Sitting of 17 January 1979

Preamble
The House met oa half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Cyprus
    Mr. Norman Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs why the United Kingdom abstained from voting, following the recent debates on Cyprus at the United Nations.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): The United Kingdom, together with most of its EEC partners, did not vote for the General Assembly resolution on Cyprus because it was not thought to be conducive to the resumption of intercommunal negotiations. My right hon. Friend welcomes the indications that, following a great deal of diplomatic activity, in which he and I have been closely involved, and a great deal of supporting detailed work by Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials, these talks may well soon be resumed under the auspices of Dr. Waldheim.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cypriot territory has nothing to do with the intercommunal talks? Does he further recognise that yesterday in the House the Prime Minister announced that West Germany would open discussions with the Turkish Government to resuscitate the Turkish economy and make it possible for Turkish troops to continue their occupation of the island? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is unpre-
    1684
    cedented in post-war history? The United Nations has called upon a Government to withdraw occupying troops, and yet here we have four major world powers making it possible for Turkey to continue that occupation, in denial of the decision of the United Nations.
    Mr. Judd: I am sure that on reflection my hon. Friend will agree that the preservation and health of democracy in Turkey is of great significance to the whole Western community. In that context I am sure he will agree that it is important that the Westtern community takes seriously its economic relations with Turkey. As for the situation in Cyprus, I point out to my hon. Friend that if we want results, in terms of the withdrawal of the Turkish army, this is most likely to be found in the context of an overall settlement.

    Namibia
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards recent events within Namibia; and what efforts are being made by the five Western powers to achieve a peaceful settlement in that country.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): The Government welcome the visit which the United Nations Secretary General's special representative is currently paying to Namibia. The five Governments hope that, following South Africa's decision to co-operate in the implementation of Security Council resolution 435, United Nations supervised elections can be held in Namibia later this year.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it appears that the South Africans and the United Nations are agreed that the next elections will be held on 30th September of this year? In those circumstances, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to do his utmost to ensure that, first, there is no delay, and, second, that there is a cease-fire and an end to acts of violence within Namibia? Is he aware that all those circumstances, in their turn, could easily prevent the successful holding of those elections? Will

    1685
    he do his utmost to ensure that those two essential criteria are upheld?
    Dr. Owen: I agree very strongly with the hon. Gentleman that the sooner elections are held the better, and that the sooner a new constitution and independence come to Namibia the better. A prerequisite of that, incorporated within the proposals put forward by the five Western powers, was the necessity to have peace—and to have no violence—in the territory. We all agree that in a violent situation it would be exteremeley difficult to hold democratic elections. Peace, therefore, is absolutely essential and we shall work for it as will, I believe, the other African States surrounding Namibia.
    Mr. Grocott: What credence does my right hon. Friend give to assurances given by the Government of South Africa that they are interested in seeing that there should be fair elections in Namibia when they do not have the slightest intention, in their lifetime, of seeing that there are any fair elections in South Africa?
    Dr. Owen: There is a difference. There is no doubt that South Africa adopts a different stance to the rights of black Namibians—indeed, even black Rhodesians to a lesser extent—than it is prepared to countenance for black South Africans. I have to deal with the situation as it is and I have to work with the South African Government. The fact is that this position is a formidable advance on the situation as it looked in August and September of last year.
    Mr. Pym: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we on the Opposition Benches welcome the developments that have taken place concerning Namibia? Is it not the case that all the parties involved in Namibia now agree that elections on this basis—under United Nations' auspices—should take place, and, consequently, are not the omens good?
    In support of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Temple-Morris), may I ask the Foreign Secretary to make sure that he uses all his influence to ensure that there is no slip back in what has been proposed? Does he agree that it is most important that the supervising forces of the United Nations should be made up of disciplined and impartial military units drawn from countries
    1686
    which have taken a balanced view of this situation?
    Dr. Owen: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I have spent a great deal of time on this issue because I believe that it has great importance for Southern Africa generally. As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the question of the composition of the force is a matter for the Secretary General. It has always been the objective of the United Nations, in any of its peace-keeping operations, to ensure that a United Nations force is broadly acceptable to all those who will be in contact with it. It can never make an absolute commitment or give a veto to any one power or country. The United Nations has reconciled all the different views in every one of its peace-keeping operations, and I am confident that Dr. Waldheim will be able to do so with Namibia.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that SWAPO will have a free and unfettered opportunity to contest these elections, without any intimidation, harassment or interference from the South African authorities?
    Dr. Owen: Yes, I am. I believe that Mr. Ahtisaari, whose involvement in this issue is long-standing, will ensure—this is one of the major tasks of United Nations supervised elections—that all parties have a fair chance of putting their case and of forming the new Government of an independent Namibia. I believe that, subject to some matters that still need to be negotiated and decided, SWAPO will decide to return to Namibia and co-operate fully in the elections.
    Mr. Michael Latham: Do the five Western demarche powers in the contact group regard the number of United Nations observers as being negotiable?
    Dr. Owen: I believe that this has been clarified since the Secretary General put forward his proposals. Those clarifications which we undertook in Pretoria, but most importantly those undertaken in direct discussions between Dr. Waldheim and Mr. Pik Botha, the South African Foreign Minister, and in subsequent discussions, have ensured that everyone can live with the terms of the Secretary General's report.

    Rhodesia
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.
    Mr. Andrew F. Bennettasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he remains satisfied with the progress of negotiations towards a settlement in Rhodesia.
    Mr. Jesselasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Rhodesia.
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the Rhodesian situation.
    Dr. Owen: The situation in Rhodesia is deteriorating. The number of people who have lost their lives since the internal settlement was signed increases monthly, as does the number of people emigrating. There has been an escalation of the fighting and martial law now covers 90 per cent, of the country.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister hopes to make a statement on the mission of my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) at the end of Question Time.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. In view of the Foreign Secretary's reply, I wonder whether it would help hon. Members if I said that instead of calling them now I shall call them when the statement has been made by the Prime Minister. That might make greater sense. I should point out that I shall not call later those hon. Members whom I call now.
    Mr. Robert Hughes: Has my right hon. Friend seen a report in the South African Financial Mail to the effect that Britain is said to have been prepared to guarantee oil supplies to South Africa in return for South Africa's co-operation in
    1688
    dealing with Rhodesia? Bearing in mind my right hon. Friend's oft-repeated statement that in our dealings with South Africa there would be no trade-off agreements, may I ask him emphatically to deny that report?
    Dr. Owen: There is no question of Britain supplying oil to South Africa. As for a trade-off, I have always believed that the issues of Namibia, Rhodesia and South Africa will have to be dealt with in different compartments. There is a certain linkage—it would be foolish to deny that—but I do not believe that we should trade off one against the other.

    China (Arms Sales)
    Mr. Hugh Jenkinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what diplomatic purpose he is seeking to advance in agreeing to the sale of military equipment to China.
    Dr. Owen: As I have made clear on previous occasions, our aim is to develop a balanced relationship with China covering the political, trade, economic, scientific, technological and cultural fields. We see the sale of some defensive equipment as a natural part of this relationship.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does my right hon. Friend take a similar view of the Soviet Union? If he does, may I ask whether he will sell Harriers to the Soviet Union, too?
    Dr. Owen: There are major differences. The Soviet Union, in alliance with other countries, is part of a military pact—the Warsaw Pact—whose stated objectives are contrary to the national interests of this country and to which we have felt it necessary over the years—
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Harriers are "defensive", not offensive.
    Dr. Owen: Whether it be offensive or defensive, we do not sell weapons to people in organisations which threaten the security of our country and that of our closest allies.
    Mr. Blaker: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that close relations between the West and China are not only consistent with detente but might encourage the Soviet Union to give some meaning to detente?
    Dr. Owen: I have always believed that there is a difficult and complicated balance to strike between having good, constructive relations on detente with the Soviet Union and, on the other hand, not rebuffing China but trying to bring it more into the international world. I include in that aim a constructive dialogue with China about detente and disarmament, which I believe is in the interests of the Soviet Union.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Now that the Government have taken a decision on the sale of these aircraft to China, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend is able to tell the House roughly what proportion of the overall trade package which the Government hope to negotiate in February will be arms equipment?
    Dr. Owen: The negotiations are still taking place and will he carried further when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry visits China next month. There is still a lot of detail to be gone into.
    Mr. Hurd: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what representations have been received on this issue from the Soviet Union and what reply has been sent? Have the Government made it clear that pressure from this source on this subject is unwelcome and will be firmly resisted?
    Dr. Owen: What the Government have done in reply to representations from President Brezhnev is to make clear how we see this issue. How we see it and explain it in private letters to the Soviet Union is exactly the same as we are explaining it to the House. There is no difference. I believe that it is reasonable for people to make their views felt. I do not believe that it is reasonable for any country to accept the right of another country to dictate its foreign policy. Obviously we shall not accept that.
    We shall listen to the views of others, even if we disagree with them, and we shall put our view constructively within the relationship, which we have made clear we wish to maintain, of good constructive relations with the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union must recognise that detente is not a one-sided track and that it, too, has responsibilities. It ought to look at the policy of detente and at some of its actions around the world, in
    1690
    South-East Asia and Africa as well as in Europe.
    Mr. Litterick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread disappointment in the country over the Government's decision, yet again, to sell an advanced weapons system to a poverty-stricken nation in the Third World? Is he further aware that this policy contradicts both the spirit and the substance of the magnificent and encouraging speech made by the Prime Minister to the disarmament session of the United Nations?
    Dr. Owen: The whole question of arms sales raises difficult issues. It would be absurd to believe that there are not occasions when selling arms buttresses and strengthens a country and can contribute to detente, to a country's security and to that country being able to feel that it can play a greater part in the world community and in world disarmament talks. A blanket ban on all arms sales would be detrimental to the cause of disarmament and arms control, which I know my hon. Friend holds dear.
    Mr. Aitken: Is it not the case that these arms sales maintain, or help to maintain, a more adequate balance of power between China and the Soviet Union? Is this not desirable, given the fact that China, so far as we know, is not attacking Western interests in other parts of the world, whereas the Soviet Union—whatever it might be saying about detente—is definitely doing so, not least in Southern Africa?
    Dr. Owen: One should not look at these arms sales as changing the balance of power one way or the other. One reason why one is wary of offensive arms sales is that they affect the balance of power. There are dangers in trying to, manipulate the balance of power and to determine matters in that way. If we examine the issue on its merits we should recognise that when we are requested to supply arms, in the way that has happened on a number of issues, we should bear in mind that to refuse to do so is also an act of policy which will have certain consequences, some of which I believe would be adverse.

    Passport Applications
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will consider

    1691
    withdrawing the question relating to a spouse's former marriage in the passport application form if a previous passport is being surrendered without any change of name.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Evan Luard): Yes, Sir. This year's reprint of passport application forms will indicate that a United Kingdom-born woman surrendering a standard passport in her present name need no longer give details of a former marriage unless her application includes particulars of a child born outside the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that this Question follows correspondence which I have had with him involving a constituent to whom distress has been caused? How widespread is this problem, and will he confirm that this is another example of bureaucratic nonsense that tends to linger on? How many more examples has he up his sleeve?
    Mr. Luard: I recall our correspondence very well. The hon. Gentleman should be gratified that, as a result of the correspondence, I have changed the regulations in the way he suggests in his Question. I do not think this has been a widespread problem, but there has been a slight difficulty, which will no longer exist.

    Nuclear Test Ban Treaty
    Mr. Frank Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in the negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty with verification since the speeches on the issue by British representatives at the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in the summer.
    Dr. Owen: The tripartite negotiations have continued to make progress towards a properly verifiable treaty. Many of the major issues have been resolved. The negotiations resume on 29th January, and the United Kingdom for its part sees no reason why outstanding issues should not be quickly settled.
    Mr. Allaun: Since both sides have now agreed on verification by black box monitors in each territory, why is the
    1692
    United States still stalling? Following the splendid speeches that were delivered in New York on this subject, should not Britain take the initiative, either by abandoning further tests, or at least by making specific proposals at the Geneva meeting to break the deadlock?
    Dr. Owen: There are specific proposals on the table dealing with verification. There is a recognition that one can overcome some of the problems by having seismic devices. The siting of such devices, how many and the exact arrangements for them have still to be finally negotiated. However, a great deal of progress has been made.
    Mr. Sever: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in recognising the demands for world peace it might be a good idea, as hinted at by the Prime Minister yesterday, for meetings at Foreign Minister level to be promoted more often? Will he endeavour to see that such meetings with his colleagues across the world are promoted?
    Dr. Owen: I believe that it is helpful for these issues to be raised more frequently at a political level. The United Nations special session was helpful in enabling Prime Ministers and Presidents of States to make commitments on behalf of their countries. I am a long-standing believer in the fact that the MBFR discussions in Vienna, which have become increasingly bogged down, need to be raised to a political level. I also see advantage in the follow-up conference to the Helsinki accords in Madrid at Foreign Minister level.
    Mr. Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the most recent SALT talks between the President of the United States and Premier Brezhnev have had any bearing on his thinking on this subject?
    Dr. Owen: I believe that it is fully compatible to have a SALT agreement limiting strategic arms and also to pursue a comprehensive test ban. What one is after in a comprehensive test ban is to try to persuade those countries which are on the threshold of becoming nuclear States not to cross that threshold. They wish to be convinced that the nuclear weapon States are themselves contributing to disarmament and that it is not merely a one-way process. We should not

    1693
    always ask the non-nuclear weapon States to exercise restraint while we, the nuclear weapon States, continue to test an increasingly sophisticated range of weapon systems.

    Argentine Air Force (Commander-in-Chief)
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire on 30th November, any firm arrangements have yet been made for a visit by the Commander-in-Chief of the Argentine Air Force.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): We have now heard that this visit will not be taking place.
    Mr. Canavan: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. But since the main purpose of any such visit, or proposed visit, would be to buy arms, may we have a categorical assurance that no such visit will take place in the foreseeable future by any member of the armed forces of Argentina, bearing in mind the possibility that those arms will be used to escalate the level of violence throughout South America and to increase and continue the reign of terror and the mass violation of human rights in Argentina itself?
    Mr. Rowlands: I cannot give such a categorical assurance, because there is no general ban on the sale of arms to Argentina. Individual sales are dealt with under the criteria—be they political, security or financial—that we apply to sales of this kind.
    Mr. McCrindle: What are the different human rights considerations in the mind of Her Majesty's Government which allow them to decide that it is possible to sell arms to Argentina but not to Chile?
    Mr. Rowlands: During the last election the Labour Party made a firm political commitment that it would operate an arms embargo on Chile in the light of all the circumstances of the way in which the junta came to power and the way in which it has behaved in an abominable sense since.
    Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Bearing in mind that 30,000 citizens of Jewish origin were allowed out of the Soviet Union and that nobody is allowed out of China, does my hon. Friend agree that China is a more repressive State than the Soviet Union? How does this tie in with the decision—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is a long way from the Argentine to China, and it is not connected with the original Question.
    Mr. Alan Clark: Is not this attitude typical of the unconstructive attitude of Her Majesty's Government in foreign affairs? Would it not be very much better to negotiate arms deals with the Argentine—because it has to get arms from somewhere—to the benefit of British employment and technology, and at the same time incorporate appropriate negotiations to secure the safety of the Falkland Islands?
    Mr. Rowlands: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my reply. I said that there was no general arms ban on the sale of arms to Argentina.

    Bucharest
    Mr. Greville Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will seek to pay an official visit to Bucharest.
    Mr. Luard: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Janner: Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent visit of President Ceaucescu to this country and the recent ministerial visits to Bucharest from this country have helped to contribute to good relations between Britain and Romania? Will he pay tribute to the sturdy independence of Romanian foreign policy?
    Mr. Luard: I agree that our relations with Romania are excellent. It would not be appropriate for me to comment on the relationship of Romania to her neighbours or the Warsaw Pact countries, but Her Majesty's Government fully welcome and support the right of every nation to hold its own views on matters of international concern and to express them freely and independently.
    Mr. James Lamond: If my hon. Friend intends to write to the Romanian Government to congratulate them on their

    1695
    decision not to increase their arms expenditure, would it not be hypocritical if at the same time he enclosed some sales literature on the Harrier aircraft, since the Romanians might be coming into the category of a nation that could buy it?
    Mr. Luard: I have no intention of addressing such a letter to the Romanian Government at present. If I do so, I shall bear in mind my hon. Friend's comments.

    Belize
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's latest proposals on the future of Belize.
    Mr. Rowlands: I refer the hon. Member to the account of our proposals I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice) on 29th November and to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, South (Mrs. Jeger) on 14th December. Our proposals remain on the table and we intend to continue the negotiations.
    Mr. Durant: In these discussions, will the Minister do nothing to damage the territorial integrity of this small country unless he has the full backing of the people of Belize? Some of us are anxious that the pressure from Guatemala might make the Government change their mind.
    Mr. Rowlands: The commitment has been clear, namely, that no decision, arrangement or settlement can be made which is unacceptable to the people of Belize.
    Mrs. Jeger: What consultations have taken place with the United States about its continuing supply of arms to Guatemala and its training of personnel in that country in order to threaten Belize?
    Mr. Rowlands: We have regular discussions with the United States on such issues. Indeed, I had such discussions only last week. As I understand it, the United States is not selling any new arms or equipment to Guatemala.
    Mr. Luce: Is it the case that Guatemala has not as yet rejected the proposals recently put forward about Belize by the British Government? If it has rejected
    1696
    those proposals, what progress, if any, has been made on the proposal put forward at the Commonwealth Heads of State meeting at Kingston, which was that there should be a Commonwealth defence contribution to Belize?
    Mr. Rowlands: In his broadcast to the Guatemalan people the Guatemalan Foreign Minister said that he rejected our proposals. However, he left the way open for further negotiations. We intend to pursue the possibility of further negotiations. The door has not been closed on the negotiations. The other considerations which the hon. Gentleman mentioned do not come into play at this moment.

    Helsinki Agreement
    Mr. Sainsburyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the extent to which those provisions of the Helsinki Agreement relating to freedom of religion have been observed by the signatory States during the last year.
    Mr. Luard: These provisions have been observed satisfactorily by most signatory States, but during the past year serious difficulties continued to be encountered by religios believers in the Soviet Union and in certain East European countries.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Does the Minister recognise that priority is given in the principles of the Helsinki Agreement to freedom of religion and that that is a matter of great concern to many British people? What steps are being taken to monitor these aspects of the Final Act? Will the observance of religious freedom be given sufficient priority at the next review conference in Madrid?
    Mr. Luard: We try to monitor the observance of this issue and all other aspects of the Helsinki Agreement. All human rights aspects of the Helsinki Agreement will be carefully discussed and examined at the next conference in Madrid in a year or two's time. According to our present information there is restriction because the number of places open for worship to religious believers remains artificially limited. There is discrimination and pressure against believers and their families, and the supply of religious literature remains inadequate.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Is my hon. Friend aware that of late there has been a welcome increase in the number of people of the Jewish faith who have been permitted to leave the Soviet Union? In the circumstances, will he prevail on the Soviet authorities to release Professor Alexander Lerner and those who have been held at home or in exile, such as Ida Nudel and Vladimir Slepak, who have been waiting for a long time to leave and who are held in Russia, totally contrary to the provisions of the Helsinki Final Act?
    Mr. Luard: I am aware that there has been a welcome increase in the number of Jews allowed to leave the Soviet Union in the past year or so. We hope and trust that that trend will continue. It is not normally open to us to raise the cases of individual Jews who are not our own nationals, but I hope that my hon. and learned Friend and all organisations that are concerned about this matter will continue to stress the importance of particular individuals being allowed to leave.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is every opportunity taken by Ministers and by Her Majesty's missions in the countries concerned to draw to the attention of the Governments there the concern felt by the British people for the free practice of religion, whether it be Christian, Jewish Moslem or any other, and the effect that this has on relations and good feelings between the peoples?
    Mr. Luard: The House knows that Ministers consistently express their concern about human rights in the Soviet Union, both in public, as in the House, and sometimes when we meet our Soviet opposite numbers. I shall try to ensure that this aspect is raised on suitable occasions.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister aware that one Christian leader, Pastor Vins, has suffered serious persecution under the Soviet regime? Is he aware that action has been taken against his family, and that his son has been charged and is in prison? Will he make it clear to the Soviet authorities that believers in Britain are greatly alarmed, especially about the Vins family being picked out for such treatment?
    Mr. Luard: I hope that the Soviet Government are very much aware of the deep concern that is felt among all sections of the British people and in the House about such restrictions on religion. I hope that the Soviet Embassy in Britain will report the hon. Gentleman's remarks to its Government.

    Middle East
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a further statement about the Middle East situation.
    Dr. Owen: We continue to support negotiations aimed at building on the Camp David accords and widening these out into a comprehensive peace settlement.
    Mr. Goodhart: As the new Government in Iran have made it plain that they do not intend to continue the Shah's role of policing the Persian Gulf, will the right hon. Gentleman say what discussions are being held with the United States and our other allies about providing some military protection for our friends and interests in that vital area?
    Dr. Owen: I do not think that stability in that area will come from outside Western military interference. It is important for close contact to be established between the countries surrounding the Gulf, many of which have a strong commitment to the Muslim faith. That may well be found to be a binding and not a divisive influence.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: There has been Western support for the Shah, and President Carter has ordered a review of American Intelligence to understand why he was not forewarned about lack of support for the Shah. Have we done the same with the British Foreign Office?
    Dr. Owen: No. I do not feel that I was not forewarned. It was always difficult to determine whether the form of government that had been established by the Shah was to survive. It was well known that there were considerable criticisms. I do not think that we lacked Intelligence. The mistake that may have been made was to underestimate the cohesiveness of the various elements that agreed on the one issue, although often

    1699
    differing on other matters, that the Shah should not remain as monarch. That is a matter of judgment rather than Intelligence.
    Mr. Walters: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that only a comprehensive settlement will bring peace to the Middle East? What steps are the Government taking, in co-operation with our European partners, to ensure that the Camp David agreement is not confined to a separate peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, with all the potential dangers, but is linked and extended in a comprehensive manner to bring about an overall settlement.
    Dr. Owen: The issues that have delayed a signature to the Camp David agreement relate almost exclusively to trying to ensure that it is not a purely bilateral agreement but an agreement set firmly in the context of a comprehensive peace settlement. If the issues that are still dividing the parties can be resolved we shall have laid the foundation on which we may go on to widen the agreement into a comprehensive peace settlement. The essence of the problem is still the West Bank and Gaza.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Does my right hon. Friend accept that he was adequately forewarned of the likely turn of events in Iran by lion. Members and by those inside his party who advised him that his course was ill-advised? Is it not a fact that by rejecting that advice he has lumbered himself with a large number of military orders that may never be fulfilled and put himself in the worst possible position from which to establish friendly relations with a more enlightened regime in Iran?
    Dr. Owen: I do not dissent from the fact that my hon. Friend and many other hon. Friends made me fully aware of their point of view. It is a matter of judgment. With the benefit of hindsight it appears extremely easy. However, with the benefit of hindsight—
    Mr. Skinner: No, foresight.
    Dr. Owen: Even with the enlightened foresight for which my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is famed—there was still a fundamental issue. Did we withdraw support? Did we try to change the situation in Iran? We chose to stick with the status quo
    1700
    during a delicate and difficult period. When we look to the future and to relations with the future Government, I do not believe that that will stand against us. When we form relationships with Governments, I believe that they judge us, broadly speaking, on whether we float around on the waves and tides of circumstance or whether there is a certain solidarity. I do not believe that we should interfere with the Iranian people's decision, and we have never sought to do so. What we supported at one stage was the status quo, and I am not certain that that was so wrong.
    Mr. Pym: Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman was taken by surprise, does he agree that it is a major British interest for us to maintain good relations with Iran? This is a difficult time for the people of Iran, and it is important that we should maintain good relations with them. Will he indicate to the House what steps he is taking in that regard? I am sure he will agree that events there have had their effect on the rest of the Middle East. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be rather surprised by the supplementary question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). Is it not now a major interest of ours to do what we can to maintain stability in the Gulf? How that is to be done is a matter for argument, of course, but the need for it, and the risk that the area may not remain stable, clearly exists. It is important for us to do everything that we can to bring about stability.
    Dr. Owen: The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) referred to military involvement. I do not think that that is necessarily the best way of achieving stability. Some would argue that that is one of the lessons to be learnt from Iran. There is a strong argument that in trying to tilt the balance too much by military sales in any one region there is a risk of putting in an unstable factor. It is an important objective of this country to have good relations with Iran, whatever Government the people of Iran decide to choose. We have long supported democratic elections, and we hope that the civilian Government will be able to bring about democratic elections. But the choice of the Government is for the people of Iran, and at this stage I do not think that it would help for us to try to choose or

    1701
    to indicate which way the Iranian people should go.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    European Commission
    Sir Anthony Meyerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the President of the European Commission.
    Dr. Owen: At a meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council on 6th February.
    Sir A. Meyer: When the Foreign Secretary next meets Mr. Roy Jenkins, will he consult a very distinguished member of the Labour Party on what can be done to prevent the British Labour Party from drifting into an attitude of total non-cooperation and hostility towards the Community, on which the prosperity as well as the security of this country now depend?
    Dr. Owen: Mr. Roy Jenkins is President of the Commission and has a responsibility for all member States. I think that he would be the first to say that he would no longer wish to involve himself, or ought to involve himself, in domestic politics in this country in that way.
    Mr. Lee: Will my right hon. Friend, when he has further consultations with the President of the Commission, ask him whether, possibly as a side wind of the industrial position here, we should be allowed to release stocks of surplus food from intervention, to make up for the shortages existing here, or are we beholden to the Commission as to how those stocks should be disposed of?
    Dr. Owen: How we deal with the substantial food surpluses is a subject of great concern. It has also been a subject of considerable criticism at times that some of the decisions for disposal, which are taken on a Community basis and not on a national basis, have meant that these surpluses have gone, at very reduced and subsidised prices, to countries which have not nearly as strong a claim to them as have some of the member States.
    Mr. Marten: With regard to the question of non-co-operation raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), can the Foreign Secretary explain the non-co-operation of France over the European monetary system, why
    1702
    France has done this, and what the British Government's attitude is towards the problem?
    Dr. Owen: It is very difficult to be exactly clear why the French have done it, but one factor is that the French have always recognised, ever since they have been members of the EEC, that it is wholly legitimate to stand up for a national interest. The French see it as a major national interest to remove what they regard as the unfair advantage of German agricultural products because of the existence of the MCA system which works against the interests of the French farmer, as the French Government see them, and so they stand up for French interests. They are supported by the French Assembly and by the French newspapers. Some Conservative Members might do well to remember that it would not be a bad idea if, occasionally, the Official Opposition were to stand up for the British Government when we stand up in Brussels for a national interest.
    Sir A. Meyer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects next to meet EEC leaders; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Formanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he plans next to meet his opposite numbers in the Council of Ministers.
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he proposes next to meet the Foreign Ministers of the EEC.
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects next to meet EEC colleagues at the Foreign Affairs Council.
    Dr. Owen: I expect to meet my EEC colleagues next at the Foreign Affairs Council in Brussels on 6th February.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: I call first those hon. Members whose Questions are being answered.
    Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend tell his colleagues, in view of his strident calls for British interests, which he demonstrated once again a few moments ago, that he is exceptionally pleased that the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party is drawing up an extremely anti-Common Market manifesto for the direct elections?
    Will my right hon. Friend explain that he is especially pleased that that manifesto will not be diluted by the Cabinet, since it has no rights in this matter, as it has in the drawing up of the General Election manifesto, and that the candidates who will be taking part in the elections on behalf of the Labour Party will be fighting for the restoration of British rights, in accordance with the Foreign Secretary's views, just pronounced, and for the reform of the Common Market structure, and with a policy for getting out in the event of failure?
    Dr. Owen: I do not think that the Floor of the House of Commons is the place for my hon. Friend and myself to argue about who should be on the NEC. As to what the NEC should do in any given situation, one reason why I opposed my hon. Friend in the elections to the NEC is that I have a different view from him about how the NEC should conduct itself.
    Mr. Forman: Will the Foreign Secretary accept and tell the House that none of the desirable reforms in the operation of the Common Market will be achieved, and that no better balance will be achieved in the Community budget, if the Government are tempted to proceed on the destructive and flat earth lines recommended by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)?
    Dr. Owen: The Government have, over three to four years of painstaking and successful chipping away at some of the anomalies and inconsistencies in the common agricultural policy, produced significant progress. I believe that the next price fixing and the discussions on MCAs will be another opportunity to put constructively a case for reform which is
    1704
    not just in the British national interest but happens to be in the interest of consumers in all the member States.
    Mr. Tim Renton: Will the Foreign Secretary and other members of the Government show much more public muscle in dissociating themselves from the hysterical anti-EEC noises made by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other members of the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party, which can only be to the disadvantage of the national interest of the United Kingdom? In particular, does the Foreign Secretary, in view of the faltering Middle East peace plan, see any new initiatives in the Middle East which he and other EEC Foreign Ministers could take in concert?
    Dr. Owen: It would be better if Conservative Members would spend a little less time worrying about divisions within the Labour Party and attitudes to Europe, and concentrate a little more on some of the differences of attitude on their own side, and also on the overall, thrust of the Conservative Party's position in relation to Europe, which is one of constantly denigrating its own Government when that Government are fighting for a national interest. This gives the appearance in Brussels that, were a Conservative Government ever to come to office, they would be a complete pushover.
    Mr. Spearing: When my right hon. Friend next meets his colleagues at the Foreign Ministers' Council, will he remind them of the statements that he made during the course of the Bill dealing with direct elections to the EEC Assembly, when he said that in his opinion the direct election to the EEC was no threat to the powers of this House? Will he now tell the House the position about the budget of the EEC? Is it not correct that it is held up because of the powers of the unelected EEC Assembly? Is not there a quarrel with the Council over amounts running into hundreds of millions of pounds? Does not that bode ill for the powers of this House when there is an elected Assembly, which will use these powers as a bargaining counter?
    Dr. Owen: The dispute between the Council and the Assembly would be

    1705
    exactly the same whether or not the Assembly was directly elected. The reason why it was discussed in the Council on Monday was that the British Government, among other member States, hold very strongly to the view that it should not be in the power of the Assembly—and it is not in the power of the Assembly in the treaties—to fix the budget. The budget must be fixed by the body which is responsible for raising the revenue. That body is the Council of Ministers. Therefore, we shall not accept that the fixing of the budget total can be an issue for the Assembly. As long as this issue remains unresolved, we shall remain determined in our stance.
    Mr. Hurd: Does the Foreign Secretary accept that, unlike the French Government, he and his colleagues and party have appeared to spend most of their time chipping away at the concept of the Community, that the result has been a steady rundown in the bargaining strength of this country to protect its interests, that it will take us quite a time to rebuild it and that we regard it as essential in our own interests that we should?
    Dr. Owen: I think that all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House must recognise certain facts. The majority of people in this country did not want to enter the EEC in 1972 and 1973. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen may wish to dispute that allegation, but that is my belief. I do not believe that politicians need to conduct referendums to determine political issues. We should be able to do that by exercising our judgment.
    There has been a substantial change in the attitudes of people in this country since we have been a member of the Community. There are still disagreements—disagreements held by supporters of the Conservative Party and of the Labour Party—about the advisability of our entry, but most people are determined to make a useful, sensible contribution to the European Community. I believe that is what we should do, and, in doing it, we should not be afraid to stand up for a legitimate national interest.
    Mr. Roy Hughes: Will the Foreign Secretary draw to the attention of EEC leaders the prices for basic commodities, such as meat and wheat, obtaining in
    1706
    North America at present? Does he appreciate that if we were not in the Common Market we would be able to buy at those much reduced prices? Does he feel that the Government would do better to concentrate on the common agricultural policy to combat inflation than to try to pressurise road haulage drivers to give up their just claim?
    Dr. Owen: We must try to keep down common prices. If we are successful in holding common prices, they will show greater similarity to world prices. World prices move around. My hon. Friend was right in what he said, but there have been times when the world wheat price has been higher than the Community price. I do not think that we shall ever get an exact parity of prices between the Community and the world. We wish to reduce progressively the wide disparity which still exists between overall international food prices and European food prices. I think that we are having some limited success in that respect.

    Summit Meeting
    Mr. Anthony Grantasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the Council of Ministers plans next to meet officially to prepare submissions for the next European Council summit meeting.
    Mr. Judd: There will be meetings of the Foreign Affairs Council on 6th February and 6th March. Unless the presidency propose other arrangements, the preparations for the European Council will therefore be finally reviewed by Foreign Ministers a week before its meeting on 12th and 13th March.
    Mr. Grant: Does the Minister expect or, indeed, hope that by the time of the next summit Britain will be able to join the EMS, provided that it is then working satisfactorily?
    Mr. Judd: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman listened attentively to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on this matter. We did not enter because we did not believe that the criteria laid down for the operation of the scheme met the criteria which we felt would adequately protect and look to our interests. If things develop in the right direction, we shall review the position.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to make submissions on the common agricultural policy? If we cannot get any fundamental changes in that policy, will we make a clear statement that we shall withdraw from the Common Market until we get those changes?
    Mr. Judd: I assure my hon. Friend that it is intended that at the European Council meeting there will be a review of developments in the common agricultural policy. As for the line that he advocates, I think that would be unfortunate, because the indications are that, through the stalwart stand being made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and others, we are making progress towards reform.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: When the agenda is being drawn up, will the Minister ensure that Iran is put on it so that EEC Ministers and leaders can discuss with France, where the Ayatollah Khomeini at present resides, why it has allowed him to carry on a vicious campaign against a country which is friendly to the West, particularly when he is one of the most reactionary bigots in history?
    Mr. Judd: If the hon. Gentleman feels as strongly as he appears to do, he might be a little unhappy to leave such discussions until March.
    Mr. Jay: Is it not increasingly clear that the EEC, far from uniting Western Europe, is becoming a cause of conflicts and disputes between Western European countries, by trying to force on them policies which they do not wish to pursue?
    Mr. Judd: I do not share my right hon. Friend's analysis, but I endorse something which I believe underlines part of what he said. If we are genuinely building a real Community, it is tremendously important that the Commission and others realise that we must move at a pace which can be digested by all the member countries, and a pace which does not force member countries to take steps which are against their national interests.
    Mr. Pym: In the Government's view, ought not the Community to attach especial importance to Turkey? Yesterday the Prime Minister referred to economic discussions at Guadeloupe. Ought
    1708
    not the Community to contemplate a much larger package of assistance to Turkey, and could this be considered before and at the summit meeting?
    Mr. Judd: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, in the context of various Community meetings, Turkey is very high on the agenda. We have a special association agreement—one of the first such agreements—with Turkey. Turkey is anxious about the future of that agreement. The shape that the future should take in this respect is a matter to which we shall continue to give close attention.

    Lome Convention
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement about the progress of the renegotiation of the Lome convention, with particular reference to the human rights issue.
    Mr. Judd: The negotiations began formally with a ministerial meeting on 24th July, and the agreed objective is to complete them by the spring. A second ministerial meeting, which I attended for the United Kingdom, was held in Brussels on 21st December in order to take stock of the progress made so far and to indentify the issues requiring further negotiation. Human rights was among the subjects discussed, and it was agreed that there was a need for further discussion of the problem.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Minister making progress on this matter of human rights? Is it Her Majesty's Government's intention to continue to press for some provision in the Lome convention for suspension of aid to countries which grossly and persistently violate human rights? Moreover, has he found that the developing countries recognise that this subject must be discussed, despite their natural reservations about their own sovereignty?
    Mr. Judd: The hon. Gentleman has put the point fairly. One of the indications of the progress is that, increasingly, the ACP countries accept that this issue needs to be discussed. We are certain that in the Community's future aid programmes human rights must be given higher consideration and that the agreement should effectively reflect this need.
    Mrs. Jeger: With regard to help for underdeveloped countries through the

    1709
    EEC, may I ask what is happening about the sugar producer countries of the Caribbean and of Mauritius, which seem to be suffering from regulations being made by the EEC which will make the standard of living in those poor countries much lower?
    Mr. Judd: The special sugar arrangements are not part of the negotiations currently going on about the future of the Lome convention. I should have thought that my hon. Friend would find that reassuring, because the protocol on sugar firmly protects the interests of Commonwealth sugar producers, for whom, as we all know, the sale of their sugar crop is a matter of life or death.
    Mr. Rifkind: Will the Minister give an assurance that Angola will not lie included in the renegotiated Lome convention as long as the existence of the Angolan Government is sustained only by the presence of 20,000 Cuban troops in that country?
    Mr. Judd: The Community is anxious to work out an effective economic relationship with those countries which should properly belong to the ACP grouping. Certainly there is a strong argument that if we can get such effective economic arrangements this will enable them to have more balanced general political arrangements than might otherwise be the case.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Is not there a fundamental political contradiction in having one criterion, namely, human rights,
    1710
    for the Lome convention, and another criterion, namely, status quo, when dealing with countries such as Iran?
    Mr. Judd: My right hon. Friend he Secretary of State has been very candid about this matter with the House on a number of occasions. The constant argument of the cynic throughout history is, that because it is impossible to make progress on the whole front at once one should take no steps forward. We believe that if one cares deeply about issues such as human rights it is important to approach the issue pragmatically, to build by getting results which can achieve progress in particular situations and have a cumulative effect.
    Mr. Jessel: Why, under the Lome convention, are Commonwealth countries in Africa given trading privileges into the Common Market which are denied to Commonwealth countries in Asia, such as India? Is not this a blatantly unfair discrimination, to which the Government were signatories? What do the Government intend to do about it?
    Mr. Judd: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right to point out that there is a certain dichotomy here. The Government are emphatic that the Community must have an effective and growing programme of assistance to the so-called non-associates, because we do not want to see the Lome convention becoming a divisive measure in so far as our relationships with the Third World as a whole are concerned.

RHODESIA
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement.
The Government are releasing today the report of my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), who visited Africa before Christmas for private talks with all concerned in the Rhodesia dispute in order to advise me, in the light of his discussions, whether the right climate existed for an all-party conference on Rhodesia. I had told the House on 7th November that I would be prepared to convene such a meeting if the conditions seemed right.
My right hon. Friend left for Africa on 27th November. Accompanied by President Carter's representative, Ambassador Low, he visited Rhodesia and seven other African countries in the course of his mission, returning to this country on 14th December. He had consultations with the front-line Presidents, the leaders of the Patriotic Front and members of the Executive Council in Salisbury. He met representatives of other political groups and organisations in Rhodesia. He also had talks with Mr. R. F. Botha, Foreign Minister of South Africa, and General Obasanjo, Head of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria.
On his return to London, my right hon. Friend gave me a full account of his findings. I am most grateful for the way in which he has carried out this task. I have given the most careful consideration to his conclusions and I have also discussed them with President Carter. My right hon. Friend's principal conclusion, which he reached with great regret, was that no good purpose would be served by convening a meeting of the parties to the conflict in the immediate future, since there would be virtually no likelihood of a successful outcome. I have decided that I must accept this advice.
My right hon. Friend's discussions with the Patriotic Front and with the Executive Council in Salisbury made it clear that the positions of the parties on the key issues are very far apart and that there is at present no possibility of their moving sufficiently close to each other in the course of a negotiation to allow hone that agreement might be reached. My right
1712
hon. Friend concluded that a conference called now would end in failure and that this would inhibit any new attempt to promote a settlement for a period of several months at least. He nevertheless recommended that I should be ready to call a conference at once if developments should indicate a better prospect of success than would be the case today. I accept this advice also.
We shall not give up our attempts to achieve a peaceful solution. President Carter and I reaffirmed our commitment at Guadeloupe to do all in our power to promote a negotiated settlement in Rhodesia and bring the human suffering there to an end. We were in full agreement that the Anglo-American proposals remain the best basis for a peaceful solution. We will continue to work closely together to improve the prospects for a successful negotiation and to take advantage of any opportunity to promote a peaceful solution to the present conflict.
Mrs. Thatcher: On behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, perhaps I, too, may say "Thank you" to the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), who undertook this mission. I know that he will be as sorry as we are that he had to bring back such disappointing findings.
I note that the Prime Minister reaffirmed his commitment
"to do all in our power to promote a negotiated settlement"
What worries us a little, however, is that the statement contains no initiative to do that. May I, therefore, ask the Prime Minister three questions?
First, I should like to press the Prime Minister just a little to give more details on the attitude of the Patriotic Front. What he has said is susceptible of two interpretations. The first is that the Patriotic Front is not prepared to negotiate at all because it thinks that it can achieve its objectives by other means. The second is that, although the parties are very far apart, there is a possibility of negotiation in the end. If the second is the correct interpretation—I trust that it is—would it not be advisable now to have some kind of group of people making contact with all the parties regularly, to try to narrow the differences between them?
The second point is that there are to be elections in Rhodesia towards the end of April. All of us have agreed that six

1713
principles would have to be fulfilled before there could be any possibility of independence to Rhodesia, and most of us think that five of them have been fulfilled but that the last one, acceptance by the Rhodesian people, has yet to be tested. It would seem that those democratic elections are a way of testing that. I should like to know from the Prime Minister what we are doing to see that those elections can be held, not under perfect circumstances—that is not possible—but under the best possible circumstances that we can manage, and whether we are joining with other countries to try to have observers there to see that those elections are held as well as possible.
The third point arises from my question yesterday. The Anglo-American proposals have been on the table for quite a long time. They have not got anywhere. It seems that they are really not the right proposals. I hope that they will not be treated as the only basis, or a rigid basis, for negotiation.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady asked whether any initiative was to be taken at present. The answer, I think, is that I took up at once the suggestion made by the spokesman for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), on the prospects of calling a conference, and that initiative, alas, does not seem likely to bear fruit.
I have no immediate plans for further action. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and representatives of the United States and other countries which are deeply concerned about the effects of this dispute are constantly in personal contact and will take any further steps that they think are appropriate, but I myself have no immediate plans to do anything.
Secondly, the right hon. Lady asked me about the attitude of the Patriotic Front. As I understand it, after Mr. Nkomo's conversations with my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey, Mr. Nkomo made it clear that he is no longer interested in talking to Mr. Smith about a political settlement on the basis of the Anglo-American proposals. He described the proposal for an all-party conference as a non-starter, and he said that the war has reached such a stage that there can
1714
only be a settlement by military means. If there are to be talks, they will have to be carried out by generals meeting on the battlefield. I think that that will give the right hon. Lady sufficient flavour of the attitude of Mr. Nkomo to show that there is no likelihood of her second proposition, which she hoped might be true, being in fact the case.
As for the Rhodesian elections, the nature of the constitution on which the campaign is now being conducted is such that it seems to hold little prospect of being acceptable to those who are fighting, certainly outside the country. In those circumstances, the elections that will be held on this matter are not likely to bring a peaceful solution. This is the tragedy of the matter.
Therefore, either we have to say that we shall desert the sixth principle—which the right hon. Lady does not say—because the conditions under which the elections are likely to be held are simply not tolerable in the sense of being likely to give a fair result, or we have to continue to work to bring these two groups together for the future of Southern Africa. That is certainly my view, and it is the view of President Carter. I do not wish to speak for the South African Government, but I believe that it would be not unfair to say that their view is that there must be an attempt to reconcile, even at this stage, those who are fighting outside and those who have formed the Government inside.
Thirdly, the Anglo-American proposals are the ones that hold the field. We have made it clear that if there were such a thing as an all-party conference, that is what we ourselves would put forward. But we have not been dogmatic in saying that. If in the course of a conference there were general agreement on modifications of those proposals, or on alternative proposals, since our main desire is to see that the principles are observed, and not any particular plan, we should be willing to modify it. But nobody has yet come forward with a more likely plan. This is the closest plan yet to anything that would be likely to reconcile the diametrically opposed interests there.
Mr. Speaker: Those who were here at Question Time will know that, on Question No. 3, when five Questions were

1715
answered together on this subject, I undertook to call the hon. Members who had tabled those Questions because they had no supplementary questions; they were awaiting the statement. I shall call them in due course.
Mr. David Steel: Is the Prime Minister aware that I returned only yesterday from a smaller but similar visit to that of the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and that I sadly came to the same conclusion—that a peace conference of the kind proposed was unlikely to succeed? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I found general appreciation of the visit of the right hon. Member? Will he accept, though, that the security situation has deteriorated even in the four weeks since his visit, with the extension of martial law and the extension of the call-up to the age of 59, and that the suffering of the civilian population, which was pointed out to me, has considerably increased in the past few weeks?
Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is within the country a growing demand for some United Kingdom initiative simply because of a growing recognition that the internal settlement itself is not likely to succeed? Is he aware that I have passed on a number of proposals that were put to me? I am not canvassing them openly at the moment, but will the right hon. Gentleman not rule out the possibility of appointing a special representative who can permanently go around the parties in the hope of securing an opening in order to seek a reconciliation between these warring forces?
The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for confirming the conclusions of my right hon. Friend and for what he said about the appreciation of my right hon. Friend's visit. I do not wish to load encomiums on my right hon. Friend, but the independent reports that I have received since his return show that, as our envoy and the envoy of this House to all those countries, my right hon. Friend is regarded as a friend by those whom he visited and as a man whom they can trust. This in some ways applies to the second part of the right hon. Gentleman's question. I would not hesitate to ask my right hon. Friend whether he would make his services available in certain circumstances to
1716
repeat such a visit or, indeed, to go there on a different basis. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We shall have to see what he has to say about that.
As for fresh initiatives, I accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. There are clearly a number of areas to probe. The fact that nothing is announced publicly does not mean that nothing will take place. My right hon. Friend is probing a number of areas and will continue to do so. We do not intend just to sit and wait for this situation to develop, if there is anything that we can do, but there is no point in taking an initiative just for the sake of being able to say that one is doing something.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Since the compromises offered by Mr. Smith in the so-called internal settlement are now being broken, does my right hon. Friend agree that his and the Foreign Secretary's refusal to recognise the internal settlement has been fully justified by events?
The Prime Minister: I fear that it has been justified. The fears that we expressed at the time, I think, would not have been removed if that settlement had been recognised by the British Government. The situation would have continued to deteriorate, in our view, but that is a matter of judgment. However, rather than justifying ourselves before the bar of history, I prefer to look forward. I promise my hon. Friend and every other hon. Member that we shall not hesitate to intervene, privately or publicly, if the opportunity arises.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: As it is several weeks since the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) returned, will the Prime Minister explain why his Government have delayed so long in making a public statement, bearing in mind the fact that there has been considerable misunderstanding and uncertainty about British policy on Rhodesia in that country?
The Prime Minister: I was not aware that there had been any uncertainty, but the reason why I delayed publishing my right hon. Friend's report was that I wished to discuss it with President Carter first, as his ambassador had been party to the visit. We had that discussion in

1717
Guadeloupe and reached certain conclusions there. A report has been published as soon as the House reassembled. In certain circumstances, I would have made this statement on Monday.
Mr. Faulds: As the military situation worsens for the regime in Southern Rhodesia, and as military victory is likely for the Patriotic Front before many more months have passed, what contingency plans have the Government made for the time when Smith throws in the towel and returns responsibility to Her Majesty's Government?
The Prime Minister: I do not want to go too far into the whole matter here, because that is more proper for the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, but my hon. Friend may take it that the mere surrender of sovereignty would not of itself alter the situation unless those who assumed the positions which are now held by Mr. Smith and his colleagues were willing to come to talks with the Patriotic Front and all those concerned, including, naturally, the British Government, to see whether a solution could be reached.
Mr. Tebbit: In view of the views of Mr. Nkomo that the Prime Minister quoted, what will Her Majesty's Government do to bring pressure to bear upon the Patriotic Front to change their minds and come to the negotiating table? In the event—which the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds) foresaw—that the Rhodesian Government should ask for the inception of direct rule from Westminster over Rhodesia, what would the Government's reaction be?
The Prime Minister: The second question is hypothetical. I ought to go as far as I can to satisfy the House, but I do not think that I can add to the answer that I gave to the previous question. It would depend, obviously, upon the attitude of those who took over the internal responsibilities that have been exercised in Rhodesia. [Interruption.] No, Sir, with respect, this country has not exercised internal responsibilities for Rhodesia, I regret to say—certainly for 50 years, if ever. Perhaps if we had this situation would not have arisen, but it is no use treading that ground again. I must therefore adhere to my reply to the last question, that it would depend on the attitude
1718
of those who assumed internal responsibility from Mr. Smith.
Secondly, as regards the pressure that we put on the Patriotic Front, a number of neighbouring countries are directly affected by this struggle. The territory of Zambia is occupied in some ways—although I suppose that they would say that they were giving hospitality to the forces of Mr. Nkomo. That country clearly has a strong desire—and would therefore want, I believe—to see talks if they were possible. There are other countries, including South Africa, which in certain circumstances would want to see talks. The pressure, such as it is, will have to continue to be diplomatic.
Mr. Anderson: Have the Government made any appraisal of the effects on Rhodesia of the disruption of oil supplies from Iran to South Africa, in terms of the economic viability and hence of the negotiating strength of the present illegal regime in Rhodesia?
The Prime Minister: South Africa is continuing to supply oil to Rhodesia. It represents a very small percentage of the total use of South Africa's oil. If that were to be cut off, it would transform the situation.
Mr. Jessel: As the purpose of sanctions is to bring about majority rule and as Mr. Smith has accepted the principle of majority rule, what is the point of continuing the sanctions, which do not work anyway?
The Prime Minister: We had a debate on this immediately before Christmas. The House reached a conclusion and the Government have not any different advice to offer than the advice that was accepted by the House then.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: We must face the reality, however much some people may dislike it, that Mr. Smith has lost his gamble, that the internal settlement has failed and that the Patriotic Front will win. Since a great many people in Rhodesia—indeed, the majority, in my view—want the Patriotic Front to win, is it not a fact that the only serious option open to us is how we may make that transition as swift and painless as possible? Surely we should be putting all the pressure we can on Mr. Smith and his regime, and upon South

1719
Africa to put pressure on Smith, in order to convince him to surrender.
The Prime Minister: I take note of my hon. Friend's views on this matter, and the fact that I do not comment on them should not lead him to draw any particular conclusions. Mr. Smith himself has dismissed as "moonshine" suggestions that the regime should fight the guerrillas until it wins. Therefore he is coming to the conclusion, as many of us have done, that it will be a long, drawn-out struggle before either side eventually can say that it is the master of Rhodesia. The whole of British policy has been directed to ensuring that the country should not be reduced to a desert while the two sides struggle with each other.
Mr. Charles Morrison: In the end, surely there will have to be some sort of conference. Indeed, the Prime Minister said that a conference would be called if developments demanded it. Is it not the case that it would be easier to judge and influence the course of developments if we had a permanent representative in Rhodesia? Will the Prime Minister give further consideration to this?
The Prime Minister: I shall certainly continue, with the Foreign Secretary, to give this matter consideration. The visit by my right hon. Friend has shown the advantages that can ensue. I ask the hon. Member to accept the assurance that, if it seems helpful, I shall have no doubts about asking that someone should go to Rhodesia.
Mr. Newens: What reports has my right hon. Friend had about recent incursions by the forces of the Smith regime into Mozambique? Does he agree that these incursions are to be deplored, not only because of the loss of life they cause or the fact that they make a settlement more difficult but because they will widen the area of conflict and are likely to increase tension between East and West?
The Prime Minister: I fear that incursions into other countries do have that result and, indeed, have influenced the lack of negotiation. These incursions should be called off—[HON. MEMBERS: "Both ways."] Yes, both ways. With respect, the question of who started these
1720
incursions is really rather less important than how we are going to end them. We are applying our minds to this. I hope that pressure can still be put on in due course—not necessarily next week—in order to bring the parties concerned not just to the conference table but to the conference table with a view to getting a settlement.
Mr. Amery: Does the Prime Minister agree that his statement today marks the end, for the time being at any rate, of the Anglo-American initiative? Does he further agree that the next concrete event to which we can look forward is the holding of elections in Rhodesia on 20th April? Will he consider discussing with the Executive Council in Salisbury ways by which those elections could be monitored by this country, so that this House can have some serious information about whether they are being freely and fairly conducted?
The Prime Minister: I do not accept that this marks the end of the Anglo-American proposals. Mr. Nikomo said that, but others have not said it, and I would regret it if that were the considered judgment of the right hon. Member. There is nothing, so far, to take the place of those proposals that comes within a mile of meeting the views of those who are concerned.
On the monitoring of elections, I do not believe that that would assist us in the task of getting those who represent the Patriotic Front to the negotiating table. We must make up our minds which is our prime objective. Surely, in the interests of bringing peace to Rhodesia, it must be to get those representatives to the negotiating table.
Mr. Donald Stewart: Since Mr. Nkomo has declared that his intention is to get power in Rhodesia exclusively by military force, will the Government make it plain to him that they will not be his ally in any way in achieving that?
The Prime Minister: We are not the ally of Mr. Nkomo, or Mr. Mugabe, or Mr. Smith. We have a constitutional responsibility here which, alas, because of the history of this country, we have not carried out, and we are still in a position in which we must try to get the best results between them on the basis of the prin-

1721
ciples that have applied in bringing dependent territories to full independence. That is the attitude that we have adopted, and that does not make us anybody's ally. But, if we are to get a settlement, neither should it make us anybody's enemy if we want to negotiate.
Mr. Hooley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that while the architect of the Rhodesia tragedy is Ian Smith, his indispensable accomplice throughout the whole rebellion has been South Africa, which has supplied oil and arms? Will he bring pressure upon South Africa, jointly with the five Western Powers, if necessary, to terminate the continued supply of arms, oil and economic aid to this illegal regime, because that is keeping the rebellion and the war going?
The Prime Minister: There is no doubt that support from South Africa, and its modification from time to time, has produced changes in the attitude of Rhodesia. Therefore, South Africa carries a heavy responsibility in this matter because she has the power. What is taking place in Namibia shows that South Africa can be influenced and has been influenced by the work done by the five Commonwealth Foreign Secretaries, including my right hon. Friend, and it may be that a similar situation could arise in relation to Rhodesia. That is certainly one of the lines that we are keeping open.
Mr. Pym: The whole House is grateful to the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) for what he did, and it regrets very much that he had to report in the sense in which he did. Following that, it appears from the exchanges that have taken place today that the Government have no policy whatever towards Rhodesia at present. There appears to be a vacuum.
Are we not trying to secure the fulfilment of the fifth principle? Do we not require in Rhodesia free and fair elections? We agree, of course, that circumstances there have deteriorated to a point where that is very difficult. However, is it not still the objective? Is it not preliminary to a return to legality, international recognition and, therefore, independence? It does not appear from anything that the Prime Minister has said this afternoon that his Government have a policy or a plan to bring that about. Will 1722
the Prime Minister say whether that is so, and, if not, what his policy is and how he thinks he can achieve the objective that we share?
The Prime Minister: The position in Rhodesia now is that 90 per cent, of the country is lying under martial law. I really do not see how it is possible to talk about holding free, fair and unfettered elections in that kind of situation and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with me on reflection. Although I am sure there will be a response, it is not for me to say what that response should be. Nevertheless, the right way to approach this is to persist with the basis of the Anglo-American plan. This still represents the policy that we believe should form the agenda when the parties concerned eventually all decide, as they must, to gather round the conference table. We shall be ready there. I suppose that they could fight on until the country is a desert, but that should not be a policy that the British Government should appear to encourage. Therefore, we must work to try to get them round the negotiating table.
I do not believe that any Conservative Member would dissent from that. They know that it is far better to try to get a peaceful settlement than to allow the fighting to go on. [HON. MEMBERS: "What are the Government doing about it?"] I will not answer that question. I do not know what the Opposition would do, apart from sending in the Brigade of Guards.
We have to continue with the diplomatic action, some of which must be carried out privately and cannot always be revealed at the time it is undertaken.
Mr. loan Evans: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that hon. Members on the Government side agree that he was right to delay publication of the report until the House resumed, because it was proper that the report should not be issued until he could be questioned in the House? In his discussions with President Carter about new initiatives, what consideration will be given to steps against South Africa? The key to the Rhodesian problem is that Rhodesia has been sustained by South Africa and that, if nothing is done immediately, pressure is likely to build up in the United Nations for sanctions to be taken against South Africa itself.
The Prime Minister: It is important to ensure that the United States is ready to work with us. That is one reason why the publication of my right hon. Friend's report was delayed. I am glad to confirm that the United States Administration and President Carter personally are fully ready to work in partnership to try to solve this problem. The United States and South Africa also have special connections, and action in relation to South Africa can be taken much better in conjunction with the United States than separately from them. There may be a possibility of progress along those lines.
Mr. Wall: I appreciate the Prime Minister's genuine interest in Rhodesia, but is he not now contracting out? May I press him further about the appointment of an observer in Salisbury? Does he agree that the weakness of the internal settlement has largely been due to the fact that the West refused to back it? If that is repeated when an African majority Government is elected in April, the inevitable result will be a civil war between the Matabele and the Mashona.
The Prime Minister: I have already answered the question about an observer in Salisbury. We have been over the hon. Gentleman's second question on a number of occasions and he knows that we do not share his view.
Mr. Lee: My right hon. Friend earlier gave a list of non-allies. Does he agree that Zambia, at least, is an ally that we should most warmly cultivate, and that we should do everything we can to provide any military assistance that President Kaunda may require, because as long as Smith is in power there will be a continuing danger of incursions into Zambia by the forces of Smith's so-called Government?
The Prime Minister: Zambia needs all the assistance and help that we can give. It has been a force for stability in Southern Africa. Not only is Zambia a member of the Commonwealth; President Kaunda has the deepest ties with this country, and we shall certainly give Zambia all the support we can.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am prepared to call three more hon. Members from the Opposition Benches in view of their wide
1724
interest in this matter, but we have three applications under Standing Order No. 9 to follow before we get on to the main business of the day. I try to do this for both sides of the House on different occasions, in the spirit of fair play.
Sir Frederic Bennett: Various remarks have been made about the impact of South Africa's altering its policies for supplying Rhodesia. Is it not a fact that since the reopening of the border with Zambia a large amount of the essential supplies received by Zambia come through Rhodesia from South Africa? Would a blockade such as that suggested by the Prime Minister not only possibly transform the situation in Rhodesia but seriously damage the Zambian economy? If the Prime Minister does not believe what I say, perhaps he would like to consult the Zambian Government on the matter.
The Prime Minister: I am not aware that any of my comments could have led to that question, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Further to the three valid points made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to sending a permanent official or even a substantial presence to Salisbury so that the British, with our expertise, could help the Rhodesians draw up an electoral register and monitor and supervise the April elections? Does he agree that the election in April will be the best way of gauging how many people in Rhodesia—and they are the people about whom we are concerned—support the constitution being put forward by the interim Government and the Executive?
The Prime Minister: I have already answered the question about an observer and I have nothing to add to my reply. As for giving electoral advice, I do not believe that that would be helpful to our role in the present situation. Mr. Smith's Administration has not shown any desire to accept the advice that we have given him over a long period on some of these matters. If he had, I doubt that we would be in the present position.
Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: In the absence of a permanent commission and in the light of the Prime Minister's refusal to consider the appointment of a

1725
mission to oversee the elections and report on them, how does the right hon. Gentleman propose to assess the results of the elections and their implication for future Government policy?
The Prime Minister: We shall assess the results in the same way as every other Administration will assess them When they come, we shall no doubt have full reports on them.

ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES
Mr. Rhodes James: I wish to raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker, in your role as the defender of the rights and interests of Back Benchers. No statement is being made today by any Minister of the Crown relating to the situation that afflicts my constituents and, I am sure, those of many other hon. Members.
In my constituency, many vital products, including food, are not coming through. My constituents are asking me to represent them and to urge on Ministers the importance of the situation, but no statement is being made. I am particularly concerned that we have no statement from the Minister of Agriculture.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on the question of what recourse there is for an hon. Member, short of making an application under Standing Order No. 9, to compel a Minister of the Crown to answer the legitimate complaints of our constituents at this vital time.
Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I have received no requests for statements, but I see that the Lord President is trying to catch my eye.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope very much that a further statement on these matters and perhaps other kindred matters will be made to the House tomorrow and that that will be helpful to the House. I hope that I am not out of order in indicating that fact to hon. Members at the moment.
Mr. Speaker: That information may have an effect on the applications under Standing Order No. 9.

WATER SUPPLIES (NORTH-WEST ENGLAND)
Mr. Churchill: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the threat to public health in the North-West where 1 million people are without a filtered and chemically treated water supply."
I submit that the matter is specific, because since midnight last Thursday 1 million people in Rossendale, Oldham, Rochdale and the vicinity have been without any filtered and treated water supplies as the result of an unofficial all-out strike by 600 water and sewerage workers in the Pennine division of the North-West water authority. At least 2,000 houses are without any water at all, because no repair crews are available to deal with burst pipes.
I submit that it is an important, because it represents, in the judgment of officials of the water authority,
"a serious risk to public health."
Warnings have been issued to residents to boil water for at least one and a half minutes, but there is always the possibility that, in the absence of parents, children may out of habit go to a tap and drink water that is contaminated. Since last Friday, volunteers from the staff of the North-West water authority have been working to clean the filters, which otherwise would clog and all water supply would have ceased.
I submit that this matter has now become urgent because, following a meeting last night between the authority and the unofficial strike committee, the strike committee has declared that this action by senior staff in cleaning the filters to maintain the flow of at least dirty water to these 1 million homes constitutes strike breaking, and it has announced its intention to seek to spread the strike throughout the North-West of England.
This morning, picket lines were established outside the Audenshaw depot of

1727
the eastern division, which supplies Greater Manchester's water. So far, workers in this and in other divisions have, I am glad to say, refused to join this unofficial strike. But unless agreement is reached by Monday, when there is to be a one-day official strike of all manual workers, the water supplies of up to 5 million citizens of the country could be affected, and it has become a matter of urgency that the Government should declare whether they accept responsibility for the maintenance of essential supplies, of which water is possibly the most vital.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the threat to public health in the North-West where 1 million people are without a filtered and chemically treated water supply".
We are undoubtedly faced with very difficult circumstances in the country. I have listened carefully to the observations that have been made this afternoon. As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the Order but to give no reasons for my decision. There are times when I wish that I could give my reasons. I can say to the hon. Gentleman that I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and that today I cannot submit his application to the House. The House will understand that we are in very difficult circumstances.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There will be a statement to the House tomorrow, and I am sure that it will cover this matter, which is very important. Indeed, there may be other questions that other hon. Members will naturally wish to raise. A statement will be made to the House tomorrow—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not today?"] I am asked "Why not today?" Discussions are going on which we hope will assist in dealing with the situation. The Government must judge that factor as well. But the Government will seek to make a
1728
statement to the House tomorrow, and I hope that that will be of assistance to the House and will be taken in that sense.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. We are grateful to the Leader of the House for that indication of the intention of the Government to do something in this respect, but may we be told who is to make the statement? Since the right hon. Gentleman has agreed that a statement should be made tomorrow, I think that many of us would have been much happier if it had been made today. Can he give an undertaking to the House that while the emergency lasts a statement will be made on the course of the situation each day to the House?
Mr. Foot: I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman says about the absolute requirement that the House should be kept informed constantly on the matter. Whether there should be a statement every day, and who would be the most appropriate Minister in each case to make it, is another matter, but I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that I take fully into account what he has said, and it is in that spirit that we will respond to the situation over the coming days. As I have indicated, it is not yet decided who will make the statement. It may be that two Ministers will make a statement, but let us wait to see who will be the appropriate Minister to make the statement tomorrow.

VIETNAMESE REFUGEES
Mr. Ashley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the cutting off of supplies by the Hong Kong Government to refugees on board the 'Huey Fong'."
I have just returned from Hong Kong, where I have been looking at the problem of refugees in general and of the refugees on board the "Huey Fong" in particular. First, this matter is specific because there are 2,700 people, including 1,000 children, stranded just outside Hong Kong. They have been there since 23rd December. They have been sustained by food, water and medical supplies by the Hong Kong

1729
Government, but their condition is now deteriorating.
One man has died, and an increasing number of the refugees are ill. A few hours ago, a correspondent informed me that the Secretary for Security of the Hong Kong Government has threatened that the Hong Kong Government intend to cut off food, water and medical supplies to the refugees. I submit to the House that the cutting off of these vital supplies means cutting the lifeline of the refugees, and that it would be a shocking and inhumane decision. I suggest that no civilised society can permit 2,700 people to perish on the high seas by a calculated act of Government policy, no matter how harassed that Government may be.
Secondly, I submit that this matter is important because these refugees should be allowed to land temporarily in Hong Kong and take their place in the queue with other refugees. It is also important in order to enable us to recognise the splendid record of the Hong Kong Government and to try to ease their burden, because they have behaved magnificently on refugee problems. But we should not ease the burden of that Government at the expense of the refugees on board the "Huey Fong".
Thirdly, this is an international problem requiring an international solution, and I submit that we need to press all countries to accept a quota of the refugees. I hope that, if you, Mr. Speaker, agree to my request, we can convene an international conference under the auspices of the United Nations Commission on Refugees, so as to ensure that this growing flood of refugees should not become flotsam and jetsam destined for disaster.
Finally. I submit that my application is urgent because it is literally a matter of life or death owing to this threat to the refugees, and I therefore submit that nothing could be more important.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman asks leave, under Standing Order No. 9, to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the cutting off of supplies by the Hong Kong Government to refugees on board the 'Huey Fong'".
1730
The hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning. I have listened with great care to him, and the House knows that I do not decide whether this matter shall be debated. I merely decide whether it must be debated tonight, in place of the business before the House, or tomorrow night. I regret that I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

ESSENTIAL SUPPLIES AND SERVICES
Mr. Speaker: In view of the earlier exchanges, does the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) wish to continue with his application under Standing Order No. 9?
Mr. William Shelton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing, in view of the cumulative effects of the food blockade on housewives and our constituents, a specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the approaching situation of acute food shortages in the country".
The matter is specific and urgent, given the statement made by the president of the Food Manufacturers Federation on "The World at One" today I have since spoken to him on the telephone, when he confirmed that only 10 per cent. of processed foods was reaching the nation's shops. The term "processed foods" includes anything in a can, a packet or a bag. By the end of next week, at the very latest, there will be acute shortages and acute hardships. That is his considered view as president of the federation.
The urgency of the matter is supported by a statement made by the managing director of Tesco to the Evening News this afternoon. I have also spoken to Tesco on the telephone. The firm says that pickets have cut off more than 60 per cent. of all food reaching its 600 shops throughout the country, which serve about 10 million people every day. The managing director rang the Government emergency committee, which asked whether he could ring back and then said "No, do not ring back because we too, are helpless."

1731
I understand that other food chains are in the same position. Therefore, I submit that this is a matter of urgency. We have a few days left. The sooner the matter is debated, the better. It is clearly one of great importance to our constituents.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Shelton) gave me notice earlier, at the earliest opportunity that he had, that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the approaching situation of acute food shortages in the country."
I listened with care to what the hon. Gentleman said, and I also listened to the earlier exchanges in the House. The House knows that it has instructed me not to give the reasons for my decision. I listened carefully, but I must rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.
Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. How can we proceed further in this matter? As a Back Bencher, I cannot question your ruling about this afternoon's applications under Standing Order No. 9, nor is it my wish to do so, but, having listened to your answers to my hon. Friends the Members for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) and Streatham (Mr. Shel-
1732
ton) about the plight of their constituents, in a situation that many of us find reflected in our own constituencies, I wonder how we can proceed under our Standing Orders further to pursue in the House the interests of our constituencies at this time of crisis.
Yesterday we had a debate that gave about six hours' examination to the matter. It brought forth statements from Members on both Front Benches about where the two main parties stood, and we heard where all the parties in the House stood on the matter. But Back Benchers are still worried and concerned because of the pressure under which they find themselves today with our democratic representation.
All that we can do, Mr. Speaker, is to ask you what we can do to see that we continue to debate and to represent our constituents in this House at this time of crisis. I am very worried and concerned that we must pass on to other business today.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my remarks in reply to his hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), which were unusual in the context of the normal reply that I gave to an application under Standing Order No. 9. I indicated that I was deeply aware, as we all are, of the serious difficulties confronting the country, and I used the words "not today". I have been as helpful as I can be to the House in that indication.

WATER INDUSTRY (CONSUMER COUNCIL)
4.25 p.m.
Mr. Tony Durant: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a consumer council for the water industry.
In view of the serious matters that the country faces, I do not intend to delay the House for more than a few minutes.
The Water Act 1973 set up the new authorities, and I welcomed that. I think that it was right. The Act encouraged the water authorities to become financially self-sufficient, but, under section 30, by 1981 all consumers will have to pay according to their consumption, without discretion. That will mean a lowering of the water rate for industry and an increase for the householder, which will be a serious matter. In the Thames water authority area, for example, it is suggested that the domestic water rate could increase by as much as 25 per cent. That is a cause of considerable concern. The Berkshire County Council has already passed a resolution pointing out the dangers of the proposals to move towards equalisation of charges for water between industry and the consumer.
The first step that the water authorities in most parts of the country have taken is to introduce direct billing, though not all authorities have yet done so. When direct billing was introduced there was widespread anger and concern about it. The first reason was that there was the introduction of a standing charge, of which there had previously been no mention. That hit the small householder. There was no discount for the low paid and no rebate. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Bennett) has introduced a Bill to take account of that, and I welcome his steps in that direction.
There were no clear methods of payment. The whole matter was completely arbitrary. The only concession that we had, after pressure, was that the householder can now pay his bill quarterly. However, that gives no satisfaction to council tenants, who are used to paying their rent, part of which used to go towards the water payment, weekly or monthly.
1734
The pay arrangements were bad at the time. Insufficient facilities were arranged for people to pay. There have been threats to cut off the supply of those who do not pay.
The conduct of the water authorities needs examination. My Reading ratepayers, ever vigilant, have examined the local accounts of the Thames water authority and have found one or two interesting anomalies. For example, they found that the directors of the Thames water authority are each given a car— I am not opposed to that—but when they have to go to the headquarters in London a chauffeur-driven car is sent to pick them up, take them to the meeting and take them back again. They do not even use their own cars. That is the sort of thing that consumer councils would consider.
The directors have had expensive trips abroad. The late Member for Lambeth, Central, Mr. Marcus Lipton, raised the whole question of the trip to Japan, which was to cost the authority about £10,000.
I am not critical of the fact that we now have the water authorities. What I am critical of is the way in which they are examined. They are not really responsible to anyone. Therefore, they should have a consumer council. They constitute one of the few national authorities with. out a consumer council.
The council should have powers to interview officers, look at the accounts, ask for information and discuss the whole basis of payment—the whole formula that will be used in getting the money into the authorities. That would be of help to the consumer.
I should like to see such a body composed of volunteers—representatives of industry, other consumer councils, trade unions, women's organisations, waterways where appropriate, and national industries where appropriate. Perhaps, for a change, those members could be voluntary instead of receiving a fee. I am sure that people would do these jobs voluntarily. I know of plenty who would. The administrative cost could possibly be met by a percentage from the National Water Council.
It was right to set up the authorities, but water is a vital resource. We have heard from an application under Standing Order No. 9 today what happens when water authorities cannot carry out their job.

1735
The new water authorities have existed for about five years. They are now tackling the backlog of neglect, particularly on the sewerage side of the industry. It is right that they should do that. But we should have a body which can watch over the excesses and extravagances of the water authorities, to represent the interests of the consumer and to discuss methods of payment and the reactions of the citizen. A consumer council would be the correct body to do that.
I have received a letter from the National Consumer Council, which has been in correspondence with the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection about this matter. That council is in favour of establishing such a body. I commend this important Bill to the House.
4.31 p.m.
Mr. Tom Litterick: I oppose the Bill for a number of reasons.
The House will be surprised to hear a Conservative Member bringing forward a Bill of this character, particularly since the current Act which determined the present structure and rules was enacted by the last Conservative Government. There is no reason why that Conservative Government, if it was thought that this was a matter of importance, did not establish a consumer council for the water industry.
The hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) did not mention that the members of existing water authorities are elected and are responsible to their constituents. There is an element of responsibility in that.
When I was a local councillor, more than once my council invited the officials of the local water board to attend meetings and be questioned. The officials responded to those invitations. I was present at more than one such meeting. The type of examination that took place was precisely the type to which the hon. Member referred in the context of establishing a consumer council.
Notwithstanding the unsatisfactory structure established by the Water Act 1973, at least two of the objections to which the hon. Member referred are not well founded. Perhaps in his area the local authorities are not aware of what they are entitled to do.
1736
I can assure the hon. Member that the Severn-Trent water authority is only too happy to meet the local council and to subject its officials to the type of grilling which a Select Committee of the House would conduct if so instructed. That is an effective way of satisfying one element in our responsibility towards our constituents.
The hon. Member used the word "responsibility". I presume he meant that in the political sense. He must know that setting up a consumer council will not create a responsible body since no consumer council exists on which there are elected representatives. Consumer councils comprise nominees of other bodies. That means that his proposal would not create an additional, helpful institution which would enable the public voice to be heard and made effective within the governing councils of the industry. It would simply add another talking shop of nominees.
At present, elected councillors nominate some of their members to serve on the water authorities. That ensures that more than half of all the members of the authorities arc elected and can be held responsible for the behaviour of the water authorities. They can recommend to their councils that they should act as representatives of the local population and subject the local authority to questioning.
It is a little puzzling that a Conservative Member should seek to set up another quango. The hon. Member sought to escape from that dilemma by suggesting that members of the proposed council would agree to serve without payment. But that would set a precedent which would probably be unacceptable.
At present all consumer councils are served by salaried people. The hon. Member is advocating the setting up of another quango and increasing public expenditure. That is an all too familiar situation for Conservative Back Benchers. Collectively the Conservatives argue in favour of reductions in public expenditure, but individually they regularly make proposals which involve increases in public expenditure and which might buy them a little popularity in their own patches.
I am not suggesting that that is the game that the hon. Member for Reading,

1737
North is playing, but he will admit that his colleagues play that game with boring frequency. They should exercise a little restraint in the interests of political consistency and of containing public expenditure.
The hon. Member's emphasis on consumer interests leaves aside a number of profoundly important questions which require the urgent attention of the House. Earlier today hon. Members urged that we should have a debate about these matters. Part of the water industry's problem is that it has been neglected in terms of capital investment. The industry is staffed mainly by low-paid workers. A large proportion of them have been found by the Child Poverty Action Group to be low paid. A significant number of the workers receive family income supplement. That is one reason for the dispute in the North. The Conservatives seem to be little concerned about that.
Water is a vital commodity. The industry's negotiating procedures are sadly deficient. The House should examine

Division No. 33]

AYES

[4.39 p.m.

Ashton, Joe

Gray, Hamish

Pattie, Geoffrey

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Penhallgon, David

Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

Hicks, Robert

Peyton, Rt Hon John

Banks, Robert

Hooson, Emlyn

Rathbone, Tim

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Hordern, Peter

Rhodes James, R.

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Biggs-Davison, John

Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Rooker, J. W.

Brotherton, Michael

Jopllng, Michael

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Kilfedder, James

Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)

Buck, Antony

Lawrence,Ivan

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Chalker, Mrs Lynda

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)

McCrindle, Robert

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Macfarlane, Neil

Stradling, Thomas J.

Costain, A. P.

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Trotter, Neville

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Madel, David

Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)

Crouch, David

Mates, Michael

Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Mather, Carol

Wall, Patrick

Drayson, Burnaby

Mawby, Ray

Weatherill, Bernard

Eden, Rt Hon Sir John

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Weetch, Ken

Elliott, Sir William

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Wells, John

Fairgrieve, Russell

Monro, Hector

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Farr, John

Montgomery, Fergus

Wiggin, Jerry

Finsberg, Geoffrey

More, Jasper (Ludlow)

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

Fookes, Miss Janet

Morgan, Geraint

Winterton, Nicholas

Fry, Peter

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)

Glyn, Dr Alan

Mudd, David

Younger, Hon George

Goodhart, Philip

Ovenden, John

Goodhew, Victor

Page, John (Harrow West)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Mr. Tony Durant and

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Pardoe, John

Mr. Ian Gow.

NOES

Anderson, Donald

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Buchan, Norman

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Cowans, Harry

Bates, Alf

Canavan, Dennis

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Beith, A. J.

Carter Jones, Lewis

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Bidwell, Sydney

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Cohen, Stanley

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

that because therein lies much of the trouble.
These workers are not in the habit of taking industrial action. They do not bargain or negotiate in a militant manner—which is one reason why they are so badly paid. But the hon. Member's proposal has nothing to do with that. It would add nothing of positive value to the water industry's institutions but it would add to public expenditure. For that reason, I call upon the House to reject the proposal.
Mr. Speaker: May I tell the hon. Gentleman, before I put the Question, that he is not bound to vote unless he wishes to do so just because he has expressed opposition to the Bill?
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 89, Noes 106.

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

John, Brynmor

Parry, Robert

Dewar, Donald

Judd, Frank

Pavitt, Laurie

Dormand, J. D.

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Kerr, Russell

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Eadie, Alex

Lambie, David

Ryman, John

English, Michael

Lamborn, Harry

Sandelson, Neville

Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Lamond, James

Silverman, Julius

Evans Gwynfor (Carmarthen)

Litterick, Tom

Skinner, Dennis

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Steel, Rt Hon David

Evans, John (Newton)

Loyden, Eddie

Strang, Gavin

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

McCartney, Hugh

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

McElhone, Frank

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Flannery, Martin

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Madden, Max

Tierney, Sydney

Freud, Clement

Mahon, Simon

Tinn, James

Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Tomlinson, John

George, Bruce

Marks, Kenneth

Urwin, T. W.

Golding, John

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Graham, Ted

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Ward, Michael

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Maynard, Miss Joan

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Grant, John (Islington C)

Mikardo, Ian

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Woodall, Alec

Hardy, Peter

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Woof, Robert

Home Robertson, John

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Young, David (Bolton E)

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Oakes, Gordon

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Ogden, Eric

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hughes, Roy (Newport)

O'Halloran, Michael

Mr. Kevin McNamara and

Hunter, Adam

Park, George

Mr. A. W. Stallard.

