and on the terrorist situation.
      If the public are to be protected, it is possible that they may generally have to accept more checks than have been the custom in the past. We live in the age of the terrorist and an airport provides a tempting target for the urban guerrilla. It is right to deploy all possible strength in meeting the challenge. To put an airport like Heathrow under the control of the police is only to recognise the facts of life today. The security of Heathrow will soon he the responsibility of the
      194
      police under the Home Secretary and the Commissioner. That is the whole reason for the Bill.
      Where does the Army fit into the general security pattern? It would help public understanding of the police rôle if we were to be told what is the procedure by which the Army is brought in. Who makes the request? Is it the police, and under what powers? I am not criticising the Army action. It is necessary, but it would help to have the position concerning the police powers made clear. What would happen in the kind of situation which occurred at Munich at the time of the Olympic Games? The Germans tried to intercept the terrorists and release the hostages. The attempt by the police to interfere was tragically unsuccessful. What would be the position in that kind of situation at Heathrow? We know that some of the police are armed, but would they be able to call on the help of the Army in such a situation? These are important questions, and I accept that they are delicate matters involving security, but it would be helpful if the Minister could give some guidance.
      There is one further point which I should like to raise. Clause 3 deals with prevention of theft and this remains an important object of the new arrangements. At Heathrow in particular this matter has become somewhat sensitive. It should be made clear that because we say that there is a serious crime problem at Heathrow this should not be taken as a generalised and indiscriminate attack on everybody working there. That is not the intention. Most of the staff are honest and much crime originates from outside the area. However, it should not prevent us pointing out that the problem of crime exists at Heathrow as at every other international airport. I revert to my original suggestion. There is a greater chance of the fight against crime being effective if it is accompanied by a major crime prevention campaign aimed at the passengers themselves.
      Successful policing depends above all on good relations between the police and the public. It is no secret that relations between the police and some of the working staff at Heathrow have in the past been strained. Clearly, an airport presents special problems because of the

      195
      many functions it performs. It is essentially a workplace rather than a community. The police have a responsibility to recognise the special problems created by the special situation at airports. Furthermore, the work force also has a responsibility to recognise the many and special difficulties faced by the police. The Opposition hope that the passing of the Bill will usher in not only a new but also a much happier year at Heathrow.
      12.3 a.m.
      Dr. Summerskill: In the course of the various proceedings on the Bill there has been agreement about its broad purposes. Such comment as there has been on the precise content of the Bill has been directed primarily towards future action by the Government. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
      I feel that I should seek to reply to the points made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler). The Bill addresses itself to the question of ensuring that there are no avoidable obstacles to efficient policing and security arrangements at an airport. The Bill is necessary because the circumstances envisaged when the present policing arrangements at Heathrow were introduced have substantially changed. The measures necessary to deal with those circumstances must change as well. Experience has shown the importance of a unified command in an emergency. What the Bill seeks to do is to bring airport policing arrangements into line with the demands which, regrettably but unavoidably, can now be placed upon them.
      One point in particular has attracted a great deal of attention during the passage of the Bill. I refer to the Government's policy about the exercise of the powers in the Bill at the other airports belonging to the BAA. It has been pointed out that the very fact of increasing the efficiency of the security arrangements at Heathrow is bound to render more attractive to the potential terrorists possible targets at other airports. It has been said that after the designation at Heathrow, and the expected transfer of the great majority of the officers there to the Metropolitan Police, the BAAC will no longer be a viable force. In the same context it has been pointed out that the remaining 100 or so members of the force will be deprived of the promotion
      196
      and career opportunities that they envisaged when they joined.
      The Government have taken full note of all these points and I hope that hon. Members have accepted the assurance I gave in Committee that the Government would now embark on a process of consultation with the authorities concerned about the designation of the remaining BAA airports. This is now in hand. As I think has become clear during the course of the various discussions, the criteria for the designation of an airport that are set down in Clause 1 of the Bill are such as to allow the Secretary of State to act in the sort of circumstances that hon. Members have negatived, and there need therefore be no concern that for purely technical reasons the Government will be unable to do what is necessary.
      At this stage I can only repeat the assurance I have already given that the Government see the force in the points that have been made and will bear them very much in mind in the consultations that are now taking place. As I think is generally accepted, however, there must be consultations on both the broad questions and on matters of detail, not least those affecting people who might transfer, and it must be one of the main aims of such consultations to reach agreement between all the parties involved. It would clearly not be helpful in practice to proceed without there being such agreement. During the consultations that will now take place, therefore, the Government will be very much influenced by the need to reach agreement.
      There has been concern on both sides of the House that the Government and the other agencies concerned should always remain vigorous in their measures against possible terrorist attack at an airport. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and I have said enough to assure hon. Members that the Government are very much aware of their responsibilities in this respect. I hope it has become clear that there is no lack of vigilance or energy on the Government's part. The special measures which were taken at Heathrow between Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill and which have been taken today are, I hope, sufficient evidence of this fact.
      The answer to the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield is that the presence of

      197
      the Army at Heathrow is at the request of the police but with the approval of Ministers, primarily the Home Secretary. There is a common law obligation on every person to assist the civil power when asked to do so. The request of the Metropolitan Police for military assistance derives from this, but the Army is at all times under the direction of the police.
      The Bill is but one aspect of the broad range of matters which concern the Government in this field and which have to be judged in their totality.
      Mr. Fowler: I asked the hon. Lady a second question, about armed interception.
      Dr. Summerskill: The answer to that question is "Yes".
      My hon. Friend has said that the Government are always prepared to learn from experience both here and abroad and to pay attention to views which may be expressed. There will be no lessening either of this vigilence or of the readiness to learn as circumstances change.
      I will bear in mind what the hon. Member said about prevention of crime and the dangers of theft. I would remind him that the Bill is concerned not only with the preservation of the peace but with the prevention of crime. I hope that the House will be pleased to give it a Third Reading.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

      SUPPLEMENTARY ORDERS

        RAILWAYS BILL
        Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
        Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
        Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  LAND TENURE REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  LAND TENURE REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL [Lords]
    New Clause

      SUPERIORS' EXISTING RIGHTS
      'Nothing in this Act shall be deemed to alter retrospectively rights which any superior may have acquired before the commencement of this Act'.—[Mr. English.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      12.10 a.m.
      Mr. Michael English: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I suppose that your hesitation in calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was caused by the fact that it must be a little unusual for a Member representing an English constituency to move at an earlier hour an amendment to an Irish Bill, then to move a new clause to a Scottish Bill at this hour and to be facing the prospect of chairing a Committee considering a Welsh order tomorrow morning. However, if I promptly declare an interest in the subject matter of this Bill it may explain why I am proposing the new clause.
      Technically I am a superior, to use a term of art in Scottish law, and there fore the Bill affects a financial interest of mine. It is a very small financial interest. I assure my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that I am wholly in favour of the purpose of the Bill, namely, that feuduties should eventually be extinguished or be capable of redemption.
      I move the new clause to ascertain one point. If I relate a small story it will illustrate the case. What I understand often happens in Scotland happened in the case of my feuduties. Someone built a couple of houses on a piece of land without asking the then superior, who was my predecessor in title. The argument was settled in writing but not in due legal form until the first of the many Bills on this subject proposed by my party in a former incarnation. At this point nobody wished to settle in the final due legal form because of the checkered history of the proposed reform.

      199
      Finally—this is a bit of cheek which leads me to believe that this situation is not unique to me but affects many people in Scotland—a solicitor recently sent out a printed circular saying that he would not do anything about cases of this character because of the prospect of legislation of the type we are considering. Therefore, I wish to ensure by the new clause that something which has been going on for years and which would have been settled but for the prospect of legislation can still be dealt with and that any rights which superiors have cannot be taken away. A feu which could or should have been created can be redeemed under the Bill. That is not my concern. I am concerned that the Bill should not take away rights which would have been compensated but for the Bill.
      The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has raised an interesting point. I can give him the general assurance which he seeks. The Bill has been drafted carefully so as to ensure that any existing rights which a superior may have—for example, to enforce land conditions, but it is not limited to that—are not adversely affected as a result of the redemption of feuduty.
      It is expressly provided in the Bill that when a feuduty is redeemed
      "the feu shall continue in force otherwise as if the feuduty were not redeemed."
      My hon. Friend will realise that that is a perfectly reasonable legal expedient for ensuring that in general the rights which he wishes to hold entire remain entire.
      Mr. Barry Henderson: I wonder whether the Lord Advocate can guide us. It seems to me that the new clause totally nullifies the object of the Bill. At present superiors have rights of feuduty in perpetuity, and the result of the Bill would be retrospectively to remove those rights. Therefore, I should have thought that passing the clause would result in completely wrecking the work done so far. However, as the Bill deals with broad principles will the Lord Advocate give an assurance about any discussions he may have had with his right hon. Friends on the problems that will arise from the Bill for people who suffer tax losses?
      12.15 a.m.
      The Lord Advocate: I should be straying into dangerous waters if I attempted in this debate to go into the question of tax losses. If the hon. Gentleman will write to me on the detailed point I will consider it.
      Were it not that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) has indicated that if he receives my assurance he will seek to withdraw the clause, I would have to point out that the clause as drafted is inconsistent with the principle of the Bill. The Bill seeks to excise feuduties from the rights of superiors, and in certain detailed ways it must act to some extent retrospectively.
      The important matter on which my hon. Friend seeks assurance—and this assurance I give him—is that the package is so arranged that it is designed to excise the feuduty and leave the feudal package otherwise unchanged.
      Mr. English: My hon. and learned Friend is entirely right. I read English law and not Scots law, so it is entirely probable that my technical drafting would not achieve the object I have in mind. My hon. and learned Friend has entirely satisfied me, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 4

      RIGHT TO REDEEM FEUDUTY, GROUND ANNUAL, ETC. ON A TERM DAY
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 3 leave out from 'agent' to the end of line 5 and insert:
      'notice of his desire to redeem the feuduty exigible in respect of such land as he sufficiently identifies in said notice'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. George Thomas): With this we are taking Amendment No. 4, in Schedule 1, page 19, leave out lines 4 to 19.
      Mr. Taylor: The amendment deals with a point which we raised in Committee. The Minister was sympathetic and said that he would see whether an amendment could be introduced on Report. No such amendment has been introduced.

      201
      The object of the amendment is to ensure that when people come to redeem their feus they will not necessarily have to go through what appears to be the complicated procedure of completing the form set out in Schedule 1. We suggest that if people give notification in a reasonable and sensible way they should be able to redeem the feu. This appeared to be a sensible point, and I still think that it is. Will the Lord Advocate say why he has not introduced an amendment to this effect?
      The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) has put his case very fairly. It was discussed in Committee and I was at the time sympathetic. I remain sympathetic to the purpose of the amendment, but cogent reasons can be given why this method of achieving the objective which he and I both seek to achieve—namely, simplicity and clarity—is not to be achieved by the amendment. The object of the amendment is to produce informality, and it is the danger of informality of this particular type upon which I must concentrate.
      The amendment recognises that it is necessary for the proprietor to give notice to the superior but leaves it to the proprietor to devise his own way of making intimation to the superior. There are circumstances in which that would be perfectly proper, but here it could give rise to difficulty and, indeed, the complications would be greater than any apparent advantage that would be obtained through simplicity.
      The amendment is in substantially the same terms as the one moved in Committee. It is improved to meet the criticism I then made in respect of descriptions of land. To that extent the amendment is better than the one we considered in Committee. It goes to identification of the property rather than a detailed conveyancing description, and that is all that is needed. I accept that the amendment so far is correct.
      There is no dispute about the desirability of simplicity, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that I have taken fully into account the matters which were pressed strongly on me in Committee. I am satisfied, having looked into it with great care, that the Bill achieves all that can be done in this direction short of what I
      202
      shall say in a moment about publicity and the availability of forms to be filled in by proprietors. They are preprinted forms which are as simple as possible, and they will be accompanied by a guide which sets out in great detail what needs to be done.
      The form of the notice prescribed in the Bill in Schedule 1 is already extremely simple and requires only a minimum of essential information needed to enable the transaction to be carried out. I do not think that there will be dispute between the hon. Gentleman and the Government about the fact that this information is essential. The proprietor has to provide his name and address and the date of signing the notice; the name and address of the superior or his agent—normally the person to whom he pays feuduty; the term day on which he wishes to redeem the feuduty or other similar payment; the amount of the feuduty and so on; and sufficient identification of the land in respect of which the feuduty is exigible.
      Those are, in effect, no more than the details which the proprietor would naturally include in even an informal letter, and there is nothing therein which should give him any difficulty at all. They are what we provide in the schedule and are obviously what any layman would include in such a notice. It achieves what we all want to achieve—simplicity—in giving due notice of desire to redeem to his superior.
      I have considered this matter with great care, and it appears to me that the do-it-yourself proprietor who sought to write his own notice would write it best using the form proposed in the schedule as a model. He would not be tied down by technicalities. The Bill provides that the notice must be in the form included in the schedule or as near as may be. In other words, the proprietor has a guide in the schedule.
      The amendment would mean, however, that the schedule would go and there would be no guide to which the proprietor might turn or on which he could rely in doing his own draft of a suitable form of notice to the superior.
      It is essential that the proprietor should indicate, when he wished to redeem feuduty, the amount of the feuduty and the land. I have dealt with the question of the date and of identifying the correct

      203
      parcel of land. I have no doubt that any person who wrote a letter including this essential information would have it accepted by the superior as a proper notice. Indeed, when a notice has been given to the superior it is for the superior to give a receipt in the prescribed form. When that receipt is given, the superior must comply with the proper formalities. That is provided for in the other schedules.
      I take the case quoted in Committee and which exercised us all greatly and was the strongest point put to me. A letter in the form contained in Form 1 of Schedule 1 might be an informal letter by the proprietor to the superior and might not make specific mention of Clause 4. Considering the matter carefully, I think the answer is that if the informal letter mentioned the essential information the superior would obviously give the receipt lie has to give in the terms of Form 2 of Schedule 1, which would mention Clause 4 of the Bill: and once that stage had been reached the notice would be perfectly factually given and acted upon.
      The more one thinks of it, the more obvious it is that a letter perhaps deficient in one item—perhaps something we would agree to be essential—could properly be admitted in layman's language, since it is possible that the superior would say "This is sufficient notice" and would reply in terms of Form 2 or would write back and say "You have sent notice of redemption but you have missed out such and such. Can you tell us what it is?" The answer would then come back in another letter.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will copies of the printed forms be available to the public, and how much will they cost?
      The Lord Advocate: I hope that forms of this kind and the guides to which I have referred will be available free at citizens' advice bureaux and public libraries. For the guide, we have in mind a booklet entitled "The abolition of feu-duties" and we hope that it will give people a clear guide what to do. Accompanying the booklet will be the forms, easy to fill in, to enable the layman to do a better job than by writing an informal letter.
      204
      I hope that the hon. Member for Cathcart will accept that his amendment is not likely to achieve the object that the Bill, unamended, will achieve.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, especially for the information that the forms will be readily available in citizens' advice bureaux and elsewhere. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 8

      PROPERTY LET UNDER FUTURE LONG LEASE, ETC. NOT TO BE USED AS PRIVATE DWELLING-HOUSE
      The Lord Advocate: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 10, line 36, at end insert:
      "(7) Nothing in this Part of this Act shall prevent a tenancy from being or becoming a protected or statutory tenancy within the meaning of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971, but nothing in that Act restricting the power of a court to make an order for possession of a dwelling-house shall prevent the granting of a decree of removing under section 9(1) of this Act."
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we are to discuss Government Amendment No. 3.
      The Lord Advocate: The object of the amendment is to clarify the general purpose of the Bill. I need not go into a long explanation of how this is achieved. It will be obvious that, when we are dealing with long leases, there is a possible overlap between the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 and the Bill. Clearly it is desirable that the Rent (Scotland) Act should do what it was supposed to do and not be affected adversely by the Bill. It is clear too that this Bill should do what it is supposed to do and not be encroached upon by the 1971 Act.
      The Bill as drafted probably ensures that this division of labour is achieved. For the avoidance of doubt, however, and to avoid the possibility of a clash between the two enactments, it is thought desirable to have a subsection making it clear that the Rent (Scotland) Act is to play its part and that the Land Tenure Reform (Scotland) Act, as we hope it will become, is to play its part. The wording of the subsection makes this clear.

      205
      I do not think that much elaboration is required, but if hon. Gentlemen have any detailed matters that they wish to raise I shall be glad to deal with them.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what "being" means in the second line of Amendment No. 2? In Part II, when we talk about the introduction of leases, we say that they cannot be for primarily residential accommodation. However, subsection (3) provides that it possible to have a commercial development on lease with a small residential part which is incidental to the main purpose of the lease. The amendment provides:
      "Nothing in this Part of this Act shall prevent a tenancy from being or becoming a protected or statutory tenancy"
      Does "being" cover "remaining"?
      Let us suppose that a lease is given for a large commercial block within which there is one little house which is a protected or statutory tenancy. I hope that by making this amendment we shall not change the position of what was or is a protected or statutory tenancy. The impression which the right hon. and learned Gentleman gives is that he does not want to change anything. Can he say whether "being" covers "remaining"? In other words, will a protected tenancy within what becomes leasehold property remain a protected tenancy?
      The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member has put an important question to me. I can answer it positively. The object of this part of the Bill is to ensure that the Rent Act shall not be superseded by Part II. The word "being" is used in a general sense, and rightly so. It would include "remaining". The object is to ensure that a tenancy of the kind that the right hon. Gentleman had in mind would remain a protected tenancy.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 10

      MODIFICATION OF SECTION 9 WHERE LEASE SUBJECT TO SUB-LEASE OR HERITABLE SECURITY
      Amendment made: No. 3, in page 13, line 23, leave out subsection (6).—[The Lord Advocate.]
      Motion made, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      [Queen's Consent, on behalf of tile Crown, and Prince of Wales's. Consent (in respect of the Principality and the Stewartry of Scotland), signified.]
      Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  PETITION

    Animals (Export)
    12.31 a.m.
    Mr. Ronald Atkins: With your permission. Mr. Deputy Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to present a petition which has 26,036 signatures collected by the Sidmouth Animal Group and my constituent Mrs. Jackson from all parts of the country.
    The petition states
    that it is an impossibility to ensure the humane treatment in transit and slaughter of live food animals, including equines, exported from Great Britain.
    Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House do prohibit all such exports, with the exception of high value pedigree animals, and that a carcass trade be substituted.
    And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
    To lie upon the Table.

    Animals (Export)
      ADJOURNMENT
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Golding.]

  VICTORIA HOSPITAL, ACCRINGTON (MATERNITY UNIT)
  12.32 a.m.
  Mr. Arthur Davidson: The title of the debate is somewhat misleading, because it refers to the maternity unit at Accrington Victoria Hospital. In fact, we do not have a maternity unit. The purpose of the debate, despite the title, is to draw the Minister's attention once again to the need for a new maternity home in Accrington. I say "once

  207
  again" because, as my hon. Friend will know, this is not the first time that I have raised this matter in the House.
  Some years ago I raised the matter in a similar Adjournment debate, also in the early hours of the morning. It is a sad reflection on the state of affairs as a whole that several years later we should still be without a maternity home in Accrington, though plans are now positive for the building of a 17-bed unit, plus a new out-patients' department, in the old nurses' home.
  The history of the maternity unit, or the lack of a maternity unit, is littered with delay, deferment and disappointment. Therefore, once again I have to raise this matter, but I am happy to do so in conjunction and associating myself with the excellent, forthright and continuing campaign being run by the Lancashire Evening Telegraph under the title "Hands off our hospitals." The Minister will no doubt be aware of this campaign and will have seen the cuttings. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, who is most diligent in noticing everything that goes on in North-East Lancashire, will have personal knowledge of this campaign and will be sympathetic.
  I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the sad history of this whole affair. It was then considered outdated and inadequate, and yet today, about 13 years later, the 11-bed maternity home still provides the only maternity facilities in Accrington.
  The Minister will know, if he has read the reports in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph and elsewhere, that the home is outdated, but the staff do magnificent work, and the birth rate is about 365 a year—almost one a day. I am sure that the Minister, being a doctor, will realise that it is inadequate and deplorable that such conditions should exist in 1974. This is not to decry the staff or the excellent work that they do. The home is regarded with great affection throughout Accrington, but it is still totally inadequate to meet the needs of 1974.
  The 20-bed plan was put forward in 1961. A couple of years later a new plan came into being. This was to build a 40-bed unit on waste land beside the
  208
  hospital, and this was to be linked to the main building by a tunnel under Whalley Road. The estimated cost was about £500,000. It was possibly rightly considered to be too expensive, and the project was then shelved.
  However, the fight for a propel maternity unit went on, and in 1967 I presented to the then Parliamentary Secretary a petition, signed by about 17,000 people, which had been organised by the then medical officer of health and which had been campaigned for vigorously by two former mayoresses of Accrington, Mrs. Pollard and Mrs. Frances Smith.
  That culminated a couple of years later in possibly the largest meeting ever attended by representatives of the regional board—they said this—at the town hall in Accrington. It was agreed that a 20-bed proposal, which was being put forward by the board itself, would be proceeded with. Although the audience and my constituents felt that a 40-bed unit was correct, the local medical practitioners in their wisdom—and possibly they were right—felt that a 20-bed unit was adequate, and we are prepared to accept that. It was understood that this was to be built in the old nurses' home, and the nurses moved out for the unit to be built.
  A couple of years later there was further bad news. We then learned that the 20-bed unit was not to be built, but that a 17-bed unit would be built instead, but this would also mean that alongside it or as part of the nurses' home there would be a new out-patient department, and possibly this was a better use of the nurses' home than building only a maternity unit.
  It was the Accrington Observer which drew attention to this change. I took the matter up, as did that newspaper, and we were at least partly assuaged in our anger by the fact that the unit was to be built and had been included in the building programme for this year. However, earlier this year we learned that there was to be a further deferment. This was the direct result of the deplorable public expenditure cuts that were announced by the previous Government in December. I was one of those who pointed out at the time how badly North-East Lancashire would be hit by those

  209
  cuts, and this is just one of the direct results. The cuts have extended to education and elsewhere, but it would not be right for me to refer to that in this debate.
  The first purpose of the debate is to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the need for a definite decision. If he cannot restore the cuts to the extent of guaranteeing that the maternity unit will be built this year—and I do not expect that he can, for it is too late—I should like at least an assurance that it will be given the earliest possible priority, and that it is intended to proceed with the 20-bed or 17-bed maternity unit and outpatient department at the earliest possible opportunity.
  The second purpose of the debate is to draw attention to the fact that North-East Lancashire has been treated very badly and unfairly over the years in the way in which resources have been given to it for hospital building as a whole. One of the points the Evening Telegraph and the regional committee have made is that over the years the North-West has received far less than its fair share compared with another region. They point out that the North-West, with 9·5 per cent. of the population of England and Wales, has received only 7·2 per cent. of the money distributed for hospital building since 1948. They are deplorable figures. It is scandalous that that situation should have gone on so long. I hope that my hon. Friend will say that he intends to rectify it at the earliest opportunity.
  I hope that the new basis for allocation will not be purely that of population, although that must be one of the factors. My hon. Friend must also take into consideration the state of hospital building as a whole. In the North-West there are probably more old and dilapidated buildings than in most other regions.
  Apart from that, North-East Lancashire has suffered doubly badly because it has had less than its fair share in a region which itself has had less than its fair share. That state of affairs must also be rectified.
  There is not a great deal more I wish to say, because I know that my hon. Friend is aware of the problem, as I have discussed it with him privately. It is unfair that a whole region should be served by
  210
  an outdated 11-bed unit which was built as a home, which has been adapted, and which has many inadequacies. It is in need of repair. It does not even have a lift. It is scandalous that mothers in that late stage of pregnancy should have to be carried upstairs in 1974.
  I visit the unit regularly, and I pay tribute to it. I visit it most Christmases. Only two or three Christmases ago Mrs. David Lloyd, the wife of the distinguished cricketer who has batted so well for England recently, had a Christmas Day baby there. Many distinguished citizens of Accrington have had babies there. But the unit is now too old and there is an urgent need for an immediate start on building the new 20-bed or 17-bed maternity unit and out-patient department in the old nurses' home.
  I hope that the debate has highlighted the need, and that my hon. Friend will have reasonably encouraging news to give in reply.
  12.44 a.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr. David Owen): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. Davidson) for the way in which he has argued his case. I know that ever since he has been a Member he has taken a considerable interest in this aspect of the health services affecting his constituency. I very much regret that over the years he has experienced disappointment, delay and frustration, which are shared by his constituents.
  I assure my hon. Friend that, following my own discussions with him and my discussions with the Secretary of State and with the regional health authority, we are both well aware of the problem, and, as my hon. Friend knows, the Secretary of State has a particular interest in this area and an extreme knowledge of it. I have discussed the whole problem with her. I have also read the campaign being conducted in the local newspapers, and I welcome the interest they are taking in the health service and the recognition they have shown that this requires extra resources.
  I want to deal with the issue. I do not think that the House needs any further elaboration from me of the history. My hon. Friend is well aware of the changes and the delays, but it is worth putting on record the main facts. The size and

  211
  nature of the maternity unit have been debated over many years, and undoubtedly have been changed from time to time, but since mid-1973 it has been decided by the then regional hospital board that, first, it would be a 17-bed unit on the first floor of the former nurses' home, the ground floor being needed for out-patients. I recognise that even that reduction of beds from 20 was disappointing. Secondly, it was programmed to start in 1973–74 at a cost, then, of £181,000, but it did not start in 1973–4, having been caught by the three-months' moratorium on building starts. Thirdly, it was decided that it would replace the Rough Lee general practitioner maternity unit—11 beds—which would in due course be closed.
  The problem has been that it was delayed because of the first sign of the economic difficulties that were starting in 1973–74 under the previous Government, when there was a considerable moratorium on building starts.
  It was then affected savagely by the December 1973 cuts. The then Government announced reductions of about £1,200 million in public expenditure planned for 1974–75, including a reduction of one-fifth in capital programmes. For hospitals and community health services in England alone this meant a reduction of about £45 million.
  Then, coming to 1973—at the end of 1973—for the 1974–75 programme the question facing the Department and the health service was how and where this cut was to be applied; it was inevitable that sacrifices would have to be made and that cherished schemes would have to be postponed. The problem was how to minimise the adverse effects while still achieving real economy.
  My right hon. Friend has from time to time championed in the House the need to spend money on the health service and, what is more, has been prepared to go to the electorate and argue for increases in taxation, and I find it strange that now, after the first three months of the first financial year, people seem to be disregarding the effects of the December cuts in the health service, the hospital programme and, particularly, the education programmes.
  When we looked at the way in which these cuts would operate it was decided
  212
  that apart from special allocations for geriatric service, certain teaching hospital schemes and certain ex-local authority schemes, the allocation of capital to regional health authorities for 1974–75 should be based on the following factors: first, the needs of authorities to meet the contractural obligations of their predecessor regional hospital boards; secondly, the need of authorities for a programme of essential small schemes and the purchase of essential equipment; thirdly, provision for the highest priority major schemes planned to start in 1974–75. To this end the Department's officers made visits to every regional health authority and discussed in some detail the programmes they were inheriting from their predecessor regional hospital boards.
  The Government decided that priority was to be given nationally to services for the mentally ill and the elderly, services for the younger chronic sick and mentally handicapped and certain other services, including fire precautions. Within these guidelines the North Western Regional Health Authority decided as a matter of principle that schemes designed to enable services to be provided where none already existed should take precedence over schemes designed to improve existing services. Though I recognise that the scheme is new, it is designed to improve existing services. The resultant main programme allocation for the North Western Regional Health Authority for 1974–75 was £11·6 million to cover all capital expenditure, including the purchase of land and property, ambulances and equipment.
  I do not disguise from the House that regional health authorities had an unenviable task in trying to select priority schemes from a list of schemes all of which were important enough to be scheduled for commencement of building in the succeeding financial year. The new maternity unit at Accrington Victoria Hospital is intended to replace and improve upon existing facilities at Rough Lee. It could not be treated as essential however desirable an improvement it might be. It was one of a number of larger schemes which suffered the same fate, so it cannot be suggested that Accrington has been singled out for unfavourable treatment. It is, I fear, the consequence of the substantial cuts in public expenditure affecting the health services.

  213
  My hon. Friend can rightly ask what we have done to try to alleviate the situation. As he knows, one of the biggest problems we have, far from restoring the December cuts, is to ensure that the consequences of inflation do not undermine the position any further. My right hon. Friend was able to announce last week that an extra £40 million would be made available, which reflects the increase in the running costs so far this year, for hospital and community health services. In national terms, it is an increase of about 40 per cent. We read in the newspapers that this sum was considered by the British Medical Association at its conference in Hull to be "derisory". All I can say is that there are many other areas in the country which would consider £40 million a substantial injection. Of course it is not enough, but it is an attempt to show that, subject to the requirements of general economic policy, the Government are determined to make further additional allocations in the light of experience of price increases in such a way that the growth of expenditure in real terms will be maintained at its planned level of around 2 per cent. in the current financial year.
  The growth would have been 3½ per cent. had it not been for the severe cuts in expenditure imposed by our predecessors last year. Had we taken no action, that growth rate would have been cut even further. Already money has been provided to meet extra costs arising in the health services which were until April this year the responsibility of local authorities. Details of those sums to be allocated to health authorities have not yet been finally settled and we are having discussions with regional health authorities about this.
  This brings me to the other important point raised by my hon. Friend on the North Western Region and particularly the capital allocations. As my hon. Friend knows, a deputation from the North Western Regional Health Authority saw my right hon. Friend and myself on 24th June. The chairman of the authority referred to the "Handbook of Information" prepared by the regional health authority for the meeting with Members of Parliament and emphasised the points made in that document. He felt that the region was deprived as measured by cri-
  214
  teria bearing on the quality of life. Nobody who knows that region would deny that. He thought that in future the region needed greater allocations than would derive solely from population criteria to compensate for the past when its allocation of resources had been less than the national average. While he agreed that the service depended on people rather than buildings, a theme we have tried to emphasise over the last few difficult months, lie felt that staff could not be attracted to work in appalling conditions.
  We said that we accepted that the region had not done as well in the past as had others. Nevertheless, between 1968–69 and 1972–73 the Manchester Regional Hospital Board's main capital allocations were slightly greater than the national average on a population basis. For 1974–75 the North-Western Region received for new work an allocation matching the national average, and it had been subsequently augmented for the Preston Hospital scheme. Its total allocation fell short of the national average because its commitments to contracts already let was less than the national average. It was also said that Manchester Regional Hospital Board had tended to underspend on capital to a greater extent than the national average, and that this might be due to its approach to the design and planning of major schemes. But it has this relic of a very large stock of old buildings, and I think that it has put a high priority on maintaining existing old buildings and not felt able to start as many new complete capital schemes as perhaps some other regions.
  Since coming to office in March, we have never made any secret of the fact that we are not happy with the way that money is allocated to the regional health authorities. In the past a distribution predominantly population based has been gradually correcting this imbalance, but we want to accelerate the pace of change and give a higher priority to redressing inequalities of care and health standards throughout the country. We have made it clear that we are now actively involved in taking steps to change the existing basis for the allocations. But if we are to re-allocate expenditure and be selective in the way we spend money, we have got to carry the rest of the regions with us. As I have stressed from the Dispatch Box previously, any new system has to be

  215
  based on objective criteria, not on subjective criteria.
  I think that the regional hospital authority accepted that it was possible to have assistance in 1974–75 with only smaller schemes such as health centres, and here the present Government have made substantial increases in the provision for health centres over that which we thought we would be able to make when we came to office. I think that the authority accepted that it would not be possible, on account of its size, to start now the Accrington scheme, which had been deferred from 1974–75.
  As to next year, on which my hon. Friend has quite reasonably pressed me, I can only say to him that this must be a decision for the regional health authority. It is well aware of the feelings in Accrington. It has accepted the obligation and much of the need. A lot will depend on the resources that can be made available to the region and the relative priority that it gives to the various different schemes that apply in its area. I cannot pre-judge, therefore, decisions which it is likely to make in applications for the next year. But my hon. Friend has made a very strong case, both on the specific issue of the maternity unit at Accrington Victoria Hospital and on the more general but none the less important and related issue of the capital allocations to his regional health authority.
  216
  The capital allocations to the regional health authority are decisions for central Government. At present I cannot say what will be the result of the studies, and it will take time to make the sort of substantial change which I think will be necessary. But of this my hon. Friend can be assured. The Government are determined to redress the inequalities and unevenness of standards throughout the health service. Of course we need more money. All aspects of the health service need more money. But that can be said of many other parts of our public life at present. What we can say is that when we have less money it is all the more important to channel those resources to the areas of greatest need. That will certainly be our objective over the next few years.
  I hope, therefore, that it will not be long before my hon. Friend is welcoming a new decision to build the new unit at Accrington Victoria Hospital. Certainly, because of his persistence and efforts on behalf of his constituents, I believe that that day will be hastened by this debate. But I fear that I can give him no further promises than that. I hope that this will at least give his constituents the feeling that their concern is shared by Ministers and by his regional health authority.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at one minute to One o'clock.

