Sitting of 9 June 1982

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Israel (Foreign Secretary)
    Mr. Stan Thorneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he intends to meet the Foreign Secretary of Israel in the near future to discuss the situation in the Middle East.
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Francis Pym): I have at present no plans to do so. But the Government are deeply concerned about the situation in the Middle East and are in touch with all the parties concerned, including of course the Israeli Government.
    I have discussed the situation with the American Secretary of State Mr. Haig. We are also in urgent consultation with our partners in the European Community. I see great dangers in Israel's failure to comply with Security Council resolutions calling for its immediate withdrawal from Lebanon, and I hope very much that the Israeli Government will reconsider their position.
    Mr. Thorne: Given that the Israelis have by right a State with a territorial boundary, should not the Palestinians have a similar right? What steps is the Foreign Secretary taking to ensure that such a right is recognised by the United Nations?
    Mr. Pym: Our support for the Palestinians' right to self-determination was made clear in the Venice declaration. The principle of self-determination is contained in the United Nations charter. It applies equally to the Palestinians and to the people of the Falkland Islands. We have made public our position on this issue.
    Mr. Cormack: In view of the tragic assault on the Israeli ambassador,, and in the light of my right hon. Friend's heavy commitments, will he arrange for one of the Foreign Office Ministers to go to Israel to explain to the Israeli Government that their present action is making life exceedingly difficult for their friends?
    Mr. Pym: The Israeli Government are already clear about the attitude of Her Majesty's Government. It is always possible to contemplate such a visit, but I do not think that at present it would take us any further. The act that occurred in London was horrific, and the House has already expressed its great shock and dismay.
    Mr. Healey: I associate myself with the Foreign Secretary's last remarks. There is universal horror in the
    190
    United Kingdom at the cowardly shooting of the Israeli ambassador who, with integrity and skill, has served his country as well as any Israeli ambassador of my acquaintance since, the war. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain to the Israeli Government that to add to the shock of the Iranian victory over Iraq the humiliation of the Arab people in Lebanon will risk throwing the whole of the Arab world into the hands of Muslim fundamentalism and that nothing could be more contrary to Israel's real interests?
    Mr. Pym: I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about what is now occuring in that region of the world. Not only the invasion—if that is the correct word, and I think it is—by Israel into Lebanon but the events between Iran and Iraq are the causes of the highest tension and the greatest danger. One cannot know where such a situation will end. The potential dangers make us extremely concerned. In conjunction with our European partners, the United States and all our friends around the world, we will do whatever we can and whatever we judge to be best to try to bring this high point of tension to an early end.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter comes up several times in later questions.

    Iran
    Mr. Temple-Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between Her Majesty's Government and the Islamic Government of Iran.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Douglas Hurd): Her Majesty's Government maintain diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran and have no desire to intervene in their internal affairs. The release of two detained British citizens earlier this year removed an important obstacle to better relations. We have made it clear to the Iranian Government for some time now that we are ready for an improved relationship which must be based on mutual respect and advantage.
    Mr. Temple-Morris: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in so far as Iranian intentions may be expansionist they provide a real threat to Western and, indeed, British security? Does he further agree that the wrong way is to throw money at the problem? Therefore, is not the Saudi and Gulf offer to the Iranians, as reported last week, of no less a sum than $25 billion utterly wrong?
    Mr. Hurd: We have certainly been worried by some aspects of Iranian activity, perhaps not all of it official, in the Gulf. I agree with what my hon. Friend said about that.
    When the war is over, and possibly as a way of bringing it to an end, there is a case for those who have the resources considering whether to devote some of them to reconstruction in both the countries affected.
    Mr. McNally: Is the Minister contemplating a visit to or consultations with the Gulf States, where there is great uncertainty about future Iranian intentions?
    Mr. Hurd: I am in close touch. I had good talks yesterday with the Secretary-General of the Gulf Co-operation Council. We are in close touch and our views are known.
    Mr. Moyle: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern among Iranian students in Britain at

    191
    the implication of Iranian diplomats in the harassment of students who are thought to be the enemies or opponents of the existing regime in Iran? Will the Minister make it clear that we do not expect diplomats accredited to Britain to behave in that way?
    Mr. Hurd: I have had some reports, but they are difficult to confirm. Anyone who believes that any Iranian or other foreign diplomat is breaking British law must let the police or us know. The difficulty is that often such allegations are not substantiated by evidence that could help the police.
    Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I appreciate that my right hon. Friend will not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of another county, but will he confirm that at least 4,000-plus official executions have taken place under the present regime and that there are at least 40,000 political prisoners in that country? What new action will the Government be taking to draw that incredible and deplorable fact to the attention of the appropriate international bodies?
    Mr. Hurd: I cannot confirm the figures, because they are hard to get at. They certainly represent a real increase in human misery. We have taken every opportunity in the United Nations and the United Nations Commission of Human Rights to draw attention to what is happening and to urge the Iranian Government to respect the human rights of their citizens. The Secretary-General has been asked to prepare a report on the subject.