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Parker, John

Question accordingly negatived.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) BILL
Order for Committee read.
4.51 p.m.
Mr. Speaker: I should tell the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) that I cannot call the instruction that he has tabled on the Order Paper. It is out of order on two counts. First, it seeks to embody in the Bill provisions that are in no way cognate to its existing provisions and scope. Secondly, it is inconsistent with the decision of the House on the Second Reading, when an amendment which would have had the effect of rejecting the Bill because its scope excluded a discussion of proportional representation was negatived by 27 votes to 355.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful to you for your advice on my instruction. If I appear to be arguing with you, it is not that I disagree with your ruling, because I am bound by that, as is the House as a whole. I simply seek further elucidation.
May I refer, on the first point about the instruction being cognate, to page 509 of "Erskine May" which deals with:
"Admissible Instructions.—(1) Extension of objects."
This paragraph reads:
"An instruction is necessary to authorise the introduction of amendments into a bill, which extend its provisions to objects not strictly covered by the subject matter of the bill as disclosed on the second reading, provided that these objects are cognate to its general purposes."
"Erskine May" goes on to give a number of specific examples, one of which is particularly relevant. On page 510 there is mention of the Restoration of Order in Ireland (Indemnity) Bill, the Public Bodies (Admission of the Press to Meetings) Bill and a number of others. In the middle of those examples is the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Bill 1928. "Erskine May" says that on that Bill,
"to assimilate the franchises for men and women in respect of parliamentary and local government elections and for purposes consequential thereon, an instruction was put down,
1742
empowering the committee to insert provisions dealing with the maximum scale of election expenses. The Speaker stated that it was doubtful whether the committee would be able to entertain this question without an instruction, and that he considered this question cognate to the bill. The instruction was accordingly moved and agreed to."
What I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, is that the question of the method of election is as cognate to this Bill as was the question of election expenses in the case of the Representation of the People (Equal Franchise) Bill.
The second point that you have raised, Mr. Speaker, places the House in a considerable dilemma. You will recall that when the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) moved his amendment he moved it as follows:
"That this House, whilst acknowledging that the number of Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland ought to be increased, declines to give a Second Reading to the Bill because its narrow scope fails to provide an opportunity for this House to determine whether or not those Members should be elected according to the principle of proportional representation."—[Official Report, 28th November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 256–7]
The wording of that amendment has placed hon. Members in a difficult situation. If they voted for the amendment they could be welcoming, or acknowledging, the argument that the number of Members of Parliament representing Northern Ireland ought to be increased. They may have had doubts about voting for it because of the provision concerning proportional representation. According to the amendment, an increase in seats would require proportional representation. If hon. Members had wanted proportional representation but not an increase in Members they would have had to vote against the amendment.
Hon. Members were placed in a difficult position over the Government's original motion. If there had been a fine balance on this first point, concerning the cognate provision, those of us who wanted to discuss proportional representation, or STV, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) would call it, would have been stymied by the words of the Liberal amendment. They represented a Morton's fork. We should either have had to welcome the increase in seats and debate proportional representation or we should have had to say that we did not welcome

1743
the increase and so did not welcome proportional representation.
We are in a difficulty. It is your proper prerogative, Mr. Speaker, to decide what amendments to call. There were two amendments on Second Reading, one from the hon. Member for Isle of Ely and one in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). In your wisdom, you chose the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely. The result has been that we are prevented from discussing something which many of us regard as being of the utmost importance in terms of the way in which Northern Ireland is represented in this House.
Proportional representation for Northern Ireland Members would bring the form of election to this House from the Northern Ireland constituencies into line with the system used there in local government elections, Assembly elections and European Parliament elections. I am sorry to have taken up so much time on this point, but I should be grateful if you could advise us as to how final your decision is.
What is the position of Back Benchers when we have a Bill that has been finely drawn by the Government and on which there is collusion between the two Front Benches, with a view to pushing it through all its stages in one day? This is preventing proper consideration of the important constitutional issues that are involved.
Mr. Stan Thorne: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am one of the hon. Members to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) referred. I wished to vote on the basis of supporting proportional representation. I wished to support PR then, as I have supported that principle in the House on previous occasions. However, I was prevented from so doing because of the wording of the amendment, which implied acceptance of increased representation in seats in Northern Ireland. For that reason, although I am recorded as voting in a certain way, I am in a dilemma, and my dilemma remains.
5.0 p.m.
I believe that this House has never debated or decided upon PR per se. It
1744
has been linked with devolution and the Common Market, and in this instance with Northern Ireland. I believe that it is proper for us to debate the electoral system under which these new seats would be provided.
Mr. Speaker: I have listened with great care to both hon. Members who have contributed to this short discussion. I have spent a good deal of time considering this matter. First, I wish to inform the House that the Bill that is now before us concerns the numbers of seats, not the method of election. Secondly, there is no doubt that the House disposed of an amendment, with all its difficulties for hon. Members, in most decisive terms when the matter was discussed. There fore, I am afraid that I am unable to call the instruction.
Considered in Committee.
[Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]
The Chairman: May I deal with the first group of amendments—
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. I regret having to interrupt you before we have properly begun our proceedings on the Bill, but I wish to draw your attention to the provisional list of selected amendments.
Following Mr. Speaker's ruling on the instruction, are you open to argument on the question whether we shall be able to discuss amendment No. 1 and the subsequent amendments in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and in my name, or amendment No. 16 which appears in the name of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who unfortunately is not present in the Committee?
The Chairman: Perhaps I should make one general point to the Committee. It is important that I should give a general ruling at this stage.
I wish to remind the Committee that this Bill is a very narrow one. It has one purpose and one purpose only, namely, to increase the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland. All its provisions relate either to that or to the necessary consequential amendment of existing law that such a change involves. Anything else is outside the scope of the Bill and, with four exceptions, all the

1745
amendments and new clauses that do not appear on the selection list relate to different purposes and are out of order on that ground. The four exceptions are amendments Nos. 19 to 22, which, in the exercise of my usual discretion, I have not selected.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) asked about amendments Nos. 1, 5, 12, 23 and. I think, new clause 1.
Mr. McNamara: I did not mention new clause 1. I wished to refer to amendment No. 1.
The Chairman: New clause 1 deals substantially with the same point. Dealing with amendment No. 1, I should inform the hon. Gentleman that that amendment. to which others are consequential, would introduce a form of proportional representation that would go well beyond a simple increase in the number of constituencies with which this Bill is concerned.
Mr. McNamara: I wish to thank you for your remarks, Mr. Murton. However, I am perplexed, on the subject of constituencies and Members, as to which comes first, the chicken or the egg. Since you have informed the Committee that you are concerned with constituencies, I of course accept what you say. I also understand that you are exercising your discretion in this matter. However, 1 should like to draw your attention to the amendment that appears in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose)—amendment No. 18—which ties in with new clause 3. The effect of the new clause and amendment No. 18 is aimed not at the substance of the Bill but at the time, place and circumstances under which the Bill will come into operation.
I submit that there are precedents showing how and when legislation on constitutional topics and the franchise should come into operation. I refer you, Mr. Murton, to section 2 of that excellent piece of legislation, the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. In regard to devolution, that Act said:
"If it appears to the Secretary of State—(a) that the Northern Ireland Assembly (in this Act referred to as 'the Assembly') has made satisfactory provision by its standing orders for the purposes mentioned in section 25(2) to
1746
(5) below; and (b) that a Northern Ireland Executive can be tormed which, having regard to the support it commands in the Assembly and to the electorate on which that support is based, is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community, and that having regard to those matters there is a reasonable basis for the establishment in Northern Ireland of government by consent, he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council appointing a day for the commencement of Part II of this Act."
That Act was rushed through the House in about four hours during one afternoon in 1971 following an appeal in the Irish Court of Criminal Appeal. A manuscript amendment was accepted, which was complementary to my suggestion. It was proposed that the Act should come into operation contingent upon certain happenings. That amendment was put forward by the then Leader of the Liberal Party, the right hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Thorpe), and included a provision to the effect that the Act would cease after six months. The Chair was prepared to accept that amendment. I remember the occasion distinctly because only seven hon. Members voted for it. However, it was accepted by the Chair.
The amendments to which I have referred do not restrict the principles contained within the Bill. They seek to define the places and the times when the measure may come into operation. There are adequate examples of similar sections in other legislation. A provisional list has been drawn up by the Chair. I urge you, Mr. Murton, with respect, to consider carefully whether either amendment No. 18 or new clause 3 could be accepted.
The Chairman: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull. Central (Mr. McNamara) for explaining his argument so clearly. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will realise that I took considerable care when making my selection. I took that care because there are certain difficulties.
The main difficulty from the hon. Gentleman's point of view is that the Bill is extremely narrow. The two Acts to which he has referred and prayed in aid in the hope that I might reconsider my decision were much wider in scope. Amendment No. 18 and new Clause No. 3 both have the effect of seeking to delay the operation of the Bill until the occurrence of hypothetical events that are in no way concerned with a number of the

1747
existing constituencies in Northern Ireland. I have listened with great sympathy to the hon. Gentleman's arguments but I cannot accede to his request.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Kingstonupon-Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) was good enough to refer to new clause 5, which was tabled in my name and which relates to Northern Ireland peers. The hon. Gentleman showed great interest in the matter on Second Reading, when I had something to say, as did he. I invite the attention of hon. Members to the effect of the new clause. It is an important point, although I fully accept that it is extraneous to a House of Commons Bill. I fully accept your decision, Mr. Murton, not to select the new clause. I should have been astonished if you had selected it.
The Chairman: I am a grateful to the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) for the comfort and support that he has given the Chair. The hon. Gentleman is correct. The membership of another place is entirely outside the scope of this measure.
Mr. McNamara: You referred, Mr. Murton, to hypothetical circumstances. Despite the statement of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on Second Reading about what is Government policy, and despite what the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) stated was the policy of the official Opposition, the question whether there will be devolved government in Northern Ireland may be hypothetical if the measure before us is enacted as it stands. You will recall that that was the burden of the arguments of some of my hon. Friends.
If one is to argue that something is out of order because it is based upon a hypothetical happening, every piece of legislation that we pass may well be in that category, no matter how widely or narrowly drawn. For example, a progressive system of income tax based upon increasing allowances for the number of children presupposes that two people will come together—a hypothetical possibility—and have children. That approach forgets about the revolution of the pill or the fall in the size of families. I understand that the average family per married couple is 1·9 children.
1748
5.15 p.m.
I do not believe, Mr. Murton, that you are scraping the barrel in trying to find an objection to my proportion. I believe that a proper attitude has been taken to the problem. As is our custom, we have before us a provisional list. With respect, Mr. Murton, I suggest that you reconsider the nature of the rules. To argue on the basis of what might or might not be a hypothetical happening is inconsistent with decisions that have been taken on amendments to other Bills. The example that I have given was based on a widely drawn Bill, but the Armed Forces Bill 1976 was narrowly drawn. It was so narrowly drawn that it was written in longhand. We never received a proper copy of the Bill, because it was rushed through so quickly.
Even if we are concerned with a hypothetical circumstance, surely we may still discuss the matter and still argue the case for the operation of the Bill to come into force when that hypothetical event takes place. With great respect, I do not think that it is for the Chair to say that the aims and objectives of Her Majesty's Government's policies are hypothetical, any more than I think it right to say the same about the policies of the official Opposition. If your decision, Mr. Murton, is based on the word "hypothetical", I suggest, with respect, that we be given a further opportunity to discuss the matter.
The Chairman: I am prepared to drop the word "hypothetical" if that will be in any way of help to the hon. Gentleman. That word does not affect my ruling. The amendment and the new clause have the effect of seeking to delay the operation of a measure that is before us until the occurrence of events that are in no way concerned with the number of the existing constituencies in Northern Ireland. "Hypothetical" might be superfluous. I must stand by what I have said. I am afraid that we cannot incorporate in this discussion that which the hon. Gentleman seeks, and I must stand by the ruling that I have given.
Mr. A. W. Stallard: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. In your opening remarks you rightly described the Bill as a narrowly drawn measure. It is a tightly drawn but exceedingly important Bill. We are about to discuss an

1749
important constitutional issue. It is obvious that there is not a great deal of interest in it in the House, but there is outside, including both parts of the island of Ireland.
Are we not entitled at least to the presence of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Leader of the House, or both, on such an important constitutional issue? If you agree, Mr. Murton, that our discussion merits their presence, bearing in mind that the outcome of the Bill may determine the Government's thinking over at least the next five years, and perhaps beyond that, and may give rise to other similar Bills, or Bills that will have an effect similar to the one before us, do you not agree that we are entitled to the courtesy of the presence of the Secretary of State while we discuss such an important matter?
The Chairman: I note the observations made by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), but I point out that this is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. You said that it was not a matter for the Chair. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) referred to an interesting point. When this matter was discussed as a clause moved by the then hon. Member for Down, South, Captain Orr, on the Constitution Bill, there voted against this very proposal the Leader of the House, the Home Secretary, and my right hon. Friend who is now the Minister of State. I am sure that he will perform very well for his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but he is still not the Secretary of State. Almost the only person from the Government who can come in virgin and unsullied in his attitude to the proposals is the Secretary of State.
It seems to me, therefore, that rather than expecting, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North has done, that the Home Secretary, the Leader of the House and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should stand on their heads—or do whatever sort of contortion Members do when they get into the Government and change their policies overnight for very facile and very dangerous reasons—the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should be here in his
1750
virgin form, young, and unsullied by what has gone on in the past, not having voted, and able to give his opinion on it.
The Chairman: None of that is a matter for the Chair.

Clause 1
INCREASE OF NUMBER OF CONSTITUENCIES IN NORTHERN IRELAND
Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 1, line 10, leave out
'18 or less than 16'
and insert
'24 or less than 21'.
The Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 2, in page 1, line 10, leave out '18' and insert '16'.
No. 4, in page 1, line 10, leave out '16' and insert '14'.
No. 6, in page 1, line 14, leave out '17' and insert '22'.
No. 7, in page 1, line 14, leave out '17' and insert '15'.
No. 8, in page 1, line 16, leave out '16' and insert '21'.
No. 9. in page 1, line 16, leave out '16' and insert '14'.
No. 10, in page 1, line 16, leave out '18' and insert '23 or 24'.
No. 14, in page 2, line 5, leave out '17' and insert '22'.
No. 15, in page 2, line 5, leave oat '17' and insert '15'.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. May we take it that there will be two Divisions, as one of the amendments is to reduce the number of seats and one is to increase it?
The Chairman: I should have said, before I called the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) to move his amendment, that if the Committee desires to have a Division on amendment No. 3, and amendment No. 3 is negatived, I shall be prepared to allow a separate Division on amendment No. 2 if that is required by the Committee.
Rev. Ian Paisley: It has been said by the Government that the aim of the Bill is to give fair representation in Parliament to the people of Northern Ireland. I

1751
notice that, writing in Tribune, the Minister of State emphasises that very point when he says that the question really is
"whether the people of Northern Ireland deserve fair representation in Parliament."
It is the contention of the Government, of the official Opposition, and, I believe of the Official Unionist Party, that the Bill will accomplish fair representation in this House for the people of Northern Ireland. I take a different view, because I do not believe that the numbers decided on by the Speaker's Conference—and consequently by those hon. Members who found themselves involved in the proposals of the Bill—give fair representation numerically to the people of Northern Ireland. I want to develop this aspect, because it is very important to the people of Northern Ireland.
I always thought that when a Speaker's Conference was called concerning the boundaries of constituencies and the increase in constituencies, the prime purpose of such a Speaker's Conference was to hear from all parts of the House the exact feeling, and to hear the representations that Members of this House might have to make in relation to what is a very important matter.
We know that the Speaker's Conference was so constituted that only Official Unionists had the opportunity of taking part in the deliberations. Those deliberations are, of course, secret. Some Members of this House to this day do not know and never will know what took place in those deliberations.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman later on.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is not the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) aware that a member of the Social Democratic and Labour Party was a member of the Speaker's Conference?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am not arguing that point, with all due respect to the hon. Gentleman. I am talking of the Unionist representation. At that time there were other voices of Unionists in this House. There was my colleague the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) who is beside me. There was the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), who at that time was leading the Vanguard
1752
Party. There was also the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who has not been a member of the Official Unionist Party. Surely those three Members, as against one Member from the SDLP, had a right to have their voices heard at the Speaker's Conference? That right was denied them. I have no objection to the hon. Member for Belfast, West having been at the Speaker's Conference, because he had a right to be heard on this issue, but what about the section of Unionism for which I am speaking? I shall maintain in the debate that I am speaking for a wider section of Unionism than were the two hon. Gentlemen who were at the Speaker's Conference, because my view has been endorsed by all sections of the Unionist-voting people in the Convention, which was elected on proportional representation. This needs to be kept in mind.
Mr. Fitt: I fully concur with the objections that have been raised by the hon. Gentleman. Even though it has been said that the Speaker's Conference was kept private and that we were not supposed to say what happened at it, may I tell the hon. Gentleman from the Floor of this House that I made vehement pleas to have as many people from Northern Ireland as possible at the Speaker's Conference. I also urged that the press should be admitted and that the proceedings, if necessary, should be held in Northern Ireland. It was certainly not by any action of mine that the Speaker's Conference was held in such privacy.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The official Opposition are involved in this as much as are the Government. The Government, when they talk about fair representation for Northern Ireland, should make sure that it is fair representation. That was not the case at the Speaker's Conference. A large section of elected Unionism was not heard. The elected representatives of that Unionism—Official Unionism, Vanguard Unionism, Democratic Unionism and Independent Unionism—had put firmly on the record their attitude to the number of seats, which is the issue that we are debating in this House today.
Mr. Stallard: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech, and I apologise for interrupting at this point. I should like him to tell me something, if he will, because

1753
it is important to my own thinking, and we are all trying to develop our attitudes on this very important question. Would he have adopted the same approach about increased representation were Stormont still in existence? In other words, would fair representation have the same kind of connotation, given an Assembly or a Government in the Six Counties such as existed with Stormont, or would the hon. Gentleman have other considerations? It is an important question and one that I would like to get clear from my own point of view.
Rev. Ian Paisley: My view is that it is more important for Northern Ireland to have a devolved form of government than to have extra seats here. I should make it clear that that is a personal view.
Mr. Harold McCusker: What about the Convention report?
5.30 p.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I shall deal with the Convention report. I put this on record in my Second Reading speech. I am not going back on anything that I said before. If the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) wants to say something about it, he can. The hon. Gentleman is now leaving the Chamber. On Second Reading I made it clear that my aim and objective was to have proper devolved government in Northern Ireland. That was also the primary objective of the Convention. The hon. Gentleman, who has run out of the Chamber, was not a member of the Convention, so it ill becomes him to deliberate on the matter. That is the issue.
Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to finish this point. We are coming here not like Cinderellas pleading with this Parliament "Please give us a few more Members of Parliament". If we are to have fair representation, it ought to be fair. Northern Ireland is entitled to fair representation in this place.
Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?
Rev. Ian Paisley: No, not on this point, because I am only just developing it.
1754
I believe that we should have proper devolved government in Northern Ireland. I take the parallel with Scotland. A Scottish devolved Government will not take away seats from Scottish Members here. This is a vital point. When Stormont came into existence, seats in this place were taken away. Now there is a reconsideration on the part of the Government and talk about fair representation. If we are to be fair, Northern Ireland should have proper devolved government. I am prepared to have the issue of proper devolved government in Northern Ireland put to the test in a referendum, in the same way as is to be done for Scotland and Wales. However, we should have fair representation in this place. If I were asked to make a choice, I should go for devolved government in Northern Ireland. I should be content, although it would not be fair, to have just the 12 seats here. However, I am not arguing for that today.
Mr. McNamara: I think that in this matter the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is perhaps more honest than some of those who sit on the Bench with him. I should like to put two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, does he agree that acceptance of the policy of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), which the Bill embodies, means that his hopes of an acceptable form of devolved government in Northern Ireland are considerably reduced because we should be moving to an integrationist situation?
Secondly, I understand that the hon. Gentleman put his name to the majority report of the Convention and the proposed Act at the end. Clause 52 provides:
"The number of Representatives from Northern Ireland in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be such number (but not less than 20) as may be determined by a judicial commission appointed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom within six months of the appointed day."
The Official Unionists, in getting what they have got from the Government, regrettably, have in fact got the worst end of the stick compared with what the majority of the Convention thought they wanted. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for quoting from a book with an orange binding.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman should quote more from books with

1755
orange binding. The Government, the official Opposition and the Official Unionists, in the Speaker's Conference, did not have before them a Member representing the other side of the coin of Unionism. What is more, the report flew in the face of what elected Unionist representatives of the people of Northern Ireland had already agreed to.
I want now to come to the Convention. The main aim of the Convention was to have devolved government in Northern Ireland. I brought this point out in my speech on Second Reading and I repeat it and lay it on the line here. The Convention report, at page 11, refers to representation at Westminster. It states that the UUUC, which at that time consisted of the Official Unionists, the Democratic Unionists and what became the United Ulster Unionist movement because of defection from the body of the Vanguard Unionists led by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), the UPNI—Mr. Faulkner's party —and the Northern Ireland Labour Party
"argued strongly for an increase in Northern Ireland's representation at Westminster and the Alliance Party was also prepared to give active support to this if agreement was achieved on a constitution."
The Alliance Party differed in that at that time it said "You cannot increase the number of MPs at Westminster until you have agreement on the constitution." Subsequently, when the Alliance Party made its submission to the Speaker's Conference, it changed in regard to that matter. In a very short submission, the Alliance Party stated that it would like to have 20 seats at Westminster. The Alliance Party, on page 12 of its submission, stated that
"The Alliance Party is in favour of increasing the number of Westminster seats in Northern Ireland from 12 to 20."
It also wanted representatives to be elected by proportional representation.
Therefore, we find that all sections of Unionism at that time agreed that there should be an increase. That was agreed to by the right hon. Member for Belfast, East, and people have adhered to him in the Convention. This argument is a red herring. They were not asking for extra seats as extra seats. They did not want anything different from any other part of the United Kingdom. They wanted fair representation. They did not
1756
want anything beyond what was given to any other part of the United Kingdom.
The Convention report states that
"The Report of the Royal Commission on the Constitution—hereinafter referred to as the Kilbrandon Report—also recommended an increase."
I have heard hon. Members argue that the Kilbrandon Commission was wrong to recommend an increase in representation in this place. A number of hon. Members, who have now been converted to the fact that we should have extra seats at Westminster, at that time argued against extra representation.
The Convention report continues:
"The UUUC favours a number between 20 and 24 and advances the following arguments in support of greater representation".
The Convention was elected on the single transferable vote. It was not really proportional representation. It was a similar electoral system to that in the South of Ireland. At that time the House of Commons wanted to identify us as closely as possible with the Republic. The Convention was elected on a single transferable vote—the kind of system that we have in local government, that we are to have for the European elections and that has been argued for on both sides of the House of Commons by those who believe in some kind of PR. No one in this place could argue that the Convention was elected in a manner not agreeable to those who are in opposition to the Unionist way of thinking.
The elected Unionists, who had a firm majority in the Convention, argued not for the number of seats which were agreed to at the Speaker's Conference by the two spokesmen of Official Unionism —five, perhaps four, and at most six—but for 20 to 24.
"Northern Ireland, as an integral part of the United Kingdom, ought to be represented in the United Kingdom Parliament on a basis and scale similar to that used to determine the representation of comparable parts of the Kingdom."
Those parties did not argue that we should have parity with England. That is what the Bill will give us. It does not give us parity with the rest of the United Kingdom, as I shall show. That is not my summing up of what is taking place. That was issued by the Library through its research division. It issued a paper which said that all that had been given by the Speaker's Conference was the principle

1757
of parity of representation at least with England. Therefore, it is not what I say but what the research division of the Library says.
We are getting parity only with England, not with the United Kingdom. We never asked for parity with England. We asked for parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland is taxed on the same basis as the rest of the country, and therefore the power of Parliament to tax must be balanced by the right to representation.
The Convention report says:
"The allocation of United Kingdom funds, including those spent in Northern Ireland, is determined by Parliament at Westminster. Parliament legislates for Northern Ireland. Devolved government in other parts of the United Kingdom is held by Her Majesty's Government to be fully consistent with parity of representation in the United Kingdom Parliament."
That refers to the proposals for devolution in Scotland and Wales.
The report continues:
"The UUUC suggested that the precise number of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament and the Northern Ireland constituency boundaries should be determined by judicial commission. The UPNI also argued for equality of representation with other parts of the United Kingdom and suggested that at least one of the Northern Ireland Members should be included in United Kingdom representation at the European Parliament."
The Northern Ireland Labour Party, which I understand has some fraternal connection with the Labour Party, also suggested that Northern Ireland should be given adequate representation in the House of Lords. It put forward the figure of 20 for the House of Commons. What I am seeking to do, with the hon. Member for Down, North, is to put before the House today what the Northern Ireland Convention wanted. The Northern Ireland Convention was an elected body and had the right officially to voice Unionist opinion. I want to add that not only did the Unionists, who had the majority in the Convention, want more than is offered to us today on the basis of fair representation, but the Alliance Party has said "We want 20 seats". It has had a change of mind and is prepared to go for the 20 seats. The Northern Ireland Labour Party has also said "We want 20 seats".
Therefore, the overwhelming voice of the elected representatives of Northern
1758
Ireland has said "Fair representation means not parity with England but parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, we should have what the Convention report recommended. We should have the 20 to 24 seats".
Mr. Martin Flannery: Will the hon. Gentleman explain when this newfound desire for democracy began? I seem to remember that when the hon. Gentleman and Ulster Unionists generally had their own way they did not bother unduly about legalising democracy. They managed to do all that they wanted to do as regards housing, jobs, and so on, without this legality. Is it not a fact that it is only in the last few years since there has been real opposition to the position occupied by the Ulster Unionists that a new-found desire for democracy and legality has suddenly emerged—possibly in the last six or seven years, and not before that?
The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member is getting out of order. We are not discussing legalising anything. The Committee is discussing whether we shall increase the number of seats in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Sir Myer. The point that I made is absolutely relevant to the question of the expansion of the number of seats in Northern Ireland and, indeed, is fundamental to that. It is being watched by the whole population there, as well as by a large number of people in England. Therefore, with due respect, I believe that I have raised a relevant point—although I shall accede to your ruling.
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I am obliged to the hon. Member for doing that. I disagree with the hon. Member. The point is that we are discussing whether we should increase the number recommended in the Bill.
5.45 p.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I should have thought that, even if there had been a late conversion, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) would have welcomed it. I do not accept what he said, but if Northern Ireland representatives are moving towards democracy, as he suggests, he should be happy about it and not argue against it. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman

1759
said but, as you, Sir Myer, have ruled that I cannot discuss it further, I am not permitted to follow his line of argument. I should be quite happy to do so on another occasion at some other time—
Mr. Flannery: At some other hour.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, at some other hour—probably early in the morning.
Mr. Bruce Grocott: As the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is concerned with making comparisons between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, may I ask whether he is aware that one of the many reasons why I do not like the Bill is that if the same principles of representation were applied to Staffordshire— which is, in part, my responsibility—as it is proposed should be applied to Northern Ireland. we should need an additional two seats to make it 12 instead of the 10 that we have at the moment? In the hon. Gentleman's anxiety to see that proper comparability is established throughout the United Kingdom, has he considered how many additional seats we should need to establish in Staffordshire to bring it into line with the sort of representation that he now proposes for Northern Ireland?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I should have thought that that was a matter of concern for English Members. It is no concern of mine. If English Members are prepared to be under-represented, that is their business, and I am not at all concerned about it. I am dealing with a matter that has been put forward by the party to which the hon. Member belongs. The Labour Party is trying to argue down the throats of the people of Northern Ireland that the Government are giving fair representation. If the Government would say in this House "We are not giving you parity with the rest of the United Kingdom; you are getting parity only with England," we should at least have a basis for honest discussion. But an attempt is being made, by a whole welter of propaganda efforts, to tell the people of Northern Ireland "You are getting exactly the same as the rest of the United Kingdom".
I shall take up the point made by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott). I shall consider one of
1760
the English seats about which he seems to be so concerned. Newcastle,
Central—
Mr. Grocott: What about mine?
Rev. Ian Paisley: Newcastle, Central has 23,556 constituents, while my constituency has 102,828. When one compares those, one sees that the seat which I represent is four-and-a-half times larger than one English constituency.
Mr. Grocott: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has come on to that point. It is of tremendous interest to me because, representing as I do Lichfield and Tamworth, one of the matters that concerns me about Northern Ireland is the small size of the electorates of the constituencies there. Ten out of the 12 are substantially smaller than my own. Naturally, I take the view that I am capable of representing 100,000-plus constituents, and I do it, I hope, rather better than many of the Members in Northern Ireland.
I should have thought that although the hon. Gentleman is anxious to have the constituency sizes reduced, and although he is honest and frank enough to admit that he is not concerned about the rest of the United Kingdom—I think that I paraphrase him accurately—he must, surely, be concerned about it to the extent of considering how we would physically accommodate the Members in this House if we were to apply to the rest of the United Kingdom the principles of representation that he is now trying to apply to Northern Ireland.
I have not done my sums, but my guess is that it would need at least half a dozen more Members of Parliament for Staffordshire alone. The hon. Gentleman must consider the physical problems involved. If we had representation on that scale, the House would look like a crowd scene from "Ben Hur".
Rev. Ian Paisley: Knowing the way that the House is attended, one could be sure that one would get a seat if there were 800 Members rather than the 600-odd now. I am amazed at what the hon. Gentleman has said. It is typical of things that are said in the House about Northern Ireland. Let us look at the size of the Northen Ireland constituencies which the hon. Gentleman has been busy

1761
despising, saying that they are small, and make a comparison with both Scottish and English constituencies.
In Glasgow, for instance, the Central constituency has 20,412 electors. That would be the size of an old Stormont constituency in our Northern Ireland Parliament. The constituency of Western Isles has an electorate of 22,709; Orkney and Shetland has 28,307; Caithness and Sutherland has 29,598; Glasgow, Govan has 26,941. The constituency of Newcastle, Central has an electorate of 23,556; while Gateshead, West has 29,796.
If one puts those figures beside the consituencies in Northern Ireland, one sees how much out of proportion Northern Ireland is in the electoral quota in relation to the electoral quota in parts of England and Wales. Armagh has 93,496 electors, while Fermanagh and South Tyrone has 72,319. Of course, the hon. Member who represents that constituency does not come here too often, so no doubt he has time to look after his 72,319 electors.
It is noticeable, too—I am not making any point about this, but it is interesting to comment on it—that the Republican-held seats have the lowest quota. A Republican vote is worth, in some cases, one-and-a-quarter to one-and-a-half times the value of a Protestant Unionist vote.
Londonderry has 94,871 electors; Mid-Ulster has 81,937; Antrim, North has 102,828; Down, North has 98,901; Antrim, South has 125,924; Down, South has 89,855. In the Belfast seats, Belfast, East has 76,740 electors; Belfast, North has 66,651; and Belfast, South has 70,256. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) represents a constituency of 59,924 electors.
Putting those figures together, one can see how in this matter Northern Ireland has been so badly treated by this House. There has been a determination by both sides of the House to do that. I have heard Conservative spokesmen saying that there should not be more representation for Northern Ireland in this House. They have also said that they did not feel that the time was even ripe to discuss this matter. The Labour Party, too, has commented on this issue.
1762
What I am asking today is whether Northern Ireland is to receive fair representation—not extra seats but the representation that it ought to have. It is clear that the line that is drawn in this House is parity with England and not parity with the rest of the United Kingdom. A greater injustice will now come about, because the Government have made clear that if they win the referendum there will be devolved government in Scotland but in no way will they reduce the number of Members of Parliament from Scotland, and the same applies to Wales. Yet when it does not seem to anyone in Northern Ireland that steps will be taken to have a devolved form of government there in keeping with democratic principles, where the wishes of the majority will be acceded to, we are to have our numbers fixed not on the basis of parity with the rest of the United Kingdom, as they should be, but with England. That is very unfair indeed.
There is another matter that disturbs me. Attempts are made to argue that these seats will go one way or the other. It is the business of this House to see to it that the people of Northern Ireland have proper numerical representation in this House, but it is no business of this House how the people of Northern Ireland vote in those constituencies. That is the business of the electorate. Yet in order, probably, to persuade certain hon. Members of the Left wing of the Labour Party, it is said that these seats will go entirely to Republicans.
That statement was made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He said:
"Of the 17, it is quite likely that four or five could be anti-Unionist seats."—[Official Report, 9th November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 1168.]
That statement alarms me, because that could not happen unless there were to be colossal gerrymandering. Looking at the map of Northern Ireland, one sees that that is an absolute fact. If one wanted to carve out those seats in that way, I do not know how one could ever get five such seats.
The Minister of State went a little further, when he wrote to Tribune saying:
"Nevertheless, given the statutory rules which bind Boundary Commissions, the geography of Northern Ireland makes it very

1763
likely that there will be a majority of non-Unionist voters in perhaps five of the new constituencies … Four or five anti-Unionists would be likely to be on our side of the House and in a hung Parliament likely to give us a majority too."
Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Before we proceed on this line, let me say that I am in a difficulty. The question of the duty of the Boundary Commission does not enter into our deliberations this afternoon. We could get into very dangerous and what I would regard as strictly out of order contributions if we were to look at the matter from the viewpoint of how these constituencies will ultimately vote when they are created. I therefore ask hon. Members to keep in line with what the Bill provides and not to try to discuss the duty which will devolve upon the Boundary Commission when the Bill becomes law.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I am sorry to appear to be seeking to challenge your ruling. However, one of the points that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has been making concerns the arguments made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, both in the presentation of the Bill and earlier, about what might happen—in fact, it was said with a greater degree of certainty than that—about the representation in this House should extra seats be allocated to Northern Ireland.
The occupants of the Chair on those occasions did not rule my right hon. Friend out of order when he made these points. If these are the arguments being advanced for the increase in the number of seats which we are discussing under the amendment, are we not in order in examining the grounds for the supposition of the Secretary of State in making this one of his binding arguments? I am informed that that was one of the arguments that he used at the Speaker's Conference to persuade people of the wisdom of this matter. Whether that is true I do not know. I was not there, and it is only the whisper that one hears about these things.
Let us consider what my right hon. Friend said on Second Reading. He referred to
1764
"an increased number of anti-Unionist members on the Labour Benches."
I asked that we should see
"the documents, papers and workings by which my right hon. Friend arrives at that rather remarkable conclusion".—[Official Report, 28th November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 245.]
I regarded that as a wide and sweeping assumption and, democratically, as a dangerous statement to make, flying in the face of the known facts about the distribution of population in Northern Ireland. Surely, we are allowed to pursue that point.
6 p.m.
Mr. Thorne: Further to the point of order—
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Let me deal with one point of order at a time. I have listened carefully to it. I remind the hon. Member that this is not a Second Reading debate. That is the first point, and an important factor in our debates. The House is now in Committee and there are entirely different orders and Standing Orders governing our deliberations. It has already been explained that this is a narrow Bill, simply deciding whether the number of seats in Northern Ireland has to be increased or not and by what number.
We are now dealing with an amendment to go beyond what is included in the Bill. To get into arguments about how those seats will ultimately be disposed of in political terms is, in my opinion, out of order. So long as one deals purely with the number of seats being created, which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) wishes to amend, that will be in order, but I do not see anyone being able to juggle on a narrow tightrope of this kind.
Mr. McNamara: If what is feared as a result of statements is that there might be suggestions of a deliberate gerrymander to obtain a desired result—
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. It would be completely out of order to deal with what will happen when the Boundary Commission gets down to examining the situation.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Perhaps you can help me, Sir Myer. Am I right in thinking that when the Boundary Commission reports this House can accept its report or reject it?
The First Deputy Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Fitt: On a point of order, Sir Myer. May I draw your attention to the evidence of the Leader of the House to the Speaker's Conference? I referred to evidence given the previous week by Mr. Justice Murray, the Deputy Chairman of the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission, who had said that he was not concerned with politics, religion or any other consideration in drawing up boundaries. He said that he was concerned only with the numbers of people—in other words, a head count.
I referred to this in paragraph 144, speaking to the Leader of the House:
"Mr. Justice Murray, Deputy Chairman of the Boundary Commission in Northern Ireland, said quite clearly last week that he could only take into account—this would be his primary consideration—the number of people, the number of heads, he would not be able to take into account any religious or political criteria. If that is so then a very important part of the whole Northern Ireland problem would be neglected if we are to look at the figures purely on the basis of the number of heads?"
In reply, the Leader of the House said:
"I think it would be very difficult to give instructions to the Boundary Commission which would take into account all the factors which you have mentioned though some of those factors might be taken into account. But again I think that is primarily a question for the House of Commons to decide in the way in which it sets up the Boundary Commission or the way in which it passes judgment on the Boundary Commission. I am not saying these are not important matters but we would hope the issue for this Conference is something different. Of course those questions are matters which the House of Commons can discuss both before and after the Boundary Commission is established."
In paragraph 157, again in answer to my questions, the Leader of the House said:
"The House of Commons will consider all those matters because obviously those considerations will be put to the House of Commons when it makes its decisions."
Time and time again, as any hon. Member can see from the minutes of evidence, in answer to my questions the Leader of the House said repeatedly that there would be no restriction on debate in this House before or after the setting up of the Boundary Commission.
The First Deputy Chairman: That is exactly what the House has done. There was no restriction during the Second Reading debate on what had been pro-
1766
mised. As the hon. Gentleman himself said, the House will finally decide whether to accept or reject the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. This afternoon we are considering whether to leave out
"18 or less than 16"
and insert
"24 or less than 21"
and in another case to leave out "18" and insert "16". That is what we are to discuss.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I have been trying to keep within this argument, but when the people of Northern Ireland are told that they will get fair representation and then Ministers say that possibly five seats will go to anti-Unionist candidates, they are perplexed. They wonder how Northern Ireland can be carved up in this way.
The Secretary of State and his colleagues have been quite open about this in the House and in letters to the press. They have said that the aim is four or five Members who will be anti-Unionist. Immediately that is said, the people of Northern Ireland ask how they are to have fair constituencies when it has already been decided that they must be Republican constituencies. That is an important point which comes into the numbers question.
On the increase in numbers, the Alliance Party and the Northern Ireland Labour Party have come into line with the thinking of the UUUC. The Vanguard Party made a submission in which it said that proper representation would be as many as 30 seats. If that were increased, no hon. Member would be able to suggest that all of them—there were only to be five originally—would vote in a particular way.
That is my point, Sir Myer, within your ruling—that we are talking about the number of seats. Numbers are now very important when Government spokesmen are prepared to make such strong statements about how these constituencies will be made up and the type of voters that will have the majority.
Mr. Thorne: The hon. Member is confusing me. To judge by his statements in the House, he seems confident that these additional seats will return Unionist and other representatives on a similar basis as at present. I think that that is right, that

1767
additional seats will almost certainly be represented by Unionist and pro-Unionist Members. Surely, he recognises that the Secretary of State and his assistants are saying what they are about the likely representation in order to influence some of us on this side of the House to withdraw our opposition to the Bill as it stands. That is the sole purpose of it. I suspect that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is well aware of that.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I have already said that this was done to persuade certain elements of the Labour Party. However, the House is not in a position to say how the Boundary Commission will draw the boundaries. If we knew how the boundaries were to be drawn, the conclusions that are drawn could be verified and substantiated. If one looked at a map of Northern Ireland it would be difficult, but not impossible, to tell how one would carve five extra Republican seats out of the present boundaries, keeping in mind the population ratio. That is the aim. If that is what the Government want done, the people of Northern Ireland will naturally ask how this is to be fair representation.
The House should not be concerned about what Members are returned from the particular seats. We should be concerned about the number of seats that will give proper numerical representation. The trouble is that the House does not like the way people vote in Northern Ireland, and there have been many experiments to try to change it. We have tried to change it by changing boundaries, councils, voting and how people vote. At the end of the day the majority of the people will still get their message and convictions across.
It is unfair for Government spokesmen to make the statements that they are making. The people of Northern Ireland must inevitably ask whether the Boundary Commission will so deal with the boundaries that the end product will be what the Government are now saying.
Mr. John Farr: My impression was that Government Ministers said that out of the total of new seats for Northern Ireland there could be perhaps four or five that voted with the Government. They did not say that out of the new extra number of seats—five, six or whatever—there would be four or
1768
five extra Republican seats. They indicated that the total representation which might vote with the Government out of the new conglomeration could be as high as four or five.
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to me carefully, or he would not have made that remark. This is what the Minister of State said, and I quote from Tribune:
"Nevertheless, given the statutory rules which bind Boundary Commissions, the geography of Northern Ireland makes it very likely that there will be a majority of non-Unionist voters in perhaps five of the new constituencies."
I am not trying to misrepresent anybody in this House.
6.15 p.m.
Mr. McNamara: I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has not risen to speak on this issue. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has not seized the point that was made by my right hon. Friend in his article. I accept the argument of the hon. Gentleman about the substance, but on the use of the word "new" he is perhaps following a false trail. My right hon. Friend was talking about new in the context of the 17 new constituencies, not the creation of five new seats.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said on Second Reading:
"On the basis of this Bill, there will be 17 seats, and it is possible … once the boundaries have been redrawn, going for an electorate of just over 60,000 per Member, for there to be four or possibly five anti-Unionists out of the 17. Therefore, the minority population in Northern Ireland should be able to get increased representation in the House of Commons. If anyone wants to take the time to look at the make-up of the population and examine the breakdown, he will find that that is feasible.—[Official Report, 28th November 1978 ; Vol. 959, c. 245.]
I then rose on a point of order to ask whether we could have the documents, papers and workings of the Secretary of State. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will concede that his first point is incorrect, but on the second point I believe that his argument is valid.
Rev. Ian Paisley: It is incorrect only in the sense that the Boundary Commission is not obliged to change every constituency. We have had a reshuffle of seats in the past in Northern Ireland. When I came into this House, Antrim,

1769
South was a far larger constituency than it is today. There was then a change. Belfast, West was slightly enlarged, Antrim, North was enlarged, Antrim, South was reduced, but the other seats were left as they were. It does not follow that every oncsttuency must be changed. I concede that there will be more than five new constituencies. That does not mean that all 17 will be absolutely new constituencies. If I have misrepresented anyone, I apologise sincerely.
We are dealing with numbers today. We are dealing with numbers that have been commented upon, and it has been said that this will give Northern Ireland fair representation with the rest of the United Kingdom. I take exception to that That is why I am moving this amendment which is in keeping with the finding of the Northern Ireland Convention, which was an elected body set up by this House. It is also in keeping with other parties which have now come in and changed their minds, however belatedly, and which believe that the number of seats should be about 20.
The figure put today could be four or five or even six. We might get four or five, but it is hardly likely that we will get six. Even if we get six we still do not have fair representation for Northern Ireland in keeping with the rules that govern electoral quotas in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I wish to oppose this amendment because the mover of it has worked on an assumption, namely, that there is something that he describes as the United Kingdom quota that the figures in the Bill do not tally with. There is, of course, a Great British quota. If the hon. Member reads the document that has been prepared by the Library he will find clearly stated in that document that were Northern Ireland to receive 16 seats, which is the minimum number proposed in the Bill, it would be in line with both the quota that England receives and the quota that is described in that document as the Great British quota.
On the other hand, if the hon. Member is trying to suggest that Northern Ireland is not receiving the same number of seats as Scotland or Wales, his point is valid. But it is valid only to the extent that were Northern Ireland to receive the same
1770
number of seats as Wales one would hope that the Boundary Commission would increase the number from 12 to 18. Were it to be put on the same basis as Scotland, I freely admit that 18 is not the required figure. It would have to be 19.
One could argue that the situation in Scotland is different from that in Northern Ireland. Therefore, in drawing the boundaries of the constituencies, at least in Scottish terms, one is to some extent limited to what is possible within the geography of that region of the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is wrong in supposing that Northern Ireland will not receive a comparable number of seats if we take the Great British quota or the English quota. His argument holds good only if he compares what is in the Bill with what Scotland at present receives.
I declare an interest in that I was a member of the Speaker's Conference. All of us who took part in those deliberations had a single objective—to give electoral equity to Northern Ireland in terms of the democracy of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that any of us was motivated by a desire to see this or that party, this or that religious group, or this or that political group receive advantage from what we did. Our thoughts turned on the fact that it has become generally accepted in this House that the people of Northern Ireland are under-represented at Westminster, and have been so under-represented for over 50 years, as the Leader of the House pointed out.
It is true that Northern Ireland had Stormont for many years. In fact, in this House we believed that Stormont so ruled Northern Ireland that we had little need to take account of what was going on in the Province. But that is all history. Since Northern Ireland has not had a proper Government of its own, even in the local sense, for six years, it would be wrong to continue to allow under-representation in the one democratic and elected Chamber in which the Northern Irish people still have a right to express their views in full.
The Speaker's Conference was created out of a feeling on both sides of the House that this wrong should be put right. I feel very privileged to have been a member of that Conference.

1771
I add that I shall not be satisfied until Northern Ireland not only has fair representation at Westminster but has a devolved administration of some sort or other. Only then can Northern Ireland stand on all fours with any other part of the United Kingdom. Only then can the people of the Province say that they enjoy the same democracy as the rest of the citizens of the United Kingdom, and that they have the same right to control their affairs and the same voice in Westminster.
To that extent, the figure that we arrived at in the Speaker's Conference has one flaw which I would want to see removed. I hold what some people would call a simple view. In the last analysis, I believe that each one of us in this Chamber should represent approximately the same number of electors. At present there is a serious imbalance in the number of electors whom we represent. We have heard the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Grocott) say that Staffordshire is under-represented. If he takes the so-called English quota of 65,000, he is right. By the same token, I am representing too many people in West Berkshire, because my constituency numbers more than 80,000. As we begin to get the spread of seats correct for the regions, we shall be forced to look at the whole structure of parliamentary representation in this Chamber.
If we were to work on simple mathematical calculations, with everybody representing about the same number of people, England should have an increase of 12 seats from 516 to 528. Scotland should have its number of seats reduced from 71 to 59 and Wales should have its number reduced from 36 to 32. In other words, Scotland should have a reduction of 12 and Wales a reduction of four. That meets the point that was made by the hon. Member for Lichfield and Tamworth, because 12 more seats for England and a reduction of 16 for Wales and Scotland would give a net result of about the same number of Members as we have already, and the representation would be much fairer, particularly to England.
Because there are geographic considerations of which we must take account—this argument has been used for leaving Scotland as it is—and because the Speaker's Conference was considering
1772
Northern Ireland representation, we had to decide whether we should aim for a figure approximating to the Great British quota or whether we should put Northern Ireland on a par with Scotland or Wales. In our wisdom, or otherwise, we came to the compromise solution embodied in the Bill.
Mr. James Kilfedder: With whom was the compromise made?
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I wish that the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) would put his party political allegiance and his nationality in his pocket for a moment and look at the matter with equity. If we had put Northern Ireland on a par with one of the regions, which region would we pick? Scotland has a geographic structure which is very different from that of Northern Ireland. Scotland is very much larger in land mass. Northern Ireland is on a par, in terms of land mass, with Yorkshire. It did not seem reasonable to say that Northern Ireland should have 19 seats, giving it the same quota as Scotland.
What about Wales? Geographically Wales is more similar to Northern Ireland, giving a quota of 18 seats. Some of us thought that the least that we could do was to put Northern Ireland on a par with Wales. This would put Northern Ireland somewhere between England and Scotland. To draw a parallel between Wales and Northern Ireland is not unreasonable. However, it was fair to ask "Why Wales"? Why did we not choose England? In equity we felt that the answer lay in a compromise between the top figure of 19 seats, as in the case of Scotland, and the bottom figure of 16, as in the case of England. Taking Wales as the nearest region to Northern Ireland and drawing a comparison, we decided that 17 was the figure on which we should advise the Boundary Commission to work. It should accept that 18 was the top figure and that 16 was the lowest.
Of course, it could be said that we should have gone for the Scottish figure, because Scotland has the best representation of any part of the United Kingdom, but I am prepared to accept the geographic argument and say that it does not apply to Northern Ireland. I therefore agree with the overall recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference that 17 is the ideal figure, with 18 and 16 as the alternatives.

1773
6.30 p.m.
It has been pointed out in the paper prepared by our Library that we have set a ceiling for Northern Ireland that is, to some extent, unusual when laying down what should be the number of seats that any region may reasonably claim for its representation. The Northern Ireland electorate has increased by more than has that of any other part of the United Kingdom since 1949. If a ceiling is set for the number of seats in Northern Ireland, it may be argued that if the electorate increases enormously we may have this debate again in 10 years' time, with hon. Members arguing that Northern Ireland's population is so large that 18 seats is not a reasonable number to give fair, democratic representation.
There is some force in that argument, but although Northern Ireland's electorate has increased by 19·5 per cent. since 1949, that increase is represented only by 14,052 people—about 25 per cent. of the number of electors who will be required in future to return an hon. Member for a constituency in Northern Ireland. Therefore, if in the past 30 years we have reached an increase of only one-quarter of the number of electors who will be required for a new seat, is it not reasonable to say that we shall probably have to wait another 30 or 40 years before enough people have joined the electoral roll in Northern Ireland and for any of us to feel that 18 seats is too small a number to give fair representation?
Why did we choose a ceiling figure at all? Our view was that we had not only the responsibility to decide what would be an equitable figure to give Northern Ireland parity with other parts of the United Kingdom but a duty to give the Boundary Commission a target figure that we felt might be described as the optimum result if Northern Ireland were to have fair representation at Westminster.
We believe that the figure of 17 is that optimum result, but because drawing boundaries is a more difficult task than we may imagine, we thought that to freeze the figure on a single number and to say that it was the only number on which the Commission could work might make its job so difficult that it was better for
1774
us to give it the flexibility of plus or minus one.
We hoped and believed that that would allow the Commission to draw new boundaries with the greatest fairness to all the people living in Northern Ireland —without regard to their political loyalties, religious affiliations or party choice.
We wanted to create as much equity as possible. I oppose the amendment because I believe that Mr. Speaker's Conference reached the right decision. I may be biased, because I was a member of the Conference, but I believe that the figures in the Bill are right and those are the figures for which I shall vote.
Mr. McNamara: The whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who had the good fortune to be a member of Mr. Speaker's Conference and who has explained to us in great detail how the Conference reached its conclusions. That I disagree with those conclusions is another matter, but that the hon. Member has done the House a service in explaining properly, for the first time, how the difficult decisions were arrived at and what principles guided the Conference cannot be denied and is important to the House and the people of the United Kingdom.
I was fascinated by some of the little gems in the hon. Gentleman's speech when he put Yorkshire in one place, equated Scotland with Wales, drew a parallel here and moved a continent there and a subcontinent elsewhere. He almost became, for the House, a great cartographer, if not the greatest apologist. His speech was an interesting and valuable one, however, and we are grateful for it.
If we are to grant more seats, it should be the minimum number of seats, and to get my amendment in order, within the terms of the Bill, I have chosen 16 as the minimum number.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke of some of the speeches made on Second Reading and of promises that may have been made or implied to my hon. Friends to get them to support the Bill, or to members of the minority Republican or non-Unionist population in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman was pointing to a very dangerous procedure.

1775
If the House had decided that it would consider the introduction of proportional representation in General Elections in Northern Ireland, the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that the minority might get five or six seats might have been fair. That assessment could be made on the basis of population or the way in which votes had gone in other elections in Northern Ireland, whether for local government, the Assembly, or the Convention. However, to align certain parties in Northern Ireland with one side or the other would not be acceptable to them. In particular, the Alliance Party would not think of itself as a party of the minority. It claims to cross the divide between the two sides, and under proportional representation the Alliance Party would presumably win one or two seats. Indeed, I understand that in the elections for the European Assembly on 6th June—
The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The hon. Gentleman is aware that we are not discussing proportional representation or the European Assembly elections. Perhaps he will therefore return to the amendment.
Mr. McNamara: I was taking up a point that has been developed before and that was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who said that the minority might get five or six seats under a system of proportional representation. I said that that might be possible if the House had agreed to implement a system of proportional representation, although some parties that would reasonably hope to gain seats in such an election would regard themselves not as parties of the majority or the minority but as parties that straddled the divide.
The point that I was going on to make was that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was not referring to that sort of situation. He was referring to the sort of situation in which the Boundary Commission in Northern Ireland would take into consideration various factors, such as population, natural boundaries, county, city and town boundaries, and so on, and, on the basis of those considerations, propose a number of extra seats for Northern Ireland. My argument is that if the aim of my right hon. Friend was to persuade us and the people of Northern
1776
Ireland that, somehow, magically, they would get increased representation in this House, either he was badly advised or, as I believe, he was, perhaps unconsciously, misleading people about what a possible result would be. I do not believe that it was his deliberate intention to mislead, but I think that that will be the consequence of what has been said.
It is very dangerous to make that sort of statement anyway, for exactly the reason that the hon. Member for Antrim, North gave. If this House is to say that we should give extra seats to Northern Ireland—I do not think that we should—we cannot then say "But this is going to be the result of the election". It is absolutely wrong for us to argue in that way. It is wrong because, assuming that the Boundary Commission will be impartial, as I am sure it will be, if it leads to hope unfulfilled and promises unkept it can make the political situation far worse than it is.
If it is meant as a nod and a wink at the Boundary Commission that, somehow or other, extra seats can be carved out, with a sort of Republican cordon sanitaire along the border, or Derry city just taken out and given representation by itself against a general background, that will be a very bad situation and will amount to a reversal of the arguments that many of us were advancing about the situation in 1968 and 1969.
Hon. Members know that basically I am against the extra seats being granted to Northern Ireland, but if we are to think in terms of the way in which these extra seats are to be granted, I think that there is a great deal of substance in what the hon. Member for Antrim, North said. I much regret that, so far, we have had no interjection from the Official Unionists. I see that their Bench is completely empty.
Mr. William Craig: I am here.
Mr. McNamara: I am sorry. There will be joy amongst the angels in heaven for one sinner doing penance, and the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) is right now back in the fold. There is hope for salvation for the hon. Member for Antrim, North. He may yet repent and join the right hon. Gentleman. I apologise to the right hon. Member, but not to his colleagues, for

1777
none of them has taken part in this debate. It looks as though the Government will have to do their dirty work for them in justifying the decision to increase the number of seats.
The hon. Member for Newbury said that there was a great sense of burning injustice which had forced this House to clamour at the doors of the Leader of the House and of the Leader of the Opposition and say "Please write to Mr. Speaker and establish an electoral conference so that we can bring justice to Northern Ireland". What a marvellous situation it is, in terms of the way in which the tremendous formation of conscience, under the pressures of a lost vote and of a possible General Election and no Lib-Lab pact, was forced upon us. Is that the truth of the matter? In a sense, would that it were so. But that, of course, is not how it happens.
6.45 p.m.
In this numbers game, we have a full house. We have extended another line in order to extend the life of the Government for perhaps another six weeks, or three months, and sometimes I think that we have to say to the Government that though they make their alliances, for which we understand the reasons, and though we would be better off, and are better off, without a Tory Government, sometimes when we make these arrangements we may live to regret them.
It is ridiculous to talk about the five Members who may or may not come in, who may or may not represent a minority, as holding the balance in a hung Parliament, because if there are five of them, what about the other 12? Does it mean that they will have gone back to the other side?
I recall the 1964–66 Parliament—briefly, because I was in it for only a few weeks. If Northern Ireland had had this increased number of seats in 1964, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) would never have formed his Administration. In brutal party terms, the Government should think about that situation. The Government might really believe that if this increase in numbers goes through Parliament, Members from Northern Ireland will run around beating their breasts and saying "How sweet, how kind, how noble, how
1778
beautiful. We will support this Labour Government, yea, till the last day of November, until which time they can legally remain in office." Do my right hon. Friends think that that will happen?
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should look at the voting record of the pack of them. For example, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) has been a consistent Tory Unionist, voting that way all the time against the evils of Socialism. How did these Members vote on the question of Harland and Wolff and the Shipbuilding Industry Bill, and on so many other Bills, in order to twist us and put the Government on a rack so as to get their way and achieve this Bill?
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I want to get the essence of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. His cynicism about his own Front Bench is his own business, but is he saying that although we have parliamentary democracy and claim that people have rights, the people of Northern Ireland are to be denied those rights, which are enjoyed by the people in Scotland, Wales and England?
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman himself said that the people of Northern Ireland were to be denied the rights of the people of Scotland, so I do not think that he can bring that point forward as an argument.
As the hon. Member for Newbury knows, I am for full democratic representation of all people in the island of Ireland. I am all for the principle that there should be one vote for one man, one woman or one child over the age of 18, whether by the single transferable vote, first past the post, or whatever. But I do not believe that that representation should be here, and I see no point in advocating the policy that the number of seats here should be increased.
I believe that the Six Counties are for the time being part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but whilst I believe in their administration and the provision of services to them, I would do nothing to increase their representation here. I have always adopted the position that the right of the people in that area should be to join their fellow Irishmen in Dail Eireann or an institution with another name if they wish.

1779
I do not wish to see their representation increased here.
If the hon. Gentleman is to argue for increased representation for the people of Northern Ireland, he should take the line advocated by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. if they are to have representation they should have the best. The best would be what the Convention argued, what the members of the Convention put their signature to, and what members of the Official Ulster Unionist Party in this House have thrown away. Not one amendment from the Official Unionists seeks to achieve what they all wanted in the Convention—to persuade the Committee by the power of their arguments to bring forth the model Bill from the Convention report which would give that representation. I put my name to the hon. Member's amendment because I felt that this important matter should be debated.
When we consider the alterations that we are making in this numbers game, in this political bingo, we should remember that the prize may be control of the balance of votes in a hung Parliament. Any change in the numbers of Northern Ireland representation in this House is something that the Government and the Opposition Front Bench have tried to avoid. They have swept it under the carpet, not appreciating its significance. It is a matter of fundamental constitutional significance that the House is seeking to increase the representation.
The franchise that existed in the old Irish Parliament before 1800 mirrored very much the franchise of this House; corrupt boroughs, limited franchise, very few voters. Then, when the Catholics were given the forty shilling vote, the vote became very important. After the election of O'Connell and the defeat of Vesey Fitzgerald, part of the price for emancipation was the forfeiture of the forty shilling franchise for the £10 franchise. After the passage of time and the introduction of the Reform Act, the franchise in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as it then was, became on a par.
The representation in this House varied from time to time. Under the Act of Union, until 1832 it was 100. From 1832 to 1885 it became 105. One could argue that after the famine that represented a degree of over-representation.
1780
Perhaps Liverpool, Scotland, should have got one Member earlier and the Bowery, in New York, should have got one, as well as Boston. Nevertheless, there was that increase to 105. It dropped by two in 1918 to 103, and between 1918 and 1922 the representation was 105.
The best description of how the figures were arrived at was in the paper presented to Mr. Speaker's Conference by a Ms Frances-Jane French, MA, M.Litt, of Dublin, in which she examined in considerable detail the arrangements made in the Cabinet and the Cabinet sub-committee that dealt with Ireland in the years of the coalition of the time.
The War Cabinet held a meeting on 7th October 1919 at which it decided to set up the Cabinet Committee on Ireland. Under the chairmanship of Walter Long, former Chief Secretary for Ireland, a former Tory Chief Whip and a member of the coalition, the Committee was set up to consider Irish policy and make recommendations. This was after the Home Rule Act had been passed and it was in suspension after the outbreak of the First World War.
The Cabinet agreed on 25th November, after a full discussion
"that [the] Cabinet Committee [on Ireland] should proceed to work out the Bill or Bills … necessary to give effect to the policy proposed in its third report".
Unfortunately, there are no records of that report. I am not quoting in full, but giving sidelines. Hon. Members may wish to see the paper itself in the green box in the Library. No mention was made of the number of seats allocated to Northern Ireland or any arrangements for determining any constituency boundary. It was recommended that the Cabinet Committee
"should be asked to submit alternative drafts on any matters on which the Committee felt that the decision should rest in the Cabinet"
No alternative drafts were ever submitted to the Cabinet Committee on the question of the number of seats to be allocated to Northern Ireland or on the arrangements for deciding the constituency boundaries.
The first draft of the proposed Bill that went before the Cabinet Committee, entitled "Representation of Ireland in House of Commons of United Kingdom"

1781
stated, in subsection (a) of section (1), that:
"The number of members to be returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be 42 [i.e. 30 for Southern Ireland & 12 for Northern Ireland] and the constituencies returning those members shall (in lieu of the existing constituencies) be the constituencies determined by the Commissioners appointed by His Majesty for the purpose."
That is the origin of the number 12.
The fourth and final report of the Cabinet Committee on Ireland, dated 2nd December 1919, stated that:
"This committee are now in a position to make their final recommendations in regard to Bill X" [the Government of Ireland Bill, 1919/20]. The report went on 'The Sub-Committee [on finance of the Cabinet Committee] also make the following recommendations on points which have not yet been settled:—
(a) They recommend that representation in the Imperial Parliament should be in proportion to population which should give Ireland about 63 or 64 members' [i.e. 18 or 19 for Northern Ireland and 45 or 46 for Southern Ireland]."
7 p.m.
But:
"At a meeting of the Cabinet held on 3rd December 1919. 'Walter Long, Chairman of the Cabinet Committee [on Ireland] read the heads of the latest proposals of the Cabinet Committee, which had not yet been circulated.' These included:—
'8. That representation in the Imperial Parliament should be in proportion to population which should give Ireland about 63 or 64 members.'
'10. That the total number of Irish elected members should be three times that of the representation of Ireland in the Imperial Parliament.' … 'It has the additional advantage that the same constituencies will serve for the Imperial and the Irish elections, each constituency will return 3 members on proportional representation instead of the one they will return to the Imperial Parliament.'
It was also agreed at this Cabinet meeting:—
'That the Chief Secretary for Ireland [Mr. later Sir Ian Macpherson], in consultation, if he desired, with one or more of his colleagues, and with such Irish officials as he might desire, should complete the draft of the Bill on the basis of the above provisional decisions, as soon as possible, with a view to its further consideration by the Cabinet.'—[no mention made in 'the above provisional decisions' referred to here, of the question of the allocation of seats to Ireland in the Imperial Parliament or to the question of the determination of the constituency boundaries].
1782
A second draft of the proposed Bill … was printed on 6th December 1919. Clause 15 of this Bill entitled 'Representation of Ireland in the House of Commons of United Kingdom' states in subsection (a) of Section (1) that:—
'The number of members to be returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be [sixty three] and the constituencies returning those members shall (in lieu of the existing constituencies) be the constituencies returning members to serve in the Parliament of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland and the number of members to be returned to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom by all such constituencies shall be such as may be determined by such Commissioners as aforesaid, and each such constituency shall return one member.'
At a meeting of the Cabinet … held on 10th December 1919, Clause 16 of the proposed Bill, entitled: 'The Representation of Ireland in the House of Commons' was discussed and
'The Cabinet agreed:—
[11] (a) that subject to the result of an interview which the Prime Minister intended to have with the Irish members of the Government, Clause 16 of the Bill should be amended so as to reduce the number of Irish members provided for in thee Imperial Parliament to 42' [i.e. 12 for Northern Ireland plus 30 for Southern Ireland]—[There is no subsequent Cabinet Minute on the result of the Prime Minister's interview with the Irish members of the Government].
(b) that the Government should be prepared to re-consider the whole clause when they had ascertained the general opinion of the House of Commons on the question".
The Cabinet at its meeting on 19th December 1919 agreed after some discussion:—
[7] 'to accept the recommendations of the Cabinet Committee that the number of Irish members included in the Bill should be 42' And
[17] 'The Cabinet invited the Cabinet Committee to examine the Bill in the closest detail before its introduction in Parliament.'
A further draft of the proposed Bill was printed on 2nd February 1920. Clause 17 of this entitled, 'Representation of Ireland in House of Commons of United Kingdom' stated in subsection (a) of Section (1) that:—
'The number of members to be returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be 42 and the constituencies returning those members shall (in lieu of the existing constituencies) be the constituencies named in parts I and II of the Fourth Schedule to this Act.
The Cabinet at its meeting on 24th February 1920, the day before the Government of Ireland Bill was given its formal First Reading in the House of Commons and was ordered to be printed, came to various conclusions regarding the Bill after
'The Prime Minister pointed out that with a Bill of so controversial character much

1783
would have to be left to the temper of Parliament and many adjustments would doubtless have to be made in it later on.'
Subject to these conclusions (none of which dealt with the allocation of seats to Northern Ireland or the drawing of the constituency boundaries),
'The Cabinet gave their general approval to the Draft Bill but it was recognized that owing to the difficulty of forecasting public and Parliamentary opinion it would be necessary for the Cabinet to accept important modifications in the Bill during its passage through Parliament.' "
The writer of the paper draws an interesting parallel between
"the clause dealing with Irish representation at Westminster, as it appears in what is clearly a preliminary draft of the Bill and the comparable clause in the Bill as it was eventually printed for its introduction into the House of Commons, notwithstanding what took place regarding this matter between these two events.
This preliminary draft of the Bill is in the form of a duplicated typescript and is headed: 'Government of Ireland Act 1919'. The draft bears no date, but its contents would date it circ. the latter part of October, 1919. Clause 15 is entitled—
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to read out a document that the Committee is perfectly able to get from the Vote Office if it so wishes?
The Second Deputy Chairman: I had been wondering when the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) would relate what he was reading to the amendment.
Mr. McNamara: I am relating it to the amendment, Mr. Godman Irvine. We are arguing how the number 12, which we are seeking to amend, was originally arrived at. Until we have settled that, we are not in a position to judge whether it is right to make additions to, or deletions from, the number in question.
Some of us did not have the great advantage of being able to talk about the arguments in this fairly important paper in Mr. Speaker's Conference. Other hon. Members have a right to direct their attention to the arguments in the paper, particularly because of the conclusions with which I disagree. I disagree with them entirely, except to say that they would support what the hon. Members for Antrim, North and Down, North would perhaps argue.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: May I, Mr. Godman Irvine, draw your attention and perhaps the attention of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) to the fact that the document has been in the Vote Office since last autumn. Therefore, the idea that hon. Members other than those who served on Mr. Speaker's Conference have had no opportunity to read it is a little far-fetched, to say the least.
Mr. McNamara: I have not argued that hon. Members have not had an opportunity to read the document. What I have argued is that they have not had an opportunity to debate it, which is a different matter. We are entitled to do that, and to measure the value of the argument.
Mr. Kilfedder: Surely the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) is entitled to put forward the evidence in the paper and read it to the Committee, if need be, to answer what the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) said in his speech. I find the paper very interesting, and hope in time to use it.
The Second Deputy Chairman: If we were never allowed to quote from documents available in the Vote Office, speeches might be somewhat attenuated. The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) is entitled to refer at reasonable length to what is in a document that is available.
Mr. McNamara: I had not been quoting in extenso from the document. I have not adopted the policy of someone who once, in the American Senate, read from the second sentence to the penultimate sentence of "Gone with the Wind" in order to claim that he was merely quoting and not reading the whole document. I have tried to show where the figure 12 comes from. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newbury was following my argument with the care that he generally gives to hon. Members' arguments, as was shown by his intervention. He will have observed from what I have said that we should perhaps have had 18 or 19 Members for Northern Ireland and 45 or 46 for Southern Ireland. I am seeking to examine the arguments which led us to our conclusion on the actual numbers involved in 1920–22.

1785
One subsection of the draft Bill said:
"After the date of the first meeting of the Irish Parliament the number of members to be determined by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be forty-two and the constituencies returning those members shall (in lieu of the existing constituencies) be the constituencies named in the second part of the First Schedule to this Act, and no University in Ireland shall return a member to the Parliament of the United Kingdom."
We know that the Irish were allowed to send a university Member for some time. The paper continues:
"In the Schedule setting out the constituencies, Ulster was to consist of nine counties, with the constituency of Donegal/Fermanagh returning two members and that of Monaghan/Tyrone two members. In all, the nine counties of Ulster were to return 15 members to the single Irish Parliament proposed in this document."
I think that we can skip one or two of the following paragraphs. The important matter is that the Bill as it was ordered by the House on 25th February 1920 to be printed said:
"After the appointed day the number of members to be returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be forty-two "
and so on.
A new third subsection reads:
" 'On the appointed day, the members returned by constituencies in Ireland to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall vacate their seats, and writs shall as soon as convenient may be, be issued for the purpose of holding an election of members to serve in the Parliament of the United Kingdom for the constituencies other than University constituencies mentioned in Parts I and II of the second schedule to this Act.'—[The constituencies named in Part II of the second Schedule are those constituencies in the six North Eastern counties of Ulster]."
We arrived at a figure of 12 Members for Ulster. The figure remained more or less the same until the current problems in Northern Ireland began. Once that figure was arrived at constitutionally the people of Northern Ireland were represented sometimes by only Unionists. At other times some of the representatives were abstentionists or people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). At other times representatives did not turn up, even though they were Unionists. There was an interesting representation. Nobody challenged that situation until the unhappy problems began in Northern Ireland. Until than no one
1786
questioned the Northern Ireland representation in the House. That is of fundamental importance.
We were in a unique situation. At that time Northern Ireland Members could ask any question that they wished about England, Scotland and Wales, but they could not ask questions about housing matters in their own constituencies, for instance. Other Members could ask how many slums there were in their areas, what were the rates and any other question. But neither an English Member nor a Northern Ireland Member could ask about the Six Counties. Nobody seemed to mind.
One of the reasons for the troubles was this self-imposed gag. We had two classes of Members of Parliament. We had Ulster Unionists, who could ask about anything anywhere except in their own constituencies, and the rest of us.
What caused the sudden demand to increase the representation? The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and his Government decided, for sound reasons, that they should suspend the constitution of Northern Ireland. After that, everybody questioned whether Stormont would ever be restored to what it had been. The decision was made to get rid of Stormont and the old Governor-General and to start again with a power-sharing Assembly.
7.15 p.m.
Some of the powers of that power-sharing Assembly were to be different from those of the Stormont Parliament, and the decision was made by a number of Ulster Unionist Members, particularly by Captain Orr, who then represented Down, South, to seek to influence the House to consent to extra representation for Northern Ireland. The agitation for extra representation stems from then. Captain Orr moved new clause 6 "Representation in United Kingdom Parliament". It stated:
"(1) Section 19 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 is hereby repealed.
(2) The representation of Northern Ireland in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be not less than 16 members."—[Official Report, 21st June 1973; Vol. 858, c. 911.]
The new clause was brought up and read a First time. The number chosen —16—is interesting, not only because it is 4 times 4 but because it is the minimum number which the present Bill suggests is applicable to Northern Ireland. Captain Orr was perhaps less

1787
ambitious than some but his caution and modesty is rewarded in the Bill. At least he achieved what he asked for—possibly more in terms of extra seats. But I think that he received little of what he deserved.
Captain Orr argued that we should have more seats. His successor, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) who then represented Wolverhampton, South-West, supported that proposal. He used the delightful phrases that we have come to expect from him. He said:
"Many and many a summer at Hawarden did Mr. Gladstone ponder upon the theological problems of whether, given Home Rule, representation in this House should cease altogether or whether it should be diminished, and, if so, on what principle it should be diminished."—[Official Report, 21st June 1973; Vol. 858, c. 914.]
The right hon. Member came to a fairly sound conclusion that there was no real basis for deciding how any number was arrived at.
I have tried to show from the quotations that I gave from the Cabinet minutes of the time that basically, although there had been a certain logic in the numbers originally suggested, when one came to the position of the 12 Members and the 30 Members there was no logic in it at all. One of the important points in the paper was the fact that these were decisions taken by Cabinet in Cabinet, without any reference to the House. One could almost say that this decision to set up a Speaker's Conference, which has resulted in today's Bill, was taken by the Cabinet in Cabinet, without any reference to the party or the principles and policies of the Government up to that time.
The matter was debated in full. It was said in 1973 that the right hon. Member for Down, South had suggested that there should be 16 Members for Northern Ireland.
In many ways he was advancing the same kind of argument as that put forward by the hon. Member for Antrim, North today. What is more interesting, when we look at this debate on the numbers game—because this basically is what the debate and the policy of the Government has been about—is that it calls to mind what was said by Mrs. McAliskey, when she seemed to sum up the position of my hon. Friend the
1788
Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—though I am not sure that he would normally call her in aid. She said, speaking of the argument put forward by the right hon. Member for Down, South—although he was at that time representing a Wolverhampton seat—that the right hon. Gentleman based his argument on the claim that representation in this House for Northern Ireland was democratic.
Her argument was that none of the Northern Ireland Members ought to have been in the House. She thought that the Province was over-represented to the tune of 12 Members because Members ought to have been in their own independent country. Mrs. McAliskey wanted to make the position of her constituents quite clear. In so far as they could prevent it, not one single solitary Member would put his foot further over the threshold at Westminster.
The interesting argument here is the one advanced by my right hon. Friend, who is now the Home Secretary, on this question of the numbers game. He advanced the argument which is the one to which I believe we should apply our minds. He argued that the situation in Northern Ireland, in terms of politics, terrorism, economics and the divide which exists in the community, was such that the aims and objects of this House should not be concerned with particular number but should be concerned with trying to find a solution to the problems of Northern Ireland. My amendment seeks to reduce the proposed number of Members to represent Northern Ireland here. I hope that it will help to concentrate the minds of the people of Northern Ireland upon their problems and prevent them from looking to this House for a solution to those problems. Those will be the arguments that will cause me and my hon. Friends to seek to divide the Committee this evening.
I return to the point which I raised earlier in relation to the speech made by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. He spoke about what had been in the Convention report. We may recall that the report contained a model Bill for the future government of Northern Ireland. That model Bill contained a part VIII, dealing with Northern Ireland representation in the Parliament of the United Kingdom. This is dealt with in clauses 51 to 54. It is interesting that it comes.

1789
between part VII, dealing with legislative powers in the Parliament of Northern Ireland, and part IX, dealing with law and order.
Clause 51 said:
"Without prejudice to section 52 of this Act, Northern Ireland shall have the right to be represented in the Parliament of the United Kingdom by a number of Representatives similar to those returned to that Parliament by any other part of the United Kingdom comparable to Northern Ireland."
Clause 52 states that
"The number of Representatives from Northern Ireland in the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall be such number (but not less than 20) as may be determined by a judicial commission appointed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom within six months of the appointed day."
Clause 53 states that
"The judicial commission shall in addition determine the boundaries of each constituency in Northern Ireland to return such Representatives."
Clause 54 states that
"After the report of the judicial commission the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall enact legislation to give effect to such report."
If we compare these proposals with the Bill which we have before us, and the numbers game which we are all engaged in, the point of interest is the question of numbers. The first important point to arise from clause 52 is that we go from a boundaries commission to a judicial commission. I am certain that members of the majority party in the Convention at that time would not have made an issue of that provided that they got their particular numbers of representatatives—at least 20. That takes us back to the question of the magic number spoken of by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, which is proposed by the Government but with which I disagree. Speaking to the hon. Member's amendment, I would be interested to know why, although he pays great attention to the Convention report, he is a little bit more modest than the Convention. Although the Convention report asks specifically for 20 or more Members, the amendment of the hon. Member for Antrim, North and his right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South, to which I have appended my name because I am interested in it, is to the effect that we should leave out
"18 or less than 16"
1790
and insert
"24 or less than 21".
I am sorry that I said that the hon. Member for Antrim, North was less modest than the right hon. Member for Down, South. I should have said that he was not emulating that right hon. Gentleman's modesty. He is, in fact, asking for more. It would be interesting to hear in more detail why he felt that it was necessary to depart from the Convention report by one iota.
If we are to accept that we should increase the number of Members from Northern Ireland we must work out precisely what the figures should be. Is there to be comparability with the United Kingdom, that is, is the representation for England, Scotland and Wales to be added together and divided by the number of electors? Or are we to have comparability with Scotland, with Wales or with England?
7.30 p.m.
Once we begin on that basis with the numbers game we cannot take geographical factors into account. It is wrong that because a person lives in the Western Isles, for example, with all the advantages and disadvantages involved, his vote should be more valuable than the vote of someone living in central Hull, with all the advantages and disadvantages that that involves. If we are to get into the numbers game, everything must be of equal value. By their piecemeal additions the Government have failed to decide upon what the membership of this House ought to be. Had they done so they could then have decided upon an electoral quota instead of going about it the other way, namely, deciding upon the quota and then fixing the membership.
There are other reasons why the numbers game is important. The aim of the policies put forward from both sides of the Committee has been to achieve a devolved form of government in Northern Ireland. The object of that was that it was felt that the people in Northern Ireland would then be better able to look after their immediate domestic affairs. As a Socialist, I believe in devolution of power from the centre, enabling individuals to make as many decisions as possible about their own future, against the background of a solid economic and social base. If we are to decentralise, we must

1791
encourage devolution in Northern Ireland as well as in Scotland and Wales.
The trend in the numbers game to increase the number of seats does not lead to such devolution. That was the argument of the Government when in Opposition. Instead, such a trend leads to the argument of the integrationists. The next argument that will be made is that if we have so many more Members of Parliament we ought to ensure that we can get along without any devolved Parliament. It will be said that all that will be needed will be readjustments of the powers of local authorities.
Northern Ireland is not like any English county. I said that the Secretary of State was being dishonest. He argues that it is still the policy of the Government to achieve devolution. However, the only way of achieving this end it by ensuring that there can be no move towards integration. We must ensure that the people in the Six Counties look to themselves and seek to take powers from the Secretary of State. Once the extra seats are given such an argument is lost.
Mr. Stallard: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just when the seats have been granted that the problem will arise; it is during the vacuum that will exist between now and 1984, when the extra seats may well be a fact? Does he agree that there will be a tendency to operate in this period as though the seats had been allotted? There will be no motivation for seeking a political solution based on the lines which he has eloquently described. Does he agree that it is damaging to the aspirations of those of us seeking genuine devolution in Northern Ireland that this should be so?
Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend is right. The year 1984 is perhaps a sad one to mention in this respect. Big brother with the big stick will have won the argument. Democracy will have gone. It will be argued time and again "We are being more democratic by giving more seats to Northern Ireland". Democracy is not merely a question of majorities and minorities and of who receives a certain amount of representation. There might be the most vicious totalitarian majority possible. That would not be democratic, even though it was elected. Democracy is concerned with the way we
1792
treat people, with our attitude and respect for the rule of law. It is concerned with the quality of representation. It is not one separate item. It is not a question of votes and powers. It is to do with all sorts of rules, how we play the game, how we treat one another and so on. The system set out in the Bill will not be democratic.
The increase in numbers will remove the pressure for devolved government. Pressure will then increase for representation at local government level. When the troubles were on in Northern Ireland it was not at Stormont that the rub came. It came at local level, in job discrimination and so on. With this Bill we shall be returning to the possibility of such conduct.
If hon. Members believe that the object of the exercise is to get for Northern Ireland what is right, they should vote for the amendment of the hon. Member for Antrim, North, and should regret the fact that the Official Unionists have not tabled amendments to the Bill.
If hon. Members do not accept that argument and regard what is happening as not being in the long-term interests of the people of Ireland, or of the people of this island, they should vote for the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend and myself as the provision which will do the least harm. But whatever they vote for, if they vote for the Government's proposal they must do so appreciating that it is a shabby compromise produced in shabby circumstances—something that the Government and our party will regret.
Mr. Kilfedder: I support the amendment and hope that the Committee will allow it to pass. The people of Northern Ireland wish justice to be done to them, and this is one way in which justice can be achieved.
There is nothing more nauseating than a patronising speech, but I regarded the speech made by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) as offensive. It was offensive to me, as I am sure it was to most Unionists in Northern Ireland, because the hon. Gentleman had the privilege—a privilege that was denied to me and to many of my colleagues in Northern Ireland—of serving on the Speaker's Conference which ended by making the recommendation which is embodied in the Bill.