TRADE
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Steel Exports (EEC Countries)
  Steel Exports (EEC Countries)
  Catering Trades
  Catering Trades
  Civil Aviation (Route Licensing)
  Civil Aviation (Route Licensing)
  Aeroengines
  Aeroengines
  Overseas Companies (Subsidiaries' Exports)
  Overseas Companies (Subsidiaries' Exports)
  European Economic Community
  European Economic Community
  Chile
  Chile
  Air Disasters
  Air Disasters
  Chemical Exports (EEC Countries)
  Chemical Exports (EEC Countries)
  South Africa
  South Africa
  African Countries
  African Countries
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Greece
  Greece
  Import Controls and Export Subsidies
  Import Controls and Export Subsidies
  Stansted Airport
  Stansted Airport
  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Pharmaceutical Industry
  Helicopter Rescue Service (Manston)
  Helicopter Rescue Service (Manston)
  Ship Building and Repairing
  Ship Building and Repairing
  Machine Tools
  Machine Tools
  Hotel Development
  Hotel Development
  Cotton Textiles (Greece and Turkey)
  Cotton Textiles (Greece and Turkey)
  Maplin
  Maplin
  Oil Imports
  Oil Imports
  Brewers (Political Contributions)
  Brewers (Political Contributions)
  Insurance Companies Amendment Act 1973
  Insurance Companies Amendment Act 1973
  Fertilisers
  Fertilisers
  Nation Life Insurance Company Ltd.
  Nation Life Insurance Company Ltd.
  Insurance Companies
  Insurance Companies
ENERGY
  Natural Gas
  Natural Gas
  North Sea Gas
  North Sea Gas
  Kuwait Oil Auctions
  Kuwait Oil Auctions
  Electricity Generation
  Electricity Generation
  Conservation
  Conservation
  Coal (Exploration)
  Coal (Exploration)
  Oil Rigs (Accidents and Injuries)
  Oil Rigs (Accidents and Injuries)
  Oil Rigs (Safety)
  Oil Rigs (Safety)
  Energy Co-ordinating Group
  Energy Co-ordinating Group
INDUSTRY
  Irlam Steelworks
  Irlam Steelworks
  Steel Exports and Reimports
  Steel Exports and Reimports
  State Ownership and Control
  State Ownership and Control
  Court Line
  Court Line
  Alfred Marks Bureau Ltd.
  Alfred Marks Bureau Ltd.
  Companies (European Take-overs)
  Companies (European Take-overs)
  Gwynedd (Regional Assistance Status)
  Gwynedd (Regional Assistance Status)
  Optical Lenses
  Optical Lenses
  Departmental Questionnaires
  Departmental Questionnaires
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Exchange Rates
  Exchange Rates
  Personal Incomes (Scotland)
  Personal Incomes (Scotland)
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Wealth Tax
  Wealth Tax
  Share Prices (OECD Countries)
  Share Prices (OECD Countries)
  Industrial and Primary Production
  Industrial and Primary Production
  War Loan
  War Loan
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Savings
  Savings
EMPLOYMENT
  Collective Bargaining
  Collective Bargaining
  Management (EEC Directive)
  Management (EEC Directive)
  EEC Social Fund
  EEC Social Fund
  Irlam and Stretford
  Irlam and Stretford
  Company Land Holdings (Scotland)
  Company Land Holdings (Scotland)
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Companies (Scotland)
  Companies (Scotland)
  Asbestos Workers (Survey)
  Asbestos Workers (Survey)
  Tort and Contract (Trade Unions)
  Tort and Contract (Trade Unions)
  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
  VEHICLE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
  VEHICLE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
DEFENCE
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Indonesia (Naval Visit)
  Indonesia (Naval Visit)
  Compassionate Cases
  Compassionate Cases
  Fylingdales
  Fylingdales
  Soviet Warships (Surveillance)
  Soviet Warships (Surveillance)
  HMS "Renown" (Visit to USA)
  HMS "Renown" (Visit to USA)
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Quarantine
  Quarantine
  Live Animals (Export for Slaughter)
  Live Animals (Export for Slaughter)
  Fertilisers
  Fertilisers
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  Poultry (EEC Directive)
  Poultry (EEC Directive)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Deferred Retirement
  Deferred Retirement
  Parliamentary Papers
  Parliamentary Papers
  Cooks (Pay)
  Cooks (Pay)
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Government Departments (Dispersal)
  Government Departments (Dispersal)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Church Schools
  Church Schools
  Adult Education
  Adult Education
  School Meals (Cooks' Pay)
  School Meals (Cooks' Pay)
  Direct Grant Schools
  Direct Grant Schools
  School Transport (Report)
  School Transport (Report)
  Secondary Education
  Secondary Education
  Absence from School
  Absence from School
  Schoolchildren (Smoking)
  Schoolchildren (Smoking)
  Expelled Pupils
  Expelled Pupils
  Colleges of Education (Amalgamations)
  Colleges of Education (Amalgamations)
ENVIRONMENT
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Road Verges (Upkeep)
  Road Verges (Upkeep)
  Goole (Inner Relief Road)
  Goole (Inner Relief Road)
  Water and Sewerage Authorities
  Water and Sewerage Authorities
  Fuel Economy (Government Departments)
  Fuel Economy (Government Departments)
  Housing (Elderly Persons)
  Housing (Elderly Persons)
  Notts Crop Driers Ltd.
  Notts Crop Driers Ltd.
  M20 (Ditton Bypass)
  M20 (Ditton Bypass)
  Tower Block Flats (Community Amenities)
  Tower Block Flats (Community Amenities)
  Motorways (Service Areas)
  Motorways (Service Areas)
  Neighbourhood Councils
  Neighbourhood Councils
  A21 (East Sussex)
  A21 (East Sussex)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  INSTITUTE FOR FISCAL STUDIES
  INSTITUTE FOR FISCAL STUDIES
  DEVOLUTION
  DEVOLUTION
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Woburn Borstal
  Woburn Borstal
  Constitution (Poll)
  Constitution (Poll)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Mr. G. R. Brunet de Rochbrune
  Mr. G. R. Brunet de Rochbrune
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Licensing Law
  Licensing Law
  Hotels (Fire Regulations)
  Hotels (Fire Regulations)
  Referenda
  Referenda
  Capital Punishment
  Capital Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Voluntary Agencies
  Voluntary Agencies
  ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION (ROYAL COMMISSION)
SCOTLAND
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Special Housing Group
  Special Housing Group
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
  Bute
  Bute
  Road Works (Clovenfords)
  Road Works (Clovenfords)
  Educational Institutions (Local Authority Representation)
  Educational Institutions (Local Authority Representation)
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Local Authorities (Borrowing)
  Local Authorities (Borrowing)
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Social Welfare
  Social Welfare
  Expelled Pupils
  Expelled Pupils
  Rate Rebates
  Rate Rebates
  Summary Criminal Justice
  Summary Criminal Justice
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  War Widows' Pensions
  War Widows' Pensions
  Speech Therapy
  Speech Therapy
  Widows (Wales)
  Widows (Wales)
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons (Mobility)
  Disabled Persons (Mobility)
  Elderly Persons
  Elderly Persons
  Children (Accidental Poisoning)
  Children (Accidental Poisoning)
  Benefits (Industrial Disputes)
  Benefits (Industrial Disputes)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Baby Foods
  Baby Foods
  Milk
  Milk
WALES
  Sewerage Charges
  Sewerage Charges
  Houses (Internal Amenities)
  Houses (Internal Amenities)
  Family Planning
  Family Planning

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.
The Earl of Breadalbane—Sat first in Parliament pursuant to the Peerages Act 1963.
The Viscount Torrington—Took the Oath.

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES ACT: REGULATIONS
LORD CROOK: 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 all the regulations necessary to bring into force the Employment Agencies Act, as to which consultations were to take place with interested bodies, are now ready to be published.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment on June 21 sent to interested bodies for comment his proposals for the regulations to be made under Sections 2(2) and 5 of the Act. These are the principal regulations and they relate to the amount of the licence fee and the standards of conduct to be observed by employment agencies and businesses. Proposals for the remaining regulations are in preparation, and it is hoped to issue these fairly soon for comment.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply.

OIL RIGS: SAFETY ZONES
2.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: 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 steps they propose to take to ensure that Soviet Government ships do not infringe safety zones around production platforms or exploration drilling rigs within the British zone of the Continental Shelf.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, a Soviet Government ship entered the safety zones of installations on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf on June 24 and 25. The attention of the Soviet authorities was immediately drawn to the need to observe safety zones around installations on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, and for the information which it gave to the House. May I ask him whether he is aware that my Question asked what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take to ensure that Soviet ships do not infringe the safety zone? Could he be so kind as to answer that Question?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I thought I gave an indication, by saying what we have already done, of what we propose to do in the future if such infringements are reported. Additionally, we have under study interdepartmentally improvements in the speed and accuracy of reporting by the rig operators. But it is our experience, as deliberate infringement is very rare indeed, that the speed with which we can apply to the governmental authorities of the infringing ship in question is always important. We shall of course look to possible changes in the law of the sea, and also to technical changes in improving mechanical devices to provide evidence of infringement.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that further reply, may I ask whether the Government are considering the possibility of aerial patrols so that the activities of Soviet vessels in the North Sea and the Channel, which are now very common and sometimes dangerous, can be monitored, and so that either naval

837
or coastguard intervention may be provided should it be needed?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to the suggestion made by the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale. I should add that this kind of infringement is, happily, exceptional.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer a further question? I am much obliged for what he has said but can he say whether the coastguard was alerted to intervene on the occasion of these two incidents? Also, how far within the safety zones and how close to the installations in question did the Soviet ships come?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am advised that in fact it was the coastguard which was informed and which transmitted the information to the proper authorities on both these occasions. As to the distance between the rig and the infringing vessel, our calculation is that it was 950 feet, but this is disputed by the Soviet authorities, who admit that there was a vessel in the vicinity. They say that it was not within the limit of 500 metres. However, they do not contest for a moment the need not to infringe these safety zones.

BUSINESS
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will be making a Statement on the situation in Cyprus. This might be a convenient moment to let the House know that dinners will be available to-night.
WORKINGTON HARBOUR BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
EDUCATION (MENTALLY HANDICAPPED CHILDREN) (SCOTLAND) BILL.
Read 3a, and passed.

MINES (WORKING FACILITIES AND SUPPORT) BILL
2.43 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, T beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this short Bill is to extend to all minerals the power of the Chancery Court to confer on any person a right to search for or work any of the nine minerals mentioned in paragraph 1 of the Table in Section 1 of the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1966 and also to coal which is the subject of paragraph 3 of the Table. That Act itself is based on a large number of Acts dating from 1923. These nine minerals are iron ore and ironstone: tin, lead, copper, copper and tungsten ores: fluorspar, barytes and oil shale. In respect of all other minerals, other than these plus coal, the persons on whom the Court may confer such a right are at present restricted by the 1966 Act to persons who have an interest in the minerals, or in the case of minerals owned in small parcels, in minerals adjacent to them. That is what paragraph 2 of the Table to which I have referred provides. However, it may well be in the national interest that other minerals, such as stone, gravel, china clay, sand, should be worked no less than the nine minerals mentioned in Table 1.
This is not an uncomplicated matter, but I shall try to simplify it so far as I can and I shall leave out any points that are not immediately relevant to the purpose. The procedure for the grant of a right to search for or work any of the nine minerals is set out in Section 4 of the Act of 1966. Application has to be made to the Minister, who must transmit it to the Court unless he is satisfied that a prima facie case has not been made out. Section 3 lays down certain safeguards, limitations and conditions. The Court may not grant the right to search for or work minerals unless it is satisfied that it is in the national interest to do so, nor may the Court grant the right unless it is shown that it is not reasonably practicable for one of four specific reasons to obtain it by private agreement. These reasons are, first, that the persons with power to grant the right are numerous or have conflicting interests; second, that any of the persons cannot be ascertained or found; third, that any of the persons

839
from whom the right must be obtained has not the necessary powers of disposition, and fourth, that the person with power to grant the right unreasonably refuses to grant it or demands terms which are unreasonable. A further safeguard is that before transmitting the application to the Court the Minister must communicate with the person who is alleged to lack the necessary powers of disposition or to have refused to grant the right or to have demanded terms which are unreasonable.
When the Court is satisfied that the application falls within the limitations and complies with the requirements of the Act, it may grant the right to search for or work the minerals on such terms, subject to such conditions and for such period as it may think fit. In default of agreement between the parties on compensation or consideration to be paid by the applicant, the Court may also determine the amount to be paid by him. It can grant the right only provided it is satisfied that it is expedient in the national interest to do so.
There is one other safeguard which is extremely important. Planning permission must be obtained before the minerals can be actually worked. Local planning authorities have powers under the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1973 to grant planning permission for development which does not accord with the provisions of their development plan. The directions are, in fact, those contained in the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans) Direction 1965, with which there was issued by the Minister of Housing and Local Government Circular No. 70/65 explaining the procedure for dealing with applications relating to development not in accordance with the plan. Where the proposal would not in the opinion of the local planning authority involve a substantial departure from the provisions of the plan, nor affect the whole of the neighbourhood, the local planning authority may deal with it themselves. In other cases they must give the Secretary of State the opportunity of issuing a direction how the application should be dealt with.
It is normal for undertakers wishing to work minerals to apply for planning permission before applying to the Minister
840
for the right to work the minerals. This is clearly in their interest and can be taken into consideration by the Court. This, then, my Lords, is the procedure already available to anyone who wants to seek or work any of the nine favoured minerals, and coal, mentioned in paragraphs 1 and 3 of the Table in Section 1 of the 1966 Act. It is also available to anyone who wants to work any minerals and has any interest in the land. This Bill seeks simply to extend the procedure to anyone else who wants to seek for or work any minerals, provided the Court is satisfied that it is in the national interest that the minerals in question should be sought for or worked. The mere existence of these powers tends to bring the parties together; and in fact the number of cases that have been taken to Court is small; they relate mainly to ironstone. This shows the usefulness of this particular procedure. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
2.50 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he has said in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I shall be brief because there is only one point with which I would be concerned. I believe my noble friend answered it in his last sentences. I am fully aware that the laws of minerals and mineral working are extremely complicated. However, as I understand it. at present if one of the nine minerals in the preferred list is found on an area of ground it is possible to obtain a court order granting permission to exploit that mineral provided that planning permission is subsequently obtained; and it is likely that if the court made an order saying that it was in the national interest planning permission would subsequently be obtained. If, however, a mineral is outside the list of nine—and that would include sand and gravel—then it is necessary to obtain planning permission in advance, and an agreement is then entered into between the extractor and the owner. It is only if the owner cannot or does not wish to have his minerals extracted that the extractor can then go along to the court, and only if the court is satisfied that it is in the national interest will the extractor be given permission to extract these minerals.

841
I fear, from what my noble friend said at the very end (although I may have got it wrong) that Section 265 of the Town and Country Planning Act is to be repealed. That is the section which provides the "national interest" basis. If all these other minerals were to be included with the list of preferred minerals, then it would mean that a High Court decision could be given on whether or not minerals should be extracted even if it were not in the national interest. If that were so, then the decision would be made between whether it was in the owner's interest or the extractor's interest, and I fear that this might leave many areas of land, which at the moment are protected, subject to mineral extraction. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure me that in fact I am wrong. However, the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill says:
"By virtue of section 265 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, other minerals and mineral substances may be the subject of such an Order only where a development plan provides that the land under which they are situate is to be used for the purpose of securing the winning and working of any minerals comprised therein. The purpose of this Bill is to place all minerals and mineral substances in the same category by extending the Court's powers under paragraph 1 of the 1966 Act and repealing section 265 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971".
I should like the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to answer this question. I have to declare an interest in a minor way in so far as I am a farmer and am also connected with land which has minerals upon it, but that is not the reason for my intervention. My question is whether, if this Bill goes through unamended, the criterion of "national interest" will still be brought to bear upon any High Court order with regard to minerals which at present are outside the list of nine.
2.55 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, the demand for minerals and the pattern of mineral working in this country has changed considerably since the nine classes of minerals were first selected for preferential treatment in the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) Act 1934. The Government therefore have no objection to the extension of the court's powers under paragraph 1 of the Table in Section 1 of the 1966 Act, as now proposed in this Bill. Nor do we oppose Section 265 of the Town and
842
Country Planning Act 1971 and Section 252 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, simply because neither of these sections would be required.
In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, may I say that in deciding whether the grant of rights would be in the national interest the court is simply a substitute for the person or persons who cannot or will not grant the rights, and the decision operates solely between them and the applicant. The fact that the court is to be satisfied about the national interest may be regarded as the justification for the court overriding the rights of the private citizen. Planning considerations are an entirely separate matter and the grant of rights does not prejudice the exercise of the planning functions of either the local planning authority or the Secretary of State where he is involved.
I can also give an assurance that no mining operations would be allowed to proceed without planning permission. Operators of non-preferred minerals have been pressing for an amendment of the law in line with this Bill and their demand would appear to be not unreasonable. We do not expect a flood of applications. Under the 1966 Act there have been only six applications altogether. Three of those applications never went further than the Secretary of State. Of the other three, one was withdrawn, another was settled out of court and one has yet to be heard. Under this Act, therefore, the court has never made a substantive decision. The Government have no objection to the Bill but they do not regard it as a substitute for the thorough overhaul of mineral rights legislation that will be required in due course.
2.58 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for what he has said. I think that he has answered the point to the satisfaction of my noble friend. It is, of course, the case that Section 265, the section which is to be repealed, has never been activated and that it does not need to be activated if we have this Bill. That is the reason for repealing it.
So far as planning permission is concerned, this can be obtained either before or after the application to the court. The

843
point is that it has to be obtained, and all the usual safeguards there are invoked. I am informed, I hope correctly, that in cases of applications for development of minerals there is invariably a public inquiry. So far as the decision of the courts is concerned, it is clearly laid down in Section 3(1) of the 1966 Act as follows:
"No right shall be granted under section 1 of this Act unless the court is satisfied that the grant is expedient in the national interest."
Therefore I think that the case of the protection of the environment and the protection of agricultural interests is fully safeguarded here. All of these claims have to be evaluated in order to see where the balance of the national interest lies, but certainly any person who is concerned would have ample opportunity of making his case under this Bill, as he has done in the case of the nine minerals in the past. Therefore I hope that my noble friend will be satisfied with that answer.
It may be worth while to mention that in the structure plans which have now started to be submitted under the 1966 Act, one county has made it quite plain that the surrounding counties will be consulted throughout the structure plan period to ensure that decisions in respect of mineral applications are compatible with regional requirements and that one authority cannot, by an unduly restrictive policy, effectively export the demand for minerals to its neighbouring counties. It is also said that mineral operators are to be encouraged to work such deposits as quickly as possible and to be required to restore workings to a beneficial use by conditions attached to the planning permission. Finally, if I may quote from another county, it says that it is the county's policy—and I quote only the relevant words—
"that the workings are not injurious to amenity".
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TOWN AND COUNTRY AMENITIES BILL
3.0 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a Bill entirely concerned with the environment, and with only one aspect of the environment—conservation. But this is an aspect which has been growing in public interest. There are several reasons for this interest. Partly it is because of the pace of development, which means that familiar buildings and landmarks suddenly disappear and are replaced by modern buildings which often seem out of scale with the rest of the townscape or landscape, and partly it is because we recognise the importance of our architectural heritage, not just as something that we enjoy to-day but as something that we wish to pass on to our children.
This interest in the subject of conservation is reflected in the legislation of past years, which in its turn reflects the change in the thinking of town and country planners. We are moving away from the concept of the listed building by itself—immensely valuable as this is—for this can mean that the building stands alone, beautiful but out of character with those that surround it, and we are moving towards the concept of a conservation area. A conservation area is a small area or group of buildings which, taken together and in relation to each other, make up an area of special architectural interest which ought to be conserved as a whole, and any additions or infilling must be in character with the rest of the area.
The Civic Amenities Act 1967 established conservation areas and was sponsored by my noble friend Lord Duncan Sandys, who we are delighted to see will be making his maiden speech on this Bill to-day. I know we shall all listen with great interest to what he has to say, not only because of his great work for conservation but also because he is President of the Civic Trust which has done so much to encourage the sponsors of this Bill. It is indeed a tribute to the work of my noble friend Lord Duncan Sandys that there are now some 3,000 conservation areas in the country. I should also like to pay tribute to the

845
work of Mrs. Jennifer Jenkins who, besides being the wife of the present Home Secretary, is Secretary of the Ancient Monuments Society and has also done much to encourage the sponsors of this Bill.
This Bill has all-Party support. It was originally introduced by a private Member in another place, Sir John Rodgers, in the last Parliament when it had Government support. It has been sponsored in this Parliament by my honourable friend Mr. Michael Shersby, and, again, it has Government support. The Bill has been discussed with the local authority associations and I think it is fair to say that they support the principles of (he Bill, as does the Civic Trust, whose Secretary, Mr. Peter Robshaw, has acted as adviser not only on the drafting of the Bill but to all those who are seeking to promote it in Parliament. The Bill comes at an opportune time. The new local authorities came into being on April 1, and both the county councils and the district councils have concurrent powers for the designation of conservation areas.
Clause 1 of the Bill requires local planning authorities to consider within a given period the conservation areas already designated within their boundaries, and whether they should designate any more. Secondly, it empowers the Secretary of State to designate conservation areas himself, but only after consultation with the local planning authority concerned. It introduces a new principle in that it brings within a conservation area buildings which are not listed within the scope of local planning authorities. Thus local planning authorities can cither give or withhold consent for demolition on any building, whether or not it is listed, which is within a conservation area. At the same time, it contains powers to enable the Secretary of State to make directions excluding buildings from the scope of Clause 1, because although nearly all the buildings in a conservation area will be of architectural merit it is easy to see that some may not, and should rightly be excluded.
Clause 2 makes the same provisions for Scotland as for England and Wales. Clause 3 makes special provisions for controlling the display of advertisements in conservation areas, which will be an additional safeguard. May I add a plea
846
of my own on this clause? Although the Bill makes no mention of street furniture or traffic signs, I believe that these should be of a scale in keeping with the conservation area where they are placed. Clause 4 is concerned with the setting of a listed building. As I indicated at the beginning of my remarks, it is not enough simply to list a building if it is soon surrounded by totally incongruous buildings. The clause requires a local planning authority to advertise by public notice and in the Press, and to have the plans open for public inspection where, in the opinion of the local planning authority, any proposal would affect the setting of a listed building.
I turn now to Clauses 5 and 6, because both these clauses have caused concern to your Lordships. Clause 5 enables local authorities to recover the cost they incur in carrying out urgent works to unoccupied listed buildings. The Civic Amenities Act 1967 first gave local authorities power to do so; this Bill enables them to recover the cost. Perhaps I may add—because I hope it will help to alleviate the fears of some who are concerned about this clause—that it is not envisaged that such repairs would be other than emergency repairs to keep a building wind and weather proof. Also, it would be open to the owner, under subsection (2) of this clause, to have the right to make representations to the Secretary of State on the grounds that the demand was unreasonable, or that the works were unnecessary, or that there would be hardship to the owners.
Many representations have been made to me about this clause, including representations from the Scottish Landowners Federation and the County Landowners. I have considered this clause in the light of the fears that have been put to me about the additional costs that this could put on owners of listed buildings. Being a practically-minded person, I like to think of what is likely to happen. First, the local authority having tried to get the owner to do the necessary repairs and having failed to achieve this by negotiation, might decide to do them itself. Having taken this decision, the local authority would of course have to bear the cost in the first instance, and would then have to set about recovering the costs under Clause 5. Even then the owner can appeal, using one of the three grounds

847
that I have already indicated. He can appeal to the Secretary of State and can argue that the work was unnecessary, or that the demand being made was unreasonable or—even if the work was necessary and the demand was reasonable—that it would cause hardship.
I feel that if we consider the practicalities of the situation some of the fears will be alleviated. Furthermore, an undertaking was given in Committee in another place that the Department of the Environment would issue a Circular on the Bill, which among other things explained how the Department would expect local authorities to interpret this Part of the Bill. And, as is usual before issuing a Circular, its contents would be discussed with the local authorities themselves and with the amenity groups.
Clause 6 has also caused concern, particularly to the Churches. As the law stands, if an owner of a listed building fails to keep it in good repair and a local authority wants to acquire it in order to preserve it, the compensation must be assessed on the assumption that consent would be given for its demolition. This means, in fact, that a local authority can find itself paying the full redevelopment value as if the site were cleared of the listed building, when it wishes only to preserve the building. The compensation could, therefore, be more than would be paid on the open market where any potential buyer would take account of the fact that the building was listed. This clause removes the anomaly by amending Section 116 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Clause 7 requires any application by a local authority for listed building consent to demolish a building to be made to the Secretary of State, whether or not the local planning authority owns the building.
I turn now to Clauses 8 to 12. Clause 12 was in the original Bill, and on the advice of the Historic Buildings Council it makes it possible to pay a grant towards the upkeep of gardens or land of outstanding historic interest which are not adjacent to an historic building. This provision is new in conservation law, but it is important and is surely a protection for some of our fine gardens. Clauses 8 to 11 were added during the Committee stage of the Bill in another place and give added protection to trees in conservation
848
areas. This surely derives naturally from the great interest in trees following upon Tree Planting Year 1973.
My Lords, I have outlined, albeit briefly, the main purpose of the Bill and I hope that it will commend itself to your Lordships. I believe that there is great public interest to-day in conservation, as witness the rapid growth of amenity societies, and nowhere is the feeling greater than among the young. I believe that the Bill will go some way to meeting this interest and will be a Bill which future generations will be glad that we passed. Alas! at this time of year the Parliamentary timetable is tight, so I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and a speedy passage. I can conclude my remarks in no better way than by echoing the words of my honourable friend Mr. Michael Shersby when he introduced the Bill in another place and said that the Bill could be Parliament's contribution to European Architectural Heritage Year. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Young.)
3.12 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has explained very clearly the purpose of the Bill and I am happy to say that it is a measure which the Government are pleased to give support. In view of the great interest and the activities which he has undertaken, I think it is very fitting that the noble Lord, Lord Duncan Sandys, should be making his maiden speech on it. I am sure that the whole House looks forward with keen anticipation to what he will have to say. The noble Baroness has explained the changes which the Bill proposes, particularly with regard to conservation areas. For my part I welcome the proposal to bring within control all demolition and conservation areas and to require local authorities to formulate and publicise schemes which will enhance the areas they have designated. This will ensure an increased role for local authorities and, we trust, encourage public participation in this increasingly important activity. While Central Government must play their part in providing effective legislation, it is at the level where local knowledge and expertise are readily available that effective conservation must begin. I

849
congratulate the noble Baroness on her sponsorship of the Bill and I commend it to your Lordships. I hope that it will have a very speedy passage.
3.14 p.m.
LORD DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, since this is the first occasion on which I have had the honour to address your Lordships' House I hope that I shall receive the indulgence which is customarily accorded to newcomers. I wish wholeheartedly to support this Bill which, among other things, Will help, as has been said, to strengthen the provision of the Civic Amenities Act 1967. Up till that time the laws relating to architectural conservation had concentrated on the protection of individual buildings of outstanding interest. As was said by my noble friend Lady Young—and I thank her for her generous remarks with regard to myself—the Act of 1967 introduced the wider concept of the conservation area. Since then, the principle of conserving entire areas has been adopted more and more widely throughout Europe. In fact, it has been made the central theme of the European Architectural Heritage Year of 1975.
There is no doubt that our laws on this subject are considerably more effective than those of most other countries. Nevertheless, experience has shown us certain weaknesses which the Bill seeks to rectify. As the law now stands, the responsibility for designating conservation areas rests with the local authorities concerned. On the whole, they have responded very well indeed. As has been said, over 3,000 conservation areas have already been designated, but these, one must say, are very unevenly spread and there are many notable and regrettable omissions. I therefore fully support the proposal to give to the Secretary of State the right to take the initiative himself and, where necessary, designate additional conservation areas, naturally after due consultation with the local authority.
As I have said, I warmly welcome the Bill as a whole, but there are two points on which I should like to comment. One of the most important provisions of the Bill is the one which makes it obligatory to obtain permission to demolish any building in a conservation area even if it is not a listed building. There are many buildings in conservation areas
850
which individually may be of no special interest, but which fit quite unobtrusively into their surroundings. The demolition of such a building and its replacement by some other building of incongruous design or excessive size can all too easily destroy the unity and character of the entire scene. Of course, the planning authority already has the power to refuse permission for the construction of a new building of which it does not approve, but that power is not as effective as it might seem. Once a building has been demolished the yawning gap which it leaves is in itself an eyesore. The site cannot therefore be allowed to remain indefinitely vacant. Consequently, the authority may sooner or later find itself obliged to give permission for the construction of some new building which shows scant respect for the character of its older neighbours. If, as the Bill provides, permission has to be obtained to demolish any building in a conservation area, the local authority will be in a position to ask the developer to give some indication of what he proposes to construct in its place. But—and I think this must be pointed out—there is nothing to prevent the developer from subsequently changing his mind. Therefore, I consider that, in a conservation area, permission to demolish a building should be granted only in conjunction with full planning consent for the new building which is to replace it.
The Bill also authorises the Secretary of State to make special regulations for the control of advertising in conservation areas, but this does not seem, so far as I can see, to add anything to his existing powers. Under the Town and Country Planning Act of 1971 he already has the power to make:
"different regulations in respect of different areas."
However, that Act provides for stricter regulations in what are called "areas of special control", which are defined as areas which
"require special protection on grounds of amenity".
That definition, surely, exactly describes the nature and purpose of a conservation area. In my opinion, it would therefore have been better and simpler to declare that all conservation areas will automatically be deemed to be areas of special

851
control, except in so far as they may be decontrolled by the Secretary of State.
My Lords, having said that, I recognise that the specific mention of conservation areas in the Bill, although it may not add any powers which do not already exist, will emphasise the duty of the Secretary of State to pay special attention to the control of advertising in these areas. That is particularly important since there is nothing which more completely destroys the dignity and quality of beautiful towns and villages than excessive and garish advertisements, by day or by night. Moreover, while most other improvements cost money, the restriction of advertising costs nothing at all. It requires only a little firmness and courage on the part of the Minister, who can, I am sure, count on the wholehearted support of Parliament and the public.
The Bill also gives much needed additional protection to listed buildings, trees and to historic gardens, which have received insufficient attention in previous legislation. The Bill, therefore, represents a further major step forward which will be widely welcomed. I have explained that there are two points on which the Bill does not go as far as I should like, but I hasten to say that I have no intention whatsoever of tabling any Amendments which would delay its progress. This Bill has been lost once already as a result of the Dissolution last February. Since there seems to be some possibility of another General Election before long, we must not risk losing the Bill a second time. Therefore, while warmly congratulating its sponsor, Mr. Michael Shersby, may I express the hope that your Lordships will make sure that this valuable Measure gets safely on to the Statute Book before the Recess.
3.25 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, it is my privilege to extend to the noble Lord, Lord Duncan Sandys, the congratulations of the House on the notable maiden speech he has just delivered. He is no stranger to Parliamentary oratory, and in another place has delivered many notable speeches. It is good to know that we shall be able to look forward to the help of his eloquence and knowledge. There is no Bill upon which he could more suitably have made
852
his maiden speech, since everyone knows his great concern and expertise in matters of conservation. We extend to him our most warm congratulations, and look forward to hearing him on many occasions in the future.
My Lords, I speak to-day in this debate in my capacity as Chairman of the Churches Main Committee, which is a body which represents all the main religious denominations in this country, so your Lordships will appreciate that I shall be speaking mainly about the position of the Churches in relation to this Bill. I should like to make it clear, however, that I am not seeking any special exemptions or concessions for the Churches. Most of what I have to say could equally be said by any owner of a listed building. The reason the Churches are especially concerned is because probably they own more listed buildings than any other group in this country.
The market value of a listed redundant church restricted to its existing use is probably less than any other comparable piece of property. These buildings usually represent about the only material asset which a Church may possess. If I may give your Lordships some figures, the Church of England owns at least 11,000 listed buildings, the Church of Wales some 600, the Baptist Union probably some 400, and the Methodist Church some 350. Of course, the Churches have not themselves bought or acquired these buildings. For the most part they have inherited from the past and often, especially as regards our Victorian heritage, they are a considerable embarrassment. May I remind your Lordships that these are for the most part owned and maintained by bodies or individuals with very few resources. In the case of the Church of England, ownership is vested in the incumbent of a parish. In the case of most of the other Christian denominations, ownership is usually vested in local trustees or stewards who represent the local congregation. In the Church of England, repairs and maintenance are the responsibility of the parochial church council, and in most of the other Churches, of the local congregation.
So long as a church remains in use for Church purposes those responsible struggle to maintain it despite all the difficulties of escalating costs, costs to which

853
must now be added 10 per cent. for V.A.T. Of course, these people do not receive a penny piece of State aid. Churches are not in business to preserve buildings, however desirable that may be, but to do the work of the Church. If a building ceases to be used for Church purposes, it is essential that the owners should be able to divest themselves as soon as possible of the burden of maintaining it. They need to realise the capital value which it represents, so that they can carry on the work of the Church elsewhere. Some Churches are already in great difficulty over the maintenance of redundant churches for which they are unfortunate enough to have responsibility. For instance, I am thinking of the case of the Brunswick Chapel in Leeds, a building for which the Methodist Church now has no use, which has cost hundreds of pounds in the last six years to supervise and protect, which needs thousands of pounds spending on it to repair the roof and the ceiling, and which has limited use to which it can be put by other purchasers because of its listing; also, it has a graveyard round it.
My Lords, it is for this reason that the Churches were at first much dismayed when they saw Clause 5 of the Bill and the power it gives to local authorities to charge owners with the cost of repairing unoccupied listed buildings. The noble Baroness said this would be only emergency work, but with a church, even putting up the scaffolding can be an extremely expensive operation. At any rate, at first sight this clause seemed to be a very serious threat. However, the Churches are now prepared to withdraw their opposition to this clause because assurances have been given by the Government that a circular will be sent to local authorities drawing their attention to the special problems which confront the Churches, and also because we now think it unlikely that in practice this clause will be used where churches are concerned. The local authority has to carry out the repairs in the first instance, and is unlikely to be very successful in recovering money from owners who have no money to provide. Therefore, we think and hope that this clause will remain a dead letter so far as the church buildings are concerned.
Clause 6, however, dealing as it does with capital values, is a different matter, and here I must ask your Lordships'
854
patience in drawing attention to the disastrous effect which listing can have on the value of a building and the problems which it can create for its owner. An example of the effect on values is shown by a recent court case in which the value of a listed church in Rochester which would cost £35,000 to replace was given as only £4,300, if the church was restricted to its existing use. In another current case, that of a listed Methodist church in Leeds, the value if it could be demolished and sold for redevelopment might be a quarter of a million pounds. The value restricted to current use is nominal, since the building is a liability rather than an asset. Thirdly, there is the case of a United Reformed church in Croydon which stands between two office blocks. Its value for existing use is no more than some £10,000, but if it could be demolished and the site redeveloped it might be worth some half million pounds.
Apart from its effect on values, listing can also have a serious effect on the arrangements for the future of the building and the site. May I quote another current case in Keighley, that of the Temple Street Methodist Church. Here practically all the arrangements had been completed for the church to be sold to the Keighley Corporation when it became known that the building had been listed. The Bradford Metropolitan District immediately intimated that they did not wish to purchase the building if there was a listing order on it. The result has been that instead of the Methodist Trustees being able to proceed with plans for the development of their church work elsewhere they now have on their hands a useless building, which may cost them just as much to maintain as those in the other cases I have mentioned. Your Lord-ships will, therefore, not be surprised that the Church authorities, and for all I know other owners, learn with great concern of the listing of their buildings, particularly as, may I remind your Lordships, an owner is not necessarily consulted about the listing of his building, has no appeal against it, and very often does not even become aware that his building has been listed until months after the event.
This brings me to Clause 6 of the Bill. Here again I must ask your Lordships to bear with me, in a particularly treacherous field, while I try to explain

855
as best I can what we interpret Clause 6 as attempting to do, and why the Churches feel very anxious about it. At first sight Clause 6 appears to mean that in assessing the compensation no regard is to be paid to any value which could be realised by demolishing the building, and so the compensation would be based on the value of the land for its existing use. What this may mean is illustrated by the hypothetical case of two buildings side by side in an area which has been compulsorily acquired for redevelopment. One building is listed and the other is not. Under Section 116 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as it stands at present, both owners get identical treatment. In the case of the unlisted building no listed building consent is needed for demolition, and so automatically the owner gets the development value of the site. In the case of the listed building the valuer is directed by Section 116 to assume that listed building consent will be forthcoming for demolition, and so the owner, too, gets his development value. Both owners are thus put on an equal footing. Indeed Section 116 seems to have been intended to ensure just that; namely, that the owner of a listed building receives the same terms as the owner of an unlisted building, a position which most people might regard as no more than just.
However, it seems that this situation is thought to have led to abuse, since it may enable the owner of a listed building to realise development value which he could have realised in no other way, because in practice he would never have obtained consent for the building to be demolished. There is thus an opportunity, it is argued, to buy a listed building and to unload it on to the acquiring authority for the full development value. I have reason to suppose that this was the abuse which the Promoters of this Bill were concerned to stop. But by making Clause 6 amend Section 116 of the 1971 Act, which applies over the whole field of compulsory acquisition, the Government have made it the opportunity, rightly or wrongly, to make a change in the code of compensation for compulsory acquisition. What the result appears to be is that instead of the two owners of the two buildings side by side receiving equal compensation the owner of the
856
listed building will now receive less, if this amendment goes through, because what he will receive is the market value of a listed building, and that, as I have shown, is less, and often considerably less, than the market value of an unlisted building.
We are assured by the Department that although the valuer will no longer be directed to assume that listed building consent will be given for the demolition of the building, he will be entitled to consider the prospects of obtaining that consent in the particular circumstances, and so the compensation received by the owner may not be as low as might have originally been feared. That may or may not be so. All I can say at present, without going into a very long and technical explanation, is that the lawyers and valuers who advise the Churches are not quite sure that this will in fact be the result in every case. Accordingly, had time permitted I would have wished to move an Amendment in Committee which would have confined the operation of Clause 6 to cases where a building is being listed for preservation, to the sort of cases which the Promoters of the Bill have in mind, and would have left unaffected the position where the listed building is acquired for demolition. Unfortunately, time does not so permit. I have also been told that the Government are not prepared to accept any Amendment, so that if one were successfully moved they woud not be prepared to give it time to be discussed in another place and the Bill would therefore be lost. In these circumstances, and rather than risk the loss of the Bill, most of which everyone would support, I shall not now be moving any Amendment, although I may have to ask the noble Lord who will be speaking on the Committee stage one or two questions designed to elucidate just what compensation a Church might expect in various circumstances if Clause 6 goes through in its present form.
In a debate about preservation, however, I could not let the opportunity pass of drawing attention publicly to the other side of the coin, and to the very real problems, financial and otherwise, which may be caused to those who are unfortunate enough, if you call it that, to own a building that is to be preserved. The Churches are perhaps more fortunate

857
than some other owners, in this respect, that if a church is a going concern and if its work is to be carried on somewhere else then it may be entitled to claim compensation based on equivalent reinstatement. But if a church is redundant, or if for one reason or another equivalent reinstatement is not appropriate, the Church may well be worse off than another owner of a listed building, since the latter, if it is a house, for example, usually has at least some existing use value as a house, whereas a church very often has no value apart from any development value that remains in the site. In that case the loss of value on listing can be enormous, especially as so many of the redundant Victorian churches I have mentioned are in High Streets and city centres where the rich merchants and industrialists who built them had their personal interests.
Clause 6 will make the matter worse by ensuring that owners receive only their low existing use value as listed buildings when they are compulsorily acquired for preservation. When the results of listing are pointed out to Ministers, they are apt to say that under the rules the consequences of planning decisions lie where they fall, and that owners must expect some limitation on their freedom in the interests of the community. The first argument might be a little more acceptable if listing followed consultation and could be the subject of appeal, but it cannot. As for the second argument, owners of listed buildings may well wonder why they are singled out for financial burdens from which those fortunate enough to own unlisted buildings are free.
However, there is nothing that we can do about it in the Bill, most of which, as I have said, the Churches would warmly support. I can only hope that the Minister, in the Circular to the local authorities that he has promised, will draw special attention to the difficulties of the Churches and urge that everything possible be done to alleviate them. I also hope that the Board of Inland Revenue, in their Circular to district valuers, will urge them, in assessing the compensation when listed buildings are compulsorily acquired, not to lay too much stress on the effect of Clause 6 in removing the automatic assumption as to demolition, but to accept the pos-
858
sibility that the building may otherwise have been demolished in every case in which that can reasonably be done.