    Vladimir Slepak
    Mr. Woodallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what response has been received from the Government of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics to representations made by Her Majesty's Government concerning the case of Vladimir Slepak.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): We have raised Mr. Slepak's case in direct bilateral contacts with the Soviet Government and at the conference on security and co-operation in Europe review meeting in Madrid. We regret that no response has been received.
    Mr. Woodall: Does the Minister accept that there has been a somewhat disappointing response by the Soviet authorities? Nevertheless, will the Minister seek assurances from the Soviet authorities that when Vladimir Slepak has completed his exile—I hope later this year—his application for an exit visa, tabled over 10 years ago, will be granted so that he and his wife may emigrate to the land of their choice?
    Mr. Rifkind: I agree that the response from the Soviet Union is extremely disappointing. I share the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. We shall certainly take any available opportunity to make renewed representations to the Soviet Government.
    Mr. Wilkinson: Will my hon. Friend use his good offices in relation to our policy vis-a-vis the Soviet Union to ensure that in such cases, as in others, the Soviet Union upholds the principle enshrined in the Helsinki accord? Will the Government look again at the grant of £85,400
    192
    which the Foreign Office devotes to the Great Britain-USSR Association, because I see no evidence that that body brings the Soviet regime more into line with the Helsinki accord?
    Mr. Rifkind: We have used the opportunity of the review meeting in Madrid to renew the view of most Western countries that the human rights provisions of the Helsinki agreement should be properly respected. As to the latter part of my hon. Friend's question, these matters are kept constantly under review. We shall continue such support only if we think that it meets the interests of the association and of the United Kingdom to give that help.
    Mr. George Robertson: I associate myself with the disappointment felt at the lack of response to the case of Vladimir Slepak. Have the Government received any response from the Soviet Government about the Vaschenko and Chymkhalov families, who are incarcerated in the American embassy in Moscow and who were offered asylum recently by the Prime Minister in answer to a question that I tabled?
    Mr. Rifkind: This matter is primarily for the United States Government. I can report no new developments at present.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he is satisfied with the political support being given to the United Kingdom by the United Kingdom's European Economic Community partners in relation to the Falkland Islands.
    Mr. Pym: Yes, Sir. We are grateful to have received the strong and continuing political support which we have from our partners.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Secretary of State agree that many of our EC partners have expressed concern that a military victory will not solve the problem in the South Atlantic? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that they have been urging the British Government to lay the basis for a lasting settlement there and to take that on board as a more important responsibility than they have so far?
    Mr. Pym: What will happen after repossession exercises the mind of Her Majesty's Government to a great extent. Naturally, there is international interest in what will occur then. I think that it is an open question at this stage. It depends on the precise circumstances at the time. It is right that we should have discussions with our partners and other friendly nations about what will take place. We have thought about a number of possibilities for the future, but exactly what happens at that point must depend on the circumstances.
    Mr. John Townend: Were the Government surprised and disappointed at the failure of the French Government to join Britain and the United States in vetoing the ceasefire resolution? If so, what representations have the Government made to France?
    Mr. Pym: We have been grateful throughout for the general support that France has given us. That was expressed in a forthright way by President Mitterrand at the conclusion of the summit conference. I can go no further than to draw my hon. Friend's attention to those words.
    Mr. Dalyell: Who is right—the Government of France, who claim that sanctions are being implemented, or the chairman of Aerospatiale Dassault, who proclaims the value of its wares being sold to Latin American countries? In particular, does the Foreign Secretary have any faith in end user certificates? Could not sales to Venezuela easily go south?
    Mr. Pym: I do not want to comment in a definitive sense on the hon. Gentleman's latter point, because hon. Members will have different views. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are grateful for the support that we have received from the French Government. They have put themselves to a considerable amount of trouble in the economic measures that they have already taken. We are confident that they have contributed to the effect that the measures have had on the Argentine economy, which is certainly in a very bad state. I shall leave the matter there.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the support that we have received from the French Government has been unfaltering throughout? Is my right hon. Friend aware that he will have wide support for his determination to maintain maximum support from our allies for the policies that he is pursuing?
    Mr. Pym: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is part of my daily purpose to maintain maximum support from our partners and from other countries.
    Mr. Healey: Is the right hon. Gentleman not disturbed by the fact that last week we were in a minority of one to nine in the Security Council, whereas on 3 April we were in a majority of nine to one? Does he agree that one reason for that is that none of our allies in Europe or on the other side of the Atlantic supported the British veto last Thursday?
    Furthermore, did not the resolution that the British Government vetoed link a ceasefire with the implementation of resolution 502—a link on which the right hon. Gentleman has always insisted? Did not Mr. Haig, a day or two ago, express the view that it might have created a basis for a peaceful withdrawal of the Argentine forces, and did not the British ambassador, on first reading the resolution on Thursday last week, express the same view? Even at this late hour, will the right hon. Gentleman seek to produce a resolution with a satisfactory timetable so that it may still be possible to secure the withdrawal of Argentine troops without the bloodshed that may otherwise follow?
    Mr. Pym: No, Sir. The resolution that was vetoed had a superficial attraction, but, when one went into it carefully, one found that it did not adequately link the ceasefire with withdrawal, which we made clear from the very outset was an absolute precondition for accepting any such resolution. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the United States voted against the resolution, as did the United Kingdom. Therefore, we had that support. Japan voted the other way—I think on the basis that she hoped that Argentina would withdraw, but, of course, that has not yet occurred. The important reason for our action was that the linkage between the ceasefire and withdrawal was not explicit and clear in the way that we believe it has to be if an agreement of that kind is to be successful.
    Mr. Healey: Is it not true that, in trying to explain the shambles of the American voting at the Security Council, Mr. Haig made it clear this week that he believed the
    194
    resolution on which America finally wished to abstain contained the seeds of a possible basis on which the Argentines might have withdrawn? Five days have now passed. Why have the Government not used those five days to secure agreement in the Security Council on a resolution which moved the other 5 per cent. towards being something which would be wholly satisfactory to all sides?
    Mr. Pym: We have had over two months now of trying to negotiate through other people and intermediaries with the Argentine Government, and we have always landed in the same position, and we certainly should have done so had the resolution to which the right hon. Gentleman referred come to fruition, Frankly, the answer is for the Argentines to withdraw. A ceasefire and withdrawal could be arranged immediately. The Argentines show no sign of doing that at the moment. The issue is as simple as that. To try to cause delay at this time and for us to allow ourselves to get bogged down in further rounds of negotiation, which no doubt would end as the previous efforts did, would not be a satisfactory solution, particularly when the simple act of withdrawal is all that the Argentines need to do to end hostilities.