1793
There were on that Conference two representatives of Unionist thought in Northern Ireland—the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). I was not invited to be a member of that Conference, nor were the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who represents the Democratic Unionist Party, the former representative of the Vanguard Party, the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), and the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop).
Therefore, this is our chance in Committee on this Bill to put forward our demand for justice in the name of the Ulster people. No longer should we accept something less than justice. What has been put forward does not satisfy me or the Ulster people. We all seek the opportunity to engage in a political debate on Northern Ireland. Surely, the more Members who represent Northern Ireland in this House the better the debate will be and the sooner we shall have a political settlement.
The hon. Member for Newbury admitted that when serving on the Speaker's Conference he accepted what he regarded as being second best for Northern Ireland. That is not good enough. If that was his approach to a serious constitutional issue, I am not surprised that the Conference ended by recommending a paltry figure of few extra seats, which was an insult to the people of Ulster.
Mr. Stallard: The hon. Gentleman said that the presence of more Members from Northern Ireland would mean more discussion in this Chamber about the affairs of Northern Ireland. On what does he base that remark? As he looks round the Chamber, does he suggest that if the Unionist and Loyalist faction had another three, four or five seats in this place all the Benches would suddenly fill and we should be able to have adequate discussion on Northern Ireland? Is not that suggestion just pie in the sky? Surely such a move would contribute nothing that would benefit the people of Northern Ireland.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Kilfedder: Debate need not necessarily take place in this Chamber. If I
1794
had to make the choice between extra seats in this Parliament and a devolved Parliament in Northern Ireland, I should opt for a Stormont Parliament. In such a Chamber many matters could be freely debated. I am referring not to the old Stormont but to a Stormont in changed circumstances. It would be a place in which issues would be live and which more people would attend and be eager to debate matters of importance to the Ulster people.
However, until that devolved Parliament is created, if more Members from Northern Ireland are sent to this place they will be able to speak more effectively for the Ulster people. They will be able to say "I have been elected by so many people in Northern Ireland, and therefore my voice is entitled to be heard".
Ulster people are fed up with elections. We have had election after election in which the Ulster majority have put forward their views and advanced reasonable views seeking a devolved Parliament. But, in the meantime, the more Members who are in this place talking for Northern Ireland, the better chance the Ulster people have to make their views known.
Mr. Stallard: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that this is an "either-or" situation? Is he saying that the clamour for extra representation in this House is a reaction to the abolition of Stormont? Does he not believe that a devolved Parliament, Assembly or Convention, whatever it may be called, could discuss at a later stage the subject of representation?
Mr. Kilfedder: If a choice involving one or the other were open to me, I should opt for the Stormont Parliament. However, I have always believed that if justice is to be done to the Northern Ireland people Northern Ireland should be fully and properly represented in this Chamber. I raised this matter long before most hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland came to Parliament. I added my name to this amendment in order to secure justice for the Ulster people.
As I said on Second Reading, the Bill perpetuates an injustice to the Province. I reminded the House of the remarks of a leading Scottish anti-devolutionist, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who said that by rights Ulster should have 23 seats in this place. I am

1795
astonished, therefore, that Ulster Members could come to Westminster and ask for fewer seats. I regard it as extraordinary that Ulster Members could vote for fewer seats than the number put forward in the Convention report, which had the backing of Unionist politicians in Northern Ireland, who in turn had the backing of the majority of the people in the Province.
I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) when quoting at some length from various documents. I felt that he was giving an effective answer to the hon. Member for Newbury, who tried to insult the efforts made by myself and the hon. Member for Antrim, North by suggesting that we could make a comparison between Northern Ireland and Yorkshire.
We already suffer in Northern Ireland from Whitehall decisions. I dislike the fact that Whitehall civil servants, under their Northern Ireland Office Ministers, make decisions for Northern Ireland when they do not live there, do not pay bills there and do not experience life there. They are not truly aware of the problems in Northern Ireland.
Rating in Northern Ireland, for example, is carried out on the basis of a region in England. That region may be Yorkshire. I have repudiated that system in the past. I repudiate any suggestion that for the purpose of representation in this place Northern Ireland should be considered on the same basis as Yorkshire.
The brief prepared by the Library makes it clear that if Northern Ireland were given the same representation as Scotland it would have 19 seats. That figure is based on the electoral quota for Scotland, which at present requires 53,649 electors on average to elect one Member. It is interesting to consider the history of how the present representation of 12 Members came about. I shall not repeat what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central said, except to remind the House that the first Home Rule Bill that was enacted—the Government of Ireland Act 1914, which never came into effect—provided for 42 Irish representatives in this place, 12 of them from Northern Ireland.
The Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Macpherson, during the proceedings on the 1920 Bill, said:
1796
"In the Act of 1914 Ireland was given 42 Members in the United Kingdom Parliament. On the population basis the number would properly have been 64, but the number 42 was selected, not on any logical principle, but as a sort of adjustment to meet circumstances that might arise in future, including a scheme of devolution."—[Official Report, 29th March 1920; Vol. 127, c. 940.]
It seems that a figure was grasped out of the air. It seems that the view was taken that any figure would do for Northern Ireland—namely, whatever number would satisfy some of the Northern Ireland politicians and get through the House.
I am not certain whether I am absolutely right, but I believe that in 1920 the population in the South of Ireland was 3 ½ million, and in the North 1 ½ million. On the basis of the figure of 64 Members in the 1914 Act and the 1920 Act, Northern Ireland should now have 20 Members in this place. How is it that the hon. Member for Newbury can suggest that justice is being done to Northern Ireland by offering it the paltry few extra seats contained in the Bill? That is why I make my protest.
I am not here to accept second best for the Ulster people. As others have demanded in the past, including those on the opposite side of the political fence, I am here to demand justice for Northern Ireland. On that basis I expect to receive support from other hon. Members.
Scotland and Wales have more generous representation in this place than England. Scotland has proportionally more seats than Wales. Even now, with the prospect of Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, there has been no attempt—there will be no attempt—to reduce the representation from those regions in this Parliament. There has been no attempt to ensure that each constituency in the United Kingdom is based on the same number of voters. The reason is simple. It has long been recognised that because of the distance of Wales and Scotland —especially Scotland—from Westminster and the poorness of those regions compared with England, justice compelled the provision of more Members than the population warranted in Scotland and Wales.
There is no harm in asking for equality with Scotland. Northern Ireland, like Scotland, is remote from the centre of Parliament. For Northern Ireland, com-

1797
munications are even more difficult than they are for Scotland. There is a stretch of water between us and Great Britain. That makes life difficult for those engaged in industry and commerce, and it makes life more expensive for those living in the Province.
One reason for the development of local resentment against London interference—the Whitehall civil servants—is the dictation from Whitehall, which regards itself as knowing best. The people of Scotland have long since shown that they repudiate the arrogant assumption of Whitehall civil servants that they know best. They do not know best, and they have proved that over the decades. The people of Northern Ireland realise that Whitehall civil servants do not know best when it comes to dealing with problems of Northern Ireland. Therefore, the Ulster people would like to see a Stormont Parliament established. In the meantime, I wish to see more Members from Northern Ireland in this place so that Northern Ireland's point of view may be put forward.
Was it right or sensible that Bournemouth, for instance, in the 1930s had the same size of electorate as the hunger marchers of Ellen Wilkinson's Tyneside? The principle of London weighting is accepted in salary negotiations to cover the additional cost of living in the capital. Perhaps there should be a similiar principle in democratic representation for the poorer regions of the United Kingdom.
Proportional representation is advocated by those who want to see every vote have an equal value. Surely we can argue that, in the national Parliament, representation should take note of depressed areas. I do not believe for one moment that the hon. Member for Newbury represents a constituency which is a depressed area. That is why I find it so annoying the fact that he can dismiss Northern Ireland's appeal for extra representation. This House should take note of the fact that Northern Ireland is poorer than the rest of the United Kingdom. An area which is depressed and geographically far removed from Westminster ought to have more Members in this House.
8 p.m.
I see no real argument against the poorer regions having more Members than
1798
the prosperous regions. The people and the problems of the poorer regions are more demanding of Government initiative and of parliamentary time, as well as of public expenditure, than the prosperous regions, which are usually well represented because the density of population ensures that there are more Members.
The stupendous moral authority which the Scottish and the Welsh Members had in this House in the hungry 1930s was in part in consequence of their complete involvement with the hardships of their constituents. Those Members were able to speak from the heart because they represented electorates which were small enough to enable them to become completely absorbed in the problems and tribulations of their constituents.
Every Government publication, including those of this Government, has shown where Ulster stands in the prosperity league of the United Kingdom. It stands at the bottom. Over 20 per cent. of Northern Ireland families are in receipt of supplementary benefit, as compared with 15 per cent. in England. We have twice the national average for unemployment. We have a 50 per cent. higher sickness benefit rate, and four times the national average for family income supplement. Government reports have shown that the housing position has worsened in the last five years. There is a greater proportion of families in substandard housing in Ulster than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. If ever a region of the United Kingdom needed more representation in this House, it is Northern Ireland.
We might also look at the European Parliament for an analogy. Northern Ireland was given three seats, although its population justifies only two. I know that the right hon. Member for Down, South and his colleagues wanted only two seats, not three.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Why was it given three seats?
Mr. Kilfedder: I wanted three, but if we had been offered four I should have taken them. I should have taken six seats if they had been offered, for the simple reason that representation and democracy cannot hurt any region or any country. The more representatives Northern Ireland has in the European

1799
Parliament, the better. Unless the offer of three seats instead of two was made for entirely sectarian reasons, the justification for strong representation in the Parliament at Strasbourg, and for representation on the EEC committee, where policy is formulated—and especially on those committees which deal with social and regional matters—is to be found in the needs of a poor area.
I do not intend to reiterate what I said during my Second Reading speech. Certainly, I do not intend to follow the example of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central, who spoke for just over an hour. Northern Ireland should have more seats than are offered in the Bill put forward by the Government. We should, out of justice for Northern Ireland, have more seats.
If we are ever to create—as I want to see created—in Northern Ireland a fair and just society, this Parliament had better start on that route by making sure that justice is done to Northern Ireland by giving it its proper and full representation in this House, bearing in mind that the analogy on which we must work is not that of Yorkshire or of Newbury but of Scotland. We want something better than Scotland has, bearing in mind that Northern Ireland has a great deal to endure.
Mr. Stallard: It is not my intention to delay the Committee for longer than is absolutely necessary on this important constitutional matter. It is not often that I find myself in too much sympathy with the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) or with his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev, Ian Paisley). I confess to a certain amount of sympathy with them on the question of the discussion of representation from the Six Counties and with their type of argument, albeit that I want to oppose the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
I do not think that we can seriously begin to discuss this issue on the naive comparison made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he suggested that Yorkshire and the Six Counties can be equated. This ultranaive comparison between the Six Counties and any other part of the United Kingdom does not bear any examination; nor would anyone, of whatever political
1800
persuasion, if he thought about it for a few seconds, feel that such an important issue could be discussed on such a basis.
I asked the hon. Member for Antrim, North, in an intervention, why he had not been so vociferous in the past, during the existence of Stormont, on the question of representation and the number of seats. He honestly answered that his priority, even now, would be some form of devolved government in the Six Counties rather than increased representation. I found some measure of agreement with him there. If I can find that measure of amity and agreement, even from where I stand—and there is no secret about this—with someone who is so diametrically opposed to everything else that I say, I feel entitled to hope that there is at least some chance of finding agreement among politicians in Northern Ireland on other proposals, before we get to the question of representation.
I do not accept that it is an "either-or" situation. I put that to the hon. Member for Down, North. I think that we can discuss devolved government, and that we ought to be discussing some structure of devolution for Northern Ireland at all levels. A devolved Convention, Assembly, or whatever it was, could then discuss representation and decide whether it wanted more or less. It would be for that body to decide and not for us sitting here.
The degree of interest in the problem can be seen by the small number of hon. Members present tonight. Do we honestly believe that hon. Members here should make the decision? If we were honest, we would agree that they ought not even to have a voice in such a decision. It should be for the devolved Assembly to decide what the representation should be. That Assembly would be composed of people on the spot who understood the position. It should be for them to decide, in conjunction, perhaps, with the Mother of Parliaments, or with the base unit, the size of representation.
Rev. Ian Paisley: That is exactly the point that we have been trying to make. The Convention was the last elected overall body for Northern Ireland, and it was the Convention which came to a conclusion, albeit not unanimously, about the number of seats which justly should be given to Northern Ireland. I suggest

1801
that if there were another election the fall-out in the electorate would not be that much greater. Even the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the Alliance Party are now coming into line with the thinking of the Convention. The hon. Gentleman appears to be suggesting that if an elected body makes a decision this Parliament should think about it. I should point out that an elected body made a decision and that this Parliament is going against that decision.
Mr. Stallard: It saddens me to think that sometimes we are so much in agreement, but I can leave it at that. It is one of those things about the situation in the Six Counties.
I believe that our priorities are wrong. The priority now is not increased representation. That has certain implications for the minority, for myself and for many others in this country who do not have the same kind of long-term aspirations as the hon. Member for Antrim, North. The fact that we are discussing increased representation ties us more closely to permanent direct rule—the consolidation of integration—and that will be for ever more.
As I said in a previous intervention, the situation will be almost dormant until 1984. Who will discuss any political initiative in the vacuum between now and the implementation of the Bill or the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Antrim, North? It will be pointed out that we have already discussed this matter and that it is in the hands of the Boundary Commission. Therefore nothing can be done politically, or in any other way, between now and 1984, and by that time the situation may have got much worse.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Has the hon. Gentleman considered that when the Kilbrandon Commission proposed that Northern Ireland's representation at Westminster should be increased from 12 to 17 or thereabouts it made that proposal in the context of devolution? It did not say that it would depend upon whether there were devolved institutions in Northern Ireland. It said that, whether or not there were devolved institutions, Northern Ireland was underrepresented in the House of Commons and that its representation should be
1802
increased. Has the hon. Gentleman considered that?
Mr. Stallard: Yes, I have. That was not the minority opinion of the Kilbrandon Commission, which was an important opinion. It was not adequately discussed in this Chamber, but it should have been. It did not, in fact, substantiate what the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has said. But, even if it did, as he said, it justified increased representation. Therefore, we come back to the numbers game. We come back to where we began.
I was once near Balloch in Scotland and, because I had lost my way, asked someone "How do I get to Loch Lomond from here?" He said, "If I were going to Loch Lomond, I would not start from here". We are in that kind of situation. If I were looking for a serious permanent solution to the problems of the Six Counties, I should not start with the numbers game. I should start from a completely different viewpoint.
I should start—I make no apology for this—from the position that one day this country will have to give up any sovereignty over that part of the island of Ireland. If I start from that position, like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who gave us an eloquent history lesson on representation, I say that Northern Ireland should not have any representation here. Therefore, I should not agree to an increase in the numbers of those who should not be here in the first place. That puts my argument in perspective. I suggest that with these amendments and the Bill we are going in the wrong direction, because we are consolidating integration.
Mr. Kilfedder: On the question of integration, I think that the hon. Gentleman earlier unwittingly erred in saying that the Bill was the final act of total integration. Does he agree that perhaps there will be one other stage, namely, the establishment of a regional council or councils, or administrative body or bodies, and that will be the death knell of a devolved Stormont Parliament?
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Stallard: I do not recollect saying that it was the final stage. I would not have said that. But I agree that this is a step in the direction to which the

1803
hon. Gentleman has drawn our attention. The next step would be to form some kind of county council. Indeed, I think that it has been suggested. I imagine that the Secretary of State would be the chairman of that county council, operating with his civil servants. In fact, he is. That is about the size of it now, although it is not perhaps generally recognised. That would be the next stage, but that would be entirely in the opposite direction to the one in which I wish to go. Therefore, hon. Members will recognise why I oppose the amendments and the proposals in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Down, North made comparisons with Europe. If we play the numbers game, the logic is that we should send 635 Members to Europe. Why are we sending only a few if we are to be represented there on the basis of numbers? I understand that each prospective Member—I confess that I have not taken too much interest in this matter—will represent about 250,000 electors. The argument being put forward here is that Northern Ireland Members already represent too many constituents and that therefore representation should be increased. Is not that an argument for increasing to hundreds the United Kingdom's representation at the European Parliament?
Mr. Kilfedder: The point that I was making—
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not discussing the European Parliament. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to come back to the amendment.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Surely we are discussing the argument for extra representation. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) was drawing an analogy to prove how ridiculous the argument was.
The Second Deputy Chairman: I was trying to deter the hon. Gentleman from going too far upon the road on which he was beginning to start.
Mr. Stallard: I apologise if I was straying too far from the amendment. I was endeavouring to reply to a point which had been made in the debate and to which no objection was taken when it was mentioned. Therefore I thought
1804
that I was entitled to reply to the justification prayed in aid by the hon. Member for Down, North regarding more representation for Northern Ireland in Europe. I think that he was sad that the Official Unionists had been prepared to accept two Members as opposed to the proffered three. He wanted four, five, six or more.
I was trying to reply to that part of his argument by referring to the way in which the numbers game has been and is being played. People ask me "How can you justify only 12 seats from Northern Ireland on the basis of population?" I reply that if Northern Ireland had its devolved structure—Government, Convention, Assembly, Executive or whatever—12 would be too many because we have our Sovereign Parliament here and we have accepted a reduced number for Europe on the basis of the electorate. Is there not an analogy there'? That was the point that I was trying to make.
Mr. McNamara: Does my hon. Friend agree that this question also arises in terms of the representation of Luxembourg in Europe compared with Northern Ireland's representation here? Luxembourg is entitled to so many because it is over-represented on the basis of my hon. Friend's argument.
Mr. Stallard: That is right. Again, I am grateful for that intervention because it adds weight to the point that I am trying to make. If we become so deeply involved in this numbers game, there is no sense to it at all. Irrespective of Luxembourg, or any other part of Europe—to bring the argument right back to the amendment, Northern Ireland and this Committee—what I am trying to prove is that the situation in the Six Counties is not simply an arithmetical problem. One cannot solve the problems of Northern Ireland by mathematics. Otherwise, they would have been solved many years ago.
I said at the beginning that the ultanaive comparison made by the Secretary of State with other parts of the United Kingdom does not bear examination. But we ought not to forget it, because if that is the basis of the Government's thinking, the whole thing goes to pot. We cannot solve the problems in that part of the island of Ireland simply on the basis of arithmetic alone. The problem goes

1805
much deeper than that. If it did not, why have we had the situation that has existed since 1968? Why has all this trouble been caused if it was simply and purely an arithmetical decision that was needed, if all that we had to do was to divide the population by X and get so many representatives and we should be happy ever after? That is rubbish. It is absolute nonsense.
What has been proved, if anything has been proved at all in these past few years during the short debates that we have had here, is that there is no British solution to this problem, arithmetical or otherwise. The solution lies with the people in the two parts of the island of Ireland. It is our job here to make sure that the people of Northern Ireland are given the opportunity, the structure and the government in order to be able to solve the problem.
Therefore, as I have said many times, I start from a different standpoint, because I am convinced that it is the only thing that has never been tried. We have tried everything else. I suppose that in the last 10 years everything has been tried, except increased representation, and we are now trying that. My reading of various press reports, in the North as well as in the South and in various journals here, is that the Bill will add nothing at all. It will contribute nothing towards a solution of the problems in the Six Counties. On the contrary, it may well harden the attitude on both sides and contribute to an increased polarisation of the two communities.
Therefore, I want no part of the kind of solution which will worsen the problems of all the people who have suffered so much in the Six Counties in the past 10 years. I am seeking a peaceful reconciliation, not a repolarisation of those two communities. That is what the Bill does, and the amendment will do it even more.
For all those reasons—I do not want to delay the Committee any further at this stage—I hope that the Committee will vote against the amendments.
Mr. Craig: We have had a long and tedious debate. I do not think that in this Bill we are concerned with the solution of the problems that beset the people of Northern Ireland. We are concerned only with fair and proper representation
1806
in this Parliament for the people of Northern Ireland.
It is a matter of judgment as to what is fair and proper. I believe that if there is not to be devolution in Northern Ireland, the figure of 16 to 18 would be totally inadequate to represent the interests that are special to Northern Ireland as distinct from the rest of the United Kingdom. However, I am an optimist. I take at face value the commitments by the two major parties of this Parliament that they intend to work towards devolved power. Therefore, I address my mind to what is reasonable, having regard to the prospects of devolution.
There is a well-established practice in the history of British franchise of weighting the electoral quotas in favour of interests that are not numerically strong. Agricultural interests in the sparsely populated rural areas always had special consideration when one drew the boundaries of their constituencies and therefore increased, the number of Members representing them as against the more populous industrial areas.
That is a perfectly valid analogy in arriving at what is an appropriate figure for Northern Ireland. My judgment leads me to a figure in the mid-20s as the best solution. It is not for me or for individuals to press the point as one of personal opinion. We must have regard to the usual procedures and practices of this Parliament. Those practices and procedures led us through the Speaker's Conference, where people of many political shades, with honesty, integrity and good will, made their judgment as to what they should recommend to the House of Commons and to another place. I am disappointed that their recommendation was not greater.
I find it odd, indeed, that, having got that recommendation, some hon. Members would dispute even that allotment of additional representation. It is difficult to proclaim that one is supporting democracy and at the same time deliberately to stand in the way of better representation for the people that one purports to represent. It is even stranger if one happens to belong to a party that calls itself the Social Democratic and Labour Party. I do not know what the Ministers were hoping to do when they highlighted the possibility

1807
of some of these additional seats benefiting minority parties. I do not suggest that it was an effort to bribe people into voting in certain directions. I think that they were, very properly, showing how undemocratic it was for those hon. Members to seek to deny people better representation in this Parliament.
I cannot say how soon progress will be made on the devolution front, but in the meantime there is an appalling lack of accountability by Government to the electorate and people in Northern Ireland. We must use what institutions are available to us to improve the standards of democracy.
I welcome this short step forward. I sincerely hope that those hon. Members who have indicated this evening that they would deny the people of Northern Ireland adequate and proper representation will reconsider their position. A diminution of democracy is no way to seek progress.
Mr. Fitt: From the outset, I have regarded this Bill as one of major constitutional importance. It will affect the composition of the House and consequently will determine whether we have Labour or Conservative Governments. Leaving aside for a moment my involvement with Northern Ireland, as one who has consistently supported the Labour Government I feel that in their attempt to stay in power over the past few months they have been cutting off their nose to spite their face.
They have gained a few extra months from an agreement with Unionist Members under which they will abstain to keep the Government in power. The new seats will come into being in 1984. One can only go on their track record, but Unionist Members have never been known for their alacrity in jumping into the Lobby in support of a Labour Government.
Mr. Craig: Would the hon. Member support additional seats if there were a guarantee that we from Northern Ireland would vote Socialist? Also, would he suggest that a deal was done with the Speaker's Conference over additional representation?
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Fitt: If the right hon. Gentleman will sit still for a moment, I shall answer these questions. I intend to clarify how
1808
I see the issue. Would I support them if they voted Socialist? The answer is "No". Was a deal done with the Speaker's Conference? I have doubts. One should not say that on the Floor of the House, perhaps, but I am saying it now, and I shall give my reasons.
This attempt to cling to power by doing a deal with the Unionists, which began in early 1977, followed pledges by Labour Governments, and particularly by the present Home Secretary, that in no circumstances would Northern Ireland be given extra representation before community government or consensus politics were created in Northern Ireland. One has only to read the debates in Hansard to see conclusively how often the Labour Government refused the demand for an increase in the number of seats.
Few hon. Members are here for this debate. Those who are absent will have to reckon with that fact—particularly Labour Members. Those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, particularly on the Back Benches, who are sponsored by the trade unions and who are committed Socialists—there are still some in the Committee tonight—must accept that if there is a hung Parliament after the election of 1984 or 1985, going on their record the Unionist Members will support the Conservatives. That will mean that the Labour Movement and the trade union movement will not see the Socialist Government for which they voted. It therefore behoves the Committee to consider carefully the decision that it lakes tonight. This is a Bill of major constitutional importance.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, indeed it is. Therefore, surely, the representation in this House and the distribution of constituencies should not be decided on those grounds. The hon. Gentleman is now saying that this is a dangerous step because of something which may happen to party advantage in 1984.
Mr. Fitt: I do not mind these interventions—in fact, I am looking forward to them—but if the hon. Gentleman listens, he will hear why I am opposing this increase.
An increase in the number of seats to 23 or 24, as is suggested by the amendment, would certainly determine the complexion of the Government. That is

1809
why the Bill is of major constitutional importance. I should have hoped that before setting up a Speaker's Conference to consider such a Bill, everything involved would be debated on the Floor of the House. Although I was a member of the Speaker's Conference, I resented the cloak of secrecy that applied to us all.
Some people in the Committee who will be voting on this issue tonight are not aware of everything that was said at the Speaker's Conference. As soon as we met we were told that the Conference was secret, and that only certain parts would be made public and printed. There were other parts that were not to be disclosed. I am not allowed to come from the Speaker's Conference and talk to my colleagues in the Tea Room or corridors and tell them why a certain decision was made. I am not even allowed to tell them now. When I made an interjection earlier this evening about a matter raised in Mr. Speaker's Conference there was a howl. That is not democracy at all.
If the Committee has to take such an important decision we should all be aware of everything that was said, who said it, and the constituency that he represents.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Sir Myer. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is making some interesting and in some ways exciting observations. I understand that whatever may be the convention he may say what he likes in this Chamber and accept responsibility for what he says. If he feels that there were matters at Mr. Speaker's Conference that should be mentioned, he is perfectly entitled to state them, no matter what was agreed at that Conference. He has a responsibility as a Member to take his own decision. It is another question whether it is advisable.
The First Deputy Chairman (Sir Myer Galpern): What the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) can do is rather limited. If he took part in the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill, that would have been a more appropriate time to debate this than the narrow confines of the present Committee. We cannot have a general discussion of what he does or does not know. The
1810
issue is whether we should increase the number of seats, as contained in the amendment.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I do not think that you have quite answered my question. I was not for one moment suggesting that my hon. Friend should go outside the rules of order, but if he accepts the responsibility for what he says and it is relevant to the amendment being discussed, he is entitled to state it, whether or not it was recorded in the minutes of Mr. Speaker's Conference.
The First Deputy Chairman: He may do so as long as he is in order.
Mr. Flannery: At the beginning of the debate the Chairman said that this was a narrow Bill, and he is absolutely correct. It is not purely in the mathematical sense that it is narrow. In order to justify a certain number of seats, it is surely necessary to bring politics into the argument. To narrow it further prevents us from raising many important points.
The First Deputy Chairman: The Bill suggests a certain mathematical arrangement or an increase in the number of seats to be allocated to Northern Ireland. That is agreed by everyone who has paid the slightest attention to the contents of the Bill. There are two groups: we are discussing one group of amendments that seeks to increase the number of seats and another that seeks to reduce that number.
Mr. Fitt: I am speaking on the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), which seeks to increase the number. I do not want to see an increase from 17 or 18 to 23 or from 12 to 23. I do not want an increase at all.
I believe that this Bill, which can determine future Governments of this country, has not been adequately discussed. People who went into the Lobby to vote for the Government on Second Reading were not aware of everything that was said at the Speaker's Conference. I believe that there was an undue restriction there. Every Member of Parliament should have been party to and privy to every aspect of the discussions, because ultimately they can affect his party, his constituency and future Governments of the country.

1811
On the very first day that we met I proposed that the press should be brought in to hear what we had to say, that, if necessary, the Speaker's Conference should go to Northern Ireland, and that there should be no hindrance or restriction on the number of persons making representations. I wanted everything to be open and above board.
One member of the Conference said that he did not think the proceedings should be open or that there should be any record of who had spoken or what constituency he represented. I asked him why. He replied that we might start getting a lot of anonymous letters. To any Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland getting a lot of anonymous letters is the least of his worries. We get them every day; indeed, I should be disappointed if I did not get them. If we did not get them, at least three or four postmen in Northern Ireland would be sacked. The whole atmosphere of the Conference was "Let us deliberate and take decisions, but do not let anybody know who said what". Is that democracy? I think it is in direct conflict with our ideas of democracy.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: The hon. Member must know that such decisions as were reached in the Conference were reached on a simple majority vote. That is a pure case of democracy in action. If the hon. Member is saying that his voice is the only one to which people should listen, and that no one else has any rights, he is not talking about democracy.
Mr. Fitt: When the Leader of the House sent for me and asked me to serve on the Speaker's Conference I had serious doubts, but I felt that it was as well to be there to see what was happening. A few days later I said, with no disrespect to any member of that Conference, that when I looked at the composition of the Conference—the people who had been appointed to it—
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are not starting a discussion on the composition of the Conference. I see that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is having a little smile to himself. Obviously he appreciates the position. The Bill, as it tells us in the explanatory memorandum, is to give effect to the
1812
recommendations in the report of Mr. Speaker's Conference on electoral law. That is where we stand at the moment.
Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Surely the Speaker's Conference must have discussed the question whether the figure should have been 10, 14, 16 or 25 seats. Therefore, the House should be given some information about the kind of factors that members of the Conference took into account in arriving at their decision. We have been told, as I understand it, that members of the Conference. as a committee, decided that they would meet in secret and impose this conspiracy of silence. That is an insult to the House of Commons which set up the Conference. It should have informed the House, so that the House could make a better decision.
8.45 p.m.
The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order.
Mr. John Ellis: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Since these facts have been revealed—I was not aware of them in as much detail as we have been given—is there any way that the House can send for the secret minutes so that we may apprise ourselves of the arguments? Mr. Speaker's Conference carries a great deal of weight and it is important that we should be able to sift all the arguments. It appears that much information is unpublished. We should surely be able to look at what took place at those meetings.
The First Deputy Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point. There is nothing to prevent his providing himself with a copy of that evidence, but we cannot discuss the matter now.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. In my speech I went into great detail about how Mr Speaker's Conference arrived at the figure of 17 seats, with the flexibility of one up or one down. It is a pity that the hon. Members who are raising points of order were not able to find the time to be in the Chamber to hear my speech.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Sir Myer. The point of order of my hon.

1813
Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) concerned not the availability of printed evidence of matters taken in public, such as the evidence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and others, but the fact that there were a number of sessions, even before conclusions started to be reached—unless they were reached before evidence was taken in public—when decisions were taken about composition, rulings, the evidence to be heard, and so on.
My hon. Friend wants to know the content of those discussions so that he knows what weight to attach to various arguments. The recommendations of the Conference were taken on majority decisions and the number of votes counted rather than the weight of the arguments.
The First Deputy Chairman: We are beginning to waste time needlessly. Let me make abundantly clear, for the last time, that there are no steps that the Committee can take to deal with the question of what transpired at Mr. Speaker's Conference.
We have under consideration amendment no. 3 and that is what I propose to hold hon. Members to in our discussions.
Mr. Fitt: Amendment no. 3 is designed to increase the number of seats proposed in the Bill. I listened to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) discussing what took place in Mr. Speaker's Conference and I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) questioning the whole basis of how the provision of 12 seats for Northern Ireland was originally arrived at.
Before we take a decision on the amendment, we should be fully aware why there are 12 seats at present, why the Bill proposes 17 or 18 seats, and why the amendment suggests that there should be 23 seats. A decision taken in total ignorance on a matter of this magnitude will not be in the interests of the House, the country or the Government.
During the proceedings of the Conference I asked the Leader of the House whether there were any written records to which I could have access concerning the question why 12 seats were granted in 1920. I asked the Leader of the House:
1814
"We heard last week from Judge Murray that there is no written record as to how the figure of 12 was arrived at. Is that right, have you any knowledge of the reasons for this number?"
The rather cavalier reply of the Leader of the House was:
"When you say no written record, in these Crossman days I dare say there are written records lying around the place!"
Lying around the place! I could not find them, and I do not know what place the Leader of the House was talking about. My right hon. Friend said
"I am amazed they have not reached the newspapers."
I, too, am amazed, because I do not know where they were lying around in the first place. If I cannot get them, I do not know how the newspapers can get them. But all this is an awful admission of ignorance of why the figure of 12 seats was fixed in the first place.
I then asked the Leader of the House:
"You said in your opening remarks that Northern Ireland was under-represented by the number of seats it has. If that is true in 1977 it has been true for these past 50 years, is that right?"
He replied "Yes, that is so." Then I said:
"It has always been under-represented since the creation of the state in 1920?"
He replied "Yes, that is right."
What were the Labour Governments between 1945 and 1951 and 1964 and 1970 doing when there was such a blatant injustice? What were they all doing when Northern Ireland was being so grossly unjustly treated? The answer is that they had a comfortable enough majority to keep them in office and did not have to depend on votes from Northern Ireland. That is why Northern Ireland did not get its representation.
The amendment seeks to increase the number of seats from 16 or 17 to 23. I think the hon. Member for Antrim, North will accept that were it accepted it would end for ever any hope of trying to bring about reconciliation between the communities of Northern Ireland.
The first Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the present troubled period was the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). He was accepted as being impartial, as holding the ring between the warring communities. His successor, the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym),

1815
also a Tory, was there for only a few days. He was accepted as not knowing much about the situation but as not leaning to one side or the other.
My right hon. Friend the present Home Secretary, when he was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, was seen as being in the ring trying his best, in a very difficult situation, to bring together the two communities. But the present Secretary of State is seen by the minority as being a Unionist. That is why there is such ill feeling about this proposal. People in the minority community feel that the Secretary of State is in support of the Unionist majority and is not in any way trying to take into consideration the feelings of the minority population.
When there is a Secretary of State who so antagonises one section of the community in Northern Ireland, one can guarantee that he will not achieve any success there. He has put himself in one camp. He has ostracised the minority community to the extent that he has done, and this proposal is the straw that will break the camel's back.
The Bill was brought in by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It should have been brought in by the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary should be here on the Front Bench. He is the Home Secretary for the United Kingdom. He is in charge of all the Representation of the People Bills which come before the House. He is in charge of all means of electoral reform. But the Government have tried to underplay this proposal. Not many Ministers are on the Front Bench today. They want it all kept in a low key and a low profile because if the Labour and trade union movement in general were aware of the ramifications of the Bill there would be uproar.
I have received a letter, not from an Irishman or a Catholic but from an English Socialist. When it appeared in the press that there was to be an increase in the seats for Northern Ireland, this lady wrote, from 36 Princess Gardens, West Acton, London:
"Today I read in 'The Times' the Prime Minister's announcement of his intention to create a situation of even greater imbalance in the representation of MPs from Northern Ireland in the House of Commons. I am utterly dismayed with the actions of the Labour Government in relation to its responsibilities in Northern Ireland. We must have one of the worst Labour Prime Ministers of all time, and
1816
it is with this in mind that I have decided to abstain from voting Labour at the next election.
In my position as an Executive Committee Member of the Ealing Community Relations Council, I represent the interests of the Irish community on the council, and I have always urged Irish people to vote Labour in their best interests. Now I shall cease to do so and shall instead urge them to refrain from wasting their vote on the Labour Party and to follow my example in abstaining from casting any vote at all.
I congratulate you on your criticism of the Prime Minister's action and have noted carefully the lack of opposition from Labour MPs."
I have not yet replied to that letter, but I intend to do so. I intend to send with my reply the voting lists so that the author of that letter knows who are the real Labour Members who voted with me on the Second Reading of the Bill. As a Socialist, it hurts me to receive a letter from another Socialist saying that that person will refrain from voting for a Labour candidate. But that has resulted from the Government's attempt to buy themselves a few short months more in office.
What have the Government done in Northern Ireland? The Bill is allegedly designed to bring people together and to create a just representation in Northern Ireland. That is what the Secretary of State said when he spoke of the Bill. What do the people say? The Irish News in Belfast is recognised as a newspaper which represents the minority view in Northern Ireland. On 1st December it stated:
"Mr. Callaghan is proving to be the typical capricious British politician in his attitude to the North. Has he forgotten so easily the Westminster debate of four years ago when the then Prime Minister, Mr. Wilson, declared: As a Government we believe that the only hope for the future of Northern Ireland lies in power-sharing.'
From the lips of the head of a Labour Government, Unionist-Loyalists were told that there would be no integration; that Sunningdale was far from dead; and that strenuous efforts would be made to resurrect the Executive government in which power would be shared.
Such Labour convictions were expressed after Westminster had seen how a democratically conceived exercise in shared power had been at the mercy of Unionist-Loyalist obduracy during the Executive's five months of existence.
It was made clear to the opponents of Westminster's will that if they continued to show such reckless disregard for the agreed policy of broad participation by all political groups in government here, this would be regarded as a calculated decision to take the road out of the

1817
United Kingdom to which they were even then confessing unswerving loyalty."
The Unionist Members, to a man, brought to an end the Executive that was so painstakingly built up in 1974. Were they chided or scolded by the Labour Government? They were not. They were commended. They were promised extra seats to bolster their intransigence.
Allegedly, it is still the Government's intention, with the support of the Opposition, to recreate consensus politics in Northern Ireland. An increase in the number of seats, particularly the increase which is demanded by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), will make doubly certain that there will be no political movement in the next two or three years.
The right hon. Member for Down, South travels the length and breadth of his constituency telling people "Now that we have the promise of extra seats the next item on our shopping list is a return of power to the local authorities in Northern Ireland." Those are the local authorities which caused such turmoil when they were able to do what they wanted to do. An increase to 23 in the number of seats will make any political movement unlikely.
9 p.m.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North was right to chide my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for writing in Tribune that the increase in the number of seats would mean, in effect, that four or five of those seats would go to non-Unionist Members. That is utter rubbish, if it is not even worse, if it is not blatant lies, as I say it is. It is an attempt to con the Labour and trade union movement into accepting the Bill.
Even if it were true that with the increase in the number of seats four or five non-Unionists would be sent here, do the Government believe that that would contribute to a lessening of the present tension in Northern Ireland? It would do no such thing, because the minority community in Northern Ireland now says "We have an Irish aspiration. We want to believe that some day, we do not know when—it may be years, and we do not know how many—Ireland will be united." In other words, to use a phrase that came out of the Conservative Government
1818
under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), there is an Irish dimension. The minority in Northern Ireland must be allowed to believe that some day Ireland will be united by consent—certainly not by violence. My record of opposition to violence is well known to most hon. Members.
But it is now being seen in Northern Ireland that the Government are saying "You who believe in the Irish dimension should forget all about it. We do not support you. Whether you think there will be a united Ireland by peaceful transition or otherwise, you are not getting it. Instead, you will get total integration, because we have done a deal with the right hon. Member for Down, South and want to stay in power. We are not terribly concerned about how you in Northern Ireland feel about this. In fact, we are not terribly concerned about the conditions in which the 10,000 or 11,000 troops are operating. We are concerned about staying in office." That has brought about a great deal of antagonism and resentment among the minority.
I quote from another editorial in the Irish News, a representative voice of the minority, which says:
"The clamour over the last year or so is simply the Loyalist reaction to the abolition of Stormont, and there is no use in their denying it".
The Unionists have lost their absolute control of Stormont, their total control of the whole population and everything that went with that. They are saying "If we are not getting that back, we shall settle for a highly acceptable second option—more seats, and the more the better."
Mr. Thorne: Integration.
Mr. Fitt: Yes, they want integration.
The editorial continues:
"The Labour Government's decision following the Speaker's conference, to provide an early introduction of the Bill (although the Boundary Commission may take a couple of years to reach its final recommendations on constituencies) can only be described as a cynical manoeuvre to ensure a maximum number of Loyalists' votes and owes nothing to a desire to provide for simple electoral justice."
Mr. McNamara: Is not the logic of my hon. Friend's argument the logic of what I was arguing before, and which some integrationist Unionist hon. Members are arguing and declaring to be the

1819
case—that with the extra seats giving integration they will guarantee a return of local government on the old basis as well? Is not that what is being offered as a guarantee of how powerful they are and what their squeeze is on a Labour Government? Will that be the next thing if we try to stagger on until November?
Mr. Fitt: My hon. Friend, if he had been present, would have heard me say that. In Northern Ireland the right hon. Member for Down, South is repeatedly telling his audiences, wherever he may find them, that they have got this promise from the Government of an increase in the number of seats. He is telling them that the next item on the shopping list will be the return of local authority powers.
I have noticed that there may be Englishmen, Scotsmen and Welshmen in this House who are all unaware of the boiling resentment in Northern Ireland because of this proposal to increase the number of seats. This is a matter that cannot be disregarded. What this Bill is saying to constitutional politicians like myself is "There is only one of you at Westminster. We do not need you any more." There are the "Gang of seven" as they are referred to by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder). If I had seven hon. Members from my party here this Bill would never have seen the light of day.
I continue with the editorial:
"The Labour Government's about-turn is now staggeringly obvious and must be painful for those in the Labour ranks who once believed that no Labour Government would turn so easily from self-righteousness about the Northern Ireland problem to doing 'deals' with the 'Ulster Unionists'. The Labour Government no longer has fixed loyalties. In its actions it is becoming difficult to distinguish it from a Conservative Government."
The concluding passage of the editorial corresponds to what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard), who I believe has shown a great deal of courage and principle by resigning from his office. There are very few hon. Members in this House who are so involved and so concerned about what is happening in Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend has shown courage in resigning to express his opposition to this Bill. There is nothing phoney about the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North, and I am quite certain that his electorate
1820
will give him all the support necessary in Future elections.
The editorial states in conclusion:
"Britain still evades the issue of the natural aspirations of the Irish people and still cannot see that the lessons of history show that she cannot always rule this part of Ireland. Direct rule and more seats at Westminster are merely leading her into a cul-de-sac."
I turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Newbury. Two or three times during his speech he said that what was happening in Northern Ireland was just and democratic. He had much to say about democracy in the Province and the democratic will of the Northern Irish people. Let me say this to him: the last time that the Irish people—not the Northern Irish people—had a vote on a constitutional issue was in 1918. Of the 102 Irish constituencies which were represented in this House, 78 returned Members who said that they wanted a united Ireland. That was what democracy was all about. The overwhelming majority of people in Ireland in the 1918 election returned 78 Members out of 102 who wanted a united Ireland.
What was the democratic action of the then Government, who were so concerned with the concept of democracy? Did they consider the fact that 78 constituencies out of 102 obviously wanted Ireland to be united? Did that Government heed that demand? No, they did not. They brutally partitioned Ireland in the interests of a wholly fake Unionist majority. That is why we are having this debate. Can anyone say that the partitioning of Ireland, leaving as it did an artificial minority and an artificial majority in Northern Ireland, was a roaring success? Just think of the past 10 to 20 years.
Think of what has been happening to the people of Northern Ireland, to the young soldiers in the British Army, to the murdered members of the RUC and the UDR. Has partition been a success? It has not. This proposal to increase the number of seats will force constitutional politicians into a cul-de-sac from which they will never be able to escape. My party has consistently sought constitutional answers to the problems of Northern Ireland. At all times we have condemned violence. We have always said that, one day, we should like to see a united Ireland.

1821
At my party conference last November a motion was carried which said that the British Army and the British presence in Northern Ireland could no longer be seen to be acting in an impartial way. That presence was seen to be operating openly and blatantly in support of the Unionist majority and its aspirations. That motion was carried by 700 votes to two. That proves that the Government's actions are forcing constitutional politicians such as myself into a position which we would rather not be in.
I turn to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. He refers to articles in Socialist periodicals in which Government Ministers have got down to the level—that is the only way to put it—of trying to "con" the readership of Tribune. I do not believe for a moment that Dick Clements believes all this. Neither does anyone else.
If all of the proposed extra seats were to be held by the SDLP the problems in Ireland would not be solved. These problems cannot be settled by an increase in the number of seats. The hon. Member for Newbury spoke of democracy in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that Northern Ireland was ever a democracy. It never will be under the present system. It was not democratically conceived and brought into being. The State of Northern Ireland was brought into being against the wishes of the overwhelming majority in the island of Ireland. As a result, a phoney border was drawn. It is one which breaks up houses. The border goes through one house and leaves two rooms in the Republic and two in Northern Ireland. The border runs through a village. One side of the street is in the Republic and the other is in Northern Ireland.
Something had to be done to appease the then threatening Unionists. The same is happening with this Bill. It is appeasement all over again. This time the Government are appeasing by granting the Unionists a number of seats. If all the extra seats were held by my party it would do nothing to lessen the tensions. Northern Ireland was deliberately designed as a sectarian State. Let no one talk about the majority there. It is a phoney majority. It was never a majority. It is a minority in the island of Ireland but it has succeeded time and
1822
again in intimidating various Labour Governments.
What do we do tonight? Strictly speaking, we are discussing an amendment to increase the number of seats. I shall oppose that proposal. However, is it too late to ask the Government to change their mind? This has happened before on Irish issues. In 1913 legislation on Home Rule passed through this House but was suspended following the outbreak of the First World War. That legislation was never put into operation.
9.15 p.m.
We all know that the present Government can last for months only—perhaps fewer than we all think. The Government do not have to grant these seats to the reactionary forces of Unionism in Northern Ireland. By enforcing this legislation, the Labour Government are likely to lose English, Scottish and Welsh Socialist support in what will be a crucial General Election.
There is no rush for this legislation, because the seats will not come into being until 1984 or 1985. Why the rush? I suspect that the right hon. Member for Down, South told the Government "If you do not grant us this Bill to enable me to claim a victory in Northern Ireland, we shall vote against the Labour Government and bring about their defeat."
As this Government do not have many more months to live, I believe that for the sake of their self-respect, and for the sake of Labour Members and the working-class and trade union movement, which this Government allegedly represent, and, indeed, for the sake of their own consciences, the Government even at this late stage should think again.
I note that the Home Secretary has not attended these debates. I wish that he would take part in this debate in order to justify these proposals.
Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend will recall that when the vote was taken on this amendment on the legislation relating to the Irish constitution, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary voted against it, as did my right hon. Friends the Leader of the House and the Minister of State. However, it is only the Minister of State who is here to face the music and to explain his reversal of view—an explanation that we all await with interest.
Mr. Fitt: I agree with my hon. Friend. When this Bill becomes law, an atmosphere of political collision will be created between the minority and majority communities of Northern Ireland. That atmosphere will exist even though the boundaries will not be drawn or the seats taken up until 1984 or 1985. However, in the intervening years there will be hostility and resentment. The Unionist Party will take the view that it has scored a victory, and the minority party will feel that it has been beaten. Therefore, some means will be devised to level out the situation.
My constituency of Belfast, West—which contains many troubled areas, in which houses have been wrecked, where there is high unemployment, bitterness against the action of the security forces, and where many murders and maimings have occurred—is where the effects of the Bill will be felt. They will be felt not on the half-empty Benches of this Committee, because most people in this place have never been to Northern Ireland. I agree that over the past few years a number of hon. Members have gone out of their way to go to Northern Ireland, but the vast majority in the House have never been. Some members of the Speaker's Conference were never in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Unless they went secretly.
Mr. Fitt: Indeed. They have not told us about that yet. Probably we shall hear about that in 30 years' time.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North told the House that the Northern Ireland Labour Party and the Alliance Party were now in support of the Bill. That is not strictly true. There are serious divisions within the Northern Ireland Labour Party. Some say that the Bill is acceptable, while others oppose that view. I know that one of its leading spokesmen, David Bleakley, who was a Minister in a previous Northern Ireland Government and a member of the Convention, is not in support of an increased number of seats for Northern Ireland Members in this place. He has said publicly that if the number of seats is to be increased the increase should take place within a system of proportional representation.
1824
The Alliance Party and the Liberal Party made submissions to the Speaker's Conference. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in his place. The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) is speaking with a great deal of support in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman is not regarded as an eccentric or as somebody who does not know anything about Northern Ireland. The minority in Northern Ireland fully support the sentiments expressed by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). I am not sure what feelings exist on the Liberal Bench, but when the hon. Member for Cornwall, North made his statement he had the full support of the minority population. That was brought about by the proposal to increase the number of seats in this place.
At the end of the day the House will ensure that the Bill becomes law. That is because it is Government policy. Even if that were not so, I suppose that there would be enough Opposition Members to ensure that the Bill became law by giving it their support. I ask the Government —it is a call that will not be heard—to reconsider the disastrous effects that the Bill will have, and even at this late hour to search their conscience and to withdraw it.
Mr. Powell: When my hon. Friends and I were elected in October 1974 we said in our common address:
"We are determined to obtain equality with other parts of the United Kingdom in parliamentary representation."
At every election meeting that I adressed I assured those to whom I spoke of my conviction that that was something that the House of Commons would not refuse. I believed that because I thought it impossible for the House, having declared that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom—that is the official, acknowledged status of Northern Ireland—to alter that status without the consent of a majority of its inhabitants. The House knowing that since 1972 there has been virtually no other elected representation of the people of the Province except in the House, I thought it impossible for the House to decline to accord to that electorate at least equal representation with other parts of the kingdom.
However, something happened two years after the commencement of this

1825
Parliament that removed the last possible objection that could be urged against what in any case would otherwise have been self-evident and inherent in the House of Commons and its constitution. There was always the argument that Northern Ireland, until 1972, had for 50 years had a local Parliament in which much of the locally applicable law and administration was transacted.
Therefore, if this House were at this point to give Northern Ireland full representation, which it has not had since 1922, in the Parliament of the United Kingdom that would certainly, it was argued, be an obstacle—perhaps a compelling obstacle—to any form of restoration or creation for Northern Ireland of self-governing institutions. That was the one remaining case—the one case—which could be made in this House with self-respect against Northern Ireland being fairly represented.
But that argument was disposed of by the House itself two years ago. Two years ago the House itself decided that the full representation—indeed, the representation on a scale higher than that proposed in this Bill—of Scotland and Wales in this House could be no impediment to there being in the case of Wales a local Assembly but in the case of Scotland a fully-fledged local Parliament. So this House—not just the Government —took the decision which removed the last argument, for this House resolved that there was no incompatibility between full representation here—indeed, a high scale of representation here—and the creation of devolved institutions, including parliamentary institutions.
Mr. John Ellis: The right hon. Gentleman has said twice that that could be the only argument, but I put it to him that there is another argument. I do not wish to interrupt him at an inconvenient time, but perhaps he will deal with this other argument in the course of his speech. if 40 per cent. of the people, in view of what had been done, had never accepted it in the democratic way that we do here, and if they were to see the creation of more seats as reinforcing the divide which had existed since the inception, would not that in itself be a fair argument for saying that if the minority
1826
were to view the creation of seats as further estranging them that might be a reason for not doing it?
Mr. Powell: I must admit that that is not an argument that I can follow. If not to be estranged is to have the prospect of local institutions, then I have pointed out that full representation has been declared by this House to be no barrier to local institutions. If, of course, not to be estranged is to be taken out of the United Kingdom altogether, then no degree of representation will deal with that. Small or great are alike in that respect.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) must address himself to the fact that the claim not to belong to the United Kingdom cannot be met by any alteration of status within the United Kingdom or within this House. So I say that it was not unnatural, upon that decision of this House, taken in the context of Scotland and Wales, that there was no incompatibility between what many regard as the appropriate constitutional future for Northern Ireland and fair representation in this House, that at that point the Government declared that in their opinion Northern Ireland was not fully represented, and ought to be, and proceeded by the proper constitutional method, the conventional method, the method which we have followed for many decades, with agreement in this House, to decide how such a decision should be implemented and how Northern Ireland should be given equality with other parts of the United Kingdom.
9.30 p.m.
Mr. Stallard: I am following closely the right hon. Gentleman's argument about the valid comparison with Scotland and Wales. But does he accept that on Second Reading the Secretary of State superseded those discussions and arguments when he said that in Stormont days, when there was a degree of devolution in Northern Ireland, representation was based on 89,000 and now it should be based on something nearer 50,000, as in the United Kingdom? Does he accept that there is a real fear and danger in the minds of many Scottish and Welsh Members and electors that that will be used as a precedent for reducing representation from Scotland and Wales to 12

1827
seats and seven seats respectively? That argument has been resurrected by the Secretary of State's comparison.
Mr. Powell: As I understood and recollect the remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on Second Reading, they were entirely in line with what I am saying, namely, that this decision of the House does not in any way prejudice, prejudge or create an obstacle to any future decision which may be taken as to the local constitution and administration of Northern Ireland.
Parliament proceeded in the proper way to determine how full and fair representation, against which no argument any longer remained, should be accorded to Northern Ireland by setting up a Conference under Mr. Speaker in accordance with precedent—a precedent which has been followed on even larger constitutional matters affecting the composition of and election to the House of Commons.
That Conference comprised 29 hon. Members under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker. It could not be said that those hon. Members, for the most part, approached the question which was put before them either with closed minds or light-heartedly. Indeed, they addressed themselves de novo to whether it was proper that Northern Ireland should have increased representation at all. It can hardly be said that it was a Conference packed with hon. Members whose minds were already made up on the subject. It is true that they came—one would have thought that they were obliged to come—to a decision by an overwhelming majority that Northern Ireland should have increased representation. But they did so only after deliberation and consideration of such evidence as they decided was relevant.
When they proceeded to decide by how much that representation should be increased, they arrived at their conclusion almost unanimously; there was one dissentient. That is an important fact for Northern Ireland. It is important that when this major step—and such it is—is taken, it should be taken with the overwhelming consent of Members representative of all parts of the House of Commons acting in a constitutional manner and in accordance with precedent when dealing with such questions. It is that
1828
which will give assurance to the people of Northern Ireland that in future this question will not be the football of politics in the House of Commons or in this country. It is a decision which, as near as it ever can, the House of Commons as a whole has taken and is taking.
In arriving at the figure, the Conference naturally addressed itself to the level of representation in other parts of the United Kingdom. It established that an increase of four seats would give Northern Ireland equality of representation with the overwhelming preponderant part of the United Kingdom.
If the Conference had said "Our recommendation is that Northern Ireland should have 16 seats", we could not have denied that that was broad, fair justice for Northern Ireland. The House of Commons would have been entitled to say to us "We have put you in Northern Ireland on an even footing with the overwhelming majority of the Kingdom of which you are an integral part". But the Conference did not do that. It took note of the fact that there is a higher scale of representation in Wales and in Scotland and that on the basis of those two scales Northern Ireland would have 18 and 19 seats respectively.
Naturally, my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux) and I, as any other hon. Members representing Northern Ireland in our places would have done, pointed to the analogies between the circumstances of Northern Ireland and of Scotland, but we pooled, as we do in this House when we act as a House, our views with those of our colleagues. And the view of our colleagues was that the analogy with Wales was the closest, but not complete. It was upon that view that the Conference decided finally—and we thought it our duty to ensure that that decision was, as nearly as possible, the unanimous decision of the Conference—that the the representation of Northern Ireland should approach that of Wales. Indeed, it will equal that of Wales if, in the exercise of the discretion which it is to be given, the Boundary Commission recommends 18 seats.
So there is no mystery about how the figure comes to be in this Bill. There is no mystery about how it was arrived at. There is no mystery about the report behind the Bill, which had the support,

1829
as nearly as it can be mobilised, of the whole of the House of Commons ; and there is no mystery about the reason why the House of Commons, virtually as a whole, supports this decision. It is because this decision is in accordance with the principles of the House of Commons itself that it could not take any other decision without renouncing those principles and weakening the basis of its own authority.
My hon. Friends and I will support the Bill as it stands because it embodies the virtually unanimous recommendation of Mr. Speaker's Conference and as near as may be the unanimous will of the House of Commons, to which, as the essence of the union of the United Kingdom, it is our pride and our right to belong.
Mr. John Ellis: I sought, in an intervention, to challenge the contribution that has just been made and I feel that I must challenge it more. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that, with the passing on of Stormont, the last remaining reason, there could be no reason—and I think he said it two, three or even four times in his speech—why the more normal figures should not apply for Northern Ireland. I believe that it would be remiss in this debate if that statement were allowed to go unchallenged.
Returning to the point that I made when I intervened, it is a bit of an anachronism, as we stand here, that if there is one part of the British Isles, or this conglomeration of islands as such, where it can be demonstrated that there is different history, and in many ways a different culture, that place must be Northern Ireland—much more so than Scotland—yet this is the one area for which some of its representatives seek to make the bonds more iron hard. I wonder why that is.
It is perfectly arguable, if we are talking about democracy as we know it, to say that there is something inherently wrong if, after an election—most hon. Members who represent English, Welsh and Scottish constituencies believe that they are here to represent all the people—the minority who did not vote for the Member elected believe that in the constituency they cannot have any faith that they will
1830
get justice in the matter of pensions, in housing and where that should be allocated, or on anything else.
The extraordinary situation is that about the only time one sees the parties united on anything is when they are getting more money for themselves. As soon as the money is allocated for a factory, for instance, there is immediate division about where that factory will be placed, and so on. There is no trust on the part of 40 per cent. of the community in the other 60 per cent. The writ does not run. That is the situation that we face in looking at the increased number of seats. We seek to heal and to change.
It is a legitimate argument that hon. Members should judge the Bill and these amendments solely on the question whether they will do anything for democracy or to bring the communities together, or whether they will do the reverse. In my view, the Bill will do the reverse. We have sufficient indication of that in the way that the communities have regarded this matter. It is being fed back to us in many ways, in some of the speeches that we have heard this evening, that the 40 per cent.—as was inevitable, it seems—have objected violently and said "This divides us more". Therefore, we are not helping the cause of democracy by the Bill or, specifically, by these amendments. That is a fair argument.
Let us look at one of the significant pieces of evidence that came from Northern Ireland, where a great deal of research was done into people's attitudes towards these issues. It was revealed that a substantial section of the community, Catholic and Protestant, supported direct rule. That was a terrible indictment of their native politcians. That must mean that they have no faith.
Mr. Powell: It is hardly an indictment of full representation in the House of Commons.
Mr. Ellis: No, but it is an indictment of people in the Province, who say "We are different. The English will never understand the problems of Catholics and Protestants. They have never lived here." I accept that. However, when questioned on this matter, a large number of people, Catholics and Protestants, said—perhaps it was self-evident from their unhappy history—that whoever was

1831
the majority could not gain the support of the minority in any way until their own institutions, and Stormont itself, blew apart.
Before I became a Member of Parliament, as a citizen of this country who was responsible in some way I always thought that this was a situation that had festered over the years. I came to the conclusion that the House of Commons never discussed it. Certainly, in my early years here we never discussed it. That was because we were so sick of the whole issue, which had festered on and on, and so long as the people there managed to get by without too much killing, we would keep quiet and say nothing. The situation changed dramatically when that unhappy Province blew itself apart and the House of Commons had to take notice and had to take action.
9.45 p.m.
I am not filibustering in any way. All that I seek to do, by any means available, by this Bill or any other, is to lessen the division and the sectarianism in Northern Ireland. The Bill does not do this. By giving more seats it will make the minority even more isolated; they will fear that their legitimate aspirations are being pushed further away. The mass of the people, who are not active politicians, despair of their heritage. No one has challenged the survey, which showed that a significant number of Catholics and Protestants would prefer direct rule—
Mr. Powell: From here.
Mr. Ellis: Yes, because, they say, "Our experience of our institutions shows that we cannot trust each other and we cannot trust those elected to give us a fair crack of the whip. Everything they do is a negation of what we believe."
That is deplorable. We here should be the guardians of all the great virtues. But one of those virtues is to be able to take decisions for oneself, democratically and with tolerance, seeking the trust of those who disagree. Not all these things happen in Northern Ireland. The great majority of the people, Protestant and Catholic, who are not killers or members of murder gangs, want to live in peace. The heritage of liberty demands that
1832
people stand up and declare themselves for it.
Unchallenged evidence shows that a huge number of people concluded that they could not achieve that and that they would rather give the control of affairs to Englishmen. They say, in effect, "Even with the increase in seats, policy will be decided by people who disagree with us." All too often, the charge is that we do not live there or know the background. But that survey shows that they are prepared to let us make the decisions.
Mr. Fitt: Is my hon. Friend aware that during the sitting of the Constitutional Convention in Northern Ireland, when Northern Irishmen of all religious persuasions sought desperately for a political solution, 48 hours before it ended, an Englishman—the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—said in a public speech in Belfast, in the words of Cromwell: "In the name of God, go." He did not want Northern Ireland politicians or the Constitutional Convention to succeed. Yet that is the right hon. Member who is now saying that an increase in seats will not prevent the creation of political structures in Northern Ireland. He will do his best to ensure that no locally-based structure is created in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Ellis: I am grateful—
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I thought that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) had risen to ask his hon. Friend to refer to the amendment under discussion. He did not do so, so I will ask the hon. Member to come to the amendment.
Mr. Ellis Mr. Ellis rose—
Mr. McNamara: I was of the same mind—
The First Deputy Chairman: Order. Is this a point of order?
Mr. McNamara: No, Sir Myer, it is an intervention.
Mr. Ellis: I gave way.
Mr. McNamara: Had it been a point of order, Sir Myer, I should have addressed you directly, as I have done in the past. My hon. Friend gave way to allow me to make an intervention.

1833
My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) talked about direct rule and the majority of the people preferring it. He was correct in what he said, but the argument for direct rule was based on the status quo. It was an argument for direct rule and not for increased representation.
Sir Myer, there is a lot of talk below the Gangway.
The First Deputy Chairman: Order.
Mr. McNamara: Following his great statement, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) pointed to that thing below the Table there and said "Take away this bauble." That was a denial of democracy if ever there was one. In that way we would end up with a military dictatorship.
Mr. Ellis: My hon. Friend speaks many words of wisdom.
Mr. Tom Litterick: On a point of order, Sir Myer. There seems to be an informal meeting at the door which is preventing us from hearing the proceedings of the Chamber.
The First Deputy Chairman: Will hon. Members refrain from talking, so that we can hear what is being discussed on amendment No. 3?
Mr. Ellis: It is difficult to maintain a train of thought. The speeches of the right hon. Member for Down, South are always worth listening to. I thought he was trying to demonstrate that there could be no logical reason for opposing the Bill. I challenge that assumption. The Bill will do nothing to lessen the sectarian hostility that divides the unhappy community. It is an alien situation in a democracy to have within communities— for the purposes of the argument I make no difference between Catholic or Protestant—groups of people who go outside the law in pursuit of their political aims. It cannot be judged within those parameters. Will the fundamental question of the creation of these seats do anything to lessen the sectarian divide? Will other more moderate points of view be heard in this Committee?
Mr. Eddie Loyden: Does my hon. Friend accept that extension of representation for Northern
1834
Ireland is important for the Government? The Government can abrogate responsibility for solving the real problems of Northern Ireland by this exercise of extending representation in Northern Ireland. Does he also not agree that although the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made an impeccable analytical argument, he failed to reach any conclusions? He is arguing that Parliament can never be wrong because constitutional decisions have been taken. But there is no comparison between the political, social and economic situation in Northern Ireland and in Scotland and Wales. Those comparisons are therefore not only unfair but completely unacceptable.
Mr. Ellis: My hon. Friend takes the argument one step further and challenges the prime motivation of the Bill. I hope that that point will be developed in the course of the debate. I am trying to be kinder and ask whether the Government's aim is to lessen the sectarian divide and improve the situation. If that is their belief, I am seeking to argue against that proposition, because I do not believe that it is true. If hon. Members attempt to buttress the argument even further by appearing to put a gloss on an unsatisfactory situation, that is an even bigger condemnation of these amendments.
I cannot see why, if the ratio of the divide in Northern Ireland is 60 to 40, there is not a similar ratio in representation in the seats that we already have. The outcome of these extra seats is, in the circumstances, unlikely to change the situation one iota. What it is likely to do is further to alienate the already alienated 40 per cent.—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is 39 per cent."] I do not wish to quibble about this. The point I am trying to make is that we can make democracy work only if after the elections the people who did not vote for the successful Member do not go out into the streets—
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Will you ask the Ulster Unionists who are making interventions to stand up on their hind legs and make their contributions properly so that we can follow the train of thought of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis)? Otherwise, we shall have to appeal once more for silence and my hon. Friend will have to repeat many of his arguments.
The First Deputy Chairman: I have been listening intently for the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) to come to the point of the amendment under discussion—I was anxious not to miss that—and therefore I did not hear any interjections. If I hear any sedentary comments, I shall certainly ask the hon. Members concerned to rise in their places.
Mr. McNamara: Further to that point of order, Sir Myer. I distinctly heard the words "Where did you get 40 per cent. from?" from two or three Ulster Unionist Members in a sedentary position. I should have thought that their references to that number 40 were related to what we were discussing today. The amendment concerns the question of numbers. Ulster Unionists have been very reluctant to take part in the debate. They have come in and out rather like yo-yos. If they have a contribution to make, they should stand up and make their points in accordance with the proper procedures.
Mr. Ellis: I accept your chairmanship, Sir Myer, as I must, and I shall accept

Division No. 34]

AYES

10.00 p.m.

Anderson, Donald

Dempsey, James

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Doig, Peter

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Armstrong, Ernest

Dormand, J. D.

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Ashton, Joe

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Dunlop, John

Kilfedder, James

Bean, R. E.

Dunn, James A.

Knox, David

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Dunnett, Jack

Lambie, David

Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

Eadie, Alex

Lamborn, Harry

Biggs-Davison, John

Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)

Lamond, James

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

English, Michael

Leadbitter, Ted

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Boardman, H.

Evans, John (Newton)

Lofthouse, Geolfrey

Bradford, Rev Robert

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Eyre, Reginald

McCartney, Hugh

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Farr, John

McCusker, H.

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

McElhone, Frank

Budgen, Nick

Fookes, Miss Janet

McKay, Alan (Penlstone)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Campbell, Ian

Ford, Ben

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Cant, R. B.

Forrester, John

Maclennan, Robert

Carson, John

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Carter, Ray

George, Bruce

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Cartwright, John

Golding, John

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Gourlay, Harry

Marks, Kenneth

Cohen, Stanley

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Coleman, Donald

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Grant, John (Islington C)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Conlan, Bernard

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mather, Carol

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Hardy, Peter

Mayhew, Patrick

Cowans, Harry

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Hayhoe, Barney

Molyneaux, James

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Hooley, Frank

Morgan, Geraint

Davidson, Arthur

Horam, John

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Morton, George

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

Hughes, Rt Hon C (Anglesey)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Hunter, Adam

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Deakins, Eric

Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

John, Brynmor

Neave, Alrey

your ruling on all these matters. However, I assure the Committee that I shall not be put off. I shall make my speech and, if it takes me that much longer, I shall have to detain the Committee to do so.
It does not matter whether the figure is 40 per cent. or 39 per cent. What I am saying would be true even if the figure were only 10 per cent. If, after an election, a significant number of people—perhaps as low a proportion as 5 per cent.—feel so aggrieved that they go outside democratic forms altogether—
It being Ten o'clock the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
That the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill may be proceeded with at this day's sitting, though opposed, until any hour. —[Mr. Shape.]
The House divided: Ayes 162, Noes 32.

Noble, Mike

Sever, John

Weatherill, Bernard

Oakes, Gordon

Shepherd, Colin

Weetch, Ken

Ogden, Eric

Snape, Peter

White, James (Pollok)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Spriggs, Leslie

Whitehead, Phillip

Paisley, Rev Ian

Stanbrook, Ivor

Whitlock, William

Palmer, Arthur

Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Park, George

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Powell, Rt Hon J.Enoch

Tinn, James

Winterlon, Nicholas

Radice, Giles

Torney, Tom

Woof, Robert

Ridley, Hon Nicholas

Urwin, T.W.

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Young, David (Bolton E)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Rooker, J.W.

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Roper, John

Ward, Michael

Mr. Ted Graham and

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Watkins, David

Mr. Alf Bates.

Rowlands, Ted

NOES

Beith, A. J.

Madden, Max

Skinner, Dennis

Canavan, Dennis

Mahon, Simon

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Corbett, Robin

Maynard, Miss Joan

Stallard, A.W.

Cryer, Bob

Mikardo, Ian

Steel, Rt Hon David

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

O'Halloran, Michael

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Ovenden, John

White, Frank R.(Bury)

Flannery, Martin

Page, John (Harrow West)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Parry, Robert

Woodall, Alec

Home Robertson, John

Penhaligon, David

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Richardson, Miss Jo

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Litterick, Tom

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Mr.Kevin McNamara and

Loyden, Eddie

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Mr.Ron Thomas.

Question accordingly agreed to.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRI- BUTION OF SEATS) BILL
Again considered in Committee.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
Mr. John Ellis: My speech so far has been subject to a number of interruptions, through no wish of mine. I was last interrupted when I was replying to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Down, South. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was no objection to an increase in the number of seats. I do not wish to be unfair about his argument. I seek to demonstrate that if the general cause of democracy as we know it is likely to be disadvantaged by the creation of more seats, that is a good argument for not passing this measure or the amendments.
10.15 p.m.
I do not believe that the right hon. Member for Down, South did justice to my intervention. An extraordinary state of affairs exists in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. If a substantial number of people —even if they are in the minority—view this move as a setback and a further alienation, we must oppose it.
For those reasons I am against the amendments which seek to add to the number of seats in the Bill. Those who have power and are in the majority must concede to the minority view. However, during our many discussions on the subject I have heard no word from the Ulster Unionists—who are in the majority—about what they seek to do to help the minority. When suggestions are made, whether by the Unionist majority or by the Catholic minority, they refuse to have anything to do with what is suggested.
We are not discussing democracy in the way that we normally accept democracy. When I visited that unhappy place everybody I spoke to wanted to know whether I was Catholic or Protestant. No one wished to know my political opinion.
My credentials in that respect are better than those of the right hon. Member for Down, South. I do not wish to be per-
1840
sonal but the right hon. Member has confessed many times that he belongs to the Church of England. At one time such people were Catholics. My own antecedents are different. I was brought up as a Primitive Methodist. I have had nothing to do with the Church of England. I am not an atheist, but I have doubts and I am an agnostic. We do not down arguments or people on the basis of their religious background.
Mr. Stallard: I am following the argument of my hon. Friend as closely as possible, because of the importance of this subject. I know of his long-standing interest in the matter and his many visits to the Six Counties. I believe that he visited the Province recently. Was he aware of any grass roots pressure for this increase in representation at West minster?
Mr. Ellis: The subject was never mentioned. That could have been chance. There was a certain amount of pressure from some political quarters concerning Stormont.
Can those who support the amendments and the Bill honestly say that this legislation will remove the bitterness and heal the estrangement felt by the minority? Will the bitterness and the hatred be lessened? If they can honestly say that it will be, it seems that the legislation will have contributed something. If they can honestly say that, I shall reconsider my position. It is my honest and sincere conviction that those conditions which break apart the community and which result in the present unhappy state of affairs will not be helped by the Bill or the amendments.
Mr. Airey Neave: I explained on Second Reading why the Conservative Party supported this Bill and why we agreed with the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference. I did so in some detail and it is not necessary for me to address the Committee any further on that score. We do not support the Bill because we are in favour of integration, as has been suggested. I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that full representation is no barrier to effective local institutions. We are not supporting the Bill because the extra seats would be

1841
a substitute for devolution. If the Minister of State wishes to resist the amendments, whether in favour of increasing the number of seats or of reducing that number, we shall support him. We want to see the Bill enacted as it stands.
It is unwise to indulge in too much speculation about the political complexion of the extra seats which may follow from this Bill. That rather detracts from the work of Mr. Speaker's Conference. It was my impression that it had no desire to entrench one community or the other as a result of its recommendations. As I understand it, the purpose of the Conference was to seek to end the existing under-representation of the Province for the benefit of all the people there. This has been the policy of the Conservative Party for a long time.
We should be judging the amendments, as we have judged the Bill, on the merits of under-representation. Attention has been drawn to the quotas—64,000 for England and 84,000 for Northern Ireland. Strong evidence was given to Mr. Speaker's Conference on this point. Since an all-party conference has come to this decision by an overwhelming majority, I do not believe that we should oppose it.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): It was said when we first set out on this group of amendments that they were narrow in scope. I hate to think what would happen if they were any wider in scope.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Sir Myer. Do you have any idea of the purpose of my right hon. Friend's intervention? Will those hon. Members who have amendments tabled for discussion have the opportunity to deal with the reply given to them by the Minister? I understand that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) wishes to reply to the debate, and I, too, wish to reply to the points made on my amendment.
I seek an undertaking that the closure will not be moved by the Government and accepted by the Chair before hon. Members have had an opportunity to reply to the debate. There are many hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and Bristol, North-West (Mr.
1842
Thomas), who should be given an opportunity to make their contributions. I regret the fact that the Minister of State has taken this opportunity to address the Committee. Am I in order in asking him, through you, Sir Myer, to desist from speaking now to enable my hon. Friends to make their contributions?
Several Hon. Members rose—
The First Deputy Chairman: I shall deal with one point of order at a time. The duty of the Chair is simple. If a Minister rises to speak, the occupant of the Chair calls him.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Sir Myer. I understand that immediately the Minister completes his reply to the debate, the Government intend to move the closure. Since the Committee is discussing my amendment, am I not entitled to reply to some of the points that have been made in the debate?
The First Deputy Chairman: We must hear the Minister out, because he has already risen to his feet.
Mr. Concannon: The Committee has been debating amendments that arise from radically different points of view but have a common object in seeking to alter the number of seats appropriate to Northern Ireland, thus departing from the recommendations of the overwhelming majority of the members of Mr. Speaker's Conference.
The amendments which are in the names of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) have been discussed together. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his ingenuity in linking his name with two amendments. His ingenuity knows no bounds.
Mr. McNamara: I thank my right hon. Friend for his compliment, which I accept in the manner in which it was given. However, I believe that it would be of much more interest to the Committee to know whether my right hon. Friend, as the Minister in charge of the Bill, will be bullied into accepting the closure, thus not allowing my hon. Friends to make their contributions to the debate or to allow us to sum up our case in the light of his reply.
Mr. Concannon: I have been a member of many Standing Committees upstairs and Committees that have been taken on the Floor of the House, It is quite normal for the Minister to express his point of view when he considers it opportune to do so, and the Minister is usually called. This does not prevent the Committee stage continuing.
Mr. Ron Thomas Mr. Ron Thomas rose—
Mr. Concannon: I do not think that this is a point for me. I am merely exercising my right as Minister to reply to the debate.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bill is of crucial constitutional importance? Does he also agree that it would be indefensible for the Government to curtail debate on the Bill?
Mr. Concannon: Since I have been on the Front Bench since four o'clock this afternoon, I do not think that it is correct to say that there has been any curtailment of discussion. Judging by the way things have gone so far, I do not think it can be said that there has been any curtailment of discussion on the Bill, which contains only two clauses.
The statutory level put forward—namely, to increase the number of seats from between 16 and 18 to between 21 and 24—may be described as the target figure. That would be an increase from 17 to 22. Seventeen seats would put Northern Ireland on par with the rest of the country. That seems fair. If Northern Ireland were to have 22 seats it would be more generously represented, by far, than any other part of the United Kingdom. Each Member would represent 47,000 electors compared with 54,000 in Scotland and 66,000 in England. If we had strict parity in Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom, we should arrive at 16·1 seats. Seventeen seats would produce about the same representation as in Wales and would be slightly short of that in Scotland. We are trying to right an unfairness. I am sure that hon. Members would not wish to put Northern Ireland in a favoured position and thus create another unfairness.
10.30 p.m.
My hon. Friends the Members for Belfast. West (Mr. Fitt) and for Kingston
1844
upon Hull, Central are asking the Committee to approve amendments that disregard the recommendations of Mr. Speaker's Conference. The result of their amendments would be 15 seats for Northern Ireland instead of the 17 recommended by Mr. Speaker's Conference. Instead of the possibility of a variation of 16 to 18 there would be the possibility of a variation of 14 to 16. I am not sure why my hon. Friends have alighted on 15. I thought that they were opposed to any increase in Northern Ireland representation in the House of Commons. I thought that they were opposed to the principle of increasing Northern Ireland representation and not merely to the extent of the increase.
I hope that my hon. Friends will recall that the membership of Mr. Speaker's Conference was 14 Labour Members, 11 Conservative Members, one Liberal Member, two Unionist Members and one SDLP Member. Conference agreed—there was only one dissenting voice—that 17 was the appropriate level of representation for Northern Ireland, subject to possible variation to 16 or 18. I ask both my hon. Friends and some hon. Members whether they have any reasons for thinking that in reaching its conclusions the Conference was guided by any considerations other than its view of what was fair and just for the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Loyden: I accept everything that my right hon. Friend has said about Mr. Speaker's Conference, but does he agree that the increased representation of Northern Ireland is a matter for the House of Commons and not for the Conference? He has suggested that the decision of the Conference should have an overwhelming influence on the decision of the House of Commons. Will he make it clear that it is a matter for the House of Commons?
Mr. Concannon: Of course. That is why we had a Second Reading. The House decided its attitude to the Bill on Second Reading. We are now in Committee. We are considering the fair allocation of seats to Northern Ireland. There will be a Third Reading. We shall go on from there.
Mr. Ron Thomas: My right hon. Friend spoke about what he thought were the motives of those who took part in

1845
Mr. Speaker's Conference, which arrived at a certain decision. We have already heard that much of the proceedings of that Conference was taken in complete secrecy. There are no minutes of what was discussed. How does my right hon. Friend arrive at his assessment of the motives of those who took part in the Conference?
Mr. Concannon: My hon. Friend seems to impugn the motives of the members of Mr. Speaker's Conference. I do not believe that the rest of the House of Commons would wish to impugn their motives in that way. Certainly, I should not wish to do so. We are following what has always been the accepted way of dealing with these matters in this place.
Several Hon. Members rose—
The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. The Minister does not appear to be giving way. Hon. Members know perfectly well the way in which we behave in the House in those circumstances.
Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. My right hon. Friend has invited my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and myself and some of our hon. Friends—
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Whatever the Minister invited anybody to do is not in the hands of the Chair. If the Minister wants to give way, he can do so, in which case the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) will have his opportunity.
Mr. Concannon: I have already given way three times and would like to get on.
Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend asked me a question.
Mr. Concannon: I have given way quite enough, I think. My hon. Friend knows very well that it takes quite a lot to unsettle me and I will not be bullied into giving way.
Mr. McNamara Mr. McNamara rose—
Mr. Concannon: Just for my flat-mate, I will give way.
Mr. McNamara: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I ask for favours from him not on the ground of friend-
1846
ship but on the basis of the rules of the House. I have no wish to pursue the matter.
Mr. Concannon Mr. Concannon rose—
Mr. Stallard: Will my right hon. Friend give way? I would like to pursue the matter and I am not my right hon. Friend's flat-mate. He has said that the numbers were arrived at on the basis of the Speaker's Conference. I suggest to my right hon. Friend that, inasmuch as we have any information at all about the Speaker's Conference—
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That is not a point of order. Mr. Concannon. I see that the Minister has given way. I apologise.
Mr. Stallard: I understand the confusion. Based on the very scant information that any of us has about what happened at the Speaker's Conference, we have been able to glean that it was mainly an arithmetical discussion. It was based on mathematical considerations about areas and electors. This Committee is entitled to go much further than that and to discuss the political implications of those mathematical calculations. That is what the discussion is about, and I hope that the Minister will address himself to that.
Mr. Concannon: Once again, I should like to remind the Committee that a Speaker's Conference is a traditional and accepted way of deciding these things. The Government have already indicated that they accept the recommendations of the Conference, and I can see no reason whatever to quarrel with them. I am content to accept the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference that Northern Ireland deserves 17 seats in the House of Commons. I hope that the Committee will also agree and will not accept either group of amendments.
Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household)Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order. Mr. Godman Irvine.
The Second Deputy Chairman: The Question is, That the Question be now put. There can be no point of order arising.
The Committee proceeded to a Division—
Rev. Ian Paisley (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. We are discussing an important matter concerning the future representation of Northern Ireland in the House of Commons, and it is my amendment that is before the Committee. I represent one of the largest constituencies in Northern Ireland and I am denied the right to reply to a debate initiated by the calling

Division No. 35]

AYES

[10.38 p.m

Anderson, Donald

Fookes, Miss Janet

Molyneaux, James

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morgan, Geraint

Armstrong, Ernest

Ford, Ben

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Ashton, Joe

Forrester, John

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Morton, George

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Freud, Clement

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Bates, Alf

George, Bruce

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Bean, R. E.

Golding, John

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Beith, A. J.

Gourlay, Harry

Neave, Airey

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Noble, Mike

Berry, Hon Anthony

Graham, Ted

Oakes, Gordon

Biggs-Davison. John

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Ogden, Eric

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Grant, John (Islington C)

Palmer, Arthur

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Park, George

Boardman, H.

Hardy, Peter

Penhaligon, David

Bradford, Rev Robert

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Radice, Giles

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hooley, Frank

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Horam, John

Roderick, Caerwyn

Buchanan, Richard

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Roper, John

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Campbell, Ian

Hunter, Adam

Rowlands, Ted

Cant, R. B.

John, Brynmor

Sever, John

Carson, John

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Shepherd Colin

Carter, Ray

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Spearing, Nigel

Cohen, Stanley

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Stanbrook, Ivor

Coleman, Donald

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Strang, Gavin

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Lambie, David

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Conlan, Bernard

Lamborn, Harry

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Lamond, James

Tinn, James

Cowans, Harry

Leadbitter, Ted

Urwin, T. W.

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Davidson, Arthur

McCartney, Hugh

Ward, Michael

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

McCusker, H.

Watkins, David

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

McElhone, Frank

Weatherill, Bernard

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Weetch, Ken

Deakins, Eric

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

White, James (Pollok)

Dempsey, James

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Whitehead, Phillip

Dewar, Donald

Maclennan, Robert

Whitlock, William

Dormand, J. D.

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Dunlop, John

Marks, KennethWoof, Robert

Woof Robert

Eadie, Alex

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

English, Michael

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Evans, John (Newton)

Mather, Carol

Mr. Peter Snape and

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Mr. Joseph Dean.

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

NOES

Canavan, Dennis

Home Robertson, John

Mikardo, Ian

Corbett, Robin

Kilfedder, James

O'Halloran, Michael

Cryer, Bob

Litterick, Tom

Paisley, Rev Ian

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Loyden, Eddie

Parry, Robert

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Madden, Max

Richardson, Miss Jo

Flannery, Martin

Mahon, Simon

Rodgers, George (Chorles,

of my amendment. I ask, Mr. Godman Irvine, whether you will protect minorities in this House and give the people in Northern Ireland, through their elected representatives, a chance of democracy.
The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) does not appear to be interested in any reaction to what he said, but he has no right of reply.
The Committee having divided: Ayes 150, Noes 27.

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Skinner, Dennis

White, Frank R. (Bury)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Mr. Kevin McNamara and

Stallard, A. W.

Woodall. Alec

Mr. Stan Thorne

Steel, Rt Hon David

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

Division No. 36]

AYES

[10.52 p.m

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Rev. Ian Paisley and

Mr. James Kilfedder.

NOES

Anderson, Donald

George, Bruce

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Golding, John

Neave, Airey

Armstrong, Ernest

Gourlay, Harry

Oakes, Gordon

Ashton, Joe

Gow, lan (Eastbourne)

Ogden, Eric

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

O'Halloran, Michael

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Graham, Ted

Ovenden, John

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Palmer, Arthur

Bates, Alf

Grant, John (Islington C)

Park, George

Bean, R. E.

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Parry, Robert

Beith, A. J.

Hardy, Peter

Penhaligon, David

Bell, Ronald

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Radice, Giles

Berry, Hon Anthony

Home Robertson, John

Richardson, Miss Jo

Biggs-Davison, John

Hooley, Frank

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Horam, John

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Boardman, H.

Hughes. Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hunter, Adam

Roper, John

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

John, Brynmor

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Buchanan, Richard

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Rowlands, Ted

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Sever, John

Campbell, Ian

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Shepherd, Colin

Canavan, Dennis

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Skinner, Dennis

Cant, R. B.

Lambie, David

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Carson, John

Lamborn, Harry

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Carter, Ray

Lamond, James

Snape, Peter

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Leadbitter, Ted

Spearing, Nigel

Cohen, Stanley

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Stallard, A, W.

Coleman, Donald

Litterick, Tom

Stanbrook, Ivor

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Steel, Rt Hon David

Conlan, Bernard

Loyden, Eddie

Strang, Gavin

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Cowans, Harry

McCartney, Hugh

Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

McCusker, H.

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Cryer, Bob

McElhone, Frank

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Davidson, Arthur

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Tinn, James

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Urwin, T.

Davies, or (Gower)

Maclennan, Robert

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Deakins, Eric

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

McNamara, Kevin

Ward, Michael

Dempsey, James

Madden, Max

Watkins, David

Dewar, Donald

Mahon, Simon

Weatherill, Bernard

Dormand, J. D.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

weetch, Ken

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Marks, Kenneth

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

White, James (Pollok)

Eadie, Alex

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Whitehead, Phillip

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Whitlock, William

English, Michael

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Mather, Carol

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Mikardo, Ian

Winterton, Nicholas

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Flannery, Martin

Molyneaux, James

Woodall, Alec

Fookes, Miss Janet

Morgan, Geraint

Wool, Robert

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Wrigglesworth Ian

Ford, Ben

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Forrester, John

Morton, George

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Mr. Thomas Cox and

Freud, Clement

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Mr. John Evans.

Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: Ayes 0, Noes 179.
The Second Deputy Chairman: Does the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) wish to move his amendment?
Mr. McNamara: Yes, Mr. Godman Irvine.

Division No. 37]

AYES

[11.04 p.m

Beith, A. J.

Ovenden, John

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Canavan, Dennis

Penhaligon, David

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

Woodall, Alec

Freud, Clement

Skinner, Dennis

Home Robertson, John

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mikardo, Ian

Stallard, A. W.

Mr. Kevin McNamara and

O'Halloran, Michael

Steel, Rt Hon David

Mr. Eddie Loyden

NOES

Anderson, Donald

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Ford, Ben

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Armstrong, Ernest

Forrester, John

Morton, George

Ashton, Joe

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

George, Bruce

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Golding, John

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Gow, lan (Eastbourne)

Neave, Airey

Bates, Alf

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Noble, Mike

Bean, R. E.

Graham, Ted

Oakes, Gordon

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Ogden, Eric

Berry, Hon Anthony

Grant, John (Islington C)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Biggs-Davison, John

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Palmer, Arthur

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Hardy, Peter

Park, George

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Pendry, Tom

Boardman, H.

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Bradford, Rev Robert

Hooley, Frank

Radice, Giles

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Hunter, Adam

Roderick, Caerwyn

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

John, Brynmor

Roper, John

Campbell, Ian

Johnson, James (Hull West)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Cant, R. B.

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Rowlands, Ted

Carson, John

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Sever, John

Carter, Ray

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Shepherd, Colin

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Cohen, Stanley

Kilfedder, James

Snape, Peter

Coleman, Donald

Lambie, David

Spearing, Nigel

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Lamborn, Harry

Stanbrook, Ivor

Conlan, Bernard

Lamond, James

Strang, Gavin

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Leadbitter, Ted

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Cowans, Harry

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Urwin, T. W.

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Cryer, Bob

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Davidson, Arthur

McCartney, Hugh

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

McCusker, H.