CYPRUS
3.42 p.m.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. The Statement reads as follows:
"The House will understand that information about events in Cyprus is still coming in and what I say this afternoon is incomplete.
"The National Guard in Cyprus claiming to be intervening in order to stop fighting between Greeks in Cyprus have seized power. The Presidential Palace has been under attack and it is reported that President Makarios has been killed. If this report proves to be well founded the whole House will join me in expressing their very deep dismay and regret at the death in such circumstances of the President of a friendly country who was also the senior Commonwealth Head of State.
"The Treaty of Guarantee, which was signed by the Greek, Turkish and Cyprus Governments as well as by Her Majesty's Government, provides for the recognition and maintenance of the independence, territorial integrity and security of Cyprus. I have drawn the attention of the Greek and Turkish Governments to these undertakings and have urged the need for restraint on all sides. I have asked for their urgent views on the situation. I am also in touch with the Secretary General of the United Nations and with other interested Governments.
"There have been no reports of injury or loss to British subjects. The airport at Nicosia is closed and our High Commissioner has advised residents and holiday makers to stay at home until the position is clarified. I am reviewing arrangements for ensuring the safety of the British community and their evacuation should that prove necessary.
"I will keep the House informed of future developments."

859
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.46 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think the House would wish to thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement, and I think we should all wish to associate ourselves with what he said about President Makarios. We must hope very much that these reports are not true. The consequences of this may be very grave indeed, and I do not think that it would be right at this stage, when we do not really know exactly what the situation is, to comment too fully about it. I think that the Government are quite right in reminding the Greek and Turkish Governments of our particular interest in this, not just as guarantors of the Treaty but by virtue of the fact that we have sovereign base areas in the Island of Cyprus, and there is of course a very great Western defence interest in the Island of Cyprus as a whole.
May I ask the noble Lord two questions? He may not be able to answer, and I shall quite understand. There was a report on the radio that the National Guard had declared an independent Hellenistic Republic. I wonder whether he could confirm whether or not that is so. It is very difficult to know exactly what that phrase means, but it is just as well that the Government should have reminded the two Governments concerned about the independence of Cyprus. Does the noble Lord know whether there has been any reaction from the Turkish Government? Secondly, may I ask him to confirm that the British troops under United Nations command are under the control of Her Majesty's Government, and cannot be committed in any situation without our consent?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I, from these Benches, endorse what has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and express the hope that the first reports of President Makarios's death are not true. May I ask the noble Lord whether he has any information about the later report which said that the President might well be in the United Nations' headquarters? If so, is there not a radio link with the outside world through which this report could be either
860
confirmed or denied? May I also express the hope that this incident, or more than an incident, will not be allowed to escalate into something very serious indeed, and that if military action has to be taken from outside it will be under the auspices of an international organisation.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, may I, on behalf of those who sit on these Benches, associate myself with those who have thanked the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. We also associate ourselves with what has been said about the grave news about the possible death of Archbishop Makarios. He is not only a great political leader, he is also a great religious leader and a much respected figure in the Orthodox Church, and we all offer our prayers that this sad news might in fact not be true.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I thank the two noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London for what they have just said in regard to President Makarios. We all devoutly hope that these reports will not be confirmed. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to confirm the report, I believe from Ankara, that he has found refuge with United Nations' Forces. We are in the process of endeavouring to confirm the truth of that report. Turning to Lord Carrington's point, may I say that I shall immediately, without waiting for the OFFICIAL REPORT, bring to the attention of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary what the noble Lord, and indeed the noble Lord who leads the Liberal Party, have said about this matter as to the view that very grave consequences, and indeed escalation, are terribly possible in this situation, and the view that the 1960 Agreement and what it guarantees must be very firmly brought to the attention of the Greek and Turkish Governments. Our NATO interest in this has been expressed in this House, and I strongly concur that it is of very great importance.
As to the report that an independent Hellenistic Republic has been proclaimed, here again I cannot confirm whether or not this is true. We are trying to find out exactly what the position is, but I take on board the implication of any such development in regard

861
to the 1960 Agreement and, indeed, in a wider sense. The position as to British troops was raised by both noble Lords in different contexts. In regard to the British troops committed to the U.N. peace-keeping operation, of course they are subject to direction from this country. In regard to the British troops, forces and equipment in the sovereign base areas, I am advised that the position there is perfectly secure. I think that deals with the points raised by the two noble Lords. I repeat that I shall immediately report to my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary what has been said in this House about this very difficult and highly dangerous situation.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, has it occurred to my noble friend and his right honourable friend that as both these countries, Turkey and Greece, are members of NATO, that in addition to referring the subject to the United Nations—not that I expect very much from that body in any circumstances—it is much more important to ask NATO to intervene in the matter because it has a pragmatic interest? Would it not be a frightful event if two NATO countries were engaged in conflict?—because it would render the whole of the NATO organisation into a farce.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely agree. I hope that in my replies to the two noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate I indicated that we regard NATO as being of extreme importance in relation to what my noble friend Lord Shinwell has said. As to the United Nations, it is important that we should be contacting the Secretary-General, which, in fact, my right honourable friend is now doing. The 1960 Treaty of Guarantee has of course, like similar treaties, been registered with the United Nations. The United Nations, on behalf of the comity of nations, has a clear duty to take stock of this situation and consider how it can help.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, could the noble Lord inform the House about the position of British dependants in Limassol where there have been reports of fighting? Having been a member of a delegation from your Lordships' House to visit Cyprus last year, I saw large numbers of dependants of British soldiers, airmen and civilians. I hope
862
that the position of their safety will be looked into with great care to make sure that if things come to the worst they could be got back to sovereign base areas to be looked after should the fighting spread.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my information has been that there has been no injury to British dependants or Servicemen. But I shall certainly ensure that the point of safety which the noble Earl has raised about Limassol is considered.
LORD DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, having regard to the grave consequences and repercussions, not only internal but international, which would result from an outbreak of civil war in Cyprus should it occur, will the Government, in their approach to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, examine the possibility of a speedy strengthening of the United Nations peace-keeping force before it is too late? Will they realise that although there are guarantees from Britain, Greece and Turkey—particularly with regard to the latter two—it is not easy for the Greek and Turk military forces to be effective in a situation of this kind?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would certainly expect that the consideration which the noble Lord has advanced will be very much in the forefront of our minds, indeed of the Secretary-General's mind and possibly the Security Council's, if it comes to it for consideration.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can tell the House that he has any information about the reaction of the Turkish community to these events?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have no information on that point, but we are in continuous contact with sources which may shortly clarify a number of similar points.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that those of us who have met and know Archbishop Makarios will profoundly hope that the report that he is still alive is true? May I also ask the Minister—I may have misheard his report—whether he said that the National Guard had

863
intervened when there was conflict between Greeks? Or is it the case that the conflict was between Greeks and Turks? If it is the former, then is it the case that the National Guard is largely officered by Greeks? Therefore, will Her Majesty's Government take the most urgent steps to raise this issue in the Security Council, so that the peace-keeping force of the United Nations may be strengthened?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the officership of Cypriot other ranks is part of the original agreements, not necessarily in the treaty. I should expect that this would be considered in the light of what has happened. I cannot go any further about that. As to the nature of the fighting which the National Guard in Cyprus claims to have intervened to stop, perhaps I should make it absolutely clear by reading the sentence referring to this point in the original Statement. I quote:
"The National Guard in Cyprus, claiming to be intervening in order to stop fighting between Greeks in Cyprus, have seized power."
That is the information we have, that they claim to have intervened to stop fighting between Greeks.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, in view of the grave possibility of friction—we hope it would not be more than that—or conflict between pro-Makarios Greek Cypriots and pro-Enosis Greek Cypriots, and also between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots, apart from the expressed wish of your Lordships that every measure should be taken if necessary to increase the United Nations force, would it not be desirable also to consider the reinforcement of our military strength within the sovereign base areas, especially bearing in mind the fact that we may have to bring out British Service families and other civilians?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that every aspect of the military position will be looked at, including the observations made by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan Sandys.

TOWN AND COUNTRY AMENITIES BILL
Second Reading debate resumed.
3.58 p.m.
LORD LYELL: My Lords, to continue with the Town and Country Amenities Bill I wish first to add my congratulations to those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London and to the noble Lord, Lord Duncan Sandys, on his excellent maiden speech. I know that all of us here look forward to many more valuable and similarly erudite contributions from him in the future.
I have to declare an interest as a member of that body mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the Scottish Landowners' Federation who, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, have some reservations about one or two aspects of the Bill. It seems to me the main point of the Bill is to conserve all the countryside and to preserve old, valuable and historic buildings. I believe that aim is to be encouraged and fostered; it is absolutely praiseworthy, as is any measure which seeks to make the lives of all of us more restful, peaceful and enjoyable. But can any measure be absolutely perfect to start with?
Many of us in Scotland and, I understand, some members of the Country Landowners' Association in England, have one point which we would seek to have further cleared up by the noble Baroness. It naturally concerns Clause 5 of the Bill dealing with listed buildings of architectural or historic interest. There is no doubt that these buildings give a great deal of pleasure to thousands of visitors, many of them from abroad. Indeed, many organisations do valuable service to the community by identifying these buildings and wherever possible assisting the owner to repair, renew or possibly even restore the whole building. The greatest among these bodies, certainly in Scotland, is the National Trust for Scotland; but there are countless other preservation societies which do valuable work in their own areas. For myself, I have noticed a remarkable upswing of interest in all kinds of buildings and houses. Some of these places could not be considered as being really classic, yet large numbers of people gain pleasure from walking around and learning about local history, or from studying particular

865
architecture. In many cases pleasure is mutual, both as regards the owners, who take great pride in showing their homes, and also as regards the general public.
But I think that all is not well when we take a close look at this Bill and at Clause 5, because certainly in one subsection it seeks to amend the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972, which already gives local authorities power to survey and to carry out building repairs or restoration on any building which comes within the scope of the approved historical or achitectural category. It would appear that Clause 5 of this Bill is designed to amend Section 97 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act to empower local authorities to recover from the owner of the land the expenses of any work on repairs or restoration. The noble Baroness sought to allay some of our fears, but in my own mind I am just not so confident as she is of the kindness of many of the local authorities. As I am sure she is aware, we are getting our new local authorities in Scotland on May 1 (I think it is) next year, but many of these authorities will be of a considerable size, and some members of the Landowners' Federation and of other bodies are a little concerned that the responsibilities of the local authorities, and in particular of the preservation sections of those authorities, may be a trifle large, and that they may get a little out of touch with what is and what is not of architectural or historical importance in a particular locality. What seems to be of interest in, say, Edinburgh or in Glasgow may not really be of such interest in the locality itself, in that there may be other and more worth while buildings which could be better and more cheaply restored.
I feel that there is a danger that local authorities may seek to push ahead and to restore some buildings, and may thereby cause an owner a certain amount of financial embarrassment and difficulty. Certainly in this Bill, in Clause 5, we find subsection (6) of the new section, which gives the Secretary of State or the local authority the power to require the owner to pay the costs of all works of restoration or renewal. Apparently an owner may appeal within 28 days either that the amount of the cost is unreasonable or that he will suffer hardship in meeting the cost, or that some or even all of the work
866
is unnecessary for the preservation of the building.
I believe there is an appeal procedure, but the appeal must be directed to the Secretary of State who, certainly under the Scottish Act, has the power to initiate these repairs; so it does not seem that there is a very reasonable appeal machinery. Nevertheless, I wonder whether it is the intention of the noble Baroness or of the Government to allow local authorities to carry out work on listed monuments or buildings and to oblige the owner to meet these costs however large they might be, because I believe this is tantamount to an unlimited liability upon the owner; and, in spite of the noble Baroness's assurances that they will be just emergency repairs, for the owners of some land in Scotland these emergency repairs could be fairly hefty.
My Lords, if local authorities wish to carry out such preservation work, then I understand that they already have power to enter upon someone's land and to carry out the repairs, but that under the present regulations—I believe it is Section 97—the local authority is responsible for the cost; and I would think that it is not altogether reasonable that we should change now, at this stage, to requiring the owner to meet these costs. In the Bill there does not seem to be adequate criteria as to what is or what is not a building falling within the category of "historical or architectural interest". So far as I can see, the Bill gives local authorities the power to decide this, and I think this puts the landowner in a somewhat invidious position. In sub-section (8) of the new section in Clause 5 of the Bill there is this form of appeal, but only to the Secretary of State. It is he who has the power to initiate these works, and this, I feel, is not a totally satisfactory position. So far as the rest of the Bill is concerned, I think it is an admirable Bill because it seeks to maintain the preservation and the conservation of the country, and in every respect to make our lives better.
4.6 p.m.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I must add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Duncan Sandys, on his maiden speech, even though I feel I am far more of a maiden speaker than he is. Being a farmer, I presume I am part of the environmental

867
scene, and as such I offer him my thanks for the work he has done in the past, in particular with the Civic Amenities Act 1967. It is as a farmer that I look at this Bill, and I must therefore declare an interest in that way.
I regret to cast myself in the usual agricultural role of being a misery man. Obviously, I approve of this Bill in principle, although your Lordships have not convinced me that it is necessary to make it a duty rather than a power to review the setting up of these conservation areas. I understand we already have 3,000 of these conservation areas. Do we really need to speed up this process any more? Of course, anything that preserves the countryside must meet with my approval, but it is really a question of what we mean by the word "preserve". As we all know, the problem in conservation is one of balance, and I fear that this Bill could further restrict agricultural production. There is also a danger that this Bill will put more farmers in glass cases, and I am sure we do not want to do that. I am sure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London had enough experience in his last diocese of not wanting to do that.
My Lords, the problem, as I see it as a farmer, is quite simply this. There are many possible conservation areas that will be in the middle of villages. I think of my own village outside Oxford as a typical example. Many farm buildings are situated in the middle of villages—they are usually next to the church, which is the centre of the village—and they will therefore come into these conservation areas. If this happens it will delay planning, because you cannot knock a building down and put up another without permission. I know it will be said that it can be done in one application, but it means extra work, not only on the part of the owner but also on the part of the planning officer, to approve both.
But perhaps the main problem that I see is what happens when, in the centre of a farm, there is a building for which permission to abolish it is refused by the Secretary of State. First of all, who will keep it up? Practical enforcement, as we have already said and as the noble Baroness admits, is a far different question from what the law dictates. Will the
868
farmer be compensated should the retention of this building in the middle of his farm sterilise the rest of his buildings?—and it could. Finally—and this is really the point I am trying to make—unless somebody works at some time, nobody will get any of these social benefits at all. Particularly at this time I should like the Government to look at the problem of the odd person who wants to work and to give him some encouragement, and not to make these conservation areas two a penny. Making it a duty instead of a power to review may make this happen.
My Lords, in the last three days I have had three bits of paper on my desk which seem to me to be relevant to this point. They are the Health and Safety at Work etc. Bill, the Mines (Working Facilities and Support) (Amendment) Bill and the Town and Country Amenities Bill. All these Bills, so excellent in themselves, make it more difficult for the farmer to work, and unless he is allowed the right to use his buildings and to work, and to get on with his job, there will be no country-side worth the time of the townsman to come to look at. Not only will there be no countryside, but there will be no money to pay for these amenities which we all want. Taken to their illogical conclusions, these three Bills could appear to the farmer in the following light. He tries to start work in the morning but is stopped by the Safety Inspector because he has broken some guard; when he gets to his buildings they are all redundant due to a preservation order; and when he reaches his field he finds it is a mine or, worse still, a swimming pool and not returned to agricultural use despite a recommendation by the ADAS that it should be.
There is a hackneyed phrase "quality of life" which we hear a lot of to-day, and of course it is important, but I hope that the right reverend Prelate will confirm that there is also an old-fashioned principle regarding the sanctity of work. I trust that the noble Baroness, Lady Young, will be able to assure me that the Bill will not be interpreted in such a manner as to make it more difficult for me as a farmer to work. Although I can see that I have not entirely convinced your Lordships, and though I am about to run off quickly before your Lordships murder me, I hope you will agree that before an agricultural area is scheduled,

869
particularly if that area contains farm buildings, the Ministry of Agriculture should be asked to advise the planning authority. I should like this to be a statutory power of the Ministry of Agriculture, but I fear that even if I give my best smile to the noble Baroness I may not obtain your Lordships' approval.
4.13 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene very briefly before the noble Baroness replies, although I have not put down my name. I have two objects for doing so. First, I should like to add my congratulations to those which have been addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Duncan Sandys, on this very appropriate occasion for his maiden speech. I suppose that nobody living has done more for the preservation of the buildings and the urban environment of this country than has the noble Lord, and I should like to add my acknowledgment and congratulations to those which have been expressed. My second reason for rising is that as I listened to the debate I began to be filled with some anxiety as to the situation which we have got ourselves into, because it was indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan Sandys, that, although he might have some reservations about whether some parts of the Bill were really quite right, he would not on any account move any Amendments in Committee because that would endanger the Bill as a whole.
Then we heard the reservations and alarm—if that is not putting it too strongly—of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and it seemed to me that he had every cause for concern as to whether Clause 6 had serious implications for churches and, indeed, for listed buildings generally. Whether the difficulties that the provision raises can be met by some Circular or administrative action by the Secretary of State, I am very doubtful. Then we heard the reservations and anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, about Clause 5 and I should like to say something more about that in a moment. Finally, we heard the anxieties expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, about the agricultural implications of the Bill. Yet we appeared to be told by the right reverend Prelate that if we moved a single Amendment and carried a single Amendment at any stage of the Bill,
870
particularly in Committee—I do not know when that will be, but I suppose that it will be very soon—it would mean the end of the Bill.
Are we to be confronted with this challenge and threat not only with the present Bill, but with all the other Bills which are to come up to us before the Recess? I have always understood that the function of this House was to revise in Committee and that we were to apply our minds to the detail of matters. But if this is to happen that function will be abrogated and we shall be performing no useful service. I suggest that this is really much more a matter for the Government than for the noble Baroness. But I should like to know whether it is a fact that we have to pass the Bill just as it stands, and that if we seek to improve or amend it that means that we are killing it, because I do not think that that is a position into which this House ought to be put. I do not know how it can be overcome but, if it be the fact that there are faults in the Bill—though I am generally sympathetic to it—they ought surely to be put right and ought to be properly attended to in this House.
My Lords, I should like to make one comment on Clause 5, which is the clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred. Section 101 of the Act of 1971 provided that in the case of unoccupied listed buildings a local authority, if it thought that a building was in urgent need of repair, could serve on the owner a seven-day notice of its intention to go in and do repairs—and there the section ended. What the new Clause 5 does is to amend Section 101 of the 1971 Act. t retains the power of the local authority in the case of an unoccupied listed building to give seven-days' notice to the owner of its intention to move in and carry out the urgent repairs itself, but it then goes on to extend the powers of the local authority and authorises the local authority or the Secretary of State to charge the owner the cost of the work which has been done, and gives the owner a right of appeal to the Secretary of State upon certain limited grounds to escape the obligation of paying for those repairs.
I ask your Lordships to consider for a moment how this will operate in practice. Let us suppose that the local authority thinks that there is a need for urgent repair to an unoccupied listed

871
building. It has only to give seven days' notice of its intention to carry out the work, but if, as may be possible, the owner is away and never receives the notice and, meanwhile, the local authority moves in and starts upon the repairs, they may be very substantial indeed, but the owner will have had no opportunity of making representations, or of saying that he will do the work himself. He will have had no opportunity for anything of that kind. Then, some time later, he will receive a notice from the local authority saying, "This is the bill and if you do not like it you can appeal to the Secretary of State on the grounds of hardship, or because the cost is too much, or because it is not reasonable."
My Lords, this may appear to be a trifling matter, but I suggest that it is important, because if it is intended to make the owners of listed buildings liable to problems and difficulties of this kind, will not the owners of buildings which it is proposed to list take steps in the future to try to resist the listing of their buildings owing to the fact that as soon as the building is listed by the Secretary of State the owner will immediately become liable to this procedure under Clause 5? It would be very simple, I believe, to put this right. All that has to be done is to provide in Clause 5 that the notice to be given by the local authority shall be greater than seven days—perhaps a month or two months. What harm would be done? That might go a long way to meeting the problem.
But we are being told here to-day, "Oh, no! You cannot do that. You cannot pass a perfectly simply and reasonable Amendment of that kind which would meet the difficulties that I have been talking about. Also, you cannot pass any Amendment to meet the much graver difficulties about which the right reverend Prelate was speaking, because otherwise you will kill the Bill." It is entirely wrong that we should be put in this position and I should like to know from the Government what proposal they have to make to get us out of this difficulty.
4.20 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank all those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-
872
Sandys, whom I should like to congratulate on his maiden speech and say how very nice it is that we have another expert on the environment to take part in these debates in this House. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for his help and for the help of officials from the Department of the Environment.
As I thought, the difficulties in this debate have centred around Clauses 5 and 6 and I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London not only for accepting the Government's assurances on Clause 5 that they will try to meet, in a circular so far as they can, the fears expressed by the Churches, but also that he has withdrawn his Amendments on Clause 6. I do not know that I can again allay his fears, because he has identified the anomaly in the present law that this Bill seeks to remove. But it is true that valuers must consider each case on its merits and the Churches must not assume that consent for demolition will never be given. It would be as wrong to assume that as to assume that it would always be given.
On the point raised on Clause 5 by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and the noble Lord, Lord Foot, may I say that this clause is designed particularly to meet the case (which is very familiar to anybody who has served on a planning committee) of a listed building which is allowed to deteriorate year by year and appears to be nobody's responsibility at all. The present law, as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has quite rightly said, allows a local authority to move in and carry out emergency repairs. The provision under Clause 5 would allow them to charge the owner for those emergency repairs. But although he has instanced how this might well work, it seems to me that it is unlikely that emergency repairs would be required, unless something had happened in a thunder storm, and that the building would have deteriorated over a prolonged period of time to have reached that stage, in the course of which it would have been perfectly possible for there to have been negotiations between the local authority and the owner.
I can only reiterate what I said in moving the Second Reading of this Bill; that is, that I believe local authorities would be very reluctant to use this power

873
because in the first instance they would have to bear the costs and then, having borne the costs, they would have to try to get them out of the owner who, as the Bill stands, has the right of appeal to the Secretary of State on these three grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, raised a point about agriculture, but so far as farm buildings are concerned either they are already in an existing conservation area, in which case they would be affected only if they are not listed buildings, or they might be in a proposed conservation area, in which case they would be included only after discussion with all the residents because a local authority is most unlikely to designate a conservation area without discussion with all those concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Foot, has expressed anxieties about the Bill. It is true that if an Amendment is carried there is no time for the Government to take the Bill back to another place. I can only say that I believe the situation to arise out of the unusualness of the present political and Parliamentary situation. I believe we should all like more time, but the facts of life at this moment are against us and because everybody who has spoken has said that they support the principle of this Bill, and because it is something which I believe meets the wish of many members of the public, I hope that despite any anxieties that may have been expressed the House will give it a Second Reading and a swift passage on to the Statute Book.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

REHABILITATION OF OFFENDERS BILL
4.26 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. May I begin by apologising to those who I know rearranged their engagements in order to be present at the Second Reading a week ago last Friday.
874
Then, for that Friday there was some alteration in business and the Second Reading was accordingly to be taken last Friday. I am sorry that again, on a second occasion, those noble Lords had to rearrange all their engagements. I understand that Fridays would not have been convenient days for the noble and learned Lords of Appeal to attend. I am sorry for those who in the circumstances would wish to have heard the Second Reading but cannot be here to-day.
I apprehend that I owe some duty to start, as it were, at the beginning. Although most of your Lordships are familiar with this Bill, because in sub-stance it is the same as the Bill that we considered eighteen months ago, of course a number of your Lordships who are Members of your Lordships' House now were not here then. So may I first very briefly explain how the Bill arose. In December 1970 the Howard League for Penal Reform, Justice and NACRO appointed a Committee of which I had the honour to be Chairman, to look at the problem of old convictions. We were not concerned, we felt, with anyone who was in the nature of a real professional criminal, anyone who had ever had a sentence of more than two years; nor were we dealing with those who come out of prison, try to get a job, the police then come round and tell their employers about their conviction so they give the job up and go in and out of prison. We were dealing only with those who, having committed an indictable or other serious offence, usually in adolescence, then settle down, get a job, marry and do not offend again for a considerable time. So that they are people who have done everything they can to rehabilitate themselves. There are great difficuties—and here again I shall not go into any details—in getting employment; in obtaining any insurance; difficulties in being involved in any way in court proceedings—because our law provides that in any case, whether criminal or civil, any witness can always be asked about any convictions he has had at any time in his life, however irrelevant; and particular difficulties in the magistrates' courts where those convicted of a mere traffic offence may have read out a previous conviction for in-decent exposure 15 or 20 years before, and of course it is all reported in the local papers.

875
This Committee was not a committee of "do-gooders". It consisted of three justices of the peace, two London serving stipendiary magistrates, a deputy Crown Court Judge, two barristers and a solicitor, and the Chairman of the London Sessions also attended all our meetings. We did not make any announcement inviting people formally to give evidence before us. It is probably a good thing that we did not because it would not have done any good, I imagine. At pre-sent I am the Chairman of a Committee appointed by the Government to overhaul the security laws of Northern Ireland and we wished everybody to know that anyody who had any observations to make we should welcome. While that notice was published in the newspapers in Northern Ireland, I do not think a single English newspaper published it at all. What we did was to discuss things quite informally with those interests we thought should be consulted and indeed those we wished to consult. I kept in touch throughout with the noble and learned Lord the then Lord Chief Justice, and we also saw representatives of the Home Office and of chief constables, insurance interests, the Confederation of British Industries and so on. The report of this Committee is called Living it Down. It is in the Printed Paper Office, but if any noble Lord wishes to see it he will have to ask for it because, not being a Government Paper, it has to be kept under the counter!
It is entirely my fault, as Chairman of that Committee, that it was not until about halfway through our proceedings that somebody said, "I wonder how many people we are dealing with?" There was no answer to that question, but one of our members was a considerable authority on criminal statistics and at our next committee meeting he reported that although he had tried he had been unable to find out. So we asked the Home Office and they did not know, but they said, "It is an interesting point: what exactly do you want to know?" We said: "We want to know how many people there are who, having committed an indictable or other serious offence, then go straight for four or five years." They promised to have a special survey done. Naturally, it must be more than 10 years ago now. They chose what they said was an average
876
year and went into all the details of 4,000 men, which they said represented an adequate sample. They came back at the end of it and said, "We have found that nine out of ten who go straight for 5 years also go straight for 10 years, and that the number of people concerned is about a million, extrapolating these figures in respect of the whole of England and Wales. It is probably on the high side, because our sample contained only men and there is less reconviction among women. In addition, the prospect of anybody who has gone straight for 10 years committing a further indictable or other serious offence is slightly less than the prospect of somebody doing so who has never been convicted of anything before." So these are really our best citizens because they have learnt their lesson.
The question is whether, in these circumstances, it is not really in the interests of society, when men have done everything they conceivably can to rehabilitate themselves and when society is entitled to conclude, from the length of time which has elapsed, that they really are rehabilitated people, that they should be treated as such by society? It gives such people every incentive to continue to lead an honest life. One would have thought that this proposition would appeal to everybody, and I think as a whole it does—although there has been something of a Press campaign recently by authors, publishers and their lawyers. On the other side stand over a million families who are not people who can afford to write letters to The Times.
We found that we were the only country which was a member of the Council of Europe without a rehabilitation law. If you are to have a rehabilitation law preventing, with certain exceptions, the re-publication of old convictions, there are only four ways in which this object can be achieved. In, I think, only one country there is a pardons board, and those who consider themselves rehabilitated can apply to the pardons board. This is a public application and the police then go to see the person's employers or neighbours to ask whether they think that person is rehabilitated. We did not think that could possibly work: it is, in fact, the last kind of application which such people would be likely to make.

877
Secondly, you can tear up the criminal record; and this is something which occurs in a number of countries. We were against that for two reasons: first, because the police have the responsibility for detecting crime and ought really to be entitled to know who has done what; and, secondly (though this was a lesser reason), criminological research is becoming increasingly important. We have the Criminological Institute at Cambridge and also the Home Office Research Unit; and if the basic facts are falsified the task of those engaged in criminological research would become virtually impossible. Therefore, nobody favoured that method.
The third way is to make it a criminal offence to publish a rehabilitated conviction. We were against that because it was too easy to make more and more criminal offences, and that it would not be effective because it is too heavy a weapon. All experience shows that if you try to use too heavy a weapon the thing simply does not work. Of course, it is a criminal libel which can only be defended on the grounds that what was said was true and that it was in the public interest that it should be published. I do not know when we last had a criminal libel case. Judges do not like them, juries do not like them, and over the years they have been very few. So we were against trying to deal with this matter in the field of the criminal law and, therefore, it can only be dealt with in the field of civil law. Our proposal is basically that a criminal conviction is itself a creation of the law, that the law itself can and should put a term to that which it has created, so that after a certain length of time a conviction may be regarded as spent and that thereafter, with certain exceptions, no evidence to prove a spent conviction should be admissible. One effect of that could be the risk of somebody publishing a spent conviction having to pay damages in an action of defamation.
Broadly speaking, I think this has been very much misrepresented. It has been stated as if it were a self-evident truth that everybody must always tell the truth. This is not argued but stated as a self-evident proposition. It is not one which will stand a moment's examination. There are many occasions on which no Christian would dream of telling the truth, and we can all think of examples
878
where any Christian would tell a lie. The point was made in one of the many letters in support of the Bill which have been sent to The Times, none of which have been published except a long one from me this morning. The author said:
"By Christian tradition there are three divine attributes—love, truth and justice. They complement each other and if one is exalted to the exclusion of the others the result is always undesirable and often positively evil. Further, the right to tell the truth and to expect others to tell the truth cannot be separated, any more than any other right, from its corresponding duties and restraints."
Of course, there are many practical examples in which the law has recognised that there are occasions when you are not only bound to tell the truth but you are bound not to tell the truth. They are all cases based on the fact that the public interest must come first and the cause of justice is part of the public interest. I suppose that all over the country many times a week counsel get up and object to certain evidence being given. They are not objecting that the evidence is not true: they are saying that it is contrary to the law of evidence that it should be admitted. Many years ago, on circuit, a man went into the witness box and said: "I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, except so far as I am prevented from telling the truth by the law of evidence." He had a point; if I remember rightly, it was hearsay. What he wanted to say was true. He was convinced that if he said it, it would win the case, but he was told by his solicitor: "You cannot say that. That is the truth you may not speak. That is not evidence." Ultimately, the judge made him take the Oath in the ordinary form.
In the case of a man charged with shop lifting, any layman would think the most relevant fact of the case is that he has already been convicted of shop lifting 16 times before. The law says that that is a truth which may not be told to the jury, not because it is not relevant, but because it is too relevant. It is felt that it would be too prejudicial. The jury would pay insufficient attention to what they have to decide, which is whether it has been proved beyond reasonable doubt that he committed the offence this time. There are many cases in law in which the law says: "That is true; it may be relevant, but it is one you cannot tell. If you get

879
up and say that to the jury you are in grave danger of being sent to prison.
The Official Secrets Act is a simple example of an Act which makes it a very serious criminal offence to reveal the true contents of a document. What is in a document must not be published. It is perfectly true, but it would be contrary to the security interests of the country for you to publish it. There are legal fictions, always for a good reason. As a distinguished Lord Justice said:
"When something is deemed to have been done which was not in fact in truth done, it is a legal fiction."
There are many Acts which say that A must be treated as if it were B. This does not change A to B; A is still A, and B is still B. That which is not true is ordered by the law to be assumed. A tenant cannot dispute the validity of his landlord's title; a licensee cannot dispute the validity of the patent, though what he wants to say may be true.
Your Lordships will remember a time when one or two Sunday newspapers increased their circulation primarily by reporting in great detail on the more sordid details of divorce and nullity cases—they were particularly fond of nullity cases. Then Parliament intervened and said: "It is not in the public interest that these private details between husband and wife, although heard in open court, should be reported, and that is a truth which you may not tell anyone." A committee of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tucker, was Chairman considered the problem caused by the fact that in indictable proceedings, when the committal takes place before the magistrates, it is usual for the whole of the evidence of the prosecution to be called, but none of the evidence for the defence, which is reserved. That meant that a man who had read all about the details of a sensational case in a newspaper and had said to his wife, "It is clear that he is as guilty as Hell", if he found himself on a jury, would find it difficult to serve with an impartial mind. Except with the consent of the accused, those are also truths which can no longer be published.
What is the alternative to the method which we have suggested, which is, broadly speaking, for the law to declare that after a certain lapse of time certain convictions are to be treated in law as
880
spent, and thereafter, subject to a number of exceptions, proof of them will no longer be admissible in evidence? In the long discussions which have taken place on this Bill, everybody has agreed that it is desirable that the objects of the Bill should be achieved, some having doubts in particular about the defamation clause which, in a sense, is the "guts" of the Bill. Nobody has suggested a better method, except Mr. Bernard Levin, who says it ought to have been done by an anti-discrimination law. I must assume that Mr. Levin knew what he meant by that; I can only say that I have not the foggiest idea.
This applies not only in the Council of Europe. In Germany—we set out some particulars of this in the Appendix to Living it Down—access to the record is first restricted after five years for lesser cases, and 10 years for others. The entry is cancelled after 10 years. Once the entry is cancelled the person in general is entitled to state—even in court—that he has no convictions. Rehabilitation in France can take place, according to sentence, after between five and twenty years and wipes out the conviction. The conviction is not mentioned in extracts in the criminal records, and a legal fiction, fiction légal, is created that the reinstated person has not been convicted. I suppose Mr. Levin would say that that shows what a bad effect co-ordinating with the Common Market countries may have.
This Bill has been extensively considered. The Second Reading 18 months ago occupied 84 columns of Hansard. We did a great deal of work in considering whether (his was the right method, and the House decided that it was. I mention this partly because a leading article in that highly respectable paper the Sunday Times said it was surprising that these proceedings had received so little scrutiny. On the Committee stage there were 26 Amendments, of which four were withdrawn and 22 accepted. On the Report stage of the Bill there were a further 31 Amendments. Literally, as those present will remember, on Committee stage and Report stage we went through every clause, line by line, to try to improve the Bill, being agreed on its principle. On the Report stage there were a further 12 Amendments. In all, 66 Amendments were made to this Bill in this House without one Division. This

881
was simply because, being agreed on the principle, we all joined together to make the Bill (which, after all had not had the advantage of being drafted by a Parliamentary draftsman) as satisfactory as we could make it.
When the Bill was sent to the Commons somebody said, "Object!", and that was the end of it for that Session. In the next Session, a Labour Member of Parliament, who had drawn a good place in the ballot, introduced it as a Private Member's Bill there. The Minister of State in Mr. Heath's Government was careful to explain to the House the principle of the Bill—that is to say, in substance, the defamation clause, and any objections which had been voiced to it. There were not many, but it may be surprising now to remember that the Bill that year was supported by leading articles in the Guardian, Mail, Mirror, Evening Standard, New Law Journal and Solicitors' Journal. The only critical article was one in the Justice of the Peace. The Minister referred to what had just been received by the Government, the Interim Report of the Committee on Defamation, and the Minister, Mr. Mark Carlisle, said:
"The issue that must be decided by the House to-day is whether the means proposed in the Bill to achieve its desirable end are an acceptable method of dealing with the problem. The approach of the Bill received almost universal acceptance in another place, and there is no doubt that it has also had general acceptance outside the House, apart from the strong attack on it in Justice of the Peace. There is no doubt either, in view of the list of backers of the Bill, that it has weighty support from both sides of the House. All those who have contributed to this short debate have supported it.
The Government support the intention of the Bill. We believe that it is important that the issue of principle should be fairly and fully stated to the House. If that issue is acceptable to the House, the Government will not wish to attempt to prevent further progress on the Bill or advise the House to reject it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 25/1/74; col. 2125.]
He said later—this was on January 25 of this year, at column 2127:
"The critics of the Bill say, as was said by the hon. Member for Gorton, that it is establishing a group of people about whom the truth cannot be told. It seems to me that the issue of principle which this House has to decide is whether that is an acceptable way of approaching the problem. The Government do not wish in any wav to persuade the House not to find that acceptable. We merely want hon. Members to realise the issues that they face."
882
The other place faced that issue and gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading. It was sent to a Standing Committee and, in accordance with precedent in the other place where a Private Member's Bill receives a Second Reading, it would no doubt have been accorded a parliamentary but for the fact that then came the General Election.
In this Session, and in a new Parliament, the matter was dealt with by a Conservative Member of the other place, Mr. Piers Dixon—and I am grateful both to Mr. Kenneth Marks and to him for having taken the Bill on in the other place. Again, the Minister of State in the present Government stated the issue to the House. He said, on May 3, at column 1546:
"The Government accept fully the principle contained within the Bill. We were ourselves considering whether we should introduce a Government Bill to this effect."
Then he referred to the Faulks Committee and said:
"Mr. Justice Faulks and his committee recommended that for that reason, and apart from some technical matters that we shall no doubt discuss in Committee, the clause on defamation should be omitted. If that were so the Bill would be without meaning."
He ended by saying:
"We must consider the issue of principle. Is it right that in this community what has been true in the sense that a man has been convicted should be regarded for all practical purposes as untrue? I think that that is right."—[Col. 1547.)
For a second time, and in a new Parliament, the elected Chamber accepted the principle and gave the Bill an unopposed Second Reading. There was a Division on the defamation clause in Committee in the other place by somebody who said he had opposed it in principle, but he was the only person to vote for his own Amendment. At that stage the Government, of course, gave the Private Member concerned the services of a Parliamentary draftsman. The whole Bill was redrafted and indeed the Minister of State himself moved all the new clauses.
This is why I find it a little surprising to be told by such a reputable paper that this question has had no scrutiny. I should have thought that it is probably unparalleled that any Bill in what used to be eight clauses, but which for reasons concerned purely with arrangement is now in 11, has ever been so much