    Jordan (Middle East Talks)
    Mr. Sainsburyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next intends to meet representatives of the Jordanian Government to discuss further moves to bring about lasting peace in the Middle East.
    Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend hopes to take up before long the outstanding invitation to visit Jordan. Meanwhile, we remain in close touch with the Jordanian Government about recent developments in the Middle East.
    Mr. Sainsbury: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to obtain a lasting peace in the Middle East, all the interested parties will need to enter into negotiations and be prepared to consider reasonable compromises? In this connection, is not the intransigence of the PLO, exemplified by its rejection not only of the Fahd plan but of the Venice proposals, a major obstacle to peace? Surely it is essential for Jordan to become involved. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that his right hon. Friend will do everything possible to bring about that involvement?
    Mr. Hurd: Jordan certainly has or could have, an important role, but it is not, and does not regard itself as a substitute for the PLO or other representatives of the Palestinian people. Those who want to bring in Jordan need to take some account of Jordanian views, particularly their views on the West Bank and Jerusalem and the proliferation of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories.
    Mr. David Steel: Valuable as a visit to Jordan would be, does the Minister agree that all Governments in the area will have to be involved in a lasting peace settlement, as the question asked, and that therefore the basic Community approach of the Venice declaration is correct? Will he accept from me, in view of the fact that last week I visited the Gulf States, that there is a growing recognition that the new Government in Egypt should be drawn back into this wider discussion process?
    Mr. Hurd: I agree. The renewal of links between Egypt and the rest of the Arab world will probably take a little time. Our view on most of these matters is very close to that of the Government of President Mubarak, with whom we are in close touch.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Does the Minister agree that the attempted assassination of the Israeli ambassador was an appalling act which ought to be condemned? Does it not testify to the callous aggression of the Israelis against the Lebanon? Is he aware that a bad impression has been given by Israel through its disregard for civilian casualties and its claim for lebensraum? What assistance has been given to impress upon the American Government the necessity of seeing that there is some restriction on Israeli aggression?
    Mr. Hurd: A few minutes ago my right hon. Friend told the House of his conversations with Mr. Haig yesterday. Certainly we are doing everything that we can with the Americans, our European partners, the United Nations, and directly to emphasise to the Israeli Government that the brutal assault on the Israeli ambassador could be no justification for what has happened since and that it must be right for Israel, in its own interests as well as in the interests of everyone else, to comply with the Security Council's resolutions on this subject.
    Mr. Crouch: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while the first priority must be a ceasefire and the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Lebanon, we must seek to ensure that Lebanon and the Lebanese people are not destroyed as a result of the continuing disputes between the PLO and the Israelis?
    Mr. Hurd: Yes, Sir. Lebanon has been the victim of forces which are quite outside its control. The suffering of innocent people has now reached intolerable proportions. We have told the Lebanese ambassador here that if there are specific humanitarian needs which the Lebanese Government can identify and with which they think that we could help, he should let us know. I agree with my hon. Friend's general point.
    Mr. Greville Janner: Will the Government explain to the PLO, through whatever means they have, that if there is to be what everyone in the area wants—lasting peace—the PLO must recognise Israel's right to exist in security and renounce terrorism, whether it is in the Middle East or in the streets of London?
    Mr. Hurd: We have used the opportunities available to us to explain to the PLO for many months now our view that what it calls the armed struggle is futile and that acts of terrorism diminish, not strengthen, its cause. The PLO is well aware of our view on that subject. It would be helpful in this respect if Israelis of all persuasions, and in particular the Israeli Government, were to show some recognition of the need for a counterpart to that—that Palestinians, too, have political rights.
    Mr. Walters: In view of the gravity of the situation in the Middle East, will my right hon. Friend comment on the decision of the United States to veto the resolution calling for a ceasefire? Can the West really continue to stand idly by while the armed forces of Israel commit genocide in Lebanon?
    Mr. Hurd: The United States supported the earlier Security Council resolution, which called for a ceasefire
    196
    and Israeli withdrawal. There is no doubt from the remarks that the President of the United States made here yesterday that that remains his deeply held view and that his emissary, Mr. Habib, is in Israel to help to achieve that purpose.
    Mr. Moyle: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a number of Israeli allegations that the Palestinians have been making incursions into Northern Israeli territory from Jordan? When his right hon. Friend meets the Jordanian representatives, will he seek assurances from the Jordanian Government that they are doing their utmost to control those incursions? Will he also seek assurances from the Israeli Government that those allegations are not a precursor to Israeli troop movements into Jordan, as has happened in Lebanon?
    Mr. Hurd: Our information is that the Jordanian Government do their best in this direction, and I think that the Israelis understand that. In fact, there were no artillery or rocket attacks by the PLO across the Israel-Lebanon border between the implementation of the ceasefire in July 1981 and 9 May 1982, when the Palestinians responded to Israeli air attacks on their position in the Lebanon.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. Viggersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet the United States Secretary of State to discuss the situation in the South Atlantic.
    Mr. Pym: I had very full discussions with Mr. Haig on the situation in the South Atlantic as well as on other matters of mutual interest during the Versailles economic summit and again during his visit to London with President Reagan. I shall see him again at the forthcoming NATO summit meeting, and I intend to remain in close touch with him.
    Mr. Viggers: Will my right hon. Friend take an early opportunity to congratulate Mr. Haig on President Reagan's speech yesterday and to point out that there is no better place for the beginning of a crusade for freedom than in the South Atlantic, where the sovereign territory of a democracy has been attacked by a dictatorship? Does my right hon. Friend agree that at this critical point it is important that none of the discussions with the United States, with our allies, and with the United Nations should be allowed to impose any political inhibition on our forces?
    Mr. Pym: I agree with the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question. The Prime Minister and the Government have already thanked the President direct for the speech that he made yesterday. I assure my hon. Friend that no political inhibitions have been put on the military commanders in the field.
    Mr. Healey: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that Mr. Haig made it clear to him that the United States would not feel able to participate in any international force to guarantee the security of the Falklands after repossession, nor would any Latin American country, except in the context of an agreement by Britain to negotiate on their future with the Argentine Government? As the right hon. Gentleman asserted his intention of supporting such negotiations in a television broadcast on 27 May, will he assure the House that the Government have not closed their mind to such negotiations?
    Mr. Pym: Mr. Haig did not close the door on the possibility of what might be arranged in future. The future is, of course, unknown, and we cannot say with any precision what arrangements might be made. However, once the islands have been repossessed, it will be the Government's task to do whatever is appropriate, with as many friends as may be available to help us, to re-establish the islanders, who are going through a terrible time, to re-establish security on the islands and to bring about the greatest degree of stability that is possible in the shortest possible time. It is fair to say that the United States has not closed doors on possibilities that might be explored in future. I cannot go further than that at this stage.
    Mr. Healey: Is it right that the United States, like Latin American Governments, has made it clear that it is prepared to support participation in a security force for protecting the islands after repossession only if Her Majesty's Government are prepared to negotiate the future of the islands with the Argentine Government? I put it to the right hon. Gentleman again that it is less than a fortnight since he committed himself to such negotiations. What has made him change his mind?
    Mr. Pym: There is no commitment of that sort by the United States and there is no barring of any possible future actions. We must wait and see. We have discussed the possible circumstances that might arise after repossession has been achieved. Until that event takes place and we can see the precise circumstances in which it happens, I do not think that it is possible to go any further. I have made it clear throughout that, in the long term, there must be a settlement in the region if we are to have peace, which must be the precursor and prerequisite of prosperity. If reports are to be believed, during the past fortnight the Argentine forces on the islands have treated the islanders in a way that will cause a good deal of hostility. I am sure that they will feel like that. We shall have a more difficult situation to deal with after repossession than we would have had a fortnight ago. It remains true that at the end of the day there must be a settlement, however long and whatever form it may take, if there is to be prosperity in the region and for the islanders.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the House that this issue will arise on a later question on the Order Paper.

    Chile
    Mr. Flanneryasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has had any recent discussions or communications with the Foreign Minister of Chile.
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Cranley Onslow): No, Sir.
    Mr. Flannery: Should the Minister have discussions with his equivalent in Chile, will he remember that the Chilean Government are a Fascist Government, something which his hon. Friends seem only recently to have discovered about Argentina? Is he aware that many poor people disappear in Chile, and further, that whereas Chileans once had the opportunity to come to Britain as refugees, the Government have now stopped that immigration? Will he reconsider the Government's policy of supplying armaments to such a regime and relax any
    198
    rules that the Government have that prevent these poor people for corning to Britain as refugees, as they used to do when Labour Governments were in office?
    Mr. Onslow: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of our policy on the sale of arms to Chile. We have made it clear that we are not prepared to sell arms or equipment to Chile that are likely to be used for internal repression. There has been no change in this policy. We have left the Chilean Government in no doubt that their record on human rights has given rise to deep concern in Britain. We shall continue to take every appropriate opportunity to apply constructive pressure on the Chilean Government to improve their performance, but I see no need for the change of policy that the hon. Gentleman wants.
    Sir Frederic Bennett: Does my hon. Friend find it rather odd that Labour Members spend so much time talking about the need not to damage relations with South American nations, but seem prepared to do so with one country that has not by any means been unhelpful towards the present struggle? Does lie accept that within the OAS and otherwise Chile has riot been unhelpful? Will he confirm that Chile has no territorial dispute with the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Onslow: I am not responsible for the actions of Labour Members. However, I am glad to confirm what my hon. Friend has said about the Chilean Government's attitude to the Falklands dispute, which has been restrained and neutral. They have abstained without comment on the resolutions that have come before the Rio Treaty signatories. There is no quarrel between ourselves and the Chilean Government on territorial matters.
    Mr. Clinton Davis: Will the Minister agree that in that so-called not unhelpful country the chronicle of repression, the attack upon human rights, torture, abduction and killings continue unabated? Will he take this opportunity to refute any suggestion that there will be any military tie-up or co-operation between Britain and that bloody country—[Interruption.]—that bloodstained country that has much to answer for?
    Mr. Onslow: It is not our practice to comment on individual defence contracts or the possible involvement of third parties in the Falklands dispute. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman feels that he is justified in using such extravagant language on a subject that seems to be one of the few on which all Labour Members appear to be united.