Ward, Michael

Davies, Ifor (Gower)

McElhone, Frank

Watkins, David

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

McKay, Allen (Penistone)

Weatherill, Bernard

Deakins, Eric

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Weetch, Ken

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Maclennan, Robert

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Dempsey, James

McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)

White, James (Pollok)

Dewar, Donald

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Whitehead, Phillip

Dormand, J. D.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Marks, Kenneth

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Dunlop, John

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Winterton, Nicholas

Eadie, Alex

Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

Woof, Robert

English, Michael

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Mather, Carol

Evans, John (Newton)

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Molyneaux, James

Mr. James Tinn and

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Monro, Hector

Mr. Thomas Cox.

Fookes, Miss Janet

Morgan, Geraint

Question accordingly negatived.
11.15 p.m.
Mr. McNamara: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 1, line 18, leave out subsection (3).
Amendment proposed: No.2, in page 1, line 10, leave out '18' and insert '16'.—[Mr. McNamara.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 17, Noes 151.
The Second Deputy Chairman: With this we may take the following amendments:
No. 13, in page 2, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
No. 17, in page 2, line 26, leave out subsection (6).
Mr. McNamara: The purpose of the amendments is to explore more fully a statement made on Second Reading by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—whose absence I regret, just as I regret the absence of some of my other right hon. and hon. Friends—which seemed to indicate that when subsection (2) came into operation there would be almost a guarantee of five or six seats for the minority population within the Six Counties.
The amendments deal with the position of the Boundary Commission, which is responsible for fixing constituency boundaries. It is responsible for doing so on the same basis as that within the rest of the United Kingdom, although until the Bill becomes law it merely has the task of dividing 12—the present number of seats in the Six Counties—into the number of electors, taking various other factors into consideration, to arrive at suitable constituency boundaries.
Clause 1(3) of the Bill alters rule 5 of the principal Act so that, in framing its first report under section 2(1), the Boundary Commission shall read rule 5,
"(under which the electorate of a constituency is to be brought as near the electoral quota as is practicable having regard to the other rules) in accordance with the definitions given in subsection (4) below instead of in accordance with rule 7 of those rules."
Section 2(1) of the principal Act is entitled
"Periodical reports of Commissions as to redistribution."
It states that
"Each Boundary Commission shall keep under review the representation in the House of Commons of the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned and shall, in accordance with the next following subsection, submit to the Secretary of State reports with respect to the whole of that part of the United Kingdom, either—

(a) showing the constituencies into which they recommend that it should be divided in order to give effect to the rules set out in the Second Schedule to this Act ; or

(b) stating that, in the opinion of the Commission, no alteration is required to be made in respect of that part of the United Kingdom in order to give effect to the said rules."

1854
All political organisers wish that the Commission would look at section 2(1)(b) of the Act more often, because of the problems that it creates for sitting Members and parties in the reorganisation of boundaries. But democracy must have its way, and that is a proper rule.
The schedule dealing with the redistribution of seats states that
"The number of constituencies in the several parts of the United Kingdom set out in the first column of the following table shall be as stated respectively in the second column of that table—

Part of the United Kingdom

No. of Constituencies

Great Britain

Not substantially greater or less than 613.

Scotland

Not less than 71.

Wales

Not less than 35.

Northern Ireland

12.

2. Every constituency shall return a single member."
That is clear and precise. We tried to change that but we were ruled out of order. That was sad, but it could not be helped.
Rule 3 shows the power of the City. It reads
"There shall continue to be a constituency which shall include the whole of the City of London and the name of which shall refer to the City of London."
Rule 4 says that
"So far as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules …in England and Wales"—
I shall not weary the Committee with the rule regarding county boroughs, and so on. It argued that no county district should be partly in one constituency and partly in another. That was amended to deal with the Assembly in relation to constituencies.
Clause 1 (3) of the Bill says how
"the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland shall read rule 5 of those rules ".
Rule 5 says that
"The electorate of any constituency shall be as near the electoral quota as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules; and a Boundary Commission may depart from the strict application of the last foregoing rule if it appears to them that a departure is desirable to avoid an excessive disparity between the electorate of any constituency and the electoral quota, or between the electorate thereof and that of neighbouring constituencies in the part of the United Kingdom with which they are concerned."
Mr. Clement Freud: The hon. Member has lent his name to almost every amendment. The Boundary Commission will take a long time to work out this complicated problem. Would it not be sensible if the Commission divided the Six Counties into four multi-Member constituencies in case, by the time its report comes before the House, the House is sufficiently enlightened to realise that proportional representation is the only proper answer?
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. None of that arises on the amendment.
Mr. McNamara: Without that ruling of yours, Mr. Godman Irvine, I might have been tempted to stray into the realms of proportional representation. Because of the way in which the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) worded his amendment on Second Reading, the House was prevented from having an adequate discussion.
Perhaps in the "clause stand part" debate it will be possible to discuss the point raised by the hon. Member without straying too far beyond the rules of order—
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The opportunity will not arise on clause stand part, as this point is not part of the Bill.
Mr. McNamara: Had it been included in the Bill I should have said that I have voted for proportional representation on every occasion when I felt that it should apply to Northern Ireland. I would not support it in the United Kingdom. I believe that the system should be the same in the Republic and the Six Counties—
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the amendment.
Mr. McNamara: I very much regret that I was led astray by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely.
11.30 p.m.
We come to rule 5 of the rules under which the electorate of a constituency is to be brought
"as near to the electoral quota as is practicable having regard to the other rules in accordance with the definitions given in subsection (4) below instead of in accordance with rule 7 of those rules."
Clause 1(4) of the Bill says:
1856
"In rule 5 as it applies by virtue of subsection (3) above—(a) 'electoral quota' shall mean a number obtained by dividing the aggregate electorate (as defined in paragraph (b) below) of all constituencies in Northern Ireland by 17";
and then we see, in paragraph (b)
"'electorate ' shall mean, in relation to any constituency, the number of persons whose names appear on the register of parliamentary electors in force for the constituency at the passing of this Act".
If we compare that with rule 7, as we find it in House of Commons Redistribution of Seats Act 1949, we find that in the application of these rules to each of the several parts of the United Kingdom for which there is a Boundary Commission.
"the expression 'electoral quota' means … a number obtained by dividing the electorate for Great Britain by the number of constituencies in Great Britain existing on the enumeration date",
and (b)
"The expression 'electorate ' means (i) in relation to a constituency, the number of persons whose names appear on the register of parliamentary electors in force on the enumeration date under the Representation of the People Acts for the constituency; (ii) in relation to Great Britain or Northern Ireland, the aggregate electorate as hereinbefore defined of all the constituencies therein'':
and (c)
"the expression 'emuneration date' means, in relation to any report of a Boundary Commission under this Act, the date on which the notice with respect to that report is published in accordance with section two of this Act."
We shall see when we come to subsection (5) of the clause that the position becomes different because of the fact that, in a sense, we are seeking to create a completely new situation by increasing the number of seats from 12 to 17, and then looking at the application of the various rules governing the Boundary Commission to effect the changes in the increased number of constituencies in Northern Ireland and seeking to push the matter ahead a little to get new boundaries by the time of the next General Election.
This is interesting, because the Bill refers also to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which deals with the position of the Assembly under the Act and the position of the constituencies thereunder.
That leads me to clause 1(5), which seeks to delete subsections (5) and (6) of section 28 of the Northern Ireland

1857
Constitution Act. Those subsections deal with constituencies and numbers of members.
I regret that I was unable to amend the principal Act or the Bill on the advice I received in order to give more positive reference to this group of subsections, because it would have dealt with the provision of proportional representation. But we find under subsections (5) and (6) of section 28 that
"An Order in Council under the said Act of 1949"—
that is the principal Act—
"for giving effect, with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in a report or supplementary report of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland may amend section 1(1) of the said Act of 1973 by altering the number of members there specified and may amend the Schedule to that Act by altering the name of any of the constituencies there mentioned or the number of members there specified in relation to any constituency".
Subsection (6) of section 28 says that
"Any provision of an Order in Council under the said Act of 1949 altering the boundaries of any constituency in Northern Ireland or the number of members specified in the said section 1(1) or the said Schedule in relation to any constituency shall not affect any election to the Assembly before the next general election to the Assembly or affect the constitution of the Assembly then in being."
That is important, because at present the Assembly, as such, is suspended. As I understand it, it has not yet been abolished. The provisions of the 1973 Act would have affected the Boundary Commission in the way in which it sought to draw up the boundaries for the new constituencies and would have created a degree of confusion. As I understand it, these subsections provide a solution to any problems and conflicts that might result from the passing of the Bill and the existence of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949.
Clause 1(5) of the Bill deals with the definition.
It says:
"For subsections (5) and (6) of section 28 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 (effect of Orders in Council under the principal Act on elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly) there shall be substituted the following subsections",
and these are the subsections which take the place of those which I have read to
1858
the House as being in existence under the 1973 Act.
The substituted subsection (5) says that
"An Order in Council under the said Act of 1949 for giving effect, with or without modifications, to the recommendations contained in a report or supplementary report of the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland may make amendments conequential on giving effect to those recommendations in section 1(1) of and in the Schedule to the said Act of 1973."
The substituted subsection (6) says that
"The coming into force of any such Order in Council shall not affect any election to the Assembly before the next general election to the Assembly or affect the constitution of the Assembly then in being."
I think that the points I have made and the elucidation that I have given to the Committee of the various provisions in the subsections that we are seeking to delete are of considerable importance, because the Secretary of State, I believe, chose to indicate that, in some way or other, the Boundary Commission would draw the constituency boundaries in a way that would determine the result of elections. He may not have wished to give that impression. He may have been expressing a pious hope, namely, that with there being extra seats in Northern Ireland there might be additional opportunities to have further representation in Northern Ireland of what in the House of Commons is loosely called the minority. If that is so, my right hon. Friend should have said so.
Whether he likes it or he does not, my right hon. Friend has given conflicting impressions to various people. For example, he has apparently given the impression to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that boundaries will be drawn that will guarantee a result to Republicans or others. He gave the impression to Members on the Government Benches, and perhaps even to members of Mr. Speaker's Conference, that with the redrawing of the boundaries there was the certainty of extra representation. Whether he liked it or not, he was doing my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) a considerable favour, almost on the basis of "This hurts me more than it hurts you".
These impressions are totally misleading. It is wrong that they should have been given in the first place. If we are to have elections in the Six Counties based on our system, they will have to be

1859
based on the system that now operates, of one man, one vote. We must not have a constituency boundary that is drawn to ensure that a certain group is certain of being returned. A serious reflection would be cast on the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission if it were felt that its integrity was being impugned by the suggestion that there were certain to be ways of boundaries being drawn to ensure a certain result—in other words, if it were to lose its impartiality. Secondly, it would be serious if it were felt that it was being leaned upon so as to achieve a certain result.
Outside certain specific areas where the minority population may or may not have a majority—it varies from area to area and from place to place—I do not believe, even with electorates of the size that will be produced with about 17 seats, that it will be possible to draw boundaries without a degree of what used to be termed gerrymandering. That would be reprehensible.
If I have been accurate in what I think is happening as a result of the amendments, I hope that when my right hon. Friend replies he will try to reverse what I believe is the unfortunate impression given by the Secretary of State of the results of elections for certain seats. The forecasting of such results is always a strange and difficult task because of what may happen as a consequence of the number of candidates. If there is more than one candidate of a particular hue in a particular constituency, it could affect the election for that seat.
11.45 p.m.
We have read with interest in the newspapers how various alliances have been formed and have not been formed on what is usually called the Unionist side of the divide, with threats and counter-threats and cutting up, and the withdrawal of candidates in one form or another. That has also applied on the minority side. It is very foolish for anyone to suggest, therefore, what any particular result will be.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to say that he feels that the Secretary of State may have been in some way a little impetuous in what he said, and that perhaps a more considered opinion would be that there is a chance for any candidate for any seat to be elec-
1860
ted if he can persuade a majority of the electors to vote for him. That would be a much better way of looking at the matter. It is important that the Boundary Commission should have its integrity completely untarnished.
The amendments that are made by the subsections in Clause I have necessitated our glancing again at the Northern Ireland Constitution (Amendment) Act 1973. It should be borne in mind that that is still on the statute book. That is a very important matter. I see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State nods his head. It is on the statute book. I suggest, however, that this Bill and its provisions are a dagger in the guts, and that as a result of this measure it w ill not he seen in operation again. Little by little it will disappear from the statute book as integrationists on the Unionist side get their will.
Mr. Powell: As subsection (4) of Clause 1 is among the subsections being considered in this group of amendments, perhaps I may take the opportunity of putting to the right hon. Gentleman the difficulty of construction, of which I have given him notice, by which I am not the only person to be puzzled.
In subsection (4)(a) there is an instruction for the calculation of the electoral quota by using the figure 17 as a divisor. One understands why that is appropriate, assuming that it is 17 constituencies with which, under subsection (2), the Boundary Commission is dealing. However, under subsection (2), if it appears to the Commission that for the time being there should be 16 or 18 constituencies, it may make recommendations for either of those figures. There must, somewhere in the Bill, presumably, be something which in that case enabled either 16 or 18 to be substituted for 17 in the application of subsection (4)(a). I can only apologise for not having been able to find it, but I assume that it must be here somewhere, since it would be irrational, if the Boundary Commission were providing for 18 seats, for it to work on an electoral quota produced by dividing the electorate by 17.
I hope that I have sufficiently explained my difficulty to the right hon. Gentleman for him to be able to clear it when, he replies.
Mr. Ian Gow: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), not for the first time, has drawn the attention of the Committee to an important point. I take it that the Minister of State will undertake that if, as I suspect, the right hon. Gentleman is on to a good point, an appropriate amendment will be moved in another place. It seems to me that line 5, page 2, should read "17, 16 or 18 as the case may be". No doubt the Minister will direct his remarks to that point when he replies.
It seems to me that this series of amendments falls because of the decision on the earlier series of amendments. The subsections that these amendments seek to remove are essential to the Bill, assuming that we have rejected, as we have, the first series of amendments. I believe that an inevitable consequence of having rejected the first series of amendments is that we should reject the second series.
During our proceedings today the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and others have drawn the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Speaker's Conference comprised only 29 Members of the House of Commons. The hon Gentleman, in particular, said that we should not be so powerfully influenced as the right hon. Member for Down, South suggested we should be by the overwhelming recommendation of the Speaker's Conference. But, when considering this series of amendments, it is relevant to remind the Committee that it was by 22 votes to one that the Speaker's Conference made its recommendation, that on Second Reading the voting was 350 to 49 in favour—a majority of seven to one—that on the first amendment the voting was 179 to none and that on the second amendment the voting was 151 against and 17 in favour—a majority of nine to one.
I believe that the Committee would be well advised to reject these amendments. Indeed, if the Committee were to accept them it would make nonsense of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will join the Government in resisting these amendments. I hope, too, that the Minister of State will deal with the important point about subsection (4)(a).
Mr. John Ellis: I find the amendments textually complicated. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston
1862
upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) if I do him an injustice, but I am bound to say that the purpose of his amendments seems to be in line with what the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) said—namely, wrecking.
Mr. McNamara: No.
Mr. Ellis: I hear my hon. Friend say "No". I followed the point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), and I am sure that that will be answered. Whatever my feelings about the Bill, at least I could follow that point. But I did not follow the argument deployed by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central for the amendments. It may be that, as he opposes the Bill—indeed, I do—they are wrecking amendments.
My decision on the amendments rests on the sole criterion: do they help? That is my main consideraton. Will the Bill, if we must have it, help or hinder the selection of seats?
Will it lessen the sectarian divide in the whole community? Will it help to improve the position?
If this be a wrecking amendment, that I understand. But if there is something to be said for the amendment—if it is a criticism, so must it be—and it will help in the central purpose which is so important, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central and the Minister of State will say something to persuade me when they sum up.
Mr. Fitt: I have appended my name to the amendment for a reason that is different from that which led my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) to move it. I did it because I have a first-hand knowledge of the situation in Northern Ireland.
I live in Belfast. I know the different areas where the constituencies would be likely to be drawn. I know the political complexion of those areas. For example, in my constituency there is a very deep religious and political divide. The people at Mr. Speaker's Conference could not be aware of the very serious divisions in Northern Ireland and the political atmosphere that prevails there.
Mr. Justice Murray appeared before the Conference. I asked him specifically what

1863
would be the work of his Commission, what it would be entitled to do, and what consideration would be given to various aspects of life in Northern Ireland. At paragraph 108 of his submissions, I said to him:
"Could your Commission in any circumstances take into account the political complexion of the various constituencies? And could you in any way, in drawing up boundaries, take into account the political complexion of the various constituencies?"
Mr. Justice Murray replied:
"As I understand it, as a quasi-judicial body giving effect to these rules the political complexion of constituencies certainly would not be for the considerations within the rules."
Mr. Justice Murray makes it quite clear that all he is concerned about is the number of heads to be counted.
Later in my questioning of Mr. Justice Murray I asked him whether he was aware that the vast majority of the population in Northern Ireland lived in the city of Belfast and within a radius of about 30 miles of Belfast. He agreed that that was so.
That area, therefore, is the area where the constituencies will be created. There will not be an extra seat for Fermanagh and South Tyrone or for Mid-Ulster. The possibility is that there will be an extra seat in the county of Londonderry. One cannot see a constituency boundary being drawn around a part of Belfast and then stretched way out into the rural areas of Northern Ireland. Therefore, in effect, the seats to be created will be in the city of Belfast.
We are all aware—particularly those of us who represent Belfast—of what is regarded in Northern Ireland, especially in Belfast, as a Loyalist area or an anti-Loyalist area. We all know very well the political and religious complexions. We are all tragically well aware of them. I wish that I did not know how many Protestants there were in Northern Ireland. But given the basis on which the Province was founded and the politics there since the setting up of the Stormont Government in 1920, we are all only too well aware of the terrible divisions that exist.
12 midnight.
In Mr. Speaker's Conference, the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) asked the Leader of the House:
1864
"With respect, the question of the work of the Boundary Commission arises only after the necessary statute has been put on the statute book—is that not so?"
My right hon. Friend replied: "Yes, that is right." But the Boundary Commission will begin work only after the Bill becomes law. Yet when he announced this legislation a few months ago, the Prime Minister said that the Commission could start right away, without waiting for the Bill to become an Act. That is another concession in the haste to get the Bill through.
I wish that every hon. Member would read the evidence of the Leader of the House. I questioned him closely about the political situation in Northern Ireland and the political considerations over the number of seats. I asked whether it would be possible to discuss the religious affiliations of different areas. Repeatedly, I was told that these were matters for the House of Commons—" That is interesting, but it is a matter for the House, not for Mr. Speaker's Conference." But whenever we try to mention these matters we find that clauses 1 and 2 are so tightly drawn that such discussion is impossible.
I shall not mention PR, Mr. Godman Irvine, because you would rule me out of order, but the form of election is relevant. When I asked the Leader of the House whether we should be able to discuss it, he said that that was certainly a matter for the House of Commons.
Last year, I led a delegation to meet the Secretary of State and his Ministers at Stormont Castle, when we raised the subject of the form of election to be used if the seats were increased. My political friends and I are not backward children. I left that meeting with the distinct impression that consideration would be given to the form of election. Perhaps the Secretary of State is shrewder than I am—
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would come somewhere within range of the amendments that we are discussing.
Mr. Fitt: I digressed for a moment, Mr. Godman Irvine. The amendments relate to what the Boundary Commission will do and will not do. References to various clauses and schedules are not sufficient to allow it to deliberate on all

1865
aspects of political life in Northern Ireland so as to allow it to come to a decision based on a head count. The Leader of the House said that all these things could be discussed and that the Boundary Commission would discuss them. He said that the Boundary Commission would discuss many other matters, apart from the number of people residing in an area. Now we find that the Boundary Commission will not discuss anything except the question of the number of people living in a particular geographical area.
I agreed with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central when he said that the Secretary of State and his colleagues somehow were able to predict the political complexions of these constituencies after the elections had taken place. How can he do that? How can he know that three or four seats will be non-Unionist? How can he say how the people will vote, or what the atmosphere will be at the time? The only way to gauge the political complexions of the constituencies in Northern Ireland is by referring to religion. In the Province it is generally accepted that the minority—people of the Roman Catholic religion—will normally support the anti-Unionist candidates, while the majority—the Protestants—will normally support the Unionists, whether they are Official, Democratic, or Protestant.
Is the Secretary of State saying that it is possible that the Boundary Commission will engage in deliberate gerrymandering, and that it will count the heads of the Catholics, Protestants and the few agnostics scattered around the place?
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has pointed out how inadequate some of these provisions are. but it is not in order for him to continue with that line of argument.
Mr. Fitt: I am absolutely delighted that you, Mr. Godman Irvine, accept that these provisions are inadequate. They are grossly inadequate. That is why the amendments have been moved. If these amendments were accepted they would kill the Bill. That is why they have been tabled.
Mr. McNamara: Much as I appreciate the legal knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and that of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), I do not think that the amendments actually kill the Bill. If that were the case they would not have been selected. They may make the operation of the Bill more difficult if the alterations contained in these subsection do not apply and we must go to the principal Act of 1949 for the rules and regulations. The reason why the amendments should be accepted is that they make it easier for the Boundary Commission to carry out its task, subject to the difficulty that was indicated to the Committee by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
Subject to that, it would be relatively easy. Otherwise, my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West must accept that we would be governed by the provisions of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949.
Mr. Fitt: I accept what my hon. Friend said. I listened with a good deal of attention as he quoted various schedules to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act and the Representation of the People Act.
It has been proved conclusively over a number of years and a number of elections that the criteria embodied in the quotations that he has read to us may be very good criteria—I would say they are very good criteria—for use in England, Scotland and Wales, but they are not very good criteria for use in Northern Ireland, because of the whole history of Northern Ireland, because of the fact that Northern Ireland is part of a divided Ireland, and because of the history of the creation of Northern Ireland. Sometimes English politicians are inclined to think that the standards they have in their elections could easily be transferred to elections in Northern Ireland. It does not happen.
I hope that in speaking on these amendments I have drawn sufficient attention to the gross inadequacies under which we are labouring in discussng a Bill of such major constitutional importance as this. Even at this stage, if the Minster considers what is likely to happen in the drawing of these boundaries he will be forced to the conclusion that it is no easy

1867
matter for a Boundary Commission to be given the task of increasing the number of seats in Northern Ireland. If we are to increase the number of seats in Belfast and the area around it, all those seats will undoubtedly go to one political party.
It is not yet too late for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to inform the House how sure he is that the Boundary Commission will be able to perform the impossible and create non-Unionist seats in a Unionist electorate and a Unionist area. I do not think that it is possible. That is why I support these amendments.
Mr. McNamara: Does my hon. Friend agree that the point made by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) was relevant? He said that if the Government had felt serious about representation and about giving the Boundary Commssion a job to do, they would have considered the possibility of creating—
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I have already drawn the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that that does not relate to these amendments.
Mr. Fitt: I agree with my hon. Friend. This little, two-clause Bill was drawn so tightly that it left those opposed to it to try to find an ingenious way of changing the content. The whole House, Government and Opposition, should have been quite open in saying what they were going to do in setting up a Speaker's Conference. I heard an hon. Member on the Opposition side say that nobody knew what the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference would be. I knew as soon as I saw the names of the members of the Conference. I was the only one to oppose the recommendations. They were no surprise to me.
The Government would have been more honest if they had said that they had promised the Unionist Party that it would get five more seats and that they intended to set up a Boundary Commission that would take a head count but would not be allowed to take into consideration the religious and political affiliations of the people of Northern Ireland. That would have been honest. Instead, the Government have said they are worried about justice and equity and the number of people in Northern Ireland who are not represented at Westminster. The
1868
Minister of State, in a hole-in-the-corner fashion, wrote to Tribune claiming that the seats would go to non-Unionists. Does he think that all the people of Northern Ireland are stupid? I can assure him that we are not.
12.15 a.m.
Mr. Thorne: I seek clarification of subsection (3) in order to be able to determine an attitude towards the amendment. I understand that the present rules under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 are to be changed in the way spelt out in that subsection.
What is there in the proposed new rules for the determination of these seats that is more favourable than the present rules, in terms of fairness, democracy and various other qualities that we are alleged to be seeking in the Bill? The Government have the responsibility to establish beyond doubt that there are advantages in democratic terms before the Committee can legitimately pass subsection (3).
I also seek guidance about the way in which the Boundary Commission will do its work. Commissions listen to the views of political parties involved in the electoral system, whether in England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. My experience of the Commission at work and in consultation with political parties is that it does a deal—I hope that that is not an unfortunate term—on the wishes of those parties and something like horse-trading can develop. I do not believe that either of the two main parties in the House has been free from that sort of trading for a long time.
There is reason to believe that under a Boundary Commission report that will affect a number of constituencies in England after the next General Election changes in representation will occur that will not unduly affect the balance in those areas, and the political parties have been signifying in recent months whether they will accept those recommendations.
That could also happen in Northern Ireland, and when the Boundary Commission starts work it will no doubt take into account representations of various political parties about the location of the new constituencies, even given the words in the Bill:
"as near the electoral quota as is practicable"

1869
I am concerned that when representations are made by the existing political parties in Northern Ireland to the Boundary Commission, the weight of the various factions of the Conservative-Unionist parties there is likely to have far more effect on the final decisions of the Boundary Commission than, for example, the representations of the SDLP, not to mention the Northern Ireland Labour Party.
The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the amendment. What we are waiting to hear is why the amendment would be of any assistance to his case.
Mr.Thorne: Ths is part of the question that I am trying to illustrate and that concerns me, in terms of whether I accept subsection (3) or vote for the amendment. It seems to me that the amendment merely seeks to leave out the subsection, and that means that rule 5 under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 would apply, as distinct from the proposal in this Bill. I am attempting to understand—I am posing the question accordingly—what virtues the proposed change has that would ensure that the sort of representation that emerges following the work of the Boundary Commission would be of more or less value than what would obtain under rule 5.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has done some research and has established, at least to his own satisfaction, that to accept this provision in the Bill would militate against an improvement—given that we are to have these extra seats at all—in the method of determining the electoral constituencies that would obtain under rule 5. I am prepared to give way to him if he can enlighten me as to the results of his research, because this aspect seems to me to be relevant.
Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for dignifying what I have done by calling it "research", which, however, I think stretches the bounds of definition even more than some of the other speeches that we have heard.
The answer that I must give is this: these amendments are really amendments to Government amendments to legislation.
1870
The legislation governing the drawing up of boundaries is contained in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts for the general principles, but with regard to the seats for the Assembly, established under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, particular rules are laid upon the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland in relation to reports that it must put forward and to the way in which boundaries must be drawn for Assembly seats in cognisance of parliamentary seats in the United Kingdom, based upon the principle, contained in the 1949 Act, that there will be 12 Northern Ireland seats.
Basically, what this Bill—the Government's amendments to those Acts—seeks to do is to do away with some of the provisions contained within those two earlier Acts and to speed up the procedure by which the Boundary Commission may operate, and make it perhaps more efficient. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) pointed out, amongst the things that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when announcing his intentions with regard to a Speaker's Conference and so on was that there was nothing to stop-the Boundary Commission from working straight away.
I say that the Boundary Commission should operate for Northern Ireland under the same rules and procedures as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom, and under the rules and procedures laid down by the 1973 constitution Act. Failure to do that would be the first step towards throwing that Act out of the window and would defeat the object of some of the integrationists.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Godman Irvine. Which hon. Member has the Floor?
The Second Deputy Chairman: The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull. Central (Mr. McNamara) has made a number of speeches during the evening. I thought that he was now making an intervention. Interventions must be brief. I think that the hon. Gentleman has had his turn.
Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, Mr. Godman Irvine. I thought that we were in Committee. Secondly, I thought that you were in the Chair and

1871
not the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison). Thirdly, when the hon. Gentleman raised his point of order I thought that he was referring to conversations on the Front Bench, and that he was unable to hear me.
I trust that what I have said in my intervention meets the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne).
Mr. Thorne: The intervention, which I welcomed, has been helpful in clarifying certain of the issues that arise when one considers amendment No. 11. Therefore, I have little alternative but to return to my original point. I do not want to be guilty of undue repetition, but it seems to me that the Government have a considerable responsibility to convince us that doing away with rule 5 of the 1949 Act and establishing the rules envisaged in the Bill will be advantageous to the people of Northern Ireland.
I should be interested, for example, to hear the views of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) on this issue. I respect his knowledge of the procedures of the House and the electoral machinery established by it over a long period. Does he consider that after we have got rid of rule 5 the people of Down, South will—if Down, South exists after the passage of the Bill—have improved prospects in terms of the democratic right to elect a Member on the sort of basis that would give the equality with the United Kingdom that he and colleagues of his from Northern Ireland have mentioned?
We read at the bottom of subsection (3):
"given in subsection (4) below instead of in accordance with rule 7 of those rules".
It is difficult readily to see what rule 7 says in detail, because it is not quoted in full in the Bill. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to tell us what is involved. It would be easier for hon. Members to address themselves realistically to this problem if rule 7 were in the Bill. There is no schedule to the Bill. Therefore, it is difficult to know what rule 7 says. It is difficult to understand how the rule supplements rule 5.
The Minister will have to give my hon. Friends and me some good material, which establishes the advantages following from the substitution of subsection
1872
(3) for rule 5, before we can accept it. Amendment No. 11 attracts me because of the misunderstanding arising from this part of the Bill.
Mr. Concannon: These amendments are not wrecking amendments, but they would hamper the work of the Boundary Commission.
I shall deal first with those amendments that seek to delete subsections (3) and (4). These would make the job of the Boundary Commission more difficult. The Commission would have to base its calculations on an outdated electoral register.
12.30 a.m.
I shall explain why these subsections, are in the Bill. As the law stands the Commission is bound to approach its task in the way that is laid down in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949, as amended by the 1958 Act.
One of the first acts of the Commission is to find the electoral quota for Northern, Ireland—that is, the figure which represents the ideal size for all the Northern Ireland constituencies. There is a figure at which the Commission should aim, in so far as it is practicable, and given its other rules, when drawing constituency boundaries.
The Commission will never be able to achieve an equal size of constituency, but the quota provides a target. At present the electoral quota is achieved by dividing the Northern Ireland electorate by the number of seats. If the law is not amended the Commission will have to divide the electorate by 12.
The resulting figure of about 86,000 would not be helpful, since with 17 seats the true average figure would be about 61,000. The Commission by statute would be provided with a target which it and everybody else would know to be impossible.
The Commission could still do its job, but only by aiming at a point 25,000 electors distant from the statutory bull's eye. That would be less than desirable, so we have provided that for the Commission's first review it will use as its base figure not 12 but 17. That will ensure that it will achieve the target.
In future reviews there will be no need to do other than divide the electorate by the number of seats. That covers the

1873
argument of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
In the first review the quota will be reached by dividing the electorate by 17. That is what subsection (4) is about. Dividing by 17 is sensible, since that is what the number of constituencies will be, unless the Commission decides that it should be 16 or 18. Dividing the electorate by 17 does not bind the Commission to deciding upon 17 constituencies. The quota is a target.
Obviously the Commission will not be able to hit the target if it does not go for 17 constituencies. The law does not require it to hit the target; it has only to get as near to it as possible, taking into account all of the rules that it has to observe. In reviews after the first review, subsections (3) and (4) will cease to be relevant. The Commission will revert to the ordinary rules laid down in the 1949 Act.
To reach the quota then, the Commission will divide the figure by the number of constituencies, which will be either 17, 16 or 18. As in the first review, the Commission will have a target at which to aim, leaving it with the same freedom to diverge—
Mr. McNamara: It would appear that if the Boundary Commission decides that 16 seats is the right number, that figure will not vary. There is no room for movement unless the Commission returns to the House. That is my interpretation of what my right hon. Friend said. He said that we take the existing number and divide it by 17—a desirable number in terms of Mr. Speaker's Conference report. We fix the number and forget subsections (3) and (4). After that, we come back to the number of seats that we have, for example, 17.
Mr. Concannon: My hon. Friend is right, but at the next review the Commission will obtain the quota from the number of seats in existence. This measure will still be in existence. The recommendation of 17 was made to give the Commission the chance of going one below or one above. If there are 17 seats on this occasion, that figure will apply. If the Commission recommends otherwise to the House, the position will be different. There might be other considerations—
Mr. McNamara: I am sorry to pursue my right hon. Friend. Suppose that the Commission on this occasion decides that 18 is the right number. Will it be stuck with 18?
Mr. Concannon: No. Perhaps I am not making this clear. My hon. Friend is probably mixing up the quota with the number of seats. The quota is something to be aimed at. Mr. Speaker's Conference has said that 17 must be the figure to be aimed at to reach a quota of 60,000. This gives the Boundary Commission an option, because it has other things to consider in going for either 16 or 18 seats. Whether the Commission goes for 16, 17 or 18 seats, or whether Parliament accepts those figures, we know that to obtain the quota for the next Boundary Commission the electorate must be divided in accordance with the number of seats then in existence. But that does not prevent the Boundary Commission recommending 16, 17 or 18 seats for the next Boundary Commission.
The second job of subsections (3) and (4) relates to the calculation of the electoral quota. That quota is reached by dividing the electorate by a number of seats. As the law stands, one decides the electorate by examining the date when the Boundary Commission gave notice of its intention to embark on a review. The electoral register then in force is used by the Commission for all the necessary calculations.
However, the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission is in an unsual situation. It gave notice of an intention to start a review in February 1976. When it was known that a Speaker's Conference was to be set up to consider the level of Northern Ireland representation, the Commission sensibly decided not to take its work—based on the premise that there would be 12 seats in the Province—any further. It preferred to wait to see the outcome. As the law stands, it would have to calculate the electoral quota by reference to the electorate shown in the electoral register which was in force in February 1976.
The effect of subsections (3) and (4)(b) is to instruct the Boundary Commission to refer instead to the electoral register in force on the passing of the Bill, for the purpose of its first subsequent report, thus giving it access to up-to-date figures.

1875
Let me tell the Committee what are the rules of the Boundary Commission in Northern Ireland. The Boundary Commission, under the rules set out in the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 and 1958, first has to publish in the local press initial recommendations for the various constituencies. If more than 100 electors in a proposed constituency object to the recommendation—and a political party is taken to represent at least 100 electors—a local inquiry is held. If, as a result of that inquiry, it is felt necessary to modify the recommendation, the new recommendation has to be published and a further local inquiry may—not "must"—be held.
When this process has been completed for all the constituencies, the Boundary Commission submits a report to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The whole procedure, if there are objections to the initial recommendations, could take about two years.
The eventual report to the Secretary of State contains only recommendations. It is for the Secretary of State then to lay the report before Parliament and to introduce an Order in Council giving effect to the recommendations, with or without modification. Thus, it is Parliament, not the Boundary Commission, that has the final decision on what a constituency's boundaries should be.
The statutory criteria that the Boundary Commission must follow in deciding the area covered by constituencies are set out in statutory form. These criteria are that the electorate should be as near to the electoral quota as practicable, but that in Northern Ireland no ward shall be included partly in one constituency and partly in another. The Commission must also take account of local ties and special geographical considerations, such as the size, shape and accessibility of the constituency. Therefore, one can see that although the Boundary Commission has guidelines, what happens eventually will be decided by Parliament.
I turn to the amendment that seeks to delete subsection (6). The deletion of this subsection, which parallels provisions in subsections (3) and (4), would mean that the Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland, in drawing up its first supplementary report on the number of members which each constituency should return to the Northern Ireland Assembly,
1876
would be compelled to use the electoral register in force on 16th February 1976 rather the register in force at the passing of this Bill for the purpose of calculating the size of the electorate. The latter will, of course, be much more up to date. That would mean that the Boundary Commission would not be able to prepare its first supplementary report on the most accurate possible basis. It would not prevent the Commission from doing its job but would prevent it from undertaking that job in the way which it and everybody else would wish.
What the Committee is being asked to do by these amendments is to complicate life for the Boundary Commission in two ways. First, it would be given a target for the size of constituency that it could not possibly hit, since it would divide an out-of-date figure for the electorate by an irrelevant number of constituencies. Secondly, it would be prevented from using an up-to-date register when preparing its next supplementary report.
On those grounds, I urge the Committee to reject the amendments.
12.45 a.m.
Mr. McNamara: The Committee is indebted to my right hon. Friend for what he said. However, I do not believe that the amendments would complicate life for the Boundary Commission by any degree greater than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done by what he said on Second Reading.
When I moved the amendment I drew attention to what my right hon. Friend had said on that occasion about what would happen in the constituencies. He had suggested that certain electoral results would ensue, and I wanted an answer from my right hon. Friend the Minister of State as to how and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could guarantee certain results. No reply has been forthcoming to the question that I asked.
We have my right hon. Friend the Minister of State saying that we are making the position more difficult for the Boundary Commission by suggesting that we operate the rules as they are at the moment, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, by suggesting that certain results will follow in any case, is saying that we should pay no attention to

1877
the rules. On balance, I think that I prefer to complicate life for the Boundary Commission to ensure that a fair system operates rather than to complicate things in the way suggested by the Secretary of State, namely, by saying how certain results will be achieved following the boundary changes.
I am not prepared to withdraw the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) asked about the effect of the amendments and was at that time of the view that he might not support them because he did not quite understand the position. When my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne) raised the matter I tried to explain the situation and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State agreed with my interpretation of it.

Division No. 38]

AYES

[12.49 p.m

Canavan, Dennis

Mahon, Simon

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Cryer, Bob

Mikardo, Ian

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

O'Halloran, Michael

Woodall, Alec

Flannery, Martin

Parry, Robert

Home Robertson, John

Richardson, Miss Jo

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Litterick, Tom

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. John Ellis and

Loyden, Eddie

Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)

Mr. George Rodgers.

McNamara, Kevin

Stallard, A. W.

NOES

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Morton, George

Armstrong, Ernest

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Fookes, Miss Janet

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Bates, Alf

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Neave, Airey

Bean, R. E.

George, Bruce

Oakes, Gordon

Beith, A. J.

Golding, John

Ogden, Eric

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Berry, Hon Anthony

Graham, Ted

Park, George

Biggs-Davison, John

Hardy, Peter

Pendry, Tom

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Penhaligon, David

Bradford, Rev Robert

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Radice, Giles

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

John, Brynmor

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Campbell, Ian

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Roper, John

Carson, John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Carter, Ray

Kilfedder, James

Rowlands, Ted

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Lamond, James

Sever, John

Cohen, Stanley

Leadbitter, Ted

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Coleman, Donald

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Snape, Peter

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Spearing, Nigel

Cowans, Harry

McCusker, H.

Strang, Gavin

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

McElhone, Frank

Tinn, James

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Urwin, T. W.

Davidson, Arthur

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

White, James (Pollok)

Deakins, Eric

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Whitehead, Phillip

Dempsey, James

Marks, Kenneth

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Dewar. Donald

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Dormand, J. D.

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Woof, Robert

Dunlop, John

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Eadie, Alex

Molyneaux, James

English, Michael

Morgan, Geraint

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Mr. James Hamilton and

Evans, John (Newton)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mr. Joseph Dean.

Question accordingly negatived.
That being the case, and bearing in mind that the Boundary Commission's job has to some extent been simplified, in that it does not have to follow the ideas of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) and consider the question of proportional representation, because that is outwith the scope of the Bill, I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, despite the eloquence of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, to support the amendment. I believe that we should keep to our good, old, well-tried and established British system, which we know works fairly and works well, for giving extra seats to Northern Ireland.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 113.
1 a.m.
THE CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendments proposed

Division No.39]

AYES

[1.01 a.m

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Morton, George

Armstrong, Ernest

Fookes, Miss Janet

Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Bates, Alf

George, Bruce

Neave, Airey

Bean, R. E.

Golding, John

Oakes, Gordon

Beith, A. J.

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Ogden, Eric

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Graham, Ted

Paisley, Rev Ian

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Park, George

Biggs-Davison, John

Hardy, Peter

Pendry, Tom

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Penhaligon, David

Bradford, Rev Robert

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Radice, Giles

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

John, Brynmor

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Roderick, Caerwyn

Campbell, Ian

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Roper, John

Carson, John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Carter, Ray

Kilfedder, James

Rowlands, Ted

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Lamond, James

Sever, John

Cohen, Stanley

Leadbitter, Ted

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Coleman, Donald

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Spearing, Nigel

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Strang, Gavin

Cowans, Harry

McCusker, H.

Tinn, James

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

McElhone, Frank

Urwin, T. W.

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Davidson, Arthur

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Ward, Michael

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

White, James (Pollok)

Deakins, Eric

Mallalleu, J. P. W.

Whitehead, Phillip

Dempsey, James

Marks, Kenneth

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Dewar, Donald

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Dormand, J. D.

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Woof, Robert

Dunlop, John

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Eadie, Alex

Molyneaux, James

English, Michael

Morgan, Geraint

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Evans,loan (Aberdare)

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Mr. Peter Snape and

Evans, John (Newton)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mr. Joseph Dean.

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

NOES

Canavan, Dennis

Mahon, Simon

Stallard, A. W.

Cryer, Bob

Mikardo, Ian

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

O'Halloran, Michael

Woodall, Alec

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Parry, Robert

Flannery, Martin

Richardson, Miss Jo

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Home Robertson, John

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Mr. Kevin McNamara and

Litterick, Tom

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Stan Thorne.

Loyden, Eddie

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

Clause 2
CITATION
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Several Hon. Members rose—
The Chairman (Mr. Oscar Murton): I call Mr. McNamara.
thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 48 (Debate on clause or schedule standing part), The the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 114, Noes 18.
Mr. McNamara: Whom did you call, Mr. Murton?
The Chairman: I called the hon. Member. There will be time; I shall call the other hon. Gentlemen in due course.
Mr. McNamara: I hope that that is so, Mr. Murton, because earlier the Government moved the closure when one of my hon. Friends was on his feet.
The Chairman: I called the hon. Gentleman because his name is on the amendments that were not selected, and I

1881
assumed that he wanted to speak on the clause.
Mr. McNamara: It is a pleasure to know that one can have amendments that are in order but not selected, as most of my amendments have been out of order.
The purpose of my amendments was to deal with the way in which the Bill may be cited. The clause provides:
"This Act may be cited as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978, and shall be included among the Acts which may be cited as the Representation of the People Acts, and this Act and the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 and 1958 may be cited together as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 to 1978."
My amendments would have provided that the Bill be cited as the Representation of the People (Great Britain and Northern Ireland) Act.
1.15 a.m.
I cannot understand why amendments such as these did not attract the signature of the Ulster Unionists. I should have thought that they would have signed for different reasons from those of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).
I wanted the citation of the Act strengthened to show precisely what it and the preceding Acts did. For the Ulster Unionists it would have demonstrated, peradventure, that the representation of Great Britain was the same as that of Northern Ireland. For my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West it would be a continuous reminder that he had still a long way to go before the Six Counties of Northern Ireland ceased to be represented in this Parliament. Therefore, it would represent for him a continuous spur to try to have rectified what is being done in this Bill for good sense to prevail, and for us to get rid of Northern Ireland from the United Kingdom and redress the situation by reducing it to what it was before 1800.
One could argue that we might well have had the pre-1800 situation with a better sort of Parliament in Ireland had some of the work of Members in the House of Commons in the nineteenth century been appreciated and followed up, instead of the Ulster Unionists inciting Ulster to rebellion, led by the Tories, under Lord Randolph Churchill.
1882
That is all by the way. The main purpose of looking at the contents of these amendments is not only to question the points that I have raised but to see whether there is some way in which the citation of this measure can draw attention to what has been done.
We have taken Northern Ireland and treated it separately and differently from the rest of the United Kingdom. A completely different electoral register is to be used for drawing up the constituency boundaries. We are giving the Boundary Commission completely different instructions from those for the rest of the United Kingdom. Therefore, the distinction between the two parts should be properly drawn.
We have amended an Act that dealt specifically with this—the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. The last amendment that we debated dealt with the important alterations to the role of the Boundary Commission in Northern Ireland. Accepting the amendment that I suggested would have drawn people's attention to what is happening.
It is interesting to note that we have for Northern Ireland a floating idea of representation contained in the Bill—it floats between 16 and 18. There are very different provisions for Scotland and Wales, where the parent Act refers to "not less than", and very different provisions for the United Kingdom where I think it uses the phrase "in the region of" in relation to numbers. Here we have a situation in which Northern Ireland is being singled out in a specific, separate and distinctive way.
If we had agreed to the title that I suggest, and that I would have moved if my amendment had been selected, we should have had a citation that would have brought to the memories of people in the House, and perhaps, outside, the way in which the Bill has been drafted, to show that we are determined to retain the anomaly of one form of election for representation in this House but different forms for local authorities, for Assemblies if they come about, and for the Parliamentary Assembly of Northern Ireland.
We are, all in all, creating in this Bill a curious and senseless anomaly. It is a very sad thing for the Labour Government to have done or even contemplated. It is good to have driven home yet

1883
again the point that the Labour Government have crawled to the Ulster Unionists in order that they should remain in power. It is a sad thing to have to say about one's own Government.
The citation would also have drawn attention to the fact that a change of policy has been made without reference to the parliamentary party, the national party, or the national executive of the party. That is a matter of importance. It would also have drawn attention to the fact that we have had no acceptance or even acknowledgment from our own Front Bench that there has been a change of policy. For them even to have admitted grudgingly that there had been a change of policy would have been welcome to us.
For all these reasons we should have accepted the amendments which were in order but were not chosen for debate.
Now we shall be left with a Bill for which the citation will read:
"This Act may be cited as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978, and shall he included among the Acts which may be cited as the Representation of the People Acts, and this Act and the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 and 1958 may be cited together as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Acts 1949 to 1978."
It is an unhappy way to cite an Act of such a nature. It almost suggests that this evening we have done something of which we may be proud. I do not believe that we have. We have stored up trouble for ourselves in Ireland, and, regrettably, in this country.
It is not a happy day, or a happy time, and I regret that we are citing the Bill under a general heading covering membership of the whole of this House and not distinguishing between the Great Britain seats and the Northern Ireland seats. I hope that we shall vote against the clause.
Mr. Ron Thomas: I should like to follow the remarks of my hon. Friend, who has just said that the Bill is not something of which we should be proud and certainly not something that we can cite as a House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill that has been given the consideration that it deserves.
A number of us were fully prepared to speak on clause 1 when the Govern-
1884
ment suddenly moved a closure motion. I am reasonably certain, without looking up the relevant issues of Hansard, that the other Acts with which this Bill is now linked, under clause 2 received more consideration by the House.
We are asked to cite the Bill as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, for a number of reasons. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that we should do so because the Ulster Unionists in their election manifestos had consistently put the claim for more seats. That may be so, but it was not in the October 1974 manifesto of the Labour Party, and 1 remind my right hon. Friend the Minister of State that we are supposed to be here to carry out that manifesto. There was no mention of increasing the number of Northern Ireland seats at Westminster. We said:
"There must be some form of power-sharing and partnership because no political sytem will survive, or be supported, unless there is widespread acceptance of it within the community. There must be genuine participation by both communities in the direction of affairs."
The right hon. Member for Down. South asks us to judge the situation in the Six Counties as though we were dealing with six counties in Lancashire, the South-West, the Midlands, or some other part of England.
Mr. Litterick: How unreal can you get?
Mr. Thomas: The right hon. Gentleman wants us to ignore the 300 years' struggle by the Irish people to create one nation. He wants us to ignore the events of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and to imagine that we are dealing with six counties in Great Britain. He looks at the matter as a constitutional theorist and ignores the reality of what is happening in the Six Counties.
The Government want us to cite the Act in this way, but there was a complete contradiction in the Secretary of State's speech on Second Reading. He said:
"Northern Ireland's present level of representation was set in 1920. At that time, a devolved Parliament was established in Northern Ireland responsible in both legislative and administrative terms for a wide range of matters. It was then generally accepted that, because of the existence of that devolved Government, Northern Ireland did not need

1885
the same level of representation at Westminster as did those other parts of the United Kingdom which did not have a devolved Government. Northern Ireland was allocated 12 seats plus a university seat. If seats had been allotted in proportion to population on the same basis as in Great Britain, Northern Ireland would then have received 17 or 18 seats."
He was saying that because of devolved government in 1920, Northern Ireland was not given, and should not have expected, the same number of representatives in this Parliament. Later, the Secretary of State said:
"Let me restate briefly what the Government's policy is. We are as convinced as ever that the only way to find a fair and durable solution to Northern Ireland's political problems is to restore to the Province a devolved Government in a form that is acceptable to a majority of the people in both parts of the community. I make that statement without qualification, and I think it is one that the official Opposition would endorse."—[Official Report, 28th November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 421-427.]
So we are asked to cite the Bill as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978 on the basis that the Secretary of State is saying that the essential policy of the Government is to bring about devolved government in Northern Ireland, in the Six Counties. At the same time, he uses the argument that, because of devolved government in Northern Ireland from 1920 onwards, for 50 years nothing was done about this situation.
1.30 a.m.
If it is the aim of the Government to have devolved government in Northern Ireland, their case for additional seats does not stand up to argument. I hope that the Minister of State will come clean on this. I think that it is an insult to the House that the Secretary of State himself is not present, although as far as I know he is voting in the Lobbies. He should be here to answer these points.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Mr. Murton. Can you explain to me how the hon. Gentleman's speech is in any sense in order in terms of the citation of the Bill in clause 2?
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman was in order possibly up to the last two sentences, when, I am afraid, he drifted off—if I may put it that way—into the question of the number of seats. He should confine himself to the subject matter of clause 2.
Mr. Thomas: I readily accept your advice, Mr. Murton. The essence of what I am saying is that we are being asked to cite the Bill as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978, and we have been given all kinds of reasons why we should do so. I dealt with some of the arguments used by the right hon. Member for Down, South. I went on to deal with the arguments used by the Secretary of State.
The Secretary of State's argument for citing the Bill as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978 was that in 1920, because of a devolved Parliament in the Six Counties, there was no justification for increasing the number of seats for Northern Ireland in this House. He said that the Government's policy was clear—they wanted to see devolved government in Northern Ireland. Why, then, are they giving the extra seats now?
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has made clear why the Bill was brought forward. It was, of course, to ensure that the Ulster Unionists supported the Government on the Queen's Speech, and presumably will support the Government until the Bill receives the Royal Assent. But what happens then? I assume that the Bill could be an Act in a short while. Where, then, I wonder, will be the loyalty of the Ulster Unionists to the Labour Government?
Another reason given why we should cite the Bill as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978 is the Speaker's Conference. I have here the letter from Mr. Speaker, dated 13th February 1978, dealing with his Conference on electoral law. I have been looking at the list of those who sat on that Conference. I do not remember that the House was ever given the opportunity to decide who would serve on the Conference, and I attend this place regularly. I readily accept that among those serving on the Conference were Members of the House who are members of the Ulster Unionist groups, with a legitimate connection with Northern Ireland.
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is moving away from the Committee stage in dealing with questions raised on Second Reading. He must return to the question of citation.
Mr. Thomas: We are told that the major reason why we should cite the Bill as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978 is the result of Mr. Speaker's Conference. We are asked to say that that is a justification for so citing it. I am saying that that justification exists only if those who formed the Conference were a reasonable sample and cross-section of hon. Members. That Conference was not. None of my hon. Friends who are always present when Northern Ireland matters are discussed—Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery)—was a member of the Conference. Not one member of the 80-strong Tribune group was a member of the Conference.
The Chairman: We must not go into the composition of Mr. Speaker's Conference. It is not germane to the clause.
Mr. Thomas: Then I simply say, Mr. Murton, that the composition of the Conference does not inspire me to cite the Bill as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978.
Mr. Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend the Minister address his mind to the alternatives? It seems to me proper, in considering the citation, to examine what might be a more realistic way of citing the measure. Has he considered whether it should be cited as the "Concessions to Ulster Unionists Act 1978" or the "Survival of Labour Government Act 1978"?
The Chairman: That is even more irrelevant than the remarks of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend.
Mr. Thomas: I could add "The Day the Labour Government Sold Their Soul for a Few More Days Act 1978". I am sure that there are many other possibilities in the minds of my hon. Friends.
I simply say, Mr. Murton—I thank you for your indulgence—that I have been asked to cite the Bill to my constituents as the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1978. I am trying to give some indication why I shall find that difficult. Another part of the letter from Mr. Speaker to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reads as follows:
"The Conference first met on 27th July 1977 to consider their course of proceeding. They decided that the deliberations of the
1888
Conference should be in private and that the record of their deliberations should not be made public. They also decided that the names of Members voting in divisions of the Conference should not be published, though the number should."
I am asked to try to persuade my constituents to accept that they should cite the measure as the clause proposes on the basis that they cannot check how any hon. Members voted in any Division and cannot consider the no doubt deep analytical deliberations of the members of the Conference. They are not allowed to do that—
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is not allowed to do it either. I have been more than indulgent, but I must rule that we cannot discuss any further the question of Mr. Speaker's Conference.
Mr. Thomas: I find difficulty because the title implies that it is a Bill of constitutional importance. It is a Bill of fundamental constitutional importance. It suggests to the people of the Six Counties that something is being done to deal with their traumatic problems. But all that is being done is to tie the Six Counties to Britain against the clear aspirations of the Irish people for a united and independent Ireland.
I cannot cite the Bill as proposed because we have spent nothing like enough time on it. Debates have been deliberately cut short by the Government and the Whips' office. I wonder whether Members of the House of Lords, including Lord Scanlon, have been told to be there at 3 a.m. today, so that the Bill will be law by 4.30 a.m.
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Member must not stray out of this Chamber.
Mr. Thomas: I hope that those "bovver boys" in ermine spend as much time on this measure as they spent on the measure to nationalise the aircraft and shipbuilding industries. I shall vote against the clause.
Mr. Flannery: I oppose clause 2 on the ground that the Bill is not a House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill. It has been given an aura of democracy, based upon expediency. It is an abortion.
The Bill is being considered with indecent haste. Its importance is not

1889
fully understood. I am convinced that it will harden attitudes in Northern Ireland. It will strengthen the hand of the para-militaries and the IRA because it is not what it says it is.
As usual, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) spoke in precise, legalistic language. As usual, his conclusions were totally detached from humanity. He did not understand what he was saying. His precise, academic approach shows no compassion for the people.
The right hon. Member speaks of Northern Ireland as if it is the same as any other part of the United Kingdom. It is not. It is a unique part of the United Kingdom. It is the result of 800 years of brutal imperialism. It was imposed upon the Irish people by drawing a line round an inbuilt Protestant majority.
The Chairman: I must interrupt the hon. Member's discourse. We are discussing a very narrow point. He is going wide of it. He must confine his remarks to clause 2.
1.45 a.m.
Mr. Flannery: I shall try to accept your advice, Mr. Murton. I believe that some of the points that I am making are relevant. The title of the Bill suggests that there are oppressed minorities in, for instance, Yorkshire, Lancashire, Northumberland, and other parts of the country. There are not. The reality is that we are dealing with a Northern Ireland measure, not a House of Commons measure. The comparison does not hold water. Yorkshire did not have a line drawn round it. The people there were not excluded, because they were in a religious minority, from obtaining jobs or houses.
This point has not been taken into account even in the naming of this measure. The Bill is an expediency, a capitulation to keep the Government in power. It is disgraceful, because it means that only a handful of us will represent the democratic aspirations of the bulk of the Irish people. Will the Bill improve in any way the position in Northern Ireland? It will worsen it. Will it improve the position in Southern Ireland? Of course not. Will it improve the position in the whole of Ireland, as its title im-
1890
plies? It will not. It will harden the situation in Britain. It has come before us now—after 50 years of oppression—because the Government are in great difficulty. This demagogic title, which is a misnomer, has been given to it to get it through and keep us in power for a few more days or weeks.
The loyalty of those voting for the Bill has never been with us. Those who are listening to us in our own country and in Northern and Southern Ireland will regard the few voices on the Labour Benches as the authentic voice of those who regard the Bill as being totally at odds with the name given to it in clause 2.
The Irish News of 30th November really described the Bill properly. It said:
"More Unionist Voices at Westminster".
That should be the name of the Bill. The enthusiasm of the Ulster Unionists for this misnamed Bill arises from the fact that they know that they will have more Unionist Members in the House, voting Tory, as soon as they are freed from the Labour Government. The editorial, describing this Bill, says:
"Mr. Mason, who opened the Second Reading on the Government's Bill, was unction itself when he spoke about the need for fair do's' all round.… The Government, he declared with a rhetorical flourish, can no longer put up with the situation of only 12 seats."
No longer! For all these years the minority community has been held in miserable subjection. Bombs have had to be exploded before we could get this misnamed Bill.
We are doing something tonight that will take a long time to undo. This misnamed Bill has placed in dire jeopardy people in Northern Ireland and parts of England. I am deeply ashamed that the Labour Party, the Whips, and the Front Bench in particular, should have pushed us into this position, without giving us the proper time to discuss this serious measure. I am ashamed of what has happened today.
Mr. Litterick: I shall speak very briefly. I find it difficult to accept that this legislation should be entitled the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill. That sticks in my throat, because I am a political person, a member of the Labour Party, and I was sent to this place on an election manifesto that

1891
said nothing about this legislation. The Labour Party conference has never discussed action on the lines laid down by this Bill, because it has never had the chance to do so. The Bill should be retitled the Direct Rule (Continuation) Bill.
In making this kind of concession to a political element in Northern Ireland the Government are perpetuating a situation that the vast majority of people in mainland Britain would agree is indefensible. We are trying to put an aura of respectability round a situation that cannot be justified. This Bill means that the Government have abandoned any commitment to power sharing. It can give the British people no guarantee that the Ulster Unionists, having got their pound of flesh out of this Government in the form of extra seats, will not return in a month or two to ask for something else. That something else will be the restoration of Stormont. In other words, they will want a 1920 situation plus this legislation. They will continue to have British military support for sectarian government in Northern Ireland. That is all that this Government have done.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr Flannery) was right to say that by bringing forward this Bill we are guaranteeing the British people more bloody trouble in future years. We shall do that because we are ossifying a political situation that appar-

Division No. 40]

AYES

[1.55 a.m

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Dempsey, James

McCusker, H.

Armstrong, Ernest

Dewar, Donald

McElhone, Frank

Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)

Dormand, J. D.

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Duffy, A. E. P.

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Bates, Alf

Dunlop, John

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Bean, R. E.

Eadie, Alex

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Beith, A. J.

English, Michael

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Evans,loan (Aberdare)

Marks, Kenneth

Berry, Hon Anthony

Evans, John (Newton)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Biggs-Davison, John

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Bradford, Rev Robert

Fookes, Miss Janet

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Molyneaux, James

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

Morgan, Geraint

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

George, Bruce

Morris, Rt Hon Charles B.

Campbell, lan

Golding, John

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberayon)

Carson, John

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Morton, George

Carter, Ray

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Hardy, Peter

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Cohen, Stanley

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Neave, Airey

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Noble, Mike

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

John, Brynmor

Oakes, Gordon

Cowans, Harry

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Ogden, Eric

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Paisley, Rev lan

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Park, George

Davidson, Arthur

Kilfedder, James

Pendry, Tom

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

Lamond, James

Penhaligon, David

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Deakins, Eric

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Radice, Giles

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

ently has defied the wit and courage of Westminster-based politicians for all these years.
We neglected Northern Ireland in the period between 1922 and 1970. We paid attention to it only when the guns began to fire. That is a judgment on the House of Commons of earlier years. But it is surely totally unjustified for the House of Commons to continue to act in the same cowardly way in the face of the problems in Northern Ireland. Why do we in London repeat the mistakes of the past? There is no justice in this respect, and I cannot accept the title of the Bill.
Mr. Concannon: I note that not even the short title of the Bill can escape the scrutiny of my hon. Friends. The reason why the Bill carries this short title is explained in the long title.
The Bill's primary purpose is to amend rule 1 of schedule 2 to the parent Act, the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949. It is therefore logical that the Bill should be entitled likewise, the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Bill, as was the Act of 1958, which also amended the 1949 Act. I cannot advise the Committee to vote against the clause.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 113, Noes 18.

Roderick, Caewyn

Strang, Gavin

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Roper, John

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Tinn, James

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Rowlands, Ted

Urwin, T. W.

Woof, Robert

Sever, John

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Wrigglesworlh, Ian

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Ward, Michael

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Snape, Peter

White, James (Pollok)

Mr. Donald Coleman and

Spearing, Nigel

Whitehead, Phillip

Mr. Ted Graham.

NOES

Canavan, Dennis

Mikardo, lan

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Cryer, Bob

O'Halloran, Michael

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Parry, Robert

Woodall, Alec

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Richardson, Miss Jo

Home Robertson, John

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Loyden, Eddie

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Tom Litterick and

McNamara, Kevin

Stallard, A. W.

Mr. Martin Flannery

Mahon, Simon

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: The Question is, That I do report the Bill without amendment, to the House. As many as are of that opinion say "Aye".
Hon. Members: Aye.
The Chairman: To the contrary, "No".
Hon. Members: No.
The Chairman: I think the Ayes have it.
Hon. Members: No.
The Chairman: I should point out in regard to this Question, which I have put to the House, that it is stated in "Erskine May", at page 533, that it is now regarded as a formal Question and that the Chairman had deprecated debate on it, and I suggest that this should extend to any question of a Division. This is the usual procedure. I hope that the House will agree to that.
Question agreed to.
Bill reported, without amendment.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Stallard.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Standing Order No. 53 states that
"If a motion to re-commit a bill as a whole be made, Mr. Speaker shall permit a brief explanatory statement of the reasons for such re-committal from the Member who makes, and a brief statement from a Member who opposes any such motion, and shall then put the quetion thereon."
I call Mr. Stallard.
2.7 a.m.
Mr. Stallard: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall keep within the bounds of your instructions and be brief. First, I move that the Bill be re-committed because of the absence during the whole debate of any senior Government Minister. Secondly, the Secretary of State has not been seen in the House since the debate began. On an extremely important constitutional matter one could have expected that as a matter of courtesy. Nor has the Home Secretary or anyone from the Department been in the Chamber during the whole debate. Because of the nature of the Bill we would have expected, as well, the courtesy of at least a visit from someone in that Department, and a voice.
I move that the Bill be recommitted also because of the curtailment of debate by the Government on at least two occasions, and on another occasion when we were refused permission to debate the Question, That clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
For those reasons, and because I consider the Bill to be one of the most important constitutional measures to be discussed this Session—it is almost as important as some of the devolution stuff that we discussed in the last Session, and we know how long that went on—I beg to move that the Bill be recommitted. suggest that it is being pushed through with undue haste not for political reasons but for sheer expediency. I do not accept that the Bill has been adequately discussed by a sufficient number of hon. Members, and it has not been given the courtesy that it merited by Front Bench spokesmen from the Departments concerned.
2.11 a.m.
Mr. Concannon: I object to the recommittal of this measure to the House. The Committee stage has been taken on the Floor of the House, not upstairs. All hon. Members had the right to be here today and to put their views. On the

Division No. 41]

AYES

[2.11 a.m

Canavan, Dennis

Mahon, Simon

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Cryer, Bob

Mikardo, Ian

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

O'Halloran, Michael

Woodall, Alec

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Parry, Robert

Flannery, Martin

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Home Robertson, John

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Kevin McNamara and

Litterick, Tom

Stallard, A. W.

Miss Jo Richardson.

Loyden, Eddie

NOES

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fookes, Miss Janet

Neave, Airey

Armstrong, Ernest

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Noble, Mike

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

George, Bruce

Oakes, Gordon

Bates, Alf

Golding, John

Ogden, Eric

Bean, R. E.

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Beith, A. J.

Graham, Ted

Park, George

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Pendry, Tom

Berry, Hon Anthony

Hardy, Peter

Penhaligon, David

Biggs-Davison, John

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Radice, Giles

Bradford, Rev Robert

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

John, Brynmor

Roderick, Caerwyn

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Roper, John

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Campbell, Ian

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Rowlands, Ted

Carson, John

Kllfedder, James

Sever, John

Carter, Ray

Lamond, James

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Cohen, Stanley

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Snape, Peter

Coleman, Donald

Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

Spearing, Nigel

Concannon, Rt Hon John

McCusker, H.

Strang, Gavin

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

McElhone, Frank

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Cowans, Harry

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Tinn, James

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Urwin, T. W.

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Davidson, Arthur

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Mallalieu, J. P.W.

Ward, Michael

Deakins, Eric

Marks, Kenneth

White, James (Pollok)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Whitehead, Philip

Dempsey, James

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Dewar, Donald

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Dormand, J. D.

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Molyneaux, James

Woof, Robert

Dunlop, John

Morgan, Geraint

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Eadie, Alex

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

English, Michael

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Morton, George

Mr. John Evans and

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Mr. Bryan Davies.

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. McNamara: I beg to move, That Strangers do withdraw.
Notice being taken that Strangers were present, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant

Division No. 42]

AYES

[2.26 a.m.

Loyden, Eddie

Parry, Robert

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

McNamara, Kevin

Stallard, A. W.

Mr. Gerry Fitt and

Mahon, Simon

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Mr. Tom Litterick.

O'Halloran, Michael

question of who should be here, as was said earlier, I speak for the Government in this matter.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 53 (Re-committal of bill):—
The House divided: Ayes 18, Noes 112.
to Standing Order No. 115 (Withdrawal of Strangers from the House), put forthwith the Question, That Strangers do withdraw:—
The House divided: Ayes 7, Noes 112.

NOES

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Neave, Airey

Armstrong, Ernest

Fookes, Miss Janet

Noble, Mike

Bean, R. E.

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Oakes, Gordon

Beith, A.J.

George, Bruce

Ogden, Eric

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Golding, John

Paisley, Rev Ian

Berry, Hon Anthony

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Park, George

Biggs-Davison, John

Graham, Ted

Pendry, Tom

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Penhaligon, David

Bradford, Rev Robert

Hardy, Peter

Radice, Giles

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Roderick, Caerwyn

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

Home Robertson, John

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Campbell, Ian

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Roper, John

Canavan, Dennis

John, Brynmor

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Carson, John

Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

Rowlands, Ted

Carter, Ray

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Sever, John

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Cohen, Stanley

Kilfedder, James

Skinner, Dennis

Coleman, Donald

Lamond, James

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Concannon, Rt Hon John

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Snape, Peter

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Spearing, Nigel

Cowans, Harry

McCusker, H.

Strang, Gavin

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

McElhone, Frank

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Cryer, Bob

McKay, Allen

Tinn, James

Davidson, Arthur

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Urwin, T. W.

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

McNair-WiIson, M. (Newbury)

Walnwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Mallalieu, J.P.W.

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Deakins, Eric

Marks, Kenneth

White, James (Pollok)

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Dempsey, James

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Dewar, Donald

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Dormand, J. D.

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Woof, Robert

Duffy, A. E. P.

Morgan, Geraint

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Dunlop, John

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

Eadie, Alex

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)

Morton, George

Mr. Alf Bates and

English, Michael

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Mr. John Evans

Evans,loan (Aberdare)

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Question accordingly negatived.
2.38 a.m.
Mr. Concannon: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
In the debates on Second Reading and in Committee, we heard a lot about the supposed origins of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have done what we can to answer the fears that have been expressed, but we do not seem to have met with great success.
Much has been made of a change of attitude by the Government since 1976. We do not for a moment pretend that the Government's view on the question of Northern Ireland representation has not changed over the past few years. It has, but let us remind ourselves why that change came about. To do that we need to recall the events that culminated in the early months of 1977.
For the previous two and a half years—since May 1974—direct rule had prevailed in Northern Ireland. There was no devolved government. But it was this Government's intention to restore devolved government as soon as an
1898
acceptable basis could be found. That, of course, is still our policy. However, because of the absence of devolved government, there was pressure on us to increase Northern Ireland's representation in this House. It was put to us that Northern Ireland's relative under-representation in comparison to the rest of the country had been justified in the past by the existence there, but nowhere else, of a devolved Government which handled many of the Province's affairs. It was further argued that, in the continuing absence of a devolved Government, the under-representation could no longer be justified and should be corrected. In other words, increased representation was presented as a kind of compensation for direct rule.
The Government rejected that argument. We saw no justification in seeking to increase Northern Ireland's representation—a process that would take several years—solely in order to plug what was a temporary gap. It might well have transpired that by the time the process of increasing the representation had been completed, devolved government would have been restored.
Mr. Litterick: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Government supporters do not appear to be much interested in what the Minister is saying, but I should like to hear him. Please would you ask them to behave themselves?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If there is some ground swell of conversation, I am sure that it will not now continue.
Mr. Concannon: Perhaps it is the excitement of what I am saying.
The Government resisted the calls for more seats for Northern Ireland, and we suggested—as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) reminded us so assiduously on Second Reading—that the question of Northern Ireland's representation should not be tackled in advance of a resolution of the constitutional impasse in the Province.
But in February 1977 there was an event of some significance. Since the establishment of a separate Parliament for Northern Ireland, under the Government of Ireland Act 1920, there had been widespread acceptance of the view that devolved government in a particular part of the United Kingdom should be accompanied by lower representation at Westminster for that part of the country. In the debate on the question of devolution to Scotland and Wales, that view first began to be seriously questioned, and in the early hours of the morning of 2nd February 1977 the House of Commons gave its verdict. Voting on an amendment to the Scotland and Wales Bill, the House rejected any reduction in the number of MPs representing Scotland and Wales following devolution.
This radically altered the situation that we faced in Northern Ireland. There we had a part of the country that everybody agreed was under-represented, and yet the justification for that under-representation had been removed in the 2nd February vote. Parliament had made clear its view that full representation was warranted regardless of the existence of devolved government, and that is why, in the next month, the Prime Minister announced that the question of Northern Ireland's representation would be referred to a Speaker's Conference.
What does the Bill do to the long-term future of Northern Ireland? The basic problems that we face in Northern
1900
Ireland stem from the existence there of two communities with conflicting aspirations as to the long-term constitutional status of the Province, and their inability up till now to set aside their long-term ideals and find a compromise to allow for a shorter-term resolution of the differences that divide them.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continues to seek ways to achieve the necessary compromise. He is currently in touch with all four major political parties in the Province, and he is hoping for further discussions with them to find ways of making progress.
Throughout the debates on this Bill, my right hon. Friend and I have stressed the importance of looking at it on its merits, and in a positive light. We often hear claims that this House does not pay enough attention to the serious affairs of Northern Ireland. I hope that the Bill helps in that respect.
I respect the views of those who oppose the Bill. They do so through sincere and genuine beliefs. But I must say one thing to them: "Do not let your attitude to this measure distort your view of what the Government are seeking in Northern Ireland." We seek a return to devolved government in Northern Ireland. We insist that it must be on a basis acceptable to both sides of the community.
We also continue to believe that the long-term constitutional status of Northern Ireland cannot be changed without the consent of the people of Northern Ireland. If that consent comes, we shall not stand in the way of change, but as long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom we see no justification for denying it fair representation in the United Kingdom Parliament, and this Bill is the outcome.
2.44 a.m.
Mr. Neave: We hope that the Bill will receive its Third Reading. We accept a great deal of what the Minister of State said about devolved government in Northern Ireland. I have already said that we do not regard the extra seats for Northern Ireland as a substitute for devolved government, when the time comes.
The right hon. Gentleman explained the Government's rather sudden conversion to extra representation in terms of

1901
what happened in February. The Conservative Party has made clear since its election manifesto of October 1974 that in its view Northern Ireland is under-represented. It clearly is under-represented. The electorate in Northern Ireland has grown by a considerable figure since the Government of Ireland Act 1920. Anyone who looks at those figures will feel that the case for the Bill is overwhelming. We hope that it will soon become law.
On Second Reading on 28th November I said:
"The electoral quota for Northern Ireland has increased from 50,000 in 1925 to the present level of 86,000."
I also said—I know that the Secretary of State thought that this was a strong point:
"The electorate in Northern Ireland has grown by 500,000 since 1922."—[Official Report, 28th November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 253.]
That had happened without any increase in representation, and it is one of the strongest reasons why we think that Mr. Speaker's Conference was right in its recommendations. When the Prime Minister announced those recommendations last spring, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that we would support the Bill at all stages, and we have done so.
As far as I know, no Opposition Member has ever suggested that the Bill will resolve all the political and social problems of Northern Ireland. Of course it will not. Nor can anyone seriously predict how people will vote in the 1980s, when the Boundary Commission has done its work and the Bill is implemented in terms of constituencies.
What is important is that Northern Ireland should be equitably represented in relation to the rest of the United King-dom. We believe that increased representation will benefit the whole community and that the Bill does not necessarily entrench any one community in regard to representation, and we hope that the Boundary Commission will soon be enabled, by the Bill's becoming law, to starts its work.
2.48 a.m.
Mr. McNamara: I wish that I could join my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and the hon. Member for Abing-
1902
don (Mr. Neave) in welcoming the Third Reading of the Bill. Unfortunately, I cannot do so. I do not see it as heralding a new dawn, either for the House or for the Six Counties of Northern Ireland—or, indeed, for this island of ours here. I think that we shall regret the effects of the Bill for many days, and perhaps many years.
I listened with interest to what my right hon. Friend said about the sudden conversion that took place in the early hours on the Scotland and Wales Bill. The conversion really took place when we did not get our guillotine motion through. The sudden realisation that Northern Ireland was under-represented—if it is under-represented here, and if it should be represented here in the first place—came because of pressures put on my right hon. and hon. Friends that if they wanted to remain in government they would have to increase the number of seats in Northern Ireland, and that they could not afford to affect the representation in Scotland and Wales, either.
It seems that the Gaelic fringe has been the support of this Government, as it has of Liberal Governments in the past. But that little bit across the water will place us in considerable difficulties.
I suggested earlier that had my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) faced the increased number of Members for the Six Counties that the Bill suggests, in all probability he would never have formed his Administration in 1964.
It is also interesting to note that we are increasing the number of seats, as a Government and party, in the Six Counties at the same time as the Boundary Commission is reducing the number of Labour-held seats in London. That is an odd thought. Perhaps it does not reflect the idealism of the Labour Party. But we are prepared to condemn ourselves to pristine purity and Opposition. I did not think that that was what we were about.
I believed that our party's policies were not to increase representation in the House for the Six Counties. If one spoke to any member of the Shadow Cabinet when we were in opposition or to any member of the present Government the impression was given that we should aim for a united Ireland. But that is not so today.

1903
We desire what should be the long-term objective, but we conspire to ensure that in our short-term attitudes and projects the ideal—if such it is—of a united Ireland is not achieved. We fail to ensure that justice is achieved, and perhaps we perpetuate injustices in our own country.
I do not believe that by strengthening the bond between the Six Counties and our country we have done anything towards achieving peace in Northern Ireland. I do not think that we have done anything to stop bombs in this country. We have done nothing to improve the reputation of this Government and the House.
Our proud boast was that we would hold the ring. When my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was Home Secretary the troops went in. We were there to hold the ring between the communities until they worked out their own solution. We said that we would act together to help the communities to come to terms with the situation and try to live together. We believed that whatever happened to the Six Counties, we should help them by acting fairly, and by not altering the status quo unless the people wished to alter it.
That was our attitude. That is what we said when we attempted to form the Assembly. Those were our principles when we called for the Convention. We laid down three principles—that the solution must be acceptable to the people of Northern Ireland and to the House, and must recognise the Irish dimension.
Instead of holding the ring we have come down heavily in favour of one side. There is no clamour by the minority for extra representation in the House. Indeed, most of them want no representation here at all. Their representatives are here because of the historical accident of 1920.
My right hon. Friends, for seasons that I understand but because of short-term expediency, have come squarely down on the side of one of the parties in the dispute. That means that we no longer hold the ring, whatever the Secretary of State may say about hoping to achieve a devolved Government. That hope has now gone, except that is might be achieved in some other disastrous political situation or—God forbid—under a Government led by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). If that should happen, the Ulster Unionists, with or without the
1904
extra seats, will put on the squeeze, demanding that those powers should be returned to local government. We have heard the Ulster Unionists already guaranteeing that, as they have delivered the extra seats, so they will return the power to local government. It was there that it all started. We shall not be able to oppose that, because we have started that process today.
The result of the decision of my right hon. Friend to increase representation in Northern Ireland will be that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) will no longer be regarded as an eccentric within this place. There will be people who will say that as we have betrayed our mission and come down heavily on the side of one of the parties to the dispute it is not now worth the trouble, the expense, the lives, the investment, to remain there. People will ask whether the work done by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to attract employment has been worth it if the political environment is not to improve.
It is ironic to recall the words of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when, in 1973, he addressed the House during the proceedings on the Bill dealing with the constitution and dealt with the status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. He said that the Ulster Unionists should accept the proposal and come willingly into partnership, or all bets would be off. There had to be a compact between both sides. We saw what happened in that compact. We saw how those who sit on the Ulster Unionist Bench led the UWC strike against a democratically elected Assembly, against the wishes of this sovereign Parliament, and helped to bring the Assembly down. We saw how they succoured the actions of the Provisional IRA. We saw how they sabotaged the Convention, how they voted against what we on the Labour Benches regarded as proper Socialist measures.
In the past few weeks, on votes before and after confidence motions, they have played ducks and drakes with us, squeezing everything they can out of us. Are they doing it to restore peace, harmony, bliss? Or are they doing it so that they can return to the bitter sectarian regime that existed in Northern Ireland before our troops went in and our

1905
boys began to lose their lives? That has been their policy.
In the past, in some difficult times, I have protected the backs of members of the Government Front Bench on matters affecting Irish policy. I did so because I believed that it was working in the long-term interests of peace between all the communities in Northern Ireland. I am afraid that I am no longer in a position to act in that way. I must be suspicious of every action of the Government Front Bench, and of its every motive. Its fine ideals have gone out of the window in a squalid desire to retain office at any price.
2.58 a.m.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: I respect and acknowledge the sincerity and tenacity of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). Unlike him, I welcome the Bill as a measure of belated justice. The explanation given by the Minister of State for the astonishing change of mind on the part of the Government was of interest. So was the different explanation given by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central, and other Labour Members. Historians will find the explanation of those hon. Gentlemen more convincing than they will the explanation of the Minister of State. If I may call to mind some words of T. S. Eliot, the Government have done the right thing for the wrong reason.
As for the Conservative Party, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), we did not require conversion. We have long held that Northern Ireland is under-represented in the House of Commons. We have not deviated from that position, and for that reason we welcome the Bill.
We have heard some fanciful and some pessimistic speeches from Labour Members alleging what the Bill does and does not do. Those of us who take an interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland receive objections from every corner of the Province when a measure arises that excites apprehension or disgust. My appreciation is that the minority in the Province, as distinct from politicians who claim to speak for them, are not unduly apprehensive, because the Bill is intended to do justice to Northern Ireland in respect of its representation in Parliament.
1906
This Bill will give Northern Ireland a fairer representation befitting a parliamentary democracy in the only legislative assembly in which the voice of Ulster can be heard. The right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who sit for Northern Ireland constituencies are heavily burdened, particularly because of the troubles and the Macrory gap which was opened by the abolition of the Parliament at Stormont.
The Bill, when enacted, will give some relief to representatives in Parliament and to those whom they represent. The Bill does not affect the freedom of the people of Northern Ireland democratically to choose their constitutional future and national status. They had an opportunity to do this in the plebiscite, known as the border poll, held in 1973, when a substantial majority of the Northern Ireland electorate—including, despite intimidation, many Catholics—chose the Union. Having so chosen, they are surely entitled to proper representation in the House of Commons and, I might add, with a closing reference—which is surely out of order—to my new clause, in another place as well.
3.3 a.m.
Mr. Litterick: This is one of the saddest parliamentary occasions in which I have participated. The Government have completed a large circle of their policy on Ireland—one which was embarked on by a previous Government.
I cannot agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) about the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Abing-don (Mr. Neave) to the effect that the Conservative Party needed no sudden conversion to the idea that the six counties in Northern Ireland needed stronger and more numerous representation in this House. The last Conservative Prime Minister made strenuous efforts to bring about some kind of rapprochement in Northern Ireland among the contending sectarian groups, as did his Labour successor. What brought about the conversion was the obduracy of the most powerful sectarian group in Northern Ireland and the tactics which it used in Northern Ireland to wreck the Assembly and subsequently in this place to embarrass the Government who had a virtually non-existent majority.