883
scrutinised in the two Houses. It must indeed be unusual, if not unique, for a Bill to come to this House having already passed through all its stages in this House and twice having had a Second Reading in the elected Chamber. Many drafting Amendments have been made in the other place, but the formal and conceptual structure of the Bill which passed your Lordships' House has been preserved, and practically there have been only two major Amendments. The first, for the benefit of the Press and others, which they had clamoured for, was a "public interest" clause. If I had been a Member of the other place I do not think I should have opposed that. The effect of that is that, disregarding all the provisions of the Bill, one can always rake up anybody's rehabilitated convictions if it is true and if the publication of that truth is in the public interest; one cannot do so if it is against the public interest. On the face of it that has obvious merits. There is—is there not?—a difference between what I think is now called investigative journalism, when people want to say that a man who is carrying on a business is carrying on a fraudulent business, and muck-raking. It seems sense to say that one is in the public interest and the other is not.
Of course, about this there is nothing original of any kind at all. This is the law in many countries. About the freest Press in the world is the Swiss Press, which is notoriously outspoken. The law of defamation in Switzerland has always been that it is a complete answer to any action of defamation to prove that what one said was true and that the publication of that truth was in the public interest. The Australians have taken their law from us, including our defamation law, but most of them thought that one thing about it was wrong. They said: "Truth ought not always to be an answer if it is against the public interest that the truth should be published." There are many cases of this in our report. Living it Down. It was precisely because all three societies (these were not people who can write to The Times) had so many cases of this kind in their files that the Committee was appointed.
I will take a simple case of someone who happens to be a woman I know. When she was 18 she was convicted of soliciting. She then fell in love; mar-
884
ried; was a good wife, a good mother, and a good grandmother. She is now 68. Her family knows nothing about this very discreditable episode in her past. But all her life she has known that if for any reason she became newsworthy, if any newspaper because it helped them to sell the paper published this old conviction, there was nothing she could do because the truth is a complete answer. At present under our law, however contrary to the public interest it may be that the truth should be published, truth is a complete answer.
Australia thought that this cannot be right—or many States did, including New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania and, I believe, Western Australia. Their law is that it is a complete answer to any action of defamation if one proves that what one said was true and that the publication was in the public interest. Mr. Justice Evatt, as he then was, in the High Court in Australia said in a case:
"If AB was convicted years ago of an offence it can seldom be for the public benefit to resurrect the scandal, for AB may be living a private life and one of complete rectitude. However, in special circumstances it may be for the public benefit to publish such a statement, e.g., if at the time of the publication AB has become a candidate for public election."
I suppose Mr. Levin would say it only shows what these foreigners get up to But I submit it is in fact a sensible distinction. And I myself would not have opposed the victory won by the Press in the other place in that the Bill now provides for a "public interest" defence.
The only other major change was this. The courts have now been left out of the Bill altogether. I believe this was largely due to a misunderstanding by the Magistrates' Association. We had provided in our report that if an apparently rehabilitated character was convicted on indictment before a Crown Court all his past convictions should become public, but not if he was convicted in a magistrates' court. The magistrates regarded this as a great slight upon magistrates. They said, "Judges are being trusted with information with which they do not trust us". There is a complete misunderstanding.
The reason why we thought that in the Crown Court his record should be re-opened was that if anybody has done something so serious as to be convicted on indictment in a Crown Court—well,

885
bad luck, but he is not, after all, a rehabilitated person. This Bill seeks to protect only those who really are rehabilitated people. On the other hand, so far as the magistrates' court is concerned we did not think that because such a man parked his car in the wrong place this should lead to all his previous convictions being read out in the magistrates' court. We thought that it was difficult to draw a line between different cases in the magistrates' court. Therefore we thought that it would be right that it should have that effect in the Crown Court but not the magistrates' court. However, as I have said, that was misunderstood.
What happened in Committee in the other place was that in order to try to meet this objection in the magistrates' court, a compromise Amendment was moved to provide that cases tried by magistrates which were indictable offences should follow the effect of a conviction in the High Court but not the summary ones. That Amendment was carried against the advice of the Government. I understand that the reason the Government advised against it was because they agreed with our Committee: that it is very difficult to draw a line between different kinds of offences in the magistrates' court. When that was carried, therefore, against the Government in Committee, on Report the Government put down an Amendment which was carried and completely removed from the Act all the provisions about what might or might not be done in court in the way of previous convictions. Subject to this, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, whom we are all glad to see, had already agreed that he would deal with it by means of a practice direction. I understand that the Home Office will do the same in relation to the magistrates' courts. Those are the only major Amendments which were made, compared with the Bill as it was in your Lordships' House.
My Lords, I must refer to some extent to the clauses of the Bill. May I mention briefly the safeguards. Under Clause 4(3) the Secretary of State can exclude by Order the application of the preceding subsections in relation to what questions can be asked in court in appropriate cases. Clause 5(1) of the Bill does not apply to anybody who has had a sentence of more
886
than 30 months. Under Clause 5(11) the Secretary of State can alter both the rehabilitation periods and the age at which a rehabilitation period will be half the normal. At present this is applicable only to those who are convicted at the age of 16 or younger. Under Clause 7(2), a number of matters are outside the Bill. The courts are now outside the Bill; the service of disciplinary proceedings is outside the Bill; and children are entirely outside the Bill. I have written altogether three letters to The Times and in another letter which has not been published I referred to one which had been written by a distinguished member of the Bar who said that the Bill would prevent the criminal records of prospective stepfathers and foster parents from being investigated, thus putting helpless children at risk, and who drew the conclusion that the sponsors of the Bill have not thought the matter through carefully enough. As T said in that letter which I wrote to The Times but which has not been published, if the premise were right the conclusion would certainly follow. In fact, however, Clause 7(2)(c) of the Bill specifically allows evidence of previous convictions and their surrounding circumstances to be given, and I quoted from the Bill:
"(c) in any proceedings relating to adoption or to the guardianship, wardship, marriage custody, care or control of, or access to, any minor, or to the provision by any person of accommodation, care or schooling for minors;".
A similar provision has been in the Bill for well over a year, and therefore it is plain that Mr. Field Fisher cannot have taken the trouble to read it before launching a public attack upon it.
My Lords, anything can, of course, be done under Clause 7(2)(f) with the consent of the rehabilitated person. Clause 7, subsections (3) to (5), refer to various civil proceedings which will be exceptional, and under the following sub-section, subsection (6), the Secretary of State can extend these forms of proceedings to other proceedings. Clause 8 provides for further exclusions to subsection (2)—publications made before the conviction was spent. Subsections (4) and (5) and the following subsections deal with the normal defences of fair comment, absolute privilege and qualified privilege. I think that the position about giving references has been much misrepresented.

887
The Confederation of British Industry set up a special six-man committee to go into every aspect of the Bill. Of course they are concerned for employers. I attended one of their meetings with another member of the Committee, as a result of which they were completely satisfied. Under the Bill as it stands, any employer who in any circumstances gives a reference is completely protected if he honestly believed what he said to be true. That is all he has to prove. There is a further defence of innocent dissemination. Subsection (7) deals with reports and sub-section (9) with unauthorised disclosure.
My Lords, there is no other way. Nobody else has suggested another way. There may always be amendments on points of detail. If anybody considers, for example, that librarians are not properly protected, obviously they can say so. But that is not the case. I mentioned that I had kept in touch with the then noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker, the Lord Chief Justice, and on a previous occasion I read to your Lordships the letter which he wrote to me saying that he thought this is a much better way of dealing with this problem than the way it is dealt with in any other country because it is in accordance with our traditions, and that while he might have reservations on detail he supported the Bill in principle. This principle has been fully discussed and accepted both in this House and in two Parliaments by the elected Chamber. I hope that your Lordships will give it a Second Reading and that it may soon be law. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Gardiner.)
5.8 p.m.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House on a Bill which, as my noble and learned friend has pointed out, has already been, although in a slightly different form, before this House and another place on previous occasions. This House is familiar with the legislation on this subject from the Bill of the same title which my noble and learned friend himself presented in the last Parliament. As he has indicated, this Bill differs in a number of respects but has the same objective, and on behalf of the Government I should like to indicate our broad support
888
for the object of this Bill which has now been expressed in another place as well as in your Lordships' House.
The Government believe most firmly that it is right to prevent the damage, and spare the distress, caused to somebody with an old criminal conviction which he has long lived down by the fact or the fear of the needless disclosure of it. I believe that in terms of finding jobs, or otherwise reintegrating into society, for the offender who has paid his price and complied with his sentence the most acute problem arises at once on discharge from prison or on conviction where there is a non-custodial sentence. That is the time when the man with a steady job or a settled way of life may lose it. That is the time when it is most difficult to find a job or a settled way of life if prison has taken him away. But this Bill is directed at another serious problem. It is aimed at the man or the woman who has a criminal conviction other than the one for which a very heavy sentence has been passed and who stays clear of further conviction for a substantial period of time. It deals with two separate aspects of the problem faced by such people.
First, there are many ways in which the existence of a past conviction may block a man's opportunities or, if actually divulged, may do him, his family and his social circumstances actual damage. Secondly, there is the fear of disclosure and its consequences and the effect that this can have over a long period of time in discouraging a man from applying for certain kinds of work and which can, indeed, cast a blight over his whole life by the ever-present fear of a disclosure which may never, in fact, occur. The sponsors have sought to tackle this problem by proposing, in effect, that a conviction which is not followed by a further offence should become spent. In principle, this Bill says that it should be spent for all purposes, but because of competing and conflicting considerations of equal or greater weight, we all agree that there must be some exceptions.
The House will know that the Government have given every assistance to the sponsors, including drafting assistance. The Government have done this because they support, as I have said, the broad objectives of the Bill. We accept that it is the will of Parliament, as expressed

889
by unanimous approval for the Second Reading of Bills on this subject in both Houses of Parliament, that there should be legislation on these lines. If there is to be legislation we must try to get it right even when time is short, particularly with a Bill of this kind which is complex and which interacts with a great many branches of the law.
In another place, considerable doubts were raised about the wisdom, necessity and feasibility of applying the Bill directly to the criminal courts—and my noble and learned friend has alluded to these—so that spent convictions would not be admissible either in the course of the trial—for example, when a witness was under cross-examination as to his credit—or at the time of sentence. In the event, it was agreed in another place, on all sides, that in the interests of justice—both justice to convicted offenders when under sentence and justice between the prosecution and defence in the course of a trial (and, I might also add, justice between offenders appearing in magistrates' courts on the one hand, and in the Crown Court on the other)—the Bill should not apply directly to criminal proceedings.
But as my honourable friend the joint Minister of State said in another place, we propose that the spirit of the Bill should be honoured by the criminal courts, and I am pleased to learn that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice has indicated that he will be prepared to issue a practice direction, which we will certainly follow from the Home Office with guidance to the police and magistrates' courts. This guidance, which will reinforce advice which has for some years been given to magistrates' courts by the Home Office, will prevent the unnecessary recital in open court of old and irrelevant convictions (judged by the test of whether they have become spent convictions for the purposes of the Bill).
This will entail, I acknowledge, an additional task for the police. The House knows that the police are heavily stretched and I do not underestimate the care we should exercise before asking them to undertake any additional or further work. But I am satisfied that as this Bill now stands the effective and proper conduct of crime prevention and criminal justice will not be impaired. In this connection, we have paid particular
890
attention to Clause 9 which deals with unauthorised disclosure. This will in no way inhibit the police, or the services and agencies dealing with offenders from carrying out their official duties.
I have said that the Bill as it now stands, which reflects the Government's assistance in both matters of substance and expression, deals with complex issues. In doing so, it is unavoidably complex itself, both in its structure and in its language. This is partly because of the short time available to the Government for redrafting, and for consideration of the many points which have been raised in another place. It is also partly because of the inherent nature of the subject matter. But it is the intention of the Government that those who stand to benefit by the Bill—and, indeed, those who may otherwise be affected by its provisions—should have available a short and simple guide to its main provisions. A person with an old conviction who has not offended again, or indeed the man with perhaps an intermittent record of offending in his not too recent past, will be helped in this way to settle with some degree of certainty whether those convictions are spent or not. It is a happy coincidence when legislation can be drafted both to achieve its intended effects in law and to tell the ordinary man what those effects are in simple language. I fear this is not such a Bill but I believe that the issue of a guide will go a long way to help ordinary people to understand its effect.
There is another general assurance which I should perhaps give on behalf of the Government to organisations and individuals who may be affected by the Bill. Although legislation on this subject has been under discussion for the better part of two years, I fear it is only in recent weeks that a number of people have become aware of it. The Government have sought, in conjunction with the sponsors, to meet within the time available as many of those points as we can. And at key points in the Bill there is provision for orders to be made, with prior Parliamentary approval, to accommodate the legitimate needs of different kinds. The Government gave an assurance in another place that, for example, the admissibility of spent convictions in the disciplinary proceedings of professional bodies could be protected. And there is a power to specify by order the

891
circumstances in which a completely truthful answer can be required to a question, even when it relates to spent convictions—as might be the case where investigations are being conducted into the suitability of an applicant for a gaming licence or a firearms certificate.
There is provision in the Bill, once again with power to extend it by order should that be necessary, to protect people who, in the course of their official duties, deal with records of spent convictions and who may have a legitimate cause to pass on such information—where, for example, this may be relevant to medical treatment for a mental illness, or to social work with an offender and his family, for purposes of criminological research and so on. The Government believe that the Bill as it now stands, after prolonged debate in both Houses and following extensive amendment in another place—as my noble and learned friend indicated—is a workable measure. But I should like to assure the House that the Government for their part, and no doubt the sponsors for their part, will want to listen most carefully to the views of this House. Where substantial points arise on which further improvement is required, we will look at them during the remaining stages of the passage of this Bill.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has asked me to express his great regret that a long-standing public engagement prevents him from being in the Chamber on this occasion. He alluded to this in your Lordships' House last Thursday. While some of the Bill is the concern of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, it has substantial implications for the civil law which is my noble and learned friend's responsibility, and he has asked and authorised me to say something on his behalf about that clause of the Bill on which public attention has tended to concentrate during the last few weeks; namely, Clause 8, the defamation clause.
The reason why the clause is in the Bill is clear enough. If an offender who is rehabilitated is to be able to live his life without fear that his spent conviction may be wantonly disclosed, the law must provide some remedy against improper disclosure. The sponsors of the Bill—rightly, in our view—rejected the
892
idea of imposing a criminal sanction for ordinary cases of disclosure, reserving it only for the more serious case of improper disclosure by someone in an official position. The remedy therefore had to lie in the civil law and specifically in the tort of defamation. The Government have paid careful and detailed attention to all the views which were expressed on the introduction of the Bill in another place. Many of those views were against changing the law on defamation in the way proposed, and I should mention in particular the interim report of the Faulks Committee, for whose opinion—whether as a group or as individuals—we have great respect. The Government intend also to consider carefully the views expressed in to-day's debate by Members of this House.
Our view has always been that the defamation clause is an important part of this Bill, and that there is a serious risk that without it the Bill would fail in its intended purpose. For this reason since the time when Government support for this Bill was announced in another place, we have proposed a number of detailed changes in an effort, among other things, to assimilate the provisions of this clause as closely as possible to the present law of defamation, while preserving the principle of rehabilitation. In particular, it was necessary to try to strike the right balance between the principle of rehabilitation and the principle that it should always be possible publicly to declare the truth.
The Bill has been as fully and as carefully considered as time allowed, but we acknowledge that there may remain some respects in which it should be improved. As well as views expressed to-day, we shall pay careful regard to any Amendments proposed at the Committee stage and will look carefully into matters of detail there raised, and, if we think it necessary, we shall ourselves propose some amendment. The Government's position on the Bill during its consideration by this House is what it was in another place; namely, that of support for its broad objective, a willingness to lend assistance, including drafting assistance, on the substance of the Bill, and a wish to hear the views of noble Lords and to ensure that the Bill which is finally enacted expresses the will of Parliament.
5.20 p.m.
LORD WIGODER: My Lords, when, some 10 or 11 days ago, I put my name down to speak on this Bill it appeared to me that it was a Bill which had gone through its various stages in another place without a Division and might therefore be a suitably non-controversial subject upon which to venture to address your Lordships' House for the first time. In the last few days much criticism of the Bill has developed in the Press, and therefore I must ask your Lordships' forgiveness if some of the observations that I now wish to make have a slightly more contentious aspect to them than I had originally intended.
My Lords, I support this Bill as achieving a desirable object by means of machinery which is unutterably cumbersome, but which nevertheless will serve. With the observation that the objective is desirable there may possibly be little dispute. It is not difficult for someone who is born into a good home, who is expensively educated, comfortably housed, happily married and profitably employed to keep out of trouble with the law. It is infinitely more difficult, and more meritorious, for someone who may not have had these advantages and who has fallen foul of the law to keep out of trouble for a substantial period of time. It requires a strength of character and determination which are to be commended. In such circumstances those concerned clearly deserve help. They clearly deserve assistance against those who might, from malice or inadvertence, disclose some long forgotten previous trouble.
It is not only in the interests of the particular offender that this Bill is worth while. It is worth while too in the interests of the community, because many of us have had occasion to see people, prisoners, who have kept out of trouble for a very long time, whose previous convictions have in fact been disclosed and who as a result have lost maybe their jobs, maybe their homes, maybe their families, and who have drifted back into the criminal ways they sought to put behind them. In those circumstances, that this objective is desirable it may be, as I say, that there will be no dispute.
I ask next whether it is an objective that can be achieved without legislation. The
894
answer, I regret to have to say, is clearly not. This is not an area in which moral exhortation to the fundamental decencies of human nature is going to achieve its purpose. Therefore legislation there must be. I therefore ask firmly: Is the machinery that is proposed in this Bill adequate? I think it is around that issue, and that issue alone, that this debate might eventually revolve. One must face up to the fact that, if it is to be effective, there is an inherent problem in any legislation of this sort; namely, that it will not work unless the power and the right are given to certain people in certain circumstances to conceal the truth, and that penalties are created to prevent other people in certain circumstances from revealing the truth. There is that inherent dilemma in any legislation of this sort.
I take much comfort from the experience of foreign countries that was referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. All the countries in the Council of Europe, and many others besides, have legislation to achieve this objective. It is of differing sorts. In some cases pardons are granted; in other cases records are destroyed. But all those systems have three features in common. First of all, they have to provide that in certain circumstances the truth can properly be concealed; secondly, they are all subject, as systems, to critical, academic, destructive analysis; and, thirdly, they all work. I am not aware that in any of these countries there is any volume of complaint from authors or journalists to the effect that their legitimate activities are being hampered in any way.
In those circumstances, I would venture to deal only briefly with the areas of criticism that appear to have sprung up in the course of the last few days. First, there is some criticism by those who have failed, to understand the provisions of this Bill—and, if I may say so, one can sympathise with them in relation to at least some of the causes. It is perhaps not fully appreciated that in no way has this Bill any application to the criminal courts. The spent convictions will be just as admissible as any other convictions where the character of a defendant or of a witness is in issue; but it will be open to the court, if they think it helpful and relevant, to have access to all a defendant's previous convictions, spent or

895
otherwise. Indeed in the civil courts, too, if spent convictions are relevant to the issue that is being tried there is a provision in the Bill under which they may be admitted. Criticism of a provision of that sort is clearly unfounded.
Secondly, there is an area of criticism which appears to consist of constructing entirely hypothetical situations in order to ask, "What answer does the Bill give to that situation?" One correspondent wrote, I think in The Times, to ask, "What do I tell my neighbour if he asks me whether it is true that my other neighbour had a conviction very many years ago?" One can think of many answers of varying degrees of terseness, but perhaps the short answer is that all of your Lordships have neighbours and I very much doubt whether in any of your Lordships' experience that question has ever been asked.
The third area of criticism is the one which has revolved around the defamation clause in this Bill. This is a matter which I approach with hesitation, keeping an open mind, because I am anxious to hear those speakers who will follow me and who are very much more expert on the law of defamation than I am. I venture to attempt to see whether I can accurately delineate the area of controversy. We are dealing solely with defamation actions which arise out of the printing of the fact that somebody has a spent conviction. They will be a small proportion of the defamation actions that arise. Under this Bill the defence of "fair comment" remains substantially unimpaired, substantially as it is at the moment. Under this Bill the defence of privilege—absolute privilege or qualified privilege—remains entirely unimpaired. It is quite misleading, as suggested in some quarters, that an employer who gives a bona fide reference to another employer in which he refers to a spent conviction of any employee will be in any way oppressed; and under this Bill it will still be a defence to say, "But the details of the spent conviction are true". The only amendment which this Bill makes to the law of defamation is that it goes on to say, "If that is the only defence you are raising then you must go on and establish that it is in the public interest that the matter was disclosed".
896
I do not find this a shattering innovation. The courts, judges and juries are well able to interpret the words "public interest" with abundant common sense. As I understand this clause, there is no need for worry by authors, historians, biographers or criminologists. There is no need for worry by those who indulge in the sort of serious investigative journalism which can be of very great value to our society. The only people that this modification of the law will hinder are those who indulge in scandal-monger-ing gossip in which they produce in print details of long-spent criminal convictions for no other purpose than to titillate or embarrass. If the objective of this Bill is a good one, as I believe it is, then that is an interference with the liberty of the Press which I, as a Liberal, am bound to say I would be prepared to tolerate with some fortitude.
My Lords, I would not want to suggest that the whole of the body of this Bill is entirely attractive. It may be that there are warts, some of which may have to be removed at a later stage, some of which may have to be treated, and some of which it may well be felt could safely be left without interfering with the operation of the Bill. But at this stage I ask leave to support this Bill as being a humane and a civilised gesture of assistance by society towards some of the members of our community who have shown by their own strength of character and determination that they are worthy of all the assistance we can give them.
5.32 p.m.
LORD DIPLOCK: My Lords, it is a peculiar pleasure to me that I should have the opportunity of speaking immediately after one whom I can term my noble and learned friend, Lord Wigoder. I know I shall speak for all who have heard him in congratulating the noble Lord on his speech, and expressing the hope that we shall hear him frequently in this House. I may not be expressing the views of a majority of others present when I say how glad I am to have the body of lawyers in this House reinforced so brilliantly.
My Lords, I think no one in this House can do anything but applaud the object of this Bill. I hope that in this debate—and, I believe, in all the stages through this House—the effort of all of us will be

897
to make it a better Bill when it has passed through all its stages than it is in its present form. I share what I have no doubt are the regrets of all your Lord-ships at the limits imposed in the Bill upon the sort of misdeeds which can be wiped out. I am sure everyone would wish that the Bill could provide that disgraceful conduct in the past—whether it was a crime or whether, though a crime, it did not result in a conviction as, for instance, a man dismissed for stealing from his employer but not prosecuted, as so often happens—could be lived down. But I recognise that there are difficulties about that, to which I must confess I see no solution. I would not suggest that this Bill should be opposed because it gives a preferential position to those who have convictions. If we can help even them, though we cannot help the others, that is a worthy purpose to achieve.
I hope I shall not be accused of wanting in kindness, charity and compassion, to use the words which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, wrote in his letter in The Times to-day, if I were to join for a few moments those persons and bodies with expert practical knowledge of the law of defamation, the Faulks Committee, the Law Society (who have written to me) the President of the Bar Council and the Publishers Association, in suggesting that there are provisions in the defamation clause which require careful examination if that clause is to achieve its object without bringing unintended evils in its train.
My Lords, the trouble really comes from this. It has for long been a reproach to the English law of libel that it is highly complicated, extremely costly, and, I think everyone with experience of the matter would say, a form of civil litigation in which the result is more unpredictable than in any other. It is because of those technicalities, the cost, the unpredictability, that the Faulks Committee over the years has been studying to find some simplification. I believe their report is to be published within a month or two. Clause 8 of the Bill pre-empts that report. I do not say that that is necessarily a bad thing, but the way in which it pre-empts it is by bringing not simplication, but a further complication to the law of defamation.
Ideally, a civilised law of defamation has two objects: so far as is compatible
898
with legitimate freedom of speech—and that is an important qualification—to enable a man to vindicate his character, and to act as a deterrent to unjustified aspersions on him. The first object of the law of libel, vindication of character, is not the purpose of Clause 8 of the Bill. To bring an action for defamation could only give wider publicity to the spent conviction upon which the action is based, and it is important to remember this. If there is an inference of innuendo flowing from the reference to the spent conviction (that the person who was the subject of it is not reformed, and that is nearly always an innuendo that can be drawn from a gratuitous reference to a spent conviction), no change is needed in the existing law; he can bring his action for defamation as the law stands at present.
I turn to the second object of the law of defamation; that is, deterrence—and undoubtedly that is the purpose of Clause 8, to deter other people from publishing spent convictions. It is indeed a substitute for making it a criminal offence, and I am not sure that the better solution would not have been to make it a criminal offence. But when one looks at it as a deterrent, I think the first thing to remember—and I am looking at the law of libel not as a theory but in practice—is that a threat of action for libel or slander does not deter the impecunious from defaming. An action for defamation is costly to bring. Legal aid is not obtainable for it. I believe that the real danger of spent convictions being talked about lies not in publication in the press, not perhaps even in references by employers, but by gossip on the shop floor, tittle-tattle in the club, the pub or over the tea-cups. There is almost no deterrent to that.
But leaving aside the impecunious muck-raker, despite the complications of the law of libel, it does not deter freedom of speech unsupportably in this country, because there is still one part of the law of libel which is simple. To-day if you tell what is the truth you are safe; no one is likely to bring an action against you, because no one starts an action unless he is advised that there is at least some prospect of success, and if what has been said is the truth he will be advised that there is no prospect of success. But—and this is where the law of defamation in this country has gone so badly wrong—once you get away from a situation where

899
you cannot rely simply on the truth but must rely on something else or something more, privilege or fair comment, you run the risk of being sued for libel, and even though you are advised that you will ultimately win you will also be advised, if you are well advised, that the costs in which you are going to be landed in winning make it better to settle the matter. And if you are advised before you publish it you will be well advised not to publish it.
That that should be so is a reproach upon the law of libel. It was a reproach which the Porter Committee of some twenty years ago, of which I had the honour to be Secretary, tried to remove and failed. It is a reproach which the Faulks Committee to-day it still considering and one hopes will shortly be reporting on some solution to it. What I fear about the introduction of the complication of the necessity for public interest to be proved is that the ruling whether a particular publication was in the public interest necessarily depends upon the personal value judgment of the particular judge who tries the case, and varies with the evanescent flow of public opinion, which may be quite different when the case comes on for trial from when it was published.
May I give three practical examples of problems which it seemed to me must be dealt with and proposals for dealing with them at the Committee stage. First of all, it makes it dangerous for anyone to write or publish reminiscences which may refer to convictions, or may refer to acts which one did not know were convictions; it makes it dangerous for any one to publish them. There is a real problem, too, about librarians. The reminiscences are all right until the conviction is spent, but thereafter every time that book of reminiscences is issued from the library that is a fresh publication. Every time any of your Lordships consults The Times for ten years ago, as well you may, you are bound to find reports of convictions which by now are spent; and the librarian knows perfectly well that that, and indeed local papers in particular, bristles with convictions, so he is not able to rely upon the defence of innocent dissemination which is provided for in the Bill but which requires you to
900
have taken all possible and reasonable care to see that you do not.
May I finish with one word on references. Of course, this Bill does not alter the law of privilege so far as references are concerned. But the real defence in a case where an employer has given a reference is that it is true; as long as it is true he is safe. But once it is not true, once that is not enough and he has to rely upon an honest belief in its truth and an absence of malice, you get into that field where, alas! the law of libel is technical, it is risky, and no one knows where they are going to get out. The protection of honest references to-day, the practical protection, is not the defence of privilege, it is the defence of justification, that it was true.
My Lords, I have ventured to indicate to you, I fear at too great length, why it is that those who are concerned with the law of libel and its practical application are worried about the provisions of Clause 8 of the Bill. I hope that it will be possible for this House at the Committee stage to solve some of those difficulties. I must confess that I think it is a difficult task that we have but, given good will—and I am sure that there is good will on every side and on the Cross-Benches in this House—I believe that we can go some considerable way to improving the methods by which the Bill seeks to achieve its worthy objects, which all of us applaud.
5.51 p.m.
LORD SALMON: My Lords, one of the tragedies of modern times is that there are so many men who leave prison with a firm determination to go straight, and who probably would go straight but for some of the terrible difficulties which are put in their path. Sitting as a judge in the Queen's Bench Division and in the Court of Appeal, I have often heard the story, very well authenticated, of a man who has been released from prison, who has disclosed his whole career to his employers, they have determined to give him a job and have taken him on, he has done very well for quite a long time and then suddenly, somehow, the whisper gets on to the shop floor that the man is an ex-gaolbird, and that man is so much tormented and bully-ragged that life is insupportable and he falls back into crime. This is an aspect of man's inhumanity to man which it is beyond the

901
power of the law to curb, but I suggest that the Bill is concentrated on those aspects of man's inhumanity to man which the law can, and should, curb.
I want to detain your Lordships for only a few moments. Take the case of any decent man who has the misfortune to be a litigant or a witness in a case. As the law now stands he can be cross-examined about an offence—it matters not what it was—some comparatively trivial offence of which he was convicted, perhaps ten years ago, and for which he received a sentence of six months imprisonment, and this is blazoned all over the Press where he lives and, if he is a man of any public means, all over the national Press. No one can blame the Press for that, but I blame the law which allows him to be cross-examined about such an old and minor offence.
The Bill is not introducing anything very revolutionary—well, it may be revolutionary, but no one can be dismayed by it. I should think that everybody would be overjoyed if you could not be cross-examined when you have lived down an offence, for which you had been given six months, for a period of seven years. Can anyone suggest that this is not long overdue? If, after you had served a sentence of 30 months you had gone straight for ten years, then that could not be dragged up against you when you are a witness, or a party, to litigation. I should have thought that those sections of the Bill are entirely unobjectionable.
I want to say a word about the defamation clause. I have the greatest respect for the Faulks Committee, for the chairman (who is a great friend of mine), and all the members on it. I can modestly claim to a little personal experience in this field because, during the last five or six years at the Bar, I had the good fortune to lead for many of the large national newspapers in libel actions. I hope that I am a strong unholder of the freedom of the Press, because I think that freedom of us all strongly depends upon it. I do not think that the suggestions in Clause 8 interfere with the freedom of the Press. Although I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock that the law of libel badly needs clarification and simplification (and I hope that it will receive it after the Report of the Faulks Committee), I do not agree that any complication is intro-
902
duced by Clause 8 that will make the work of simplifying the law in that direction any more difficult than it is now.
I ask my self whether it is conceivable—and, from my experience, I do not believe that is it—that any responsible newspaper would wish to publish the particulars of a man's conviction seven years ago, when he is completely rehabilitated, for the purpose of informing the public that he put his hand in the till and took out £10 that he should not have done, or that he exposed himself indecently. I do not believe that the Press wish for the freedom, if it is a freedom, to publish offences of that kind that took place so long ago, unless it is in the exceptional circumstance that it is in the public interest that they should do so. I can well understand the concern about public interest because, like public policy, it is said to be rather a difficult horse to ride, but the cases in which it is, or could be, in the public interest to publish that kind of stuff must be infinitesimal indeed.
I am not at all disturbed by the gentleman who wishes to write his reminiscences and would like to talk about his conviction that happened seven or ten years ago to a man who completely rehabilitated himself. I would rather inconvenience the author of that reminiscence than I would ruin the life of the man and his family, who would be concerned. I do not know about references. As you law would stand under Clause 8 you would have to prove that what you said was true; and in my respectful view it would not, as I read the clause, have anything to do with your belief. You could prove that it was true, but in addition you would have to prove that you were not using the privileged occasion maliciously; that is to say, that you were not using it for some spiteful or indirect purpose, but that you were merely disclosing the information because you believed it to be true and thought it was your duty. If you could prove those two latter things, the fact that you also proved it to be true would be unimportant. The best way of proving that you believed it is to prove that it is so.
A man who is giving a reference is put in a grave predicament. I do not propose to canvass the infinite variety of circumstances in which you might be called upon to do so, but there are cases where you might know of one minor conviction

903
years ago; for example, indecent exposure. This man is being selected for an important job, which has nothing to do with small boys, but, say, he is being selected for the highest executive position of a big company. I think most men would decide, "Well, I have known this fellow for 10 or 15 years and he has been perfectly straight." This has absolutely nothing to do with the job and probably you would not disclose the offence.
I think there are a number of cases where you might get an employer who, if he knew that he could walk straight out of the box by proving that what he said was true, might indulge his malice. Just imagine this case. An employer takes a man who is out of prison—and knows it—and the man has been with him for eight years and is a valuable and intelligent servant, doing a wonderful job and very underpaid. And the man says to his employer, "I am sorry to ask—I am very grateful for what you have done—but could you please put my wages up a little?" And the employer says, "No, I will not". Then a few months later the man comes back to his employer and says, "I have children to educate, I have been offered a job with a very big company, doing the same sort of work I am doing here and I am being offered 50 per cent. more than you are paying me. I hate leaving you, but I owe it to my family to go." The employer says, "Remember that they will have to come to me for a reference and I shall tell them all about the past. You had better think about that again."
It seems to me that it would be a reflection on the law if that employer were entitled to rely, when he was sued for libel, on the fact that the man did have that conviction ten months ago. I see nothing wrong in making an employer's defence one of privilege, because the occasion is privilege and you owe a moral duty very often to say all you know about a man. If you are worried, as you may well be, that you may be sued for libel, you have a perfectly good alternative. If you are a heartless person, you say you will not give a man any reference at all, which might do him far more harm. But if you behave as a reasonable, decent human being you will go to him and say, "Look, I have got to disclose the information that is in this letter, but I am telling them exactly
904
what I think of you and it is a very good reference, but I cannot hold these facts back. Now do you want me to send it or not?" If the man authorises you to send the letter you are safe from libel. If he does not then you do not send it.
As your Lordships probably have gathered, I am broadly very much in favour of the Bill. It does not mean that I do not think that in the Committee stage some of the clauses ought not to be looked at again. I am particularly worried about Clause 4(2)(a), although my fears may be set at rest. No doubt there are other clauses giving concern. My Lords, I have the honour to support this Bill at its Second Reading.
6.6 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: My Lords, I should like to add our thanks from these Benches to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for persisting with this important and difficult matter, despite the changes and chances of the Parliamentary scene. Whatever hesitation or anxieties we may have about some of the consequences of the Bill I am personally confident that its principle is sound and that it is right to attempt to put it into legal constitutional form. Speaking in the debate in your Lordships' House on February 1 last year when a similar Bill was introduced for the first time, my reverend friend the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said that if we believe there must be a place in all penal administration for the process of reformation, then we are committed to the subsequent principle that there must be a place for forgiveness and forgiveness is a process by which the past, if it is not obliterated, is disregarded as having no further impact upon either the present or the future in the life of the person who is forgiven. In echoing that affirmation of belief, I would also affirm that the beginning of a new life must be the ending in principle of that life which preceded it. It is at this point that the difficulties for society as a whole are so much greater than they are for the individual.
In the previous debate to which I have already referred, the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York was one of those who voiced the concern of many about a legal provision which enabled a witness or a defendant to give an untrue answer to a specific question. The Home