    Alexander Paritsky
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make representations to the Soviet authorities about the case of Alexander Paritsky, sentenced to three years' imprisonment in 1981.
    Mr. Rifkind: Mr. Paritsky's case was raised twice by the United Kingdom delegation to the CSCE review meeting in Madrid at plenary sessions in November 1981, and was included in a list of cases handed to the leader of the Soviet delegation in December 1981. We regret that there has been no Soviet response.
    Mr. Lawrence: I thank my hon. Friend for the Government's enthusiastic action in these matters. Is he aware of the official resolution passed by the European Parliament last month, on the initiative of the Staffordshire

    199
    East MEP, Robert Moreland, and a Dutch representative, voicing concern at the alarming decrease in the number of exit permits being given by the Soviet Government to Jews who wish to leave the USSR, the continuing harassment and arrest of Jews who wish to leave, the responsibilities of the Soviet Union—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This question deals with Alexander Paritsky. The hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question must be confined to Alexander Paritsky's case and must not be broadened.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that the actions of the Soviet Union involve, by inference, the case of Alexander Paritsky among others? What do the Government propose to do about the call for Foreign Ministers to act together to take action in these matters?
    Mr. Rifkind: I congratulate the European Parliament on the initiative that it has taken. My hon. and learned Friend is correct to draw attention to the fact that the number of Jews allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union in 1981 was 9,800, the lowest for about 10 years. We shall continue to use every available opportunity to make the Soviet Union aware of the strong feelings in this country as well as in other Western countries.

    United Nations Second Special Session on Disarmament
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Nations second special session on disarmament.
    Mr. Pym: The meeting opened in New York on 7 June. The general debate will last until 23 June. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister plans to speak on 16 June. The Government intend to play a full and constructive role at the special session, which they hope will give fresh impetus to current negotiations for arms control and disarmament.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome the Prime Minister's attendance at this most important conference. How many Prime Ministers, or equivalents, of other major nations will be participating? Can my right hon. Friend reassure the House that the Government will bring forward fresh initiatives at the conference, designed to promote balanced multilateral disarmament, which our people earnestly crave?
    Mr. Pym: I am not aware of the arrangements made by other Governments and I do not know who will be speaking on their behalf. The need to bring forward new initiatives is on our minds constantly. The top priority is to concentrate on making progress, and if possible to reach agreement, in the negotiations on disarmament that are already under way or about to begin. I refer to MBFR, intermediate nuclear force talks and strategic arms reduction talks. I am sure that progress should be made in those talks. That is the top priority before starting anything new. However, it is always in our minds to be ready, if we believe it helpful, to propose fresh possibilities for negotiation. We must all hope that the existing discussions will make further progress.
    Mr. George Robertson: Is the Secretary of State aware that millions of people in this country and other countries hope for a positive outcome from the second
    200
    special session on disarmament? Surely it would have strengthened the Government's hand if, in putting forward their proposals to the special session, they had sought the support of right hon. and hon. Members for the detailed proposals. Surely it is still not too late for the Government to ask the House to express a view on those proposals as well as any proposals that the Government might feed into the new strategic arms reduction talks that are about to start.
    Mr. Pym: I do not think that anyone is in any doubt that the whole House and all the British people wish progress to be made in arms reduction talks. The trouble is that over the past 20 years or more no progress has been made. Unfortunately, what we have witnessed on the other side of the Iron Curtain is a sustained build-up of arms. It takes two to reach an agreement and two to negotiate a verifiable agreement to reduce arms, but that remains our objective. It clearly was the objective of the Labour Government. I do not think that we need a debate or need to take any soundings about that to know what people want.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY

    Voting Procedures
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next expects to meet other European Economic Community Ministers to discuss the operation of the Luxembourg compromise on voting; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Jim Marshallasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he intends to take to protect United Kingdom national intersts in the light of the European Economic Community of Ministers' decision to accept majority voting on the farm prices review.
    Mr. Allan Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he proposes to take to safeguard the United Kingdom's essential interests in the light of the European Economic Community farm price review decision being taken other than by unanimity.
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will raise the subject of the Luxembourg arrangements for decision-making at the council meetings of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Pym: As I informed the House on 26 May, I made a statement at the opening of the Foreign Ministers' meeting in Brussels on 24 May about the serious situation that has arisen as a result of the setting aside at the Agriculture Council on 18 May of the Community's established practice of taking decisions by consensus where important national interests are involved. I asked that there should be early discussions of these issues and the Council agreed to hold such a discussion on 20 June.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call first the four hon. Members whose questions are being answered.
    Mr. Skinner: Now that the unprecedented decision has been made to shatter the Luxembourg compromise and as so many Common Market groupies are represented in the