1907
I do not think that this legislation is the type of enactment that will excite the respect of adult men and women in the community, because they understand well that this is a piece of political expediency. They understand that this is a group of politicians turning in order to hang on to office. They understand that politicians will behave in this way and that they have survival instincts, like everybody else, and want to hang on to their jobs. But, at the same time, the community expects of politicians that they will at least try to adhere to certain reasonable standards of what I call public morality. They expect that principles to which parties say they adhere and hold valuable will be defended and cherished whatever difficulties the Government meet at any time. But what the public have seen in this piece of legislation is a Government—I would prefer to say a group of politicians, office holders—simply running away, simply putting fig leaves over a hideous political problem in order to satisfy a short-term political need of their own.
In our view, the result of that will be that the people in mainland Britain—I hope that nobody will take offence at my using that phrase, it is just a handy one for me—will not have to endure the longer-term consequences which I fear will arise from the fact that this Bill has been passed. I think it much more likely that the people of Northern Ireland will have to endure for a very much longer period than would otherwise be the case a repetition of the things which they have experienced because of the problems in Ireland.
We are not simply giving the electorate of Northern Ireland more seats in this place. We are, as the Secretary of State said on another occasion, welding Northern Ireland to the British body politic. We can understand the desire of certain politicians to do that. Since Carson we have all understood that. But we did not expect that a Labour Secretary of State would be a Carsonite, and that is what he is, in principle. We do not expect this of a Labour Secretary of State because we have understood—at least, we as a Labour movement thought we understood—for a long time that Carsonism—if I may use that phrase—is simply another brand of Toryism in a particular
1908
cultural political setting, that is, the setting of Northern Ireland.
In terms of our principles, we have always felt that the British Labour movement could never have any truck with it, and now we find that our Government—I wish that I could find a way of speaking in inverted commas—are giving aid and comfort to what Brian Faulkner in his memoirs called the ghost of Carson.
Having mentioned Brian Faulkner, I think that it is worth while in the context of the Bill to dwell for a moment on his career. He was, above all, an Ulsterman. He saw himself as an Ulsterman. As it happens, he was one of the most sophisticated politicians that Ulster has ever produced—possibly the most sophisticated. But he had weaknesses and blind spots, like the rest of us, and one of the stranger ones was that, as he confessed in the last chapter of his memoirs, he was not sufficiently aware of the significance of the religious differences that existed within the community in which he was born and raised.
Faulkner regretted that he had not paid more attention to that. He clearly felt that had he paid more attention to it the damage that the Orange lodges were able to do to the Assembly, thereby wrecking virtually every political purpose that he had ever conceived, might not have occurred. The result was that Faulkner, who was one of Ulster's most distinguished politicians, ended his political life as a failure.
It seems difficult for an Ulster politician to operate on the basis that he is neither a Protestant nor a Catholic. Those who have tried to do so have usually failed. Sometimes they have been killed for making the attempt. Faulkner merely failed. It may be that he was luckier than others. However, he tried—I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who worked with him for some years, came to understand this clearly—to demonstrate that it was possible to have been born a Protestant in Ulster, even to be, as Faulkner was, a member of an Orange lodge, and still to consider oneself part of a polity that deserved balanced treatment, in which the law should be enacted and applied to every citizen regardless of religious affiliation.
Faulkner learned the hard way. He discovered—given the dominance of the

1909
Orange lodges, it is not yet possible but he worked towards it and had a measure of success—that it was beginning to be possible in Northern Ireland to get people with different original religious affiliations to agree to seek at least the common ground and to build on that.
That approach was smashed by those who sit on the Unionist Bench. They smashed what was the beginning of real hope for Northern Ireland, for the whole of Ireland and for the people of mainland Britain. The people of mainland Britain have had to pay heavily in treasure, blood, fear and in violation of their system of justice on behalf of the Unionists. All that has happened to us because of them. It has happened because of the weakness of successive Governments.
We arrive at the position where we surrender to the Unionists by giving them more seats in this House. That is supposed to make things better, but no speech that I have heard from the Secretary of State or his Ministers has given any indication of what might be made better as a result of giving the Unionists more seats. There is no doubt in the minds of my hon. Friends that the Bill will merely increase the number of Ulster Unionists who sit in this place. That is all that it will do. What is different about that? What is better about that?
With respect to the Conservative Front Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Abingdon, it does not make much sense to say that it is fairer that the people of Northern Ireland should have as many seats pro rata as we have on the mainland. We should remember that the Irish have had that. They had it long ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) pointed that out at great length. It was not a matter of representation in terms of parliamenary seats. It was a simple matter of British authority over the Irish. It still is. That has not changed. In fact, that has been made worse. We are reverting to an older situation. We are returning to an older relationship. As I have said, this is a continuation of direct rule.
We have had that not merely in the past decade but in the long distant past. We should remind ourselves that most of the really violent rebellions by the Irish against the use of British authority over
1910
them have been led by Protestants. If we think for a moment we realise that the eruption of Orange Protestantism within Ireland is a recent and relatively eccentric thing in Irish history, and it will pass.
The Bill seeks to make direct rule permanent. We shall find in the fulness of time that the familiar facts of the relationship between Britain and Ireland will resurrect themselves once again and that both peoples will have to pay a heavy cost.
3.15 a.m.
Mr. John Ellis: In the midst of all the troubles that we have to face, the coming debates, the General Election, and all the important matters to be considered, I have to confess to a feeling of inadequacy in the context of the subject that we are discussing tonight. It is a pity that so few hon. Members are present on this occasion.
We know that there were difficulties in Ireland which were apparent long before my own party was ever represented in this House. We know that there were great men in the Liberal Party in those days. Year after year the problems of Ireland had to be faced by those great men. Acts were passed. Governments were brought down. That was in the days when we were a mighty Empire and could influence events all over the world, yet with all the influence that we had, we could never satisfactorily deal with the affairs of that island.
One forms friendships in one's life. It is not just a courtesy title when I refer to my right hon. Friend. I do not use the words lightly. We are friends and we shall remain friends, yet on this issue we are divided. I can say the same concerning my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara). We have been together ever since we came into this House. I have arguments with him. Perhaps I do not ask as much as he does. I look at the Bill solely in the context of whether it will improve the position in Northern Ireland and whether it will lead to a lessening of hatred, bitterness and strife.
I quail at the prospect of making decisions tonight, even at this stage, in the light of my knowledge of the problems faced by all those great men. Some were rogues but they were very great men,

1911
utterly sincere, and they grappled with this problem to very little effect. Tonight in this place we join that band as we decide what we are to do and ask whether the position will be improved by what we do.
Nothing that I have heard, in all the hours that I have spent in considering this problem, convinces me that by giving these extra seats the years of bitterness and strife will be brought to an end or the prospect improved in any way. I do not believe that it will be changed. Indeed, the minority will feel more alienated than before. People both north and south of the border have become soured towards what would be regarded as conventional politics in many other parts of the globe. They are affected in their political judgments by the fact that they are still fighting the old sterile battles. This has been to the detriment of the lives of people in the south of Ireland and in the north. I believe that that will go on, and that we shall not improve the position by this measure.
As regards the voting position in the House, if a decision were taken to increase representation because of the domestic situation, that would be a heinous crime. I want to see a Labour Government returned. I hope that we shall lose the next General Election. If the card had been played—[HON. MEMBERS: "Win."] I am sorry. Did I say "lose"? I was thinking that, in the context of Ireland and its problems, I should prefer to lose that election if it meant that, while I had been a Member of this House, I had played a meaningful role in achieving a satisfactory solution. I do not want to order events. If people in Northern Ireland would stop killing each other, provided that it was a reasonable society, I should not mind if it were a capitalist society. I make that considerable concession.
Earlier, I intervened in the speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He said that the existence of Stormont was the only viable reason for opposing this measure and that now that it had gone, there was no reason. I challenged that statement then and I challenge it now. I have an overwhelming conviction which I think supersedes the judgment made by the right hon. Gentleman. Will this Bill improve the age-old rift, the unhappy stalemate? Will
1912
it reconcile communities, or make people more bitter?
I submit, with all the sincerity that I can muster, that we shall join those other great men and those other bright measures that have been canvassed in this situation, because we have been no more successful than they were in making progress. Indeed—I am sorry to finish on this note—if the Bill goes through, it will be interpreted as strengthening all the hatred and bitterness. I am sorry to have to say that. I am also sorry that the House has been unable to play a better role tonight.
3.23 a.m.
Mr. Powell: The hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) has repeated the question which he asked earlier in our proceedings today and the challenge which he issued, perhaps most personally to me, to say whether I believe that this measure will be ameliorative, will contribute to a reduction of violence and of the fear under which people live in Northern Ireland. I answer him directly. I believe that it will.
It is because I believe that it will that, since March 1972, from that Bench there, I have pointed to this measure as perhaps the first necessity for the welfare of all in Northern Ireland following the events of 1969 to 1972.
Having stated my conviction. I shall briefly give my reason. There has been much talk about two communities and their divisions and mutual antagonisms. But the immediate reality of violence in Northern Ireland is not warfare between two communities; it is the oppression of both communities—but more, of the two, of the Roman Catholic minority—by a movement, the object of which is to alter by violence the status of Northern Ireland, contrary to the present clear wishes of a majority of its inhabitants.
That movement, that force, lives upon hope of success. It lives upon uncertainty. It lives upon reasons which can be given by it to itself—by which it can still convince itself—for believing that if it continues its oppression and violence, if terrorism continues, that will alter the decision of this House and change the status of Northern Ireland.
We have in many ways, by contradictions in our behaviour, made it easier for that delusion—for such I believe it to be —to be entertained by what are called

1913
the men of violence. The most manifest contradiction was that while proclaiming Northern Ireland to be an integral part of the United Kingdom, this House until recently steadily refused to recognise that fact in the most elementary form in which membership of the United Kingdom is recognised—by representation on an equal basis in this House.
Representation on an equal basis will deny no man in Northern Ireland anything that he has. It will deny none of the aspirations which people such as the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) wish to see accomplished without violence. It will do nothing to place any obstacle in their way. It will certainly place no obstacle in the way of new constitutions, if they can be evolved, which meet the specifications which have been laid down.
It will take nothing away; but it will give something. It will give to all concerned an added conviction of stability, a conviction that there is not an ambivalence on the part of the United Kingdom, speaking through this House, as to its undertaking that the status of Northern Ireland as part of the Kingdom shall continue as long as that is the will of the majority of its inhabitants.
So I say that the measure is beneficent in its effect, and, having accomplished something which—I am using these arguments now not for the first but for the hundredth time—I believe to be beneficent, I would not wish this House to part with this Bill with feelings of mean self-accusation. The House has not been fair to itself in this debate today. It is not true to say that the House of Commons is doing this thing because of a squalid deal for votes in the Lobbies, to save or to prolong the life of an Administration. I shall prove that.
First, if that had been so, I would not have confidently, in October 1974, when the outcome of the election still lay in the future, been convinced to the point of assuring those to whom I spoke that this was a measure which the House of Commons, sooner or later, could not refuse. Again, if this had been a squalid deal, one could not, in my opinion, have induced 29 hon. Members, under the chairmanship of Mr. Speaker—members who had no interest in any deal what-
1914
ever; who considered the matter ab initio—to arrive at an all but unanimous conclusion.
The Prime Minister himself, when this decision was announced on 23rd March, 1978, stated openly that it was in no consideration or expectation of support, either in the Division which was to take place that night or generally, from myself or my colleagues. The Prime Minister was telling the truth. In that Division, as a matter of fact, three of us—my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) and Armagh (Mr. McCusker) and myself—felt obliged, in recognition of what the Prime Minister had said, not to vote against him that night. But when he said, and my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Rev. Ian Paisley) confirmed, that there was no understanding, no promise given or received, he said no more than the simple truth. If it had been otherwise, then indeed it would be an unworthy reason for the House of Commons to do something which is self-evidently fair and reasonable towards a part of the Kingdom. It would alter the character of the act which the House of Commons has now performed. Those of us who know the House of Commons could never doubt that it would do this sooner or later because it was implicit in the Union and in this House itself, nor do I understand anyone who can say that by granting full representation to a part of the Kingdom this House can be doing otherwise than place the greatest obstacle it can in the way of injustice or misrule. If there has been injustice, if there has been misrule in Northern Ireland, then we who come from Northern Ireland—
Mr. Dennis Canavan: You do not come from Northern Ireland.
Mr. Powell: I was sent from Northern Ireland by those who elected me, as the hon. Gentleman was sent by his constituency—
Mr. Canavan:—when you were rejected by Wolverhampton.
Mr. Powell: Since the hon. Member has mis-stated the event, I will put it on the record. It was a voluntary act upon my part to decide that I could not in

1915
conscience stand again for a seat that I would have held by 20,000 votes.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Well, perhaps 20,005.
Mr. Powell: I am sorry that 1 was diverted for a moment to something personal because this is not a personal matter, except that the House of Commons is personal to all of us.
I repeat—if there is injustice, or has been, in Northern Ireland, if there is misgovernment, or has been, in Northern Ireland, what surer way to remedy it could there be, so long as Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, than by bringing Northern Ireland fully within the representation of this House and by giving it all the rights and laying upon it all the duties which are enjoyed by and laid upon all other parts of the United Kingdom? That, as Members of this House, we must believe.

Division No. 43]

AYES

[3.35 a.m.

Archer, Rt Hon Peter

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

Armstrong, Ernest

Fookes, Miss Janet

Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Neave, Airey

Bates, Alf

George, Bruce

Noble, Mike

Bean, R. E.

Goldlng, John

Paisley, Rev Ian

Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

Park, George

Berry, Hon Anthony

Graham, Ted

Pendry, Tom

Biggs-Davison, John

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

Hardy, Peter

Radice, Giles

Bradford, Rev Robert

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Hart, Rt Hon Judith

Roderick, Caerwyn

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)

Roper, John

Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)

John, Brynmor

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Campbell, lan

Jones, Barry (East Flint)

Rowlands, Ted

Carson, John

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Sever, John

Carter, Ray

Kilfedder, James

Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Lamond, James

Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

Cohen, Stanley

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Snape, Peter

Coleman, Donald

Lofthouse, Geoffrey

Spearing, Nigel

Concannon, Rt Hon John

McCusker, H.

Strang, Gavin

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

McElhone, Frank

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Cowans, Harry

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Tinn, James

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)

McKay, Alan (Penistone)

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)

Ward, Michael

Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

Mallalieu, J. P.W.

White, James (Pollok)

Deakins, Eric

Marks, Kenneth

Whitehead, Philip

Dempsey, James

Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Dewar, Donald

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Dormand, J. D.

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Duffy, A. E. P.

Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

Woof, Robert

Dunlop, John

Molyneaux, James

Wrigglesworth, lan

Eadie, Alex

Morgan, Geralnt

English, Michael

Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Evans, loan (Aberdare)

Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

Mr. Joseph Dean and

Ewing, Harry (Stirling)

Morton, George

Mr. John Evans.

NOES

Canavan, Dennis

Manon, Simon

Stallard, A. W.

Cryer, Bob

Mikardo, lan

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

O'Halloran, Michael

Woodall, Alec

Flannery, Martin

Parry, Robert

Home Robertson, John

Richardson, Miss Jo

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Litterlck, Tom

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Mr. Kevin McNamara and

Loyden, Eddie

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. John Ellis

Question accordingly agreed to.
So we ought not to part from this Bill with other than a sense of pride and of relief that at last the House of Commons has acted in accordance with what it has for so long professed—that Northern Ireland is, for as long as the majority of its inhabitants desire, an integral part of this Kingdom.
But though it was foreseeable, it has seemed to many of us—those who have watched from without and those within—an unconscionable time a-coming. Now that it has come, it seems something strange that the thing desired so long should at last be achieved. I find myself using the words of Elizabeth I:
"The Lord hath done this thing, and it is wonderful in our sight."
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
The House divided: Ayes 104. Noes 17.
Bill read the Third time and passed.

SERVICE FAMILIES (MARRIED QUARTERS)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Snape].
3.46 a.m.
Miss Janet Fookes: The outsider may wonder why the issue of the vacation of married quarters by estranged Service wives should be a matter for public concern, but 1 submit that it is not only a matter of public concern but a matter of considerable scandal in the way that the system works and the injustice that is brought about.
Let me explain briefly how the system is worked under the Queen's Regulations of 1975, which apply specifically to the Army. If a Service man considers that he is estranged, he has a duty to report that fact to his commanding officer. He has to fill in a form declaring that he has changed his marital status and he can then move into barracks. The married quarter is supposed to be vacated and, if the wife remains, she is immediately classed as an illegal occupant and eviction proceedings are started—though the authorities may be kindly disposed and not set them in motion too quickly.
The whole situation, from the wife's point of view, can change in 24 hours. To add insult to injury, the wife is then supposed to be responsible for paying the rent, though in such cases it goes by a technical name and she has to pay, in effect, double the rent. That happens at a time when the wife may be in serious financial difficulties as a result of the estrangement, while the Service man who moves into barracks may, even though he must pay for that, be in a fairly cushy position.
This situation cannot be allowed to continue. I have had some heart-rending cases brought to my attention of women who have suffered terribly as a result of these procedures. The declaration of estrangement is made unilaterally and there have been cases in which the first notification that the wife had of something being seriously wrong was when she received a notice to quit—a severe shock.
There is, of course, the appalling problem of finding other accommodation. That is not easy, especially when there
1918
are children. As one woman in this plight told me "You suffer the double shock of losing both your husband and your home."
Anyone who has to deal with those trying to find accommodation will know what a problem it is. Local authorities for the most part, however sympathetic they may be, usually have enough problems of their own without the addition of estranged Service wives who may have no connection with the area in which they happen to be living in married quarters.
Possibly the Housing (Homeless Persons) Act will be of some assistance to them, but then they have to be truly without homes, and it is an intimidating experience for anyone to be served with a summons. Indeed, one wife wrote to me that it came as a terrible shock to her to receive a summons. The husband had walked out on her, but she was the one who had to face the music, so to speak.
What can be done about this problem? First, I suggest that for a period of time—say, six months at least—the wife should be given the undoubted right to remain in the married quarter, or possibly, if more convenient to her, in some other married quarter. Secondly, she should not be required to pay the double rent, which is a kind of damages for trespass, as I understand the regulations. I believe also that the husband should remain responsible for paying the rent during that period of grace. This would at least give a chance either for reconciliation or, if that proved impossible, for her to make other arrangements for herself and any children. As it is, the system almost seems fiendishly devised to help break up a marriage, because it is so very easy for the Service man to make his declaration and to depart into barracks. Far more effort should be made on this side of the question.
I hope also that the Minister will declare tonight that he is willing to accept the justice of the case and, I hope, will make some specific recommendations as to what might be done to ease the position. I am not certain how the problem extends to the other Services because my main inquiries and the main information I have received affect the Army. I should be interested to know from the hon. Gentleman whether all three Services are affected equally and whether he can speak

1919
on behalf of the other Services in his reply.
I have been appalled by the hardships that have been brought to my notice as a result of the system and, of course, as a result sometimes of a husband's behaviour. Perhaps one or two examples will illustrate the point. One case affected a wife who was out in Germany in married quarters. She came home in good faith to look after a sick relative—a parent, I think it was. While she was away, the husband took the opportunity of saying that she had deserted him, which was quite untrue, moving out of his married quarters and going into barracks, and putting all the family possessions into store. The wife found that it was very difficult to get them out of store; she could not get back into her old home and she had to pay well over £100 if she wanted the possessions moved back. That is an intolerable position for any woman to be placed in.
I know of another case, much nearer my own constituency, where the lady concerned got into such a state of panic—she was pregnant and had a small child also—that she made a suicide attempt. Her husband bullied her over the whole situation and because she had no settled place where she could go the whole position seemed to get blacker and blacker from her point of view.
Those are just a few of the cases that I have had brought to my notice. I am sure that there are many more.
I should like to make clear that I am not suggesting for one moment that the Service should have a permanent responsibility for housing estranged families. Clearly, that would not be possible. But it is intolerable that they should be immediately placed at risk in this way, within 24 hours.
I earnestly ask the Minister to give tonight an assurance that will bring some ray of hope to the women who are in such an appalling predicament.
3.55 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Army (Mr. Robert C. Brown): I know that the hon. Lady the Member for Plymouth Drake (Miss Fookes) has been concerned with this very difficult question for some time. I am pleased that she has raised it in this debate because I think that it provides
1920
an example of how the Armed Forces try with the utmost flexibility to cater for the individual's circumstances within the overall requirements of the forces.
The hon. Lady wrote in August to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the problems facing the estranged wives of Service men. My letter in reply provided some of the background to the question she has raised today, so I shall of necessity repeat some of the points again, although perhaps in greater detail. However, I am sure that the House would wish to have the full details of what is usually a very delicate and difficult situation for all concerned.
To set the question of estranged wives in context, I should first explain in general terms the reasons behind the provision of married quarters for Service men and their families. Responsibility for housing is, in the first instance, essentially a matter for the individual Service family, as it would be in civil life. However, obviously, the special conditions and demands of a Service career often pose considerable difficulties. A Service career may involve frequent postings, every two or three years, both within this country and overseas. Service bases are often situated in more remote parts of the country where there is a lack of available private or local authority housing. Nevertheless, a Service man has to be housed near his place of work to meet the requirements of the Service, which often involve long and irregular hours and the need to be readily available on standby.
Our aim is to avoid, as far as possible, separating husbands from their wives and families, while meeting the requirements of the Armed Services themselves. Consequently, the Ministry of Defence provides married quarters so that Service men can still set up a family home and to reduce the effects of the turbulence which a Service career often entails.
For the purposes of allowances and entitlements, Service personnel are placed in one of five different marital categories. The first two carry the entitlement to a married quarter where one is available. Broadly speaking, these two categories comprise married Service men who would normally live with their wives and families, and, secondly, Service men, or women, who are widowed, divorced or

1921
separated and who have care and control of their children and normally live with them. These categories also carry entitlements to a range of other benefits, such as separation allowance and boarding school allowance.
Technically, married quarters are not tenanted but are occupied under the terms of a licence signed by the Service man. The Service licence requires, among other things, that a Service man should occupy the quarters himself with his wife and, where appropriate, children. It makes it quite clear that on posting or the termination otherwise of his eligibility he is required to vacate the quarter to allow other eligible Service men to benefit.
It is in this broader context that the question of estrangement needs to be seen. From what I have said earlier the House will appreciate that a change in a Service man's marital circumstances will obviously affect the range of allowances and entitlements that have previously been made available to him. Service authorities need to know at the outset if the marriage has broken down. If the Service husband no longer wishes, for whatever reason, to continue to live with his wife, he is under a duty to report the matter to his commanding officer.
The hon. Member has indicated that she feels that it is far too easy for a Service man to announce unilaterally that he is estranged from his wife, and I can understand her concern. However, relations between husband and wife are a private matter for the couple concerned. I believe that it would be wrong for the Services to intrude in this delicate area to decide themselves whether estrangement has taken place. I do not think that in most cases a Service man would choose to inform his commanding officer of the breakdown of his marriage lightly or without good reason. As I explained in my letter to the hon. Member, I believe that we must rely on the individual Service man to act in good faith.
I do not, however, wish to give the impression that the Services are impersonal and unconcerned with the Service man's domestic problems. Far from it. Very often the Service authorities will have already become aware of marital difficulties and various forms of welfare assistance may have been offered to the
1922
couple. Even after the estrangement has been officially notified a wide variety of advice and assistance is available.
In the Army, for example, immediate help could come from padres, medical officers, unit families officers or WRAC army welfare assistants. Where counselling in greater depth is required, cases can be referred to SSAFA or local authority social workers and national marriage guidance counsellors. Comparable resources are, of course, provided in the other two Services. I think it would be wrong to go beyond this and insist on some form of compulsory marriage counselling. In the end the couple themselves must decide if and when an estrangement has taken place.
Once a Service man has formally declared his estrangement from his wife, his changed marital status means that he is no longer entitled to a married quarter and the range of married benefits unless he continues to have care and control of any children there may be. As I have explained, married quarters are provided to enable the Service man and his family to stay together while at the same time meeting the requirements of a Service career on the husband. When the Service man is no longer living with his wife, for whatever reason, I do not think that it is reasonable to expect the Ministry of Defence to take on the responsibility for housing estranged wives and families on a permanent basis. I am sure that the hon. Lady concedes that. I am sure that the House will agree that the only proper solution is for them to be found other accommodation. For its part, the Ministry of Defence seeks to make this as easy as possible, compatible with the need to establish its right to repossess their property.
Although each Service has its own detailed procedures, what happens in practice is broadly similar in all three. Once estrangement has been reported and the change in marital status officially declared, notice to vacate the quarter is served. Wives who remain in occupation of the quarter after this notice has expired are classed as irregular occupants. The period of notice is normally no more than 61 days, after which action may be taken, with the wife's knowledge, to obtain a court order for possession. This establishes MOD's right in law to reclaim the quarter and enables mesne profits to be

1923
charged for the period of irregular occupation.
Mesne profits are in the nature of damages which a person unlawfully in occupation of a property is liable to pay the person entitled to possession and are assessed on the basis of a market rent for a similar civilian property. It is not a doubling of the rent as the hon. Member suggested.
During this period the Service welfare authorities make every effort to help the wife in her search for alternative accommodation and, in particular, close contact is made with local housing authorities. The Ministry of Defence would not necesarily seek an order for possession immediately after the expiration of the notice. A period of grace is often allowed to enable the wife to find alternative accommodation.
If the wife is making genuine efforts to do so, no action may be taken for some months. On the other hand some local authorities may not consider rehousing the wife and family until an order for possession has been made. In such cases the order may be sought earlier to facilitate rehousing. Indeed, wives themselves often ask for this to be done.
I should add that an order for possession does not give authority for eviction. Unless the quarter is required for entitled personnel, who would otherwise be separated from their wives and families, the Ministry of Defence is most reluctant to proceed further and apply for a warrant for possession which gives the necessary legal authority for eviction, and in every case ministerial approval is required before any such application is made to the courts. As with an order for possession, however, some local authorities will not give the estranged wife priority for accommodation until a warrant for possession has been served. This in itself sometimes means that this further step is to the benefit of the estranged wife.
To give the House an indication of how reluctant the Ministry of Defence is to take proceedings against estranged wives in these circumstances, irregular occupancy by estranged wives often lasts for about 15 months and in some cases even longer.
I can bring to mind two cases in the Epping Forest area where estranged wives have been in possession for over two
1924
years. There is no way in which I shall allow an application for eviction to be made because of what I consider to be the completely un-Christian rules operated by that council in demanding a three-year residential qualification before it will give consideration to rehousing. There have been only three evictions in the past two years.
I think that all three Services handle these cases of estrangement with the utmost sympathy and consideration. We must rely on the individual Service man who is entitled to a married quarter and the associated range of allowances to act in good faith and formally to notify Service authorities when he becomes estranged from his wife. I appreciate that in some cases the request by a Service man to change his marital status may be precipitate, particularly where the couple are young and immature. However, considerable help is available to assist Service families with their marital problems and every effort is made to help the couple effect a reconciliation if they want this assistance in what is, after all, a private matter. Given the basis on which married quarters are provided, it is not reasonable to expect the Ministry of Defence to take on an indefinite commitment to house estranged wives and their families.
Apart from anything else, such irregular occupation of married quarters would deny them to other Service families and could cause further separation of husbands and wives in the Armed Forces. I believe that the existing arrangements for helping estranged wives to find alternative accommodation are fair to all concerned and, as I have told the House, the Ministry of Defence is most reluctant to take action to evict estranged wives. Where the married quarters are required by other Service men we must, however, in the last analysis, be able to get possession of them.
Finally, I draw the attention of the House to a 1974 report by Shelter which looked at the question of housing the Armed Forces in the context of its report on tied accommodation. Having reviewed what happens in cases of estrangement and noted the unwillingness of some local authorities to accept responsibility for housing estranged wives and families until there is at least a legal separation, or a

1925
court order for possession has been obtained, Shelter concluded that:
"These difficulties"—
that is with local authorities—
"prolong the rationalisation of the housing situation for the family concerned but our evidence leads us to believe that the Services are particularly humane and supportive in such situations."
I hope that, having heard what I have said tonight, the hon. Lady will share this
1926
view. The Services do all that they can to help everybody concerned in these unfortunate and difficult situations, consistent with their responsibilities to other Service men and their families.
I hope that I have said sufficient to reassure the hon. Lady.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Four o'clock a.m.

ENERGY
  Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries
  Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries
  Uranium
  Uranium
  Windscale (Japanese Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing)
  Windscale (Japanese Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing)
  British Nuclear Fuels (Radiation Hazards)
  British Nuclear Fuels (Radiation Hazards)
  Fissile Materials
  Fissile Materials
  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
  Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
  SHOOTER REPORT
  SHOOTER REPORT
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Republic of Ireland (Foreign Minister)
  Republic of Ireland (Foreign Minister)
  European Parliament
  European Parliament
  European Commission
  European Commission
  Enlargement
  Enlargement
  Treaty of Rome
  Treaty of Rome
EMPLOYMENT
  Wool Textile Firms (Temporary>lb/>Employment Subsidy)
  Wool Textile Firms (Temporary>lb/>Employment Subsidy)
  Textile and Clothing Industry (Grants)
  Textile and Clothing Industry (Grants)
  Foundry Industry Training Board (Levy)
  Foundry Industry Training Board (Levy)
  International Labour Organisation Conventions
  International Labour Organisation Conventions
  Silicosis Sufferers (Compensation)
  Silicosis Sufferers (Compensation)
  Provincial Newspapers (Dispute)
  Provincial Newspapers (Dispute)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Rhodesians (Entry Applications)
  Rhodesians (Entry Applications)
  Firearms (Legislation)
  Firearms (Legislation)
  Mentally III Prisoners
  Mentally III Prisoners
  Young Person (Imprisonment)
  Young Person (Imprisonment)
  Political Refugees
  Political Refugees
  Mrs. Yosie Kurosaki
  Mrs. Yosie Kurosaki
  Police Recruitment (Height Regulations)
  Police Recruitment (Height Regulations)
  Prisons (Accommodation)
  Prisons (Accommodation)
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Nuclear Developments (Cherbourg Peninsula)
  Nuclear Developments (Cherbourg Peninsula)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committees (Expenses)
  Select Committees (Expenses)
WALES
  Welsh Water Authority (Charging Policy)
  Welsh Water Authority (Charging Policy)
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Welsh Assembly
  Welsh Assembly
  Employment Rehabilitation Centre (North Wales)
  Employment Rehabilitation Centre (North Wales)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  World Commodities Centre
  World Commodities Centre
  French Foreign Minister
  French Foreign Minister
  Iran
  Iran
  China (Arms Sales)
  China (Arms Sales)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Namibia
  Namibia
  Harrier Aircraft (Sales to China)
  Harrier Aircraft (Sales to China)
  China (British Citizens)
  China (British Citizens)
  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
  Hong Kong (Vietnamese Refugees)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Terrorist Incidents (Treatment of Arrested Persons)
  Terrorist Incidents (Treatment of Arrested Persons)
  Smallpox (Birmingham)
  Smallpox (Birmingham)
  Welsh-speaking Persons
  Welsh-speaking Persons
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Radiation Workers (National Register)
  Radiation Workers (National Register)
  Retirement Pensions
  Retirement Pensions
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Economic Council (London Meeting)
  Economic Council (London Meeting)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Housing Allowance)
  Royal Ulster Constabulary (Housing Allowance)
DEFENCE
  Harrier Aircraft (Sales to China)
  Harrier Aircraft (Sales to China)
  United Nations Peace-keeping Operations
  United Nations Peace-keeping Operations
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  European Monetary System
  European Monetary System
  Commercial Buildings
  Commercial Buildings
  £ Sterling (Exchange Rate)
  £ Sterling (Exchange Rate)
  European Community (Elections)
  European Community (Elections)
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Civil Servants (Overseas Earnings)
  Civil Servants (Overseas Earnings)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
ENVIRONMENT
  North Region Strategy Team (Report)
  North Region Strategy Team (Report)
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Land Sales
  Land Sales
  Chemical Dumps
  Chemical Dumps
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  European Community Intervention Stores
  European Community Intervention Stores
  Agricultural Products (Monetary Compensatory Amounts)
  Agricultural Products (Monetary Compensatory Amounts)
  Agricultural Land
  Agricultural Land
TRANSPORT
  High-speed Train
  High-speed Train
  Drax Power Station
  Drax Power Station
SCOTLAND
  Geriatric Wards (Provision for Mentally Senile Persons)
  Geriatric Wards (Provision for Mentally Senile Persons)
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Dutch Elm Disease
  Farms
  Farms
  Herring Buyers' Association
  Herring Buyers' Association
  Noxious Gas Cloud
  Noxious Gas Cloud
  Scottish Council for Community Education
  Scottish Council for Community Education
  Road Haulage Industry (Dispute)
  Road Haulage Industry (Dispute)
INDUSTRY
  European Investment Bank
  European Investment Bank
  Raw Materials (Supplies)
  Raw Materials (Supplies)
  Microelectronics
  Microelectronics
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Planning Agreements
  Planning Agreements
TRADE
  European Community
  European Community
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING)
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY (HEADS OF GOVERNMENT MEETING)
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  South Africa (Ever Ready Company Employment Policy)
  South Africa (Ever Ready Company Employment Policy)
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Southern Lebanon (United Nations Peace-keeping Force)
  Southern Lebanon (United Nations Peace-keeping Force)
  Law of the Sea Conference
  Law of the Sea Conference
  United Nations (Peace-keeping Operations)
  United Nations (Peace-keeping Operations)
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  China
  China
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle

"TRANSPORT: THE GOVERNMENT RECORD"— COST AND CIRCULATION
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they reconcile the circulation by the Secretary of State for Transport to Labour Members of Parliament of the document entitled Transport: The Government Record with the convention that purely political exercises should neither be furthered by the Civil Service nor paid for out of public funds; and whether other Ministers have acted in a similar way.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, the document concerned was a factual statement. It drew on material which had already been prepared by civil servants for other purposes, and there was no extra cost to public funds. The document is available to the noble Lord as it is to all Members of Parliament.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the Answer she has given is exactly the same as that given by the Prime Minister in his letter? They accept the facts contained in my Question, but then suggest that what flows from it is of no importance. Is not the noble Baroness aware that to involve the civil servants as it did in a Party political electioneering exercise, and to use taxpayers' money by the use of the headed notepaper to spread the political gospel which is anathema to half the nation, is
950
against the conventions? It is against decency and it may well undermine Parliamentary Government. In view of the significance of the situation, would she not recommend to her right honourable friend the Prime Minister that he should have an inquiry into the facts, so that we can have a full answer and not a halfhearted one such as that just given to the House?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Answer I gave to the noble Lord was not halfhearted. What I said was that the document was a purely factual statement. It was the Government's record, without a Party political slant. It was the factual statement of the Government's record on transport matters. It is the type of information that is kept permanently up to date within the Department notwithstanding a change of Minister or even a change of Government, so that they know what has been going on. If we were to take the line that we were using official notepaper and paying postage on sending these documents out, then we would have to take the line that if the noble Lord wanted some factual information from the Department I would have to say that the cost was such that I could not give it to him.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, surely the Question involves a more important point than the noble Baroness has realised. The mere fact that the contents of a document are factual, which I must assume to be the case from what the noble Baroness said, does not necessarily dispose of the issue. If the Question is right, this document had a limited circulation to the Members of Parliament belonging to a political Party and was circulated to the members of that Party. Is it not in fact a new doctrine that documents should be circulated to the members of a political Party in another place by a member of the Government, not in fact in his capacity as Party leader, but in the capacity of Minister? Is it not important that these two relationships should be kept separate from one another, even though the facts are perfectly correct and the document is limited to facts?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, in this instance the Secretary of State was acting as a Minister for the Department of Transport. He was responding to a request received from Members of another place

951
asking for a factual statement as to the Government's record in transport. That statement is available to any Member of Parliament and to any Member of this House. My understanding is that copies of the statement are in the Libraries of both Houses. If a Minister is to be told that he cannot give this information, then why do we hear so much about open government? When we are asked for factual information and try to comply and give it, I should have thought it would be welcomed by all sides of the House.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I am sorry to pursue this matter with the noble Baroness. Cannot she see the difference between sending out a circular to members of one's own Party and sending out a circular to all Members of the House or putting it in the Library? Does she not see that there is a difference of principle there?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my Minister was not acting as a political leader in this sense to the Members of Parliament. Indeed, the letter which went out with the document says:
"Before the summer recess several of our Parliamentary colleagues asked me for a convenient up-to-date summary of the Government's record in transport policy.
I have therefore prepared the attached notes."
It goes on to say:
"I hope the notes will be of use to you and to others in the period ahead".
They are available and I can make them available to more Members of this House if they would like to ask me for them.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will not my noble friend agree that it is a highly commendable desire on the part of members of the Opposition for once to be informed?
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, is the Minister not aware of the fact that the political adviser to the Minister sent out a letter with this circular to Labour Members of Parliament and to leaders of county councils of the Labour group in England in the following terms:
"Transport is an issue of crucial importance to the Party both locally and nationally. Bill"—
that is, Mr. Rodgers—
"is hoping that his White Paper, the first comprehensive statement of Labour transport policy
952
for ten years, will be of practical use to local Parties and Labour groups"?
How much more biased can one get than that, my Lords?
Baroness STEDMAN: With respect, my Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken is referring to a previous issue about the White Paper. This was the statement concerning the Government's record in transport. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport did apologise to the House and the other place on a recent issue some months before this when, by accident, a political letter was sent out on departmental headed paper. The Minister accepted responsibility and gave assurances that that would not happen again. The circular with which the Question is primarily concerned is the one about the Government's record in transport, and that is a purely factual statement.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Minister was asked by a group of Members of Parliament for information, which he supplied? Therefore the Opposition's case now, in so far as they have one, is that we have got to the position that where a group of Members or a single Member ask for information, before the information can be given, they must, just because they happen to be members of the Labour Party, ask the permission of the Tory Party? Tell them to go to hell!
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, any Minister of the Government is always willing to give factual information to any Member, regardless of which Party or none they belong to. I only wish that more Members of this House would seek factual information before they come into the House.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may I ask whether, if an approach is made to the noble Baroness on behalf of the Liberal or Conservative Parties in another place for a particular document to be circulated to all the Members of that Party, that request will automatically be complied with by the Minister in question?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, if it is a factual statement which is generally available, yes. If it is a consultative document which the Minister and his

953
advisers are still considering then I would have to take advice on that, but if it is a purely factual statement that is available in the course of updating the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Department it would be made available, willingly and readily.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, how naive can the noble Baroness be? It is significant that this only went to Labour Members of Parliament; it is significant that it went to Labour Members of Parliament who had not specifically asked for it. Is it not a fact that, if this particular Minister, who had done the same thing before, would attempt to do his departmental duties instead of using his Department for propaganda purposes we might not have rail strikes and lorry strikes on the scale that we have got them today?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I have known the noble Lord opposite for some 25 or 30 years and I think that the statements he has just made are completely unworthy of him. The Minister was asked by Labour Members for an up-to-date picture of the Government's record in transport: that he made available to them. He would make it available equally to Members of the Conservative or Liberal Parties or to the Cross-Benchers in this House if they asked for it. Copies are available in the Library and I am willing to let the noble Lord have a copy all to himself if he would like one.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, seeking to pour oil on troubled waters, I should like to put this question to the noble Baroness: is it not the case that the facts in this factual statement have long since been exploded by events, like so many other things in which the Party opposite profess to believe?—including, for example, free collective bargaining.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the factual document that was sent out was completely up-to-date up to 4th September, when it was sent out; some things may have changed since then and I have no doubt that if the noble Earl would like to have an absolutely up-to-date factual statement I could get one for him.

GATWICK AIRPORT: RUNWAY POLICY
2.46 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of recent delays in handling aircraft at Gatwick Airport and their policy of transferring further air services to that airport they will now reconsider their decision not to build a second runway at Gatwick.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the White Paper on Airports Policy does not envisage a second runway at Gatwick Airport. I understand the British Airports Authority are satisfied that a single runway will be capable of handling the expected growth in traffic, including the services to be transferred from Heathrow.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recall, as recently as 7th December in this House in reply to her noble friend Lord Pargiter, giving an assurance of the adequacy of one runway at Gatwick only until the mid-1980s? If as recently as that date the Government were not confident that one runway would be able to cope beyond the mid-1980s, is it not about time that they at least started planning a second one?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we are confident that one runway at Gatwick will be able to cope with up to 25 million passengers. That is a long way to go from the number using it now. There is an advisory committee sitting at the moment, investigating many of the points that were raised recently on Questions put to me in this House. For example, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether we had taken into account the rising cost of fuel and the effect that would have. Other people asked us to take into account the size of the aircraft and therefore the fact that fewer aircraft would need to use the runway. All these matters are being looked at by the advisory committee and they will be making a report in due course. These are the things they are looking at in order

955
to establish what the procedure will be after the mid-1980s. The British Airports Authority are still satisfied that one runway is sufficient to cope with up to 25 million passengers a year at Gatwick for the foreseeable future.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, may I ask this question: I observe that the noble Baroness restricts the indication of confidence that one runway would cope to the British Airports Authority. As she will have observed, my Question relates to the attitude of the Government. I should be interested to know whether her Answer this afternoon contradicts or relies on what was said on 7th December; that is, that the Government's confidence in this matter is limited until the mid-1980s. May I also ask whether that confidence, if it did exist then, has not been diminished by the fact that last month one small aircraft breaking its nose wheel held up all movements on the only runway at this important airport for a couple of hours?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Government are confident that we shall be able to handle the 25 million passengers on the single runway. We do not anticipate reaching that number even by the mid-1980s. So far as the disruption to traffic is concerned—when minor accidents or even major ones may occur on the one runway—the runway was closed for one hour and 59 minutes on the 29th December, following the collapse of the nose-wheel on a BAC 1–11, which I think is what the noble Lord is referring to. It took longer to clear than any other obstruction during the year. The second longest obstruction to that took 42 minutes to clear. There were 15 inbound flights that had to be diverted on that occasion and some of those eventually returned to land at Gatwick. Four or five take-offs were delayed; and since then on 3rd January this year a Viscount of Southern International ran off the taxi-way in the appalling weather we had. Three incoming flights were diverted then between 7.52 a.m. and 9.24 a.m., which, if my arithmetic is correct, is one hour and 32 minutes, and no take-offs were effected on that occasion. It is not a major job, and there is no major obstruction to the one runway. The airport has been able to cope. In the event of a really major emergency, there
956
are other London airports to which flights could be directed.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware——
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, after all that information, may I ask my noble friend one simple question? Is she aware that I cannot share her optimism about the 25 million passengers in the future, and the point that I should like to ask her about is this: Does she realise that the British Airports Authority is prone to take the position of one runway at Gatwick for the whole 12 months of the year, but that during July and August the crowding and the chaos of flights at Gatwick is really very worrying, and that to add additional numbers to those flights in those peak periods is something which I, anyway, consider the British Airports Authority has not considered?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I know that my noble friend has concern about this, and I also know that she is not altogether happy with the replies that we have given. But the runway's capacity is estimated at 160,000 air transport movements per year. The current annual usage is only 98,000 movements, and that is with a throughput of about 8 million passengers. With the increasing numbers of passengers per aircraft, and with larger, wide-bodied aircraft, which means that fewer aircraft are using the airport in the 1980s, the British Airports Authority have advised the Government that they see no reason why a throughput of 25 million passengers a year should not eventually be handled on the single runway. We have to accept the advice of the experts and the consultants whom we consult on this, and we have our own independent studies going on as well. But at the moment we and the British Airports Authority are satisfied that one runway could handle 25 million passengers in due course.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that what my noble friend is proposing in his Question is another unplanned environmental disaster on the Heathrow scale? Will Her Majesty's Government now give urgent, rapid, quick and prompt attention to the proposal to build a new gateway international airport on Severn-

957
side, which is unlimitedly expandable and with offshore runways, close to the existing motorway network and linked to London and Birmingham via non-stop, high speed trains?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I compliment the noble Earl on getting back to Severnside. I enjoyed replying to his debate on that issue. It is something of which we in the Department are aware. The Department have taken note of his point of view. But at the moment we are dealing with one runway at Gatwick, which we still say is sufficient to handle the traffic.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to assure your Lordships' House that when the Department concerned amends regulations affecting national flag carriers of foreign nations, the Department liaises most closely with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in order to ensure that no diplomatic embarrassment ensues?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have the closest consultation, both with the other countries involved and with our own Foreign Office. But I will certainly see that the noble Lord's comments are drawn to the attention of my Department, in order to make sure that that state of affairs continues.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, may I refer the noble Baroness to the reply which she gave earlier, when she referred to the alleged capacity for flights? Can she tell us whether the assessment of the capacity of Gatwick is based on a daily quota, or whether it takes into account the excessive loads which appear in the peak holiday season, which would make nonsense of the estimate?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, all the factors are taken into account in making the assessment.

BRITISH RAILWAYS: SOUTH EASTERN REGION
2.55 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of recent disruptions of rail services in the South Eastern Region, they will consider, as a condition of their annual grant to British Railways, the maintenance of regular services.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I apologise to the House; there are other people on the Front Bench who speak. No practical purpose would be served by such a condition. I am sure that the British Railways Board are already doing all in their power to maintain regular services. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport said yesterday in another place, the Board have put forward proposals for specific productivity improvements and significant progress has been made in discussion.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that disarming Answer, may I ask whether she is aware that on no fewer than six Wednesdays in the past couple of months the services in the Southern Region have been disrupted, so that tens of thousands of commuters have been prevented from getting to London? Is she aware that it is simply not a service, if it is as bad as that? Is she also aware that the drivers who have withdrawn their work are clearly in breach of their contract of employment?
Is she further aware that the general public look to the noble Baroness and to Ministers generally, who take £360 million a year off the taxpayer to support the railways by way of subsidy, in order to ensure that the railways function regularly and reliably? Will she therefore consider, despite her Answer, the point which I put to her, that either the management should strengthen their disciplinary system against the workers, who are clearly in breach of their contract of service, or that they should invent a system of attendance money, productivity bonus or whatever it is called, to ensure that these men do go to work and that the railway system does work?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I accept that there has been disruption on the Southern Region over the past few

959
weeks. It has been unofficial action in that part of the railway system. It is action which has been deplored in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and I am sure that it is deplored by all Members of this House that unofficial action should be taken that causes so much trouble and so many problems to the people who have to commute on the Southern Region. As regards allying attendance money to productivity, it is a matter for the British Railways Board and the unions when they are negotiating their productivity deals as to what kind of strings are attached, or otherwise. This is not a matter on which the Government can interfere. It is a matter for the British Railways Board, and I am sure it is something which the members of the Board will have in mind when they are negotiating the present productivity deal with the railway unions concerned.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FER-FARD: My Lords, will the noble Baroness agree that we should be wise to follow the example of several Continental democracies, where, if you work in a public utility company, it is illegal to come out on a lightning strike, though, of course, you can send in your notice according to your contract of service? I am sure the noble Baroness will agree that we should legislate for that.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we have no proposals at the moment for legislating about trade unions, about strikes or about anything like that. But certainly, if the time came when we had to do anything like that, we should take into account the views that Members have expressed here.

OVERSEAS STUDENTS: PROPOSED COMMISSION
2.58 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: 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 the assurances given by the Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe on 20th July last that consultation with
960
all concerned on his proposal for a Commission for Overseas Students (originally submitted to the Secretary of State for Education and Science in September 1977) would begin "very soon" is still binding.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I will not conceal from the House that both my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies and myself are disappointed that the answers we gave, she on 20th July last year and I on 8th May, have proved too optimistic. The problems are complex and a proper solution extremely important. They have in no sense been shelved. Discussions continue, but a clear proposal for general consultation has not yet been arrived at. As soon as it is, I shall advise the noble Lord.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, while not thanking the noble Lord very much for that clearly unsatisfactory reply, may I ask whether the Government would not still think it desirable to have early unofficial talks with UKCOSA and the Council for Education in the Commonwealth, on the basis of some revised proposals which we have very recently submitted? Is it not conceivable that ensuing agreement in principle in setting up some body would actually help the Government in formulating some new policy with regard to overseas students, which they have found such immense difficulty in doing up to now?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am aware that the noble Lord has recently written an elaboration of his proposals to the Secretary of State who is studying them, and I think that they will be of great assistance to her. However, the Government feel that they must get their proposals into an orderly and correct form before they and the bodies whom they will be consulting can decide how an advisory body might fit into a new scheme. As I have said, in the last few days the noble Lord has written in, which shows that there is still time for second thoughts and for the elaboration of thought. I can only say that it is not the Government's view that it would be helpful to appoint a commission or a body to give advice when the general plans are not yet clearly laid down.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, may I ask a rather particular question of the noble Lord. I ought to disclose that I am a member of the court of the Polytechnic of Central London. In considering the whole problem of overseas students in this country, are the Government fully aware of the friction which is constantly being caused between local authorities, governors and students because of what is basically a national responsibility being placed upon local authorities, some of which are very unequally affected by the nature of the problem—Central London in particular being one?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I think that this is a highly important and relevant question. I do not think that it arises under Lord Gladwyn's Question, and I should like to have notice of it. I will answer it at length another day.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the Minister what we are waiting for? Are we waiting for the Oakes Report? In the meanwhile, could not the Minister set up a working party consisting of institutions of learning and voluntary organisations dealing with students? Everybody, including the British Council, is becoming very frustrated by the delay, and it is upsetting both their work and the attitude of the students.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, what the Government are waiting for is internal agreement which, because of the importance and complexity of the case, is difficult to arrive at. I do not think that it would be wise to set up a working party at this stage, because this would simply be another body which had to agree on these very difficult arrangements. The plan is perfectly clear. A Government policy will be stated and sent out for consultation. We do not believe that it is either helpful or wise to appoint any advisory body until that moment has arisen.
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the recent Statement by the Secretary of State for Education and Science was extremely helpful, in that it recognised that in all institutions of higher education a mix of home based students and overseas
962
students is highly desirable? It also recognised the great financial benefits which overseas students bring to this country. It also asked institutions in both the autonomous sector and the public sector to bear in mind that there was a limit to the number of overseas students which the Government thought it right to subsidise—as undoubtedly they do subsidise such students. Is not the right way forward to ask the institutions in both the autonomous and the public sector to come forward with proposals, as the Secretary of State has asked them to do, to deal with this problem?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. The Secretary of State's speech on 19th December to the World University Service Conference in London puts admirably her position and makes it perfectly clear that there is no shuffling of the feet or unnecessary delay; that it must be reasonable to limit the figure to somewhere around the 72,000 to which she refers, which is already a very high figure indeed; and that the £100 million which is already allocated to this could be better used than it is at the moment—and she has never suggested diminishing it—in a discriminatory way but that the machinery for doing so is complicated and difficult.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, have the Government read the letter in the Daily Telegraph by a member of the London School of Economics which totally contests the idea that we are subsidising these people at all and that the figure of £100 million is simply a myth?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the Secretary of State and I and the Department have read this letter. The noble Lord will be surprised to hear that we do not agree with it.

RHODESIA
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 the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement being made in another place on Rhodesia.

INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY
3.5 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD Viscount TRENCHARD rose to call attention to the continuation of conditions unfavourable to the creation of wealth and the recovery of British industry and to the reasons for that situation; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, may I start by congratulating the noble Baroness who is to reply to this debate on her new position—or can I say on her being made an honest woman, since she has replied to this kind of debate very competently in the past. I am sure that her new accolade will make very little difference in the future.
It is very tempting, in view of topical events and yesterday's debate in another place, to divert the thrust of this debate from one which fits in with the longer-term series of industrial debates which we had last year to one which would concentrate on the immediate, short-term problems. In the main, I plan to try to resist that temptation, although the relevance of yesterday's Government statements is obvious and I will inevitably comment upon some aspects of those statements. The right honourable gentleman the Prime Minister said, not yesterday but in his New Year message:
"We in Britain have no one to fear but ourselves. We are capable of doing anything we set our hands to".
This very much echoes the sentiment of my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft when he opened the second day's economic debate on the gracious Speech in November last. I believe, as must be clear from this Motion, that it is the conditions in which industry has been asked to lay its golden eggs that have become progressively more unfavourable over the past 12 years. The comparative trends in productivity and shares of world markets alone would have been catastrophic, and probably only North Sea oil and gas have prevented disaster.
I hope that we shall not spend much time in this debate on discussing whether or not things are slightly better this year than last year, or whether they will be slightly worse next year. I believe that we all know in our hearts that, but for North Sea oil, the strengthening of the pound and the terms of trade and, to give credit where credit is due, the reduction
964
in the inflation rate, we should be pretty well down and out. Our standard of living today is not much more than half that of leading competitor countries who were behind us in the 1950s. I also very much hope that when the noble Baroness comes to reply she will not dwell too much on whether there is complete proof that each item which I and other speakers may raise as potentially unfavourable to the creation of wealth has actually had a very serious impact. I had hoped, until the Government's statements in the other place yesterday, that she would be able to confirm that it was now the Government's intention to make sure that all conditions are favourable and so ensure that there was no impediment to the speediest possible recovery of British industry.
Although Government policy statements have increasingly recognised the need to give priority to manufacturing industry, the actual action taken has, in my view, amounted to little more than ceasing to increase priorities for other aspects of our national life; and even that statement proves to be a bit of an over-statement when it is set against yesterday's announcements. How can this be so? Have our Governments—and I deliberately use the word in the plural—been out of their minds? No, of course they have not, but I do believe that they have been blinded by two factors. First, I believe that the hearts and minds of many of those in high places in the last decade have afforded greater priority to spending on social and compassionate policies to improve the quality of life than to encouraging industry. The strength and profitability of industry has been taken—quite erroneously—for granted. Protecting the consumer, and more particularly the employee, has been seen as a necessary Government role. Protecting large industrial companies has not even entered the head.
Secondly, I believe that the eyes of those in high places have been taken off the ball by our necessary preoccupation with inflation. This quite correct obsession to deal with inflation has led us to accept many policies which are unfavourable to industry, and not just on the short term, as they were usually announced, but for a very long time. These have been accepted as the price of trying to obtain trade union acquiescence to an

965
incomes policy. They include nearly 12 years of price control, the erosion of differentials for skill and responsibility, in my opinion the daftest tax structure in Europe, and dividend control. The natural inclination towards social policies, which I mentioned just now, and the assumption that companies were all right has led to an unparalleled flood of legislation to protect the employee from his company, to strengthen to the nth degree the bargaining power of trade unions against the company and to protect the consumer and the environment at the cost of the company. Public expenditure has grown to half our GNP and this has inevitably taken an undue proportion of the nation's resources away from industry.
Additionally, this mountain of social legislation has brought considerable administrative burdens to industry and a diversion of time and attention away from wealth creation. In my opinion it has not yet been fully absorbed by Government, or even in some cases by leaders of industry, that the time that industrial management can spare from routine duties is very limited indeed, say 20 per cent. even in an ideal environment. The leaders of industry have been too reasonable in accepting on behalf of management one extra duty after another. Longer term improvements and the application of research and new methods consequently have been crowded off the agenda. In my opinion, management in industry is never an easy task at the best of times and even with the best management. If wealth is to be created, the task needs to be made as easy as possible and as attractive as possible. If we criticise the standard of our management, then the task needs to be made easier and more attractive.
Furthermore, I believe that history teaches us that in any large scale human activity a degree of incentive or a degree of discipline is necessary. Some stick or some carrot is necessary in the background. Communication and—the "in" word today — participation are not alone adequate in large scale activity. Both the stick and the carrot have been nearer to being totally removed in this country than in any other in the world. In some large factories it is no longer even possible for management to talk directly to their employees on important subjects.
In other debates we have discussed the uniqueness of the British position in so far as industrial relations and collective bargaining are concerned, and I did not plan to over-emphasise this area today, except to say that many of those who doubted its importance are still perhaps influenced by the kind of survey that was published during the Recess by the Department of Employment, showing that the number of days lost in strike in the United Kingdom is not exceptional compared with other countries. It has still not been fully absorbed that there are inevitable natural economic limits on both the employer and the employee to the number of days of lost production or wages that can be afforded by either of them. Thus figures of days lost in strike have very little meaning. What is important is the balance of the bargaining position before strike and the constant "strike threat" position. That is where the position is unique in the United Kingdom, and it is that that bears on inefficiency, productivity and on the rate of inflation.
I hope your Lordships will bear with me if I try to remove the note of gloom from this debate—a note of gloom which has been so obvious in our industrial debates in 1978—and if I do so by taking a flight of fancy to make my point. Can you possibly imagine that I am a chronicler writing in the Economist on 1st January 1990 and that my article, if action is taken now diametrically opposite to that announced by the Government yesterday, could still be entitled, "The British Economic Miracle of the 'eighties"; I believe it could run like this:
"It is indeed a thrill to record the achievements of the past decade. Starting from a position where the world has written us off as an industrial power, we have increased our productivity by nearly 100 per cent. and our real wages, due to our strong currency, by 120 per cent. Our share of world markets, although not up to the 23 per cent. we held in the 'fifties, has risen from the 8 per cent. low of 1978 to 14 per cent. It may not take more than another half decade at the present rate to overtake German living standards once more. Our population is on the increase and notwithstanding immigration our unemployment problem has not existed since 1983".
My Lords, I believe that my 1990 chronicler could perhaps continue thus:
"The miracle started in 1979 when the old style incomes policies had all but broken down and when a new Government was elected".—
he did not say what!—
"But perhaps the key was the change of

967
attitude of the British trade union movement to one of recognition of the need to create new and greater wealth in order to achieve their new target of doubling their members' real wages in a decade. They played a leading part in the reforms of the British trade union system and the collective bargaining practice. It had been perceived that these reforms were as necessary as the control of the money supply, which all had come to see as an essential prerequisite for economic success. Thus the removal of the need to secure acceptance by the trade union leaders of the 'seventies of an incomes policy had made all the other changes, now described, politically possible".
I believe that my chronicler would first turn to price control. He would say:
"Price control, as distinct from monopoly control, was abandoned in 1980. Although more was claimed by the Price Commission the real impact on prices had probably been about 1 per cent. of sales value. This, however, represented up to 20 per cent. of profit in many industries and had thus been a real hindrance to investment. It had become clear that the distortions of production flow away from market requirements over 12 years of price control had been very great. It was also a major diversion of the brains of industry away from the market and it weakened competition. Over 600 people in the Price Commission were able to ask enough questions to keep the equivalent of tens of thousands of industrial brains engaged in answering, and worse, spending time agreeing with competition on how to answer".
Turning to differentials, my chronicler of 1990 could, I think, say,
"By 1979, nearly 12 years of incomes policy had seriously eroded differentials for skill and responsibility. The spread of British incomes, along with Sweden, had become the most egalitarian in Europe and North America. Concern for the low-paid in what had become a poor country, the consequent actions of wages councils, the flat £6 increases of 1976, and the sheer influence of the weighting of union membership had ensured that, notwithstanding certain lip service to the contrary, differentials had been continually eroded. The return of freedom to industry to reward skill and responsibility, together with the major changes in tax, proved that the chronic shortage of skilled workers was only half real, as the moonlighters returned to their industries".
My Lords, I believe that our chronicler would then quickly have recorded that the brain drain was reversed, that Britain, as a highly conducive place, both psychologically and materially, to work in, became a recipient of immigration; that talent to fill our gaps, both skilled workers and management alike, flooded in; that the problem of getting the best of the nation's young to enter industry ceased in the early 'eighties; that apprentice schemes for skilled workers blossomed once more, and that our traditional lead in many areas of basic science and research was at last progressively exploited at
968
home across the whole spectrum of industry, and not only in wars and in selected areas where we had continued to be successful.
My 1990 chronicler would turn to tax and profits, and I believe he might be able—I hope he would be able—to say something like this:
"The protest that greeted the major tax and social security payments changes in 1980, when the start rate was reduced to 20 per cent. and the top rate to 55 per cent., were soon forgotten. This was because by 1983 greater company profits and personal wealth led to the tax take from these two sources far exceeding the level from those sources in 1979. VAT, which had been temporarily raised to 10 per cent., was reduced to 8 per cent. after only three years. The return of real profit levels to those of the 1960s, from the pitiful 3 to 4 per cent. return in real terms to which they had sunk, allowed savings in direct Government aid to industry and this removed a further cause of distortion. Investment increased at a faster rate than the rise in profits might have suggested, even after taking account of the removal of the long absurd dividend control".
I believe that my chronicler would then emphasise that full realisation of the need for industry to work single-mindedly for efficiency if new and extra wealth was to be created led to much more separation of social policies from the market system; that, as long as industry had been asked to share out work, save jobs, avoid redundancies, increase the pay of the low-paid, protect the consumer and the environment better than the richest countries in the world, the task of reducing costs had been made much harder, and that the employee or trade union-orientated legislation and the uniquely strong union pressures of the 'seventies had enormously added to the problems of British management. He would, I think, state that the essential limitation of management time outside essential routine duties was finally recognised, and all possible steps to lighten their load of what had been gleefully called new tasks or challenges in the 'seventies had become the objective, both in legislation and in the repeal and amendment of some of the flood of legislation of the 'seventies. I believe he would continue thus:
"It is pleasing to record that many of the social problems of the 'seventies had disappeared, or been much ameliorated, with the rise in general prosperity. Reverse income tax has been a great help to the needy, without distortion of the market system. The higher quality and feeling of responsibility of industrial management in the freer market system have disposed of other social problems. The greater prosperity, and the larger taxation take, albeit at lower percentage rates,

969
has ensured that our police and defence services are in better order than ever before. Our social services, although orientated more towards those in need, have increased in real benefit terms by 70 per cent. over the decade".
My Lords, I believe that with the benefit of hindsight our 1990 chronicler might then search for reasons for our follies of the 'seventies. I think he might say,
"Looking back, it seems that the informed public in the 'seventies did not realise what a myriad of price and wage changes had been necessary to preserve the efficiency and dynamism of the market economy. In truth, in the 'seventies many had begun to doubt whether competition could in fact be an efficient force. They were obsessed with the size of many corporations and with the lack of short-term price movements as an indication of the working of the market system. The economic textbooks had described as perfect competition what was in fact only the nature and kind of competition contemporary to the writers of those books. It thus included prices changing by the hour in street markets and the like. It came as a surprise when the dangerously low level of profits of even major corporations proved that these things and phrases like 'market dominance' and ' price leadership', were unreal, and that competition, although of quite a different nature to that described in economic textbooks, and often on a longer term basis and on a worldwide basis, was nevertheless no less strong a force across the great bulk of industry than it had always been".
My Lords, you can imagine that our chronicler of 1990 then summarised the distortions, diversions and disincentives of the 1970s which he said had rendered British management both demoralised and incompetent. He gave primary credit for the revival of our fortunes to the trade union leaders of the previous decade, noting that most of them were now in the House of Lords where they left no stone unturned in their encouragement of conditions favourable to the creation of extra wealth.
My Lords, I hope you will not regard this fictitious sketch which I have given this afternoon as flippant or impossible. It could become true. If it even half became true we should be fairly well off. It really could become true if we realised how desperate our plight is and if we now really allowed industry to become as single-mindedly market orientated as possible, as indeed it was when we had the Industrial Revolution. I do not think we shall make the same mistakes again. It is a different age, and we have the ability to look after social problems in a different way. Just as we led the world with the original Industrial Revolution, and perhaps with the post-Industrial Revolution mistakes, let us start a new industrial revolution.
970
I agree with the Prime Minister's quotation in his New Year message: we can do anything to which we set our hands.
The new trade union attitude recorded by our chronicler and the trade union reforms mentioned are the key to the economic miracle. The content of the reforms clearly needs to be the subject of another debate after my chronicler has perhaps published a detailed review of the reforms on 7th January 1990. They need a debate on their own. However, I must just comment on what was said yesterday by Government spokesmen in the other place about the impracticability of removing some part of the trade union immunities from law in this country and the suggestion that the change in law would be flouted. Are we so unique as to suppose that we alone can find no place for either normal or special law in this area? Is little old John Bull now the only one in step on his road to ruin?
As regards yesterday's announcement of more pay for the low paid, however desirable that thought may be, how can it do other than further erode differentials, make wealth creation even harder, and in the end hit the lower paid even harder? Finally, the removal of price control profit safeguards announced yesterday leaves one speechless. What kind of priority for industrial recovery is that? How mad can we be? A fall in real profit levels from the pitiful 4 per cent. in real terms can only help to complete the destruction of this country as an industrial power.
Against the background of 30 years of management experience, for more than 10 of which I have been responsible for companies in a good number of different countries, I make the following plea to the British trade union movement: let your political Party off the hook; reform will sooner or later come to you finally either from the dictatorship of the Left or from the reaction to the Right; anarchy can never be more than transient; give a lead from within and middle up the situation now. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

RHODESIA
3.32 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I have just heard

971
that the Statement on Rhodesia has been cleared. With the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a Statement.
"The Government are releasing today the report of my right honourable friend the Member for Anglesey who visited Africa before Christmas for private talks with all concerned in the Rhodesia dispute in order to advise me, in the light of his discussions, whether the right climate existed for an All-Party Conference on Rhodesia. I had told the House on 7th November that I would be prepared to convene such a meeting if the conditions seemed right.
"My right honourable friend left for Africa on 27th November. Accompanied by President Carter's representative, Ambassador Low, he visited Rhodesia and seven other African countries in the course of his mission, returning to this country on 14th December. He had consultations with the front-line Presidents, the leaders of the Patriotic Front and the members of the Executive Council in Salisbury. He met representatives of other political groups and organisations in Rhodesia. He also had talks with Mr. R. F. Botha, Foreign Minister of South Africa, and General Obasanjo, Head of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria.
"My right honourable friend gave me a full account of his findings on his return to London. I am most grateful for the way in which he has carried out this task, and I have given the most careful consideration to his conclusions. I have also discussed them with President Carter. My right honourable friend's principal conclusion, which he reached with great regret, was that no good purpose would be served by convening a meeting of the parties to the conflict in the immediate future, since there would be virtually no likelihood of a successful outcome. I have decided that I must accept this advice.
972
"My right honourable friend's discussions with the Patriotic Front and with the Executive Council in Salisbury made it clear that the positions of the parties on the key issues are very far apart and that there is at present no possibility of their moving sufficiently close to each other in the course of a negotiation to allow hope that agreement might be reached. My right honourable friend concluded that a conference called now would end in failure, and that this would inhibit any new attempt to promote a settlement for a period of several months at least. He nevertheless recommended that I should be ready to call a conference at once if developments should indicate a better prospect of success than would be the case today. I accept this advice also.
"We shall not give up our attempts to achieve a peaceful solution. President Carter and I reaffirmed our commitment at Guadeloupe to do all in our power to promote a negotiated settlement in Rhodesia and bring the human suffering there to an end. We were in full agreement that the Anglo/ American proposals remain the best basis for a peaceful solution. We will continue to work closely together to improve the prospects for a successful negotiation and to take advantage of any opportunity to promote a peaceful solution to the present conflict."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.37 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, we are grateful for the Statement made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, but it will not come as any great surprise because it has been widely known for some time that the Government had decided not to call a conference. I do not think that anybody could contradict the advice given to the Government by Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, because he has had the opportunity of seeing all the principal people concerned in this matter and we, on this side, have not had that advantage. I have no doubt that the advice he has given the Government is sound. At the moment there may very well not be the prospect of a successful outcome to a conference. But I really do

973
not think that one can just leave it there or leave it in the way that the Statement leaves it. Time is getting on and the situation in Rhodesia is becoming worse and worse. I do not think that one can leave the position as the Statement leaves it—in effect just hoping for the best.
When we proposed the possibility of a Camp David conference and the Prime Minister accepted and welcomed that suggestion—the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, looks surprised, but that is exactly what happened in another place—one of the other proposals which we also made was not that there should be a conference just like that, but that there should be, as a preliminary, a contact group on the basis of the Western contact group which was formed during the discussions on the Namibian situation. That has not resolved itself, but at any rate it looks a great deal more hopeful. One of the reasons it looks hopeful is that the contact group from the Security Council, before there was ever any kind of decision, narrowed the differences between the parties. Would it not at any rate be possible for there to be a contact group of the new Security Council—it has now changed in composition—which might seek to narrow the differences which Mr. Cledwyn Hughes has seen and noticed during his visit?
That is only one suggestion. However, I must ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether this Statement means that the Government are going to do nothing. As the conference is not considered to be a useful suggestion, are they going to see nothing done and just watch the situation deteriorate daily?
3.40 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, we, on these Benches, should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this highly depressing, though no doubt entirely realistic, Statement. Is it not pretty clear that unfortunately no progress is likely to be made until the referendum and the ensuing elections are over? If we are to be optimistic at all, it may be that when that is over the situation will so develop that Salisbury will be ready to accept the Anglo-American plan, or some modified version of it, without reserve. If they do, no doubt we could consider provisional
974
recognition and do our best to get the Patriotic Front to come in on the same basis. In the meantime—and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that "in the meantime" is important—we must do something. I agree that perhaps something on the lines he has suggested would be possible to organise; alternatively, possibly there could be some continuing presence in Salisbury or elsewhere of two or three people who at least would be able to monitor events and keep us up to date. In itself, that might be a good thing.
In conclusion, may I take it that whatever policy we pursue in regard to Rhodesia will also be followed, we hope, by the Council of Ministers of the European Community? It would surely be deplorable if at a certain moment one or other Members of the Community were to recognise the provisional regime and we did not. That is something which we must surely avoid at all costs.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I still think that he must appreciate that this is a report from my right honourable friend Mr. Cledwyn Hughes explaining why he believes that at this stage it would be fruitless to have a conference. However, that is not to say that we should just stay put and do nothing. On the contrary, inevitably there must still be a desire to have a conference and a desire to reaffirm the Anglo-American proposals. There will be no sitting back here. In fact, we shall have to see how we can create the conditions in which we could achieve a successful conference. To hold a conference which would not be fruitful would be disastrous. Therefore, I agree that we must keep up the political initiative, and we must seek to do so in conjunction with the United States of America. So I hope that no one will think that we are now sitting down, just waiting for something to turn up. There will be continuous political initiatives. I believe that that was the main point raised both by the Leader of the Opposition and also by the Leader of the Liberal Party.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I join with the noble Lords, the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the Liberal

975
Party, in thanking my noble friend the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. We must accept the advice of Mr. Cledwyn Hughes. I do not know anyone who would be more objective, impartial and wise in considering the situation than him. I have just returned from East Africa where I had the opportunity to meet the Presidents of Kenya, Zambia and Tanzania and to have long discussions about Zimbabwe with the Presidents, Kenneth Kaunda and Julius Nyerere. I also had a long discussion with Joshua Nkomo and with a very important person, whose name I must not mention, who had come from Zimbabwe because he has returned there. Those discussions have greatly changed my views about the situation in Zimbabwe. I shall not state them until I have been able to meet the Foreign Secretary. However, I very much hope that we may have an early debate upon this issue because I believe that we have now reached a situation in which constructive participation can take place.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope that my noble friend is right about constructive participation. I appreciate that he knows Africa well, and he has reported to the House that he has met African leaders. We shall still press forward the concepts which are enshrined in the Anglo-American proposals, which are produced as a White Paper, and shall continue to do so. I should not wish to say anything which may exacerbate feelings on this matter. I think that we are going through a difficult period.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what steps Her Majesty's Government will take during this interregnum to de-escalate the fighting in Central Africa and in particular to ensure that the elections to the transitional Government go forward in peace in the spring?
Lord PEART: My Lords, we have always pressed for the fighting to cease. We believe that it is a terrible tragedy that we should have this, and if there are to be proper elections, they must be held in conditions of peace. That is the policy of the Government, and it has always been so.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, does my noble friend not realise that nothing is to be gained by romantic prognostications? We must face the facts. One outstanding fact is that because Mr. Cledwyn Hughes has failed to meet with success and is blameless in the matter—for there must be few people who expected him to succeed knowing the circumstances and the people with whom he had to deal—a question has been posed today that the Government must answer and, if I may say so, which the Opposition must answer, for there are responsible people in the Opposition. As a result of this regrettable and almost melancholy Statement of non-success, will Rhodesia be left to its fate and to its ultimate destruction? Will that be the position? Has not the time come when we must forget the past and who is to blame, whether it be Mr. Smith or the National Front of Rhodesia? Is it not time to remind ourselves that a large number of people who came from the United Kingdom still reside in Rhodesia? We must recognise the facts. Are they to be sacrificed? Is no action at all to be taken? Reference has been made to referring the matter to the Security Council. We do not expect much from the Security Council, but let us try something. My noble friend spoke about retaining the initiative. I beg to him tell us exactly what he means by that.
Lord PEART: My Lords, my noble friend referred first to romantic prognostications. I am not as romantic as he is. All I can say is that the reality is that the advice given by a very distinguished ex-Minister and a Member of the Privy Council who is respected by all, is that in the present situation a conference would not succeed. However, as I have told the House, in this difficult situation we must still keep up the initiative and try to achieve a conference in which the Anglo-American proposals can be discussed. That will not be easy. I accept that there is a great danger here. I also recognise that many of the people of Rhodesia came from this country. We want peace and a peaceful settlement. I cannot say to my noble friend that I can now announce a specific policy which will create a new situation in Rhodesia. It is an extremely difficult situation. As I have said, we must continue the initiative because we want a conference and we

977
want the proposals of the United States and of this country discussed in a peaceful situation.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, can the noble Lord say in what fundamental way the Anglo-American proposals differ from those which the transitional Government in Salisbury is trying to carry out and has announced? If, as I think, there are no fundamental differences, to give the impression of doing nothing, as his noble friend has just said, can only encourage those who think that by doing nothing we are backing away from what we believe. That can only escalate the possibility of fighting and death, such as has been mentioned by my noble friend.
Lord PEART: My Lords, we do not shrink from our proposals. We want to back those proposals which were discussed in this House and the other place too. We believe that these proposals form the basis of what could be a successful conference and discussion, and a move towards a situation in Rhodesia when people can again live in peace.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the basic difference between the plan of the transitional Government and the Anglo-American plan is that, whereas the transitional Government has issued a constitution allowing 5 per cent. of the population to have 28 per cent. of the members of Parliament and 25 per cent. of a new Government, the Anglo-American plan was designed to provide for genuine one man, one vote and a full democratic system electing a democratic government?
Lord PEART: Yes, my Lords, I accept that. That is our position. That is the policy of the Government.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what consideration has been given to the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, in the sanctions debate last November that a time limit should be put on the present system of trying to find a solution? He suggested four to five months then, if I am not misquoting him, and proposed that if no progress was made with the Patriotic
978
Front other steps should be taken by Her Majesty's Government.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am aware of the views of the noble Lord, Lord Home, who is a former Foreign Secretary, and I have noted them carefully. There may be a situation in which we need to have a time limit, but we do not accept that at this moment. We adhere to the Anglo-American proposals, and we believe that the initiative should still come from us in that respect.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, may I, in view of the present circumstances, ask the noble Lord what state we have to reach before the Government do consider a time limit?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I could not answer that: I think one should put that question to those who believe that there should be a time limit. We have not accepted that. We believe that we should still press ahead with our proposals.
Lord KINNAIRD: My Lords, I asked how far we should have to go before the Government can move. Mr. Smith puts up suggestions to the Government and the Foreign Minister turns them down; Lord Home puts up suggestions and the Government do not listen. All the Government say is that they must get to a certain pitch before they will consider it, but what pitch do they want to get to?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not think that one should say that the Government would not listen to proposals of that kind. We have considered every speech that there has been in these debates. The points of view that have been raised are taken note of closely by the Government Ministers. I can assure the noble Lord that he is very unfair on this. In any case, I cannot give a date, or anything like that, otherwise I should be indulging in hypothesis.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has repeatedly said in answer to questions from both sides of the House that the Government must retain the initiative. What initiative? This is what we want to know. All that has happened is that the Government in this Statement have said they are not going to have a

979
conference, they are just hoping for the best. What is their policy?
Lord PEART: My Lords, they have not said that. They have said that the Government still believe the best hope of success is to have a successful conference based on our policy, and we will continue to press this. If the noble Lord, who has a lot of experience, can tell me something different, I will take note of it, but I believe that it is right that we must keep the initiative going.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, is not the reality of this situation that we have two sets of forces busy building up armies ready for invasion? The time will come when these two leaders will think the time is ripe for invasion. Surely that must be recognised. Surely time is not on the side of the Government. They have no time to waste on this, and they must find an initiative as a matter of urgency.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I accept that we must keep up the initiative. We recognise that. What other proposals are there now? The Anglo-American proposals are the best aims that we can achieve, and I am certain that if we keep it up we can probably get a successful conference. We must aim for that. Other factors on defence have been mentioned, and these are other matters of which the Government are well aware.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is it not a fact that Mr. Smith himself in a recent speech at Umtali said that a military situation has now got to be faced in which the war could not be won? That is what he means. If it cannot be won by military force there is only one thing left open to him, and that is to talk. He will not talk, and he is not in a position to fight, so therefore there is an inevitability about this. Either Britain uses troops, which is out of the question, or we accept that we have a very limited field of action, and that is in conjunction with our American friends. That is the only course that can be pursued, and the Government are quite right not to be led into a definition here that can only lead to false promises. There is nothing that can be done, and the Opposition know perfectly well that Mr. Smith entered into a course of action
980
and has lost, and the only thing he can do now is to talk.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful for what my noble friend has said. I think the Opposition should be very careful in what they say in criticism of what I have said already. We have an important debate now. I shall certainly take note very carefully of some of the points that have been made and I shall, I hope, write.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, can the noble Lord be a little more helpful than that? My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition put forward a concrete suggestion about a contact group. Cannot the noble Lord at least reply to that?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am very sorry that I did not reply to that. I think it was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. Looking at it now immediately I think that that could be a very positive suggestion in the best sense, and I shall certainly inform the Foreign Secretary and my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. That will be taken up. That is a very positive suggestion.

INDUSTRIAL RECOVERY
3.57 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, may I, like my noble friend, start my speech by congratulating the noble Baroness on her promotion (I am sure it is right to call it that) and say what pleasure I am sure it gives to the whole House as well as to her. May I also, before I come to the substance of my speech, ask for the indulgence of the House for the fact that I am afraid that I shall have to leave the House for a short time in the early evening because of an important engagement to which I became committed long before I knew about the date of this debate. I shall be away for as short a time as possible. In view of the number of speakers, I shall be back in plenty of time to hear a further considerable part of the debate.