905
Office spokesman in another place said earlier this year that truth is no more permanent than any other principle of civilised conduct in a civilised society. There is also, he said, compassion and understanding, and for that reason, he contended, we must believe that compassion and understanding must be balanced against a declaration of truth. My Lords, I listened very carefully to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, this afternoon and of course I accept the claims of compassion, but does this argument give sufficient justice to the central role of truth-telling in the whole judicial process?
I have been rebuked here before for referring to myself as a layman in these matters, but on technicalities of the law I can speak in no other capacity—not least in a debate where seven lawyers are taking part. It seems to me that much depends on the way in which questions are put to a witness or a defendant. I was very interested to note a reference in a debate in another place to the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, where it is laid down in Section 16:
"In any proceedings for an offence committed … by a person of or over the age of 21, any offence of which he was found guilty while under the age of 14 shall be disregarded for the purposes of any evidence relating to his previous convictions; and he shall not be asked, and if asked shall not be required to answer, any question relating to such an offence … "
My Lords, whether some such phrase as this could be incorporated into this Bill I am not competent to judge, nor would I know whether it could be implemented satisfactorily if it were. I rather hope it could.
My other anxiety about this Bill is that, while it seeks to serve an entirely worthy end—namely, the rehabilitation of former offenders in the community—it seems to do so by assuming as immutable the vindictiveness and the unwillingness to forgive of both individuals and institutions. I think we have been told that about one million people would be directly affected by this Bill, and I have seen it estimated that by the age of 60 about 31 per cent. of the population will have been convicted of indictable offences. My Lords, what we should surely be attacking is the continuing assumption that society can exclude former offenders as permanently unworthy
906
or incapacitated for civil life and responsibility.
But if I understand it aright this Bill, if enacted in its present form, will leave intact the prohibition which several large public employers of labour have against the acceptance into their employment of anyone who has any blemish at all on his past record. The law already prohibits discrimination on grounds of race, and we are well on the way to extending it to discrimination on grounds of sex. If we accept the principle of this present Bill as valid, and if we provide for all the obvious and necessary safeguards, ought there not also to be legal sanctions penalising discrimination against former offenders?
My Lords, the basic need of those who are genuinely seeking rehabilitation in society is a social framework of positive social relationships which will encourage them to make good. We now have statutory after-care services; and we now have a variety of hostels for those on bail, on probation, in the last stages of a long sentence and in need of after-care on returning to ordinary society. Some of these are statutory; many are run by voluntary agencies. Perhaps the greatest difficulty that they confront is the climate of public hostility which so often hinders rather than helps those who live in these hostels from securing employment or from obtaining social rehabilitation. Whatever hesitations I may have about this present Bill, I warmly support its being given a Second Reading, because I believe it may contribute in the long run to changing the deeply-rooted attitudes in society, and to making more effective the efforts of both statutory and voluntary bodies, who are together working for the rehabilitation of offenders against the law.
6.15 p.m.
LORD SOPER: My Lords, I am attracted to this Bill, and am the more grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, for bringing it before your Lordships this afternoon for two reasons, the first of which is a very practical reason. I would add the particular illustration to what was so movingly said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, of a man I know who is in the gutter to-day because, after many years of almost hopeless endeavours, after a conviction, to get a job, he finally got

907
one as a doorman. On a passing bus was somebody who recognised him, and who took it upon himself to go and tell the authorities. That man lost the job, and he has gone downhill ever since. I am not particularly impressed by the fact that he might indeed have summoned up greater courage; but I think he is typical of many people for whom such a change in the law as this would attempt to provide is something eminently to be desired. It will reduce a great deal of human suffering.
My Lords, as this debate has been somewhat unequally distributed between the law and, if I may say so, the prophets, the right reverend Prelate and myself, as members of the Christian Church, are aware that this is a legislative experiment and adventure in the field of forgiveness. If I may so say, forgiveness has been a much-vexed question that has sometimes plagued the theologians of the Christian Church. It might therefore not be inapposite if I were to endeavour to detain your Lordships for a little while in telling you something of the problems that we have had, and that your Lordships now have to shoulder in interpreting in legal terms this most desirable but difficult question of what forgiveness is.
The medieval philosophers distinguished between what they called the nail in the wood and the nail in the flesh. To remove the nail in the wood at the expiry of the sentence that is imposed for a crime or a sin still leaves the hole where the nail once was. The removal of the nail in the flesh under due conditions of health means that, sooner or later, the flesh entirely recovers and is as good as new. As the right reverend Prelate has so eloquently recorded, forgiveness belongs to that second category. It is in fact what Charles Wesley called:
"Breaking the power of cancelled sin, And setting the prisoner free".
But of course he is not free, in the strictly historical sense that he is still within the general framework of original sin, and therefore the Christian Church has had this very difficult job of equating this newness of life, which is the gift of forgiveness, with the historic and indestructible fact of a curriculum vitae in which sin has its part. It would not dare to try to bore your Lordships with this, but there are certain inferences which
908
I think are of value. It is in one sense impossible completely to begin again. Paul solved the problem by saying that the old Adam dies and a new Adam takes his place. That may be spiritually true, but it is extremely difficult to translate that into legal form. But they had some success, of course, in putting it in Latin; and there was a further success which I think is well worth recording, and that distinguishes between the truth as the possession of verity and the truth as something which it is your obligation to declare. I think the itch to utter is very distinguishable from the possession of truth; and I should have thought that in very many respects the Christian Church has been less than garrulous and sometimes indeed almost dumb. In its wisdom, this has preserved doctrines like the infallibility doctrine, but that is another question.
But the question which I believe faces those who would consider this issue is that there is a world of difference between the possession of the truth and the obligation to declare it; and sometimes silence is the golden mean as well as the desirable end. I think that in many cases where fears have been expressed, particularly with regard to the law of defamation, the experience of the Christian theologians is worth remembering, and it is that there is no definite obligation to declare a truth. That truth in many cases ought to be preserved within the decency of quietness for the sake of the common good and what theologians also call the "higher law", and I believe that the Bill represents an excursion into that higher law, a law in which we recognise that reality is richer than thought and that there are many matters which belong to grace which can never be incorporated within the framework of law. It is that consideration which empowers me to give what I honestly believe—and I think that my noble friend would concur in this—to be the general approval of those who are within the framework of the Christian Church for an attempt not only to relieve suffering which is manifest, and to which eloquent reference has been made, but also to provide a measure of new adventure into a field in which grace can take the place of law.
If the Bill receives its Second Reading, I for one believe that there are no final

909
obstacles—particularly with the incorporation of the element of public interest—which cannot be solved in Committee. I will finish by saying that what I am sure about is that not only does the Bill commend itself to decent people—and they have been eloquent in many respects in saying so—but it has presented to your Lordships this afternoon a number of problems which have not been faced and declared with a sense of finality but which have been seen to be incorporated in the good will of a Bill which, when it is given its Second Reading, can move on to the decisions which are necessary in the framework of Committee and in the difficulties which will arise. It is an adventure and I commend it as an adventure to which I believe your Lord-ships will give wholehearted support.
6.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, in view of the observations about the true meaning of forgiveness uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, it is with some confidence that I now ask him to forgive me for not following him down the road which he has been treading. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, cannot be displeased by the fact that, so far, everyone has supported and spoken in favour of the object of the Bill, as they did on the Second Reading of the Bill when it came before the House last time. I said then that I was in support of the object of the Bill: I have not changed my view about that at all, but I should not be frank with the House if I did not say that I have great doubts about the workability of the Bill in many of its provisions and about whether it will do much to achieve the object of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, of myself and, I think, of the rest of your Lordships.
My Lords, we are told that there are about one million people who have these convictions and who, to use the phraseology of the Bill, have now rehabilitated themselves. I suppose that they all have some degree of fear about whether the past may come to light. I do not know how real that fear is. We were given statistics by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, of the number of people in that position, but we were not given any information about the number of times in, perhaps, the last ten years that that fear has been realised. Nevertheless,
910
one would like to see that fear removed. That fear of exposure by the man who recognises him from the bus, the door-man case referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Soper—such cases will not be touched by this Bill. It is sad, but, so far as I can see, they will not be. As I see it, the Bill attempts to deal with the problem by applying the sanction of proceedings for defamation in an endeavour to keep the past secret and prevent the spent conviction from being referred to.
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate drew attention to another part of the problem which is not touched; that is, the securing of employment. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, when he spoke on the Second Reading of the last Bill drew attention to the difficulty of getting certain types of employment. One case, I think, was the Post Office. If one had had a conviction, perhaps, when one was 12, but had led an honest life ever since, he said—and I take it from him—that one could not get employment with the Post Office. I do not know to what extent the Bill will touch that, but I think we could improve the Bill by saying that that kind of conviction, followed by the period of rehabilitation specified in the Bill, should not be regarded as a ground for not employing a person. In a sense, that is applying the discrimination provisions in another field.
There were two other fields to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, drew attention on the previous Second Reading. There is the difficulty about business insurance, where if it is found that the man with a small business has had a conviction a long time ago, it may invalidate the policy. There is the difficulty about fidelity bond insurance, if one is employing someone with a conviction from no matter how long ago. Far better than just relying on defamation as a deterrent to revealing what has happened, surely one ought to have a provision to declare that a spent conviction followed by a rehabilitation period should not be allowed to invalidate a business insurance policy or a fidelity bond. But the Bill does not deal with that.
I mention these matters because I am disappointed with this new edition of the Bill. Although I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was

911
the author of the last Bill and drafted it himself, I feel that it was far better than the present Bill. To try to find one's way around the present Bill—and I hope that I have understood it correctly—seems to me to be like trying to unravel a tangled fishing line, and sometimes they do get very snarled up.
My Lords, there are a number of points with which I should like to deal. First, there is something which is new in the Bill and which was not in the last Bill, and to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has not referred at all. I think I am right in saying that. For the first time all Service offences are being brought within the scope of the Bill, and I wonder whether it is right and whether one really need bother about them in this field, except perhaps where the court martial offence is one which is an offence against the criminal law of this country—and those are very easily identifiable. In the rest of those cases, surely they can be forgotten about and surely no one is frightened of such things as absences without leave being mentioned. It is so odd the way they are dealt with.
Your Lordships will see that one of the convictions excluded from the operation of the Bill is a sentence of cashiering. In the last war, a number of persons had the misfortune to be cashiered for conduct of a scandalous nature unbecoming to an officer and a gentleman. That very often consisted of passing dud cheques, though sometimes it was other things. After all, that is an offence which covers a very wide field. But to take the case of cashing dud cheques, tried before the criminal courts, that would almost certainly come within the scope of the Bill and be possible to be rehabilitated from. However, under the Bill as it now stands, a person who had been cashiered in the last war for the cheque offence could not be rehabilitated, no matter what he had done since and no matter what an honest life he had led.
Then, to take the other point, a Service offence which comes within the scope of the Bill, any soldier, sailor or airman who is sent to detention—it may be for some minor purely military offence—can get rehabilitated, but only after seven years. If he is dismissed from Her Majesty's Service he can get rehabilitated
912
after the same period. I must say that I am puzzled to know why one should complicate this Bill by bringing into its scope all these Services offences. If the object of the Bill is to remove from people the fear of exposure of their past I cannot think that there is any real need for this Bill to apply in those cases.
There is in this Bill another change from the last Bill. I remember the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, making a powerful speech last time and saying that if a man had been fined he should not be able to be rehabilitated unless he had paid his fine. That seemed to me to be sense. Then there were discussions about whether it would matter if he paid his fine a little late. Although as a general rule if a man is to be rehabilitated he must serve the sentence passed upon him, in this Bill if he is fined he can be rehabilitated without paying the fine at all. That is an extraordinary change, a complete volte face, from the Bill as presented last time. My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner did not say anything about it, and I should like to suggest to him—because I am concerned to try to make this a more effective and workable measure—that no matter whether it is paid on the due date or months or years later, it is a nonsense to say that a man should be rehabilitated when he has been fined and he has deliberately abstained from paying his fine.
There are one or two other points of that sort, but I shall not take up the time of the House by referring to them. However, there are two things to which I think I must refer and the first is that we had a lot said about, and my noble and learned friend Lord Salmon referred to, questions which solicit convictions being asked in the courts. If I understand it aright, this Bill makes no difference at all to the questions that can and may be asked in the criminal courts in the conduct of criminal trials, and the provisions about questions eliciting criminal convictions therefore are limited to civil proceedings. My noble and learned friend has great experience, as has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hodson, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock. I can speak only for myself, but I cannot recollect a single case of a witness having what would now be regarded as a spent conviction thrown at him. It could happen on cross-examination as to credit.

913
I think it is highly improbable, and I do not think that we should attach all that importance to that matter.
What worries me is how you are going to work the provisions in this Bill with regard to that point. The provision says that a person shall not be asked and if asked, shall not be required to answer, a question about a spent conviction. How is the court to find out whether the question is one about a spent conviction? That is what bothers me. The only way I can see that it can do so is by finding out what the conviction was and when it took place. It will then have to consider whether or not there has been a rehabilitation period, and that will involve consideration of whether the rehabilitation period has been extended by a subsequent misconduct. At the end of the day, after this inquiry, the court will say "yea" or "nay" as to whether this is a spent conviction. It is only when that happens that the court will be able to rule on whether that question can or cannot be put to the witness. As I see it, when you have reached that stage you might have put the question in the first place with far less harm being done because all the facts will have to come out to be able to rule on the question.
The same thing applies to the next provision. That is why I have great doubt about the workability of that part. I am not sure that it is really necessary. My noble and learned friend Lord Salmon seems to think that it is, but I am inclined to doubt it. Rather than have something of that sort happening which might give the matter an exaggerated importance, I would leave it for the time being to the judges and to the good conduct, which I think usually takes place, of the lawyers involved, to avoid unnecessary mudslinging.
Now I come to the controversial clause about defamation. I do not feel myself so concerned about the Press or what they may or may not do, but I feel considerable concern about the individual who innocently, not out of malice or anything like that, refers to a spent conviction and in consequence finds himself faced with litigation. I have one real criticism of this Bill, and this being a Second Reading speech I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me for drawing attention to these things which I shall seek to raise if I can in Committee, to
914
give him forenotice in the hope that we can find answers to them. What worries me tremendously about this Bill is the difficulty any ordinary individual will have in finding out or in getting to know whether a conviction of which he knows is a spent conviction or not. He will find it frightfully difficult if he looks only at this Bill.
I am glad to hear that the Home Office are to publish a pamphlet. But my experience of Home Office pamphlets and things of that sort is that very often a properly drawn Bill is preferable: first, it is more accurate, and secondly, it is sometimes shorter and less verbose. May I just give your Lordships an example. In Clause 5(4) of this Bill, concerning the difficulty in ascertaining whether or not there has been a rehabilitation, it reads as follows:
"Where in respect of a conviction a person was conditionally discharged, bound over to keep the peace or be of good behaviour, or placed on probation, the rehabilitation period applicable to the sentence shall be one year from the date of conviction or a period begin ning with that date and ending when the order for conditional discharge or probation order or (as the case may be) the recognizance or bond of caution to keep the peace or be of good behaviour ceases or ceased to have effect, whichever is the longer."
My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner may be able to work that out. I doubt very much whether I could. It would take me a long time. We ought to try to see, even if we have less variation in the length required for rehabilitation, whether we can get those rehabilitation provisions cleared up, made simpler, so that it will be easier for people to know whether the conviction about which they are speaking is one about which, as the Bill now stands, they are allowed or not allowed to speak.
I am not going to follow my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock and my noble and learned friend, Lord Salmon, into controversy about the law of defamation. It is probably even more involved than the provisions of this Bill—and that is saying quite a lot. But we have to deal with it or get it clear, if we can, on Committee. I have a very considerable anxiety whether we shall be able to find enough time to get this measure as near right as we can before this Parliament comes to an end—and I am not asking for any Statement from the Government on that point. I beg the

915
noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, even if we cannot complete our task, to let us work on it to see how far we can go to get it right; and then, should he have to introduce it again in another Session of Parliament, it may well be that it will be a case of "third time lucky". But despite all the approval which he says he has had from other quarters and in different places, I am rather despondent about the possibility of curing what have been called the warts of this Bill in the space of the rest of this month of July. I support the Second Reading, and I have no doubt that the Motion will be carried.
6.40 p.m.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, I do not think I have ever risen to intervene in a debate in your Lordships' House with a greater sense of inadequacy. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Soper, who drew attention to the preponderance of eminent legal pundits in the list of speakers over those who are not. I believe the ratio is in the order of 10 to 13—or 14, if you count the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, twice. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Soper, talking about the law and the prophets, because I am not a prophet either and I feel no more comforted by that remark.
I came to your Lordships' House today with a troubled mind and I am bound to confess that I am no less troubled—indeed, I am perhaps slightly more so—at this stage in the debate. I have already said, when the Bill was introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, under the previous Administration, how much I welcomed the Bill in its general principle. I welcomed it again in its resurrection and its mention in the gracious speech. I share some of the misgivings which have been voiced before this debate in another place, in correspondence in the Press and in the lobbying which, like many others of your Lordships, I have had on this subject, about the defamation clause and not least about the complexities which the Bill now contains. I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner will not take this amiss.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, described this as "a fishing line". To me it is a layman's legal nightmare. Of course, this is merely a confession of my own ignorance, but I should
916
like to express my firm conviction—and it really is my reason for intervening in the debate to-day—from some experience, admittedly at second-hand, that something needs to be done in law to remove the stigma and the prejudices arising from stigma for those who, having committted a crime, or having pursued a life of crime, and having been punished for it, have successfully demonstrated that they have put the past behind them. Something must be done in law, and it is for that reason that I welcome this Bill.
I take a very modest pride in having moved an Amendment to the earlier Bill introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, which increased the maximum period which would qualify for the "spending" of a sentence from two years to two-and-a-half years, and I am glad to see that embodied in the present Bill. I should like to reiterate my conviction that the figure of two-and-a-half must not be regarded as an absolute or final limit for all time. There could be no moral justification for doing so, and to do so would imply that a sentence of, say, three years imposed by a certain court for an offence which, in itself and in the surrounding circumstances, was no more heinous than another offence committed by someone else who was awarded two-and-a-half years in another court, could never be redeemed.
In fairness, it follows that it should be possible to earn redemption in respect of much more serious offences carrying much longer sentences, albeit after a suitably longer period of keeping clear. What is more, I think we shall have to keep in mind when this Bill becomes law, as I hope it will, such things as changes in sentencing policy or changes in the law regarding the maximum sentences that may be imposed for particular offences. For instance, if we were ever to arrive at the situation which has been arrived at in Holland, where a few years ago they in effect halved the great majority of their sentences, this would have an immediate bearing on this rehabilitation measure.
I should like to turn now to the other side of the picture which has been portrayed during this debate. I share some of the misgivings that have been voiced about the defamation clause. I think I still share them to some degree, but I shall go on listening to the debate with great care and I should like to assure the noble

917
and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that I have every intention of supporting the Bill on its Second Reading. It comes as something of a shock to the layman in these matters to find that a truth must be turned into an untruth, or vice versa, by law, or that a truth must be denied in certain circumstances on oath. I would rather put it in far simpler terms by expressing myself as an ordinary humble citizen. I have long held it as a tenet of common decency and kindness that there are occasions—and here I am very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Soper—when charity commands silence, and when to blazen forth or even to whisper an unpalatable truth, which by the telling has no other purpose or motive than to harm a person, or to feed the vanity or to give expression to the malice of the teller, or (and here I shall be very careful, as a member of the Royal Commission on the Press) which has no other value than as a headline with a commercial pay-off, is morally wrong.
As a very general personal guide, I have always felt that when truth and charity were directly in conflict I should incline towards charity. But the question is: should, or could, such apparent moral wrongs, if that is what they are, be made legally wrong? I am still uncertain about some of these questions after listening to the debate, but I would say that in so far as this Bill gives legal expression to that sentiment regarding truth versus charity, in connection with rehabilitation after a substantial period of good conduct, and in so far as the Bill provides for both these criteria in a workable way—and there seems to be some difference of opinion on this—and in so far as it does not trespass on responsible exercise of freedom of expression, then on those four criteria I support the Bill.
However, this leaves certain other doubts still in my mind which have been put there during the debate this afternoon. Surely rehabilitation does not end there. I do not know whether to be pleased or sorry, but I suppose I should be pleased that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has stolen my thunder by taking this point immediately before me, because defamation too often leads to
918
discrimination, and I am concerned that the Bill should go on to provide redress for a person whose sentence has been spent and who can show that he has been prejudiced by a "spent" sentence, whether or not there has been defamation to bring this about, or has been unfairly discriminated against because of that offence committed X years ago. I had wondered before coming here whether perhaps existing legislation catered for that aspect of discrimination. From what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has said, I infer that it has not and I would ask my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner whether he would consider amending the Bill by adding what I would call "a forgive and forget clause" in that sense.
In conclusion, I believe that the need for protective legislation for ex-offenders exists and should be persisted with, despite the complexities which have been revealed and the complications to which this legislation may give rise. I believe in two further values, one of which has already been mentioned by, I think, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, who pointed out the value of encouraging a person to earn the respect and trust of society by proof of good behaviour. The second one—which has not emerged in the debate though, no doubt, it has been implied—is to give a lead to public opinion towards a more forgiving climate for what has demonstrably been put into the past and should be forgotten. I share the concern over the complexities and complications of the Bill; but, nevertheless, I hope they will be removed or reduced in Committee and I support the Bill.
6.50 p.m.
LORD HODSON: My Lords, having no intention of voting against the Second Reading of this Bill, I shall certainly not detain your Lordships for more than a few moments. First of all, I should like to express my admiration of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. He and I have known one another for the whole of his professional life. He has always been dedicated not only to justice and fairness—to which he has contributed his great ability—but has also given his energies, learning and qualities to giving help to those people who, in his opinion, need help. This he is doing in this case.

919
The only point I should like to make on the content of the Bill relates to publishers. In that matter I have to admit an interest. I have no pecuniary interest in a publishing firm nor has my daughter, except that she is employed by one as a salaried executive director. Having made that admission, I hope I may be allowed to make a point in favour of publishers. A letter was written to The Times to which my attention has been drawn pointing out the great difficulties in which publishers can be put. A publisher, as we know, sends out books to libraries and book shops and has not practical control thereafter over what happens to the books. If a spent conviction comes to light and is distributed, the publisher is hard put to it to prove that it was in the public interest. Lawyers all know that public policy is an unruly horse. Public interest is, too; it changes from day to day. One opinion about public interest is not the same as another opinion. I regard that as an insufficient protection for the publisher. I am not going so far as to say that the whole of the clause dealing with defamation ought to be cut away, but I hope it will be possible to amend it so as to give some further protection before this Bill becomes law.
6.53 p.m.
LORD SIMON OF GLAISDALE: My Lords, I would not be justified at this late hour in detaining your Lordships for long, but I should like to support the principles of this Bill and therefore its Second Reading. In doing so, I feel bound to express grave misgivings about the way that the Bill is drafted and about much of its machinery. I said that I supported the principles of the Bill. I am a member of one society which sponsored the pamphlet on which it is founded, and I had the honour, with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to found one of the other societies. I am naturally predisposed to any recommendations coming from that source, particularly as the noble and learned Lord was Chairman of the Committee.
Although it is many years since I was a Home Office Minister, and although I certainly do not claim the expertise that many of your Lordships have in this field, I remember vividly the difficulty that was impressed on me by a recidivist who was trying to live down his past,
920
and his discouragement should it be suddenly raked up. There are not many of those cases, but if we can save even a few it is worth while. There are other cases mentioned in the report, Living it Down, such as the single offender who has paid the penalty of his offence. Of course courts, in sentencing, take into account the fact that it is extraordinarily difficult to live down an offence. Nevertheless, I agreed very much with the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and many other noble Lords, that society should be prepared, so far as possible, to wipe the slate clean in respect of an offender once he has served the penalty that has been thought suitable.
On the other hand, I do not think that those of us who support this measure do it any service by exaggerating the dimensions of the problem. The figure of one million has been mentioned; that gives a wholly exaggerated idea of the dimensions of the problem. For example, the great philosopher, Professor Alexander, when he was excogitating on the problems of time, space and the Deity, habitually used to bicycle along the pavements, much to the alarm of the citizens of Manchester. Many offenders are of his type and they vastly swell this figure of one million.
The pamphlet Living it Down starts with eight examples, and very moving examples they are. But this Bill deals by way of remedy with only four of those examples. If that is a fair way of looking at the problem, it means that, quite apart from the Professor Alexanders, one has to divide the figure of offenders by two. There is the impact on the recidivist which, in human terms, is a very serious problem; but is a very small one numerically.
Finally, I would utter a word of warning against the invocation of foreign systems, which are a very unsafe guide in this field, since so many of them proceed on the basis of a loss of civil rights, of which our law knows nothing. I always feel considerable misgivings when I hear arguments to the effect that a little injustice is acceptable so that great good may ensue. It always seems to me that the little injustice is certain, whereas the great good designed to ensue is so often problematical. But in this case the authoritative voices that have constructively criticised this measure indicate that it is not merely great good that can ensure,

921
but that considerable injustice is likely to ensue unless this measure is considerably amended.
I do not propose to go into the defamation clause, because the matter was dealt with, if I may say so with respect, in a masterly speech by my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock. However, I would say that it seemed to me that the noble and learned Lord who introduced the Bill was again doing it no service by minimising the problems which it raises. It is no analogy at all to say that the law already suppresses truth in excluding certain evidence. Certainly it does. The law excludes evidence in the interest of justice when it feels that the evidence might be prejudicial or unsafe or might otherwise bring about injustice. But it is one thing, in charity or justice, commanding silence about truth in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Soper, described; it is quite another thing when the law commands a lie, which is what this Bill does. The phrase "licensed perjury" has been used. That is not just a term of rhetoric; that is precisely the principle that the Bill enshrines. However much we welcome its objectives, we should hesitate long before seeing such a principle enshrined, and to do our best to see whether what we all wish to see done cannot be carried out without such violence to justice and to law.
Having said that I myself support the objectives, I should not like it to be thought that I am willing to damn with faint praise and assent with civil leer; and so I am bound to say what I think could and should be done. This is one of the many cases where a good is likely to be sacrificed by trying to do rather better. If we limited our objective we should be more likely to achieve success in this field. The Bill tries to do too much. On the other hand, it is only right to say that in one respect the Bill tries to do too little. The periods of penalty which rank for rehabilitation are now fixed too short, and I prefer the periods that were originally proposed.
There are four provisions which would really in my respectful submission achieve the bulk of the objective which we all have in mind. The first point is that, as your Lordships know, evidence can be called in a court of law only if it goes to some issue which is in question. One cannot call evidence as to a man's char-
922
acter unless his character is an issue in the case, as it will be if he puts it in issue in a defamation action. But what one can do is to cross-examine any witness or party, not only as to any matter at issue but also to show that he is not a person to be believed—what is called, technically, cross-examination to credit. The example that was given by my noble and learned friend Lord Salmon in his powerful speech was an example of cross-examination to credit—raking up some spent conviction. If we dealt with that, we would deal with a great deal of the problem that faces us. If we said that no one shall be asked, or if asked bound to answer, any question relating to his spent conviction, we should have dealt with most of the hard cases—I think all the hard cases—that have been mentioned before your Lordships in this debate.
Secondly, a matter arises out of Clause 4, which deals among other matters with statements about a person's character out of court—questions about a previous conviction raised out of court. I should have thought that that could be dealt with, without requiring either a lie in a reference or—what will be very damaging to a convicted man whose conviction is spent and who may genuinely have lived down and exonerated the offence—a silence on the part of the referee, out of fear of an action. If we said that any question out of court about a previous conviction shall be limited to unspent convictions unless the circumstances are such that the person putting the question owes a legal or moral duty to make the inquiry as to a spent conviction, not only would we then meet the gravest cases, the hardest cases, within that field—questions out of court—but we should also protect the person who would be failing in his legal and moral duty if he did not mention, perhaps in relation to offences against children, that there was some danger that might be apprehended.
The third matter I would venture to suggest is in relation to defamation, because it seems to me that the onus is the wrong way round here. I should like to see it enacted that justification by pleading the truth of the matter published should be no defence if it is proved that the reference to the spent conviction is malicious. That, again, would meet the case that was put by my noble and

923
learned friend Lord Salmon. It seems to me most unfair to journalists, librarians, authors, publishers, that they should have to prove the absence of malice, as they do under the Bill. The onus should be on the plaintiff.
Finally, I would endorse the suggestion of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne that one could deal with discrimination in employment on the lines that it has been dealt with in the Race Relations Acts. In other words, it should be unlawful to discriminate in employment against a person with a spent conviction. It seems to me that that is perfectly simple and perfectly intelligible. I thought that the noble and learned Lord did less than justice to Mr. Bernard Levin when he made that valuable suggestion.
I would venture to suggest to your Lordships that this matter is so important and so complicated that a Select Committee would be the ideal machinery to deal with it. Your Lordships could bring to such a Select Committee great expertise. The objectives of the Bill have been generally welcomed. On the other hand, there has been authoritative alarm about several of the provisions. What we are doing is to pre-empt the findings and recommendations of the Faulks Committee, and I beg the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to show patience and flexibility, and to adopt that specific so that a measure that we all wish to see in principle carried into law can be carried into law without disrupting the rest of the law, and without causing injustice to innocent people.
7.11 p.m.
VISCOUNTCOLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has always been a very great enthusiast, and perhaps never more than in relation to this Bill. I venture to suggest that he will be rewarded this evening by again seeing it have a Second Reading. This would be right, because the groundswell of opinion in this House this afternoon, in speech after speech, has been very much that expressed by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that we all find its objective desirable. That is exactly what happened on the last occasion when the noble and learned Lord introduced the Bill into this House.
924
I cannot remember anybody speaking then or, indeed, on any other occasion who did not say that the objective of the Bill was entirely desirable and something that he supported. However, if I may again draw a comparison between what has happened this afternoon and what has happened on earlier occasions, particularly the last Second Reading, I would say that this House has acquitted itself a great deal more creditably to-day than it did the time earlier. That is probably because the course of discussion has, albeit somewhat belatedly, thrown up, to the interest of a number of people who had not realised it earlier, some of the substantial problems which still lurk inherently in this measure.
My Lords, on the last occasion the noble and learned Lord had what was admittedly a Bill which was drafted by a very skilled amateur and, as he rightly said in his speech, he went on improving it all the way through in answer to criticisms largely from me when I was speaking from the Government Front Bench. However, I do not remember many other people bringing profound, analytical eyes to bear upon some of the matters which we have heard discussed this afternoon, and which were, indeed, discussed in another place when this Bill was being dealt with there. It is curious how nobody before seems to have paid much attention to some of the difficulties which I, with perhaps undue modesty, ventured to present to the House. Some of these are beginning to be recognised now as being the severe problems which I always rather feared they were.
In one other way I should like to echo a number of the speeches which have preceded mine; that is, by agreeing very much with the noble and learned Lord Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that we are not always assisted by being told that in every country in the Council of Europe and, for all I know, in every country in the rest of the globe, this, that or the other happens without being given anything more than the general principle. It is perfectly right that a conviction in some countries of Europe carries with it civil disqualification; so of course it is necessary to have machinery whereby in due course a person may be rehabilitated so that he may vote, or act as a member of a local authority or something of that kind, and in the process he gets rid of the criminal

925
conviction for other reasons as well. But that is not the pattern of law in this country and it does not necessarily follow that our legal machinery is well equipped to deal with the kind of concepts that this Bill involves. Therefore, my Lords, while I have always said that the objective is desirable, I have always also said that it is extremely difficult to achieve in legislative form.
It is perfectly plain as well that when people like myself said that all was not well in the Bill as it was originally drafted, not only in detail but also in principle, we had, as it has turned out, a certain amount of justification because the Bill which the noble and learned Lord now brings before us is indeed different in some marked particulars from the form in which it originally appeared—and I do not just mean in drafting. In that respect it is totally different in every possible way. I would not entirely disagree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in finding it rather difficult or in fearing, with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that many laymen who have served short terms of imprisonment, or who have been fined, encounter mild difficulties in finding their way around it so as to discover when they may claim to have been rehabilitated. That is the inevitable consequence of getting it into what is technically the right form for our particular form of legislation. If I may respectfully so suggest, in the process it casts certain doubts upon our particular form of legislation.
However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, has now presented a Bill which, thank goodness, leaves out the vexed question of magistrates' courts. I think that if the noble and learned Lord had still insisted upon withholding from magistrates the details of people's past convictions, and had persisted in what I consider to be the purest idiocy in not allowing a magistrates' court to find out that a person had been on probation at the time when a probation order was breached, because the case did not come on for trial until a little too late and small matters of that sort, then I should have had to take a fairly strong line against it. That has all gone, but it has gone as a result of a tremendous amount of argument—and I think probably not even now with the full conviction of the noble and learned Lord that it is right.
926
There have evidently been changes which have had to be made to this Bill and I am not sure that we have yet come to the end of the process. We have got rid of the certificate machinery which I know was originally put in at the suggestion of my honourable friend the Member for Runcorn, who was my co-Minister of State. However, when this was examined it appeared that we in the Home Office, too, had got it wrong. So, very properly, it has come out again. But there will be the resultant difficulty that people will not know—and I do not think they would have known under the certificate machinery, either—when they are rehabilitated, or not, at any rate, with any ease.
My Lords, while we are on points of detail, the noble and learned Viscount mentioned the question of the fine from which one could be rehabilitated even though one had not paid it. Incidentally, for those who are running the mechanics of this matter, there are two rival versions of the Bill which are going around. One of them has nine clauses and until very recently was readily obtainable in the Printed Paper Office. Now there is another version, which I suppose is the revised version. That has 10 clauses and a corrigendum sheet. I think that it is the latter which we should be looking at. Some of the references which have been made in the debate, particularly those by the noble and learned Viscount, were to the former. While I am on the mechanics, those of us who are interested in this matter will be exceedingly anxious to see a copy of the Report of what has been said by some of the noble and learned Law Lords this afternoon, in particular, and some of the more theological points which were made by the inhabitants of the Benches opposite me when it was their turn to speak. I hope that there may be some means whereby a copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT can be made available because on this technical subject those speeches were clearly of the greatest importance.
I was referring to the question of the unpaid fine, and I turned over the page because I remembered also a problem arising in my mind under Clause I(2)(b), whereby a person was not to be disqualified from rehabilitation merely because he broke one of the conditions of, for instance, a suspended sentence, whether or not that breach was dealt with. I do not

927
understand how this works because if one looks at Clause 6(2) one sees that where more than one sentence is imposed in respect of a conviction there are special provisions to calculate the period of rehabilitation. For all I know these two passages may be compatible with each other, but what occurs in practice when a suspended sentence is breached is that the person is sentenced for the criminal act of which the breach consisted and he is also liable to have the suspended sentence itself activated. I imagine that the suspended sentence is then at any rate liable to be overtaken by the sentence imposed in relation to the breach.
Therefore, while it may be that the question does not arise, it shows the complication of the thing that I do not know whether Clause 1(2)(b) overrides Clause 6(2) or vice versa, and a large number of possible complications arise from this particular set of circumstances. We are giving the noble and learned Lord notice of some points that are really Committee points, and that is one of them.
The other thing that concerned me a little was what happened under Clause 9 when a person is dead, he being one who is the subject of a spent conviction. Plainly this does not matter from the defamation point of view—or at least I do not think it does, although relations may possibly in some circumstances (if I am not totally wrong) have some course of action. However, there is no doubt what happens under Clause 9. It does not matter how long ago a person died, as the clause stands at the moment nobody who has charge of official records will be allowed to give details to a biographer of a person's convictions and sentences if during his lifetime they became spent.
The purpose of the Bill is not, as I suspect, necessarily to preserve somebody's reputation at all costs for ever in face of the truth and in face of somebody writing a book to show how, for instance, a sentence of imprisonment affected him and made him act thereafter. I would have thought that the noble and learned Lord did not intend to prevent researchers from being allowed to see the records appertaining to people who are dead. Again, I may have got it wrong, but I cannot see anything in Clause 9 which prevents that being an offence, and I do not think that the Order-making provisions
928
whereby the Secretary of State can make exceptions will really be very easy to apply in such circumstances. He will have to make Orders for each individual researcher, and that will be an extremely tiresome, time-consuming and probably inadequate procedure. So if the noble and learned Lord could either set my mind at rest by writing to me about that or else consider it at the Committee stage, I should be grateful.
These are but some of the rather smaller points that have caused us trouble. The major issue which has emerged—and I hope that the noble and learned Lord, in drawing attention rather pointedly to what has and what has not been published in The Times newspaper, is not really in any way suggesting that these are not major issues—is the conflict, which I am bound to say I had never had brought to my attention so pointedly before, between the concepts of the Tightness of truth and the Tightness of justice. The more one comes to consider these two concepts the more difficult they become.
Everybody would have thought, that at any rate the truth of past events was quite certainly particularly small events like convictions in a court, or something that was so irrefutable that it came as near to be absolute as was possible; but when one comes to consider these things a little further there is a method of re-interpretation of the truth which is adopted, as I understand it, by the dialectical materialists and certainly was done very satisfactorily by George Orwell. It may well be that a conviction for a criminal offence can, in certain circumstances, be turned into martyrdom, or indeed into a positive act of glory, by a change in political thought or something of that nature. Certainly we have had the advice of those who know a good deal more about theology than I do—and that would not be difficult—in suggesting that in some cases there may well be advantages in definitely deciding not to rehearse even the truth about minor and disputable events. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and the right reverend Prelate were saying. So after all we do not have anything like so absolute a concept as all that, and it is this concept upon which the defence of the present system of defamation has largely rested. So I am still disturbed about the purity of this defence of truth, although I understand and very much appreciate the