    201
    House through the Liberals and Social Democrats, Sir Henry Plumb, and in the other place, who want to see majority voting on all issues, not just on this one, what guarantee can the right hon. Gentleman give us that there will not be a repetition of that occurrence, other than by accepting the Labour Party policy of getting out of the Common Market and joining the world?
    Mr. Pym: The treaty provides for consensus voting in some cases and majority voting in others. We adhere to that. The so-called Luxembourg compromise was the equivalent of a convention. It is not unknown even for conventions in the House sometimes to be broken. The fact that it was broken on this occasion is a serious matter. I have treated it as a serious matter, as I said in my original answer. I look forward to discussing the matter further with our partners on 20 June.
    Mr. Marshall: When will the Foreign Secretary realise that the breakdown in the Luxembourg compromise means that the British Government are no longer able to protect our national interests? When will the right hon. Gentleman accept the logic of that and realise that withdrawal from the EEC is the only way that any British Government can protect our national interests?
    Mr. Pym: The Government's policy towards the European Community is well known. The Labour Government made their attitude towards the Community well known. We do not underestimate the importance of what happened on 18 May. It is right for the Community and the Foreign Ministers to discuss together how that matter can be rectified. The decision-making procedure is a very important part of the Community or of any organisation.
    Mr. Roberts: If the Secretary of State refuses to accept the need for us to withdraw from the Common Market, will he do something about the problem and take other retaliatory action against the Common Market, such as refusing to continue to pay some of our contributions until the matter is put right? Does the Secretary of State accept that this is just as much an attack on British sovereignty as the Falklands issue?
    Mr. Pym: I regret to say that I disagree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said.
    Mr. Spearing: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the consent of Parliament to Britain's adherence to the EEC, which was obtained on the White Paper terms of 1972, and the confirmation by the people in 1975, was based on the assumption and the advocacy of this veto, which has now disappeared? In view of that undoubted fact, are not the terms on which Britain joined the EEC now shown to be defective? Are not major constitutional issues raised in respect of our membership and the terms on which we joined?
    Mr. Pym: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said. That assumption was a factor in the decision that we took in the early 1970s and during the referendum campaign. As the convention endured until last month, this is a serious breach. The right way to set about it is to discuss the matter fully with the other members. I hope that we can re-establish the so-called veto by one means or another. That is what I shall set out to do.
    Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Does my right hon. Friend accept that in addition to the special position of the post-1966 entrants and their undoubted rights to rely on the continuance of the Luxembourg compromise, on the faith of which they adhered to the Community, there is also a substantial body of international legal opinion that believes that the Luxembourg compromise, although not enshrined in the treaty, is now subsumed into the law of the Community as a whole? Will my right hon. Friend press both those points on the Ministers of the member States?
    Mr. Pym: I shall take careful note of what my right hon. and learned Friend has said. It is true that the so-called compromise was an agreement to disagree, because, even in 1966, the members of the Community were not agreed about it. It has been adopted since then as a convention. I am aware of the views that my right hon. and learned Friend has expressed, although it is also fair to say that a number of other lawyers in other countries would not put such a clear-cut view on it as my right hon. and learned Friend. I should not like to pretend that the task that faces me on 20 June will be easy, because there are different views. I am clear about the safeguard that the convention provides and its importance.
    Mr. Heffer: As the Government stated clearly that they would fight the proposals on farm prices, which were to be linked with the budget, but accepted the farm price increases and a wholly unsatisfactory budgetary arrangement, what confidence can we have that the Government will stand firm on 20 June? Will the Government state that they will decide, if they cannot get what they want, to refuse to make any further contributions to the EEC or consider coming out of the CAP until there is a satisfactory solution in relation to both the future budget proposals and the Luxembourg compromise?
    Mr. Pym: The hon. Gentleman confuses a number of matters. The farm price decisions were taken on 18 May. Those decisions are valid in Community law and have already come into force. There was no direct connection, apart from the fact that it was used on this occasion, between the procedure for taking decisions and the mandate for farm prices. The importance of what happened on 18 May is that it relates to the procedure in the Community. We shall fight to restore what appears to have been lost. I re-emphasise that originally it was an agreement to disagree. There never has been unanimity in the Community about that matter. The convention worked well for 16 years. I hope that we can re-establish it. I believe that we shall be able to do so. We shall discuss that matter on 20 June.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not a generally recognised fact that the Government have made a pretty good job of defending British interests within the EEC, whatever the prevailing conventions? As we are members of that institution, and remain members of it, is it not in our interests that it should have effective decision-taking processes? Is it not therefore vital that the issue of the veto should be closely redefined to make sure that it is effective in defending vital national interests?
    Mr. Pym: It is fair to say that the Government have been able to secure better arrangements with our Community partners than the Labour Government. I think that we have been able to achieve at least that. Will my hon. Friend remind me of the second part of his question?
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Redefining the veto.
    Mr. Pym: I do not think that I have anything further to add at this stage. I think that the actual definition of it may prove to be difficult, just as it was in 1966. This is what we are going to discuss on 20 June. I cannot say anything more in advance of the discussions. I did, however, make the point of expressing the British Government's view at the outset of the last Foreign Affairs Council. I have asked for a separate discussion on it at the next Foreign Affairs Council. It is on the basis of that request—because of the importance that we attach to it—that the discussion will take place.
    Mr. Dalyell: Who runs British foreign policy? Is it the Foreign Office and the much-maligned Foreign Office civil servants, or is it Downing Street? Has the Foreign Secretary seen that the political editor of The Times has outlined in detail on the front page the very real rift that seems to exist between Downing Street and the Foreign Office and that Peter Jenkins in The Guardian talks of a diplomatic rump in Downing Street? Are these reports completely without foundation?
    Mr. Pym: Whatever the answer to that question, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not run British foreign policy. I would not comment upon highly speculative pieces in the newspapers that are written from time to time for one reason or another. The answer is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister charged me with responsibility for British foreign policy, for better or for worse. I do my best to fulfil that responsibility.
    Mr. Donald Stewart: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that as the substantial part of the fisheries resources of the EEC is located in United Kingdom waters, and as the Community had no policy on fisheries until the eve of United Kingdom accession, any agreement on a fisheries policy without the operation of the Luxembourg compromise would be a sell-out of our fishermen?
    Mr. Pym: I know that negotiations on fisheries have been going on for a long time. It is an extremely important issue. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in that Ministry are still involved in negotiations, which we hope to bring to a successful conclusion. We are acutely conscious of the importance of the industry to this country.

    Reforms
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what are his current aims for achieving reforms in the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Hurd: We are working for progress in many matters, including the development of non-agricultural Community policies, changes to the CAP, a fisheries settlement, arrangements to correct our budget problem in 1983 and beyond, and clarification of the procedures for decision-taking in the Council.
    Mr. Taylor: After 10 years of disappointment experienced in negotiations under Governments of both parties, can the Minister see any way in which we can achieve permanent budgetary restructuring that does not involve dismantling, or Britain's removal from, the CAP? Has my right hon. Friend seen this morning's Hansard,
    204
    which shows that we are now paying food import taxes of about £1 per pound on beef and of over 50p per pound on butter and that exports of cheap subsidised food to Russia are breaking all records?
    Mr. Hurd: We made some progress during the course of last year in reaching agreement on the way in which the balance of Community policies and Community spending could be shifted away from the predominance of agriculture. My hon. Friend, who follows these matters with care, will know that the figures show that some progress has been made in that direction. It is certainly not enough. We have also achieved, in contrast to the previous Government, substantial refunds on our budget contribution. Again, it is not fully satisfactory and not for long enough. To some extent therefore, I share my hon. Friend's disappointment. I regard that, as I think he does, as a reason for persevering rather than despairing.
    Mr. McNamara: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the statement, widely reported yesterday, that we are to come to an agreement on the common fisheries policy? Can he comment on these rumours? Will he give an undertaking that we shall maintain the 12-mile limit for British fisheries, a 50-mile dominant zone and that there will be adequate compensation for deep water fleets for the losses they have made and that jobs will be obtained for the men who have lost them?
    Mr. Hurd: These are matters for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food who, together with his Minister of State, is defending British fishing interests with great staunchness. A good deal of work has been done on this subject recently. There is an important meeting of the Fisheries Council next week. I do not think that I had better go further.
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reforms in European Economic Community procedures he proposes.
    Mr. Pym: I am not sure why I did not group this with earlier questions. The answer is that it is necessary to discuss the Community's decision-making procedures, and that we shall do on 20 June.
    Mr. Hughes: Is the Foreign Secretary in a position to give the House up-to-date information on the arrangements to be made for the forthcoming assembly elections? Is he impressing on other members of the Common Market the fact that the system of proportional representation that they are trying to foist upon us is completely alien to British tradition? Will he further assure the House that he is doing what he can to discourage the use of the term "European Parliament"? It is not a parliament at all, but an assembly—and a pretty useless and expensive one at that.
    Mr. Pym: This matter which, I agree with the hon. Gentleman, is important, is under consideration by the Council and by the Government. I have no proposal to make at the moment.
    Mr. Budgen: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity of discussing with the 11 members of the European Democratic Party their vote to the effect that the farm price issue should be decided by a majority decision? In view of the fact that one of them, my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) is present today, can he say whether he has received any assurance that there will be no repetition of that conduct?
    Mr. Pym: I have not had such a discussion as my hon. Friend suggests, although it might occur at some moment. I have no proposal to change the decision-making procedures in so far as they are laid down in the Treaty. It may be the case that other members of the Community will propose changes in due course, but I have no proposals to make at the moment.