981
I am sure your Lordships would wish me to thank and congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for raising this debate today, for choosing this particular subject. It is another in the series of debates which we have had over the last two years which have dealt with the fundamental aspects of our industrial problems. I am afraid I am going to bring your Lordships back rather nearer to 1979. I found the chronicler of 1990 not only encouraging but interesting, and I think we should take seriously what the noble Viscount put into his chronicler's mouth, because I believe that the sort of improvements which he envisaged are indeed achievable in this country if we go about things in the right way. On the whole I agree with what my noble friend outlined as the right way.
I am not going to be a Jeremiah, because although there is gloom I am sure there is a road ahead open to us. Inflation is undoubtedly Public Enemy No. 1. Unless we can reduce our inflation rate at least to the levels in the other major industrial countries which are our competitors, and keep it down to those levels, we shall not be successful in solving our unemployment problems or in raising the standard of the quality of life in this country. Our decline relative to others will continue.
There are two ways of tackling inflation successfully. One is by restraining the demands for goods and services; but the other is by increasing the output of goods and services. Both of these methods may have to be used, first one and then the other, and it is not paradoxical even to use both together in different measure. But in recent years we in Britain have found it necessary to concentrate almost entirely on the weapon of restraint to control and bring down inflation. This cannot go on indefinitely without our industrial strength relative to that of other countries declining even further and faster. It is increasingly, indeed now desperately, urgent to act also on the output side of the equation and to stimulate productivity—to stimulate production without productivity is no good—and to remove, in the words of the Motion—
"conditions unfavourable to the creation of wealth and the recovery of British industry".
There are many aspects to this problem, taxation and many others which my noble
982
friend mentioned and there are others which he did not have time to mention. I want to concentrate entirely on just one field which is painfully topical at the moment; namely, the urgent need to establish in this country the necessary conditions for responsible collective bargaining in industry.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, that a decade and more of Government imposed incomes policies, and the measures which successive Governments have felt compelled to take to try to make those incomes policies acceptable or enforceable, has been one of the main causes of the present industrial stagnation and decline. I want to see them removed. The side effects of imposed incomes policies seem intolerable, but as we are finding again now, the results of present-day British-style free collective bargaining are even more intolerable. Indeed, they are totally insupportable. We must have again in this country, as they do in other countries, responsible collective bargaining within, in the modern world, the context of a broad agreement on an achievable level of incomes increases. That is what we must have, instead of the imposed, rigid incomes policies.
However, it is impossible to have responsible collective bargaining if unions start the bargaining process by putting in claims of 20 per cent., 30 per cent., 40 per cent., and even 50 per cent., when everybody knows quite well that if increases were to average more than 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. inflation would go rocketing up once again. It is impossible to have responsible collective bargaining if unions lack the will or ability, or both, to honour the agreements they make. More than 90 per cent. of all the strikes in this country are unofficial, or at least start as unofficial strikes—that is, in breach of union rules or advice—and the great majority of those are also in direct breach of some aspects of agreements which the unions have entered into.
It is impossible to have responsible collective bargaining if employers have to negotiate a new agreement under threat of strike action even before the existing agreement has run out. Look at the example of Fords, where an unofficial strike took place instantly, before negotiations had a chance to proceed and while a current agreement was still running, and

983
directly in breach of that agreement. Yet what did the union do? They did not try to restrain their members from unofficial action in breach of an agreement; they immediately made the strike official. We cannot have responsible collective bargaining if that sort of thing happens.
Nor can we have responsible collective bargaining if strike action can be used without liability to those taking it, not just against the firm or industry in dispute but against the economy and the community as a whole, as we see in some areas now. We cannot have responsible collective bargaining if unions and strikers are protected against any liability for their actions, unless they are actually criminal acts, particularly when one realises that in this country, and only in this country, such protection not only covers the official action of recognised, certified unions but covers the actions of any informal group of workers of any kind. It is impossible to have responsible collective bargaining if unions receive all this protection not only in disputes with employers but in disputes with each other, as we see in the railway tragedy at the moment.
In short, we cannot have responsible collective bargaining unless, at last, we fairly and squarely face up to the question of union power in this country. It is not the only need—I wish to emphasise that—but it is an absolutely essential one. The Labour Government became convinced of that in 1968; hence their proposals in their White Paper In Place of Strife. The Conservative Govenment were equally convinced of it in 1970; hence the Industrial Relations Act. The present Labour Government hid their heads in the sand and pretended the problem had gone away or would soon disappear. We see it has not, and it is clear that the problem must now be faced. Whether and to what extent it has to be faced by law is a question of its own kind to which I shall return shortly, but it is clearly a problem we must face, and it is clear that we in this country must establish rules—whether or not laid down in law or voluntarily agreed and voluntarily supported by drawing up, for example, codes of practice—and they must be in position, as a matter of urgency, with the
984
full support of unions, employers and Parliament behind them.
We must have rules, for example, under which unions bind themselves to use every best endeavour to honour the terms of the collective agreements they make. This means unions being more prepared to exercise their own rule books—not anybody else's law but their own rule books—in discipling their members who fail to honour their own union agreements. Unions are not slow to throw their rule books at those of their members who refuse to take strike action when strike action is properly ordered, and that is right. But too often they are very slow indeed to use their rule books against members who disobey the union in striking when they should not strike and when it is in breach of union agreements and rules to do so. We must ask unions voluntarily to use their own proper disciplinary powers within their constitutions and rule books. They cannot always succeed, but a little determination and leadership, if we are talking about a voluntary society, would work wonders and is absolutely essential.
We must have rules under which no major strike can be called without a secret ballot; rules under which secondary boycotts and strikes against industries and firms not directly involved in a dispute are at least strictly limited, if not altogether forbidden. We must have rules under which picketing has to be conducted peacefully by a reasonable number of people who are directly concerned with a dispute and in areas and localities which are directly the seats of a dispute, and not over the country at large. We must have rules under which exceptions, exemptions and privileges granted in relation to an industrial dispute are limited to recognised, certified unions, and cannot be enjoyed any more by any ad hoc unofficial group of employees, whether union members or not.
We must have rules under which orderly negotiated procedures are established for dealing with the multi-union situation which exists in so many British companies and industries. It would be nice if we could get to the West German situation of having one union for each major industry, but it is pie in the sky to imagine that we can. However, we can develop model rules by which we can at least regulate

985
collective bargaining in a multi-union situation in a reasonably structured and orderly manner; and we must have rules for doing so.
We must have rules under which unions themselves accept a significant part of the financial burden of supporting the wives and families of strikers. In other words, unions must much more widely get back to the good, traditional purpose—which was an original purpose of trade unionism—of paying adequate strike pay to their members on strike. Nobody wants to see families of strikers starving, but it is no longer tolerable to the majority of people in this country that the rest of the community should shoulder the whole financial burden of maintaining the wives and families of strikers—maintaining them by the taxes of many people who are receiving less income than that which the strikers are on strike for refusing. Strike pay must be more generous and more generally available from the unions when their members are on strike.
We must have rules under which union shops can be established with reasonable protection for the minority who strongly object to joining a union. The Greater London Council has in the past few days shown us an example of what is possible in that respect: reasonable protection of liberty with reasonable security of representation for the union which they are prepared to accept. We must have rules, too, under which the arbitration and conciliation services are as available to employers as they are to unions, and on equal and fair terms to both.
These are just major areas in which we must establish working rules in this country. In every other major industrial country rules of these kind are an integral and natural part of the industrial scene; not of course always working perfectly, because we do not live in a perfect world, but obviously being a powerful, essential factor in creating that degree of responsibility in collective bargaining which makes unnecessary the detailed incomes policies imposed by Government which we have now suffered more or less continuously for well over a decade in this country——
Lord BROWN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a question? I have much sympathy for what he is saying, but he keeps on using the word "rules". Docs he really mean legislation?
Lord CARR of HADLEY: I am just about to come to that point, my Lords. If we want responsible collective bargaining in Britain, and if we want to get rid of the restrictive and damaging effects of our incomes policies, we must ourselves establish and practice sets of rules similar to those operating in other countries. In other countries—and here I come directly to the noble Lord's point—these rules are defined in law and are supported by the law. In Britain the unions, at least so far, have refused to recognise or respect such a framework of law. They refuse to accept it either from a Labour Government or from a Conservative Government. This being so, I believe that we have a right to ask the unions themselves now to come forward with their own solutions to these problems — problems which stare us all in the face and which do as much damage to the millions of trade union members as they do to the rest of the community. If the unions can take the initiative, in cooperation of course with employers and Government, in coming forward with a voluntary system of model rules, codes of practice—call them what you like—which are clear, comprehensive, and relevant, and which they themselves will back with all their power and influence, it will be so much the better for the whole of this country.
I am convinced that such a voluntarily agreed system of self-regulation would be much more in line with the British tradition and would indeed be preferable to law. I do not resile in any way from my conviction that the need to introduce laws in 1968, 1969 and 1970 was inevitable. I believe that it became inevitable. I became convinced of that with great regret; but I am sure that it was necessary. It was rejected, but perhaps in its imposition and in its rejection we all, including the trade unions, may have learnt something. So they now have a chance to come forward with voluntarily established, self-regulating rules and machinery. But we must act as a matter of urgency to establish such a system of rules governing the conduct of collective bargaining and the management of industrial disputes. I believe that with determination and good will it will be possible to deal on such a voluntary basis, without law, with most of the essential subjects that I have listed.

987
However, there are, I believe, certainly three areas in which legislation is necessary—and urgently necessary. First, there must be a change in the statutory definition of the terms of reference of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS); and that change—and it can only be made by Statute—is necessary in order to give access to their services on fair terms to employers, equivalent to the access available to unions. That is one area.
The second area where legislation is necessary is that to limit secondary boycotts and to restrict the great legal exemptions and the protection for industrial disputes to break contracts of employment, and to reverse what has in practice proved to be their disastrous extension to action to bring about the breach of commercial contracts at large. Many of us feared that it would be disastrous, and I think that it is now clearly seen that it is. The third area in which I believe we must have legislation is that in which the legal privileges and immunities are restricted to unions which are certified unions, and we should not any longer extend these immunities or privileges to any unofficial or ad hoc group of employees, however temporary or however small. This really should be a proposition on which the great majority of all parties could agree.
The Donovan Royal Commission unanimously recommended that compulsory registration of unions should take place and that the approval of their rules should be a condition of registration. I repeat that that was a unanimous recommendation of the Donovan Commission, which means to say that it had the support of the trade union members of the commission, who included the then General Secretary of the TUC, Mr. George Woodcock. So it was no employers' ramp, nor an academic ramp, nor a Tory ramp. It was a unanimous recommendation of the commission which included leading trade unionists. It followed directly from that that the Donovan Commission recommended that special privileges and legal immunities should be enjoyed only by properly registered or, as we now say, certified unions. I believe that that is the third essential measure of legislation. Apart from that, I believe that with goodwill and determination,
988
learning from our lessons, we could mostly establish the system of rules that we need on a voluntary basis. I believe that that is how we should try to do it.
Finally, we must look at the problem of union power firmly, but also calmly. We must keep it in perspective. Do not let us forget that we need strong unions. We do not want weak ones. The real problem in Britain is not so much the actual strength of union power, but the way in which it is used. There is also a great problem in Britain in the balance of power within the unions. The constitutional power of our British unions tends to be too weak, and the unofficial power within them too strong. Unions in other countries also have great power, but in other countries the power of the unions is made much more accountable both to the community as a whole and to the unions' own members. This surely is what all of us ought to want to achieve in Britain as well.
So I beg the leaders of the trade union movement to think hard and honestly about these problems. I beg them to look overseas and to see that unions in other countries, which have accepted the kind of regulation that I have described have been more able to win better pay and conditions and greater influence for their membership than have the unions in this country. I beg them also to realise that, in the end, the unions' own objectives and ideals can be won in a free society only if they can obtain the confidence and the support of the country as a whole.
My Lords, they are losing that confidence and support woefully: not just in this week or so of crisis, but they have been losing it steadily and damagingly for the last decade at least. If they want to achieve their own ideals, most of which are fine ones, then they must turn out from themselves, stop looking inward and start looking outward, to the wishes, the desires, the interests and the aspirations of all the people of this country; and I believe it is the job of Parliament to give an all-Party lead to the union leaders to act in the way I have suggested.
4.20 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join in congratulating the noble Baroness on her new appointment—this is the second time

989
I seem to have done this in two days—and also to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for having introduced this debate, which clearly could not have come at a time more critical than the present for British industry. Indeed, in my view the immediate situation is so serious as to make it no exaggeration to say that in some cases it is no longer a question of industry's recovery but of its very survival; and part of what I have to say will, therefore, relate to the present crisis.
I agree with Lord Trenchard that in recent years there has been too much industrial legislation; that, particularly at the level where power in industry resides, which is not at the centre, the balance has been allowed to swing too far in favour of trade unions and against employers; that management have to spend too much time in fire-fighting; and that they are too heavily taxed. But in my view the question that really matters is not whether these things should be put right but how in practice they can be. I should love to be as cheerful as Lord Trenchard's chronicler, and if I am not it is simply because, as a realist, I have to look at the situation as it is and not look back on it from a position 10 years on in an optimistic way.
For my part, I have become more and more convinced that the economic and industrial problems which we face are now so complex, deep-seated and intractable, and the measures needed to solve them are likely to provoke so much controversy and prove so painful in their application, that neither of the major political Parties will be able to implement them on its own, more especially under the self-imposed handicaps of our present, unrepresentative electoral system. It was, I think, Sir Alastair Pilkington who, in a letter to The Times a year or two ago, wrote that a dictum which in recent years has proved most damaging to industry is that which says that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose. It is nothing of the kind. Just as often, surely, in the national interest, it should, on the merits of the particular case, be to support. I believe that our system of adversarial politics, which may have been appropriate to this country's economic and industrial situation up to, say, 50 years ago, is in our present conflict-ridden but interdependent society
990
simply no longer tolerable. That is why I was strongly in favour of the Lib-Lab pact and why, under a more representative electoral system, I for my part would be just as happy to work with a Conservative Government as with a Labour one.
A major reason why there is need for agreed policies in the industrial field is that the time-span over which industry now has to plan ahead is considerably longer than the expectation of life of a single Government. It is deplorable that in recent years the policies of the Government of the day have often proved so completely unacceptable to the Opposition that they have been reversed within only a few years; and it is industry which is then left to pick up the pieces. The process looks like being repeated as a result of what the Prime Minister had to say only yesterday on the strengthening of price controls, and here I can only agree with what the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, said: If those proposals are implemented, then in my view they are bound to put even more people out of work.
Until agreement is reached among the Government, both sides of industry (not just one) and the political Parties as to how to conquer inflation—and here I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carr, in regarding inflation as still being Public Enemy No. 1—I do no see how large-scale industry is going to be able to plan five, 10 and even more years ahead, as nowadays it has to; nor do I see how, as a nation, we are going to remain solvent. In the end, unless we are gradually to sink into the position of a third-rate Power, I believe that international competition will dictate that the decisions to be taken affecting British industry, whether or not it is nationalised, will have to be based on long-term commercial considerations and not on short-term political ones. In my view, the support of elements, at least, of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Parties will be needed to implement those decisions, and particularly to solve what I believe is now our greatest national problem—how to get away from this concept of "us" and "them" and unite for the common purpose of creating more wealth, instead of continuing to spend so much of our time in squandering our resources by squabbling over how such diminishing wealth as we possess is to be distributed. Clearly at the present time a coalition Government is not practical

991
politics. It may come to that sooner than we now think; but, if so, I fear it will be after experiences even more hurtful than those that we are now having to endure.
Meanwhile, in tackling our most pressing industrial problems there is need, in my view, to mark out and to build on as much common ground as can be found. The most immediate of these problems is clearly that of pay determination; and here I have to say that I differ from the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, as he well knows, in that I believe there is need for an effective national incomes policy in both the short and the long term, for the reasons that he has given. I concede that in an ideal world we would not have incomes policies and that the effect of those we have had in recent years has been to compress too far differentials for responsibility and for skill, although, in my view, if we were to live more within our means and if direct taxation at the higher levels were to be reduced and replaced by higher taxes on the consumption of certain items, this would go a long way towards remedying that particular deficiency.
But, my Lords, we have to deal with the situation as we find it and not as we think that, one day, it ought to be; and the fact is that we have an immediate and extremely serious pay problem to deal with in the next few weeks, and this will not wait for longer-term solutions. So if the crunch comes and we all have to choose between what might well be the two extremes of, on the other hand, an uncontrolled free-for-all and consequently sharply increased inflation or, on the other hand, say, a statutory pay freeze of the kind advocated in the current issue of the Economist, then, however regretfully, I shall have to plump for statutory limitation as the lesser of two evils.
For the longer term, I believe there is a need for agreed procedures for determining the general level of wage and salary increases and I believe that within the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Parties there are already the elements of a political consensus on at least two specific propositions concerning such a policy which may already be present. The first is that the Government, after consultation with the TUC, the CBI and other interested parties, should form a judgment
992
as to the amount the nation can afford by way of increases in pay and—and I acknowledge this to be somewhat more controversial—that that conclusion should receive Parliamentary endorsement. Secondly, the pay of people employed in certain key occupations which are essential to the immediate support of life should be determined not as at present by a number of different bodies that have been set up on an ad hoc basis from time to time in response to particular pressures but by a single, independent and permanently-constituted body in which all parties repose confidence.
There are other complex problems that somehow we must solve between us. The most immediate of these, as I see them, is that of secondary picketing. In my view, if, within a few days, the Transport and General Workers Union proves unable to curb this or the voluntarily agreed code of practice proposed yesterday by the Prime Minister does not prove effective, then legislation will have to be passed immediately to ensure not only that essential food and medical supplies get through but that industry is not literally strangled. Then there is the pressing need to which I have drawn attention on several occasions in this House—and this was the burden of much of what the noble Lord, Lord Carr, has had to say this afternoon—for industrial disputes concerning agreements that have already been entered into to be settled by arbitration instead of industrial action. Incidentally, I understand that the current rail strikes are in breach of an agreement which does not expire for another two or three months.
There are other problems and, since the noble Lord, Lord Carr, developed these at some length, I will do no more than touch on them to indicate in general my support for his contention that they need to be looked at as problems: the recognition of trade unions, the operation of the closed shop and of secret ballots, cases of unfair dismissal and the immunity of trade unions from damages for inducing breaches of contract by people not directly involved in disputes. Then there is the vexed question of social security payments made to those on strike—or, indeed, who are unemployed—together with the taxation of those benefits; and there is the vast problem of the extent to

993
which certain parts of British industry, for example, steel, shipbuilding and volume car production, need to be restructured with consequent loss of jobs, at least in the short term, and perhaps in areas where there is already heavy unemployment so as to improve productivity and so that we lose no more ground to our international competitors. It may be possible—and to the extent that it is I would heartily support this, as, obviously, would the noble Lord, Lord Carr—for a few of these problems to be dealt with by means of agreed codes of practice. But, in my view, they all call for dispassionate review; and, to return to my basic theme I do not see how the changes that may need to be made as a result of such a review are going to be implemented except on a generally agreed basis.
Here I should like to join with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the noble Lord, Lord Carr, in pleading with the trade unions to come in and do their share. It cannot be done without them and I join in begging them to do it for the sake of our country. Above all, if British industry is to recover, we have got to find ways in which society at large can gain and, particularly, in which management and employee representatives can share an understanding that in the long run we cannot take out of the national kitty more than we put into it and that if we continue to spend more in the form of wages and salaries than we earn there will have to be corresponding increases in prices, in reductions of investment or jobs or some combination of all these things.
I have one suggestion of a positive kind to offer. Has not the time come for some new and imaginative initiative under which the Government would consult with the TUC and the CBI with a view to setting up a new forum, a kind of national industrial staff college, if you like, at which activities would take place, sponsored jointly by employers and trade unions, and aimed at fulfilling what is the basic purpose of industry—the efficient production of goods and services for the benefit of the whole community? My Lords, I end where I began. I believe that British industry will recover only when the major political and industrial organisations which have a stake in its success are prepared to work together in helping to solve our problems.
4.37 p.m.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, you will be grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for having raised this very important subject here today and also for the very temperate way in which he made his case. It is true that those of us who were privileged to read his feature in the Daily Telegraph last Monday had a preview of the noble Viscount's remarks so that one was able to get a rough idea of the general theme he was going to adopt. I also appreciate—as I am sure did your Lordships—the remarks that fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, who, characteristically, did not do anything to add fuel to any fires anywhere. I thought that the spirit of compromise that animated what he had to say was possibly the best thing that he could impart in the present rather delicate circumstances.
The conditions for the creation of wealth in this realm and for the recovery of British industry have been the subject of detailed and repeated discussion in this House and in another place to my certain knowledge ever since the end of the war. I, myself, have had the opportunity in another place of taking part in them. Recovery, of course, is the key word. At 1945 prices, we suffered approximately £7,100-million of damage in the struggle from which we had then emerged; and the prime task of the Labour Government of 1945–50 which I had the honour of supporting was to assume as their first priority the reconstitution of the country's capital equipment in terms of factories, warehouses, hospitals, schools, plant and machinery and so on. That Government knew when they did this—and in order to do it because of the ending of "lend-lease" immediately after the end of the war and the terms of the American loan—that there would be a considerable shortage of key supplies in practically all fields. If this country was to reconstruct its industries and rebuild its plant, there had to be a sacrifice by all the citizens of the country. For that reason, for those five years—and this will be in the recollection of many of my colleagues—we had to restrict severely the growth of consumer production in this country. Through a partial continuation of rationing we had for five years to limit very much the ordinary standard of life of our people. It was necessary to do this. No less than

995
20 per cent. of the gross domestic product of the United Kingdom during those years went into restoring our capital equipment.
I was one of those—and I am on the record 30 years ago—who said that we should have done that for at least another five years—I repeat, for at least another five years. But towards 1950, when the General Election was called, there was a deliberate effort to break that national self-discipline. Sneering references in the popular Press were echoed by the then Conservative politicians referring to austerity credits as though the Government of that day were deliberately holding down the standards of life of the people for perverse political reasons. The leaders in that campaign, oddly enough, were the Road Haulage Association who at that time were busily financing the Housewives' League whose business it was, on their own propaganda, to go round and get people to grumble more and more in the shops and say that we ought to have more supplies from overseas.
In other words, once again in succession to the appeal which was made in the war and to which the nation as a whole so warmly responded with a dedicated and disciplined self-service, the smart boys who were after making a quick dollar or so began with the coming of the peace to try to break down that discipline by an appeal to naked self-interest—from which none of us is immune—by inducing us to believe that it was no longer necessary. We were induced to believe that we could let all discipline go, that we could again resume, albeit on a different plane, the ordinary free enterprise activity that had been carried on before, with the weakest going to the wall, the devil taking the hindermost, and a free-for-all. This is indeed exactly what happened. There followed the bonanza years where the ordinary standard of life went up very considerably.
However, one thing sank, and that was industrial investment in the United Kingdom. From that time onwards investment in plant and machinery in the United Kingdom was far lower, some 30 per cent. lower, than that in the Federal Republic of Germany expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product, and nearly 40 per
996
cent. below that in France, also expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product.
This country has never recovered from that failure to invest. It has continued throughout the years since that time. It has even continued under successive Governments. Your Lordships will recall the somewhat agonised observations by the former Prime Minister, Mr. Edward Heath, when he addressed the Directors' Club in August 1972. He told them, "The Conservative Government have given you all you wanted. Credit has been derestricted". Indeed, as we well know, the monetary supply went up by 28·7 per cent., something which some Conservative Peers might care to remember when they talk about the restriction of the money supply. Also, Mr. Heath introduced the 100 per cent. depreciation rule in the first year—in other words, all capital equipment of a plant and machinery nature could be claimed for taxation purposes in the year in which the expenditure was in fact incurred. Every conceivable inducement was offered by the Conservative Government of that day, yet Mr. Heath had to complain to the Directors' Club that British industrialists had not responded, and so it continues.
There have been many arguments advanced—the noble Viscount, Lord Watkinson, has alluded to them from time to time. For him, it is a matter of the awful taxation burden which corporations endure at the present time which deprives them of all incentive. I observe that that was not mentioned over-much today. One noble Lord touched upon it, but I observe that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, did not emphasise the point overmuch. He much preferred to deal with the trade union aspect of the matter, to which I shall return presently. No doubt, the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, will refer to the taxation position when he addresses the House; but I warn him in advance that they have been rumbled on this matter. The theory that corporations are paying anything like a tax of some 52 per cent. on their profits is a complete illusion. Owing to the first year allowances being taken out of profits during the year in which they were incurred and, above all, owing to the stock appreciation allowance which, to my regret, the Chancellor of the Exchequer brought in a few years back,

997
taxation on companies is now running at something under 27 per cent. rather than the 50 per cent. which was originally legislated for. So they would do well to let the taxation position on companies go undisturbed.
The burden of taxation on individuals in this country ought to be relieved at all levels—not at the expense of public expenditure but to restore it to where it in fact belongs—to the corporations themselves, which are paying far less corporate taxes as such than in practically any other country in Europe. The yield from those taxes at the moment is running under the total yield of our tobacco tax in this country.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, would the noble Lord dispute the figure that I gave of approximately a 4 per cent. return—in real terms—on capital before tax? Twenty-seven per cent. off the tax still leaves a pretty horrible return.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am not in a position to comment on the noble Viscount's figure. All I can say is that, expressed in terms of current monetary values and as a percentage of capital employed in the business, anything between 15 per cent. and 27 per cent. is gained at the present time, as against 19 per cent. about five years ago.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, my figures came from the Bank of England reviews and the Government Blue Book.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I shall not dispute what the noble Viscount said on the matter at all. In discussing the recovery of British industry and establishing the conditions for the creation of wealth, we have to stop institutionalising the problem. Production is essentially a social activity involving the activities of living individuals. It is all very well for people from their board rooms to refer, as indeed did the noble Viscount in his article, to a readily available supply of labour—this vast amorphous mass of available labour—to create wealth. I am reminded of the conditions before the war in the East End of London. I used to go round the streets and see notices on the factories saying "Hands wanted". That is all they wanted—they wanted hands, they did not want the brains,
998
the personalities or the initiative. They did not want people, they merely wanted hands. This is exactly what it is getting like today, when people discuss a requirement for labour—" a ready supply of labour", as he put it in his article. He should remember that he is discussing people: people who have aspirations—
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am terribly sorry but I did not talk about "a ready supply of labour" either in my article or today. What I have said is that unemployment would be cured very much more quickly if we concentrated on the policies I have outlined.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I must correct the noble Viscount by quoting from his article where he says:
"Today, however, there seems to be a growing consensus that if the nation is to regain its prosperity it can only be by a return to the market economy where the successful get large rewards, even a killing, and are thus able to invest and attract the labour they want".
That is the point I was making. People who work in the factories and in the various institutions in our country, whether in commerce, trade or the professions, are living individuals, with aspirations like anybody else. They are just not to be classed as an amorphous mass of labour.
I somehow think we shall never really solve our problems in this country, or in any other country for that matter, until we begin to regard ourselves as individuals and to regard other people as individuals too. It is all very well for people who are working from 9 till 6 or possibly longer than that to order their lives, as they are entitled to do, in the way they wish; but for the ordinary working of our economy at the present time there are thousands, nay millions, of people who are not working in occupations which are agreeable to them either intellectually or physically. There are a very large number of people working under conditions of danger. Some people, particularly those who have tasks that are agreeable to them—which I think goes for the majority of directors, managing directors and possibly professional people and others—seem to be under the impression that work is an agreeable occupation to everybody. You ask a driver who is hurtling down the M1 in a 32-tonner for five or six days a week whether he finds it agreeable. Ask his

999
wife whether she likes him having to work overtime for four or five hours a day or 10 or 12 hours a week, and would like him to be at home. Ask her what she thinks about work.
We have to approach this matter on a far more human basis than that. We are all prone to do it. Unless we are milkmen we take the delivery of milk for granted; unless we are postmen we take the delivery of the post for granted; and unless we are lorry drivers we tend to take the delivery of petrol to petrol stations for granted. It is when we are inconvenienced that we suddenly appreciate how inter-connected we all are in every way in our economy, and how all our endeavours are knitted together one with the other all the way through, so that if something happens on one side it is bound to affect the rest.
Therefore our task is not to institutionalise the problem by accusation and counter-accusation, but to seek means by which it becomes possible for us to work together far more harmoniously than we have been able to do in the past. This means we have to have a change in the social climate. If you have a social climate in which all the media, whether it be broadcasting or newspapers, are emphasising the virtues of acquiring material things and the vital necessity of acquiring more and more material possessions in competition with everybody else, if you get a climate of opinion in which everybody is deliberately encouraged to be selfish for their own advancement, how then can you complain that society and production do not operate with the co-operative effort that is required?
The noble Viscount made reference in his article, and has made reference this afternoon, to the position in Germany: "Mitbestimmung". I come to his point about the trade unions. Of course it is vital that there should be co-operation between the trade unions and the employers—and it is much more important, incidentally, that there is a feeling of amity at floor level and factory level between those who are working there and those whose task it is to supervise and direct them. That is also important.
I take the noble Viscount's point and I agree with it: this is why public relations
1000
are far better in Germany with Mitbestimmung, because in German factories there is a far different atmosphere than there is in some factories over here, though I am not referring to all of them. In the German factory every worker has his status. If he is a floor sweeper and his name is Schmidt, he is "Herr Schmidt" and he has his status. Everybody has his dignity and there is good working together because one side does not treat the other side as social inferiors.
One of the curses of our industrial relationships in this country and one of the reasons why there is so much mutual suspicion today, not throughout the whole of industry but in certain parts, is the social class attitude that is still rampant right through industry whereby the worker, by reason of being a worker, is automatically assumed to be some kind of social inferior. This is in fact so and there is no point in denying it. The Germans have succeeded in largely overcoming this, and that is one reason for their continuing success. The other reason is that perhaps we have worshipped bigness too much. Factories on the Continent, in Germany and France, are now progressively seeing the advantages of working in small units where the management can identify itself with at most 200 or 250 workers, whom they all know. They can dine together with them in the same mess and can establish a friendly relationship.
These are the things towards which we have to work in this country. They cannot be done by legislation or even by rules; and the attacks on the trade union movement that have been made in this country over the last fortnight are scandalous, because when you come to consider the whole trade union history throughout the free world, if there is one trade union movement which has behaved with the utmost responsibility since the end of the war, it is the British trade union movement. It has behaved with the utmost responsibility and the utmost moderation, and those who denounce it would do well to appreciate that.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lord, I wonder whether the noble Lord would permit me to intervene? I have been trying with some difficulty to follow his speech, but I gather he is making a

1001
plea for co-operation. Would he like to tell the House how he thinks this speech of his will advance that cause?
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I sincerely hope so. We are a democracy in this country and, as I understand it, a democracy always flourishes where there are honest exchanges of opinion, because even where there are differences—and I claim no monopoly of wisdom—at least there can be advance. I have always found that opinions honestly expressed, provided they are expressed with sincerity, do not cause any offence to anybody of a right way of thinking or to those who think to the contrary.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that it should also be well-informed opinion, as well as being honest?
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: Yes, my Lords. I entirely agree with the noble Lord. Personally, I tend to regard as reasonable anybody who agrees with me, and I expect that the noble Lord regards others in exactly the same way. I have not before been challenged concerning the data which I have at my disposal, but I can assure the noble Lord that if I am challenged I will most speedily produce any kind of facts that are required to verify what I have said.
The problems that we are discussing are made all the more important by one factor upon which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, did not touch; that is, the development of computerisation in projects over the next 20 years. That will hit the economy like a bomb, will require far less expenditure in terms of manhours over the next 20 years and will undoubtedly present not only trade unions but also management with very considerable problems. For that reason, we should take a new look, not at the question of rules or at changes in the laws, but at helping in the creation of a climate of opinion where a more co-operative attitude may be shown by all concerned.
5.1 p.m.
Lord ERROLL of HALE: My Lords, may I add my thanks to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for introducing such an
1002
interesting and wide-ranging debate, and also congratulate him on the rather original technique of recounting what a prophet might well write today about what could be said of us in 1990—an original and imaginative way to introduce a very complex topic for our debate. Also, I should like to apologise to noble Lords. I had, of course, intended to stay until the end of the debate, but owing to the rail strike tomorrow I shall have to leave shortly in order to fulfil an engagement, which otherwise I could have managed more comfortably by train tomorrow.
In listening to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, I was fascinated that he should take us back to the 1945–50 Parliament, because he and I were both in the other place at that time, as indeed was my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter on my left. It was interesting to see that this forward-looking man, who was Member of Parliament for, I think, Portsmouth in those days, remembers that period so vividly and seems to have learned so little since. We heard him say all this to us 30-odd years ago—
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: He says it better now.
Lord ERROLL of HALE: Doubtless through constant repetition. Perhaps in going back to those days—and I did not come prepared to talk about the events of 30 years ago—the noble Lord might have mentioned Marshall Aid, which was of tremendous help to the Labour Government of the time. He might also remember that the British public were tired of those years of austerity, and very much wanted, for example, to have a little red meat. They wanted to have houses of their own. I shall gladly take an example which will be useful to me later in my speech, and the whole trouble with the then Labour Administration was that they thought that controls were the best way of doing things. Even though the right honourable Sir Harold Wilson, as the then President of the Board of Trade, made a bonfire of controls, so-called, they were less essential ones.
As an example, there was a control on buying sweets, which seems unthinkable now. But when the Conservative Administration removed the control on sweets, the consumption went down,

1003
because it was the old story of the minimum becoming the maximum and the maximum becoming the minimum. You took up your ration. It was almost a patriotic duty to eat your ration of sweets. As soon as they were no longer controlled, people said: "We need not buy our sweets". While, officially, there was no control on wines and spirits, there was an unofficial control exercised through the shops of a bottle per week per customer. As soon as supplies became more plentiful, the consumption went down, because everybody could have what they wanted. This is the great difference in approach between the Socialist attitude and the free enterprise attitude. Let people decide for themselves. Controls very rarely work out in the way they are expected to do.
I should now like to move on to the subject of this debate; namely, the question of wealth, and I shall link it to jobs. The present Government have repeatedly said—and it has been echoed today—that their most important priority is the control of inflation. But in actual fact, their other high priority is to try to save and create jobs. Job creation is a great preoccupation. They do not talk about wealth creation, but I suggest that in their efforts to create jobs they have forgotten that it is equally important to create wealth.
So often jobs are created without proper regard to whether the work which is done is wanted by the customers. We hear the word "democracy" used a great deal these days. I should like to suggest that we are a customer democracy, almost a customer dictatorship, because it is what the customer wants that decides in the end what shall be made. It is no good making things that people do not want, whether they be ships for oceans where there are far too many ships, or whether they be electric turbine generators which the Central Electricity Generating Board does not want to have, because the public do not want more electricity than they are at present using. So it is very important to look at it the other way around, and say that perhaps it is much more important to create wealth first, and from the additional wealth automatically will flow additional jobs, because the wealth will lead to people spending money and creating jobs for purposes which are really wanted, particularly in the service industries in many different parts of the country.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Does he agree that it is well worthwhile ordering a power station in advance, in order to maintain in being in industry wealth-creating teams which would otherwise disappear? Does he agree that this is a good policy in favour of maintaining the creation of wealth?
Lord ERROLL of HALE: Yes, my Lords; there is an element of truth in that. But, of course, the point is that there is no purpose in maintaining indefinitely excess capacity which will probably never be required again. The manufacture of steam railway locomotives has finally been disbanded, because nobody now wants them.
Lord BROWN: That was not my example.
Lord ERROLL of HALE: No, but I am choosing my example. After all, it is my speech. If anybody else wants to have it, he is welcome to it. I am nearly halfway through. I certainly agree that there should be an element of reserve capacity, but if we were to keep everything just as it was we should end up with a great deal of unusable industry, which would be a great burden on the rest of the community. There is no doubt that there has had to be a great shrinkage in the capacity for maintaining turbine generators, and it has not yet gone nearly far enough.
So we have to look at this question of wealth creation. This is a difficult concept for a Labour Government to swallow, because the word "wealth" has a certain connotation. It has the implication of people being rich and of wealthy corporations, but we in this House certainly know what we mean by "wealth". Wealth is a worthwhile thing to create and it produces a community of people who are prosperous. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, talked about feverish competition among the advertising media and so on, and acquiring more goods. But surely that is desirable, because, after all, as Adam Smith said, the object of production is consumption. The present Government have used a great deal of public money in bolstering up British Leyland. Yes, we should make motor cars and they provide jobs, but once a person buys a motor car, then, to most people in the Labour movement, he becomes rather sinful. He uses

1005
his car to go to work, when he should use public transport; and, worst of all, he uses his car for pleasure, which is a very sinful thing to do, particularly at week-ends, because it congests the seaside resorts.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. May I take it, then, that he is completely in agreement with the quite cynical efforts that have been made over the last 15 years to exploit the teenage market?
Lord ERROLL of HALE: My Lords, I see nothing cynical in making teenagers well-off, because the sooner they have a high standard of living the more determined they will be to maintain it when they are married and get on in the world. So I welcome a well-to-do teenage population. I should not like to go back to the pre-war days to which the noble Lord referred, when teenagers probably were exploited in some of the small factories, though not in the big ones where labour relations were much better. Accept, if you will, my noble friends, the concept that as a main objective we should create wealth. There are two main ways in which we can do this. One is the development of corporate wealth, The other is the development of personal wealth.
If I may refer first to corporate wealth and to the problems of companies, again the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, said that we should do well to be quiet on the subject of the taxation of companies. But he did not refer to the increasing burden of tax upon employers; namely, the increased contribution of employers through the National Insurance scheme which is now, particularly in the case of an industry which is labour intensive, a quite severe additional burden of taxation. I mention that in passing.
One of the factors which very much inhibits companies is the number of restrictions instead of freedom—the amount of time which has to be spent upon complying with Government regulations. Some of these may seem to be desirable—for instance, the health and safety at work regulations. However, the industrial tribunal legislation and the whole concept of the employee protection Act involves a very considerable additional burden on executives which detracts from
1006
their ability to get on with the main purpose of their life; namely, to increase the prosperity and the profits of their companies.
One of these institutions is particularly burdensome; I refer to the Price Commission. I understand the philosophy behind the Price Commission: that if one can keep down prices it will help to keep down inflation because the index will not go up so much. Therefore, the doctrine is to control prices. However, I should like to put it to noble Lords that I believe that prices would be lower than they are today if there had been no Price Commission. Nowadays we are so wedded to the idea of controls as the only way out of our difficulty that noble Lords may think it surprising that I should even venture to suggest that prices would be lower today without the Price Commission.
The reason for this is, once again, that the maximum becomes the minimum. One goes all out to get an increase whenever one can. Many a company will go and get an increase from the Price Commission, because it is able to do so under the rules, which it might not have bothered to go for if the market had been left to itself. Indeed, it is a matter of principle to go and get your price increase while you may in case you cannot get it later an. Nowadays, managers are not spending their time on considering how to obtain a better share of the market by reducing their prices. Instead, they are spending their time upon building up elaborate cases to put to the Price Commission so as to get their price increases. If one company does it, another company does it, and all prices go up.
The MINISTER of STATE, PRIVY COUNCIL OFFICE (Baroness Birk): My Lords, as the noble Lord will not be here later on, I wonder whether he would give way for a minute. Is the noble Lord suggesting that firms are spending their time upon thinking of ways in which they can get price rises, and that if they did not have to go to the Price Commission they would not want to raise their prices? This seems to be a most terrible criticism—far worse than any that I would make.
Lord ERROLL of HALE: My Lords, I know how adept the noble Baroness is at making criticisms. Perhaps I have not made myself quite clear. Of course

1007
prices would go up if there were no price controls. It would be a relatively simple decision by each individual company, looking at the market and at what the competition was like, to decide whether to raise the price of a particular product or article. Now, however, if they feel that a price increase is necessary they are in general inhibited from making that increase unless they can get permission from the Price Commission. Therefore, they have to study the rules of the Price Commission and develop a case which will pass the rule book of the Price Commission. Only in that way will they be granted the whole or part of their application. That is a very wasteful and time-consuming process. In such circumstances, one must go all out for the maximum because the Price Commission may not give one the full amount. A great deal of time, therefore, is wasted by bargaining with the Price Commission instead of trying to test what are the market conditions and adapting one's price to the market situation.
Another point which I must repeat to the noble Baroness is that you must make your application when the going is good, so to speak. It is no good going along to the Price Commission a year later and saying, "We were good boys and did not make an application when we could, so may we have a double ration now?" You have to do it when you get the chance.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, any doubts that people may have about the Price Commission and the moves which the Government are making about the Price Commission will be completely erased by what the noble Lord has said. I am sure that the noble Lord must be aware that the Price Commission does not deal with an enormous number of cases and that the Government have a responsibility to keep down inflation. This is the reason for the Price Commission. I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord so much, but as he said that he will not be here later on I cannot reply to him then.
Lord ERROLL of HALE: No, my Lords. I appreciate very much that the noble Baroness is following my speech so closely. However, what has been announced in another place—namely, the
1008
further use of the Price Commission to try to hold down prices in the event of an employer giving way to a wage claim above the Government's norm—is a very serious development which may do great harm to companies which are subjected to what is very much the Star Chamber treatment meted out to companies by the Price Commission.
I do not wish to weary the House, but may I mention another control which is working in exactly the wrong way; namely, dividend control. Dividend control has been with us for a number of years. It was first introduced in, I think, 1971. It is always 10 per cent. Once again, the maximum becomes the minimum. Every firm, if it possibly can, always puts up its dividends by 10 per cent. per annum. If there were no dividend control, it could be raised by 6 per cent. one year and 11 per cent. the following year, or by 8 per cent. one year and 12 per cent. the following year. One would then have to make a proper judgment as to what should be distributed from profits by way of dividend.
Now, however, if a company which is making a profit distributes less than 10 per cent. by way of dividend the stock market says, "There must be something wrong with that firm, because they are not increasing their dividend by 10 per cent.". So, if they can, companies hoik up their dividends by 10 per cent. Also, a company may say to itself, "We can only just afford 10 per cent. this year; but if we were to issue only 8 per cent. by way of dividends this year, next year, when we could afford 12 per cent., we should be stuck with only 10 per cent.".
So dividend control has the opposite effect to that which is intended, for it encourages bigger dividends than might prudently be deemed to be right by the companies concerned in their recommendations to shareholders. The noble Baroness shakes her head. I should be very surprised if she were to agree with me, because we are all so wedded to the concept of control, both on this side as well as on the other side of the House. Perhaps it is time to have a fresh look at the problem and to get away from the concept of control, control, control and the belief that we shall get it all right by control. I believe that we should do far better if we had another of Harold Wilson's

1009
bonfires of controls and set the people free.
Before sitting down, may I refer very quickly to the other side of wealth creation; personal wealth: the accumulation of wealth by earning salaries or by putting one's money into a small business and helping it to grow. It is a particularly serious matter that the high margin rates of tax should continue year after year. I know that this has been said over and over again, but it needs to be said again and I am sure that we shall all go on saying it until something is done about it. The top rate of tax at 83 per cent. on earned income is far too high. The Prime Minister stated recently that it is far too high but nothing is done about it. When an executive's salary reaches about £21,000, it means that that is his ceiling. Extra effort cannot be adequately rewarded. Brilliant success cannot be adequately rewarded.
It is virtually impossible to have any share incentive scheme. If one wants to reward a good executive for his outstanding effort, may I mention to the House that in order to give a man £10 a week of extra spending money one has to award him a salary increase of no less than £3,000 a year. There is no chance for him to save; there is no chance for him to improve his house very much. He is stuck where he is. He is still a keen man and he still works, but the edge is liable to be blunted. Younger men soon reach the limit and perhaps they settle for a slightly easier life rather than to go in more energetically for the creation of wealth. So what would I advocate? I would say 50 per cent. as the top rate—£1 for the Government and £1 for myself In my own case, since I am being quite personal, I work five days a week for the Government and on Saturdays I work for myself and that is what I pay by way of tax. You can work out the gross income from that simple exercise.
Then, of course, there are those who have wealth and the income is called investment income, and that is therefore taxed up to a maximum rate of 98 per cent. This has a very serious and distorting effect, because it leads those who have fortunes to sell their shares in good industrial companies. The proportion of private investors to institutional investors is going down year by year and it is
1010
creating a sense of false values because they prefer to put their money into other forms of goods, such as pictures, works of art or some of the strange exotica which are now becoming very valuable, such as clockwork railway trains, which are selling for hundreds of pounds in the hope that in a few years' time they will be worth thousands of pounds. Then there are old cameras: one has only to look at the beautifully illustrated catalogues of Christies and Sotheby to see that it is not the priceless art treasures that are attracting people now but the curious bits of Victorian bric-à-brac and other items. Even cigarette cards are now becoming of tremendous value. If only I had kept my boyhood collection, I should not have to work today! Why is this done? Because it can be sold afterwards at a capital gains tax rate of only 30 per cent. so why keep your money in securities and have no income at all; why not buy cigarette cards and yield a profit and only pay 30 per cent. on it? I am glad that the noble Baroness is laughing because she is seeing my point.
Baroness BIRK: No, I am enjoying the noble Lord's speech.
Lord ERROLL of HALE: My Lords, I much appreciate the interest shown by the noble Baroness, but I mention this as yet another distortion caused by the present taxation rate on personal wealth and it is thoroughly bad. I know that there have been some improvements in capital gains relief, but they have been very small. A 30 per cent. rate with an inflation rate of, say, 7 to 10 per cent. a year is really creaming off wealth from the individual and back into the hands of the Government. Thus, I should like to say that these are the things that I should like the present Government to think about and perhaps to implement, and if they do not then I hope very much that the successor Government will do what I recommend.
5.23 p.m.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, I should like first to apologise to the House for the state of my throat. I had some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, when he was asked by my noble friend Lord Brown about the problem of ordering power stations. He and I have

1011
both had this problem at the Ministry of Power and one just could not win. If you ordered one and it was not needed, you were wrong; if you ordered one and it was needed, you were equally wrong. So I have great sympathy with the way in which the noble Lord answered my noble friend.
We have heard much about the imbalance in industry caused by the growth of the trade unions. It seems to me that the principal issue to which we should now be addressing ourselves is whether that very delicate, largely unwritten system of checks and balances upon which the effectiveness of our democracy depends has become somewhat distorted. For many years, especially when I was a member of another place, I listened to speeches and read articles and autobiographies basing themselves on the proposition that governments in general and prime ministers in particular were arrogating to themselves far too much power. In my own simple way of reasoning I decided that a great deal of it was sheer unadulterated nonsense.
May I suggest that the present situation does nothing to prove that I was wrong in that. In other words, we seem to be witnessing during the last few weeks the fact that various organisations in Britain have the power to disrupt any type of Government policy they wish. Not long ago we saw how Government policies could be knocked completely off-course by the decisions taken by private speculators as to whether they would or would not continue to hold sterling or Government bonds. More recently, we have seen the same thing happening to the dollar. I do not recall much indignation in your Lordships' House when the pound was being treated in that manner by people with probably more power than the trade unions will ever have. Today, of course, the emphasis is on the power to disrupt Government policy by certain organisations of labour and not long ago very many of our newspapers were filling their columns with stories about trade union leaders possessing more power than prime ministers. Indeed some of the newspapers are still flogging that particular line.
I am sorry to quote myself, but, speaking in the debate on the Address on 8th November, 1977, I ventured the
1012
proposition that the real problem that we are discussing in this sense is the complete divorce of power from responsibility in the trade union movement, which is the root cause of much of our present difficulty. I said I believed that that was the key to which we must direct our attention. If I am right about that—and present events suggest that I am—the problem now is far and away more serious than even the recent events would indicate.
The TUC and the CBI are supposed to be partners and advisers of Government on economic and industrial matters in the NEDC. I regret to have to say this, but a fat lot of use either of them has been to the nation during the lead-up to our present problems. I am not suggesting that the Government should withdraw NEDC facilities and go it alone; I am suggesting that if these bodies wish to retain their standing in our national life they had better begin to prove their determination and capacity to control the activities of those for whom they purport to speak.
So far as the CBI is concerned, as I understand it, the chairman of Fords, where the present rush began, is a member of the CBI Council, which was of opinion that 5 per cent. was about right. He more than trebled that amount and, when the Government tried to impose sanctions against Fords, the CBI joined in the screams of opposition that culminated in the Tories and Liberals combining to defeat the Government in their use of the only power they had. Indeed, if I am right, I think Fords on four occasions stepped up the amount they were prepared to give. People wonder why, when there are mass meetings, workers refuse to accept, in the belief that the employer has not yet finished conceding increases—four times going up—and, until we can get some kind of a proper determination of policy by important employers, I do not think we shall see the end of many of the troubles that are now before us. It is impossible when one looks back at it to believe that one can get what the noble Lord, Lord Carr, called "responsible collective bargaining" while that kind of thing is going on.
When we talk about what the trade unions should and should not do we had better look at what has happened to the trade unions, and I venture to quote myself on this. On the trade union side,

1013
much of the problem, I think, arises because of the utterly absurd and outdated structure of the movement. You must remember that ours was the first trade union movement in the world and we are still suffering from that fact. Let us take the position of the union which has been at the centre so much in the last few weeks, the Transport and General Workers Union. The fact that real power has departed from the national level to relatively small sections of the union's members has brought the supreme irony that an unofficial strike which was threatening the jobs of a far greater number of T and G members has now been declared official, and the trade union dues paid by those whose jobs may now disappear have to be used as strike benefit for those whose actions have rendered them unemployed. One cannot get a much more absurd situation than that.
Therefore, this change in where power resides from national to local level is also demonstrating itself now in the problems we see about secondary picketing. Does the power reside, say, in Transport House? Well, we have heard the diktat come down the line, "Stop a lot of the secondary picketing". They may as well save their breath to cool their porridge, especially in Lancashire, where we are suffering grievously from this. It shows again that now there has been this departure of power into the smaller sections it is not enough for the noble Lord, Lord Carr, or me or anybody else, simply to ask trade union leaders, "Will you agree to do this or that?" The fact is that they have not got the power. It is a sad thing, but it is quite true.
For my part, speaking again of what has happened to the T and G, I would strongly advise those sections of the union whose jobs are now threatened to demand the immediate recall of their conference; that conference is not due to reassemble until later in the year. I would ask them to demand that the conference delegates instruct the lorry drivers to return to work and that the conference reconsider their attitude towards collective bargaining.
My Lords, the structural problem also stems from the very wide diversity of the interests of the large numbers of industries through which the Transport and General Workers Union thrusts its tentacles,
1014
almost like a huge octopus. The modern efficient form of trade union development is in the field of industrial unionism with one union to each industry, and British trade unionism just cannot develop along those lines while a huge general workers' union like the T and G is to be found in so many industries.
Again on the subject of industrial unionism, let us take the position of British Rail, which has been mentioned. We have three trade unions, two of which very rarely seem to agree on anything. ASLEF, which does not seem even to make any effort to remind its members on the Southern Region that they have a rule book to which they are supposed to work, pursues a dog-in-the-manger kind of policy in its quest for superior status for footplate men, and that policy often ends up by attacking the travelling public. I do not want to be unfair to ASLEF, but it seems to me, having done some study of the trade union movement, that it is a quite unnecessary organistion. I believe that now that the nation is being confronted with these constant interruptions we are entitled to ask the TUC to instruct the NUR and ASLEF to amalgamate. In the event of a refusal by ASLEF, the TUC should then withdraw its affiliation and permit the NUR to canvass ASLEF members to join them. They have that power under the Bridlington arrangements and my feeling is that the time has come when they must use it.
I am quite well aware that a great many of those who dislike incomes policy—a policy which I have advocated ever since I came to the other place in 1945—usually use the argument that one of the great weaknesses is that once incomes policy begins to fail you get a rush to catch up on the monies people did not get during the incomes policy. I have seen this argument used about the present position. Quite frankly, to believe that there has been restriction of incomes in the last 12 months is sheer nonsense. There has not been a year, certainly since the war, in which living standards have improved so much as they did in 1978; therefore, to say that the present rush is to try to catch up on restrictions does not stand examination in the very least. The Central Statistical Office report shows that personal disposable incomes rose between the second quarters of 1977 and

1015
1978 by no less than 7½ per cent. Can anybody really talk about restriction on that basis?
Among those who have been demanding the end of the incomes policy and a free-for-all without any Government interference the Leader of the Opposition has played the leading role. If she was convinced of the need for Government to keep out of this kind of thing she should now be telling the Government to keep out of this—she should be saying, "Do not interfere!" That should be the logic of her position. But now that she has seen the first results of the free-for-all she is demanding the most rigorous type of Government interference in the form of emergency powers. I will say this for the right honourable lady, when she changes her mind she goes all the way and never deals in half measures. In its way, this about-turn is comparable to Mr. Heath's conversion to incomes policy or St. Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. Last night in the debate in another place the right honourable lady argued that collective bargaining was utterly unfair because of the far greater power of the trade unions over the employers. But that greater power did not just mature last week. It was the reason Mr. Heath and his Cabinet, of which she was a member, changed over to incomes policy. It was the reason why, after the Barber boom of 1973, based on the use of the printing presses to produce confetti money, we reached in 1974–1975 30 per cent. wage claims and inflation of roughly the same amount. I do not know whether the right honourable lady had forgotten all that history during the past three years during which she has been demanding the return to free collective bargaining, in the full knowledge, apparently, of the great inequalities and what they would result in. I should like someone on the other side to tell us the answer. Did she not understand after all her experiences in the Cabinet that in the jungle one uses power to its full extent over one's opponent, or does she really believe in vegetarian tigers and things of that sort?
By their announcement as regards low pay last night—and I am glad of the Prime Minister's announcement—the Government have really accepted the need for an incomes policy based on what is now commonly known as "kitty bargaining"
1016
which involves negotiating within a given total. I have not been too happy about the percentage basis for some time and I think I have said that before. When noble Lords rightly talk about the effect of that kind of incomes policy on differentials they are right, but there is no reason at all why, within a system of "kitty bargaining", differentials should not be maintained. There is no reason whatever. Why then do we not look at how we could adapt it, for example—instead of having the percentage system—to the way in which a Chancellor draws his budget? Is he budgeting for deficits or surpluses? What does that mean in the way of distribution as regards that which can go to incomes and so on? I believe that we have now reached that stage and I should like to see the idea developed.
There are two developments which we must watch in that regard. The first is that there must be no successful demands for differentials to be brought back to where they were before the decision on low pay, because if we were to do that we would be rapidly increasing the level of low pay in order that others can demand that there are no maxima. That is a very important issue at which we should look. The other contentious point which I should like to make is that in certain circumstances—such as those existing at present—Governments should be given power to introduce compulsory arbitration. I can recall that it worked extremely well during the war, but we departed from it too easily. When we reach a stage—and we have seen our economy develop this way—where relatively few people can cause between 30,000 and 50,000 men to lose their jobs; when we reach a situation such as we now see as regards the road haulage strike and the tanker drivers' strike, where great areas of Britain will shortly have hundreds of thousands unemployed, we should surely opt for the alternative of compulsory arbitration in order to get rid of this nonsense.
We are now faced by a different type of strike from the ones which I knew in my youth. We are not faced with strikes against reactionary employers who seek to put the clock back. We are not even witnessing confrontation for a fair share of increased wealth. We are faced with demands on national resources which quite frankly do not even exist, demands

1017
which can only be met at the expense of other sections of workers or by diverting resources which have been allocated to the social services, education, housing, health, and pensions, et cetera. If I am right, the price of defeat on this issue is the virtual ending of the Welfare State which this Party fought to create and which has been such a great boon to those sections of our society which are defenceless and inarticulate. It is a fight in which all of us must stand up and be counted. None of us can defend the anarchy which is now prevailing. Older people like myself, who have tried in our own little way to assist in the creation of a great trade union movement, are worried sick as to where all this is taking us. Therefore, I believe that we must all combine to see to it that reasonableness is restored. My Lords, I have tried to say a few things which are critical of the movement which I admire so much. I believe that we must all try constructively—not in a negative spirit—to find how we can get over the problems of today in order that the nation can prosper in the future.
5.44 p.m.
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in his traditional style brought this debate to the immediate post-war period with his Dickensian image of British management and the miseries of the East End of London at the turn of the century. I know that it is all good stuff but it has precious little to do with the present situation. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, gave an intriguing, if not a fanciful, survey of our economic history in the immediate post-war era. The only trouble is that it is not borne out by the rest of us who have had to endure those years. I am sorry to say that the Government of 1945–1951 wasted those years which should have been the years when Britain emerged as practically the only un-destroyed country of Western Europe as a result of the war, and took full economic and industrial leadership. However, I am afraid that doctrinaire nationalisation, public wastage on a vast scale and the spending of thousands of millions of pounds on compensation for nationalised industries of all sorts and descriptions, wasted our assets when, frankly, we could have made a very great emergence from the war.
1018
I am sorry, but it simply is not fair to raise, as was raised then, the suggestion that this was the real reason why our present economic and industrial difficulties prevailed. I would not have entered the lists if the noble Lord had not done so, but I should like to say to him, bless his heart, that if he is worried about the problems of bigness, then why on earth does he support nationalisation, because that is the biggest bigness of all? That is where some of the greatest difficulties occur in terms of industrial relations. I wonder when last he actually went inside a factory. I wonder indeed, in view of the impression he had given of the bloated plutocrats on boards of directors, who do not know the men on the shop floor, who call them by their surname and do not have any mutual respect. Come off it, my Lord! You are not in the late 20th century, as we are in industry today.
I shall tell your Lordships what perturbs me. The noble Lord wanted to talk figures, and I shall talk figures with him. Ten years ago, of the gross national product of the United Kingdom 40 per cent. went to central and local government and to nationalised service industries. Five years ago it was 50 per cent. This year 60 per cent. of the wealth created in Britain is going straight into central and local government and nationalised service industries. No wonder we cannot create wealth. We are using and consuming so much of it unnecessarily.
Frankly, the burden of the debate raised so admirably by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, is that we should be trying to create wealth. That is the theme which I should like to develop a little further. I should like to make one other point as regards what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, said. He made claims regarding the eminent reasonableness of the British trade union movement and attitude since the war and claimed that it was the great leader of trade unions throughout the world in its essential reasonableness. Thank goodness the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, spoke before me! He has blown that one straight out of the water, and I am very grateful to him.
I find myself very largely in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, had to say, particularly in regard to

1019
unofficial strikes and the need to get some sense between the NUR and ASLEF. I cannot go along with him as regards his criticism of the Leader of the Opposition, because frankly, with all respect, he was not quite fair. He missed out one important word. It is not just "free collective bargaining" but "responsible free collective bargaining" that we wish to see established. The noble Lord may laugh, but I and generations of my family before me since 1892 have been involved in a company which has had only two disputes—one last year and one in 1974. Both disputes arose because the trade unions broke their agreements and contracts with us, in one case giving half an hour's notice of a strike, and in the other giving notice of one hour. Apart from that we have had no dispute whatsoever. Therefore, do not laugh when I speak about industrial relations. I have had some first-hand practical experience right up to yesterday.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware that both the noble Lord, Lord Erroll of Hale, and myself came from a huge firm which has never had a single dispute in the whole century of its existence?
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that and congratulate the noble Lord most warmly. But then I was not laughing at him; the noble Lord was laughing at me.
The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, is right: today arrogance is what worries us perhaps more than any other single characteristic—arrogance which I think is disastrous in the public eye in endeavouring to create a sense of unity and cooperation which is so urgently required today. I go along with the noble Lord; I think that the possibility of enforcing compulsory arbitration as opposed to confrontation at this stage would be most welcome.
Let me refer to the original speech that I wanted to make until the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, so amiably distracted me. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, could scarcely have guessed when he tabled this Motion just how timely it would be. He is right on the nail between the two one-day railway strikes. If he had not slotted in the debate today,
1020
we could not have got here. He is a splendid chap. However, I regret that I do not take with him the truly equitable approach that we really can study this on the basis of the chronicler in 1990. At the moment I am worried about getting through 1979. My aim is not to add gloom and doom to our present situation in British industry—please do not think that. In this House I have frequently expressed the consistent belief that we need not be in this sort of trouble and that we can get out of it reasonably quickly. To some degree we must blame ourselves—yes, all of us—for our decline, because in both these Houses we have pushed through a great deal of legislation; frankly, much of it ultimately not being in the best interests of those it was designed to help, and certainly clogging all the works of industry and wasting a fantastic amount of time, particularly in the medium and smaller-sized companies, which simply cannot afford all the extra bureaucracy which this legislation causes.
Frankly, over the last five years—and we must come straight to the point—it is this Government's policies which have very largely got us into the mess in which we are now. The Government must show a very great deal less complacency and very much more activity to get us out of this trouble, and quickly too. I am all for the very phlegmatic English approach, the unruffled air in the gravest crisis. But the attitude of Her Majesty's present Government is just downright ridiculous. We are in a crisis. I can only speak first hand from my experience of three separate industrial responsibilities, and therefore to an extent, as a chairman, I must declare an interest.
Would that we could even seem to penetrate with our unexaggerated reports the thick veneer of almost total uninterest in the plight of the North-West of England! The noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, will agree with me that there is an area in the North-West of England, which is in his very neck of the woods, where at present conditions are indescribably bad. I speak as the president elect of the Central Lancashire Chamber of Commerce, and I spoke last night with Manchester's president. In that area of Northern Greater Manchester we are faced with at least 50,000 additional unemployed, with exports stopped, and it is genuinely feared that there will be long-

1021
term damage to markets throughout the whole of that sector. From my own personal experience, a few firms are managing to get by, but many are having to face lay-offs in ever increasing numbers. In parts of Greater Manchester water supplies and sewerage are affected and that particular strike is likely to spread into Lancashire—to places such as Blackburn and Preston—within the next few days, to the deep distress of those trying to live or exist there. The Rossendale Valley—which the noble Lord, Lord Lee, knows perfectly well, as I do—is being thrown into utter confusion for lack of water supplies and proper sewerage facilities, and companies there cannot operate at all.
I am sorry, but London is a little too far away from our neck of the woods for our liking. Since New Year's Day we have had no petrol, no buses, no lorries, in parts no water supply or sewerage disposal. By gosh, you would not let it happen here in London! There would be an outcry! The Southern Region goes on strike occasionally and once or twice you may go short of a few things. But in the North-West strikers are creating a condition that can only be described as chaos.
There is an absolute need for the whole problem to be taken a great deal more seriously and not just fobbed off as though there is nothing terribly untoward at the present time. The people of Lancashire are as loyal as any in Britain, but you can push even them too far. Do not pretend that there is no crisis, and do not pretend that we are not very near indeed to a state of chaos.
I should like to give a direct quotation from a multinational chemical group's President in Europe. It was this corporation which I helped to persuade to come to Grangemouth before we knew whether Britain would join the Common Market. I thought that it was in Britain's interest that it should come. This is its message to the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Scotland respectively. It is not long, and reads:
"Borg-Warner Ltd. has invested thirty million pounds sterling over the past four years to produce plastic resins in Grangemouth, Scotland, with considerable persuasion by British Government. During the past two years our construction programme has been delayed by successive labour disputes and disruptions. While welcoming the settlement of the tanker driver strike we are now
1022
faced with a lorry drivers' strike which has stopped shipments of raw materials into our plants and delivery of products from our plants. We are at a standstill. We employ 500 people at Grangemouth and with this non-movement of product their jobs will be at stake in the next few days.
"The plastic industry"—
which is one of the most important new industries in Britain—
"is most competitive in Europe with significant overcapacity and with mainland producers who are quick to seize an opportunity to secure business. Both our U.K. market and our export market are affected by the strike and we are in danger of permanently losing Continental business which our plants were built to support".
They were built to sustain our own markets and export markets from Britain, and earn tens of millions of dollars doing so. All this,
"will result in further long-term damage for the British economy. Can your Government please take action to settle this strike so we may proceed with doing business? Labour unrest of the magnitude which we have experienced disrupts the orderly business process and prejudices future investments".
Of course it does. This is not simply something which is isolated to us. There are hundreds of companies that have put their faith and trust in Britain, which believe that we know how to run our affairs a great deal better than we do at the present time. Can those who have invested in Britain view without any concern what is now happening to both their home and export markets by the attacks of foreign competitors?—and when there is over-capacity in the industry anyway. More investment is needed to create wealth and this is no way to go about getting it.
Nor in the earlier part of the debate have we faced the issue, which is so important, of creating the stable conditions in which enterprises will invest. That stability includes not just reasonable freedom from all these upsets and disputes, but also reasonably stable levels of interest. In October 1976 the MLR was at an all-time high; it is now twice what it was this time last year. How can any company intelligently plan its future on the basis of that sort of variation? Why cannot we show some initiative? Why cannot we have a two-tier interest system whereby for proper investment approved by Government you would be able to have a flat rate of interest—not necessarily particularly low—to enable you to ensure at least for the next five or 10 years an adequate investment programme? That

1023
alone would make a tremendous difference. I am not asking for handouts for industry. I am asking for nothing other than perfectly ordinary stability.
But perhaps I may turn to the chemical industry itself on a slightly broader front, and tell noble Lords what the present state of play is. Some plants, which are continuous process plants, will not take days but weeks to restore to proper efficiency and to full production. Now they are shut down already; I speak of some that I know personally. The situation where the shut-down has had to be precipitated, because people have walked out or they have been secondarily picketed, has meant severe damage to the plant and greater delay.
Export loss, both immediate and longer term, and total erosion of credibility of continuity of supply from the British chemical industry is at stake. In some cases, problems have been reported of possible hazards arising from this secondary picketing and there is widespread and, in some cases, totally out-of-control secondary picketing. How right again the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, was to bring this particular matter to our attention.
There is this harm done to confidence in investment in the United Kingdom both at home and abroad—and by that I mean from both overseas and by our own companies—while the longer-term impact on public health materials, on medicines, and the like is something of great severity to us. There is the longer-term impact on supplies of food and animal feed materials, preservatives and special additives; and frankly we face one-fifth of a million lay-offs in the chemical industry by next week.
Frankly, in the past four years legislation has been passed ever strengthening union power, but not union responsibility. Now those responsible leaders of the movement—and there are many good responsible leaders of the trade union movement—have largely lost control of their members, and nothing less than chaos is resulting. Of course, I grant—I do not need to be the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, to do so—that in the 19th century and in the very early 20th century there was excessive power of capital over the employees and, frankly, trade unionists
1024
had to be far better protected, and many statesmen, including Disraeli, moved to that very end; but now the pendulum has swung far too far the other way. The individual citizen of Britain has lost his right to go to work, and to come back from it too, and his family has lost the right to lead a normal life. They are not just threatened with that. Presently, as I have told you, in North Lancashire the privileges of ordinary standards of living are largely withdrawn in the North-West of England.
We cannot look to this Government to tackle all these problems. I have to say—and I am sorry to have to do so—that the trade unions are very largely their Party's paymasters. They dare not act in regard to many of these things. What must be done in the common interests of the ordinary citizen—and I believe this Government could do this and would get united support in both Houses of Parliament to do so—would be to curb some of the excesses of the present day. I will not go through them at length. There have been very good speeches in regard to them. Let me just mention them. An end to the flying pickets, the professional trouble-makers; an end to the secondary picketing. If there is no involvement in that dispute, there should be no picketing by others or of other premises not involved in the dispute. Frankly, we ought in common sense to seek a secret ballot before strike action is able to be taken.
In case noble Lords opposite think I am not interested so far as getting sensible union reaction is concerned, we have pioneered the holding of trade union meetings on company premises in company time, because I so strongly believe that the vast majority of union members do not want to strike, do not want trouble. They want a fair and decent reward for a decent job done in a decent way. It is only the wildcats, the semi-maniacs, who are pushing this country into this situation; comparatively speaking a handful compared to the hundreds of thousands of good, honest, reasonable people who as individuals only want the right to go about their work and do their business.
I think there must be answerability at law for breach of contract—not just between employers and employees, not

1025
just between union and management, but even between unions. It is no longer any use claiming that we need to have a separate protection for the trade union movement. That time has long since passed. No section, I submit, should have any special privileges beyond the law. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, was so right in all he said on this subject. In regard to welfare benefits for strikers, and particularly unofficial strikers, of course I do not want anybody to suffer and for there to be hardship to wives and children, but there is no earthly reason why, if we cannot find another answer, we cannot employ this one. Why cannot we lend money from the State to those who are on strike, and it would be understood as an attachment of earnings, as there would be on alimony or any other payment, and, when they return to work, that they must repay. Personally, I would widely differentiate, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lee, would, between the unofficial striker and the properly constituted strike where there is a genuine dispute after all the procedures have been carried through.
The situation is so serious that we can no longer go along with our present ridiculous way of handling these matters. The country is losing out at a fast rate to competition. Not just our recovery but our very survival depends upon such a shift in the balance of power. That is what Lord Lee was really talking about in all that he said. It really is power to which we make reference.
In our earlier debates on this type of subject. I defined one of the great duties of Government. It is not for handouts but for stability, and to create and maintain the conditions in which industry, commerce and agriculture can prosper. This Government have lamentably failed that test, and if they cannot urgently do a great deal better job on this front then they must go and make way for a Government that will. Yesterday's measures in the other place will do nothing to help. They are either inflationary or highly restrictive upon the possibility of creating greater wealth in industry, and therefore likely to cause only greater unemployment.
We have been subjected to far too much biased legislation for far too long. The other two factors I would put before you is that we have gone much too far. I
1026
know about fighting the enemy of inflation, but going too far in doing that is closing the differentials and making inadequate reward for hard work and for risk bearing too. The plight of the manager I have to draw to your attention. No other section of the earning public has slipped so far behind in the economic league in the past five years as the good old British manager. Financially as well as fiscally he has been knocked about something awful. I estimate that 40 per cent. is the drop in his standard of living, and these are the people on whom we are depending to create new opportunities and new wealth so that the country can be prosperous. How daft can we be. Far too little attention has been given by the Government to the representations of the British Institute of Management in this regard. Only by good management can we prosper, and good management involves all the co-operation of all sides of industry.
I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House against the "us and them" syndrome. I have exactly the same feelings today. We have no reason to be "us and them". We are the country; we are the public; the sooner we realise that we have to get together and knock out the nonsenses of the present situation, the better. All I can say, my Lords, is simply this: We are in a desperately serious situation. I am no Little Englander. I am not writing off my country or saying that we are not capable of getting out of our difficulties. Of course we are. But there has to be a great deal more thoroughness, openness and trenchancy about putting the case of the present situation to the British public.
I believe that they cannot see the sense of the secondary picketing and of the ridiculous claims that are being made, which are quite out of the realms of all reasonableness, and then prompt strike action. We have to cease subsidising strikes. We need to have contractual law operating on all facets of life in this country. We have to create a new atmosphere in industry. Many of us—and I have spent only 30 years at it—are proud to say, like the noble Lord, Lord Lee, and the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, that we have had scarcely a dispute in all the time we have been operating. The vast majority of British industry is like this. It is only the comparative few who are spoiling it. I am just as much an enemy of the bad

1027
employer as I am of the bad trade unionist. If we do nothing else, after thanking the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for raising this subject, let us hope that the message sent from this House is that we see the problem, we can identify it and we are prepared to give the maximum backing to those who have the courage to put things right.
6.9 p.m.
Lord GEDDES: My Lords, with such a formidable list of speakers in this important debate, I shall restrict my remarks to the tax aspects and at the same time I hope keep that contribution extremely short. I do not claim to be a fiscal or monetary expert. Indeed other noble Lords have such expertise, and I defer to them. But I should like to give just one or two instances of the fetters under which British industry struggles for survival, let alone profitability. United Kingdom Government revenue is raised, to the best of my knowledge, as to 54 per cent. from income tax and corporation tax alone. To reach this level, which I suggest is alarmingly high, we have on income tax, as the noble Lord, Lord Erroll, has mentioned, a maximum rate of tax at 83 per cent. on earned taxable income in excess of £24,000. That is far too high compared even with the United States' maximum of 50 per cent. on earned income.
We have no income tax deductibility for pre-trading expenditure or for abortive projects, a situation which leads in general to projects being considered and implemented only in accepted established commercial fields at the expense of the innovator. We have no write-off against tax for the cost of commercial buildings unless they are being used for storage or the subjection of materials to industrial processes. This hits the service industries hardest, since the cost of acquiring offices or shops is not deductible for tax purposes. We have no tax alowance for the cost of arranging finance—that is, the arrangement and facility fees—a point on which noble Lords who speak after me may wish to comment.
On capital transfer tax, even after the rate changes of October 1977, the rates are still excessive. To give one illustration, if an estate comprises shares in one unquoted company worth £500,000 which the
1028
deceased does not control, the CTT payable is £200,000 in round figures, or nearly 40 per cent. of the estate. Nor does our CTT structure at present distinguish to whom gifts are made or estates devolved. Most EEC systems of death duty incorporate a scale whereby when assets are given or left to relatives of the deceased, less tax is payable, depending on the degree of relationship, than on assets left to outsiders. We simply have a flat system; it makes no such differentiation.
In administrative matters—other noble Lords have made this point—recent years have seen the passing of successive legislation by different Governments affecting working conditions, conditions of employment, pension provisions, industrial relations and prices and wage levels, not all of which have been consistent. For example, in recent years we have seen two Industrial Relations Acts, two different proposals for pension reform, health and safety at work legislation, the Equal Opportunities Act and the Employment Protection Act. Apart from the time involved in digesting their implications, they impose an additional administrative burden which directs the entrepreneur's energies away from creating wealth. Requests for more and more statistical and other information from Government Departments have a similar debilitating effect.
As I mentioned in your Lordships' House on 6th December last, I have recently had the privilege of living and working in Hong Kong, and I make no apologies for calling on that experience again in the context of this debate. While appreciating that a complete equation between this country and Hong Kong can be open to criticism, nevertheless I consider that in the example of Hong Kong—and perhaps noble Lords will be aware of other examples—we can and should learn a great deal. To put it bluntly, Hong Kong has found a formula which is successful; the United Kingdom has not. I have already mentioned 54 per cent. of United Kingdom Government revenue being raised from income tax and corporation tax alone. Thirty-nine per cent. of Government revenue in Hong Kong is raised from all direct taxes. In the context of this debate, it is surely direct taxation which has most relevance, and as many noble Lords may be aware, Hong Kong has a flat rate of

1029
corporate tax at 17 per cent. on profits earned in Hong Kong. There is no Hong Kong tax on profits earned outside Hong Kong. Losses can be carried forward indefinitely and there is no tax on dividends. Direct personal taxation is at a maximum of 15 per cent. and the majority of the population, having taken personal allowances into account, pay nil or virtually nil in direct tax. For instance, translated into sterling terms at the current conversion rate—which I appreciate is an exercise which can in itself be misleading—a married man with two children earning £4,700 a year would pay only £156 in direct tax
The effect of such a structure, both corporate and personal, is not difficult to visualise. Both companies and individuals have every opportunity to create their own wealth. They stand or fall on their own endeavours and are not shackled by excessive Government interference. The Hong Kong Government, in its turn, finances its increasing expenditure from the growth of business which it attracts and encourages by the low tax base. Hong Kong critics may say, "Ah yes, but such a system simply enables the rich to get richer at the expense of the down-trodden masses". From what I saw over a two-year period, that simply is not true; or, to be more exact, it is only half true, and then only as to the first part. Such a system enables any individual or any company to create wealth as a direct result of his, her or its own hard work and expertise.
It is the old story, but worth repeating for all that: succes breeds success, and Hong Kong is manifestly successful. It has the highest wages in Asia, outside Japan; the highest GDP per capita in Asia, outside Japan; full employment, virtually no strikes, and a social security system which, while being improved annually, continues to aim at what seems to me to be the correct target; namely, to assist the genuinely needy rather than cosset the parasites.
I say to this and any future Government, that we shall never get this country back on to its feet unless we encourage business and particularly small concerns. The fastest way to discourage effort is to tax away the results of success. I have been lucky enough to see and experience the success of Hong Kong. Let us not be too proud to learn from others. Unshackle
1030
British Industry from its tax burden. The poor old British industry horse is wearing itself out trying to push the cart. Give it a chance to pull it instead, and the chances of success can only improve, to the benefit not only of the country but of all those who are prepared to work, and work hard.
6.19 p.m.
The Earl of LIMERICK: My Lords, despite the temptation to expatiate on the problems of today, which have been much and most eloquently referred to in earlier speeches, I shall seek to take a long-term view, as invited by the terms of the timely Motion standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Trenchard. I followed with close attention the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, in his thoughtful speech and some of what he said will enable me to reduce the length of my own contribution.
I start from the point that in considering constraints we are looking at three important matters. The first is the question of individual motivation, with which I link the current lack of differential rewards; the second is the question of institutional discouragement, with which I link excessive Government intrusion into the affairs of the private sector—intrusion both by legislation and by bureaucracy; and the third is the question of stability, with which I link disruption.
The problem, I believe, that Western industrial democracies have created for themselves is that they depend for their survival upon growth and are based upon feeding the expectation of growth. All too typically therefore those who aspire to power first promise too much, then actually reduce the growth potential in the private sector by taking too much from it in a self-defeating attempt to redeem their promises through the public sector. No post-war Governments are blameless. Some, evidently, are more guilty of this than are others, but if we really believe in industrial democracy, we must give more marks to those who increase the potential for growth than to those who act in a manner as to diminish it. To set out to do more than we can afford at a given time is no favour to anyone.
Material progress, generally but erroneously assumed today to be a God-given

1031
right, must depend upon economic growth. Economic growth in turn depends upon the creation of wealth with which to pay for it; and in passing one might reflect that it is strange that while no one disputes the need for economic growth, there are people who challenge, nevertheless, the necessity for, or even the desirability of, that creation of wealth which can be its only basis. It cannot be too often stressed that Governments do not create wealth, unless by acting as entrepreneurs and making a net profit on their enterprises. Economic growth is what is left of the sum of private wealth creation after Government has taken its inevitable share for non-productive spending. Government in this sense is a compulsory overhead cost of wealth creation, and if there is too much of it, as is the case if there is too much of any overhead cost, it has the same effect upon the national profit and loss account.
We come to human behaviour within this system of ours. I am constantly surprised by the fact that people see quite a different relationship between input and output in their private lives and in their place of work. We tend in our place of work, particularly if we work in large units, to lose sight of this inexorable relationship between input and output. In our private lives, on the other hand, we accept it without question. Which of us, if digging his garden, who, after half the afternoon has dug half the garden, would question that if he stopped work at that point the other half of the garden would remain undug? Somehow that direct relationship, if one is talking in terms of input to a system, is not appreciated. The effects of arriving late, of standing gossiping, or whatever may be the point at issue, are not seen to impact upon output in the same way as when we are handling our spade in our own garden. This I believe is directly related to the size of units, and that in itself has much to do with this apparent switching off of commonsense.
It applies also to the question of investment. If we think back to 1976, it was suggested even that the shortage of investment was brought about by some form of deliberate investors' strike. I believe that the cause of insufficient industrial investment is much simpler, but at the same time harder to deal with
1032
than it would be if that were the case. In 1956 the average pre-tax, replacement cost, rate of return on industrial and commercial investment was running at around 17 per cent., while the inflation rate perhaps was 3 per cent. By 1976 those digits were approximately reversed; that is to say, the return on industrial investment was down to around 4 per cent. while both interest rates and inflation rates were up in the high teens. This represented, evidently, a massive negative rate of real return upon investment, and it needed in those circumstances a super-optimist or a masochist to put money into low-yielding, speculative fixed assets, rather than the alternative of lending it to the Government, whose economic management had driven up interest rates to levels which the industrial sector could not afford for industrial investment, at a multiple of the industrial return. Now, alas!, we again see today something of this situation with a public sector borrowing requirement of £9¼ billion, which may well of itself be incompatible with money supply targets, that is crowding out private borrowings and the private investor.
At this point one must talk about taxation. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, gave some figures on tax. I should like, because no one has done so before, to give your Lordships the actual figures of marginal tax in some of the major industrial nations. The highest rate of taxation paid in Canada is 45 per cent. In the United States it is 50 per cent. In France it is 54 per cent.; in West Germany 58 per cent.; in Japan 68 per cent.; in Italy 72 per cent., and in this country 82 per cent. But the point that I should like to stress, because those comparisons tell only half the story, is that in Japan, where the rate is 68 per cent., that rate is attained only at a salary level of £204,000 a year equivalent, and in Italy 72 per cent. is attained only at £374,000 equivalent salary. These salaries are equal, respectively, to eight times and 15 times the rate of £25,735 in this country at which the top marginal rate of 82 per cent. becomes applicable. It is also true that we in Britain have the highest marginal tax rates on middle and on lower incomes, down to the national average income. Therefore in this country we pay the highest rates of tax on, relatively, the lowest incomes.
Another point on taxation was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of

1033
Donington, whom I am sorry to see is not in his place at present, and it is worth making a comment here. The noble Lord drew attention to the fact that the overall rate of corporate taxation in this country is only 27 per cent. owing to capital allowances and stock appreciation relief. One must go on to ask why this should be. The reason is that the cash flow of companies has been so strained by a combination of sinking profitability and inflation that successive Governments have found it necessary in order to keep these companies in business, let alone to allow adequate investment for the expansion of their affairs, to restore the cash flow by derogations from the full rate of taxation, notably in the form of capital allowances and, latterly, of stock appreciation relief.
I now wish to return directly to the question of motivation. What would be favourable conditions, trying to look at the subject from the positive side? First, there must be a restoration of personal motivation. Anticipated rewards must be adequate, both absolutely and relatively, to compensate for extra efforts. I refer especially to the acquisition of skills or of qualifications, which may take many years; to working extra long, and to working extra hard; to taking risks, and to taking responsibility.
My Lords, I do not know much about horse-racing but I know that there is a man, somewhere where one cannot see him, who is called the handicapper. If he does his job perfectly, the result is achieved that all the horses arrive simultaneously at the finishing post. But what one has to note about the weapons at his command is that, since it is illegal to stimulate horses to run faster, he can achieve this aim only by penalising or reducing the performance to below maximum of those which are capable of going faster. Now that should give us something to think about.
In human affairs it is not illegal (perhaps I should say it is not yet illegal) to stimulate as an alternative to penalising. What we should be doing is to stimulate. The whole trend in recent years has been to reduce personal motivation. Differential rewards are progressively and substantially reduced to a point where, certainly in large industrial units, neither skill nor responsibility is perceived to be worth
1034
acquiring. We do not need to look at the top men for our evidence: we can look, as I mentioned in quoting these marginal tax rates, right down the scale. The living standards of our small entrepreneurs and our middle-managers, on whom the successful development of wealth-creating enterprises depends, are among the very lowest in Europe. Why should they continue to strive when they cannot thrive?
This human desire to improve a man's own position, and particularly to see that his children get a better start in life than he himself enjoyed, is a very powerful driving force. In disregarding this, as we have done progressively over the years, we have not only lost the key to effort but we are in danger of throwing away the mainspring as well.
May I tell your Lordships a rather sad, personal story to illustrate how we have created some unfortunate and unfavourable conditions for economic growth in attitudes to motivation and to productivity? Last summer, at a dinner in the North Midlands, I was sitting alongside a senior trade union official. We talked of the apparent paradox that, in areas of high local unemployment, factories could not expand production and take on more staff, not for lack of demand but solely for lack of skilled workers. He would not agree with me that the virtual absence of wage differentials for skill could be responsible for that. Later, relating export performance to unit cost of production, he remarked, "The trouble with the productivity argument is that, in my book, productivity equals unemployment". He was an intelligent man but his thinking was entirely short-term. He would not concede that in a competitive world it is any relative lack of productivity that spells the inevitability of long-term unemployment.
My Lords, perhaps I may comment very briefly on my second theme—of discouragement—and I will do so by reference to a single example coming out of a recent independent survey of the success and motivation of exporters in France, in Germany and in Britain. What this shows is that if an entrepreneur in Britain puts in extra effort, takes extra risks and wins £100,000 of extra profits for his business, and if he then retires having taken out, in this example, 24 per cent. of that amount

1035
by way of dividends, what he will pay in corporation tax on £100,000 is £52,000, capital gains tax of £8,000 and personal tax on the dividends of £23,000. In other words, what is left out of the £100,000 is £17,000 only. In an identical situation, a German entrepreneur would retain over double that amount—£37,400.
My last point was that of stability. Stability is essential in business decisions, and the antithesis of stability is disruption. Businessmen, investors, are thinking, typically, on a 10- or 15-year time scale. This is completely out of kilter with the electoral time scale, and they find themselves quite out of sympathy with the sort of yo-yo policy which affects their decisions. This is a matter which I believe has got to be addressed, whether it be through some consideration of the electoral system or by some other means, so that those who are asked to take decisions can be confident that the climate against which they are taken is not going to alter adversely and fundamentally in the short term.
My Lords, why are these matters so vital? Your Lordships will forgive me if I return to a subject which I spend much of my time thinking about, which is exports and our place in the world. This we have to strive to impove if we are going to maintain, let alone improve, our relative economic standing. Where do we stand in the world? It is common knowledge that our share of industrial exports after the war, when it was about 20 per cent. of the world total, fell to around 8½ per cent. in 1977. From that, I should like to deduce two things. The first is that it was recently estimated by the CBI that to regain a I per cent. share—that is, to go back to 9½ from 8½ per cent.—would represent the recreation of 400,000 jobs. Secondly, we are an overseas-trade-dependent and export-dependent nation.
I need only point out that, as a percentage of GDP in 1977, for the United States exports represented 10 per cent.; for Japan (thought to be such a great exporter) the figure was 15 per cent.; France, 21 per cent.; Germany, 29 per cent.; and for us it was 31 per cent. So our performance, our cost-effectiveness in world markets, is of really central significance to our standard of living. That is why these matters are so vitally important.
1036
Most importantly, if we look at where we have got to on that front, we are apparently doing very well in a lot of export markets and absolutely very well in a number of them, yet what we achieved last year, in 1978, was an approximate break-even on our current account after bringing in a credit of £4 billion from North Sea oil. Just think where we would have stood without that windfall which we are sadly in the process of burning without permanent warmth to our future lives.
May I close with a reflection on risk-taking? I believe that in an attempt to create a risk-free economy we have gone a long way to creating an economy which has the seeds of diminution well planted within it. A no-risk society just will not work. People have to take decisions and have to be out front promoting new ideas, new forms of technology, and selling them in new markets, if we are to maintain our place, let alone go ahead. We need to take a robust stance in the world, which we can do only with the confidence of our domestic economic base, addressing our minds to the removal of some of these constraints. A no-risk economy, an attempt to create a feather bed, is doomed to failure. My Lords, by far the majority of people, and may be of countries as well, die in bed.
6.39 p.m.
Lord BROWN: My Lords, in his speech the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, has put the emphasis on taxation. I agree that individual taxation is much too high in this country, but I do not think there would be any real hope of solving the sort of problem we in this country face today by way of the creation of wealth through simply reducing taxation, much as I should be in favour of it. May I remind your Lordships that in the early 'seventies Mr. Heath's Government reduced taxation by, I think, nearly £1,000 million, but in the years immediately following investment fell yet again.
Now, we are faced with a situation which is brought about by an imbalance of power in our society. The focus of the use of this power is around wages, but it does not end there. We see managers at all levels in our factories spending a huge proportion of their time negotiating, not only over money wages but over every conceivable thing, and the