929
simplicity of it when it comes to defamation, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, so cogently pointed out.
But the rival concept which has been in our minds this afternoon is that of justice, and when one searches for it, as it seems to me in this context and probably in others, it can lead one into many subjective interpretations of what will in fact produce it. So again this Bill is justified by its protagonists on the grounds that it embodies justice. It embodies justice as those who believe in it see justice; but that is no more absolute than, I am afraid, is truth in this concept, and it suffers from a grave extent of subjectivity. Heaven forfend that I, or indeed perhaps this House, should attempt to come to a definitive conclusion about either of these mighty matters, but does it not give us cause to think that when we do consider this matter in Committee, as I am sure we shall, we should do so with extremely open minds? I shall not be wedded to any necessary commitment to truth being the one indisputable stronghold in the quagmire of the law of defamation if the noble and learned Lord will also abandon the rigidity or the robustness of his approach (I do not mean to criticise him in any way) about the way in which the Bill is drafted at the moment. After all, he has put in the concept of the public interest (which was not there before) in response to what I suspect was overwhelming pressure. He is now being pressed to make further changes. If what we want to do is to get a good Bill, then let us by all means attempt further to analyse these matters.
Lastly, what really worries me about the public interest—and I am no expert on the law of defamation—was borne out by those two noble and learned Lords who so pre-eminently do know, Lord Diplock and Lord Hodson, both of whom say that there is this trouble about the public interest, that it changes quite quickly, not only between one judge and another but over a fairly short period of time. If you are a journalist or author, or indeed I suppose if you are a librarian, and you wish to avoid getting into trouble, your faith has to be of a very substantial degree indeed. Your advice has to be very sound and extraordinarily far-sighted before you can know in advance whether you are really safe.
930
The conclusion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, was that people would play safe and would not publish, and I do not believe that that is necessarily in the public interest either. After all, what was hushed up might have been information that was held to be in the public interest. Therefore, we are moving in very difficult and complicated areas of the law. If those who have spoken this afternoon will really apply their minds to improving this Bill, then I believe that in his turn the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, will still be prepared to listen, and I believe that he would do his own cause a very great disservice if he did not.
7.31 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am very grateful to all those noble Lords who have taken part in the Second Reading of this Bill. May I first congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, on his admirable maiden speech? If I may say so, I take a special interest in his presence in this House as we have in this House men appointed because they have earned a certain reputation in their own speciality, and while that of course applies to the noble and learned Lords of Appeal, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and I are the only two barristers who have ever found themselves in this House without any other qualification—in my case, at least—except that of being a member of the Bar. We all listened with delight to his speech. There was a point about which I had thought of asking him, because I was a little puzzled about it, and that was regarding a letter from the Bar Council stating the views of our Council, followed by a letter saying that the Bar Council had never considered the Bill. Perhaps he would like to intervene now on this puzzling point.
LORD WIGODER: My Lords, if I might give the information, the letter from the Chairman of the Bar Council came as the result of a meeting of the Executive Committee at which ten people were present, the item not being on the agenda beforehand.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am very much obliged. It was a modest and, if I might say so, a thoughtful speech, and I am sure that we shall all look forward to hearing him again as soon as we may. Your Lordships will not, I am sure, think me ungrateful for

931
the forecast that has been made of Amendments which may be moved on the Committee stage of the Bill. On the other hand, I am sure I will not be expected to deal with them now. The comments about public interest, like all the observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, were very interesting. So far as people like librarians are concerned, there would be threats of innocent dissemination as well as public interest involved. Regarding public interest, I am afraid it may be an old failing of mine but I have long found it very difficult to believe that, while practically every other country can have a law, it is absolutely impossible only in England, and could not work. Public interest exists in Australia. They have to construe it and no doubt it changes. If these things work all right in Switzerland or Australia in varying states, why should we assume that they could not possibly work here?
I was interested that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, said that it might have been better to make it a criminal offence. This issue has gone on all the way through. Everybody has said that we cannot go on and on being the only country in Europe which has no rehabilitation law. If these practices are to be stopped one must have some form of sanction and other than the one which we have proposed, of making things admissible in evidence with the consequences of that, nobody has suggested any alternative at any time, including to-day, except that you might make it a criminal offence, as indeed has been suggested by one member of the Faulks Committee though the others did not agree. I hope very much that the Press will report that, because it might lessen their anxieties about this Bill a good deal if they realised—and of course I quite agree with the noble and learned Lord about this—that the only alternative is to make it a criminal offence. The only two practical ways are either this way or by a law under which editors might be sent to prison.
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Salmon, for his support and for the support on the difficult moral issues about truth involved in what the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lord Soper have said. As
932
regards the words which the right reverend prelate quoted from another Act, about not being asked but if asked not being required to answer, he will find that point covered in the Bill at Clause 4(1)(b). If I may say so both to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, there are grave difficulties in regard to employers; first, in proving why an employer has not employed somebody; secondly, in making him employ somebody he does not want to employ; and, thirdly, and perhaps, above all, because from a common sense or moral point of view it might be legitimate for an employer to refuse to take a man in one occupation whereas not in another occupation. To take a simple instance, more regard might be had to a criminal conviction for dishonesty when a man is going to handle a lot of cash. But it may well be that if we start in this way we can go on dealing with these other points in the future.
As to the observations made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, fines were considered closely in the other place, and were omitted on Government advice because of the difficulty of saying whether somebody had deliberately failed to pay a fine or was not in a position to pay, and, particularly in the case of instalments, the administrative difficulties would be too great. Apparently that was the view taken by the other place. So far as Service proceedings are concerned, we dealt with those to some extent in the previous Bill. It is a matter on which I understand the Ministry of Defence have strong views and they, of course, have had to be taken into account. As I understand it, cashiering with ignominy and so on is regarded as a very serious step. My Lords, there are a number of oher matters which can no doubt be considered on the—
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I agree that cashiering is a serious step, so is discharge with ignominy. But I really do not think that cashiering comes into the same category as somebody who has a life sentence imposed upon him. Cashiering is frequently incurred for nothing more serious than passing a dud cheque. I hope that that will be reconsidered by the noble and learned Lord, and that he will use his influence with the Ministry of Defence to get a more sensible view about this.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I was not expressing a personal view about this at all. I think if the Amendment is moved it will be found that the Government may have some view about it. My Lords, I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, was seeking to be of assistance in proposing a Select Committee. I am afraid that in my experience a Select Committee usually means that someone wants to delay something—maybe for a very good reason. But, obviously, if a Select Committee were appoined it would be delayed for three or four years and mean-while nothing would be done.
My Lords, I was of course particularly concerned with what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said. I will write to him on the points to which he referred. On the two Bills, there being some printing difficulty, the first one I had typed and done myself, and it was marked "Not official" so that all noble Lords might have a copy as soon as possible. The other was done by the Public Bill Office with the erratum slip. I agree with him that there is here a question of principle. There are differences now between the present position and the position when this Bill was in this House earlier. One of the differences, of course, and it is rather a material one, is that the principle of the Bill—that is to say, the way in which the desired object is sought to be achieved, which was new in this House and which we first had to decide—has since been approved by the elected Chamber in two different Parliaments. I suggest that in anything we do in Committee stage that we should bear that in mind. Having said that, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate and in helping us to get a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HOUSING BILL
7.42 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Gamsworthy.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD POPPLEWELL in the Chair.]
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 14:
After Clause 26 insert the following new clause:
("Disclosure, of interest by members of committees of registered 1965 Act associations.
(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, it shall be the duty of a member of the committee of a registered 1965 Act association who is in any way, whether directly or indirectly, interested in a contract or proposed contract with the association to declare the nature of his interest to the committee in accordance with this section.
(2) In the case of a proposed contract, the declaration required by this section to be made by a member of a committee shall be made at the meeting of the committee at which the question of entering into the contract is first taken into consideration, or, if the member was not at the date of that meeting interested in the proposed contract, at the next meeting of the committee held after he becomes interested in the proposed contract.
(3) Where a member of a committee becomes interested in a contract with the association after it is made, the declaration required by this section shall be made at the first meeting of the committee held after he becomes interested in the contract.
(4) For the purposes of this section, a general notice given at a meeting of the committee of an association by a member of the committee to the effect that he is a member of a specified company or firm, and is to be regarded as interested in any contract which may, after the date of the notice, be made with that company or firm, is a sufficient declaration of interest in relation to any contract made after that date with that company or firm.
(5) A member of a committee need not make a declaration or give a notice under this section by attending in person at a meeting of the committee if he takes reasonable steps to secure that the declaration or notice is brought up and read at the meeting.
(6) A member of a committee who fails to comply with the provisions of this section shall

935
be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(7) Nothing in this section shall be taken to prejudice the operation of any rule of law retricting members of the committee of a registered 1965 Act association from having any interest in contracts with the association.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 14 to insert the new clause as printed on the Marshalled List. Although this is a fairly lengthy clause, the purpose is very simple. It is to require a member of the committee of the registered association to disclose to his filial committee members any interest he may have in any contract which his association has entered or proposes to enter, and makes it an offence for him not to do so. I do not think I need say more than that. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clauses 27 to 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Management grants for certain housing associations.]:
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendments No. 15 to 21:
Page 27, line 45, leave out ("subsidy") and insert ("grant").
Page 28, line 5, leave out ("subsidy") and insert ("grant").
Page 28, line 15, leave out ("subsidy") and insert ("grant").
Page 28, line 20, leave out ("subsidy") and insert ("grant").
Page 28, line 22, leave out ("subsidy") and insert ("grant").
Page 28, line 25, leave out ("subsidy") and insert ("grant").
Page 28, line 26, leave out ("subsidy") and insert ("grant").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21. They are all identical. Each of them would leave out the word "subsidy" and insert the word "grant". The word "grant" has been used throughout the Bill except in these instances, and it would seem sensible to use the same term. With the leave of the House, I beg leave to move Amendments Nos. 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 30, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 31 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Declaration of housing action areas]:
7.48 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 34, line 33, at end insert—
("If, on receiving such a report prepared by the residents of the area in question, the local authority decides not to declare a housing action area, the authority shall send to the Secretary of State a copy of the report together with a statement of its reason for deciding not to declare a housing action area, and shall send to the persons who prepared the report the same statement of reasons.")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 22. At the same time I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 23, 24 and 25. Broadly speaking the purpose of these Amendments which I have put down is to bring this piece of housing legislation into line with practice in planning legislation. I think no one who has been involved either in local government or central Government can be unaware of the great amount of public interest and awareness of what is going on in each community to-day. This interest and awareness is taking place all over the country, and expresses itself either through amenity societies or through residents' or tenants' associations. I am sure this is a matter on which we shall all agree, and with which we are all familiar. I have therefore put down a series of Amendments to place a duty on local authorities to involve local residents in discussions about either potential housing action areas or general improvement areas, and to keep the residents informed. This seems to me entirely in line with all the proposals under planning legislation for the development of local plans in which the active participation of the residents in the community is sought and involved.
It seems to me particularly important in this Part of the Bill on housing action areas, because if we consider the nature of the action that will be taken, we are at once dealing with an area which is by definition an area of bad housing, and in which it is proposed to institute a crash programme. In order for this programme to be effective, it must affect almost every individual in the area, and it seems to me that if they are consulted about the area and the proposals in it, a responsibility is placed on all the individuals in the area. This is particularly

937
important, as so many people will suffer from a multiplicity of social problems. Therefore, this is a consultative process, and will be of real help to local authorities.
In my experience, difficulties in trying to get improvement in general housing improvement areas have often arisen because the people simply do not understand what is going on. Therefore, they almost create difficulties, simply because they do not understand what is happening, and these Amendments are designed to meet this point. I must apologise if they appear on the Marshalled List not quite in the order I would have wished them to appear. Amendment No. 23 is an Amendment to Clause 35 and should really be the first Amendment. This lays a duty on the local authority to involve local residents in discussions about potential housing action areas or general improvement areas.
Amendment No. 24 is, in fact, taken directly from the 1971 Planning Act and applies this to general improvement areas, as does Amendment No. 25. At the same time, it would be helpful to have a monitoring of the system so that local authorities will know how well they are doing it. I hope that this, too, which comes under Amendment No. 25, will mean that the local authorities will be looking continuously to see what progress they have made in these areas, and that they will send a report to the Secretary of State on what they have achieved. As I say, they are all linked Amendments, and I hope they are ones which the Government will view with sympathy. They are designed to help the residents. They are designed to come into line with what is common practice under planning law. It seems to me that they can do nothing but benefit to those whom the housing action areas are designed to help. I beg to move.
7.51 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The Committee will be grateful to the noble Baroness for the manner in which she has moved these Amendments. It might be relevant if I said that I think her declared intention of later moving the deletion of Schedule 4 might well be considered at the same time, since it
938
seems to me to be related to the purpose of these Amendments.
BARONESS YOUNG: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, Lord Garns-worthy. My Amendment to delete Schedule 4 goes with a further Amendment. I have two Amendments to Schedule 5 which are linked to these, and I quite agree we should take them all together.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Amendments Nos. 22, 23, 24 and 25 clearly have a common theme. I fancy that they reflect the views of Shelter, and I think probably some associated groups interested in housing. They were not tabled in the other place, and I would say right away that we recognise the good intentions which lie behind them. They are clearly designed to involve the participation of residents in the business of housing action areas, and I want to emphasise the importance the Government attach to securing this end. We think we have approached this in the best possible way; I will try to show how we have done this and the reasons for this approach.
The Committee will appreciate that the very essence of the housing action areas concept is built into Clause 35, which refers to securing "the well-being of the persons for the time being residing in the area", that is to say, the housing action area. This is reinforced by the other provisions of the Bill, which cover conditions attached to improvment grants and undertakings about re-housing. I think I might also mention the Rent Bill, which is intended to give security of tenure to tenants living in furnished accommodation, many of whom may well be in housing action areas. It is against that background that we need to consider these Amendments, and to consider them further in relation to the substantial provisions which are made in the Bill which empower the Secretary of State not only to give guidance to local authorities but also to call for progress reports on housing action areas, as set out in Clause 41. The Bill also lays duties on local authorities to publicise the declaration of housing action areas, to give information about them, to make known where people can make representations and to tell residents

939
in advance of the proposed action programme and of the assistance available for house improvement.
In the Government's opinion, to provide for statutory involvement of residents and/or owners before declaration of a housing action area would be a source of delay in a situation—and I rather think that the noble Baroness will agree with me in this, the more it is thought about—where the need is to reach the point of declaration as quickly as possible, since it is so urgent to get the framework for action firmly established. Housing action areas become effective on declaration, and speed in securing this declaration is the great necessity. The longer the period in which it is formally known that the declaration of a housing action area is under consideration, the greater the opportunity for anti-social landlords to put pressure on tenants to leave so that they can sell off property with vacant possession at a profit at the expense of residents.
The cumulative effect of the Amendments would be to introduce procedures which—and we are quite sure about this—would add substantially to the work and time involved, at the expense of action. and it is questionable whether there would be any benefit to people actually living in the area. The Government have sought to involve residents in the stages after declaration where it matters the most; that is to say, we seek a complete involvement, as complete as possible, in the action programme which follows declaration.
Town and Country Planning Acts differ so much from housing legislation that I cannot see any parallel issue involved here. We are embarking on an enterprise for the advantage of communities which have lost out so much already—they have lost out in amenity improvements—and we are concerned with securing for them some amenity and social progress commensurate with the better standards achieved by so many others. While we seek resident participation, we believe that prior to the declaration stage—and we have thought a great deal about this—there is no advantage, but that there is a very definite risk of delay. After declaration the Bill provides for the full involvement of residents, and that is where the worthwhile contribution is to be made.
940
I repeat that I much appreciate the purpose that lies behind these Amendments. I am very much aware of the anxiety of the noble Baroness, and those who may share her view, to involve the local community. However, I would ask her to accept the view that I have expressed, that we should be placing the interests of the residents at risk if we accepted the Amendments, that in point of fact we have provided for full participation after declaration, and if she is able to accept that I would hope that she would not press these Amendments.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am, of course, grateful to have had from the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that explanation of all the detailed consultative procedures there will be once housing action areas are defined. I am bound to say that I do not altogether share his optimism that by not involving the people one will reach a quicker result. I have found from my own experience that it is often true in planning and housing matters that the longest way round really is the shortest way home, although, of course, it does not always appear that way at the beginning. What I think we shall find in many of these areas is that when a local authority moves into one of these areas to sort out a multiplicity of housing problems and social problems a lot of people simply will not understand at all what is going on. A great many of them will be quite put off by public meetings anyway, because they will not like to raise their questions in a hall. They will want somebody on the spot to whom they can go. Many of them will in fact be unable to frame the questions that they wish to ask. They will only know that they are troubled and will wish to have everything explained to them without necessarily knowing how to go about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is quite right in saying that I put down this series of Amendments at the request of Shelter. They seem to me to be eminently reasonable and are designed to achieve something that we all want to achieve by this section of the Bill. I do not think that there is any disagreement between us about that. I was disappointed with the Government's reply because I thought they would say that (hey would look at the Amendments. They may not be correctly drafted that

941
I accept. I would ask the noble Lord whether he would agree to look at this matter in the light of these remarks.
It may well be that housing law differs from that of the Town and Country Planning Acts, but what is undoubted is that if you involve people you are much more likely to get their co-operation. It may well be true, as the noble Lord said, that in these housing action areas there will be problems, and that landlords will put pressure on tenants to leave—although having just gone through the Rent Bill I thought the purpose of that Bill was to prevent precisely that circumstance arising. Therefore, that seems to me a problem that really does not arise under these Amendments. I would ask the noble Lord to consider the spirit of these Amendments, to see whether, on reflection, he agrees with me, that it might well help to get a better housing action area if something on these lines was written into the Bill.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that I was so much aware of her desire to be helpful that I spent quite some time with officials looking at this matter. I wonder whether it may not be more helpful to her if she would come to the Department and have a talk about the details of it. If she was not then satisfied, she could return at a later stage to this point; but I am rather of the opinion that this may be a better way of making progress, in the sense that we could have all the time we needed to look at it and to discuss it.
BARONESS YOUNG: In the light of that offer I will withdraw the Amendment and accept the invitation to meet the noble Lord and to discuss this subject to see whether we can make some progress. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 46 agreed to.
Clause 47 [Local authorities for purposes of Part IV]:
8.6 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 44, line 31, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: I beg to
942
move Amendment No. 26, and speak to Amendment No. 27A and to an Amendment to leave out Schedule 4, which is un-numbered but is at the bottom of page 36 on the Marshalled List. During the Second Reading of the Bill I gave notice that I should be putting down such an Amendment because I believe this to be a matter of important principle. The Bill, as now drafted, gives power to the Greater London Council to intervene to create a housing action area or a general improvement area, if necessary, against the wishes of the London borough affected. This principle reverses the clause as it stood in the original Housing and Planning Bill—perhaps it is not altogether surprising that there should be such a change—but the situation is made worse because it applies not only to housing action areas but also to general improvement areas.
I have been approached by the London Boroughs Association over this matter. They are very concerned at what appears to be a complete reversal of local government policy within London itself. I am bound to say it is a complete reversal of local government relationships as I have always understood them. There is not within local government, the power for one authority to intervene in another authority without the consent of that authority.
When I raised this point at Second Reading I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who replied, and he said that this of course would only be a matter of last resort and it was, in effect, a default power. I understand that point, but I am sure that he will appreciate that, although it is put in as a default power, its effect on a London borough could be precisely as I have described. Not only do I think this to be quite wrong in principle, quite against local government practice, but I also believe that, when it came to the point, it would be quite impractical in securing what I think all of us want to see happen under this Bill.
We all agree with the idea of housing action areas; these closely defined areas of housing stress in which a local authority will make a determined effort to improve the housing conditions for everybody in them. Given that this is what we wish to achieve we must face the fact that a housing action area will be a crisis area calling for a crash programme of repair and rehabilitation. In order to

943
achieve this quickly there will need to be a team of experts all working together, not only the surveyors and the engineers, but many other specialist staff like public health inspectors who will all need to work together as a team. Not only must they work in a practical way to improve houses, but the whole programme will have to be explained to the residents.
I have just been discussing how important I consider this to be in the previous Amendments which I have tabled. I can only emphasise again that, in my experience, in trying to deal with difficult areas of housing the first essential is to secure the co-operation of the residents. The way to secure that co-operation is to have a full explanation of what is going on. Let us imagine an instance of, perhaps, an elderly tenant whose house is in a state of disrepair, who has to move out while the house is being repaired, who does not understand why she should move out and does not want to do so—or indeed does not want the improvements to the house that are to be made. I have met that kind of problem in housing. It seems to me that if you are dealing with such a problem and the two authorities—the G.L.C. and the London Borough—are at logger-heads then I do not see how a housing action area will work out in practice.
There will clearly be the worst possible relationship between the G.L.C. and the London Borough concerned. There will be the least possible co-operation coming from them. There will be maximum confusion to people in the housing action area whom the whole Bill is designed to help. For all these reasons, it seems to me a great mistake to have this power which will never be effective for what it is designed to do. Not only is it wrong in principle that the G.L.C. should be able to have this power but I believe that in the end it would be unworkable. The only sufferers would be the unfortunate residents of a housing action area or a general improvement area. Therefore, I hope that the Government will feel that these arguments have weight and will feel able to accept, if not these Amendments, then the spirit of them, and that they will restore the Housing Bill as it was originally drafted as the Housing and Planning Bill. I beg to move.
8.14 p.m.
BARONESS HORNSBY-SMITH: I apologise to your Lordships for speaking at this late hour, but I wish to support my noble friend in the Amendment as one who has in her time represented one of the Greater London boroughs and who has in another place represented a constituency which was divided between two of the largest of the Greater London boroughs. In seeking this overriding power to be given to the G.L.C, I believe that we should consider the size and the importance of the authorities over which it is sought to impose this sanction.
The London boroughs—none of them small in size or population—are not in-experienced, nor are they staffed at their heads with other than very experienced officers. The elected bodies with large councils are experienced representatives who know their considerable areas and all the problems very closely, and indeed they command budgets which would make great cities in this country envious. I can speak in particular of the London Borough of Bromley and the London Borough of Bexley. the former with 305,000 population and the latter with 217,000. I should like to point out to your Lordships that that means that Bromley is larger than Plymouth, Hull, Cardiff or Leicester and two-and-a-half times the size of Oxford. I do not think that your Lordships will accept so lightly such an imposition on great cities of that size. Too frequently in this enormous conurbation of Greater London people regard the London boroughs as much smaller than they are. If this legislation is imposed, I believe it will be to the great detriment of the co-operation that there has been over many years between the boroughs and Central London—what was first the L.C.C. and is now the G.L.C.—when the legitimately sought to move considerable populations out of London into the Home Counties.
I have experienced it in my former constituency in the two vast housing estates. With co-operation in the services of St. Paul's Cray, Mottingham came out into what is now Bromley borough and was in those days Chislehurst and Sidcup Urban District, with the support, co-operation and aid of all the accompanying services which are imposed on the smaller local authority. I hope your Lordships

945
will appreciate that this deeply felt problem is not a political issue. The desire not to have this clause has been unanimously agreed by the London Boroughs Association which the Minister for Housing and Construction in Standing Committee in another place described as "socially dominated". They are unanimously opposed to this additional power which they feel will defeat the co-operation necessary to speed-up the housing programme. It is not therefore a Party issue.
The London boroughs opposition represents a deeply-held resentment that the joint understanding and co-operation that is so vitally necessary in the successful operation of any of these schemes should be replaced by a "Big Brother" attitude providing an overriding sanction, almost as if these great and important boroughs do not know their own areas and were not conscious and alive to their responsibilities in relation to solving the housing problem. They are conscious and alert to the housing need. Indeed, since the war their populations have grown enormously, in many cases through migration from Inner London with families escaping from crowded houses and tenements and moving to what was then called the Home Counties to get a house and a garden for their kids and to be in range of the Green Belt. The attraction and pressure of the South-East has caused headaches for more than one Minister, industrially, commercially and socially. Indeed the G.L.C. is already seeking sites in Chislehurst. I think it must be recognised that although the G.L.C. may take the housing forward, the education and community services place a heavy burden and often override the local priorities of these big and important local authorities.
From my own experience, I know that these incursions make enormous demands on the staff and services of the local authority. To give one instance, 13 new schools had to be provided for the then county of Kent to cope with the population located at the new estate at St. Paul's Cray, together with many other community services. As a result the whole of Kent's school programme for redevelopment, rebuilding and upgrading was put back for several years. But all that is water under the bridge. What is vital is that the 4,000-odd people who moved into that area have grown up in the last 20 years and the children who came 20
946
years ago are now themselves married. I can assure your Lordships that there was not a Saturday on which I do not interview, as a Member of Parliament, that new generation, accepted into the midst of these areas, which was now grown up, married and indeed seeking new accommodation which the local boroughs were doing their utmost to meet.
The London boroughs are not unmindful of the need to provide further housing areas, as is proved by the many new communities that have been put into outer London. What they do resent—and I think rightly—is the imposition of this additional default power, which is the reversal of that policy provided in the original Housing and Planning Bill. It is also of great concern to the London Boroughs Association that the new powers are extended to general improvement areas—a much wider concept, as my noble friend has said, than that provided in the previous Bill. Hitherto they have acted with the co-operation of the local authorities. If, in the judgment of a great and important borough, it is unwise to take such action and they are over-ridden, what sort of co-operation of staff and services can be expected, and at what speed will such a project be proceeded with? A general improvement operation can provide enormous problems—planning, acquisition, compensation, transfer, temporary transfer of people—with all the relevant community problems; and where the good intentions of the G.L.C. and the pretty plans may be evident, the headaches for the existing population and services will fall on the local borough.
The London Boroughs Association are not unmindful of the problem. They have informed the Minister, as I understand it, that they are ready to co-operate. They are ready to take a fresh look at old areas; they are prepared to accept an obligation to submit annual programmes for housing areas—but voluntarily. With good will among the boroughs, the Government and the Greater London Council, I suggest that such co-operative action will be a great deal speedier than if these default powers are imposed. In this Amendment we are not dealing with a group of ill-equipped, modest parish councils; we are dealing with Tower Hamlets, Croydon, Southwark, Brent and, indeed, my old stamping ground of Bexley and

947
Bromley—massive conurbations, of varying political majorities, all united against this infringement of their powers. I most earnestly hope that the Government will think again, because I believe they will get their housing speedier by co-operation than by this clause.
8.23 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said, these Amendments are designed to remove the Greater London Council's power to declare housing action areas without the consent of the London boroughs concerned in those instances where the Secretary of State has notified the Greater London Council that, subject to the procedure as laid down in Schedule 4, they may do so. Indeed, these Amendments would restore the position to what it was in the Housing and Planning Bill; namely, that the Greater London Council could declare a housing action area only with borough consent.
There was much discussion in the other place on identical Amendments when this Bill was in Standing Committee, and also at Report stage. The opposition to the default powers was advanced on the grounds—and those grounds have been touched upon again this evening—that default powers were ineffective in practical operation; that comprehensive action could be achieved only if a borough agreed to the G.L.C. declaring a housing action area; that the Greater London Council lacked staff, particularly public health inspectors, of whom there was a shortage anyway; that there was longstanding rivalry and jealousy between boroughs and the Greater London Council; and that default powers for the Greater London Council in housing action areas and in general improvement areas would only exacerbate that jealousy. Doubt was also expressed about the capability of the Greater London Council to take a better view of priorities than the boroughs, and about the relevance of the Greater London Council's strategic role in regard to housing action areas.
Two suggestions have been made by the London Boroughs Association as an alternative to the Greater London Council's default powers. First, that the Secretary of State should put an obligation on the London boroughs to submit to him rolling five-year programmes of housing action
948
areas and general improvement areas, of which they would send a copy to the Greater London Council so that that Council could express its view. Second, that the London Boroughs Association would be prepared to make every effort to persuade any individual borough to accept responsibility for a particular area. The suggestion has also been made that, instead of default powers for the G.L.C, London boroughs should be empowered to declare a housing action area in the area of another London borough with that borough's consent.
In view of the fact that a great deal has been said about the London position, I think I ought to say here that when the issue was put to the vote in the other place—that is, the removal of these powers, which is the effect of these Amendments—only 45 Members voted to remove them whereas 139 Members voted to retain them. The relationship between the Greater London Council and the boroughs is an issue on which set attitudes have often been taken up. I take the point—and I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith—that this is, though it certainly ought not to be, a Party political issue, and I have little doubt that, in regard to this matter, it matters little what is the political complexion of the Greater London Council. I am quite certain that I should be taking this same stand this evening if it were otherwise than it is.
The Government believe that a more constructive approach to be made to this problem is to look at the question in terms of the problems that have to be solved in London as a whole, and at the resources available to solve them. I think your Lordships will agree that there is a very great deal more to the Greater London Council's role as a strategic housing authority than the influencing of policies over Greater London as a whole, important though that is. It is both desirable and inevitable that they should have the means to implement their view of priorities on housing action areas. Priorities is what the housing action area policy is about, and the Greater London Council already have considerable resources and powers which can and ought to be used.
It should be remembered that the London County Council and the Greater London Council have made a tremendous

949
contribution to slum clearance and new building over the years, and I think that their potential in improvement and rehabilitation should be recognised by those who are concerned, and rightly concerned—I would go so far as to say proudly concerned—with London's problems. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading in another place:
"There is quite enough housing stress in London for which the Greater London Council, the London boroughs and the City all have their work cut out, without quarrelling over who does what".
Furthermore, as the Minister said when the Bill was in Standing Committee—and I quote from column 243:
"At the end of the day it is not [a question of] the susceptibilities between points of power in government at whatever level. It is what is done to enable people and their children to grow up in better housing and urban conditions."
The Government expect the G.L.C. and the London boroughs to work together and carry out a forward programme of housing action areas and general improvement areas as part of a common approach to London's housing problems. We hope they will generally be able to agree on which areas should be declared and by whom, and that whichever authority formally declares them each will work with and assist the other. We welcome the London Boroughs Association's offer to use its good offices in promoting action by boroughs without seeing any advantage in building into the Bill legislative requirements about the submission of a rolling programme. We see the idea of forward planning and discussion as valuable, but these offers, welcome as they always have been, do not destroy the case for the Greater London Council's reserve powers. If agreement is not forthcoming where housing conditions are such that action under Part IV of the Bill is clearly called for, the Secretary of State has made it clear that the powers which the clause gives to the Greater London Council are there to be used.
The procedure covered in Schedule 4 of the Bill provides the maximum opportunity for agreement to be reached. Even after the Secretary of State has notified the Greater London Council that it may declare against borough opposition, the borough is given an opportunity to reconsider its decision and to tackle the area
950
itself. The fact that the Greater London Council itself proposed that this further opportunity should be available cuts down to size the charge that it wants to act as Big Brother.
The Greater London Council has itself said in a letter to the department that, although it considers its reserve power vital, it has no desire to act against the wishes of a London borough and that it hopes to be able to proceed with the full co-operation of the boroughs. The Government share that hope. The Minister described the powers as a back-up and no more, and he added:
"If all the London boroughs are able and willing to carry through work in this field as fully as one wants and hopes—and, I believe, for the most part they will wish to do—there will never be an occasion when the Greater London Council will need to apply to the Secretary of State for the operation of the default powers. … I hope that this situation will obtain. … But I believe that, at the end of the day, such reserve powers to get the job done, if it is not being done, must be in the Bill."
I have dealt at some length with the issue involved here, first, because I recognise the importance of the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her noble friend. I thought that I ought to make it clear that a great deal of attention has been given to the matter. If the London Boroughs Association is speaking on behalf of all the London boroughs and if it is in a position to secure that each and every borough plays its full part and has the resources to carry through the kind of programme the conditions merit, it is clear that the Greater London Council will not have any need to use the default powers in the Bill. I would stress that the powers are included in the Bill as a back-up and nothing more, but I think it very necessary to have them to guard not only against the instance when action may not be taken, but against the occasion when action may not be taken because resources are not available to a particular borough. We ought to preserve a situation in which the vast resources of the Greater London Council could and would, if necessary, be used to the greatest advantage.
8.35 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for the full explanation he has given of this new clause. Of course, I have read the debate in Standing Committee in another

951
place and I should like to assure the Committee that this is not a sequence of Amendments that I am putting down simply on some Party political point. I did not follow all the voting beyond looking at the voting in the Committee, and I assume that the voting figures which the noble Lord gave were on the Report stage, which I regret I have not had an opportunity to look at. However, whatever they may have been, I do not really see that that need affect any decision which we take in Committee to-day. The issue over the relationship between the G.L.C. and the London Boroughs Association was put admirably by my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith who, of course, comes to this House with great knowledge of the complexities of the problems of London government.
Whatever the political complexion of the Greater London Council or the London Boroughs Association, the point at issue is whether or not one local authority ought to have these default powers to act within the boundaries of another without the consent of the authority in question. That seems to me the most important general point at issue on this series of Amendments. I recognise that the Greater London Council has a very good record in house building and, I believe, in rehabilitating old property. My object this evening is in no way to criticise the Greater London Council because that, again, is not the point at issue. Members of the Government and we on this side of the House agree that we want the housing action areas to work. This is a new concept which is intended to deal with areas of housing stress where there are great problems which have remained unresolved for many years and which will remain unresolved unless some action is taken very quickly.
I really do not think that the London boroughs will act more effectively if they feel that there is this spectre of the G.L.C. behind them looking over their shoulder to see whether they are doing their work properly. Again, my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith explained most thoroughly that the London boroughs are large and important local authorities which must know what is best for their areas, if one believes in local authority freedom at all.
I am sure that, as we all wish to achieve some effective action in the hous-
952
ing action areas, the London boroughs will work better if left to get on with it than they will if they have the threat of Greater London Council intervention. After all, they have gone a considerable way to meet the point which the Government have written into the clause. I will not repeat it because the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, himself set out what they are prepared to do. This seems to me to be a sensible compromise. We all hope that there will be co-operation but, in my experience, one is much more likely to get co-operation if there is never a threat at all and if, as we all hope, no occasion ever arises, there is no need to have the power at all. I regret that I found the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, very disappointing. I had hoped that he was going to say that he would look at this matter yet again, because I believe most sincerely that we will not get the best results for housing action areas except by co-operation and agreement, and not with any threat in the background.
8.40 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I wonder whether I could come in for a moment on this matter. The suggestions which were spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, of the alternatives put forward by the London Boroughs Association seem to contemplate in their own proposals that there can be a situation when a borough ought to be taking action and does not do so. The first one, the five-year rolling programme to be submitted and the G.L.C. notified of it, is not in that category. But the second proposal which they put forward was that the London Boroughs Association would be prepared to make every effort to persuade any individual authority to accept responsibility for a particular area, but then it goes on to say:
"And the suggestion has also been made that instead of the G.L.C. having default powers the London boroughs themselves should be empowered to declare a housing action area in the area of another London borough."
So even within this sphere the London boroughs themselves are accepting a situation that there should be a default power which should be used; and the suggestion is that instead of it being used by the Greater London Council it should