    Voting Procedures
    Mr. Stoddartasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a list of the occasions since June 1979 that Her Majesty's Government have used their formal reserve under the Luxembourg arrangements in the Council of the European Economic Community.
    Mr. Pym: The only occasion that the United Kingdom has formally invoked the Luxembourg compromise since June 1979 was at the Agriculture Council on 18 May.
    Mr. Stoddart: Is it not a fact that the ending of the Luxembourg compromise came about only when this country happened to use it? Was it not a stab in the back for other members of the Community to act as they did at that time? Were they not guilty of stabbing us in the back one day, hijacking us the following day and then holding us to ransom because of the difficulties in which we find ourselves?
    Mr. Pym: It was extremely regrettable. I made the Government's views clearly known. I have already discussed the matter with some of our partners. It is important that an arrangement of this kind is reinstated and that it remains effective. That is what I shall try to achieve on 20 June.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that in so far as the decision-making procedures of the Council of Ministers are concerned, it is enshrined in the Treaty of Rome in at least 20 of the most significant of its clauses, including, probably, those related to fisheries, that decisions can be taken only on the
    206
    basis of unanimity? The Luxembourg compromise has not been abandoned because the Treaty already provides that unanimity should be the rule on the most important aspects of it. Does my right hon. Friend not also agree that since we joined the Community the Luxembourg compromise has been abused again and again, to the great disadvantage of this country? So far as Sir Henry Plumb and those who supported him, including myself, were concerned, Sir Henry was plumb right—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I am hoping to call another hon. Member before time expires.
    Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I should like to leave time for my right hon. Friend to reply.
    Mr. Pym: I note my hon. Friend's views. As far as we are concerned, there was a breach of the convention on 18 May. That is a serious matter, and it is important for any body, certainly any representative assembly, to have clarity about its decision-making processes. We must have that.
    Mr. Heffer: Since, during the course of the last debate that we had on the subject of the Common Market, the right hon. Gentleman stated that the discussions on the future of the arrangements for agreement would be through discussion of the Genscher-Colombo plan, are the Government prepared to state now whether they accept or oppose the plan, which could mean a further development of the powers of the European Assembly and a step towards federalism? Can he give us an assurance that under no circumstances will the Government support that plan?
    Mr. Pym: The discussions that we shall have will take place outside the scope of the Genscher-Colombo plan, but there is also a series of paragraphs in that plan relating to decision-making. Therefore, in the course of discussions of that plan the matter will come up again. As to the plan itself, the original plan has been considerably altered and there are a number of questions and issues that have not yet been settled, which will also be discussed on 20 June.

    Questions to Ministers
    3.31 pm
    Mr. Frank Hooley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should welcome your guidance on a matter relating to rules of order in respect of parliamentary questions. I had always understood that there must be some ministerial responsibility in order that a question could be addressed to a Minister. This afternoon, oral question No. 9 related to the action of the Soviet Union in respect of a Soviet citizen. Therefore, I find it a little odd to see how any ministerial responsibility can arise, in respect of a United Kingdom Minister, with regard to this case.
    However, it may be argued, and I should support this contention if it is so argued, that this is a general matter of human rights that ought to concern the House, and which arises from international treaties on human rights to which the British Government are a party. If it is so argued, may I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to whether it would be in order for myself and my colleagues to raise questions about the maltreatment or imprisonment, for example, of Africans in South Africa, Chileans in Chile, or Palestinians in Israel? These are cases where there can clearly be no obvious ministerial responsibility,
    208
    as Ministers of the Crown cannot answer for the behaviour of foreign Governments in their own country, but where there is some general application of human rights.
    Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has put the question. Oral question No. 9 was allowed as was a similar question earlier on the Order Paper—oral question No. 3—about another Jewish citizen in the Soviet Union. I understand that that is allowed because under the Helsinki Agreement, we are able to pursue the question whether that agreement is being kept. However, I cannot give undertakings on the broader matter to which the hon. Gentleman addressed himself.
    Mr. Robert Adley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, and taking up the point that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) has raised—that I had oral question No. 11, which was not reached today—as you pointed out, oral questions Nos. 3 and 9 are similar, and on the same subject. No one is seeking to denigrate the importance of these issues, but since we have only 35 minutes to cover the world in Foreign Office questions would it be possible for the Minister answering to group questions such as these to save time?
    Mr. Speaker: That is up to the Minister, and the less that I say the safer I shall be.