1037
focus is taken off the efficient running of industry and our services, to the detriment of us all.
The two most interesting speeches so far, I think, were those of the noble Lord, Lord Carr, and my noble friend Lord Lee. Both were attempts at being constructive. May I say a word about Lord Carr's speech first? He wants union-devised rules which would result in a form of self-discipline on the part of the unions. We have had two examples, one three years ago, of so-called self-regulation by the unions, and we are facing the results of another undertaking by the unions that they would indulge in responsible free collective bargaining; and we all know where it is rapidly taking us.
What is too often forgotten is this. Union general secretaries and their committees do not exercise authority over their members. They are elected by their members and their prime function is to serve the interests of those members and to carry out their wishes. In one sense, it is just as absurd to ask trade union officials and general secretaries to control their members as it would be to ask Members of Parliament to control their constituents. I am not making an absurd comment in saying this. I should not be surprised, although I do not know, if most of the general secretaries of our unions today were as horrified as we are about what is going on at this moment; and they are quite unable to do anything about it. There are some notable examples like Tom Jackson and Sid Weighell who have said this already.
In the terms used by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, we are facing the results of being an extremely materialistic society and we are facing a migration of power which has been taking place for a very long time. We had enormous power in the hands of the industrial managers in the 19th century. What did they do? They exploited the working population of this country horribly. Then power migrated to union officials. It migrated from them to the shop stewards and now it is in the course of migrating from the shop stewards to unofficial groups on the factory floors. Here we have a society which is being increasingly interfered with by people who have no responsibility to anybody except themselves and who are beginning to interfere with the liberty of
1038
the individual in the society in a very serious way. When Government and Parliament in their wisdom sought to prevent the exploitation by powerful employers of employees, they did it by regulation. We will soon have to do it by regulation again. The focus of the battle that goes on increasingly in industry, and especially in large firms, is around wages. If we get over that battle then the rest of the battle will diminish in heat. It is for this reason that I want to talk about statutory wage policies.
It has been said over and over again in this House and in the Press that statutory wage policies have failed, and in a sense they have. But in one sense they have not—because, beginning with the Labour Government policy in 1968 and going on to the three stages of Mr. Heath's policy and the two stages of the Labour Government's quasi-statutory policy, these policies backed by the TUC and supported by certain Government restrictions on employers have, in a large sense, succeeded. Looking at the strike record during the years of these policies, it has been very good. Employers and managers have had an easier time and have been able to get on with their jobs to a greater extent during the period of these policies than at any other time since the war when such policies have not been in force. The one defect is their inflexibility and the freezing of differentials which arises from them. But, as my noble friend Lord Lee has said, there is no reason why there should not be incorporated into a statutory wage policy a degree of flexibility which would overcome what has been their defect so far.
I have spent a high proportion of my time in the last seven years working out and trying to propagand the details of a scheme which would achieve that flexibility. It is not difficult. It is founded on three pretty obvious principles which are very familiar to anybody who has had anything to do with employment. The first of the principles is this: if you want to change a pattern of differentials you have to get the agreement not only of those who benefit from the change in wages but also the agreement of all those who do not benefit. If we do not get the agreement of those who do not benefit, then they will jump on the band-waggon and we get leapfrogging, That

1039
is a familiar principle to people who are concerned with employment.
The second principle is that if you have a kitty to share out—and this is what I am going to propose in a minute—among all the trade unions of the country or among the employees of one particular firm, the people who should decide how that kitty should be shared out are the representatives of those who would be affected, and no others. I have been called in on a number of occasions when I have had to face, in other firms, the problem of demarcation disputes. There is only one way to solve a demarcation conflict; it is to say to the people who are quarrelling about who is to do what that it is nothing to do with management, that management are only concerned that somebody should do it and that the people should take it away and settle it between them— "but do not have us in on the discussion; for we are only there to be the scapegoats if you fail to agree". Differentials are the subject of conflicts between employees and not between employees' representatives and the management. The principle must be that those who would be affected by the change in pattern of differentials and those alone, must be those who decide what the pattern shall be.
The third principle is that of synchronisation. If you are to get any sensible settlement of the whole business of differentials, you must bring national wage policies from every occupation into negotiation over the same period. If you split them through a year, then you open up the door to all sorts of claims about what is going to happen to other industries as a basis for what people are claiming at a given moment in time.
Going on from there, let me make a short analysis of the role of the unions, of the employers and of the Government. It must be clear to everybody that the role of the unions is to look after the interests of the employees or producers. Every time the producers get a large increase in wages, it is the consumers of this country who largely pay for it. The days are past when increases in wages could be paid out of surplus profits. Who is to protect the consumers of this country from the effect of very large and unjustified wage awards to the producers?
1040
Is it the employers? It is the underlying fallacy with which we deal with these problems that wage negotiations should be between employer and employed. They should not. The body which protects the consumer is Parliament, the Government. They are elected by the consumers of this country. That is the rationale for a national limit to the amount by which the wage bill can go up every year. We must have continuous limits into the future, got out after consultation with the CBI and the TUC and others; but they must be statutory limits, otherwise the producer is in for a very bad time and our international standing as a trading nation will in due course be finished if we do not produce these limits. We have had enough experience this year and three years ago to know that we have to do something along these lines.
What I am suggesting is a new institution in this country, call it what you like. I have written about it and called it the National Council for the Regulation of Differentials. I want to see elected to it representatives of all employees of this country. I shall not go into too much detail; I have written it all up. I want the Government to decide what the kitty shall be, 5 per cent. or 6 per cent., who knows? I want it to be left to that body with plenty of time—a year—and I want those people who sit on that new body to be paid representatives of the employees of this country to decide how much shall be split up among the various occupations in this country. It may be thought that they could never do it. They will have to do it unanimously if they are to be certain that their plans will be adopted. My suggestion is that if they can agree unanimously, then it becomes a statutory duty of Government to legislate that pattern of differentials for national occupations into existence. If they cannot agree unanimously, if they can only get a 90 per cent. or 80 per cent. vote, then their decisions should become recommendations to Parliament. Parliament will have to decide whether to adopt that pattern or whether to return it to this body.
There is one degree of flexibility as between great occupations. Out of the deliberations of that body, each employment group in the country, each company within it, will have its own kitty. It should be statutorily possible for each of

1041
those companies to divide up their kitty among the various grades and ranks of their employees, if some council representing all ranks of employees, not just trade unionists but managers as well, can agree on a sub-division of that kitty. If they cannot do that, all will have to take the same: if it is a 5 per cent. wage increase, everybody will get 5 per cent.
Just look at what is achieved by this. All Governments, Conservative and Labour, are criticised for lack of flexibility. They can never introduce the desired flexibility by making decisions about differentials themselves. Can you imagine Parliament deciding who should get more, boilermakers or shop assistants? It is an impossible idea. If they did in fact set up such an institution, decided the kitty and left it to the representatives to decide the pattern of differentials which were going to arise from its use, in the first year or two there would be no agreement on differentiation because the representatives would not be able to agree. Also at local level representatives of employees in companies would be unable to agree. However, look at the change in the psychological situation. When people in industry came back and said: "This statutory policy has frozen differentials ", the Government would be able to say, "No it has not. You have frozen it. If you want flexibility and attention to what you regard as unfair differentials, you have it statutorily in your power to make those flexible changes, and you have refused to do so. The ball is at your feet, gentlemen". You can say the same to companies.
I would ease this scheme by allowing every company some small percentage. If the national increase was 6 per cent., I would then allow them 1½ per cent., so that management could reward those whom in their judgment were worthy of promotion, and reward those who were entitled to it on the basis of their performance. By these means one should be able to introduce that degree of flexibility into national wage policies which has been the main cause of their rejection by so many people in this country so far.
I end what I have to say here by pointing out that, unless the political Parties of this country can get together and realise that in the interests of the consumers of this country, and of the position of this
1042
country in the world economic setting, there must be statutory limits on the amount by which the wage bill can go up, coupled with the type of arrangements of flexibility which I have suggested, then we are going to go on with an ever-growing number of militant power groups seeking their own selfish ends, fighting it out in industry. We are going to have managements whose eye is taken off the ball completely, in an attempt to mediate this conflict, and we are going to leave the whole question of increasing the wealth of the country unattended to because of the extent to which our energies arc diverted into this ridiculous, chaotic conflict which is taking place now.
6.56 p.m.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, I must resist the temptation to discuss the interesting speech which the noble Lord, Lord Brown, has made, and, paying particular attention to the long list of 14 speakers who are to follow me, I hope I am going to follow the excellent example of the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and keep my speech down to 10 minutes. May I begin by congratulating my noble friend Lord Trenchard on introducing this very interesting topic with a most interesting speech. I hope he may be right when 1990 comes. My word, we have some difficulties to overcome in the meantime! May I apologise in advance to the noble Baroness who is going to wind up? The necessities of getting home tonight by trains which are going to stop running early in order to get in the right places before not running at all tomorrow, mean that I may have to leave rather earlier than I had intended. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me.
I share the anxieties generally expressed about our present economic position. We see the danger signals. We see this enormous build-up of debt in the past few years; we see the stagnant position of our industrial production, and we see alongside all this the distressing spectacle of this great increase in the number of unemployed. It is desperately serious for each individual concerned, but is the most terrible waste from the point of view of the economy of the country that there should be this huge number of men and women, 1⅓ million, who are now unemployed and another quarter of a million who are probably subsidised in employment while

1043
simply not doing productive work. I, like others, ask myself: "Why are we not exerting our natural skills? There are some bright spots in the gloom—sectors of industry, firms, the City, North Sea oil, and agriculture—where we are still very good. Why are we not doing it over all, my Lords?"
I see three main obstacles. I start straight away with the same one that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, and the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, spoke about—taxation. There are penal levels of taxation now—I speak particularly about personal taxation—82 per cent. on earned income and 98 per cent. on investment income, plus capital gains tax, plus capital transfer tax. We arc promised that if there is another Labour Government there will be the wealth tax as well. The fact is that this accumulation of taxes as it impinges on the individual undoubtedly cripples effort, both in management and on the shop floor, and prevents the greatest output that we could hope for.
In my judgment much the most serious aspect of it is on the formation of new businesses and expansion of old ones. To start a new business or to expand an old one—but particularly to start a new business—it is necessary to borrow the capital to finance the project. When the individual has got the business going, he must earn enough profit to pay the interest, repay the loans and have something for himself to live on. This is the beginning of wealth creation. Some small businesses grow into big ones. This is how a nation improves its standard of life and employs its citizens. This, as those who have done it would know, is a hazardous undertaking. There are few people who have both the enterprise and courage to do just that—to borrow the money, to have the vision, energy and enterprise to start a new business and then to operate it and to carry all the burdens of repayment of the loan, to meet the debts as they come along, to meet reverses and deal with them as well. There are few people who are ready to face those risks, and the present conditions of taxation today are desperately adverse to men and women starting to do that at all, because taxation rises so quickly to penal level, leaving no margin for loan repayment and income for the operator to live on. Worst still, it is impossible to build up a reserve against
1044
the inevitable reverses that arise from time to time. That is the first major obstacle that we are all suffering from, to the creation of wealth.
Secondly, we must undoubtedly bring down the present penally high interest rates of round about 15 per cent. for private borrowing. This is so high that a young business simply cannot carry it. We have to have these rates and bank lending rate has to be set so high to protect the sterling position of the country because of the massive overspending by Government, which goes on year after year. These are the first two major obstacles which any Government has to look at and I hope that this Government and the next Government, whoever they may be, will look at them. At the same time I would say to this Government that they really must look again at their present spending policies. However they justify them, they are vastly in excess of what we as a country can afford. They must also look at the traditional idea which comes from so many members of the Labour Party—men and women for whom I have a great respect; that is, the idea they they regard rich men as objectionable. This really is madness. If we go on regarding rich men as objectionable, there just will not be any in this country. The young men who can earn money will be off, and they will go somewhere else where life is more comfortable. My noble friend Lord Limerick made the excellent point that the British small entrepreneur is the worst remunerated small entrepreneur in Europe; and that is a fact. These are the men and women who create wealth in the beginning, and small businesses grow into big businesses.
The third obstacle is the one which has been spoken of at enormous length and therefore I shall refer to it only briefly: that is the problem of this Government's employment policies. My noble friend Lord Carr made points that I would have wished to make, so I will say very briefly that it is a fact that in the last four or five years the Government's policies have greatly strengthened the position of the employee, vis-à-vis the management. The result is today that the employer cannot terminate employment without excessive compensation; he cannot exert management authority without the risk of heavy damages., and yet on the other hand an employee can break

1045
a contract of service, practically speaking, with impunity. This has all been dealt with at very great length today and a great deal has been said about management. Let me just weigh in on that side: management is a very difficult skill. Men and women who can manage businesses are men and women with vision, courage, understanding and human sympathy—because they must maintain good relationships and they must be leaders in order to get a good combined team effort out of the people who work with them. We really must redress the balance here so that the employer and the employee can see that both are going to benefit if it is made possible for management to function in a more satisfactory way.
Almost certainly I would say that new businesses are not forming as fast as old businesses are going out. We know that in 1977 failures reached a record level and it was pretty high again last year. There are no statistics, of course, for very small businesses but I should think almost certainly they are not forming as fast as they are failing. This, again, is another sign of how serious the country's need is that we should reverse this trend of accumulating debt and that we should turn to a different scene where we can begin to create wealth again which we, as a country, used to do and are still well able to do. Everybody would benefit by it; it would make more jobs; it would raise the standard of living and benefit the whole community. Let me stress the point which I think my noble friend Lord Limerick made, which is that Governments do not create money; it is only individuals who do that. It is individuals who create great wealth. They must be encouraged and be given a better deal than they have been given in the last few years, otherwise we shall continue to slide down the slope.
7.6 p.m.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, will forgive me if I do not take up the main point of his speech. That is not because I agree with his line: I am afraid this is far from the case, particularly as regards his point on the taxation of small businesses. There is no other country in Europe which gives such favourable treatment to the reinvestment of profits either in fixed
1046
capital or in stocks, both on account of the free depreciation introduced by the previous Administration and the stock-relief introduced by the present Administration. In fact any profit which is not spent on consumption but is used for the creation of wealth—that is a term which we have heard often today—suffers no tax charge at all. I merely wanted to point this out because I do not want to spend my time dealing with these points.
There was a great deal in the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, with which I was in agreement and I would say that also of many subsequent speeches, such as that of the noble Lord, Lord Carr. At the same time my immediate reaction after listening to him was to recall the biblical quotation:
"Why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye but considereth not the beam that is within thine own eye? "
I say this without wishing to express any opinion on the relative sizes of motes and beams.
There can be no question that the general attitude of management and labour towards each other is one of mutual hostility, and that in this respect the situation in Britain compares very unfavourably with other Western countries. Marx, writing over 100 years ago, and describing the state of the British working classes and the attitude of the employers to them with a great deal of bitterness, was nevertheless induced to conclude that, given the general tolerance and good sense of the British people and the nature of their Parliamentary institutions, Britain was likely to be the one country where the class war would abate peacefully and where there might be a transition to socialism which would not involve violent revolutionary upheavals. Unfortunately, that was one of Marx's many predictions which proved wrong. Class war has eased up considerably in countries on the Continent, particularly in Germany, where the workers feel a sense of identification with the enterprises for which they work, which was not present before. In Britain, on the other hand, as many observers have remarked, the sense of alienation of the working classes has become stronger and not weaker with the passage of time—stronger, as the ownership of industry has become more concentrated and as the

1047
ultimate responsibility of management has become more distant and more impersonal, as well as being more liable to sudden changes as a result of take-over bids and other financial manipulations which the workers whose lives are affected by them do not really know about or understand. I wish that I could share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, that the irresponsibility which we now experience with the British working classes is the result of the work of a few maniacs. The point I want to make is that I wish it were true that this is just because of a few maniacs, and that the vast majority of our industrial workers have as much pride and responsibility in their work as they should.
Noble Lords on both sides of the House have been right in stressing that the attitude of the British working classes has become less disciplined and less cooperative. For the first two years, the workers nobly supported the Government's incomes policy in the national interest, even at the cost of an appreciable cut in their real earnings. That was no longer true afterwards, when it became clear that the Government did not have more permanent solutions to offer, by way of new institutional arrangements that would replace the "free-for-all" which is implicit in a system of collective bargaining by numerous individual unions or groups of workers acting in competition with one another.
There is no doubt that our country is in a very tragic situation and, in my view, it would be wrong to put the blame on any one Government or on any one Party; the more so—and this is a point that is frequently overlooked, but which I have often emphasised in this House—since our economic difficulties are of very long standing. They go back to a period which extends at least 40 years before the first World War; in other words, to a period when income tax was 7d (seven old pence) in the pound, when there was no social security, no unemployment benefit, no death duties (at least not till 1892); and nothing of the kind of social policies which so many previous speakers regard as the cause of our present difficulties. I wish to remind Members of the House that between 1873 and 1913 we lived in a kind of "Hong Kongian" paradise—as Hong Kong was described earlier by the
1048
noble Lord, Lord Geddes, who I am sorry is not here just now—of low taxation, ripping competition and freedom for the small man, and anyone could get as rich as he liked. Yet our industrial production increased by less than 2 per cent. a year, at a time when German industrial production increased by 4½ per cent. a year and the industrial production of the United States increased by over 5 per cent. a year.
Over that period, 20 million people left this country, very largely because they could not find employment here. So we did not have a paradise, despite the incentives. There were all the incentives to become rich—State expenditure was very small; there was no sign or sniff of a Welfare State, and yet our economic difficulties were much greater in that period than they were after the Second World War, in the post-Keynes, post-Beveridge era. In the 20 years after the Second World War, our performance was very much better not only in comparison to the earlier period I mentioned, but relative to both Germany and America. Germany and America both did better than we did, but not so much better as in the period 1873 to 1913.
In the opinion of foreign observers, management bears the major share of the blame for the general inefficiency with which industry is conducted in this country; the lack of technical expertise, as shown by the inability to compete effectively in either the quality or the range of our industrial products, when compared with more go-ahead industrial countries, such as Germany, America or Japan. But management is also blamed for its inability to develop good working relations, and to make workers feel that they are part of the firm, and that the firm is conducted in the general interests of all and not solely or mainly in the interests of shareholders.
In this country, factories are closed down at the behest of the owners, without any prior consultation with the workers. I heard only last week of an important factory of Vickers at Scotswood near Newcastle, which was one of the few factories producing heavy machinery whose production can be vital in a national emergency, but which was closed because it made losses for two years in succession—ignoring the fact that all

1049
heavy engineering plants the world over have been making losses over the last two years. But Vickers has been progressively moving out of this field, moving abroad or moving into all kinds of fancy modern fields such as bottle-making, which promises a higher profit.
I know that noble Lords will not agree with me, but the criterion of profitability is not one that is decisive from the point of view of whether or not a factory should be kept alive or closed down. What is relevant in situations such as we are now in is not profit, but value added by production. If a factory is closed down, what you lose is not only the profit but the wages of the workers who become unemployed, or rather the value of the product of which the wage is only a part. It is the value added by production which should be compared, and not the rate of profit as the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, and so many others emphasised.
It is tempting to attribute the failures of this country to the excessive privileges and immunities of the trade unions, and I am inclined, to a large extent, to go along with what various speakers, including the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said earlier in this debate. But experience during the first part of the period in office of the previous Conservative Government—when these privileges were greatly curtailed by legislation—is far from encouraging, as any impartial observer will now admit. The 1971 legislation brought more strikes, more bitterness and more inflationary settlements, and this experience led the then Prime Minister, Mr. Heath, to recognise that the true solution lies in an incomes policy and not in free collective bargaining (which was the principle accepted by the Tories before they came into power). He recognised that the solution lies in a national consensus and not in confrontation, and this led him in the end to the advocacy of a national Government as the only means by which a policy based on the recognition of common interests could be developed.
The new found hostility of the Conservative Party towards incomes policies and their advocacy of a return to free collective bargaining—and the adjective "responsible" added to free collective bargaining adds nothing to the substance of what they are saying—as part of their free market philosophy makes the emer-
1050
gence of such a true national policy, which the previous Conservative leader desired, far more difficult. The belief of the present leaders of the Tory Party that reliance on monetary controls provides an effective substitute to such a consensus is one of the tragic errors which we may still have to endure before a constructive policy commanding universal assent can emerge.
I do not wish to detain the House for much longer, but I should like to remind noble Lords of the hostility with which British management received the proposals of the Bullock Report for worker participation, and their generally negative attitude to the sharing of responsibilities between management and workers along the lines which have developed since the war, not only in Germany but even more in Austria and in the Scandinavian countries—in fact, in all countries which have managed to achieve a comparative absence of industrial strife and which have been able to secure a steady improvement in living standards.
When noble Lords opposite speak of the horrible effects of nationalisation, of the honors of social security and the effect of high social benefits on workers' willingness to work, or of the privilege enjoyed by trade unions, I wish that they could study the experience of Austria. Austria has a very much greater public sector than our own. Far more basic industries have been nationalised in Austria. It has had a Socialist Government, either alone or in coalition, ever since the end of the last war. The rate of growth of the national product in Austria—real wealth creation, in the words of the noble Earl, Lord Limerick—has been much greater, percentagewise, than in any other industrial country except Japan. Austria has had the second highest growth rate. They have had no unemployment and no strikes, and at its maximum their rate of inflation is around 3 or 4 per cent. a year. All this shows that we can be a little too facile in thinking that paradise is around the corner, as the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, implied at the beginning of his speech, if only we adopt the system of taxation and competition which prevails in Hong Kong.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I ask him a very short question regarding

1051
his absolutely fascinating speech. Are not the very words "wealth creation" and "wealth creators" in themselves socially divisive, since they are always applied only to employers and never to the workers who work for them?
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, I would not dissent from what the noble Baroness has said. I should be quite prepared to use these words in a neutral sense: in the sense in which Adam Smith employed them in 1776.
The Earl of LIMERICK: My Lords, the noble Lord's sitting down seems to be somewhat delayed. I wonder whether the noble Lord would allow me to clarify one point, for he mentioned my name earlier in relation to the question of profitability and wealth creation. I said specifically that I was taking a long-term view. Does not the noble Lord agree with me that no amount of value added in the long term will produce the investment that is required for maintaining jobs or creating new jobs, unless he is assuming that the State is the only investor?
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl. I do not wish to continue this discussion, but I must confess that I do not feel that the lack of investment in this country is the result of an insufficiency of profits. It is the result of an insufficiency of markets and of our failure to acquire markets either abroad or at home. The noble Earl spoke a great deal about our falling share of the world market, but not much about our falling share of the British market, which is just as important. The problem is a lack of confidence on the part of employers in their ability to sell in competitive markets. It is not a problem of lack of money. There is all the money in the world in search of investment opportunities. In the City of London, any amount of money can be found for any project that appears to be profitable. The problem is the lack of market prospects, and the reasons for that go beyond what I have discussed today, and certainly beyond what I have time to say this evening.
7.26 p.m.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, having been a modest student at Oxford,
1052
I shall not challenge the Cambridge economics of the noble Lord who has just spoken. He gave us a very interesting time. However, I think—and I expect that noble Lords on the opposite Benches will concur with me in this—that both the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, must be creating a bit of an ogre from the past by their description of British employers. If I say that to the Cross-Benches, it may carry just a little weight. Obviously, there have been bad periods—and we have lived through some of them—in which the ethics and the method of behaviour were very unhappy. However, I simply cannot believe that the younger generation of employers in this country is unaware of the mistakes made by their forefathers. I am sure that a very conscious effort is being made rapidly to lift the standard of behaviour and understanding above what this country has admittedly known before.
I sympathise with the noble Viscount who opened this debate in wishing to speak about economics and not to pay too much attention to what is going on and to what is at the front of our minds. I find this to be very difficult. If I venture to have a criticism of this debate, it is that perhaps there has been too little indignation in this House. We are sitting here, after all, in comfortable and agreeable circumstances. We have admirable private relations with each other. Yet we know that trains may not run as the result of a squabble between unions which has nothing whatever to do with the thousands of people who are wondering how they will get home. Equally, we are doing this in the presence on television of people who are actually using violence or violent pressure against each other in order to secure this, that, or the other advantage. While I welcome very much the constructive nature of the debate we have had so far, and I know that it will continue, we ought none the less to put a little steam on and try to get ourselves into a better state of mind and a better state of relationship with industry.
I should like to go over a little of the history, for we need very badly to understand the history. I refer—this is why I can speak about it—to the history of legislation during the last few years. When the Industrial Relations Bill first came before us, I must confess that I was

1053
attracted by much that was contained in it. Much of it had logic but it suffered, as I think we all know now, from the rather strange malady of trying to do too much to make everything perfect and not to alter anything. This has turned out to be bad psychology.
The resulting Act was very vulnerable to removal, if there should be a change of Government. There was then an opportunity for statesmanship. There was an opportunity for taking quite a little out of that Act and modifying some of the less logical features of preceding legislation. Most unfortunately—and here it was the other Party whom we have as a nation to blame—the temptation to go much further in the other direction proved to be too strong and we now have an Act which the opposing Party, if it obtained power, would simply, for a whole lot of reasons, feel itself bound to repeal again. This is the sad situation to which our political squabbles about industrial relations have brought us and it is difficult to see how we are going to get out of this spin.
Mercifully—and here this debate would seem to have been of great help so far and will continue to be—stress has been placed by many speakers, notably the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, on the need for the next stage (and there really has to be a next stage) to be worked out somehow between all the Parties. Clearly for many years there will not be a climate in which one Party will produce legislation which the other Party will be prepared to accept without too much protest. Really, what we are measuring is the length of time before this will be possible.
I feel that there are some illusions about this. I spent a great deal of yesterday listening to the other place and I still find an air of some illusion about this as when, for instance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer after his, as always, most intelligent speech suggested that people must get together round a table. Of course the problem in this sphere has been that there are people who are not prepared to get round a table and there are others who are prepared to get round a table but not to carry out the arrangements agreed to. That is the difficulty of the temper of the time and it makes it much more difficult to see the solution in a short period.
1054
Having brought the difficulty up to date in this dimension I should just like to refer shortly to the business dimension and in particular to the end of the Prime Minister's speech. In the debate in the other place there were speeches of very high calibre and, indeed, oratory, but we were left with two things. Perhaps I may first just do a backward shot. A great deal has been said about excessive union power. It is true to say that the unions have discovered, somewhat surprisingly late in life, that a very few people can damage a great many things and exercise a great deal of pressure on the community. That has been exploited, not by the unions as such but, as has already been said by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, by people who are not prepared to carry out undertakings. That is the measure of the problem and it was really rather cold comfort that, after all the emotion there has been and all the magnificent debate, what should come out of it was, first, what might be called a "hotting up" of price control and, secondly, a promotion of disincentives. This was desperately disappointing and I hope the Government will recognise just how disappointing it was.
Returning to the unions themselves, I think what has gone wrong there is not, if I may say so—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley referred to it—that the unions have exercised excessive power but that they have found themselves either unable or unwilling and often both, to exercise any authority over the situation. When the excellent Secretary-General of the Trades Union Congress recently produced an economic report, all it said was that we should keep a stronger control over prices—and then one waited for the non-noise to proceed. Unfortunately, this has been a period in which I can say no more than that—and I only speak of two people whom I knew—I wonder what Ernest Bevin and William Lawther would have thought of that. It is not of the quality that we hope to see again in future in the leadership of that Party.
So what in fact are we to do? In this situation it is certainly important for the Parties to be finding some way to get near to each other. It is not easy. There is too much bad temper behind it, as many noble Lords have emphasised.

1055
It is not easy factually and I think your Lordships will have been much interested in the original ideas which have been propounded to us this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Brown. It may not be the way but it is certainly a way to remove some of the impossibilities in the present system of arguing and trying to put the situation right.
I wish to make one further comment before I sit down. It is probably an unpopular one but I believe it to have some force. I think we may be able to move towards better plans and ideas—I hope so—and I am sure that many people will have ingenious ideas and clever solutions of one kind and another, but there is a malady about this country which I have referred to before in your Lordships' House. I think we are suffering from all sorts of importations, I do not know where from, which are called "Couldn't care less", or "It's somebody else's job", or "Its my job and somebody else is doing it so I won't play". There are a whole lot of such influences in this country: I could enumerate many more and unless, whatever our political views, we are prepared as human beings to snap out of some ruts in which at the moment as a nation and as public opinion we wallow we shall not get this right.
There is a moral element in this—I am not talking about sex—and if there could be a greater effort on the part of writers, broadcasters and people generally to get on and help each other, although for obvious reasons it cannot be done as it is done in wartime, we could be somewhat more gracious and more helpful to each other: if we do not do a little more of that the best schemes may not succeed after all.
7.39 p.m.
Viscount ROCHDALE: My Lords, I have listened with great attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth has just been saying and I have a great deal of sympathy with the views he has just put forward. I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for having introduced this Motion this evening. It has certainly ranged very wide—rather wider than one might have expected had it not been for the events that have
1056
been going on for the last week or so and seem likely to continue. When I first read the wording of his Motion, I interpreted it as meaning that he wanted to draw attention to the importance of the industrial climate so that industry could really do its best. Industry is very much like a shrub or a flower; it succeeds best if it is in a congenial climate.
I want, quite briefly, to say something about the industrial climate in rather general terms. As I see it, responsibility for the industrial climate is that of Government; one cannot get away from that. But whereas in the many debates we have had on industry over the last 12 months, on the more internal matters of industry we have been able to keep Party politics out of our discussions, when it comes to climate that is much more difficult. Politics enters into industrial climate because it is, as I have just suggested, a matter largely for Government responsibility. Where political considerations come in, there, of course, it is so difficult to keep controversy, political innuendo, out, and of course any controversy of that nature cannot but react back on to industry and do quite a lot to prevent progress. I would, merely in passing, say that it has been a remarkable thing, if I may with all humility suggest it to your Lordships, that the many subjects that we have had aired today have been discussed with such impartiality and such fairness.
Considering then the approach of Government to industry, whatever their shade it is quite clear that every Government are loud in their professions of recognising how important it is to help industry. I am quite sure that when Government say that they believe it; they believe they are being sincere and I would be the last to suggest or impute insincerity. The fact remains, how many actions of different Governments have been taken which seem in the end to have had the very reverse effect of helping industry? I am not going to discuss today the question of taxation, which many other noble Lords have spoken about, or trade unions, or pay determination. I am not going to deal with those subjects. I have much sympathy with what other noble Lords have said, and they have said it probably far better than I could. I should merely like to refer to

1057
one point made by my noble friend Lord Hewlett when he was speaking of the situation in the North-West. Coming from that part of the world myself, I would underline and support very much what he said about the particular problems up there at the present time.
I want to take a rather different line. Over a great number of years that I have had either in industry or associated with industry I have identified three areas where I think we want to consider Government approach to industry. They are three areas in which I think industry can expect, and has a right to expect, certain approaches from Government. First, it has a right to expect an understanding approach by Government to industry; next a friendly and particularly a trusting approach by Government to industry; and lastly, and perhaps most important of all, a consistent approach to industry. I would say a few words about each of those three areas of approach. I will start with the last one, the question of consistency, because I think it is probably the most important, and perhaps one where there is more doubt than in the others.
As other noble Lords have mentioned, in recent years there have been an enormous number of Acts of Parliament directly or indirectly affecting industry. Sometimes they have speeded up Government policy, sometimes slowed it down, sometimes stopped it in its tracks or reversed it completely. Sometimes these changes have taken place within the lifetime of one Parliament, within the five years, where, of course, responsibility, for better or worse, for those changes lies fairly and squarely with the Party in power and it must bear the responsibility for them. Sometimes, of course, they have occurred following a change of Party, following a General Election, and this last situation raises a very difficult problem indeed. It was one that I think the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, just hinted at when he drew attention to our Parliamentary and electoral procedures. There is no doubt about it that where one Party pursues a line of policies and then goes out of power and another Party comes in and alters or reverses the policies, it does really immense harm to industry; it does not know where it is looking.
Perhaps I might for a moment be a little more specific on the question of
1058
consistency—and I am now only talking about the situation within the lifetime of a single Government. Let us look at the Parliamentary Session of 1976–77. There were placed in that Parliamentary Session no fewer han 20 new Acts of Parliament which directly or indirectly affected businesses, which companies and their professional advisers had to master and study. The comparable figure for this last Session, 1977–78, was, perhaps not unexpectedly, rather smaller, only 11. But I suspect that this change was due to two main things which are not unimportant; one, of course, the considerable time that Parliament spent on devolution; but, the other, the restraining effect of the Lib/Lab Pact on the more controversial Bills. At any rate, it must be obvious that this mass of legislation, sometimes put forward for ideological reasons, sometimes to meet immediate expediency, can but result in a very considerable burden on management and waste of management's time and skill which would far better be used in some other way.
Let me take just one example, investment. Every Government have always tried to impress upon industry the importance of investment, new plant and machinery, and so on. We have heard a good deal about its importance today and no one would doubt that; though I think sometimes the criticism is a bit unfair and possibly made through ignorance, or at any rate wrong information. Probably more really good investment goes on than is credited. But, taking the efforts that successive Governments have made to encourage investment, let us just look at the changes in investment incentives that have taken place, because these are not unimportant.
From 1945 to 1966 we had initial and investment allowances. That was all changed in 1966 to 1970 to investment grants. From 1970 until now we went back to investment allowances. With these changes there were changes, of course, of the breadth and coverage of the various incentives, and the levels. Main investment, as we all know, does not take place in a matter of two or three years or four or five years, within the lifetime of a Parliament; it takes, as another noble Lord said, 14 or 15 years. So the prospect of investment which seemed fully justified at the time on the basis of existing Government policies may in the event,

1059
when that investment comes on stream and is fully active, prove to have been seriously misconceived because of subsequent changes in legislation. I think it was my noble friend Lord Limerick who made that point.
I have no doubt that at the times these changes were made the Government of the day thought they were making the right decision. The arguments, whether political or otherwise, were no doubt convincing and the pressures to make the change were thought to be unavoidable. But what encouragement is that to an investor today, when he knows that this type of change can happen again? Will that really encourage him to invest to the extent that he should? One could quote other areas where these type of change have not helped—changes in regional policy, changes in planning controls and changes in planning agreements. There is the example of uncertainty created by the threat of more nationalisation. However, I shall now leave the important question of consistency.
I turn now to the importance of Government having a trusting approach to industry. When I say "Government" I also mean Government Departments. Perhaps the best example that I could quote concerns the whole question of price control. I must be brief because time is getting on and other noble Lords have already mentioned price control. I admit that over the past 12 months or so there have been some modifications which have helped industry. Even so, the present arrangements are burdensome, particularly when a company is being investigated by the Price Commission. Frankly, in my view, and I believe in the view of a great number of other people—although, unfortunately, not apparently in the view of the Prime Minister—there seems to be no economic justification for these controls at all. There may, admittedly, be some occasions where a price increase goes beyond the level of propriety. I would not deny that. Moreover, some consumers may be hurt. However, I am convinced that the vast majority in industry act and fix their prices in a responsible way, taking all—and I emphasise "all"—the various factors into consideration, factors which will be to the long-term benefit of the country as a whole. Therefore, I believe that the price control system
1060
should go. I submit that there can be no possible excuse for its retention except as a quid pro quo when it comes to the question of negotiating wages.
If we take away price control the inference is that the Government may say: "We cannot trust industry to behave properly". That is why I say that there needs to be a more trusting approach to industry. One could quote other examples. However, I should like to make one point which in my view is indicative. The very title of the Secretary of State for Prices—and I am certainly not criticising the present holder of that title—is Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. Who is being protected? What is he being protected against? The only inference one can possibly draw is that he is being protected against the fantasy of a wicked industrialist who wants to make undue profits, whereas industry, if it is really to do its stuff, should be looked upon not as the enemy of the consumer but as his friend. So much for a trusting approach as regards which I could give many other examples.
My final point concerns the question of understanding. The example I should like to take in this connection is one which I view with some caution because it concerns health and safety at work. I take it with some caution because I do not want to use this example and lay myself open to be regarded as a callous employer. After all, I believe that the vast majority of employers have a great feeling of responsibility for the care and attention of their employees as regards health and safety. Particularly in the smaller and medium sized businesses they know many, probably most, of their employees by name—Bill, John, Jim and so on. No doubt in reverse the employees know many of their employers or immediate managers. They may not call them to their face the "boss", or the "gaffer" or the "old man" or any other endearing term, but they are on friendly terms like that.
Therefore, I believe that nowadays the average employer, whatever may have been the case in the past—and it was not always true then, either—has a great deal of sympathy and idealistic care for those who work for him. No employer wants his employees to be at risk in these particular areas. However, there are degrees of perfection at which relevant

1061
legislation may aim which, although perfectly reasonable in the case of a really buoyant industry, go too far and become too onerous when industry is struggling to lift itself up.
Finally, I come to the important point I want to raise as regards this question of understanding. If we look at the composition of the other place and, with respect, of your Lordships' House, the number of Members in another place who have really had some considerable number of years in industry and real responsibility in industry, is deplorably small. That is especially so when we consider that this Parliament is legislating for, and deciding upon what is, the correct industrial climate of an industrial nation—this nation that depends for its livelihood on industry. Surely it does so only with a very small amount of real experience in this area. It does so surely only from theoretical considerations or from what it is told.
This, of course, is a major issue. At present I have no suggestion concerning how it could possibly be cured. It certainly is not something that could be cured by Act of Parliament. However, something needs to be done, and I would urge that both Houses of Parliament and Government Departments should give far more attention to any adverse effect that new legislation may have on industry, rather than giving, as I believe they do now, a tremendous degree of attention to the adverse effect on the consumer. They should look on industry more as the potential national saviour to be befriended, trusted and given his head, and less—and I use the phrase which the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, used a moment ago—as the ogre who, however indispensable and however much he may be thought not to be trusted, must have his freedom of action strictly controlled and monitored, if not even blunted.
We have all been told over and over again, and today, that inflation is our major obstacle. Surely, if we are to help overcome inflation we want to help the producer rather than the consumer, even though there may be occasions when the consumer suffers. But in the long term it is surely the producer rather than the consumer who should be given assistance. We are told that we are consuming more than we produce, and I should have thought that the answer
1062
was obvious. Of course, this may raise many very difficult political considerations and may not be helpful to any Party at the hustings. However, I would submit that any Party which may have the far-sighted wisdom and courage to test this will be doing the country a long-term service, and would be a Party to which I, personally, would certainly take off my hat.
8 p.m.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I feel very much indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for introducing this debate. Sadly enough, I do not think that he could have realised how topical this subject would be today. He embarked on the debate at a level which has been maintained since and in many respects it has been a very wide-ranging and constructive debate. Two noble Lords raised the temperature of the House ever so slightly. One, of course, was the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, whom we are always delighted to hear for his robust style and his full-throated support or denunciation of matters in hand. The other, of course, was my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington, with his rather astringent, steely attack upon some of the political shibboleths which have always enraged him.
Despite what the noble Viscount said at the beginning of his speech about not leaning too heavily upon the short-term events of the day, they are nevertheless of such importance that I think we have all, very rightly, made some reference to them. Unfortunately, current events have been repeated once or twice too often to be regarded only as short-term and of passing importance. In 1974 the mine-workers were defying the pay policy of the Heath Administration. Today workers are defying the pay policy of the present Administration. The scenery may be different, but the tragedy is very much the same.
The noble Viscount introduced a novelty into our debates by presenting us with a new theory of Einstein's theory of relativity. Instead of departing today and arriving yesterday, he set off today and arrived within half an hour at a point 10 years ahead in time. I suppose that he found it easier to look back from his own creation of 1990 than to look forward

1063
from the realities of the situation in 1979. Although what he said about 1990 was music to our ears, what we did not hear about was the turbulence of the composers, the quarrels during the rehearsals and the discordant notes that we were going to hear during the next decade in order to arrive at this paradise of 1990, which was the creation of the noble Viscount's mind. Therefore, we are back in 1979 and what we see is not very pleasant. We can only hope for the best for 1990 and, hopefully, some of us might arrive at 1990 and be able to say whether the noble Viscount's vision was right or wrong. I hope that he will be there himself to make his own judgment.
For a few minutes I want to dwell on a few matters which I fully expected to be mentioned during this debate as being blameworthy in the present situation. In his article published in the Daily Telegraph, to which my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington referred, the noble Viscount referred to the structure of the trade union movement and the need for reorganisation and reform. This is a very old topic. Like the composition of this House, not to mention that of the other place and a number of other institutions in our society, the structure of the trade union movement is part of our inheritance and is extremely difficult to change. I think that we have to make the best of what we have.
Frequently a comparison is made between the rambling structure of the British trade union movement and the streamlined trade unions in Western Germany. However, it took Hitler's war and Allied occupation to bring the German trade unions into the 16 industrial unions that they have at the present time. They had settled for them the controversy that still persists in the British trade union movement regarding the different qualities and advantages of craft unionism and industrial unionism.
However, I do not think that we can regard the structure of the trade union movement today—tiresome though it may be in some respects and much in need of reform—as really blameworthy in the present situation. I think that union power is more material to our consideration. But we want to be clear about what kind of union power we are talking. Is
1064
it shop-floor power or is it trade union leadership power? The shop-floor power is undoubtedly a power to be reckoned with today. It is not necessarily entrenched in trade unionism, though it has the framework of trade unions to contain it.
But what is much more important is the sad lack of trade union power at the top. I have never known the leadership of trade unions so weak as it is today and the General Council of the Trades Union Congress so impotent as it is today. In this situation we are hearing nothing from the General Council of the Trades Union Congress simply because it has nothing it can say. The unions took away from the Trades Union Congress their desire to co-operate with the Government on pay and other economic policies. They resolved to revert to what they describe as free collective bargaining and they stripped the General Council of the TUC of any authority in the present situation. That is a very bad state of affairs. Prior to this whoever heard of a trade union making an unofficial strike official in order that it should recover its authority?
The railways stopped yesterday because we were told by the Secretary of ASLEF that the situation would get out of hand if the union attempted to frustrate the mood of its members. That is an illustration of the power of membership and the weakness of leadership in the present situation. We get that also in many other aspects of the present activities of those involved in the dispute.
It may be that the legislation of 1974 and 1976 conceded too much too quickly in the extension of the lawful activities of workers engaged in industrial disputes. However, I am bound to say—especially in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley—that much of the present situation derives from the pent-up resentment that there was in the trade union movement against the Industrial Relations Act 1971. We have not got over that, and we might as well recognise that it is still an influence in the present circumstances.
We have heard nothing about strike ballots so I shall spend no time on them, except to say that the one experience we had of a statutory trade union ballot on

1065
strike action resulted in an overwhelming vote in favour of the leadership to continue the stoppage. Members of trade unions do not vote for their own defeat. When a strike ballot is imposed upon them they consider it to be a challenge to the authority of the union and its leadership, and in those conditions loyalty alone will undoubtedly result in an affirmative vote. Let them have their own ballots under their own rules and then, as in the case of the National Union of Mineworkers, the results will be observed.
Is the rejection by Parliament of the Government's policy of sanctions in any way a contributory factor to the present position? I believe that the policy of sanctions would have collapsed quickly anyway. It would have been impossible for the Government to find companies to take their business who were not subject to sanctions of some kind, because it is quite obvious that settlements are going outside the Government's guidelines and sanctions would become unenforceable. Personally, I regarded the sanctions policy with extreme distaste. I did not think that this was the way to do it. They were never supported by any legislation, although they did have the support of a vote of the House of Commons.
But when employers are resisting pay claims in the national interest by conforming with guidelines, or indications, given by the Government, and when industrial action against the employer in those circumstances is not unlawful and probably cannot be successfully resisted, then it was grossly unfair to treat firms in that position as though they were delinquents. I think sanctions in any case were uneven, they were capricious, and we only had to look at the deft footwork of the Government in imposing sanctions on the Ford Company, so I was not sorry to see sanctions go. If sanctions are to be imposed on employers for conceding wage claims outside the guidelines, why not impose sanctions upon those who make the claims?
However, this, of course, reopens the old dilemma as to whether you can proceed against unions, or large sections of workers, who may be in breach of the law, and if so how do you enforce it? This was the dilemma of the Labour Government in 1969 when it was considering action against unofficial strikers under the White
1066
Paper In Place of Strife. So instead of having unenforceable statutory pay restraint we had this so-called voluntary system, which results in arm twisting, and ear pulling, and other forms of intimidation which I think make a nonsense of the description "a voluntary pay policy".
I think that the intervention of Government in wage negotiations and wage fixations can be effective only in the short term. We have had 10 years of it now, and I doubt very much whether this can be continued without the full agreement of the trade union movement and without general acceptance throughout the community. Otherwise, I think it is better to free a great deal of the industrial relations process between workers, unions and employers, and hope that more genuine productivity bargains can be struck, more flexbility on differentials can be obtained, and a greater response to greater efficiency and higher production can result. That seems to me to be the probable line out of the present dilemma.
I come finally to two other probable causes of failure. Very little has been said during the debate about so-called industrial democracy. I am sorry about that because I believe that if we are going to get this new atmosphere referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett, and if we are going to get an elimination of the divisions between the two sides of industry, we have to bring those two sides together more closely than normal industrial relations can do. I believe that, if there is going to be power on the one hand in the hands of the management, and power on the other hand with the unions, or the workers, the sensible thing to do is to try to bring power-sharing into the boardroom. I am sorry that there is so little enthusiasm for this. The Bullock Report was met with scorn and derision; thrown out of the window. It may have had many shortcomings, was probably too bold in some respects, but basically it was an attempt to find a formula for Britain which has already been successfully adopted in all the EEC countries. It is not as if there was no model anywhere for what the Bullock Report was proposing.
My noble friend Lord Bruce of Doning-ton referred to the fact that workers in Western Germany, to take one example, had their status, their feeling of esteem;

1067
they had their recognised position in the structure of the enterprise. But it is not based on the two sides of industry, and still less is it based on any class division. So in those circumstances I believe there is a great advantage to be gained by trying to bring the so-called two sides of industry into one common enterprise, one initiative, and a unity of management and direction.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but may I ask in what European country we have the Bullock pattern of industrial democracy?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, there are various patterns in Europe. Taking the West German pattern, we have there the supervisory board and the management board. I know Bullock proposed one board, and that was probably the respect in which the Bullock proposals, designed to meet the British situation and our tradition, failed to recognise the difference between the two. But that was arguable. That could be brought into the discussion on the Bullock recommendations. Unfortunately, the door seems to have been slammed in many quarters upon further constructive discussion of the Bullock Report.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me—
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: My Lords, I have been speaking now for 17 minutes and I must close within the next 3 minutes or I shall reproach myself deeply, so may I be forgiven. Noble Lords are too kind to reproach me, but I would reproach myself. The second thing I want to say, and I can do it in three minutes, is that I believe we have neglected the creation and reward of skills in this country on a scale which is now becoming seriously damaging to our prospects for the future. We ought now to be willing to pay well for learning, and then pay well for the product of learning. Friends of mine in the engineering industry in high technology tell me that there is a generation of very highly-skilled technological engineers for whose replacement there are few people in sight at the present time. By the destruction of highly-skilled workforces at the time we abandoned some
1068
of our technological projects like the TSR2, Blue Streak, rocketry of different kinds, we abandoned skills which we are badly in need of today.
People who deride Concorde, and who say that it is a white elephant and ought to be scrapped, should realise that if Concorde went, then a new generation, widespread in its employment and the diversity of its occupations, would be destroyed with it. We shall rue the day if we go on destroying our skilled technical workforce. Therefore, we have to provide for the future on a positive programme of recruitment for learning and encouragement to learn.
At present young people do not feel they need spend five years of close application to a difficult job for the difference in the rewards they will get at the end of it compared with the worker on the assembly line. They want to see those differentials markedly improved, and there is no doubt that wage policy in the last few years has seriously reduced the differential gaps which are very important in a work society where status, esteem and identity are so important to the fulfilment of satisfaction in the job.
There are, therefore, two big problems for the next Parliament. One is industrial democracy and the other is to bring Britain to the pitch where we can earn our money in the world as innovators with inventive skills and with design and not fritter the national wealth away on trying to keep up some aspects of manufacturing industry which other countries can do better than we can. We should be supplying the world with the machines to make the manufactures rather than trying to make the manufactures with machines imported from other countries—something being done on a large scale at the present time. That is my message, at this late hour, to your Lordships' House.
8.22 p.m.
Lord SELSDON: My Lords, it is surely a rather sad comment on the state of our nation that a Motion such as this should even have been tabled, let alone debated, and debated with scales of wind force varying from Force 10 from my noble friend on my left to others who speak with still small voices. I came to this debate from Birmingham, where I

1069
was attending an exhibition, and in coming here I exceeded the speed limit—in courtesy to your Lordships' House—in a British car. Having attended the Domestic Appliances Exhibition, I spent the morning trying to find out whether there were any products there made in the United Kingdom.
It was a surprisingly difficult task. The trade was there—British trade—but the manufacturers were foreign, and an interesting question I put to the trade was, "Why don't you buy British? Is it no good?". The answer was, "It isn't bad. It's good, but the people who used to make it can't make a profit any more and we, the trade, can make more profit by importing products from abroad that have been designed by the British, made by British machinery and often using British steel".
That raises an interesting question, and as your Lordships have occasionally retired into historical background, let me consider the start of the Industrial Revolution. That revolution was started not by corporations but by individuals. What we have done today is to deny the individual the opportunity honestly to create prosperity for himself and his family, and therefore for the nation. Some will use the argument that the cause is taxation while others will say it is due to Government interference. But at the end of the day we must face the fact that we are no longer a bubbling economy full of individuals starting things. Instead, we have larger and larger corporations, often in declining industrial centres and shored up by Government, which in due course will fade gently away, and nothing is taking their place.
If today you ask somebody, "Would you like to run your own business? Would you like, in that rather rude phrase, to be a self-made man?" probably most people will reply, "Yes", and of course many people are corporation men. However, one now comes back to a situation in the United Kingdom where, I have calculated, the Government own everything from the knee upwards. When I presented that argument today to one of my Italian friends, he repeated a remark he had made before, "You must learn to do what we have done—do without Government". It is not the fault of the Government that they have so taken over society; it has
1070
been inflation, taxation, PAYE and a hundred and one different reasons. It was probably not the intention of the Government that it could or should become such a dominant factor in our lives, particularly when it is weak.
My noble friend Lord Limerick referred to this. It is not the role of Government to create wealth but to create the environment in which people, rather than corporations, can create wealth. The noble Lord, Lord Geddes, pointed out that 54 per cent. of taxation was tax on corporations and individuals. My examination of the latest edition of Economic Trends and Population Statistics shows that this year it is probable that of the total take by the Inland Revenue, 83 per cent. will come from the individual and only 3·8 per cent. from corporations and that the individual will be paying 50 per cent. of the cost of everything in direct taxation, plus, of course, more in indirect taxation.
I submit that the individual cannot support that burden. He cannot afford to support a Government or a nation such as this. Why then, if that is the hypothesis, does one support it? One supports it—at any rate on this one view—on the basis that never before in the history of our democracy has the standing of the other place, or Parliament or Government been so low. I submit that often the trade unionist—not necessarily the trade union movement—has the same feeling of dissatisfaction as I feel, namely, that somebody has let him down. He therefore blames the centre; he blames Government.
That blame may be unfairly laid at the Government's door because it is not all due to Government or bureaucratic failure; it is not all the "bureaucrots", as some people call them these days. That does not mean our friends in Whitehall or in the Civil Service. It is the Corporation State as a whole; we are a State of corporations or, to some extent, a corporate State. And even within the large corporations the individual is stifled. An eminent banking colleague of mine drew attention to something he called the "snake serum syndrome": corporations, governments and large bodies engaged in the game of snakes and ladders are no longer interested in climbing ladders—they are more interested in stopping

1071
themselves sliding down snakes, and therefore they take snake serum. Snake serum comes in different forms; merchant bankers, Royal Commissions, Select Committees, everything you can think of—quango-like organisations—so that if you slip down a snake into bankruptcy or despair you can say, "It wasn't my fault. I took precautions", and you try to drag everybody down with you.
Equally, when you find somebody in your organisation who seeks to climb a ladder, you try to stop him with boards or committees and you say, "The committee has decided that we do not have time to discuss it today". You try to stop him going up because, in a way, you are frightened that if he goes up and is successful he may show you all up for being "bureaucrotic". While I cannot remember his exact words, Churchill said something like, "Conservatism is a ladder up which you should encourage people to climb with provision to catch those who fall off". Today we have the situation of a greasy pole which nobody can climb up but down which everybody can slide and end up in a muddle at the bottom. We lack productivity not because we fail to work, not because we fail to have ideas, but because so much of our time is taken up in non-productive affairs.
How do we revitalise the situation? How do we persuade somebody to start something? The Press last weekend—for example, the Observer—took up the case of small businesses. It has been said that if every small business employed one more person there would be no unemployment, but if you talk to small business and ask, "Do you want to employ any more people?" you will probably get the answer," No, not direct employment. The laws are too complicated". One businessman said to me, "I received this letter yesterday. I now employ 100 people, but, unless they are disabled, I'm not allowed to employ any more without permission. As it happens I need a new engineer, but I have told him to fall downstairs before he comes to join me".
The individuals are still there. I thought they had died. I thought the United Kingdom, with its energy and resources, was the right country but with the wrong people. I think that we have the right country and the right people, but
1072
probably at the moment we have the wrong structure.
The tanker drivers did not come off strike because they were frightened of anything; yet they were frightened of one thing. I inquired among tanker drivers. "Ah," they said, "the Army will rumble the wet thumb on the dipstick. They will rumble our fiddles." These are perfectly legal perks of the trade. That draws attention to one point which encourages me. It is that the individual in the United Kingdom will not lie down under our "bureaucrotic" system. Instead he moonlights. Moonlighting is not dishonest. When a middle manager wants to have his house painted and it will cost him £100 he will have to earn £200 or so for that £100. The man he pays, if he declares it, will have to charge him £200 in order to keep the £100. So the transaction takes place. This moonlight economy is common practice throughout the Socialist bloc—Italy and the Arab world—and in fact it is shoring up our situation as it stands at the moment. But is it wrong? It may not be wrong when people are so oppressed by the system that they see no other alternative but to go it alone, but this surely is the time to start changing laws and regulations to encourage and revitalise the situation.
I should like to have my own business, but I do not think that I have the guts to start it. I do not have the money to start it. One wonders why, when one thinks of an idea, one cannot get it off the ground. The Wilson Committee will show that there is no problem about adequate finance. There is no problem about technology or know-how. There is no problem about goodwill from within Government Departments in the regions where there are some superb brains and a hundred and one people longing for somebody to take the lead. But instead these days we take the view that, in order to make the arrow travel farther and arrive at the target, we must add more feathers instead of sharpening the point.
The Earl of LIMERICK: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord's flow, but before he sits down I should like to underline one point he made. In the last two years I have spoken in some depth to four people who started businesses for themselves. The

1073
businesses could all be counted as successes in profit and loss account terms, yet each of these entrepreneurs who have provided some modest measure of new employment have said, "Never will I do this again because of the enormous administrative load that has been put on me and because of the bureaucracy that is on my back". This, I believe, is a very disturbing reflection.
Lord SELSDON: My Lords, I can only agree with the noble Earl. I sit down in the interests of productivity, having noted that the average time for speeches today has been 20 minutes, and mine has been 10.
8.33 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, it is always difficult to follow some speakers. It is particularly difficult to follow my noble friend Lord Selsdon, who speaks with such immense skill. If he will forgive me, I will not follow his line of argument because there are other things to say, and, as he himself has pointed out, there is not very much time in which to speak if one is to be reasonably polite to the rest of the House. First, I wish to say, "Thank you very much", as many other noble Lords have done, to my noble friend Lord Trenchard for putting down the Motion. I wish to make one comment on his absolutely splendid speech which took us into the future. One noble Lord—I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton—pointed out that my noble friend had been immensely skilful some time ago, before Christmas, in choosing today as an ideal day for this debate, fitting in, as it does, with rail strikes, and bringing us to this subject at a time when other troubles are also being experienced. If my noble friend had that kind of foresight, perhaps his foresight extending to 1990 is also valid, and perhaps we may take hope from that.
I was not planning at all to speak about the present problems, but I have been rather surprised that not many other noble Lords have spoken about them. Indeed, only my noble friend Lord Hewlett, and the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, have made reasonably strong references to the troubles we are now in. Here I must declare an interest as a director of the Cake and Biscuit Alliance which is responsible for the interests of
1074
the cake and biscuit manufacturers in this country, and as such I feel that I must add something on the question of the present situation. It is relevant because it is in fact fundamental to the whole issue of whether we can re-engender the conditions in which wealth can be created by industry in this country.
The fact of the matter is that in the last ten days 16,000 people out of 52,000 have been put out of work, though they are in no way concerned with the dispute in question, which for most of that time has been unofficial, but simply because they have the misfortune to be in an industry which was early hit by the process of unofficial striking. So far as one can see, the unofficial strikes were entirely arbitrary. They were particularly strong in Liverpool and in other dock areas. If one had the misfortune to rely upon raw material which came in through those docks one was hit. It so happens that during the last two or three days we have been told that the Transport and General Workers' Union has agreed to a certain list of priorities, which appeared in Monday's Daily Telegraph, though I have not seen it in other papers, which includes food products—all food products.
One would have thought that as the strike has been made official, the power in the trade union hierarchy, which, as many noble Lords have pointed out, is not perhaps as strong as it should be at the top, might have been increased. However, there is no evidence of that whatsoever. Indeed, in some areas making the strike official has made some of the picketing people even more determined to resist the passage of any form of transport at those picketing points. Any suggestion of paying attention to a list of priorities agreed between Transport House and the Government has been brushed aside. That is the reality of the situation; and it is terribly important that the urgency of the situation should be appreciated by the Government.
Like other noble Lords, I should like to suggest that the palliatives offered by the Prime Minister in another place yesterday are certainly no help towards overcoming the immediate problem, and they may indeed exacerbate the situation in the not quite so distant future. I do not wish to go into detail on the matter at this stage as that might move us away from the

1075
subject of our debate. It seems to me quite logical that if people have decided to take the law into their own hands, which in effect the pickets have done, they will not be discouraged from so doing because there is a possibility that legislation might be passed to abolish the safeguards on the regulations operated under the Price Commission Act. That surely is another world. It is not something to which one listens if one is enjoying exercising one's own authority at someone's factory gate. In those circumstances, one does not think of that kind of thing, nor if one is told that there is to be a minor adjustment in the permitted or encouraged permitted pay adjustments that might be allowed. This is a very serious situation, to which I shall return in a few moments, which needs to be identified by the Government as requiring immediate action taking a variety of forms, and it is up to them to deal with it.
I wish to return now to what I intended to say, and I promise to be short on this. I believe that all the most important factors relating to the creation of wealth by industry nowadays centre on people. It is absolutely vital that we all realise, and act upon the realisation, that there is an inter-relationship, an interdependence, between us all in a country and within industry in modern times, which makes it undeniably costly to other people whenever we take any action which is irrational and unreasonable and not within the limits which society has agreed should be put upon it. To that extent, any form of unofficial strike on a massive scale, such as we are enduring at the moment, must be contrary to ordinary human decency, quite apart from defeating the purposes of industrial development.
The fact is that at this moment in time, and ever since the 4th January—and we are now at the 17th January—no exports are being or have been permitted to pass through the dock gates in Liverpool, in London or in Hull, or in most of the minor ports, thereby completely destroying our export trade for the whole of a fortnight, and there is no sign of that state of affairs ending. It may be that that is not criminal in law but in human relations terms, in the country's terms, that is surely quite criminal; and it does not really demand much in the way of imagination to see how this sort of action
1076
is something which we really must try to stop, so that we can pick up this broken world of ours and put it together again in some form or another.
One thing that I think is fundamental, but which has not been mentioned by other noble Lords, is that much of the information that is available to us all, and available to the pickets in particular, is false. A good example of that is that for a long time the media were saying that the Scottish industrial dispute was official when it was not; and even when Mr. Alex Kitson went to Scotland and said it was not official, the newspapers brushed it aside and went on saying that it was official. That is one example, and that obviously gave strength at that time to the people who were wanting to go on creating the trouble.
There have been other problems. Surely, information could have been provided by the Government this year, in the same way as they provided it in 1977, to show the effects of wage increases beyond the 5 per cent. limit which they recommended. If your Lordships remember, in the 1977 White Paper they said that if there was a wage increase of so much per cent. it would mean an inflation of so much, and so on. This provided information for people by which they could judge their actions. This year that was not done, so there was no information; and in some cases no information is as bad as false information. It sems to me that we really must get that sort of information right, because I think it would make a great difference to the attitudes of mind of people if, as far as possible, they were provided with information as to the likely effects of their actions. For example, that if they demand £X increase in money, or an X per cent. increase, this is bound to lead to an inflationary level of so-and-so; and we have lots of evidence to show that it almost certainly will because we had this experience in 1974–75 followed by an inflation level of 25 per cent. in 1976–77. So that sort of information is one aspect.
Another sort of information which I think needs clarifying and putting straight is exactly what is the situation about industrial disputes in this country. We are told blandly that they occur only in a few big companies, that our record is much lower than that of other countries,

1077
and that sort of thing; and yet when, in October, one of the newspapers—and I regret to say I have not been able to track it down—rang round a number of industries, it found that there were almost constant industrial disputes of a minor nature. It found, furthermore, that if an industrial dispute lasted for less than 24 hours it was not reported to the Department of Employment at all, and so it was not included in the statistics. This means that all the minor disputes which take place up and down the country, admittedly in the bigger companies rather than the smaller ones and ones which may happen in part of a big company rather than all of it, if they are resolved reasonably quickly do not get included in the statistics. Although they use up the time of the management, stop the production lines and cause all sorts of hidden costs to this country and to the companies concerned, none of these things get included in the official statistics.
All I would ask of the Government, therefore, is, first, that they should make clear to the country what the effect of a 15 per cent. increase in wages will be, or what the effect (if that is what it ends up at) of a 23 per cent. increase in wages will be, and that they should make it very clear and very public. Secondly, they should set the Department of Employment to work to find out the real situation about industrial disputes in this country. I think that we would get quite a different picture, and that people are probably involved in these troubles without realising the implications as to what happens to other people and, indeed, to their own companies, not to mention other people's jobs and, in the long run, their own jobs. We are not well enough informed about the nitty-gritty, and there are a great many myths around the place. These things can be put right by a few more factual statements, a little more study of things and a little less of blandly saying, "It is all right, boys; we will be all right". Because this is not the case, and we all know it; but we have got to get the facts put to the people who actually do the work in the productive companies.
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, before the noble Lord sists down, I wonder whether I might comment on his last question and quote from the industrial
1078
relations director of Ford. These are his actual words:
"The apologists for British strikes have three well-known themes:
that we have far less damaging strikes than other nations, such as the United States;
that, in any event, they only occur in a small part of British industry; and
that the time lost through sickness and accidents is far more significant …
Unfortunately, all three statements are completely untrue. The strike problem in Britain is endemic and widespread. It is the biggest single cause of our industrial and economic decline as a nation and there is no way that we are going to progress as a nation unless we can solve the problem …".
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I entirely agree with what my noble friend has contributed.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt the noble Lord but it is customary, when a noble Lord sits down, merely to ask a question. The noble Lord did rather make another speech, and I do not think it is the custom of the House to do that.
8.49 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, may I join those speakers who congratulated my noble friend Lady Birk on her elevation. I wish her strength and I wish that the problems of which she will be in charge in this House will disappear and that she will lead a life of Parliamentary leisure. I do not think that that time has yet come. My Lords, we have had a melancholy debate about a melancholy subject of which all that can be said has been said a long time ago. Certainly the propositions which the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, put before us have been heard almost incessantly from the Benches opposite. His propositions present a réchauffé of old arguments echoing the most disturbing phrases of Mr. Moss Evans. In concentrating on the interests of his members the only difference is in membership, not in spirit.
Lord Trenchard's is the Institute of Directors. In line with his father he is a single-weapon strategist. Restore differentials, reduce progressive taxes and all would be well! It is this spirit of social irresponsibility on both sides which has brought us to where we are. Before the war union strength was broken. Did we

1079
do better? We did worse. Did we do better before the first World War? We did not. I will not go into the details of it because my noble friend Lord Kaldor has carried out his thorough destroying of certain arguments which have been brought up. It is easy to produce, as did the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, statistics comparing recovery after total defeat and destruction with our better fate. What the noble Viscount ought to compare is the expansion before and after the war. As my noble friend Lord Kaldor has shown, we had a post-war situation which was much better than the pre-war one.
Since 1973–75, partly because of a great change in the approach of Governments not only here but elsewhere to the monetary position, we have been suffering very much more serious crises, similar to those that we experienced before the war. We also have experienced steady increase in unemployment after every slump. The recovery from the last slump was even more sluggish or worse and we emerged with a residue of unemployment which was near to the miserable pre-war levels, with vast productive capacity remaining idle and being closed down. As in the dark pre-war days there is now talk about structural unemployment, talk that disappeared during the post-war era of unparalleled rapid expansion. Fears have grown that it will still increase further and remain at a high level afterwards. These fears explain but do not justify some of the bitterness and excesses from which we suffer now. Unemployment creates militancy and not the other way round. We must beware lest that further confrontation could increase it in intensity and we should face what might be called open class war.
The ultimate reason for the dismal setbacks that we are now suffering is the relentless increase in prices. As they increased persistently they accelerated and have become the centre of political storm. Inflation destroyed a large number of Governments and, even in this country, the fight against it became a test of policy. The word "Keynesian" became pejorative because policies based on his analysis—fiscal manipulation—failed to combine stability with high employment.
1080
The main reason for this failure was—and I stress this—the concentration of economic power on both sides of industry. This radically cut the resistance against wage claims even if they were pitched far beyond the increase in productivity because it enabled manufacturers to recoup themselves by higher, manipulated prices. The picture painted by the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, about the competitive markets with large-scale units of production does not correspond to the realities in any way.
All Governments (including the German) were forced to apply direct measures especially, more or less stringent, more or less voluntary incomes policies or "guide posts". Nor were these unsuccessful either in America or in this country, not to talk about Germany where there was a tacit agreement on incomes. Their eventual failure was due to their being regarded as a sort of emergency measure and withdrawn once their favourable effects were felt. The history of the last few years shows clearly not that incomes policies are ineffectual but that advanced economies need permanent incomes policies backed by permanent and new institutions flexible enough to avoid an accumulation of anomalies in income differentials while controlling the emergent average. It is astonishing and terribly disappointing that hominis economici can be so stupid, even after seven bouts of crisis, not to realise that in a modern economy, with the concentration of economic power, some sort of independent forum is necessary in order to get the incomes structure right. It is absurd to talk about competition regulating the remuneration of workers in present conditions. We are not in Adam Smith's time, and even in his time there was recognition that there were very many fewer employers than employees. The bargaining power was on the other side. Free collective bargaining necessarily results in leapfrogging inflation. It really means the law of the jungle where each occupation is incited against the rest, with the managers against the workers, and the strong prevail.
Incomes policies are of course acutely unpopular with the unions because they impinge on the activity of general secretaries and shop stewards. If they are successful they diminish union authority and the opportunity to earn personal political laurels. They also make responsi-

1081
bility apparent: a good reason for their dislike by politicians and central bankers. It is this that accounts for the attraction of monetarism for so many important and intelligent people. It attributes the ills of inflation to an excessive expansion of the money supply; it asserts that controlling the money supply is not merely a necessity but also a sufficient condition of stability. It was and remains attractive because it de-personalised policies leading to unpopular consequences. If some mechanistic and scientific looking criterion could be found which would alone, by itself, guarantee stability, what a relief for political and trade union leaders, what a boost for econometricians and forecasters!
Yet no one proved how the changes in money stock would by itself automatically create or restrict demand and outlay, if it is possible to control the money supply at all. Nor did its proponents disclose that restrictive monetary policy, as the noble Lord, Lord Carr, said, could only discourage wage demands by creating at least a fear of unemployment. Unemployment together with the existence of idle capacity will discourage investment and the increase in interest rates consequent to that policy accentuates this deterrent effect, as we have seen recently in the United Kingdom and the United States. Yet we sorely need to increase our real income by accelerated investment to damp down the inflationary effects of wage claims. This was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carr.
The Government seem to pursue contrary policies: sustaining industry by direct grants while creating a general ambiance hostile to investment. This aspect has never been explained. By itself it explains certain false attitudes on the part of trade union leaders. If this is then paralleled by increases in interest rates, the whole situation is aggravated.
The very pundits who yesteryear preached the cure-all effects of depreciation, like Mr. Brittan and Sir Keith Joseph, have swung round with a vengeance and now agitate for fixed exchange rates in Europe. We are back in 1924, the painful months when similar ignorance pressed for a return to the gold standard. Catastrophic as that decision proved to be, the present still vague outline of the European system is stricter and more restrictive
1082
—as parities can be changed only by common consent—thus giving the creditors power of decision: the creditors, contrary to the rules of the gold standard, could indulge in restrictive policies and exert pressure on our economy even though they ran huge export surpluses. Premature liberalisation of our foreign economic relations for the sake of the City was one of the most important reasons for our industrial decline.
The Prime Minister has strongly and rightly defended the 5 per cent. norm, which would have brought the inflationary pressure down to the level of most of our competitors (though not so low as Germany). Those on the opposite side who destroyed sanctions designed to help in keeping wage increases within tolerable limits incurred a grave criminal responsibility. It will be exceedingly difficult to keep wages in the private sector from rising faster rather than slower than last year; and even more difficult to avoid confrontation in the public sector on the basis of comparability between the two. One sees the repetition of the 1974–75 experience, with disastrous social impact.
The Prime Minister also—and very wisely—refused to enter the European Monetary System elaborated by Hen-Schmidt. That system would be of great value to the Germans as it would mitigate the upward pressure of "hot" money on the Deutschemark. The Germans were afraid that the appreciation of their currency would hinder their export drive which is maintaining their employment to the detriment of that of her trading partners. The fact that the Irish and the Italians could be bribed to join the system by loans and grants shows that many of them (with the honourable exception of Dr. Carli) were innocent of the character of the real threat implicit in Herr Schmidt's scheme: the maintenance, and very probable increase, of the German current export surplus.
Unless and until we succeed in turning round the frightening loss of competitiveness by a sane incomes policy and by adjusting our exchange rates, both coupled with industrial organisation, we shall continue to run the grave risk of wasting—as we have already done to the tune of over £2,000 million per annum—the windfall gained from our oil and gas mainly in the purchase of foreign, mostly

1083
consumption, goods. It must be understood before it is too late that negative monetary measures acting mainly through a rise in interest rates might safeguard the balance of payments, might indeed dampen inflation. But their action is fatal to investment and productivity because it is through a short-term pressure on demand and employment. Investment and innovation are the only long-run remedies of our recurrent and nagging decline.
The present attitude of a number of trade unions is, to say the least, perilous to the nation and to themselves. But that attitude is not shared by men such as Mr. Weighell or Mr. Boyd, who have come out courageously on the terrible consequences of the so-called free collective bargaining. There is therefore some hope that the present crisis will abate and the Government remain victorious in the Election so that we can lift our eyes and contemplate a more prosperous and in the longer term more hopeful Britain.
9.4 p.m.
Lord ROBERTHALL: My Lords, as a number of noble Lords have reminded us, we have had a lot of debates on this type of subject in the past Session, all on the subject of the steady decline on the economic position of Britain. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has done a great deal to encourage these debates and is I am sure gratified by the support that he has received. At this late hour, when so many aspects of the subject have been covered, I feel that there is little to say. I do not altogether agree that inflation is, in this context, our principal problem. The principal problem is our lack of advance in productivity. It is our inability to produce which is at the root of the difficulties about wealth to which the Motion refers. Basically, I am troubled, as I have said in other debates, by the increase in unemployment and the inability of the Government to do anything about it which to my mind shows that we are becoming less and less adapatable as a society. There is a type of creeping paralysis coming over us in this field, one of the symptons of which is the inability to cope with more and more unemployment.
From that point of view, if one looks at production as a process requiring
1084
management, government and labour, I had intended to say—and I hope I can say very briefly—a little about each of these three aspects. First, on management, my experience suggests that British management has actually improved over the relevant period. The great trouble about this country used to be its complacency, the feeling that we did not have to bother and that we tried to live on our record in the past. But there is very little of that left now. The type of remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, seem to me to be completely out of date in describing, for instance, the attitude of management towards the workforce. Connected, as I have been, with a number of businesses with wide international relations, I think there is little doubt that British managers, when they go abroad, compare quite favourably with other managers. Their difficulties are the difficulties which we impose on ourselves.
Turning to the Government, I was going to say something about what I think is the very mixed record of Government in this connection, but the noble Viscount was right to say what he did and he covered that so very well in his speech. He pointed out the ambivalent attitude of Governments—all Governments have been in favour of increased productivity and many of them have taken measures which they think will help, but at the same time they are often doing contradictory things. It is not only the contraditions to which the noble Viscount referred, between policy in one year and policy in the next year and between the policy of one Government and the policy of the next Government. At the same time you find all the individual Departments doing their best to help along the improvements in productivity and in adaptations to the new society. Meanwhile, the Government's whole policy is making the atmosphere more and more difficult, loading industry with an enormous amount of work such as unpaid tax collection, filling in forms and suffering from continuous investigations by the Monopoly Commission, the Price Commission and things of that kind.
However, my Lords, when we are dealing with adaptation and the ability to adjust ourselves to circumstances, the great difficulty, as I think much of this debate has shown and which needs very little proof, is that the trade unions are very strongly opposed to any sort of

1085
change. They, perhaps naturally, think of their jobs as a very precious possession and fight very hard against anything which it seems to them would put their jobs in jeopardy. Thus, the task of management and of Government, so far as it sets itself towards this, meets with a tremendous amount of obstruction and difficulty.
As a number of speakers have said, in recent years and especially since the Social Contract, the strength of the trade union movement has increased enormously while, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, reminded us, the use of the term "trade union movement" now is very uncertain because of the complete lack of leadership, as was so well put to us by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. He went on to commend the Bullock proposals or something like them. I do not know whether the difficulty created by the fact that there is no leadership in the trade union movement is fully understood in this connection. It is not so much that people do not want worker-representatives on the main board as that the worker-representatives will not represent anybody because none of their constituents are going to listen to them—except perhaps when it is a matter of obstructive and difficult action.
I will not labour the point, which is only too obvious, that our basic difficulties arise from the industrial relations and the position of the unions; but, listening to the speeches tonight, it seemed to me that most of the speakers who admitted that this was a problem put all their faith in reason, peaceful persuasion and a change of attitude. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, pointed out, took refuge in the assumption that a miracle was going to occur in the next year or two and then he sketched out all the lovely things that would happen. The noble Lord, Lord Carr, was more realistic but I think he was pinning his hopes mainly on peaceful persuasion.
The speaker who was nearest to my own views on this, was, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. He said quite rightly that this problem is never going to be dealt with until there is a great deal of combined support behind whatever Government is trying to deal with it. At the moment I am afraid there is very
1086
little prospect of that. I think it would be quite unrealistic for us to think that this is an easy problem which can be got over without a great deal of difficulty. The Government are quite powerless to deal with the anarchic situation in which we are now and they can only deal with that situation when they are sure they have public opinion behind them. In an atmosphere of confrontation both in the industrial world and in the political world, this is not going to be easy to bring about.
9.14 p.m.
Lord REMNANT: My Lords, may I start by expressing my appreciation to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, for enabling this debate to take place. It has been a most interesting debate and, quite rightly, there has been much emphasis on managers and on the work force. There has been less emphasis on the providers of capital, and I should like to address my comments towards this sector which is very much part of the industrial scene.
The common division between private individuals and institutions is a misleading one, as under both headings we are considering the savings of individuals, whether managed separately by the person himself or coalesced into larger lumps administered by professional managers. Inadequate physical investment by industry is not caused by lack of finance. There is abundant evidence to show that money is ready and waiting to take advantage of any opportunities which might show themselves, and I was delighted to find this agreed by the noble Lord, Lord Kaldor. The problem is that opportunities show themselves too seldom, and a reason for this is that the reward in real terms from such an investment is too low—a matter on which my noble friend Lord Limerick has touched. Industry cannot be expected to lay out capital investment unless the expected return on the physical investment is sufficient to cover the cost of servicing capital and, in addition, to compensate for the risks involved. Nor, similarly, can investors be expected to supply funds to finance this capital investment unless the return is appropriate.
There is, unfortunately, under-utilisation of capacity in many industries. Many of my noble friends have identified the

1087
reasons for this, and the environment which must be created in order to stimulate the required expansion to full utilisation of capacity. Until this surplus has been absorbed, there is no incentive to industry to add to that capacity. It is, to me, astonishing not so much that the level of investment is so low, but that, in all the circumstances of dividend limitation, price controls, poor industrial relations, high taxation and, not least, frequent change in Government policy affecting industry and commerce, British industry is keeping its level of investment as high as it presently is.
Inevitably, inflation has naturally raised its ugly head and it may be constructive to isolate its particular effect on corporate finance. Companies need to use the funds available to them to finance stocks and debtors, and are prejudiced against exposure to the danger of losing liquidity by committing these same funds to fixed assets. Inflation makes it almost impossibly difficult to estimate the final amount which will be committed to any project once started, and inflation usually forces up the rate of interest on borrowing to a level which is unacceptable when set against the return to be earned on the project.
I do not think I need expand on the problems caused by price controls. If companies are to be inhibited from earning reasonable profits, new funds are likely to be discouraged and to require a higher yield. The logic is horribly inescapable. I trust that I may be excused for taking a few moments to touch on these separate elements. We have to create the need for more investment, but once created the environment needs to be very different from the present. At this moment the providers, or potential providers, of capital are subject to a type of Chinese torture—inflation, dividend limitation, price control, changes in Government policy, high taxation, but, above all, too little recognition of the fact that a fair reward is deserved for capital entering the three-way partnership between management, labour and itself.
There is, however, another area which is close to my heart and which gives me cause for concern. This affects the private investor and, in particular, influences the money which he has saved. In the past,
1088
the rather more successful creator of wealth has been prepared to put part of his success in financial terms towards entre-preneural high-risk investment. Now, with the effect of high taxation and the requirement to give higher priority to matters nearer home, that individual does not have funds to be directed towards entrepre-neural investment and the nation is the poorer. However, the general standard of living throughout the United Kingdom is substantially higher than it was a decade or so ago, and it should be possible to tap the broadly based financial capabilities of these people.
In order to put this into some perspective may I recount briefly some statistics produced by the Bank of England which show that sales of company securities by the private sector have risen from £1·1 billion for the five-year period 1956 to 1960, to £7·6 billion for the five-year period 1971 to 1975. I suggest that there are at least two conclusions which may be drawn from this: first, that the general pressures of life have been such that private individuals, as a group, have been forced to dig into their savings to pay the grocery bills and that therefore our high levels of taxation have been a major inhibitor; secondly, however, that the fiscal structure has influenced savings towards building societies, pension funds, life assurance, et cetera, all of whom in one way or another benefit from special tax treatment. Over the years 1973 to 1977, a five year period, £17 billion went into building societies from the personal sector and £24 billion into life assurance and superannuation. In the first case—the amount of money which went into building societies—the yearly figure over this short period was 2½ times at the end compared with the beginning, and in the second case—life assurance and superannuation—nearly twice. In contrast, £7 billion was taken out of company securities.
There is, however, a great potential for the private individual in this country. His savings can be turned to splendid use. There is still a great case to be made for ensuring that this individual can carefully follow the course of his own money, not only through the medium of the institution but also in a more carefully encouraged manner. May the powers that be give the same attention to personal savings that they presently give to life assurance premiums, mortgage interest, pension