953
be by either another London borough or by the London boroughs collectively.
The noble Baroness has spoken of these powers as a threat being held over the London boroughs. I suggest to the Committee that this is the wrong way to look at it. It is by no means a threat, it is a policy of last resort; and all of the proposals put forward by the London boroughs I should have thought were the sort of things which would automatically be done if the boroughs felt some action should be taken by a particular borough against whom, if all else failed, the G.L.C.'s default power would be used. If what is being suggested in these alternative proposals would work, then obviously all this will have been done before a request is submitted to the Secretary of State for the default power to be used. If all of this were to be proposed by the London Boroughs Association and it failed, there would demonstrably have been the occasion for the Greater London Council's power to be there and to be used. It may be that it never would be used. So often the main justification for a reserve default power being put in is that the fact that it is there to be used as a last resort is what creates the situation in which it never will have to be used.
My noble friend did not refer to the defects, because he wanted to confine the matter completely to its merits; and it is never a satisfactory point of view to say that an Amendment has drafting defects, because after all if the Government were accepting the principle they are in a better position to remedy drafting defects than are Opposition Members. But the defects of the Amendments—and I do not think that this was the intention of the Amendments—not only remove the power of the G.L.C. to declare a housing action area against the will of a borough, but they remove the power for the Greater London Council to declare it even where the borough is in agreement that this should be done. No one has ever suggested that that should be the position, but that is one of the effects of the Amendment and one of the difficulties about drafting an Amendment to take out part of the situation.
I strongly urge the noble Baroness, Lady Young, further to consider very carefully what my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy has said, because it was the
954
putting of these arguments in another place which persuaded the Members there in such substantial numbers to accept that this was something which, at the end of the day, was meant to help the people of London, was not placing a cudgel in the hands of the G.L.C. to be used against which in a very extreme situation would the London boroughs but was something be what was needed while hoping very much that it never would be used.
BARONESS HORNSBY-SMITH: Would the noble Lord answer one question? He has made great play of the fact that this is a last resort power, but is there anything to prevent the G.L.C, if they opt for their own plans in an area in another borough overriding and taking their plans and powers through against the wishes of the local authority with its own plans for the area?
LORD HUGHES: Is it not the case that they have to apply to the Secretary of State for this? Obviously, the Secretary of State, desirous of having the greatest degree of co-operation between the G.L.C. and the boroughs, will certainly not grant that consent if it is prematurely put forward and is merely attempting to ride roughshod over the wishes of a borough.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am very glad to have the answer to the last question by my noble friend put in those particular terms, but all the same I do not think that it meets the case. I said that I felt that the London boroughs had made a very reasonable offer to meet the point that has been made here by the Greater London Council and the Government. I am not sure that I myself would particularly support the idea that one London borough should insist on housing action areas in another borough. But that is of course a matter for them to agree upon. It is wrong in principle for one local authority, as I said in relation to the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association, to exercise powers in another local authority against the wishes of that authority. I think that principle applies. Nevertheless, I accept that the London boroughs have evidently met and discussed this matter and it is one of the options that they have put up. It reflects their genuine wishes to meet this point. I recognise that what we are talking about is a last resort, a last resort

955
as defined now quite narrowly by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. But the fact is that this Bill is reversing the policy of the 1969 Housing Act whereby there is not this last resort policy with regard to general improvement areas. It is applying it not only to general improvement areas but also to housing action areas. I am bound to say to the Committee, as I said at the beginning, that not only do I believe this to be wrong in principle but I believe ultimately it will not achieve what it is designed to achieve, and it is for that reason that I feel that I cannot withdraw this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
8.50 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 26A:
Page 44, line 35, at beginning insert:
("(3) The Greater London Council may exercise the powers of a local authority under section 35 above with respect to any area in Greater London, but only with the agreement of any local authority in whose district the area or any part of the area is situated; and")
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 26A. To clarify the point may I say that I spoke to Amendment No. 26 but No. 26A goes with it, so I am moving formally.
LORD HUGHES: I ought to make it perfectly clear that the Government are not happy about these last Amendments. The only reason for not allowing the Committee to be divided on them is that we cannot guarantee that there are sufficient people present to enable the Business to continue, and I do not think it would be the wish of the Committee that we should be counted out at this stage of the proceedings.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for that explanation, but I am sure he will accept that it is not really the duty of the Opposition to keep the Committee in these circumstances. I, too, have no wish to count out the Bill, but I feel that I should be entitled to press an Amendment if I wish to do so.
LORD HUGHES: I was not suggesting that it was the duty of the noble Baroness to do so, but I think she will agree that we had no indication that she would
956
divide on this Amendment, particularly at this time. I wanted to make it clear that the fact that we allowed this Amendment to go into the Bill in no way indicated a change of mind by the Government. The fact that we have allowed this second one to go in as consequential does not mean that we are turning somersaults one after the other.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am sure the noble Lord is doing nothing of the sort, but I may say that I gave notice at Second Reading that I would put down this Amendment. So the noble Lord must have been aware that it was one to which I attached importance.
LORD HUGHES: But that is not the only Amendment which the noble Baroness said she would put down, and others have been withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 12, after ("under") insert ("Part II or").
The noble Lord said: Clause 47(4)(a) lists various powers which the Greater London Council need in the housing action areas declared by them; that is, powers which they do not already possess in their own right. Amendment No. 27 adds to the powers of a local authority under Part II of the Housing Act 1957. These enable local authorities to require the repair of unfit houses capable of repair at reasonable cost, to make demolition or closing orders on unfit houses which are beyond repair at reasonable cost, and to purchase condemned houses. The Greater London Council have these powers by virtue of Section 40(2) of the Housing Act 1969 in general improvement areas that they have declared. It was always desired by them, and indeed intended, that they should have them in housing action areas as well. The omission is a defect which the Amendment puts right.
The Amendment has nothing to do with the much debated question as to whether the Greater London Council should be able to proceed to declare a housing action area with borough consent when the Secretary of State notifies them that they may do so. It is concerned with the powers which need to be available to the Greater London

957
Council in housing action areas. Ministers and the Greater London Council have always stressed it is their wish that the Greater London Council and the London boroughs should be able to agree about Greater London Council declarations. The London Boroughs Association have been informed of this Amendment. At the time I am speaking, I believe I am justified in saying they have not commented. I beg to move.
BARONESS YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for his explanation on this point. Am I right in thinking that what he has said is that the powers provided by this new Amendment are similar to those which already exist under the 1969 Act with regard to general improvement areas, which are now being extended for housing action areas?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: The noble Baroness is quite correct.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 47, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 48 and 49 agreed to.
After Clause 49.
LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 27A:
After Clause 49 insert the following new clause—
Declaration of priority neighbourhoods"

HOUSING BILL

  PART VA
  Priority Neighbourhoods
  49A.—(1) Where a report with respect to an area which consists primarily of housing accommodation and which, in accordance with subsection (2) below, is appropriate to be declared a priority neighbourhood, is submitted to the local authority within whose district the area lies by a person or persons appearing to the authority to be suitably qualified (whether or not that person is or those persons include an officer of the authority) and, upon consideration of the report and of any other information in their possession, the authority are satisfied that, having regard to—

  (a) the physical state of the housing accommodation in the area as a whole, and

  (b) social conditions in the area,

  the requirements in subsection (3) below are fulfilled with respect to the area, the authority may cause the area to be defined on a map and by resolution declare it to be a priority neighbourhood.
  (2) For the purposes of this section, an area is appropriate to be declared a priority neighbourhood if, immediately before the
  958
  declaration, it surrounds, or has a common boundary with,—

  (a) a housing action area other than an area in respect of which the Secretary of State has notified the local authority as mentioned in subsection (2)(c) of section 36 above and has not yet sent a further notification under subsection (4) of that section; or

  (b) a general improvement area in respect of which a confirmatory resolution, within the meaning of section 28 of the Housing Act 1969, has been passed.

  (3) The requirements referred to in subsection (1) above are—

  (a) that the living conditions in the area are unsatisfactory;

  (b) that it is not, at the date of the resolution, practicable for the local authority to declare the area or any part of it to be a housing action area or a general improvement area or to declare as a housing action area or a general improvement area an area which includes any part of the proposed priority neighbourhood; and

  (c) that it is necessary to secure in the area all or any of the objectives specified in paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 35(2) above and that that need can best be met by declaring the area to be a priority neighbourhood.

  (4) In considering whether to take action under subsection (1) above with respect to any area, a local authority shall have regard to such guidance as may from time to time be given by the Secretary of State, either generally or with respect to a particular authority or description of authority or in any particular case, with regard to the identification of areas suitable to be declared as priority neighbourhoods.
  (5) As soon as may be after passing a resolution declaring an area to be a priority neighbourhood, a local authority shall—

  (a) publish in two or more newspapers circulating in the locality (of which at least one shall, if practicable, be a local newspaper) a notice of the resolution identifying the priority neighbourhood and naming a place or places where a copy of the resolution, of the map on which the neighbourhood is defined and of the report referred to in subsection (1) above may be inspected at all reasonable times:

  (b) take such further steps as may appear to them best designed to secure that the resolution is brought to the attention of persons residing or owning property in the priority neighbourhood and that those persons are informed of the name and address of the person to whom any inquiries and representations concerning any action to be taken with respect to the neighbourhood should be addressed; and

  (c) send to the Secretary of State a copy of the resolution, the map and a copy of the report mentioned in paragraph (a) above and a statement containing such information as the Secretary of State may for the time being require, either generally or with

  959
  with respect to a particular authority or description of authority or in any particular case, to show the basis on which the local authority satisfied themselves that the area concerned was suitable to be declared a priority neighbourhood, having regard to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) above and any relevant guidance given under subsection (4) above.

  (6) Section 36 above shall apply in relation to the declaration of a priority neighbourhood with the substitution—

  (a) for any reference to a housing action area of a reference to a priority neighbourhood; and

  (b) for any reference to section 35(4)(c) above of a reference to subsection (5)(c) of this section.

  (7) In this section "housing accommodation" means dwellings, houses in multiple occupation and hostels."
  The noble Lord said: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 27A, and at the same time speak to Amendments Nos. 27B, 27C, 27D, 56A, 58A, 58B and 61A. This is a group of Amendments on priority neighbourhoods which fulfil promises made by the Government at earlier stages of the Bill. They consist of new Clauses 49A, 49B, 49C and 49D. On insertion into the Bill they would make up Part VA. They entail consequential Amendments to Schedules 4 and 5, which are numbered 56A, 58A, 58B and 61A in the List. I suggest it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took these linked Amendments together.
  The length of the Amendments springs from the need to deal with all the procedural details involved, and I shall deal later with the most important procedural matters. But the concept of priority neighbourhoods is the most important point. Also, as I shall seek to show, it is straightforward and can be described quite briefly. As I announced on Second Reading of the Bill, the Government are proposing a new power for local authorities to declare a further kind of area. The name we now prefer for this—and various names have been used from time to time—is "priority neighbourhood". I should like to recall to your Lorsdhips the purpose of this area and to relate the areas to the Amendments now before the Committee.
  Clause 49A is the key provision. Priority neighbourhoods are designed to prevent housing stress from just rippling
  960
  out from the housing action areas and general improvement areas which local authorities have declared: in a phrase, to hold the ring. They will have an important role in discouraging those who might otherwise try to anticipate more intensive later action by local authorities by taking anti-social steps, whether with re-regard to property or tenants, which would merely transfer the problems which authorities have to deal with from one area to the next. They will thus add to the housing action area concept. The declaration of priority neighbourhoods will also pave the way for the future more intensive action which can be taken when that neighbourhood's turn arrives in the authority's overall strategy for tackling bad living conditions in their area. They will be a useful preparation for future declarations of housing action areas and general improvement areas when the needs of these neighbourhoods can be tackled by rehabilitation, environmental improvements and a certain amount of redevelopment—action to which other social programmes, education, amenities, health and welfare services and so on, could be related.
  The ways in which the Amendment seeks to secure these purposes are as follows. Clause 49A provides that priority neighbourhoods may be declared only in respect of an area adjoining or surrounding a housing action area or a general improvement area, and only where it is not practicable for an authority to deal with unsatisfactory living conditions in that area by declaring it a housing action area or a general improvement area right away; that is, an authority has to be satisfied that in the circumstances a declaration of a priority neighbourhood is the best way forward. Two provisions otherwise only available in housing action areas would apply in priority neighbourhoods. First, there are the more specific powers which Clause 42 gave to authorities to acquire land by agreement or compulsorily, including the restriction on the recovery of property subject to a compulsory purchase order. This is secured by means of subsection (1)(d) of Clause 49C. Second, the system of notification of certain transactions in housing property and of notices to quit. The Committee will recall that I outlined this also on Second Reading: the Government's Amendments for this purpose will be tabled for Report.
  Finally, we shall propose that certain conditions attachable to improvement grants (for example the period during which an improved property is to be kept available for letting) will be mandatory in priority neighbourhoods, as in housing action areas, as opposed to being discretionary elsewhere. As I mentioned earlier, the Amendments are very largely concerned with procedures the procedures (concerning, for example, a report on the area, publicity, the giving of information, the powers of the Secretary of State, and the relevant authorities for the purposes of priority neighbourhoods) all follow the provisions in respect of housing action areas, provisions which have been in the Bill since it began its passage in this Parliament. Such differences as there are spring from the fact that the special powers in a priority neighbourhood are to be more limited than in an housing action area. If any of your Lordships should wish me to go into procedural matters further, I shall of course do my best to answer any particular points which may be raised.
  I commend these Amendments to this Committee. In doing so, I should like to acknowledge that they follow up the type of approach advocated in the Milner-Holland and Layfield Reports. They also take further the message of the D.O.E. Circular 50/72 and the last Administration's White Paper The Next Priorities. I trust that your Lordships will agree to the Amendments as a useful way of promoting, on a statutory basis, ways of dealing with problems of housing stress and the need for future action which we have left untackled for too long. I beg to move.
  9.3 p.m.
  BARONESS YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for his explanation of these very long new clauses, and for the notes on these clauses which he sent me which reached me over the week-end. This is a new concept which is being introduced at this stage. The noble Lord was able to explain the principle of it at Second Reading, but it is something which has not appeared in any discussion of the Bill so far. I am not clear what the real difference is between a general improvement area and a priority neighbourhood. If I understand the point correctly, it is that a priority neighbourhood will always be
  962
  adjacent to a housing action area, but what happens on the edge of the priority neighbourhood?
  There is a real danger that the effectiveness of a housing action area, which is a relatively small area in which there will be a crash programme in which all the resources of the local authorities will be turned to improve the housing, will be diluted by having it extended into a priority neighbourhood. I am not in principle against trying to do more for older houses wherever they may be. The practical facts of life are such that the improvements of properties are expensive to carry out. Not only are they expensive in money but, equally important, they require a great many specialist staff such as public health inspectors, surveyors, builders and the social services to support them. Of course if these are spread over a larger area, by definition they will be less effective in the smaller area. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, could tell us how he sees the use of staff working in what is a larger area. He would agree it would be a pity if the concept of the housing action area, which is accepted as being such a valuable one, were to be diluted because it was being spread over a rather large area instead of concentrating resources on one or several small selected areas.
  The other point I should like to raise is the same as the one I raised on housing action areas. This is with regard to consultation with residents. It seems to me that precisely the same point would arise in priority neighbourhoods. When we have our meeting in the Department we might consider consultation with the residents because in this connection it will be just as important.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving me an opportunity of elaborating. There can be nothing but advantage in getting more on the Record. Earlier when I was speaking, I hesitated to go into too much detail because I realised that I was speaking at some length, but the noble Baroness has given me cause. Perhaps I can best reply by giving more detailed information on the clauses which are involved in the Amendments to which I have spoken.
  Clause 49A provides for the declaration of priority neighbourhoods by local authorities. As with housing action areas,

  963
  they must have received a report compiled by suitably qualified persons, who need not necessarily be local authority officers, and they must have regard to both physical and social factors. But a priority neighbourhood must adjoin or surround either a housing action area or a general improvement area. The authority must be satisfied that living conditions are unsatisfactory, that it is impracticable to declare the area as a housing action area or a general improvement area, and that the need to secure the improvement of the housing accommodation in the potential priority neighbourhood, the wellbeing of its residents and the proper, effective management and use of that accommodation, can best be met by declaring it as a priority neighbourhood. Declarations must be advertised and notified to the Secretary of State as with housing action areas. The Secretary of State has powers under Clause 35 to cancel a housing action area declaration which will also apply to a priority neighbourhood declaration.
  Clause 49B provides for housing action areas, general improvement areas, to be converted into or incorporated in property neighbourhoods either wholly or in part. Clause 49C provides that the housing action area provisions; that is, the duration, reduction, duty to inform the Secretary of State of action taken, acquisition of land and provision of housing by local authorities, and the application of certain procedural provisions of the Housing Acts, shall apply in priority neighbourhoods as in housing action areas. Clause 49D provides that local authorities for the purposes of priority neighbourhoods will be the same as for housing action areas and general improvement areas; that is, the councils of districts and London boroughs, the Common Council, and in the circumstances provided for in Schedule 4 the Greater London Council.
  The noble Baroness has indicated that she would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter, and indeed we shall be very pleased to have consultation with her about it. The concept of priority neighbourhoods was foreshadowed in the Second Reading in another place and in Committee there. If the noble Baroness is content with what I have had to say about the individual clauses, and would
  964
  leave it for us to discuss when she comes to the Department, it may well be that we can make progress.
  BARONESS YOUNG: I do not wish in any way to prolong this discussion. I am not altogether happy about this concept but at this stage of the Committee I should like to read what the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has said and to take up the opportunity to have this meeting and to discuss it further. I should say to him that my only worry about it is that we might spoil the concept of the housing action area by spreading the staff too thinly on the ground. But this is a matter to which we can always return at Report stage.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  9.16 p.m.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 27B.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 49 insert the following new clause:
  Incorporation into priority neighbourhoods of general improvement areas, housing action areas, or parts thereof.
  49B(1) If a local authority propose, by a resolution under section 49A above, to declare as a priority neighbourhood an area which consists of or includes land which, immediately prior to the declaration, is comprised—

  (a) in a housing action area declared under section 35 above, or

  (b) in a general improvement area declared under Part II of the Housing Act 1969,

  they shall indicate on the map referred to in section 49A above the land which is so comprised (in this section referred to as "the relevant land").
  (2) Subject to the following provisions of this section; with effect from the date on which such a resolution as is referred to in subsection (1) above is passed, the relevant land shall be deemed (according to its status) either—

  (a) to have ceased to be a housing action area by virtue of a resolution passed on that date under section 38(3) above or, as the case may be, to have been excluded from the housing action area by virtue of a resolution passed on that date under section 39(1) above; or

  (b) to have ceased to be a general improvement area, or, as the case may be, to have been excluded from the general improvement area by virtue of a resolution under section 30(1) of the Housing Act 1969 passed on that date and approved by the Secretary of State.

  (3) If the Secretary of State notifies the local authority concerned under section 36 above,

  965
  as that section applies in relation to priority neighbourhoods by virtue of section 49A(6) above, that the area declared by them to be a priority neighbourhood is no longer to be such an area, subsection (2) above shall be treated as never having applied in relation to the relevant land.
  (4) If the Secretary of State notifies the local authority concerned under section 36 above, as that section applies in relation to priority neighbourhoods by virtue of section 49A(6) above, that any land which—

  (a) is within the area declared by the authority to be a priority neighbourhood, and

  (b) consists of or includes any of the relevant land,

  is to be excluded from the priority neighbourhood, subsection (2) above shall be treated as never having applied in relation to so much of the relevant land as is comprised in the land so excluded.")—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 27C.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
  Application to Priority Neighbourhoods of certain provisions of Part IV
  49C.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, the following provisions of Part IV of this Act shall apply in relation to a priority neighbourhood as they apply in relation to a housing action area, namely,—

  (a) section 38 (duration of housing action areas);

  (b) section 39 (reduction of housing action area);

  (c) section 41 (duty to inform Secretary of State of action taken);

  (d) section 42 (acquisition of land in housing action areas);

  (e) section 43 (provision, improvement etc. of housing accommodation by local authorities); and

  (f) section 46 (application of certain provisions of Housing Acts).

  (2) In the application, by virtue of sub-section (1) above, of the provisions of Part IV of this Act specified in that subsection—

  (a) for any reference in those provisions to a housing action area there shall be substituted a reference to a priority neighbourhood; and

  (b) any reference in any of those provisions to any other provision of Part IV of this Act shall be construed as a reference to that other provision as it applies in relation to priority neighbourhoods.

  (3) Without prejudice to subsection (2) above, in the application, by virtue of subsection (1) above, of section 38 above—

  (a) for the reference in subsection (1) of that section to section 35(1) above there
  966
  shall be substituted a reference to section 49A(1) above; and

  (b) for any reference in subsection (2) or subsection (5) of that section to 2 years there shall be substituted a reference to 5 years.

  (4) A local authority may not exercise the power conferred by section 39 above, as applied by virtue of subsection (1) above, in relation to a priority neighbourhood unless the land which would be left in the priority neighbourhood after the exclusion of the land in question—

  (a) would then constitute an area which, having regard to subsection (2) of section 49A above, would be appropriate to be declared a priority neighbourhood, or

  (b) would then surround or have a common boundary with an area which, immediately before the priority neighbourhood was declared, constituted or formed part of a housing action area or a general improvement area; or

  (c) would then consist of or include land which, immediately before the priority neighbourhood was declared, formed part of a housing action area or a general improvement area.")—(Lord Garnsworthy.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY I beg to move Amendment No. 27D.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 49, insert the following new clause:
  Local authorities for the purposes of Part VA
  49D.—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, the local authorities for the purposes of this Part of this Act are the councils of districts and London boroughs and the Common Council of the City of London.
  (2) Subject to and in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 4 to this Act, as modified by subsection (3) below, the Greater London Council may exercise the powers of a local authority under section 49A above with respect to any area in Greater London.
  (3) In its application by virtue of subsection (2) above, Schedule 4 to this Act shall have effect as if for the words "section 35", in each place where they occur, there were substituted the words "section 49A".
  (4) In relation to, and to any premises in, an area which, in accordance with Schedule 4 to this Act as applied by virtue of subsection (2) above, has been declared a priority neighbourhood by the Greater London Council, any reference to a local authority in—

  (a) sections 49A to 49C above, or

  (b) any provision of Part IV of this Act specified in section 49A(6) or section 49C above, as that provision has effect by virtue of either of those sections, or

  (c) the provisions of the Housing Act 1957 applied in relation to priority neighbourhoods by section 46(1) above, as that section has effect by virtue of section 49C(1)(f) above,

  967
  shall be construed, except in so far as the context otherwise requires, as a reference to the Greater London Council, to the exclusion of any other council.").—(Lord Carnsworthy.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 50 agreed to.
  Clause 51 [General provisions relating to applications for grants]:
  LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 48, line 36, at end insert—
  ("and the applicant for the grant is, or is the personal representative of, the person who made the earlier application").
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to correct a technical defect in the Bill. As at present drafted, a local authority would be prohibited except in certain circumstances, specifically provided for elsewhere in the Bill, from entertaining a grant application if the relevant works are or include works which have already been the subject of a prior grant approval either under Part I of the 1969 Act or Part VI of this Bill. While this provision is reasonable for so long as the applicant or, after his death, his personal representatives retain the requisite interest in the land under Clause 51(3), it is considered wrong to prohibit an authority from entertaining an application from any other person who subsequently acquires a qualifying interest in the land, not least because an approval cannot be inherited by the new owner. The Amendment would remove this limitation. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 51, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 52 to 57 agreed to.
  Clause 58 [Amount of improvement grant]:
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 29:
  Page 54, leave out line 24 and insert—
  ("determined by reference to the amount of that grant and the rate at which it was made, namely, twice the amount of the grant where that rate was one-half and one and one-third times the amount of the grant where (by virtue of the Housing Act 1971) that rate was 75 per cent").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 29. The purpose of this Amendment is to correct a technical defect in the Bill. For some two years the improvement grant was at the rate of 75
  968
  per cent. Before that it was 50 per cent. and it is back to 50 per cent. The effect of this Amendment is to put people who had the benefit of 75 per cent. grant in the same position as those who were on 50 per cent. This is where the reference to twice the amount of the grant, and the reference in the Amendment to one and one-third times the amount of the grant is to put both types of grant recipients in the same position. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 58, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 59 agreed to.
  Clause 60 [Approval of application for intermediate grant conditional dwelling attaining a particular standard]:
  LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 30:
  Page 55, line 30, at end insert—
  ("(bb) that it conforms with such requirements with respect to thermal insulation as may for the time being be specified by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section; and").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 30. May I speak to Amendment No. 31 at the same time. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide that one of the conditions to be fulfilled before an application for an intermediate grant is approved should be that the dwelling is adequately insulated against heat loss. In Standing Committee B of the House of Commons Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg moved an Amendment to Clause 54 which was designed to probe the Government's intentions regarding thermal insulation. He withdrew his Amendment upon being informed that the special issue of thermal insulation was under active consideration.
  Subsequently, a decision was taken to the effect that for both intermediate grants and improvements grants it should be a condition of payment that the dwelling which is the subject of the application should have its roof space adequately insulated against heat loss. To give effect to this decision, it is necessary to amend Clause 60 so as to add thermal insulation to the list of requirements in sub-section (2) which must be satisfied before a dwelling shall be taken to attain the full standard for immediate grant purposes. It is not necessary to amend the Bill in order to secure the same effect in relation to improvement grants. That

  969
  can be done administratively under the provisions of Clause 55. I beg to move.
  BARONESS YOUNG: I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is able to move this Amendment and to fulfil the promise which was given to my honourable friend Mr. Finsberg in another place.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 31.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 56, line 8, at end insert—
  "(aa) to conform in every respect with the requirements referred to in paragraph (bb) of that subsection, or".—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 60, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 61 to 67 agreed to.
  Clause 68 [Power of local authorities to impose grant conditions]:
  LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 32.
  Page 62, line 16, leave out ("they may") and insert ("they").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, and at the same time I should like to speak to Amendment No. 33. These two Amendments would have the effect of making it obligatory upon a local authority to impose the grant conditions which are set out in Clause 68 in all cases of dwellings improved with the aid of an intermediate grant, an improvement grant or a repairs grant which are within a housing action area or a general improvement area on the date of grant approval, subject to the exclusion from this condition of those cases which are specifically exempted by subsection (3) of the clause.
  The Government indicated during the Second Reading debate and Committee stage in the other place that they were proposing to introduce an Amendment designed to achieve in housing action areas and general improvement areas the effect of that which is suggested by the Amendment. It is not appropriate to make these Clause 68 conditions mandatory in all cases of tenanted dwellings, regardless of whether or not they fall within one of the priority areas. For example, it would be inappropriate to
  970
  attach to a grant conditions relating to an improved dwelling having to be let on a regulated tenancy or a Part VI contract when that dwelling was occupied by an agricultural worker in a tied dwelling, since such a person does not and cannot have a regulated tenancy or a Part VI contract.
  Housing action areas, general improvement areas and special protection areas will, by their nature, be areas in which the retention of privately rented accommodation will be of special significance and for which there will exist machinery which is capable of monitoring the observance of grant conditions. Outside these areas the imposition of these conditions should be left to the decision of local authorities in the light of the needs of the district or area concerned, and in the light of the authority's resources for the policing of conditions. Limited to these special areas, the Amendment would have an immediate impact upon the relationship between the amount of public money expended on improvement works and (a) the returns in terms of better housing conditions for those people whom the Government are most concerned to help and (b) the rent payable for those improved dwellings. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  9.20 p.m.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 33.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 62, line 17, after ("below") insert ("the authority may and, in the case of a dwelling or dwellings situated in an area which, on the date on which the application is approved, is a housing action area or a general improvement area, they shall").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 69 to 74 agreed to.
  Clause 75 [Grants restricted to applicant and his personal representatives]:
  LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 68, line 27, (in the fifth line of paragraph (b) of Clause 75(2) leave out ("at such rate as may be prescribed").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 34 and I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 35. These are technical Amendments, the effect of which will be to bring Clause 75 into line

  971
  with the remainder of the Bill by providing that instalments of grant repayable thereunder shall carry interest at the rate of interest for the time being fixed by subsection (2) of Section 171 of the Local Government Act 1972 for the purposes of the enactments specified in subsection (1) of that section. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 35.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 68, line 29 (the last line of paragraph (b) of Clause 75(2)) at end insert ("at the rate for the time being fixed by subsection (2) of section 171 of the Local Government Act 1972 for the purposes of the enactments specified in subsection (1) of that section").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 75, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 76 to 98 agreed to.
  LORD GIFFORD LORD GIFFORD moved Amendment No. 36:
  After Clause 98 insert the following new clause:
  ".—(1) No notice to quit issued in respect of a tenancy subject to the protection of Part I or Part VI of the 1968 Rent Act shall be valid unless it is issued on such a form as shall be prescribed.
  (2) The prescribed form of a notice to quit issued in pursuance of subsection (1) above shall contain upon its face in letters no smaller than the text of the rest of the notice to quit—

  (a) the name and address of the landlord of the premises in respect of which the notice to quit is issued, and

  (b) the name of the tenant to whom the notice to quit is issued, and an exact indication of the premises to which the notice to quit applies, and

  (c) a form of words as may be prescribed outlining the rights and obligations once the notice to quit has been issued of the landlord who has issued the notice to quit and of the tenant to whom the notice to quit is to be issued, and

  (d) the address of the Rent Tribunal having jurisdiction over the area in which the premises referred to in the notice to quit are situated.

  (3) The expression 'prescribed' in subsections (1) and (2) above means prescribed regulations made by statutory instrument by the Secretary of State for the Environment which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 36 which stands in my
  972
  name and that of my noble friend Lord Melchett. This Amendment arises from Amendments that my noble friend Lord Melchett and I moved on the Committee stage of the Rent Bill, when we both spoke of the need to provide certain basic information when notices to quit were served on tenants. Those Amendments were withdrawn on my noble friend Lord Shepherd making a promise that on this Bill an Amendment would be moved to accept the principle of the Amendments which, we then proposed, and I am delighted to see that at a slightly later stage in this Bill a Government Amendment will be moved by my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy. Of course I do not intend to press my Amendment and I shall give way to his, which comes a little further down on the Marshalled List.
  Since this is an opportunity to speak about this rather different area of this Bill, may I briefly tell your Lordships why we took the initiative in the other Bill in putting forward an Amendment of this kind? It is because, as noble Lords will probably know, notices to quit are served on tenants by landlords—or more frequently by landlords' solicitors. They are very frightening documents. They peremptorily order a tenant to deliver up the possession of his tenancy within something like 28 days, while of course the law under the Rent Act does not require them to do any such thing.
  Notices to quit in this form have two effects. On the one hand, they cause great distress to tenants who frequently, in the experience of advice bureaux, housing centres and law centres, come clutching these documents believing that they mean what the say. They are then advised that they do not, and that a tenant has rights under the Rent Act either to have a fixed tenancy or to go to the rent tribunal. But frequently, in what numbers nobody can state, tenants are induced by such a notice—and no doubt by other pressures from landlords—to accept them at their face value, and they believe that they are required to move. My noble friend and I had in mind that basic information should be given on notices to quit so that distress and indeed misinformation should no longer be a source of concern and prejudice. I am delighted that the Government have accepted the principle of this Amendment. I do not know whether my noble friend will speak to the Government

  973
  Amendment at this stage, but having raised the issue and the Amendment having been moved, I beg to move.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: Let me say right away that the principle of this Amendment is accepted by the Government. My noble friend the Lord Privy Seal said at the Committee stage of the Rent Bill that we would see whether we could find a way of implementing that principle. I am pleased to say that we have tabled an Amendment to introduce a new clause after Clause 107. It may well be for the convenience of the Committee if we discuss it now.
  As I have said, the new clause is introduced as a result of the undertaking given in this House on the Rent Bill to look at the possibility of providing that notices to quit should be in writing and should contain certain particulars which would be of use to the tenant on whom the notice had been served. The Government have considered carefully the best way to achieve this, and it has been decided that in the interests of simplicity and flexibility the best method is the amendment of the existing provisions regarding notices to quit. Section 16 of the Rent Act 1957 and Section 131 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 provide that no notice to quit premises let as residential accommodation shall be valid unless it is given not less than four weeks before the date on which it is to take effect.
  The new clause inserts into this provision the words set out in subsection (1). It provides that any notice to quit shall be in writing and shall contain such information as may be prescribed. The new subsection (2) to be added to Section 16 and Section 131 provides that the word "prescribed" means prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State by Statutory Instrument, subject to Negative Resolution in either House. It is clearly sensible to leave the details of such information to subordinate legislation which can easily be varied to take account of any subsequent changes in the law relating to landlord and tenant. The new subsection (3) provides that the regulations may make different provision in relation to different lettings and different circumstances. This is to allow for the fact that the information which is applicable to one class of tenant may not be applicable to another class. The subsection therefore allows for different
  974
  information to suit different circumstances.
  Subsection (2) of the new clause provides that the provisions of the clause shall not apply in relation to a notice to quit given before the day appointed for the coming into operation of the provisions. This is necessary to make it clear that notices to quit which are running under existing law (and which may in the case of a furnished tenancy have been suspended by a rent tribunal for any period up to six months) are not made invalid by virtue of these provisions.
  I hope that explanation will satisfy my noble friends Lord Gifford and Lord Melchett. We have honoured the undertaking given, and I hope that the new clause to be inserted after Clause 107 will commend itself to the Committee as fully meeting the points that have been raised.
  9.30 p.m.
  LORD GIFFORD: I do not want at this stage to enter into further discussion with my noble friend about the sort of information that will ultimately be prescribed for such notices. I am sure he will accept that the kind of considerations which have been suggested in this Amendment and in previous Amendments to the Rent Bill proposed by myself and my noble friend, will be borne in mind when it is decided precisely what sort of information and in what form shall be contained in such notices. Obviously, one hopes that the regulations will be published and passed at an early date. If there is to be some delay, let it be used in consultations with bodies like the National Association of Citizens Bureaux, so that the information which goes into these regulations is what is necessary, and what is thought to be necessary by those who have to deal with these problems. I am sure it goes without saying that such consultations and considerations will be borne in mind.
  Having said that, and before withdrawing my Amendment, may I add that even for someone who has sometimes expressed cynicism about the procedures of the House of Lords, to have the Amendment to be moved by my noble friend passing through this House is a rare pleasure. On the Second Reading of the Rent Bill, my noble friend said in terms that he felt the sort of considerations we had in mind were not

  975
  necessary for legislation, certainly in the absence of evidence to the contrary. A great effort was made to provide my noble friend and his colleagues with such evidence. A large number of organisations wrote in, the Government were impressed, and to-morrow I propose to write to those organisations to tell them they have had a hand in making an important change in the law. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 99 and 100 agreed to.
  Clause 101 [Hostels provided by housing authorities in Scotland]:
  9.33 p.m.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 37:
  Page 92, line 20, leave out ("and 34") and insert ("32 and 34").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, which is simple. There is already provision in the Bill for meeting hostel revenue deficits incurred by registered housing associations, local authorities and New Town Corporations in England and Wales, but not for housing authorities in Scotland. This Amendment corrects this by making hostel deficit grants under Clause 32 available to Scottish housing authorities. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 101, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 102 and 103 agreed to.
  Clause 104 [Raising of rateable value limits for enfranchisement or extension under Leasehold Reform Act, 1967]:
  BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 38:
  Page 94, line 32, at end insert—
  ("(3) For the purposes of this section, the provisions of section 19 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 shall apply until the expiry of a period of two years commencing with the date of the passing of this Act.").
  The noble Baroness said: The Committee will know that this Clause 104 was amended in Committee in another place, to increase the level of the rateable values at which it was possible for a leaseholder to obtain his enfranchisement. This Amendment to this clause seeks to meet the difficulty which I think may arise, and
  976
  is exactly in line with a similar clause in the 1967 Leasehold Reform Act. Therefore, I hope that the Government will view it sympathetically.
  It has been put to me that under the 1967 Act it was possible for freeholders to have a management scheme provided that they chose to apply for one within two years of the passing of that Act. Of course, the effect of management schemes is to enable the freeholder of a large estate to maintain the estate, and to provide for the upkeep and repair of it as a unit. This seems to me such a very desirable thing to achieve that my Amendment seeks to include in this Bill a similar provision whereby the freeholder would be able to have a management scheme within two years of the passing of this Bill. It may not be correctly drafted, and I shall quite understand if it is not, but I hope very much that the Government will accept it, because I should have thought this is a principle they would support. I beg to move.
  LORD HUGHES: I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment, but I hope to be able to assure the noble Baroness in what I propose to say. As she has stated, the clause took its present form as the result of an Opposition Amendment in another place. Although this Amendment was passed against the Government's advice, the Government have decided to accept the principle underlying it. It should, however, be noted that the Amendment, as the noble Baroness suspected, is defective in drafting. For example, it fails to protect the rights of any leaseholder whose house was within the original rateable value limits but in consequence of revaluation may be outside the new ones. Moreover, in introducing a variation of rights according to the date of granting of the tenancy, it employs a date which has no connection with leasehold reform legislation. The Government hope to be in a position to put down Amendments at Report stage to correct these defects.
  The resuscitation of Section 19 is another matter, however. The Government fully appreciate the risk that this extension of enfranchisement rights of tenants of houses not previously subject to the Act could mean that estates, perhaps well managed estates, not formerly affected would be broken up, and that if