Lebanon (Israeli Action)
3.36 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: 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 invasion of sovereign Lebanese territory by Israeli troops over the past weekend".
The matter is specific because it relates to the invasion by 30,000 Israeli troops and to loss of lives on both sides—Israeli and Palestinian—and also those of Lebanese nationality. There are unconfirmed reports of perhaps more than 1,000 civilian lives lost—women, children and elderly people—in Lebanon.
The matter is important because this conflict presents a threat to world peace. In the light of the decision of the Prime Minister, in the view of many of my hon. Friends, to undermine the position of the United Nations, we feel that the House should be given the opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to the principles of the United Nations.
The matter is urgent because, unless international opinion takes an initiative and Parliaments throughout the world impose pressures on the State of Israel, the conflict will escalate into a major, international one.
The House will be deeply concerned by these developments. Those of us who know the areas that have been the subject of Israeli occupation, between Beirut and the towns of Damour and Tyre and Sidon, which are heavily populated and have been subjected to repeated attacks over the past two years, arising from the civil war and from the regular interventions by the Israeli military, will be well aware that there is a prospect of considerable further loss of life unless there is a debate. We believe that this is a matter of deep concern, and must be so to the country.
In the view of some of my hon. Friends, this conflict is more important to the world as a whole than the conflict in the Falkland Islands. As we have already had five or six debates about the Falkland Islands over the past five weeks we feel that the House should be given the opportunity to debate this matter as a matter of urgency.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) gave me notice this morning before 12 o'clock that he would seek leave to move the Adjournment
210
of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the invasion of sovereign Lebanese territory by Israeli troops over the past weekend".
The House has heard the important exchanges this afternoon about this serious matter. As the House is aware my powers are limited to deciding whether a three-hour emergency debate is justified, and I have been instructed by the House to take into account in reaching my decision the several factors set out in Standing Order No. 9 but to give no reason for my decision.
I listened with the same anxious concern as the House to what the hon. Gentleman said, but I must rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order. Therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.
Later—
Mr. Michael Latham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises from the submission under Standing Order No. 9 on which you have just ruled. Therefore, I could not give you notice of it before.
On several occasions, when submissions have been made under Standing Order No. 9, you have, Mr. Speaker, drawn the attention of the hon. Member raising the standing order to the fact that he must not make the speech that he would make if you allowed the application.
Although the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) acted perfectly properly in bringing the matter before the House, it could not be said to be an uncontroversial presentation. Other distinct points could be made.
Will you help the House, Mr. Speaker, by saying how far you are prepared to exercise your discretion in such matters? Certainly, I regarded the hon. Gentleman's presentation as a most one-sided view of a difficult issue.
Mr. Speaker: I can understand that the hon. Gentleman may have felt so. It is a nice matter of judgment. I felt that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) tried to confine himself to the three main arguments why there should be such a debate. I have heard many an application which was much more biased and towards which I have been more tolerant. I merely looked in the direction of the hon. Gentleman, who thereupon came to a conclusion. I was grateful since, in my judgment, he had made his points effectively.

President's Visit (Speeches)
Mr. John Page: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have made inquiries at the Table Office and the Library as to whether the speeches by the Lord Chancellor, the President of the United States, and yourself, Mr. Speaker, made in the Royal Gallery yesterday were to be published. So far, although people are still helping with my inquiries, nothing definite has appeared. Can you use your influence to see that this important occasion is recorded for posterity?
Mr. Speaker: I shall make inquiries about at least two of the speeches; the first two. I shall communicate with the hon. Gentleman personally.

Naval Defence and Merchant Shipping (Inquiry)
3.41 pm
Mr. John Loveridge: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to set up an inquiry to examine the prospects for improving defence from potential terrorist and other attack by the provision of missile and other defence systems for installation on British merchant ships and oil rigs; and for connected purposes.
The need for such an inquiry is even greater, as well as more obvious, than when I brought my first Naval Defence (Inquiry) Bill to the attention of the House on 1 February 1978.
The Bill forms part of a series of Bills designed to alert the Government to inquire into the greater part that can be played by the Reserve Forces in supporting the Regular Armed Services of the Crown, and in providing that support on an extremely cost-effective basis.
I shall hope to cover different aspects today, but, for the convenience of hon. Members who follow closely the figures related to these subjects, perhaps I might mention that my Defence of the United Kingdom (Inquiry) Bill and my Civil Defence (Inquiry) Bill were presented to the House on 30 October 1979 and 1 July 1980.
Two weeks ago, in his address as the new president of the General Council of British Shipping, Mr. M. A. Nicolson said:
"The whole crisis of the Falkland Islands has illustrated, as nothing else has done since the Second World War, the vital importance of our merchant navy as the fourth arm of defence. It is essential that this island of ours has a Merchant Navy which is fully capable of carrying our vital supplies."
He went on to pay tribute to the seafarers and to all those who have responded with courage to the present crisis. I know that the whole House shares in that admiration.
We must be sure that our merchant ships can be defended. We must also be sure that our merchant fleet is adequate in numbers, tonnage and the types of ships available to meet any future crisis. We have a modem fleet of nearly 1,000 ships, almost 30 million deadweight tonnes in total. The numbers of ships have declined and appear likely to decline further if the slump in world trade continues. Modern specialised cargo carriers are less adaptable than the old bulk carriers.
Sir Frederic Bolton, chairman of the defence committee of the General Council of British Shipping, has warned that
"the ability of the United Kingdom fleet to carry the wartime requirements of Britain is sadly diminished against the fleets of 1914 and 1939".
Part of that is due to the specialisation of modern ships, which are less adaptable than of old. Part is due also to the danger that large ports might be out of use in times of crisis, and we are short of the coasters that might transport cargo to small improvised harbours. Our deep-sea fishing industry too has been cut back.
Both our ships and their crews, who have shown such patriotism in the present crisis, deserve to be safeguarded. Yet even in the 1914 and 1939 wars we were short of escort ships. In 1917 and 1942 we were in particularly grave danger. Today we have the opportunity to defend our ships with missiles of their own. The cost of a double lightweight Sea Wolf system, which would give a chance of defending important vessels against up to four simultaneous attacks by aircraft or missiles, might, I understand, be about £8 million or £10 million. Those

213
systems have only a short range, but longer-range defence could be provided by Sea Dart. After research and development costs have been paid for, those costs would no doubt fall substantially if long production run orders were given. Although dear, the costs must surely be less than those of providing permanent Royal Navy ships as escorts.
There is also the fact that the short range of defence in some cases might make it desirable to site the weapon systems on the individual ships. Then there is the advantage that the cost of the platform would be largely borne by the Merchant Navy and not direct by the Government. That should please our ever cost-conscious Treasury.
Control can readily be maintained by commissioning the captains as reserve officers. On my previous Bill the objection was made that seamen might not wish to sail in ships with military equipment even though such equipment was not normally to be carried, but only prepared for. In the light of today's events, we can see that the objection was not valid. Many merchant seamen are serving loyally in the Falklands crisis.
The Sea Wolf system is available on a packaged basis for fitting to merchant ships. Other containerised systems are available to be fitted to aircraft. The Secretary of State for Defence is surely right in giving future priority to missiles rather than to expensive platforms. Of course, we must sustain and, I hope, expand the power of the Royal Navy. However, we must also increase the means of defence for the Merchant Navy that backs it up. We have 61,000 merchant seamen, of whom 4,000 are unemployed. The Government should learn the lessons from the present crisis and act with all speed to fit out ships now while there is a surplus of shipping laid up. Here is necessary work for engineers, dockers, steel workers and seamen; jobs that can help keep them and Britain safe. That is for action now.
I hope that the Government will set up the inquiries for which I have asked in four Bills over four years. We do not even know the figures of minimum demand or types of ships that might be required to provide Europe's civilian supplies of oil, food or raw materials in times of crisis. As Sir Frederic Bolton has said,
"we are left with the helpless feeling that we shall not know until too late."
An inquiry is urgent and I hope that I shall be given leave to bring in the Bill
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Loveridge, Mr. Edward du Cann, Mr. Maurice Macmillan, Mr. Geoffrey Rippon, Sir Frederic Bennett, Mr. Graham Bright, Sir Frederick Burden, Mr. Michael Colvin, Sir Peter Emery, Mr. Ian Lloyd, Mr. Anthony Steen and Sir Brandon Rhys Williams.