1089
premiums and so on. To be direct, and as an illustration, why cannot we allow "x" per cent., with a particular maximum figure, to be deductible from gross income, provided that it is invested in a qualifying sector—or, to be even more specific, and paying more than lip service to the modern vogue, have new investment in small businesses as tax deductible. It is bad enough that we have eliminated the traditional supporter of such businesses. Let us use our expertise by replacing him by the broader modern equivalent.
It really is quite wrong that we influence the private individual with such weight towards life assurance and pension provision. If we mean what we say and encourage him back to British industry, let him be given the same tax advantages for qualifying savings—no more but equally no less. The man on the factory floor already has a meaningful commitment to British industry through his own pension fund. I believe that he would welcome the chance of investing direct if this were shown to be sufficiently attractive.
May I also plead for the progressive dismantling of exchange controls, whether they relate to direct or portfolio investment overseas. The prosperity of many United Kingdom based companies depends upon their export business, or on their overseas operations. Overseas investment is not made at the expense of United Kingdom investment and employment. Such investment is often necessary to maintain or expand exports in today's competitive world markets and thus contributes directly to the protection of domestic employment. Direct investment by foreign companies into the United Kingdom should be welcomed, providing, as it often does, healthy competition, additional employment and reduced imports.
Free flow of capital is likely in the long term to lead to the most efficient use of resources. The objective should be that national regulations should be neutral in their effect so that foreign investment is neither encouraged nor discouraged. This neutrality should apply to both portfolio and direct investment and to United Kingdom investment overseas and foreign investment in the United Kingdom.
Membership of the European Economic Community requires the free movement
1090
of capital within the Community. In the United Kingdom, we should now comply with the commitment in this respect, and in addition extend the necessary relaxation of exchange control to investments in countries outside the Community.
Lastly, may I home in on the relationship between the shareholder and company management, two of the three principal partners in British industry. Tremendous strides have been taken in the last few years in developing this relationship, and the formation of the Institutional Shareholders Committee some years ago, with the encouragement of the Bank of England, has played its part. Individual institutional investors are expending great effort in improving their relationships with the management of companies in which they invest. The Institutional Shareholders Committee has done its best to publicise its own existence in cases where suitable lines of communication do not exist. However, I am left with the impression that, hopefully temporarily, the principal effort is being made by investors. Company managements in general have yet to regain the initiative in this area. I hope that they will do so, as the advantage to be gained for improved investment in British industry from a proper liaison is substantial.
In summary, therefore, my Lords, first let us pay more than lip service to a high rate of return as acceptable for investment in British industry. Secondly, let us create an environment wherein the private individual can increase his savings. Thirdly, let us extend the opportunities by which a private individual can place his savings in support of British industry through equality of tax treatment for all types of savings. Fourthly, let the necessary steps be taken to achieve a meaningful relaxation of exchange controls, affecting both direct and portfolio investments and, last, let company management make even greater effort to improve its relationship with shareholders.
9.26 p.m.
Lord VERNON: My Lords, I promise to make, if not the shortest speech in this debate, at least one of the shortest speeches. I have always previously been hesitant about participating in general economic debates in this House, mainly because I have felt that I lacked the necessary

1091
expertise and experience in industrial affairs to justify participation. But today I have not got the same inhibition. The subject of my noble friend's debate is the creation of wealth, but wealth will not be created unless the conditions necessary for its creation are themselves created. Since the disease from which we suffer, known on the Continent as the "English disease", is caused almost entirely by political factors the cure—if cure there is going to be—must be a political cure.
What is wrong with the country at the present time is notorious. It has been stated frequently in the Press and it has been emphasised in speech after speech in your Lordships' House today. People say that we cannot go on any longer behaving in such a reckless and shortsighted way—and yet we do go on, paying ourselves more than we earn, living on the revenue of North Sea oil as if it was inexhaustible, pretending that we have a God-given right to a high standard of living, succumbing to the blackmail of the more powerful trade unions, fightingamong ourselves like spoiled children and all the time our competitors are rubbing their hands at our expense. For an over-populated country which has to export in order to survive we really must have the death wish.
Why do we go on kidding ourselves in this ridiculous and cowardly way and why are our fellow members of the European Economic Community so much more successful than we are? Can it be that they have suffered more than we have and they have learned something by their suffering? After all, we have never endured the horrors of enemy occupation as have other countries in Western Europe and if there is ever a suggestion that the British people should really suffer by being hungry or by being cold or by merely being inconvenienced in order to defeat the power of those who seek to dictate to us by brute force, immediately there is dismay and invariably we give in. It is not only the Government which gives in; it is often the private sector as well, as the noble Lord, Lord Lee, pointed out in the case of the Ford company.
The debilitating effect of the good life seems to have seeped into our bones as it did into those of the citizens of later Imperial Rome. And yet I believe it will
1092
only be when things get worse, and are allowed to get worse by the Government, that the nation will come to its senses. The trouble is that neither of the major political Parties has the strength to make a stand on its own. The Tories tried and failed under Mr. Heath. The Labour Party have tried and it is now apparent to all that they have failed. Can we really go on affording the luxury of the Party political slanging match in such circumstances? It may have been appropriate in the past, but it is destroying the fabric of our society today. I believe that the vast majority of the people of this country, and that includes the vast majority of trade unionists, want a strong Government which is willing and able to chart and enforce a new code of behaviour in industrial relations, perhaps something on the lines suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Brown.
Only a truly national Government can have the necessary strength, authority and prestige to take the unpleasant decisions which will have to be taken if we are not to continue down the slippery slope. Not so long ago I remember that my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft prophesied from these Benches—it was just before he took up his present position as chairman of the Conservative Party; I am speaking from memory, but I think I am right—that the next Government would be a coalition and it would be led from the right of the Labour Party. I am only sorry that his prophecy has not yet been fulfilled. Whether it should be led from the Labour or the Conservative side depends perhaps on the wishes of the British people as expressed through the ballot box. But the important thing, in my view, is that there should be a moratorium on Party political warfare, for at least a decade while we put our house in order. What we need is a Government of stature which can do for our country what General de Gaulle did for France, and what a mighty achievement that was! It was really an economic miracle which the French performed, just as the Germans did before them. As my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who introduced the debate this afternoon, said, there is no reason why an economic miracle should not also be performed in this country, but if it is to be performed there will have to be an infinitely greater degree of co-operation on all sides than there has been hitherto.
9.34 p.m.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, on having initiated this debate, especially in a week when the productivity of the pundits is piling up yet another massive national surplus of exhortations and rhetoric about the industrial malaise of the United Kingdom. There is of course a substantial school of thought which would argue fairly convincingly that this debate could have taken place at any period during the last hundred years. Since the Great Exhibition of 1851 the newspapers and the media, commissions, reports and surveys have all been repeating the familiar complaints about industrial complacency, about poor quality of our investments, about management and about bad industrial relations.
I am pleased that the noble Viscount dealt mainly with the long-term problems that we are facing. At the same time, like him, I certainly am concerned about the current situation. Indeed, I would be madly insensitive to ignore that these are critical and crucial days for the people of Northern Ireland, where industry and employment are precariously perched because of the present industrial disruption. However, I am very glad to note that the interested parties are continuing in discussions and talks, and I am sure that common sense in the long run will prevail.
While I tend to the view that there are no short-term solutions to long-term problems, I feel that over the years the conviction that there are short-term solutions has produced some of the popular, yet unprincipled, about-turns in policy, about-turns which have unduly inflated public expectations and seriously undermined business confidence. Moreover, I would contend that that belief in ready made solutions may ultimately lead to total lack of confidence in government itself.
With so many world experts and specialists in your Lordships' House it would be imprudent of me to attempt to cover matters concerning investment, the effects of trends in world trade, the impact of industrial imports on our balance of trade and the need for new technology. Instead, I shall comment briefly on some of the ready made solutions currently on offer in the area of industrial relations
1094
since my experience as a trade union official has exposed me to a variety of such panaceas over the years.
It is inevitable that people should turn to legal remedies when, in an increasingly complex and highly integrated economy, small groups can shatter the consensus which binds this system together. While there is a high degree of compliance in the political culture of Britain, that compliance is unlikely to bear the strain if the law is used to affect the balance of power in industrial relations; for any piece of legislation to be regarded as a negotiating position in industrial relations is to bring the entire legal system into disrepute. As regards that, I agree with the wisdom propounded in the Donovan Report against such legally imposed solutions, unpopular though this may be, especially with those who think legal remedies can be conjured up on a Sunday morning television programme; and particularly with those whose economic philosophy is based on the competitive pressures which would merely encourage head-on confrontations between the law enforcement agencies on the one hand and strike committees, official or unofficial, on the other.
I agree that trade unionists by industrial action alone cannot gain a secure increase in the share of wages. I agree that industrial action can debase the currency and provoke monetary measures which could lead to stagnation. But in a democracy with a tradition of individual human rights the only course open to us is the difficult one of persuasion and self-restraint. I am appalled that many seem set on a course of free collective bargaining, a course which might throw away rather than build upon the collective community interests we have achieved during the past three years.
In an election year we should be doing much more, rather than less, to assert the common interest, instead of increasing the predictable theoretical differences. Naturally, I consider it foolish to believe that unemployment or the direct weakening of trade union bargaining power can produce stability and economic growth. Nor do I believe that tax cuts or the dismantling of the Welfare State will so transform the ability and spirit of our managers as to make them more powerful and dynamic. One noble Lord suggested

1095
that real wealth is created by free private enterprise, and emphasis was placed on free private enterprise. Certain other noble Lords tried to define what was meant by that phrase.
I am not in any way blinded by or in blind opposition to, nor do I have a narrow ideological approach to private enterprise, but it has been my experience that if the industrial development of Northern Ireland, the future for employment in that Province, and the economic well-being of the people of Northern Ireland depended on the efforts, the investment and the actions of free private enterprise, the people of the Province would now be submerged in poverty and utter despair. I am the first to admit that industrial dynamics in Northern Ireland are far from good or what I should wish, but I am glad that the Government generated finance and that public enterprise has found a mutually-agreed partnership with private entrepreneurs with skills and know-how and has been enabled to maintain some levels of employment. I state this because I felt that in the general debate there was an over-emphasis on wealth being produced by finance, which I totally refute. I consider that wealth is a combination of enterprise, labour, the skills of management and finance.
The conditions which I believe to be unfavourable to the creation of wealth and the recovery of industry, which lie within the competence of the Members of this House to effect, are fourfold: first, to deal with the lack of genuine forthright-ness among leaders of political opinion; secondly, to deal with the lack of professionalism at every level in the key decision-making areas of Government and economic activity; thirdly, the lack of a long-term strategy to tackle the plight of the lower paid workers, for without greater equality and consumption that consensus of opinion will never be reached, and it is needed to secure steady political and industrial progress; fourthly, the lack of adequate efforts in education and training and in information and communication to encourage responsible attitudes and to arrest the decline of traditional moral values.
First, how can we achieve steady growth and growing confidence in the economy if there is a drift towards political extremism?
1096
I am well aware that the Prime Minister has to contend with his fair share of extremists from various quarters. But it is potentially disastrous for the country to have a Leader of the Opposition who, instead of trying in the nation's interest to share the centre of the political spectrum with him, is desperately trying to convince herself, as she makes her political policy announcements on the wing, that a head-on conflict with the trade unions would create a revival of industrial investment and an increase in productivity and our industrial competitiveness.
The late Professor John Macintosh in his excellent Fawley Foundation lecture at the University of Southampton in November, 1977, said:
"Democracy is not a machinery for conducting abrupt about turns; if drastic changes are demanded, then long-term planning and confidence will be damaged".
It seems to me that the lesson we must learn from the past three years is that whatever political Party is in power, there must be a national agreement about the strategy for economic growth, of which wages policy is an important part. I realise that there must be some method for resolving the wage anomalies within any wages policy and the noble Lord, Lord Brown, indicated one of the ways in which this may be achieved. I consider that unless there is a central agreement about the need for economic growth hammered out annually between the Government, industry and the trade unions, it is futile to envisage a situation where either unions or employers can effectively discipline dissidents. No committed trade unionist can possibly support some of the selfish, senseless and, indeed, mindless tactics which have been adopted in the past few weeks.
However, if sanctions of any kind are to be supported, they must be morally underpinned by clearly communicated and widely understood national agreements which, in turn, are supported by all responsible political spokesmen. In practice, the political leaders of all Parties who have held the middle of the stage have tended to destroy each others credibility by stressing differences which have been more rhetorical than real. However much this may be part of Party political gamesmanship, we cannot expect a more responsible attitude from the electorate and the achievement of a stable economic

1097
growth based on agreed national interest if politicians who differ little in practice, exaggerate their disagreements and go out of their way to provoke dissension in the population. I have no need to tell you that I come from a part of the world where we are paying a very high price for our exaggerated views of differences rather than our common needs. I have no doubt that we all need to consider how our political institutions can best reflect the common interest.
On my second point I must stress that one of the basic differences between Britain and its competitors in America, Japan and Germany has been the emphasis they place on achievement rather than inherited social status in recruiting industrial managers. There is also the fact that education and background of our leaders in Government Departments tend to be too heavily concentrated on non-technical disciplines. Whitehall will never understand industry if all its civil servants have their expertise and knowledge only in government. I realise that there have been some institutional changes and some provisions for secondment of some Members of Parliament to industry, and I think that is good, but in my opinion much more requires to be done. I believe that a far greater exchange of personnel and views between industry and Government would benefit both in the interests of the community. It is perhaps not going too far to say that Britain never really imbibed the social values associated with the changes created by the industrial revolution in other countries. We have preserved a class system based on inherited land wealth. Even today the kudos associated with a career in Government, the Army, and in the City financial institutions has been more in common with a declining 17th century Spain than with a 20th century industrial competitiveness.
Your Lordships will be familiar with the many reports on this theme. It seems that for 100 years or more in technical and business education in particular, and the social standing of our industrial leaders in general, we have lagged behind other countries. Let me quote from a recent article by Simon Caulkin in the January issue of Management Today, which is a British Institute of Management publication:
1098
"In no other manufacturing country in the world is it necessary to remind people that industry is the foundation on which the rest of society is built. In no other country is the culture and background of the nominal rulers (Parliament and the civil service) so magnificently and wholeheartedly irrelevant to the daily concerns and problems of that foundation .Everywhere else, by virtue of unified educational systems, engineers and managers are automatically among the rulers and are thus represented in official thinking, as a matter of course.
"A more stubborn barrier to innovation and new ideas in industry could hardly be imagined. Hence the perceived view of British industry as more favourable territory for relentless class warriors, than for creative and intelligent minds".
The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, made reference to difficulties in management and trade unions sometimes having discussions with rank and file workers. I think that in many of the structures of management even today, both in private and in public industry and in the Services, manpower and personnel matters are relegated to the fourth and fifth levels of decision-making processes. I know that we have someone here more expert than I am on this problem, but as one who formerly practised in industrial relations I found it extremely difficult at times to come in direct contact with persons who could make decisions about industrial relations problems. Sometimes it was like shadow boxing with a ghost. In many of the large concerns the personnel manager was no more than a welfare officer. I ask, how many personnel officers are on the boards of management and involved in the decision-making?
Crocodile tears are shed over the problems of manpower and industrial relations. If we can have experts on boards of management to deal with engineering and finance, why can we not have on boards of management people able to deal with the crucial and unpredictable element of manpower? While, therefore, I am sure Lord Bruce would agree with the view Lord Hewlett put forward and while I agree that he has a system of management which should be emulated—I would be the first to admit that there are good employers—I believe that industry at large throughout the United Kingdom requires to get its manpower and personnel into proper perspective if the industrial relations problems are to be resolved.
One could argue that social values in Britain reflect and produce a quality of

1099
life inherently superior to that of our competitors. If that is so, then we must get our preoccupation with our pure industrial performance into perspective. As someone who remembers the hungry 'thirties, perhaps I shall be forgiven for saying that I would rather see people queuing for petrol than for soup. There may be individuals who are happy with little or no growth and who believe Britain is a better place because of that, but one thing is certain—namely, that it is not those in the dole queue or those suffering from poor housing or those without adequate incomes who would be satisfied with a declining industralised community in the United Kingdom.
My next point is immediately relevant to the current situation. Although it is easy to be wise after the event, I believe it was a weakness in the wages policy last year not to have tried to tackle the special plight of the low paid. However, I am glad that yesterday we had evidence that the Cabinet have had second thoughts on the matter and that steps have been taken to remedy what in my view was an anomaly. All sorts of arguments can be advanced about the danger of pushing up other wage levels in order to retain differentials. Nevertheless, if special attention had been given to this problem, some of our current industrial disputes would have had less emotional force behind them. Whatever is done, in the long term much more attention must be paid to the problems of the lower paid.
We must not neglect the crucial role of education and, in particular, mass communication; other noble Lords have referred to some of the glaring anomalies
1100
that exist and have pointed to the way in which further disruption may be caused through wrong information being promoted. We must repeat time and again that to enjoy acceptable standards of living we must produce goods and services which are at least equal in competitive value and which foreigners will want to buy. I believe the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer have been trying to get this message across. Indeed, the Prime Minister has gone further and has stressed the importance of traditional virtues such as family life, the home and moderate living as being basic to a prosperous, progressive and happy community. Much of the trouble that we read about in our newspapers and see on television stems from the very nature of the media themselves. They have failed to understand their role in dealing with the problems of industry and I suggest that professional communicators could do much more in positive terms to stimulate new social attitudes.
Finally, mention was made of the need for a staff college, and, while I would wholeheartedly agree with this, I should add that, in addition to what shop stewards may obtain in terms of training and information at such a college, I feel sure that managers also could benefit from basic training in the economic facts of life and in industrial procedures. If we are to secure agreement upon how we are to prosper and to encourage responsible social behaviour in a democratic society, we can look only to education, persuasion and, above all, genuine leadership from public representatives. Easier solutions lead to chaos and not to the creation of the kind of wealth that we can all share in happiness.
9.55 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, first I must apologise to your Lordships' House and to the noble Viscount for not being in my place at the beginning of the debate. This was because of an engagement into which I had entered before I knew that the debate was to take place. Clearly the best amends that I can make is to be as brief as I possibly can be at this late hour. Brief though I intend to be, however, I cannot omit my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, upon her promotion. Of course it is a special pleasure for one woman Peer to congratulate another, although looking at the Labour Front Bench, I must say that one begins to wonder what has happened to the sex balance.
The debate is about the removal of conditions unfavourable to the creation of wealth. I suppose we would all agree that nothing would do more to help the creation of wealth than certainty, or something near certainty, in the minds of managements that there would be reasonably stable industrial relations, that agreements entered into on the pay front would be observed, and that such agreements could be made which would keep the level of pay reasonably in line with what the level of increased productivity makes possible to pay. At the present moment that highly desirable state of affairs seems a fantasy.
Yesterday, in responding to the present situation and to the great need for more stability in pay and in industrial relations, the Prime Minister in another place produced three proposals for improvement. They were: greater assistance for the low paid; comparability studies in the public sector; and stiffer control over prices. I am very sorry to say that in the view of my friends on these Benches and myself none of these proposals is adequate as it stands, except of course there is a problem of the low paid. But let us get it clear to whom we are referring when we speak about the low paid. The problem of the low paid is surely the problem of the low paid family man, or family woman in the case of a single-parent family supported by a woman. Where one is talking about under £70 a week, where there are young single people living at home, or where there are young married people both of whom are working, a figure under £70 a
1102
week is not what most of us would regard as gross poverty requiring special treatment. I have urged from these Benches again and again, and I do so again tonight, that the problem of the low paid is a misnomer. Rather, it is the problem of the low paid family person, and that is far better dealt with by increases and improvements in child benefits than by continuously raising the level of pay to the so-called low paid.
By concentrating on the position of the low paid there are two very real dangers. One is that more people in the low paid level will in fact price themselves out of work altogether; secondly, there is the problem of differentials, which is very real at the present time, and which will be further increased, with the inevitable result that there will be inflationary pressures on those in the somewhat higher levels to increase, rather than to restrict, differentials. It seems a most inappropriate response to the present situation.
Then there is the question of comparability. I believe that we all recognise that the problem of pay in the public sector will be a matter of very great seriousness over the coming weeks. One can well understand why the Prime Minister has said that there is to be a comparability study to see that the people in the public sector are not losing out in relation to those in the private sector; and, indeed, it is clear that, perhaps along the lines put forward by Mr. Basnett some months ago, something of this kind must be one element in dealing with the question of pay. But I would point out that there are some real snags in the whole concept of comparability. Genuine comparability studies are far more difficult to carry out than appears to be realised. Nowadays, when we do a comparability study we are not comparing just the size of the pay packet. We must think in terms of total remuneration and total satisfaction, and that not merely at any given moment of time but over a period of time.
I would say to those who are advocating comparability studies to deal with this problem: what factor are they going to include to allow for the much greater security in the public sector than in the private sector, and what factor are they

1103
going to include to allow for the very great benefit, in which I share, of an indexed pension? And the fact that indexed pensions are mentioned so frequently, to the great annoyance of many people, does not make the argument any less strong. If you make a calculation of the kind of capital accumulation which is necessary in order to meet an indexed pension you will find that the addition that that makes to the annual salary is very considerable indeed under inflationary conditions such as those obtaining at the present time. So let us have comparability studies, but let us attempt to have genuine comparability studies which will take all these factors into account; and I am not satisfied that up to the present time so-called comparability studies have in fact taken into account all these extremely important, highly relevant factors.
Then there is the question of prices. It is all too easy, in a political situation such as obtains at present, to say that the way to keep down inflation is to attack on the side of prices. Let me make it absolutely clear that, so far as my Party is concerned, we are not prepared to have action by Government on prices when there is no comparable action on incomes. Even-handed treatment, yes, but not single treatment against prices with no comparable action on the front of pay. We have to ask ourselves why, at the present time, the Prime Minister has put forward proposals which are in themselves basically not sound and are not really appropriate to the problems which are confronting us. The reason surely is that it is no way to deal with the problems of prices and of pay—especially of pay—to have them go through piecemeal and subject to the very great political pressures which are occurring at the present time and which always do occur as these crises blow up again and again.
What this inevitably leads us to—and, in many ways, all of us on these Benches are sorry to have to reach this conclusion, but it is an inevitable one—is this. Here, I find myself very much in agreement, rather to my surprise, with the noble Lord, Lord Balogh; he and I do not always agree, as your Lordships have no doubt noticed. We are forced to the conclusion that what we have to have is a statutory prices and wages policy. Come
1104
back Aubrey Jones, all is forgiven! It was the greatest mistake on the part of the Opposition Party that when they came into power they dismantled the Prices and Incomes Board at a time when it was beginning to build up a reputation which, if it had continued until the present time, might well have been able to carry the weight of the problems which are confronting us today. Sooner or later we shall have to grasp this nettle, and I urge the Government to do it sooner. If you have a statutory body, you can indeed bring pressure to bear on the employers through prices, because then you are dealing evenly both with incomes and with prices, with employees and with employers. The longer we delay, the worse the problem is going to become. I know the difficulties of enforcement but I believe that we now have to look to such a body to find the answers to certain questions of the greatest importance.
What we have learned about prices and incomes policies is not that they are a total failure; they have on a number of occasions provided considerable assistance to the economy. We have learned that we must find ways in which to have greater flexibility in the application of these policies. It would be one of the prime tasks of such a body to find ways so to do. I am not this evening going to elaborate on this but it seems to us that if you use the concept of value added and the compulsory sharing of profits to enable greater flexibility at plant level in determining what can be paid out and if additional pay is paid out because additional wealth has been created then there is nothing inflationary about that. If you can build this concept of additional payment negotiated at the level of the plants based on additional value added into the application of a statutory incomes policy, then you are on the road to having control over the total amount of money paid out in pay while at the same time building up a degree of flexibility at the level of the enterprise. This is the problem we have been trying to solve: how to have the two things simultaneously: control over the total outlay of additional pay but, at the same time, the necessary flexibility to establish the sort of differential within each enterprise that that enterprise is best able to negotiate—and I underline "to negotiate"—and to establish what is required.

1105
I know that this is not liked. I know that I shall be told: "You cannot have law in relation to industrial relations". This is the greatest possible nonsense. We have law in relation to industrial relations running out of our ears. This House has passed I do not know how many Acts in relation to industrial relations. When people say that you cannot have law in relation to industrial relations, what they mean is that you are not willing to pass laws in relation to industrial relations which the trade unions do not like. That is a reasonable thing to say, but it is not the same as saying that you cannot have law in relation to industrial relations. You can have law in relation to industrial relations if you have a broad basis of support for that law. I believe that the broad basis for support for that law is beginning to grow and to grow pretty fast at the present time and I think that you would find very considerable support for developments of this sort.
We shall be told that you must advance by having further contracts between the Government and the trade unions. Of course, we must have consultation and discussion continuously between Government, trade unions and employers. That goes without saying. But continuous consultation is a very different thing from contracts. The disadvantage of having social contracts, so-called, is, one, that they have been with only one side of industry and Government, and that is a curious way to develop industrial policy; and, secondly they have taken decisions which ought to be made inside Parliament out of the arena of Parliament and into the hands of bodies outside the Parliamentary scene—and that is bad for genuine democracy—and, thirdly, what is the point in making contracts with people who, when the chips are down, cannot see that the contracts are enforced? If we are to have any more contracts with the trade unions, let the trade unions demonstrate now that they are able to say that when they have given their word that something is going to be done, they will take action when their members do not carry out those contracts. If we had evidence that this was happening then there might be something to be said for contracts; but making contracts with people who cannot deliver is the greatest possible waste of time.
1106
To revert once again to contracts is not the answer. We must face the fact that it is a statutory policy that we need to have. I wish that this were not so. I wish that we lived in a world in which we could have free collective bargaining. I am a Liberal. I hate bringing in more statutory bodies. I hope the time will come ultimately when we shall not need to have bodies of this kind. The time will come only, however—and it is a long way ahead—when you no longer have monopoly power in either the hands of the employers or the hands of the trade unions. Then you may begin to have something which enables you to start to return to something that you could, without caricature, without sheer falsehood, call free collective bargaining. That is so far away that we have to say that in the immediate and the near future, and indeed as far in the future as we are likely to see, we need a statutory body of this kind.
However, perhaps we could have less and less controls if two things happen, and we can begin to take steps now to make them happen. One is a far better informed public about what can be done and the consequences of their actions. So much did I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, when he said: "Let us get the information over. Let us rub into people what the relationship is between an "X" per cent. pay increase and a "Y" per cent. rise in prices". I have again and again over the years begged the Government to put their weight behind a campaign of this sort. Other countries do it, and there is no reason why we should not do it. That is of the greatest importance.
Secondly, I pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby. I believe that one of the best educative devices, the best ways in which we shall reach the state in which there is enough understanding of these matters for us not to need statutory bodies, is a genuine development of real industrial democracy in which people affected by decisions are faced with the realities of the problems which are confronting companies and in which they really do learn, through the bitter experience of making decisions under very awkward circumstances, what can be done and what cannot be done.
It was in my view very unfortunate that the CBI at its recent conference—

1107
only I believe its backwoodsmen; and all organisations have their backwoodsmen, be they trade unions or employers—moved away from the idea that some legislative base for industrial democracy was required. I believe, in fact I know, that that does not represent the best thinking of the best minds in the CBI. There are many people there who know that there must be developments, and those developments must come quickly. I implore all the people who have any influence in this field to get moving on developing patterns of industrial democracy which suit their own organisations. We do not want enforced patterns, but we do want genuine growth because if this comes then there is some hope that we shall not need the statutory controls. In the meanwhile we do, and we need them now.
10.13 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and the other noble Lords and the noble Baroness who were kind enough to make such nice remarks to me on my being moved into what I feel is a very hot seat. The noble Viscount was very clever to have managed to land the subject of this debate on this particular day. From the time when he rose to move his Motion until now, I feel that we have reached the point at the end of his chronicler and we are now in 1990.
Surprisingly the debate has not concentrated entirely on the present situation but rather on the noble Viscount's Motion which is much wider-ranging and raises issues which go deeply into the ecomomic and social aspects of our society. What came over loud and clear from all parts of the House was that improving the performance of British industry is the key to economic and social progress. This I believe can only be examined in the context of concrete achievement and in the perspective of our overall industrial strategy.
Achievement in the past two years has been substantial, and in spite of Lord Trenchard's view, that all this is irrelevant and, as I understand it, things would have been a lot worse but for these achievements, I still think it is worth
1108
reminding ourselves of the facts. In 1978 inflation was kept down to around 8 per cent. Real personal incomes increased by around 6 per cent. and monetary targets and cash limits were strictly adhered to. Exports went up by nearly 6 per cent. in volume and our share of world trade increased. The current account was kept broadly in balance and we ended the year in December with a surplus of £246 million. Investment by manufacturing companies increased by about 13 per cent. and unemployment went down by about 100,000. That does not mean for one moment that I am complacent about the size of our unemployment. These successes—and they are successes and should not be forgotten—result from the Government's economic, monetary and industrial policies and also from the sustained efforts of both sides of industry.
I am not by any means underestimating the gravity of the current situation, but there is a danger that it may temporarily block out the solid fact of economic progress. The list of successes of the past year is not just to give you a list of facts which I am sure you all know, but they do show that a responsible policy can command general assent. It would be tragic if this sense of responsibility and concurrence was lost. The improvement that we have seen could not have been attained without the Government's ability to control inflation. It must be an overriding aim in 1979 to avoid an upward drift. It is particularly important at this time that we should be on the right economic foot as the world recession ends.
I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Carr, seemed to agree with this when he designated inflation as public enemy No. 1. I was equally disappointed when the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, seemed to think that we had an obsession with inflation. The noble Lord, Lord Remnant, emphasised the link between inflation and investment, although I cannot pretend that I go along with him in all the other remarks that he made. At its peak in mid-1975, inflation—possibly even here we have forgotten this—was running at a disastrous 27 per cent. To have cut that rate progressively to around 8 per cent. is the most effective contribution the Government could have made to the recovery of British industry.

1109
What I think we have above all to remember today is that it could never have happened without the unique co-operation of the unions in the first three pay phases; so this can be done and has been done in the past.
This was not a statutory incomes policy such as the noble Baroness wants. My noble friend Lord Balogh referred in his speech to an incomes policy as still being essential, but I thought he left it open at this stage as to whether or not it should be statutory. He did say something with which I agree—something which was also mentioned by my noble friend Lord Blease: that free collective bargaining meant a return to the law of the jungle. Listening to the debate in the other place yesterday, I think that came out very clearly, because one had this extraordinary paradox of the demand for free collective bargaining and at the same time the demand for the Government to stop what is going on at the moment.
Yesterday the Prime Minister reaffirmed the Government's pay policy and announced the three important proposals that will help to ensure that it operates fairly and effectively. He also emphasised again that there is no justification for the inflated and inflationary wage claims now being pressed in some quarters. He also underlined again and again that their long-term effect will not mean any real improvement in living standards, but a return to the intolerable and destructive levels of inflation that we have progressively overcome in the past three years. The Prime Minister also reiterated that the Government would not be prepared to finance any similar inflationary claims in the public sector.
The Government's three new proposals announced yesterday, which were manifestly disliked by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and her noble friends, were as she pointed out, modifying the 5 per cent. guideline so that those earning less than £70 a week can obtain increases of £3.50. As many as 8 million people could benefit from this decision, which represents an increase of up to 9 per cent. for lower-paid workers. The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, and I think also the noble Baroness, felt that this was inflationary and would erode differentials. But if we have pay restraint—which we
1110
have—we must protect the lower paid, many of whom do work which is as essential to the community as that of the higher paid. I am not pretending that it is the acme of economic perfection. It is something that we have to do in the very difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves.
Secondly, the principle of comparability between the pay of public service workers and equivalent grades in private industry will be extended, and new machinery will be set up to provide a detailed factual basis. The results can then be taken into account progressively in future settlements. The noble Baroness asked me which factors are to be included. As I am sure she will appreciate, this was announced by the Prime Minister only yesterday, but I can see no reason why there should not be genuine comparability studies. However, I shall be very grateful, as there is not time tonight, if she will write to me and set down her views, which I can read at leisure and pass on to my right honourable friends. My noble friend Lord Brown and others urged the need for a more rational means of determining pay and differentials, and this is one way of developing that.
Thirdly, legislation will be introduced to strengthen the powers of the Price Commission. They will be enabled to restrict price increases by firms under investigation, although they will also retain their power to allow interim price increases where these are justified. These new arrangements are designed not to put a dagger in the back of employers and industrialists, but to enable the Commission to do their job as effectively as possible. The noble Baroness and many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, and the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, were very critical of this proposal, but it is simply to reinforce our counter-inflationary policy. The Price Commission are required by Statute to allow efficient firms to make adequate profits, and we have confidence in their experience and responsibility.
It would be a very great pity in the rapport which we are trying to get, and with the, very often, non-partisan debate that has taken place to-day, if a very antagonistic line were taken on this matter by the Party opposite, which

1111
would make it very much more difficult to do what we are all trying to do—Members opposite have said exactly the same as we on this side are saying—in order to try to improve the present very grave situation. The Government have thus reaffirmed their pay policy and reinforced it with these proposals. But it cannot succeed without the wholehearted support of the country and, as the Prime Minister said yesterday, our strategy must survive. It is the only one for Britain.
My noble friends Lord Lee, Lord Houghton and Lord Blease made some very pungent comments on the contemporary structure and leadership of the trade union movement. I hope that trade union members will take note of what they said, because they are in the position of being well-known trade unionists themselves, and they could probably have an influence on their colleagues.
The Prime Minister made a very important statement yesterday when he defined the crux of our present dilemma. He asserted what he described as two fundamental principles of our society: first, that in a free society we cannot deny the right of men and women to withdraw their labour; and, secondly, that the community has an overriding right against all sectional interests. The difficulty of modern society is to reconcile these principles, and the Prime Minister called on the road haulage drivers to measure their sense of grievance against the effects that their actions are having on the community at large. I certainly agree with the Prime Minister that anyone has a right to withdraw his labour, but it is indefensible that hardship should be imposed on innocent people not connected with the dispute. It is certainly not clear that a change in the law would deal with these problems. As a historic fact, it was during the period of the Industrial Relations Act 1971 that secondary picketing and flying pickets developed. The Government propose a more practical and broader-based approach. They have invited the TUC—
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, the noble Baroness made a factual statement which I believe to be wrong. The flying pickets to which she referred were before the Industrial Relations Act passed through Parliament.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am speaking rather quickly, and when I used the word "developed" it was probably a wrong use of the word. Their activities increased. Even before that Act there had been secondary picketing. It was not new, but it was far more rare. It increased, however, after the passage of that Act.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: No, my Lords.
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, it did.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, surely the noble Baroness wants to be fair. If we take the two miners' strikes, in the case of the first, when all the picketing trouble occurred, the Industrial Relations Act was not in force. In the case of the second strike, when there was practically no trouble over picketing of that kind, the Industrial Relations Act was in force. I am not saying that the lack of bad picketing during the second strike was due to the Industrial Relations Act, but it is certainly proof that it was not caused by it.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I have now given way twice to the noble Lord. He is still giving an opinion.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: No, my Lords, fact.
Baroness BIRK: No, my Lords. It certainly set the atmosphere and there was an increase in secondary picketing.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: No, my Lords, there was not.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this was not denied last night in the other place when it was put to the right honourable lady the Leader of the Opposition.
The important point is that we are looking to the future and joining together to draw up an agreed code of conduct on picketing, which the spokesman on the Opposition Front Bench in the other place has himself put forward many times. As the Prime Minister has said, the Government are not opposed to law on trade union matters. The strong feelings about this held by the noble Baroness did not go quite so far as that, but the law is

1113
always more effective and less contentious if it reflects a broad basis of agreement or consensus within the community. That is probably what she meant. If, however, a workable agreement can be reached without the need for legislation, so much the better. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth, meant when he spoke about consensus rather than legislation.
Strikes have been mentioned many times throughout this debate, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Hewlett. In the light, however, of international comparisons—this was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Brown—the United Kingdom is by no means the worst in terms of days lost per thousand employees. This is not something that the United Kingdom can be proud of, but we have to keep the matter in perspective. The figures published by the International Labour Office in 1977 show that over the period 1967 to 1976 the United Kingdom came 11th in a table of 18 countries, with a markedly better performance than Australia, the United States, Italy and Canada.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords——
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I must go on. The noble Viscount has the right of reply.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, would the noble Baroness like to tell us the truth as she goes on?
Baroness BIRK: I am sorry, my Lords. What I have said is quite correct. I should be quite happy to send to the noble Lord the diagram containing the figures from the Official Digest which show that we come 11th in the league. Admittedly, we are a long way below Sweden.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am wondering whether the noble Baroness took in the point which I made.
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I have said that I will put it in writing to the noble Viscount and to the noble Lord, if they wish. Since other business is to follow this debate, I feel that I cannot hold up the
1114
House any longer. If the noble Lords were to wait for me to say the next sentence, they might get the answer they are seeking. We are still a long way below Sweden, West Germany and Japan. Nevertheless, our annual average over that 10-year period was well below one day lost per employee per year. I have highlighted this only because the impression that is so easily given is that our strike record is about the worst in the world. This is totally untrue.
The noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, also complained that management has to waste too much time on industrial relations. But that is one of the primary jobs of management, and it should be one of their principal skills. I think my noble friends Lord Kaldor and Lord Houghton of Sowerby were quite right when they stressed the need for some form of satisfactory industrial relations. Now is not the time to discuss what the structure should be, but the fact that there should be a system and the machinery for it I think is beyond doubt. Perhaps it is because some managements resent the need to handle industrial relations that it is not always well done. I do not underestimate that it is a difficult job and it may be it is done better in other countries, although I doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, would agree that there is a system of industrial relations in Hong Kong of the sort we are speaking about.
We need to develop in this country a greater sense of the costs imposed by ill-considered strike action, not only on those who are on strike but on other workers and on the community at large. Our prime objective must be to become a "high output—high wage economy". This is not incompatible with pay policy since high wages are our aim, but they must be combined with higher national output. That is essential. We must make more of our industries internationally competitive—both by winning larger shares of overseas markets and by combating import penetration at home, which I think was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. Our industrial strategy has been shaped to promote conditions favourable to industrial growth.
We recognise, as many noble Lords have said, that there is a disincentive element in personal taxation. However,

1115
the last Budget provided for tax cuts at both the lower and higher income levels, recognising that incentives are needed at both ends. Over the past two years measures have been taken to reduce income tax by £6 billion. The top marginal rates of income tax are certainly high: the Chancellor has said that he wants to moderate these and he has already moved in this direction. But it would be unrealistic and unjust to look for drastic cuts in a period when pay restraint is essential. The rate of progress must depend on our success in controlling inflation.
Whatever the rates of corporate taxation, they apply only to profits—and the main problem for British industry is not high taxation but low profitability. The rate of return on capital employed for all industry (at replacement cost and after providing for stock appreciation) has been running at less than 5 per cent. before tax; whereas in the 1960s it was continuously in double figures.
In improving productivity the performance of industry has been very disappointing. Even in conditions which were favourable there has been a singular lack of response. Last year, when so many indicators were set fair, it is true that manufacturing output rose by only 1 per cent. Here lies the essential core of our problem. We have to become more competitive and to increase our share of world markets, as the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, pointed out; and if we fail to improve productivity we become less competitive and unemployment increases. It is in order to deal with that that all the various lines of our policy are directed.
In conclusion, I want to point out that when he spoke in the economic debate last November the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, gave a prescription for encouraging growth in this country, which he repeated in his article in the Daily Telegraph on Monday of this week. It was that we shall not get growth until it is again possible for a company or an individual to,
"make a killing and keep the large part of it".— Official Report, 2/11/78; col. 126.]
I find that, if I may say so, an unhappy and anachronistic recipe for contemporary industrial growth and social progress.
1116
Nor is it pertinent to securing moderation in wage settlements and, at the same time, achieving real improvements in productivity. A wealthy society, in the widest sense, is a society people want to live in; a society that takes care of its old, its children, their health and education; a society where people do not dread retirement because their savings have been whittled away by inflation. This means a society that recognises that the promotion of industrial growth and efficiency requires the co-operative efforts of everyone involved in industry and the supportive skills and services.
We are still a country foreigners admire and visit in increasing numbers. We do still count for important values in the world even if we are no longer, or not at the present time, in the top economic league. So we must not let our real assets waste away. I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that an area in which we are not very good is getting information across and doing it in a way which is comprehensible to people so that it attracts them to the point of wanting to read it. I do not think we are very good at that in government. This applies to all Governments, and there is a great deal of room for improvement. We have to build bridges between the factions rather than exacerbate confrontation. This has been reiterated with different emphasis from all sides of the House. My Lords, I do not believe there are any neat legislative short cuts nor handy miracles. In industrial performance, as in industrial relations, we can succeed only be recognising the essential interdependence of everyone on all sides of industry and all constituents of our modern society.
10.37 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I should like to thank everyone who has taken part in this debate, and particularly those who have stayed to the bitter end. Many very valuable and very interesting contributions have been made. I think the one common thread at least is that everybody realises that the situation so far as industry is concerned is very far from perfect and that things must be done.
I should like to make a few points very quickly. The first is to correct a sug-

1117
gestion that I prophesied that my chronicler's account would come true. I said that it could come true. I also said that if the present policies, which were diametrically opposed to those which I outlined, were followed it would lead to the destruction of this country as an industrial nation. The next point is that I did give credit to the Government in relation to the reduction of inflation; I said give credit where credit is due. I also said that I regarded the obsession with inflation as a necessary obsession. I pointed out, however, that although it was public enemy No. 1 it had caused a great many things to be accepted on the short-term which had gone on for a long while and which represented conditions unfavourable to British industry. I also said I hoped, but without much optimism, that we would not discuss whether things were slightly better or slightly worse. But I must say that, in comparing how much better they are, you need to look at the figures with and without oil. One must also consider the degree to which current policies which have slightly improved things on the very short-term have been dictated by necessity and the IMF.
The Prime Minister's package has been sufficiently discussed and condemned. I tried to interrupt—apparently I was out of order—when the noble Baroness was talking about the number of days lost in strikes. I had referred to that report and I had said—as the noble Baroness will see if she reads my speech—and I hoped that she had heard it, that we were not out of line in days lost through strike. However, I pointed out that this was an inevitable result of natural economic limits on the number of days strike that can be afforded by either party, and that it was the bargaining position before strike and the constant strike threat position that was unique in the United Kingdom.
I do not apologise for using the word "killing". Killings in a market economy are extremely rare and they come either through great skill or fortune. The result of the killing is money which is invested in growth and in the creation of yet further wealth. I have covered quite a lot of ground and I hope that I may ask the noble Baroness to read my speech, as I shall read hers, perhaps a little carefully because I feel that she misrepresented me on other points which time does not
1118
permit me to go into. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

DEER BILL [H.L.]
10.42 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Northfield.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ALPORT in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Close seasons and nightly close times]:
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 29, leave out ("he satisfies the court before which he is charged that").
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment along with my later Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are really all about the same subject; namely, the matter which I raised in your Lordships' House on Second Reading and when the previous Deer Bill went through its stages in this House. I am referring to the necessity to write into the Bill that an innocent person should prove his innocence before a court of law. I realise the argument that will be adduced in this connection, such as this is a legal form of words which is often used and a legal form which is necessary. However, none of those arguments mitigates for me my repugnance at the thought that somebody going about their lawful occasions should have to go before a court and prove his innocence.
I know that we all know of cases where two motorists have banged into each other on the road and they are both furious at each being charged with the same offence and so on. I know that in many facets of law, if an offence appears to have been committed it is necessary to answer before the court. But in this instance I do not see that it is necessary to make the person who has performed

1119
the action commit the offence. If we remove from the offence the exception, then no offence would have been committed. In other words, if we leave out the words:
"he satisfies the court before which he is charged that"
it means that:
"A person shall not be guilty of an offence under subsection (1) above by reason of—

(a) the taking or killing of any deer… if he was an authorised person; and he had reasonable grounds … and … it was likely that further damage would be so caused … and his action was necessary for the purpose of preventing any such damage".

Therefore, it makes clear to the police, who have the duty of taking the case to the court, the factors which would make the farmer, or the person who has had to kill the deer in order to stop the marauding of crops, innocent of the offence. It allows the police to assess the situation before they take him to court; they do not have to take him to court merely in order to discover whether or not he was an authorised person and all these other factors applied. Therefore I have put down this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD: The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has been very reasonable about this and I hope that at least to a small extent at the end of what I shall say he will be pleased. However, first, I want to deal with the exact point he is making. I hope that we can discuss together Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 7, which are all about the use of these words. If the noble Viscount is agreeable, perhaps we could deal with those four Amendments together. I think that he was mistaken in suggesting Amendment No. 5 as well.
Viscount THURSO: Yes, I should be happy to deal with all those Amendments together. Clearly, Amendment No. 4 deals with the case in which I have been persuaded that the other two Amendments should be withdrawn, that the wording should stand, and that there has therefore been an omission at a later stage. So I should be happy to deal with it in that way.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. The first
1120
point I would make is that Amendment No. 4 is in any case defective; in other words, if it were to be accepted in principle, it is wrong. It should read:
"if he satisfies the court before which he is charged that he was",
not that he "is". Therefore, on that ground alone I think that the noble Viscount would need to withdraw the Amendment.
More importantly, let me come to the principle. The noble Viscount said on Second Reading that he objected to the onus being on the defendant to prove his innocence when he was going about his business in a perfectly lawful way. Let us look at what is happening. First, let us take Amendment No. 1. What is the offence? The offence is the shooting of a deer during the close season. In every sense the onus will be on the prosecution to prove that that offence took place; the onus will not pass to the defence. The prosecution will have to prove that that offence—as in every other offence in law—was actually committed and that a deer was shot in the close season by Mr. A.
But as with many other offences, certainly in English law—I am not an expert on Scottish law and I think that the noble Viscount probably is—we then get a situation where an offence being clear in that sense, certain statutory defences are nevertheless prescribed by Act of Parliament. That is precisely what this clause as drafted sets out to do; it sets out to give the man who has prima facie committed this offence four statutory defences which he can call in aid to say that nevertheless he shall not be punished. Therefore, in that sense it is not turning normal English procedure upside down. It is, in fact, on all fours with many other Acts of this kind. I am glad to recall that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, mentioned this point to the noble Viscount on Second Reading.
If the noble Viscount were to press me, I would say that if it would satisfy him that the words should be there—and I shall come to further reasons why they should be there in a moment—then he is quite right in saying that we ought to accept a modified version, a corrected version of his Amendment No. 4. Those words, if they are in Clause 1, ought to be present at the very top of page 4 where

1121
he says they have been missed out. If he wishes, and if he is satisfied by my explanations, we would certainly insert at Report stage a phrase to make the whole thing consistent.
Let us look at a further point why the words in any case could not, in order to meet him, be withdrawn. The final test of whether the statutory defences hold water or not is before a court. It must be up to the defence to take advantage of them because some of the defences are things that the prosecution could not prove the contrary of. If my language is getting rather convoluted, I hope the noble Viscount will understand what I am saying. In other words, the onus must be on the defence in the case of subparagraph (ii) at the bottom of page 2. It is only he, the defendant, who can show that he had reasonable grounds for believing that the deer of this kind had been causing damage. You cannot expect the prosecution to prove that he had no grounds for the contrary. It has to be the onus on the defence in this case to take advantage of the statutory defence.
I hope those words satisfy the noble Viscount. I understand his antipathy to words which make people look a little guilty when they really only are talking about statutory defence. If it would help him, and if he would withdraw his Amendments, J should certainly agree to talk with him before the Report stage, and perhaps with the Parliamentary counsel or officials who have been so kind in helping to draft this Bill, to see whether we can convince him. If we were to convince him that the words were necessary, at Report I would certainly accept a modified version of his Amendment No. 4.
10.53 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I am bound to say that I have a certain sympathy with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, when he sees to it, as he thinks, that for any prosecution in the future he is not making things easier than they have to be. I am talking in layman's language now, if not baby language. I share that view. I do not believe, certainly under the English system of law, that the burden of proof, which normally rests on the prosecution throughout the case, should be mitigated
1122
in any way, unless certain conditions apply so that it is in fact necessary and desirable that the prosecution in effect is alleviated from the heavy burden of proof which it normally carries.
What do we have here? As the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, correctly says, the prosecution have to prove the offence, and prove it strictly, as they do with all, or nearly all, offences in our criminal law. The difficulty arises when you create a defence. If I am at variance with the noble Lord, there are not four defences here; there is one defence containing four limbs, and the allegedly errant farmer will have to prove all four limbs if he is to be acquitted at the end of the trial.
The noble Lord is right in saying that there are matters which the prosecution cannot know that are, or were, in the mind of the farmer, or whoever is the occupier of the land, when he takes the action he does. To that extent it must be for the defence to put those facts before the court. The difficulty arises as to what sort of burden is going to be on the defendant when he puts them before the court. Is it like, for instance, in the case of murder where the Crown has to prove, in effect, that the defendant when he caused the death of the victim either intended to kill him or at least to cause him really serious bodily harm? The defendant may say, "I never intended to kill him. I never intended, when I shot a gun in the direction of this person, even to wound him but simply to frighten him off my property"; and, in those circumstances, the defendant will say, that it is not murder but, at the most, manslaughter. In those cases the burden is still on the Crown to disprove the assertion by the defendant that what he intended was fright and not death or serious bodily injury.
I have strayed rather far from the rustic scene when the death of a deer is caused, but, as I said on Second Reading, I think the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, is a little too worried about this. If one takes a practical situation, and one must—if a farmer or occupier is acting reasonably in the defence of his crops—I do not believe it would be difficult for him (or so difficult for him that an injustice may be caused) to go through the four limbs which provide his statutory defence under subsection (7). A person acting reasonably and honestly—which is really what is being said in precise

1123
and legal terms under these four heads—would, I believe, be acquitted and I think he would find no difficulty.
It is no good trying to tinker with the words of the clause. The provision is perfectly satisfactory. It makes good legal sense; it simply throws the burden of proof—only on the balance of probabilities; not beyond reasonable doubt—on to a defendant in a certain instance. If one tries to tinker with it, the cure would be far worse than the disease.
10.57 p.m.
Lord DULVERTON: I rise only to express sympathy for the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, in his reasons for moving the Amendment. Prima facie, in reading it one would be persuaded it was reasonable, but having heard the exposition of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and the erudite exposition of my noble friend, I hope the noble Viscount will feel as satisfied as I feel that there is no good reason in effect for trying to alter the words of the clause as drafted. I believe I am right in saying that, although it might seem implicit in the words used in the clause that any farmer defending his crops would of necessity be brought before a court to prove he really was a farmer and really was defending his crops, that is not the case. This is a form of words often used nowadays in English law covering statutory defences and the police are unlikely to pursue a prosecution and bring it before the court if they themselves do not have very good reason to suppose that the four excuses set down are not able to be sustained by the man who is alleged to have committed the offence. I hope the noble Viscount may feel persuaded, however much sympathy we may all feel with his intention in moving the Amendment, to withdraw it.
Viscount THURSO: I am grateful to the Committee for the wave of sympathy which has come towards me, and I am to a large extent comforted by it, and by the help which noble Lords have given me in feeling this is so. I should like to take up the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on his generous offer to discuss this matter again before Report stage, if I am to capitulate immediately on these Amendments, as I feel inclined to do. It is late at night. I might feel tempted to
1124
go on and press certain aspects of the matter, but I do not think that I should. I am taking up the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, on his kind suggestion, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Prohibited firearms and ammunition]:
11.1 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 28, at end insert ("(that is, shot commonly known as "AAA ") ").
The noble Lord said: With your Lordships' permission, I also wish to speak to Amendment No. 6. The shot technically described in the text of the Bill at line 28 on page 3 is more commonly known as "AAA". Therefore, it was felt advisable to insert that common name in the text of the Bill. Thus this is purely a drafting Amendment. However, with regard to Amendment No. 6, upon reflection it has been found not appropriate to insert the common term at that point, and so I do not propose to move that Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 7 not moved.]
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 10, after ("Minister") insert ("and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, acting jointly").
The noble Lord said: I can speak about this matter briefly because it was dealt with at considerable length on Second Reading. The National Farmers' Union, which has reached agreement with me and my advisers on the Bill, has all the time insisted that it would like the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to have joint powers effectively with the Home Office in relation to any orders to be made regarding weapons to be used on deer. The Minister at the Home Office exchanged correspondence with me at the time, which I read out at Second Reading. First, there is a pledge in the correspondence that the Minister in any case will not use any of the powers until an inter-departmental committee, which is to be set up

1125
after the Bill becomes law, has reported. Therefore, the point there is that there is one safeguard in writing.
There is a second safeguard, which of course I know about, that throughout the Bill it is made clear that if any orders are made under the Bill, the Home Office would be enjoined to consult widely, and that would include consulting other Ministries for their views. Nevertheless, having said all that, I fully accept the National Farmers' Union's point of view that this is the farmers' Minister, that this is a matter affecting them, and that he more fully understands their point of view on what weapons are appropriate and on how quickly they may be phased out, if that was the issue at stake. Therefore, they feel that their Minister should be the one upon whom they could lean and to whom they could put their views, and that he might more readily understand their point of view than would the Home Office acting alone. I gave this pledge and I gave it honestly, and I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has added his name to the Amendment because he has been foremost in expressing the strength of this view on the need for this joint power. As I say, I covered this question in great detail at Second Reading, and I therefore hope that the Committee will forgive me if I develop it no further tonight. I am carrying out a pledge. I beg to move.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell): I am sorry to introduce what may well appear to be a discordant note at this stage in the proceedings. I will deal with it as briefly as I possibley can because I have a very full note on this, but I am not unmindful of the discussion which took place on the previous occasion. I can assure your Lordships that this provision would make it inconceivable that the Secretary of State should make an order under Clause 2(5) without consulting both the Minister of Agriculture and the National Farmers' Union. Both bodies represent, in the words of the Bill,
"persons likely to be interested in or affected by"
such an order, and I believe that the Secretary of State would be in breach of his statutory duty if he failed to consult them.
1126
In the second place, I would remind your Lordships that the Government have given an undertaking to put in hand an inter-Departmental review of deer when this Bill reaches the Statute Book. The review would examine the position of deer in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, with particular reference to the aspects subject to legislative control. An assurance has been given to my noble friend Lord Northfield, and was made public by him during the Second Reading debate last month, that no attempt would be made to phase out the shotgun or otherwise to use the powers we are considering here before the review had been completed and the conclusions known. The exact membership of the review body, its parent Department and its terms of reference have yet to be decided, but it is certain that farming interests will be fully represented and will thus be involved in a consideration of the shotgun problem from the very beginning.
The third point I want to make is that the Amendment does not mention either the Secretary of State for Wales or the Department for Agriculture in Northern Ireland, both of which exercise functions exercised by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England. An Amendment incorporating the appropriate reference would be of some complexity in itself, as well as requiring further consequential Amendments to Clause 17. I think this third point which I am making on behalf of the Government is a very valid one, and I say with the greatest possible respect that I do not think the present Amendment before your Lordships could be considered or accepted in its present form when, as I say, there are other people acting on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food outside England itself. I think it would have to be more embracing, and it may well become much more cumbersome.
I would, therefore, ask my noble friend Lord Northfield if he would feel able not to press this Amendment at this stage. We have another stage, the Report stage, and it may well be that we ought to get together on this matter afresh and look at it again, if my noble friend and noble Lords feel that there ought to be something along these lines in the Bill before us. Meanwhile, in view of what I have said I hope that my noble friend will feel able not to proceed with this Amendment at this stage.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, this question while the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, is considering his position. Of course, nobody would seek even to smile at the noble Lord's undertaking that this Government will do this, that or the other in the future as soon as this Bill becomes law—and, knowing the tenacious way in which this Government cling on to power, it may well be that they can give this sort of assurance. But everything in this world is transient. I wonder how much validity such an assurance has at this late stage of a Parliament's life. What I want to ask the noble Lord is this, and it is more serious: if the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, decides to withdraw his Amendment at this stage—it is something which I know does cause a lot of feeling, as have many matters in this Bill, and it would be a great shame if this little point were to sink the Bill (I say that not as a threat, for I have nothing to do with it, but I am beginning to have maternal feelings about this Bill)—can he give an undertaking between this stage and the next that the noble Lord and his Department will give advice as to how the Amendment may be made more satisfactory in form, both as to this clause and as to the consequential Amendments which the noble Lord has talked about? In other words, will he give his blessing in spirit at least to the Amendment so that we shall know when the Report stage of the Bill comes about that we will not have any more dissension as between the supporters of the Bill and any other vested interest?
Viscount THURSO: I should like to support what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has said. I do not think that we should back off from this Amendment. I think the whole of your Lordships' Committee would want to see something of this sort included in the Bill. I am not entirely sure that the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales or the Minister for the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland exercises certain powers which reside principally with the Minister of Agriculture in the Government really has any bearing on this matter. There is no separate Welsh legislation on deer that I know of. Nor, to my knowledge, is there any separate legislation on deer in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I think it would be appropriate to appoint anybody one wished to
1128
appoint at this stage to be consulted before any change is made in the deer legislation.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May I reply to the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, that at every possible stage the Government have given every assistance so far as this Bill is concerned. I think my noble friend Lord Northfield would say that he could not have had more help than he has had from the appropriate Government Department, the Home Office, on this particular Bill. There is no intention, no desire, whatever on the part of the Department and the Government to sabotage this Bill in any way. What we want to do is to have—
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I never implied, let alone alleged, that there was. I merely asked for an indication of future expressions of help and that they would be in material form.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: The Department involved is always willing, so far as this Bill is concerned, to give every possible help. All I am saying is that, as it is worded, we see certain difficulties. I think I indicated that perhaps those who are involved (including the noble Earl, if he is in town) could discuss it to see whether we could find a more satisfactory wording. If we cannot do so, then the House will have to decide. It is as simple as that.
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY: I think I had better say something now, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for allowing me to put my name down with his to this Amendment. There have been occasions in the past, and no doubt there will be others in the future, when we have not entirely agreed on everything. If the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, and I can agree on something—which is, perhaps, slightly unusual—then perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, must agree that we must have something of importance here. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, started from the wrong village, if I may say so. I would have started by saying that it is the Minister of Agriculture who in fact should make these decisions. This is an entirely agricultural decision to take. I do not think that there is a single member of the Committee

1129
who would disagree with this. Therefore my logic says that it must be the Minister of Agriculture.
I say that I have already given in to a vast extent by accepting that the Home Secretary should be there at all. We have both started from a different end of the pitch on this matter. It is very important, and I do not think that the noble Lord has quite grasped that the motive for changing the type of weapon to be used or indeed repealing entirely Clause 2(3) (which is the clause he is going to be able to repeal) is an agricultural one. Finally, I must say that last time we dillied and dallied over this Bill and failed to grasp the nettle at Committee. As a result, it went on and on until, as I told the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell—and I am afraid I am not being very nice to him again tonight—we had a wrecking Amendment by the Government at Third Reading, which was too late. My feeling is that if your Lordships will support me, this Amendment should be agreed to tonight.
After we have pressed this Amendment, if the noble Lord feels that there is a better way to bring in the Secretary of State for Wales, or whatever, then he has a chance to do so at Report stage. I do not feel like withdrawing this Amendment and hedging the issue. It is an important Amendment and I feel strongly about it, and I hope that the Committee feel that way.
11.18 p.m.
Lord DULVERTON: I regret taking issue with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who has been extremely helpful over this Bill in its many stages. I must add a brief word to those expressed by my noble friend because I know how strongly and deeply the National Farmers' Union of England feels on this issue. As my noble friend has explained, the presence of deer as a possible destroyer of crops but also as a foodstuff in themselves is surely an agricultural matter. I well understand that it is the Home Secretary's Department which has to regulate the issue of firearms certificates, gun licences and so on, but it is much more an agricultural matter. The fact that we have to think about other Ministries in Wales and Northern Ireland is not all that important. By far the biggest deer population that we are talking
1130
about is in England. There is a very small deer population in Wales. I do not know about Northern Ireland, but I do not think it would be very big there either.
I should like to put one other point to the noble Lord opposite. He said that of course it would be inconceivable that, when the inquiry which is being set up came to its conclusions and before promulgating its conclusions, the Minister of Agriculture would not be consulted. One would assume that to be the case but I must quote a particular instance that happened recently within my own knowledge which leads one to doubt whether one can always rely on the proper consultation taking place. As noble Lords from Scotland will know, in the past months there was a case in Orkney where somebody wanted to set up a mink farm next door to one of the most important wildfowl nesting sites in the whole of Europe. The Secretary of State for Scotland has a duty to consult the Nature Conservancy Council on any matter which might affect nature conservation, and that slipped. He gave planning permission for this particular planning case where the mink farm was to be set up. It led to a terrible lot of trouble afterwards to unravel the situation created purely by inadvertence. It has happened once; it could happen again. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will, if pressed to do so, accept the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, has put foward.
Lord BURTON: Could I also add to that our grateful thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for the help which he has given, and convey regret that on this occasion one might wish to differ from him. May I remind him that not so very long ago there was a case in which we got a categoric assurance from the Minister—and the House accepted it—that on a certain point this was the intention of the House and the intention of the Government. The matter then came before the Land Court, and they said, "We are not interested in what the Minister said, but only in what is in the Bill". I am afraid this is a case where we shall have to go by what is written in the Bill and not by the intention of the present Minister—we admire him, but we must have it actually written down in the Bill,

1131
because a court has already ruled that a Minister's undertaking is not sufficient.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I must first thank my noble friend. We have omitted to say to him previously how pleased we are to see him at the Despatch Box after his recent promotion inside the Government. I understand he would not normally be dealing with this Bill now that he has other duties, but that he kindly volunteered to continue with it because of his connection with this during the last Session. The fact of our having kept him so late this evening is very poor thanks for his courtesy. But we do congratulate him and are sorry that on future Bills of this kind we shall not have the benefit of his charm and sympathy in dealing with them.
Having said that, I have to say to him that I feel my honour is at stake in this matter. I have given my pledges to the National Farmer's Union on this matter, and I join with the noble Lord, Lord Stanley, despite what the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield said. I feel that the better plan at this stage would be for me to carry out the pledge I have honestly given, to write this into the Bill and then, if it needs to be extended or expanded at Report stage, that is the proper thing to do. I am sure it would not upset officials at the Home Office, or the Ministers. I would say yet again, as my noble friend said, that they have been of inestimable help in the re-drafting of this Bill, and I am sure that the little irritant of our proceeding, as they might think, a little hot-headedly on this matter, will not upset them. I do not think it will upset their sympathy if we ask them to look at it when we have done our dirty work at this stage and put this into the Bill. So in these circumstances I feel I must press the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Removal etc. of live deer]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 22, leave out ("removes") and insert ("takes and carries away").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment, which is a drafting Amendment. The word "removes" may not
1132
indicate the precise intention at this point. It is best to imply that the animal is being transported from one place to another. The phrase "takes and carries away" is in other Acts of Parliament, and I suggest that to use it here makes the matter absolutely clear. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Exceptions to sections 1 to 4]:
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 6, line 19, leave out from ("on") to ("acting") in line 21 and insert ("any Minister of the Crown, or on two or more Ministers of the Crown").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment. It is technical and is designed simply to take account of the fact that the Secretary of State for Wales now has powers under the Acts mentioned in Clause 5(5)(a) in respect of Wales. In that sense, it is purely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Prevention of poaching]:
11.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I hesitate at this hour of the night to inflict upon your Lordships a matter which is not the subject of an Amendment, but I do so consequential upon remarks which I made on Second Reading upon a matter which I think is important and believe noble Lords may think is important. I do so in order that the matter is ventilated, and also to give the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, the opportunity to pronounce upon my worries if he feels that they are worth pronouncing upon.
The matter is this. Clause 7, which has been the subject of a great deal of controversy before now, is, in effect, the clause which deals with the prevention of poaching in one form or another. In particular, it stops people from trespassing on land with the intention of pursuing, taking, killing or, indeed, injuring deer.

1133
Thus far the matter is entirely sensible, if I may so call it, and, I should have thought, non-controversial. The difficulty comes when one considers the people who may find themselves at the wrong end of a criminal court, for a course of action which until now could never have landed them in a criminal court, and which, at the most, could only have made them liable to an injunction restraining them from trespass—a civil matter.
Let me illustrate it in this way. If staghounds go on to land which is in the ownership of somebody else, and he objects and, as it were, notifies the hunt of that objection and they repeat the action, then, at least, the organisers of the hunt will be in peril of a prosecution under Clause 7. I think that that is incontrovertible. I want to say especially to those behind me that I am not a hunting man, and if I betray abysmal ignorance I hope that they will be reasonably kind to me. But let us take now somebody who is following a hunt and enjoys himself on a horse or possibly on foot, certainly in the case of foxes, and it may be—I do not know—in the case of staghounds. Such people run along in the countryside as best they can, enjoying themselves more as spectators than taking part in the hunt.
If the hunt goes on to land—in fact, trespasses—what is the position if that land is owned specifically by anti-stag-hound organisations which have bought the land in order to exclude a hunt? I can see that in those circumstances the hunt servants would stand to be prosecuted and, in the ordinary course of events, would have no defence, or, at any rate, would not have the defence under subsection (3). But what is the position of a less resolute person who, perhaps, is not a member of the hunt and is cantering along on his horse, enjoying the scenery, and suddenly finds himself surrounded by outraged owners or occupiers, who say: "You are trespassing in a way which brings you within the ambit of criminal law", when he would not have the slightest idea of where he was or what he was doing? One can take that still further. What is the position of somebody on foot? Can they avail themselves of subsection (3)? The next question one asks is whether it is right and fair that they should be put in a court and forced to do that.
Lord NORTHFIELD: The noble Earl keeps on referring to subsection (3), but if he speaks about somebody cantering along on a horse, the effective subsection is subsection (1). The prosecution would have to prove that he was doing all this with the intention of taking and killing deer as a poacher.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I do not wish to be rude to the noble Lord, but the charge would say that X, the master, and Y, the huntsman, were guilty under Clause 7 and that the hunt followers, the et ceteras and the people on foot were aiding and abetting.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I understand.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I have tried to compress my remarks because it is late at night and I do not wish to go into the technicalities of it. Of course Aunt Enid, bucketing along on her horse, would not know how to touch a deer if she caught up with it and would be horrified at the thought of it, but she would be guilty of aiding and abetting those who wished to kill it. That is one situation, and I am slightly disturbed by it.
The other situation—again I have no personal experience of it but one reads about it from time to time in the newspapers—is where these hunts get much nearer to conurbations than they probably want to and end up by having a most ferocious bloodbath in somebody's suburban corner, with the wretched creature which is being hunted at bay among the geraniums and an outraged householder watching the slaughter. In these circumstances, it seems to me that everybody who went into that suburban garden would be liable to be found guilty under Clause 7. They could not possibly avail themselves of subsection (3) because they could never go into a court and say, "I ran after the hounds. I didn't know whether I was going to try to whip them off or try to kill the stag with my sawn-off shotgun, but I had to get into that garden after my pack of hounds. Of course I didn't think that the occupier of the land would approve. He obviously didn't". This is what worries me.
At present, the householder is perfectly entitled to take out a writ and obtain an injunction. If anybody comes back on to his land in those circumstances, he

1135
finds that he is liable to go in front of a High Court judge, and possibly he will go to prison. Under this clause of the Bill, however, he could, as I say, find himself in the dock of a magistrates' court. None of this would matter very much if the Scottish system obtained, where prosecutions could be initiated only by a procurator-fiscal, because he would see to it that, if it was a mistake and nobody had acted unreasonably, that it was not negligent, that it was a case of sheer bad luck and that Aunt Enid did not know what she was doing when she was found by an outraged householder, it was all right. But what worries me is that these prosecutions can be initiated in England by anybody on a private basis. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will confirm that this is the case and that I am not talking nonsense, because if I am and a prosecution cannot be initiated privately, then I shall rest a good deal more content. Those are my worries. I wanted to air them and I am sorry that I have taken so long to do it.
Lord BURTON: May I ask my noble friend one question? I understand his worry and fully appreciate and understand it. However, would it not be a defence, if hounds were running on to ground where they were not allowed to go, if somebody, whether a hunt servant or otherwise who was pursuing them, were to say, "I was after them and trying to stop them"? If the hounds run on you cannot stop them without getting ahead of them to stop them. Would not this be a defence?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: It is not for me to answer these questions, but I would say, Yes, it was, because then the person would not be entering land with the intent of taking, killing or injuring deer. He would be entering land with the intent of whipping off his hounds. But that is not the situation which I have postulated.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Having listened to the noble Earl, I feel personally that it would be very unwise of me to attempt to give an authoritative opinion tonight. If your Lordships will allow me, I should prefer to look very carefully tomorrow at Hansard together with my advisers. I have a great respect for the
1136
legal knowledge and ability of the noble Earl and he would not have raised these matters unless he was very much exercised in his mind about them. The fact that he has raised them causes me to say that I do not want to attempt to answer them tonight. As I have said, I should like to look at Hansard tomorrow with my advisers and then to write to the noble Earl. There will be ample time for him to do something before the Report stage if he feels it incumbent upon himself to do so, and I would be happy to send a copy of that letter to my noble friend Lord Northfield and to certain other noble Lords who have tabled Amendments and have spoken tonight.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Offender may be required to quit land]:
11.36 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 8, line 3, at end insert—
("(5) This section shall not empower a constable in Northern Ireland to exercise any powers in connection with an offence or suspected offence under section 7 above except in the circumstances mentioned in the exception to the proviso to section 15 of the Constabulary (Ireland) Act 1836 (that is to say, where forcible resistance is actually made and proved by information on oath).").
The noble Lord said: The word "constable" is used in the Bill and so the Amendment has to be made in respect of laws about constables in Northern Ireland. In that sense it is purely technical and does not alter the sense of the Bill. It is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Sale and purchase etc. of venison]:
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 8, line 14, at end insert ("or a venison dealer registered under the Sale of Venison (Scotland) Act 1968 ").
The noble Viscount said: At this late hour I do not want to speak for too long about this Amendment. If your Lordships agree I will speak also to Amendment

1137
No. 13, because both Amendments are virtually the same and deal with the same subject. I have a genuine worry about the status of venison dealers round about the Border between England and Scotland where there are two types of people dealing in the same commodity, keeping different types of records and working under different legislation. I feel that this situation has to be resolved.
I am probably not going to press these particular Amendments, but I should like an assurance before I withdraw them, that perhaps there could be some sort of consultation about this matter to make sure that the situation and the trade across the Border is properly regulated and that in fact venison dealers from either side of the Border can operate properly without any unnecessary hindrance. I beg to move.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I am grateful for what the noble Viscount has said and of course I am willing to talk to him, but I want to make it clear that there would not be any possibility of accepting these Amendments. The reason is simply that the Amendments would allow a venison dealer registered in Scotland to operate in England. This would be very dangerous, for this reason: the venison dealer in Scotland is a man who is registered by local authorities; he cannot be refused registration and there is very little control over him, as I understand the position. The records he keeps fall far short of those specified in the Bill; moreover, any records he keeps cannot be inspected by the police.
If an unscrupulous person wished to avoid the intention of the Bill, namely, scrupulous checking on the origin of deer, he could effectively get himself registered as a dealer in Scotland and then operate in the North of England, where the police would not be able to inspect his records; the records would not be complete enough. He could be a poacher just using this in a most reprehensible way in order to get round the sale of his venison. The way a reputable venison dealer in Scotland can get round the problem legitimately and properly is simply to get himself registered at a cost of £4·25 as an English dealer under the terms of the Act, and he is then perfectly entitled to sell his venison in England. But of course there he would be subject to greater checks; the police would be able to make
1138
sure exactly what he was doing. To accept the Amendment would be to open a door to unscrupulousness by those seeking such open doors. I am willing to talk to the noble Viscount but I must make it clear that the Amendment is not acceptable.
Lord BURTON: May I add that the noble Viscount, having been on the Red Deer Commission, will be fully aware that registering of venison dealers in Scotland is totally unsatisfactory at the moment. Indeed, only yesterday I was trying to compete with a well known poacher who has a licence and is collecting venison from other people poaching and dealing in it. It is a most unsatisfactory situation and already badly needs amending in Scotland. To proliferate it into England would be a complete mistake.
Viscount THURSO: I cannot say that I accept either of these points of view. I am absolutely horrified at the slur on the honesty of Scottish local authorities, to think that they could be used by any old poacher from England to obtain a venison licence. I think that is a terrible slur. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, did not really mean it like that, but it came out slightly like that. I certainly do not agree that the Sale of Venison (Scotland) Act has not been a success. In fact within the area in which it was supposed to be used it has been a success. I do not want to go into that at this late stage. I do accept Lord Northfield's invitation to talk on this, mainly because the time is getting later and later and I am already in hot water for having forecast that this debate would take a much shorter time than it is taking. Therefore, with your Lordships' leave, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clauses 12 to 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 [Short title, repeals, extent and commencement]:
11.43 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 14, leave out line 10 and insert—
(" (4) This Act, with the exception of Part II, shall come into force at the expiry of three months beginning with the date of its passing, and Part II shall come into force on 1st November 1979.").
The noble Lord said: The intention of this Amendment is to bring into force as soon as possible those Parts of the Bill which deal with the immense cruelty in poaching, and to leave until rather later Part II relating to sales of venison, which will take a little time to set up, getting the forms printed and the machinery into operation. This Amendment enables those Parts which are badly needed to be brought into operation as soon as possible. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Prohibited firearms and ammunition]:
11.45 p.m.
Viscount THURSO Viscount THURSO moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 15, line 25, after ("gun") insert ("except for the killing or taking of Muntjac or Chinese Water Deer").
The noble Viscount said: It was at this stage that I intended to keep your Lordships' Committee up for a very long time, but I shall be merciful because I realise that here again this is a matter regarding which I shall probably have to agree to talk to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, about the problems involved. I also realise that there is one technical mistake in the second of the two Amendments which arise in Schedule 2, but I plead that that it is not my fault. There are in fact 11 lines within 10 by the way in which the Bill is printed; there is obviously a line 37A in the Bill because if one counts from line 35 down to line 40 there is an extra line. With your Lordships' permission I should like to talk to Amendment No. 16 and point out that I am not sure whether that Amendment should refer to line 37 or 38.
The point is that I believe that it is wrong—and I said this on Second Reading—to make one standard weapon for such a varying collection of animals as are listed in Schedule 1. There is a way round the problem and that is to list different weapons for different animals. I am aware of some of the arguments which are put against such a proposal, but I sincerely maintain that greater cruelty and greater damage could be done by attempting to use the
1140
very high velocity, larger calibre rifles necessary for shooting red and fallow deer, on Muntjac or Chinese water deer. For instance, a Muntjac is probably not much bigger than the neck of a red deer. We all know that the neck of a red deer is a fairly demanding target for even respectable shots.
I would suggest that at the sort of ranges at which one is likely to meet Muntjac and Chinese water deer, and in the sort of conditions that one is likely to be able to shoot at them, a cartridge in a smooth bore gun of sufficient load would give a better chance of a clean kill than a rifle. I could explain this point at greater length, but I would need more time than I think it is fair to ask of your Lordships tonight. I leave your Lordships with only one simile and that is that it is rather like saying that one is going to revise the Geneva Convention which outlaws certain types of bullets and make it so that the only weapon allowed is a weapon sufficient to kill the largest thing that one could think of, which presumably would be a battleship. Therefore, nobody could use anything in war except (shall we say?) an 18 inch gun. That would plainly be ridiculous. It is just as ridiculous to say that one cannot use anything for killing any of these varieties of deer except the comparatively high velocity rifle specified in the Schedule.
I recognise that these two Amendments may be faulty and may not be suitable, and that it may be necessary to think of a way of drafting other Amendments which will allow the use of a variety of weapons for a variety of animals. If that is so, then I should be amenable to any such suggestion. I beg to move.
Lord DULVERTON: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will accept this Amendment, but, very briefly at this late hour, if he decides to discuss the Amendment with the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, may I suggest that the calibre of shot should be altered? The Amendment says ·143 inches or 3·63 millimetres. That is the size of shot commonly known as the No. 1 shot. I believe that if the shot cover were legalised for these two kinds of little deer, it would be too small. The kind of shot normally known as BB would be a more appropriate size of shot to use.

1141
I am afraid that I cannot quote the millimetres involved but BB is something like 5·4 millimetres as opposed to 3·63 millimetres.
Lord BURTON: I believe that No. 1 shot is now out of production anyway.
Lord NORTHFIELD: I should like briefly to make three points to the noble Viscount. First, the aim of the proposals in the Bill is to stop the potting at and the severe wounding of small species, which happens so frequently during pheasant and rough shooting. In those circumstances the shotgun is almost certainly loaded with, say, No. 6 or No. 7 shot. We are trying to stop that. The danger is that in bringing in the shotgun for use against these small species, the temptation would be to say, "We might as well have a pot at these while we are doing some rough shooting because who can prove whether we had No. 6 or No. 7 shot instead of No. 1 at that point. We cannot stop and take our No. 6 or No. 7 shot out and put in No. 1 because we have just seen a deer run across the shoot. Who can prove it without capturing the animal and saying what kind of shot is in it?" The danger is that if you start this you would in fact to some extent be opening the door to allowing people to be slightly careless about using smaller shot and hoping to get away with it.
Turning to my second point, the noble Viscount did make the legitimate point that perhaps greater sophistication in the definition of appropriate shot is needed. But I do not think it is in this Bill. This is a point which we hope the Interdepartmental Committee, which my noble friend has promised, will be looking into. It will need to be looked at not simply in terms of the Muntjac or the Chinese water deer, but in terms of other species of deer as well. It would be best to leave it to the Interdepartmental Committee, which I hope will report, say, in 12 months' time, to sort out exactly the degree of sophistication in definition of weapons that is really needed.
Finally, I come to my third and last point on this matter, and in doing so I take up the noble Lord's point. The British Deer Society has offered to arrange a day's stalking for the noble Viscount, but he should bring his own rifle which
1142
should be of a calibre not less than ·240 inches. I hope that he would then see things for himself and also understand the other point of view about it. I have made my three points and I am grateful for his indication that he will not press these points at this stage.
Lord TRYON: I should like to join in this discussion because I, too, made similar noises to the noble Viscount's about the Muntjac during the Second Reading debate. I believe that it would be a mistake to start differentiating between them and, say, roe. I fear that many people would plead to having shot a roe deer with the wrong size shot in the belief that they thought it was a Muntjac or vice versa. I am sure that these are refinements that can come later in legislation, and I am sure that there will be later legislation on red deer. The noble Lord has not actually included No. 1 shot and I shall be chasing him for that later, but I thank him for including my AAA shot Amendment. At this stage of the legislation on deer, to have different sizes of shot would make things totally impossible.
11.55 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: I really cannot accept Lord Tryon's argument about this not being an appropriate moment, nor Lord Northfield's argument about this not being the appropriate place to put it. I prefer the slightly more cynical approach that we heard earlier from the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield: "Will we get another chance to really adjust the loads and shot sizes to the targets against which they are going to be directed?" I am not sure that we will for a long time. In the meantime, I think we would, in fact, be acceding to something which may well be more cruel than the situation it is meant to rectify.
I laughed when I received this charming offer because my rifle has been rebarrelled from 350 magnum down to 300 Holland and Holland magnum, so it will make quite a mess of the Muntjac. I once shot a small animal with it and only about half the small animal was left after the process, so I do not think it would be a good idea. It would demonstrate my point of overkill. I would far prefer to accept an offer of some stalking while it is still legal, using, shall we say, DB, and demonstrating how effective this is and how much more effective it would be than anything that

1143
could be done in similar circumstances with a rifle. However, I will accept the invitation if it is really made. I should be interested to carry out a demonstration.
The important thing at this stage is to say that I am prepared to withdraw these Amendments, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will talk to me about this matter at greater length. If I am not satisfied I shall come back at Report with a completely different set of Amendments, producing a sandwich which will, I understand, be more acceptable from a drafting point of view. With your Lordships' leave, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 was not moved.]
Schedules 2 and 3 agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Enactments Repealed].
11.57 p.m.
Lord NORTHFIELD Lord NORTHFIELD moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 17, line 7, at end insert—

("1973 c. 54.

The Nature Conservancy Council Act 1973.

In Schedule 1 paragraph 5.")

The noble Lord said: This is an addition to the repeals made necessary by the

1973

1974

1975

1976

1977

£ million 1978 (to 30 th September)

GRANTS

European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund:

Guarantee Section

63·2

111·8

339·6

197·5

157·3

202·0

Guidance Section

—

—

2·4

9·6

23·3

31·0

Regional Development Fund

—

—

0·3

28·5

60·0

23·3

Social Fund

—

16·1

19·3

11·1

47·8

39·8

European Coal and Steel Community

—

1·2

6·5

7·4

9·0

3·9

LOANS

European Investment Bank

32·9

79·9

186·5

259·0

320·7

286·3(1)

European Coal and Steel Community:

BSC

—

19·0

60·4

207·3

114·9

7·7

NCB

—

18·0

71·0

89·8

61·0

142·3

(1) To 31st December.

Between 1st January 1973 and 31st December 1978 the European Investment Bank granted loans in the United Kingdom totalling £1,165·3 million. Details are given below. In some cases, as indicated, it is not possible to quantify
repeal of the Deer Act 1963 which this Bill will replace. It is therefore purely technical. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

  EEC GRANTS AND LOANS TO UK
  EEC GRANTS AND LOANS TO UK
  BOEING 757 AND ROLLS-ROYCE RB211–535
  BOEING 757 AND ROLLS-ROYCE RB211–535
  CHINA: INDUSTRY MINISTER'S VISIT AND CONCORDE 214
  CHINA: INDUSTRY MINISTER'S VISIT AND CONCORDE 214
  DR. JAROSLAV SABATA
  DR. JAROSLAV SABATA
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: SEISMIC SURVEY
  FALKLAND ISLANDS: SEISMIC SURVEY
  CROWN APPOINTMENTS: QUALIFICATIONS
  CROWN APPOINTMENTS: QUALIFICATIONS
  "DUNERA": COURT OF INQUIRY
  "DUNERA": COURT OF INQUIRY