  977
  management schemes are not possible for such estates the result could in some cases be a general decline in management standards. The possibility of reviving Section 19 was, therefore, reviewed at once. This revival, however, would not, unfortunately, be the simple matter which the Amendment suggests. It would have to be limited to estates whose landlords were unable to apply for certificates during the period that Section 19 was in force before. To do otherwise might give the section retrospective effect over properties already enfranchised, possibly resulting in the imposition of obligations on house owners who had bought their freeholds at prices reflecting the absence of any such obligations.
  The Amendments necessary to apply Section 19 within the limited field where it is now needed without adverse retrospective effects could be too complex for drafting in the limited period available, and with the very heavy burden already placed on the draftsman by the Amendments already essential to the Bill. We will, however, look at this matter again before Report stage to see whether anything can be done. The Government, however, do not intend to let the matter drop. If it should prove to be too difficult to draft the necessary Amendments, the Government would propose to take suitable legislative action at the first convenient date in the future. I hope, therefore, in view of these two ways in which we are looking at the matter, the noble Baroness will be prepared at this stage to withdraw her Amendment.
  BARONESS YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his concluding remarks. I entirely accept that this is probably not correctly drafted, and I certainly did not intend it to have a retrospective effect. This I put down to the defects of drafting, not to the intention of the Amendment. What I think is important is that the purpose of the Amendment should be achieved and that it should apply on this Bill, because this is the Bill which increases the rateable values from April 1, 1973. I believe that it is most important that the great estates, particularly in London, should be able to have these management schemes, and I hope very much that the Government will be able to bring forward a suitable Amendment on Report. What I feel is that it would be a very difficult thing to
  978
  leave that to further legislation. This is the kind of thing that can be lost sight of if it is left in that rather indefinite situation. I hope, therefore, that the Government will be able to draft an Amendment in time for Report.
  I shall look again at the drafting of this and take advice to see whether I can do anything from my side to improve it, because I think that we are both in agreement that there should be such a provision under this clause for all the environmental reasons that are very familiar to us all. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  9.41 p.m.
  BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG moved Amendment No. 38A:
  Page 94, line 32, at end insert—
  After subsection (4) of section 1 of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 there shall be inserted—
  "( ) At any time the tenant may take the action provided in Schedule (reduction of rateable value in case of certain improvements) to this Act, for his rateable value to he adjusted and in all such cases the agreed rateable value or that determined by the Court or District Valuer shall be the rateable value for the purposes of that Act."
  The noble Baroness said: In the light of what has happened, this Amendment may prove to be unnecessary, but its purpose must be quite clear. It is to help a tenant whose rateable value has been increased as a result of improvements that he himself has made to his house, and which would mean that he would be just outside the terms of the Bill as drafted. It always seems unfair if a tenant outside of London, for example, now finds that the rateable value of his house has gone up to £751 as a consequence of the improvements that he has made to the house since April 1, 1973, and therefore he is not able to enfranchise himself, as would have been the intention behind this clause. This Amendment seeks to put right this position and to allow him to enfranchise himself if he wishes to do so. I beg to move.
  LORD HUGHES: The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the rights of enfranchisement under the Leasehold Reform Act to tenants of houses which are outside the rateable value limits laid down by the Act, but which would have been within them had not the tenants, or

  979
  their predecessors in title, undertaken improvements which would have the effect of raising the rateable values of the houses.
  This complex Amendment, which would affect the courts and the valuation service as well as the Leasehold Reform Act, was put down very late, as the noble Baroness knows, and only reached the Department on Friday morning. In the circumstances, it has not been possible to give it the study essential to a proposal to amend the law. Even such examination as has been possible in the time allowed shows that in its immediate objective the provision, besides being unacceptable in principle, is defective. I know from past experience how easy it is to get a defective Amendment when the subject is simple; when the subject is as complex as this, it would be an absolute miracle if those without the benefit of skilled draftsmen got it right at first shot, so that is not meant as a criticism of the noble Baroness. For example, the Amendment makes no reference to the appropriate day for the house in question, although improvements undertaken after the appropriate day cannot affect the rateable value for the purposes of the Act, and it leaves uncertain the question of whether the reference rateable value in Section 4 of the Act is to be adjusted together with that in Section 1.
  The Government are well aware that some leaseholders unintentionally deprived themselves of the rights they might have had, under the Act as it now stands, by undertaking before the appropriate day improvements that raised the rateable value of their dwellings above what later became the limits for the purposes of the Act. As the noble Baroness knows, the previous Administration were also aware of that situation. The need to deal with this matter has been removed by the Amendment introduced in another place. The Government intend to accept the principle of this Amendment, and at a later stage hope to introduce Amendments to remove defects in the drafting of the clause as it now stands. When I say "in principle", I mean that the Government accept the principle of the Amendment made in another place.
  BARONESS YOUNG: In order to make it clear, is the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, saying that the Government accept the
  980
  principle of Clause 144 but not the principle of this Amendment?
  LORD HUGHES: That is right. We hope at a later stage to introduce Amendments to remove defects in the drafting of the clause as it now stands. The effect of the Amendment is to raise the rateable value limits operative under the Act to levels permitting enfranchisement of houses far more valuable than those enfranchisable at present. It may therefore be expected that tenants whose improvements raise the rateable values of their houses above the old limits will now find their houses well within the new ones. If the intention of the noble Baroness is to permit enfranchisement by tenants whose improvements have brought their houses outside the new limits, I must oppose even the principle of a proposal which would enable the affluent to render themselves more affluent.
  The Government's reasons for opposing the Amendment carried in another place were that a house outside the present rateable value limits would be so valuable as to render enfranchisement attractive for reasons of financial gain rather than domestic security, particularly as persons able to afford the leases of such houses would have been able to afford freeholds of smaller houses. How much more would this be the case with a person able to afford the lease of a house the rateable value of which approached the new limits, who then improved the house so as to take it beyond them. Since any such houses unimproved could always by definition be well equipped with amenities, improvements in these cases would often be designed to render the house suitable for uses other than as the tenant's home; for instance, by subletting parts of it. This makes it all the more likely that in such cases enfranchisement would be sought for reasons of gain. For these reasons, I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment.
  BARONESS YOUNG: I should like to apologise for tabling the Amendment at a late hour, but the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will understand that with the present difficulties of trying to read all the material one cannot act as quickly as one would like. I am sorry that he finds the Amendment unacceptable in principle. Again, I accept that the drafting may not be right but I think it could

  981
  well meet a gap in Clause 104. However, I shall study with care what the noble Lord has said and I shall, if I consider it necessary, return to the matter again on report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 104 shall stand part of the Bill?
  BARONESS YOUNG: I wish to raise two points on the Question, That the Clause stand part. As has been said, the clause was amended in the Committee stage of another place. Its intention was that people whose rateable values were £750 outside London and £1,500 in Greater London should be able to enfranchise themselves. These rateable values were to date from April 1, 1973, when the new rateable values came in. They were not to be restrospective to 1965. The effect of the increased rateable values was to be an increase of two and-a-half times in rateable values as reflected by revaluation between the years 1965 and 1973, in line with the fair rent legislation.
  It has been put to me that the clause as drafted is ambiguous on this point. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said that the Government would be tabling an Amendment. I should like an assurance from him that any Amendment would clarify the situation. Clearly, it would make a great deal of difference if it were thought that these rateable values could be retrospective to 1965 values, and not to 1973 values. That is the first point I wish to clarify, because it is the intention of those who moved the Amendment in Committee in another place that they should apply to current rateable values only.
  The second point I wish to make is that, had there been time, I would have put down an Amendment to meet a point which I think the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, raised in speaking to my last Amendment, No. 38A, when he said that he felt that under this Amendment a number of people could make an enormous profit at the expense of the freeholder. I intend to move an Amendment at the next stage of the Bill to the effect that those in Greater London whose houses have a value between £1,000 and £1,500 should be entitled to purchase their freehold only at market value and
  982
  not under the special terms that are provided in the 1967 Act. I felt it was only right to give notice of that at this stage, and to apologise for not being able to get it down in time for the Committee stage.
  LORD HUGHES: I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for stating that intention. As she said, we are working under very acute difficulties at the present time; and, as I say, I am very grateful to her. So far as her question is concerned, the Amendment which the Government propose to put down for the next stage will take care of the point to which she referred.
  Clause 104 agreed to.
  Clauses 105 and 106 agreed to.
  Clause 107 [Disclosure of landlord's identity]:
  9.52 p.m.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 39:
  Page 95, line 2, leave out from ("within") to ("the") in line 3 and insert ("the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which he receives").
  The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I would speak to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 at the same time as Amendment No. 39. These three Amendments fulfil an undertaking given by the Government in another place and clarify the effect of an Amendment that was accepted there. Amendment No. 39 is a simple clarificatory Amendment to establish the precise day on which the period of 21 days begins before the end of which the person asked the landlord's name and address must give it. A provision creating an absolute offence must define with the maximum precision the circumstances in which an offence is committed.
  Amendment No. 40 replaces the existing subsection (2). It first provides that where, under subsection (1), the tenant has obtained the name and address of his landlord, and the landlord is a company, and the tenant makes a further written request for information under this sub-section, the landlord shall within 21 days supply in writing the name and address of every director and of the secretary of the company. It then provides that, for

  983
  "address", whether sought under sub-section (1) or subsection (2), the address given, for a person, shall be the place of abode or place of business, and, for a company, the registered office; that a request under subsection (2) shall be duly made if it is made to an agent of the landlord or to the person who demands the rent; and that any such agent or person must forward the request as quickly as possible to the landlord. Finally, it provides that a person who without reasonable excuse fails to do this, or a landlord who without reasonable excuse fails to comply with the request, shall be guilty of an offence under this clause, and liable to the same penalty as a person who fails to comply with the original request for the landlord's name and address.
  Amendment No. 41 is consequential. I would say that linked also with it is Government Amendment No. 67 which inserts in Schedule 11—Minor and Consequential Amendments—the Amendment to the Landlord and Tenant Act 1962 in the present subsection (2). Schedule 11 is the proper place for this provision. I beg to move Amendment No. 39.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 40.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 95, line 5, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("(2) In any case where—

  (a) in response to a request under sub-section (1) above, a tenant is supplied with the name and address of the landlord of the premises concerned; and

  (b) the landlord is a body corporate; and

  (c) the tenant makes a further written request to the landlord for information under this subsection,

  the landlord shall within the period of 21 days beginning with the day on which he receives the request under this subsection, supply to the tenant a written statement of the name and address of every director and the secretary of the landlord.
  (2A) Any reference in subsection (1) or subsection (2) above to a person's address is a reference to his place of abode or his place of business or, in the case of a company, its registered office.
  (2B) A request under subsection (2) above shall be deemed to be duly made to the landlord if it is made to an agent of the landlord or to a person who demands the rent of the
  984
  premises concerned, and any such agent or person to whom such a request is made shall as soon as may be forward it to the landlord.
  (2C) A landlord who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with a request under subsection (2) above within the period mentioned in that subsection and a person who fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement imposed on him by subsection (2B) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a line not exceeding £200.").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 41.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 95, line 9, after "(1)") insert ("or subsection (2C)").—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 107, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move Amendment No. 41A.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 107 insert the following new clause "Form and content of certain notices to quit.
  (1) In section 16 of the Rent Act 1957 or, in Scotland, section 131 of the Rent (Scotland) Act 1971 (minimum length of notice to quit) after the words "shall be valid unless it" there shall be inserted the words "is in writing and contains such information as may be prescribed and" and at the end of that section there shall be added the following subsections—
  "(2) In this section "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument, and a statutory instrument containg any such regulations shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (3) Regulations under this section may make different provision in relation to different circumstances"
  (2) This section does not apply in relation to a notice to quit given before the day appointed for the coming into operation of this section.—(Lord Garnsworthy.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 108 [Service charges]:
  9.57 p.m.
  LORD SANDYS LORD SANDYS moved Amendment No. 42:
  Page 96, line 9, at end insert:
  "(and if any works in respect of which a service charge is claimed are estimated to cost more than £250, at least two estimates of the cost of such works shall be obtained by the landlord or agent and one of the said estimates shall be from a firm wholly

  985
  unconnected with them, in the manner described in Schedule 9 to this Act.")
  The noble Lord said: In speaking to this Amendment I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 43 and 44. Before starting to speak to Amendment No. 42, I should like to draw attention to a typographical error. The Committee will be aware of the printing problems which exist so I hope that the error will be excused. The last line of the Amendment reads: "Schedule 9 to this Act." It should read, "Schedule 10". This is quite obvious when examining the Schedules. There is one other small error which is scarcely worth mentioning—two words have been run into each other in Amendment No. 43.
  I speak with considerable enthusiasm to this group of Amendments on service charges, partly because I have an interest to declare here as a former tenant of Freshwater and, latterly, as an ex-tenant of Freshwater; so I have knowledge at first hand of this problem. The second reason for my interest is that my honourable friend Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg has spent the last three years campaigning in this field, and I think that it is quite clear from reading the proceedings of the Standing Committee in another place what an enormous amount of time and effort he has spent in compiling information which is closely linked to his own experience in a particular area of London. At this stage, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the Amendment not only covers London but refers to the service charges on properties throughout the country. Therefore, it affects a very large number of tenants indeed. I hope, accordingly, that even at this late hour your Lordships will bear with me because there is a considerable amount of detail which I feel will justify the case if I examine it a little further.
  The first Amendment as set out under Clause 108 deals with a special matter: if more than £250 is concerned in the estimated costs, two estimates must be given. Linked to this, the next Amendment, No. 43, states that if more than £2,000 as an upper limit is concerned, consultation is necessary with the tenants' association. The third Amendment, No. 44, gives a definition of the composition of tenants' associations and the recognition which is necessary of that said tenants' association or group.
  In speaking first to Amendment No. 42, I should like to go into a little detail as to what is in the Bill under Schedule 10. If we turn to Schedule 10 it makes a specific reference under
  "Service Charges: Amendments of Sections 90 and 91 of Housing Finance Act 1972."
  I should mention to your Lordships the chronology of events, because shortly after the Housing Finance Bill became law in 1972, on November 6, Stage I of the Counter-Inflation (Temporary Provisions) Act froze all service charges. So in a sense the freezing which took place was very beneficial to the case which my honourable friend Mr. Finsberg was trying to bring about. However, his contention, and indeed our contention, is that as the Bill is at present drafted under Schedule 10 the Amendment to Sections 90 and 91 of the Housing Finance Act 1972 is insufficient in itself to enable the special circumstances to be fully dealt with. Therefore, the Amendment which is set out here is felt to be desirable.
  It is encouraging to learn from reading the proceedings in Standing Committee, that the Minister, Mr. Freeson, was able to make this statement, and I quote his exact words from column 383, Standing Committee B:
  "The objectives which the honourable Member for Hampstead, Mr. Finsberg, has set before the Committee in respect of these Amendments are wholly acceptable—I mean that in a wholehearted sense—wholly acceptable to me as a Minister and to the Government."
  That was a very encouraging statement, but unfortunately at a later stage in the discussions it became apparent that the Amendment as drafted was not acceptable as such but no very precise or convincing reason was given for this purpose. I here quote the Minister's final comment upon this matter, in which he stated that he felt it was undesirable to place the relationships between landlords and tenants in too rigid a form. I will read, if I may, his statement in column 396 of the Standing Committee. He said:
  "I went on to spell out other reasons why I thought the Amendment was unnecessary. in so far as it was seeking a good objective but could be damaging in as much as it produced too great a rigidity to impose upon landlord and tenant relations."
  We feel that this statement is insufficient as it stands. We believe that the Amendment is necessary and, as the clause is drafted at the present moment, I believe

  987
  that Amendments Nos. 42, 43 and 44 should follow. I beg to move.
  10.5 p.m.
  LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for the way in which he spoke to these Amendments although he has increased my task by speaking to all three of them at the same time, because my three combined briefs will make a fairly long speech. I regret to say that they are rather clobbering briefs but I shall try to cut them down a bit. I shall have to try to cut them down a bit. On the first Amendment, Amendment No. 42, the advice I have received certainly hits it for six because it starts off by saying that it is defective in drafting, and I will pass that one over for the moment. It says that it is unnecessary and that perhaps is more to the point. Finally, it says that far from helping the tenants—and it was quite clear from the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, spoke that that was the intention of the Amendment—it is more likely to have the effect of harming their interests very seriously indeed in the long run.
  Before coming to the reasons why the principle of the Amendment is so unacceptable to the Government, I should like to say something about the technical defects. The Amendment fixes a rigid amount of £250 as the estimated cost of works above which competitive tenders are to be obtained. I say "tenders" because I take it that that is what the Amendment means when it talks about getting two estimates. The Amendment does not define "works", which is a term which does not fit in with the definition of service charges. It does not prescribe who is to estimate the cost of the works as being likely to exceed £250. It prescribes a rigid sum as applicable to all blocks of fiats, the smallest and the largest alike, although in a small block £250 might pay for a real job of work, whereas in some of the very big blocks that sum might only cover insignificant items. It does not prescribe any machinery for ensuring that this statutory duty is carried out, and it incorporates a reference to the wrong Schedule—but that has now been corrected. Apart from this the Amendment is unnecessary. Its aims are met by the provision in the Bill as it stands.
  In considering whether a service charge is reasonable, the court will have
  988
  specific power to consider such questions as whether the work was done at reasonable cost, and hence to consider whether it might have been done more cheaply by someone else. It will clearly be sensible for landlords to guard against this by obtaining estimates before incurring expenditure. No specific provision to that end is therefore necessary. However, the most serious of the Government's objections to Amendment No. 42 is the risk that this redundant requirement could lead to delay in carrying out necessary works and hence, in times of inflation, lead to actual increases in the resultant cost to leaseholders.
  At periods when the building industry is under pressure, it may be impossible to obtain competitive tenders, particularly for "once-off" jobs—and we are all very much aware of these difficulties at the present time. Difficulties in this respect would afford a justification for inaction to landlords inclined anyway to neglect maintenance and repair. They could also for long periods impede the conscientious in carrying out necessary work and result in the work ultimately being done at higher cost than if a single tender had been possible. Any such increases will be borne by the leaseholders and it is they who will ultimately pay the cost if their homes depreciate because of neglect of maintenance and care. Any measure which could have the effect of unnecessarily increasing delay in the carrying out of maintenance or of affording justification for neglect is contrary to the interests of leaseholders and, in the Government's view, this Amendment would have that effect. It is simply not going to make a good landlord do something which he would not be doing in the ordinary prudent carrying out of his duties, but it would present the bad landlord with an opportunity for putting things off and perhaps not doing them at all.
  The second Amendment, No. 43, concerns the £2,000. The object here is to force landlords or their agents to discuss with tenants associations or with individual tenants any work which is estimated to cost more than £2,000 before competitive estimates are obtained, and to do so in such a manner that evidence of the consultation and of the views expressed by the tenants shall be produced for the court in the event of a subsequent dispute. I shall not go into

  989
  the defects of the Amendment again, but will simply say that they are of a similar order of magnitude to the ones I have described in the previous Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, left me in no doubt about the purpose of the Amendment—to be helpful to tenants. The idea is one to which the Government are wholly sympathetic. The Government entirely agree that tenants should be consulted before large sums of money are spent on their behalf. But to require this consultation by direct statutory means, without at the same time imperilling the rights of minorities and the actual good repair of the building, would entail measures far more thorough, comprehensive and carefully prepared than it has been possible to do in this Amendment. It would involve a whole complicated series of clauses setting out the standards to be met by tenants' associations, the means by which the rights of individual leaseholders are to be protected, the form consultation was to take, and provision for arbitration where the satisfactory maintenance of the building was at stake. Any such procedure could present a whole series of opportunities for landlords and their agents to evade the procedure, challenge the process at every stage, and involve tenants in prolonged litigation before services are even provided.
  As I have said, a measure like this, with no safeguards for minorities, could threaten individual tenants with the loss, as a result of collective action, of the rights their leases give them. Consider, for instance, the situation that could arise in, say, a three-storey block of flats with lifts, the flats occupied by tenants all of whose leases contain an obligation to contribute to the cost of servicing and renewing the lifts. The lifts become due for renewal, and, as is so often the case, the estimated cost is greater than the tenants expected. The ground and first floor tenants decide they would rather depend on the stairs than contribute to the renewal of the lifts; the top floor tenants to whom the lifts are more important, are ready to pay their share. They, however, would be outvoted by the other tenants and, under a process of consultation such as is envisaged in this Amendment, would lose the rights to which their leases entitled them. Again, consider the situation that could arise in a block
  990
  where the majority of tenants were elderly people on limited incomes, unwilling, despite their contractual obligations, to contribute to maintenance, to spend money on the upkeep of a building they thought would last their time in any event. The minority of younger people, though theirs was the longer-term interest in the block, could be persistently outvoted till the block fell into extreme disrepair.
  The new clause as drafted gives the individual tenant a clear and unequivocal right to go to the court, challenge the standard at which his services are being provided and their cost, and obtain a declaration from the court as to the standard and cost which are reasonable. These rights override any contrary provision which may be in the tenants' lease. The presence of such a right in the background, and the possibility of being prevented from recovering money even after they have spent it, will provide a strong incentive to landlords to consult tenants before incurring expenditure. It may also bring about the voluntary sale of freehold interests to groups of tenants.
  Any further measures would be so complex legally that it would be better to examine instead, as the Government have every intention of doing, the possibility of statutorily enabling groups of tenants to acquire the freeholds of their own blocks of flats, so that they are not dependent on others to administer their services but have the power to do such things themselves in their own interests. In the long run, that will be the best solution. But this Government agree with the previous one that in the urgent short-term this measure offers the most sensible and realistic hope of easing the lot of those who must pay service charges.
  The effect of Amendment No. 44, describing the form of tenants' associations, would be to face the courts and tenants' associations with prolonged and complicated actions to prove that tenants' associations represented 60 per cent. of those eligible to belong to them. This would involve, first, proving the number of tenants eligible to belong; and, secondly, proving to the satisfaction of the court that 60 per cent. of that number did so belong. In a large block of flats this could involve proving 300 individuals held tenancies of one sort or another, and further proving that at least

  991
  180 of them were members of the association. To obtain proof of evidence of this would take a very long time and would be extremely expensive.
  To sum up, the intention of the three Amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, is one with which no reasonable person could disagree. Because of the complicated nature of the provisions which would be necessary to accomplish what the noble Lord wants, he has succeeded in producing Amendments which would not help a tenant who had a good landlord, but which would definitely place at considerable risk tenants whose landlords did not come into that category, because in the case of each of these three categories they would provide opportunities for delaying action which would be very much against the tenants' interests. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, will accept that although the Government cannot agree to these Amendments, we are in complete sympathy with the objects which he has in mind and that the Government are just as determined as he is to ensure that the best interests of leasehold tenants in these circumstances are looked after. I hope, therefore, that he will find it possible not to press the Amendment.
  LORD SANDYS: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for the manner, if not for the content, of his remarks and for the cordial way in which he has expressed agreement in principle with what lies behind these Amendments. On Amendment No. 42, I shall continue to dispute with him the question of the yardstick, because one must start somewhere and £250 is a reasonable starting gate. In this field of service charges, one is the whole time at the mercy of two forces; first, the slow pace of bureaucracy in producing estimates; and, secondly, the very fast pace of the rate of inflation in building costs. Those two twin forces, the Scylla and Charybdis through which one must conduct oneself, provide circumstances which make it virtually impossible to draft a satisfactory Amendment.
  May I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider what has been suggested in this series of Amendments? I accept that they may have defects in their content, but if the Government are in agreement with me and with the principles enunciated in far greater detail in
  992
  Standing Committee B in another place it seems appropriate that something should be done. Otherwise, we are faced with a counsel of despair: that this situation, which is clearly recognised and identified and seen to necessitate a remedy, appears to be outside the possibility of such a remedy in this Bill. I accept that there are lions in the path. I accept that there are particular lions to face in the problem of drafting a suitable Amendment which will be better than my Amendment No. 43. Also, I acknowledge that there is a problem under the eligibility factor in Amendment No. 44. Bearing those three matters in mind, and reserving my situation for putting down a further Amendment should it be thought possible to do so at Report stage, and at the same time encouraging the Government to consider the possibility of bringing forward their own Amendment at a later stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  LORD HUGHES: I am grateful to the noble Lord for the way in which he has responded, but I should not like him to be under any misapprehension. Certainly, we shall have another look at the matter, but for the reasons I have stated—the virtual impossibility of doing anything which is an improvement in the Bill—I do not offer very high hopes. The fact is that the Bill gives protection to these people in the last resort by providing for them to go to the court. One does not want to provide, if one can help it, that the only remedy for dissatisfied tenants is to go to the court. But our main objection to the Amendments which have been drafted and put forward by the noble Lord is that they would almost certainly involve going to the courts at a much later stage, and perhaps at much greater expense. Nevertheless, we will have another look at it; but I am not at all hopeful that we can do better than the Bill does at the present time.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 108 agreed to.
  Clause 109 agreed to.
  Clause 110 [Improvement of property acquired by local authority]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 110 shall stand part of the Bill?
  10.22 p.m.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I beg to move that we leave out Clause 110. If

  993
  I may, I should like at the same time to speak to Amendment No. 66 because the two Amendments are connected. Both of these are technical matters. Clause 110 was not included in the Bill as first introduced in another place but was added in Committee there, having been tabled by Mr. Bruce Douglas-Mann, the Member for Merton, Mitcham and Morden. His purpose then was to impose a duty on local authorities to ensure that the houses they have acquired or buildings which they have made suitable for use as houses are used as housing accommodation as soon as practicable. The Government indicated in Committee in the other place that they fully accepted the spirit of the clause, but unfortunately in looking at it again we do not think the drafting is quite adequate to achieve its purpose. So the Amendments seek to put the matter beyond doubt and to put the provision to a more appropriate place in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Clause 110 disagreed to.
  Clause 111 agreed to.
  Clause 112 [Orders]:
  10.24 p.m.
  LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 45. It is a simple Amendment designed to remove the present overlap between Clause 112(3) and Clause 115(3) by providing in effect that Clause 112(3) relates to Orders other than the appointed day Orders. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 100, line 18, leave out ("provision") and insert ("of the preceding provisions").(Lord Hughes.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 112, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 113 and 114 agreed to.
  Clause 115 [Short tille, citation, commencement and extent]:
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 46:
  Page 102, line 30, leave out ("made by statutory instrument").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, which removes an unnecessary reference to Statutory Instrument procedure. I beg to move.
  BARONESS YOUNG: I feel somehow that this is the kind of occasion when the Government would rather welcome something said by myself. They have hardly presented us just recently with a series of Amendments about which it is possible to say a great deal, but I can see the difficulties in which we find ourselves. However, it gives me an opportunity to say that I have at least been grateful for all the Notes on Clauses which I have had on the various Amendments that the Government have moved, because on such a complicated Bill as this it makes all the difference if one has these notes. I do not think I have any further comment to make at this stage.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 115, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Schedule 3 [Housing Association Tenancies]:
  10.25 p.m.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 47:
  Page 108, line 34, leave out from ("made") to end of the line and insert ("or, where such an order has been made,—

  (a) during any period while its operation is postponed or its execution is suspended; or

  (b) after it has been rescinded").

  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 47 and I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 55. These Amendments correct a slight omission in sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 5 and in sub-paragraph (7) of paragraph 11. The sub-paragraphs provide, one for England and Wales and the other for Scotland, that the reference in the preceding provisions in paragraph 5 and paragraph 11 respectively to a person duly retaining possession of a dwelling-house are references to his retaining possession without any order for possession having been made or after the rescision of such an order. I do not think that will present the Committee with any great difficulty. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 48:
  Page 109, line 5, after ("then") insert ("subject to paragraph 7A below").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 48. It is part of the

  995
  concept of registration in Part II of the Bill that the privileges of housing associations whereby their tenancies are mostly exempt from protection under the Rent Act is in future to be reserved to registered housing associations only. Other associations are to be placed as nearly as possible in the position of private landlords. Clause 18 and Schedule 3 effect the transfer of tenancies from the one code to the other. In particular, paragraph 7 of Part II of the Schedule makes provision for the rent limit for such tenancies. It omits, however, to deal with the question of progression towards the registered rent by freezing, and this Amendment corrects the omission. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY LORD GARNSWORTHY moved Amendment No. 49:
  Page 109, line 19, at end insert—
  ("(3) Nothing in the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall affect the operation of section 48A of the Rent Act 1968 (cancellation of registration of rent) and, accordingly, where the registration of a rent is cancelled in accordance with that section sub-paragraph (1) above shall cease to apply in relation to the rent of the dwelling-house concerned.")
  The noble Lord said: Section 48A of the Rent Act 1968 provides for the cancellation of registration of a rent where inter alia a new regulated tenancy is granted to the tenant for at least 12 months for a rent exceeding the rent under the previous tenancy if three years have expired since the date the registration took effect, and provided the rent officer is satisfied that the rent, or the highest rent, under the agreement does not exceed a fair rent. The application for registration must be a joint application by the landlord and the tenant. The Amendment makes it clear that Section 48A is to apply to statutory tenancies imposed by paragraph 5 if parties have come to terms and if the rent officer is satisfied that the rent or rents they have agreed do not exceed a fair rent and there is no reason why they should not proceed under this section as can any other landlord or tenant under a regulated tenancy where a rent has been registered. I beg to move.
  BARONESS YOUNG: Do I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Garns-worthy, has said that this Schedule now brings this Bill into line with the 1968
  996
  Rent Act, and as I understand the position on fair rents, a fair rent may be agreed between the tenant and the landlord three years after the first agreement was reached, taking into account the same considerations, provided it does not exceed the conditions which would apply to a fair rent, and that this is really a provision which is bringing this Bill into line with what the Rent Act says for other tenancies? Am I correct in my assumption?
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think the noble Baroness, Lady Young, is correct. Probably like me she would wish to have an opportunity of studying what I have said and I should like to read what she has said. If I am at fault in confirming her interpretation I will certainly write to her.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 50:
  Page 110, line 11, at end insert:
  "7A.—(1) The provisions of this paragraph apply where—

  (a) a tenancy of a dwelling-house becomes a protected tenancy by virtue of section 18(1) of this Act or a statutory tenancy is imposed by virtue of paragraph 5 above; and

  (b) immediately before the tenancy became a protected tenancy or, as the case may require, immediately before the tenancy referred to in paragraph 5(1) above came to an end, section 84 of the 1972 Act (phasing of progression to registered rent) applied to the rent of the dwelling-house let on that tenancy.

  (2) Subject to the following provisions of this paragraph, section 84 of the 1972 Act shall continue to apply or, as the case may require, shall apply to the rent of a dwelling-house subject to such a protected or statutory tenancy as is referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above.
  (3) Section 84 of the 1972 Act shall cease to apply by virtue of this paragraph to the rent of a dwelling-house—

  (a) on the date on which a rent is registered for the dwelling-house under Part IV of the Rent Act 1968 if the date of registration, within the meaning of Part VIII of the 1972 Act, is after the operative date; or

  (b) on the date on which a regulated tenancy of the dwelling-house is granted to a person who is neither the tenant under the protected or statutory tenancy referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(a) above nor a person who might succeed him as a statutory tenant.

  (4) If and so long as, by virtue of this paragraph, subsection (2) of section 84 of the 1972 Act imposes for any rental period of a tenancy or statutory tenancy a rent limit below the rent registered for the dwelling-house as mentioned in subsection (1) of that section,—

  997

  (a) the contractual rent limit shall be the rent limit so imposed and not the registered rent (as provided by section 20(2) of the Rent Act 1968) and section 87 of the 1972 Act (increase of rent without notice to quit) shall apply in relation to the tenancy as if it were one to which Part VIH of that Act applied; and

  (b) a notice of increase under section 22(2)(b) of the Rent Act 1968 (increase of rent for statutory periods) may not increase the rent for any statutory period above the rent limit so imposed, and any such notice which purports to increase it further shall have effect to increase it to that limit but no further.

  (5) For the purposes of the application on and after the operative date of section 84 of the 1972 Act to the rent of a dwelling-house subject to a statutory tenancy which is imposed by virtue of paragraph 5 above, that section shall be deemed to have continued to apply throughout the period between the termination of the tenancy referred to in sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph and the operative date; but nothing in this paragraph shall affect the rent recoverable for that dwelling-house at any time during that period.").
  The noble Lord said: I spoke on this when speaking to Amendment No. 48. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  10.30 p.m.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 51:
  Page 110, line 12, at beginning insert ("In the application of").
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, and to associate with it Amendments Nos. 52, 53 and 54. Section 25 of the Rent Act 1968 applies to a statutory tenancy where no rent has been registered. It enables the landlord where an improvement has been made to a dwelling house after the time as from which the rent under the regulated tenancy was agreed, to increase the rent by 12½ per cent. per annum of his expenditure. By virtue of Section 38(2) of the Housing Finance Act 1972, to be amended by paragraph 21 of Schedule 11 to the Bill, Section 25 does not apply to improvement where the grant is payable under Part I of the Housing Act 1969 or Part VI of the Bill. As paragraph 8 stands, Section 25 does not apply to a statutory tenancy arising after the termination of a tenancy which becomes protected by virtue of Clause 18, nor to a statutory tenancy imposed by paragraph 5 of this Schedule. Though it is proper that Section 25 should not apply to improvements carried out
  998
  while Part VIII of the Housing Finance Act applies to the tenancy, on reconsideration it is thought only right that Section 25 should apply when the Rent Act applies to the tenancy as it applies to all other regulated tenancies. These Amendments have the effect of applying Section 25 to improvements carried out after the Rent Act applies to the tenancy. I hope that that sounds more clear to those listening to it than it does to me reading it. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 52.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 110, line 14, leave out ("shall not apply").—(Lord Hushes.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 53.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 110, line 16, leave out ("nor to") and insert ("and").—(Lord Hughes.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES: I beg to move Amendment No. 54.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 110, line 17, at end insert ("for the reference to 7th December 1965 (the date after which the improvement must be completed) there shall be substituted a reference to the operative date").—(Lord Hughes.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 55A.
  Page 111, line 44, leave out from ("in") to the end of line 45 and insert ("head (a) or (b) of this sub-paragraph").
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment is a technical drafting amendment which substitutes "head (a) or (b) of this sub-paragraph" for the phase "subparagraph (a) or (b) of this paragraph". I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 55B:
  Page 112, line 14, leave out ("these") and insert ("those").
  The noble Lord said: This corrects a drafting error. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 55D:
  Page 112, line 28, after ("63") insert ("(2) to (4)").
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment to paragraph 12(2)(c) of Schedule 3 restricts the application of Section 63 of the 1972 Act to subsections (2) to (4) of Section 63. This is because subsections (1), (5) and (6) are not relevant to the case being dealt with in this subparagraph of the Schedule. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendments Nos. 55E. 55F and 55G.
  Page 112, line 28, leave out from ("apply") to ("tenancy") in line 29 and insert ("or, as the case may require, shall apply to the rent of a dwelling-house under a tenancy to which this paragraph applies as if that tenancy had been").
  Page 112, line 40, leave out (" continue to ").
  Page 112, line 43, leave out from ("apply") to ("a tenancy") in line 44 and insert ("or" as the case may require, shall apply to the rent of a dwelling-house under a tenancy to which this paragraph applies as if that tenancy had been").
  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 55E, 55F and 55G are technical drafting Amendments designed to remove any doubt as to which tenancy is referred to by the words "that tenancy". With the permission of the Committee, I will move the three Amendments en bloc. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 56:
  Page 113, line 7, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert
  ("(3) In the application of section 24(1) of the 1971 Act (increase of rent for improvements) to a tenancy to which this paragraph applies, for the reference to 8th December 1965 (the date after which the improvement must be completed) there shall be substituted a refereince to the operative date.")
  The noble Lord said: This Amendment deletes the existing sub-paragraph 12 (3) of Schedule 3 and inserts a new sub-paragraph. The effect is to apply Section 24(1) of the Rent (Scotland) Act
  1000
  1971 so as to enable a landlord to recover as part of the rent 12½ per cent. per annum of his expenditure on improvements completed on or after the operative date. It therefore has the same effect as Amendment No. 54 for England and Wales. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
  LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think this may be a convenient moment to move that the House be resumed. We have made very good progress, having completed Schedule 3. I think it would be as well if we called it a day for the time being. I beg to move that the House be resumed.
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

PARKS REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
Reported with Amendments.

CIVIL AVIATION POLICY
LORD TREFGARNE LORD TREFGARNE asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend issuing further "Policy Guidelines" to the Civil Aviation Authority as envisaged by Section 3 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971; and if so, when.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): My right honourable friend is undertaking a review of civil aviation policy. The issue of further guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority would be one of the matters for consideration in the light of this review.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before eleven o'clock.