Naval Defence and Merchant Shipping (Inquiry)
  NAVAL DEFENCE AND MERCHANT SHIPPING (INQUIRY)
  Mr. John Loveridge accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to set up an inquiry to examine the prospects for improving defence from potential terrorist and other attack by the provision of missile and other defence systems for installation on British merchant ships and oil rigs; and for connected purposes. And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 9 July and to be printed. [Bill 138.]
Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland Bill
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 8 June 1982]
  [MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

  Northern Ireland Bill
    Clause 1

      PROPOSALS FOR GENERAL OR PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF DIRECT RULE.
      Amendment proposed [8 June]: No. 15, in page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
      '(4) The Assembly shall not submit any proposals under this section unless the proposals have the support of a majority of the members of the Assembly.'.—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      3.49 pm
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): I remind the Committee that we are at the same time debating the following amendments:
      No. 16, in page 2, line 11, leave out subsection (4).
      No. 17, in page 2, line l3, leave out paragraph (a)'.
      No. 18, in page 2, line 13, leave out from '(a)' to 'at '.
      No. 19, in page 2, line 13, leave out 'the proposals
      have,' and insert
      'every such proposal at that time submitted has'.
      No. 20, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly', insert
      'who have taken their seats and voted on the proposals'.
      No. 21, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly', insert
      'voting thereon'.
      No. 22, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly' insert 'have
      voted for those proposals'.
      No. 98, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly', insert
      'present and voting'.
      No. 117, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly'. insert
      'drawn from all sections of the community'.
      No. 23, in page 2, line 15, leave out from beginning
      to first 'the ' in line 16.
      No. 24, in page. 2, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).
      No. 25, in page 2, line 15, leave out 'the proposals have.' and insert
      'every such proposal at that time submitted has'.
      I have a statement to make. Last night, I was asked whether I would consider allowing separate Divisions on a number of amendments grouped with amendment No. 15. It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I say at this stage, that if amendment No. 15 is negatived, I am willing to call separate Divisions on amendments Nos. 17, 18, 19, 20 and 24. I am also willing to call amendment No. 68 for a Division when the Committee reaches that point in the Bill.
      Mr. J. D. Concannon rose—
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I apologise for forestalling the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), but I think that some hon. Members understood that the Secretary of State intended to mike a statement at the outset of today's proceedings on the Boundary Commission's report on Assembly seats. Perhaps there has been a misunderstanding, but I wonder, Mr. Weatherill, whether you can guide the Committee about t when the statement will be made and the circumstances in which hon. Members may be able to

      215
      put questions to the Secretary of State that strictly relate to the statement, in a manner that is similar to that adopted when a statement is made, by leave of the House, at the end of Question Time.
      The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Since the matter is relevant to this debate, I thought that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I spoke after the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and dealt with matter during my speech. Although I cannot see how questions on my statement can be organised in the usual manner for statements—and although I do not think that is necessary—I am prepared to give way a reasonable number of times if hon. Members wish to question me.
      Mr. Powell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. No one would accuse the Secretary of State of being unwilling to give way to hon. Members during one of his speeches. However, it is obviously difficult for hon. Members to clarify points, as they might find necessary, during interventions. In view of the Secretary of State's remarks and as the statement is important and contains material that is necessarily new to Committee members, those who have control over such matters might be willing to allow an appropriate number of subsequent contributions to the debate. Clearly those speaking after the Secretary of State may wish to include this matter in their speeches.
      Mr. Prior: I do not think that my statement will add anything that is particularly new, but that will come out during the course of my speech.
      The Chairman: Since a point of order has been raised, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that we are in Committee and that it is open to hon. Members to make further contributions.
      Mr. Concannon: We are debating, among other amendments, No. 17, which seeks to leave out paragraph (a) in page 2, line 13. Apparently, every hon. Member has tabled an amendment to clause 1. They have done so for different reasons. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) yesterday wanted to alter the group in order—as they say in Northern Ireland—to return to straight majority rule. Our amendment seeks to achieve an objective that we set out at the end of Second Reading. It seeks to strengthen the words:
      "widespread acceptance throughout the community".
      If our amendment is accepted, clause 1(4) will read:
      "The Assembly shall not submit any proposals under this section unless the proposals have the support of a majority of those members and the Secretary of State has notified the Assembly that he is satisfied that the substance of the proposals is likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community."
      I have already made two speeches. A sizeable chunk of those speeches on the White Paper and on Second Reading dealt in detail with this aspect of the Bill. Therefore, I shall not weary the Committee by going over all the points that I then raised. However, yesterday or this morning—it does not seem very long ago—I listened to the debate and I had the feeling that some Committee members had forgotten the words in the White Paper about the two identities.
      We are trying to look at Northern Ireland as if it were a nice, quiet, gentle area of Dorset or North Yorkshire.
      216
      However, we must accept that Northern Ireland is different. Indeed, paragraphs 14 to 16 in the White Paper acknowledge that. Yesterday, I did not hear any mention of the most important factor—the politics of the border. We cannot wish that away. It exists; that should be understood when dealing with such problems and proposals.
      There is a difficulty of acceptability. I well understand the Secretary of State's problem with the Bill. Any major concessions either way will cause the tightrope of acceptability great difficulty. Any major concessions either way could make it difficult for either of the major groupings to accept the Bill. When the Secretary of State published his proposals in Northern Ireland, everyone was apparently against them. In Northern Ireland, that is the norm. We expect that. At the same time, everyone apparently wants to stand for the Assembly. Again, that is the accepted norm in Northern Ireland.
      The Labour Party accepted or took note of the White Paper and decided not to divide the House on Second Reading. We said that we would try to match the Bill to the fine words of the White Paper. Hon. Members should consider paragraphs 13 and 21 as well as our policy document, which I quoted, as reported in Hansard of 10 May, at c. 479.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: I have listened with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman. Can he make available copies of that policy document to those who are interested in Northern Ireland?
      4 pm
      Mr. Concannon: There are copies in the Library. I have done my best to ensure that they are distributed to all organisations and embassies that have asked for them. It is a good document and well worth reading. Ex-Ministers, an ex-Secretary of State and many others worked hard for two years interviewing representatives of all the political parties in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman might not agree with every dot and comma or with some of the conclusions, but it is one of the best in-depth considerations of the problems of Northern Ireland that has been published.
      It is clear that the Government intend to implement the devolution proposals that have demonstrable cross-community support. That aim is both good and realistic. The only problem is that 70 per cent. support in the Assembly will not guarantee cross-community support. The reason for stipulating that only those proposals with the support of 70 per cent. of Assembly members can be debated automatically in Parliament is to ensure that only those proposals with demonstrable cross-community support get as far as the Floor of the House of Commons.
      I do not wish to rest my case on the figures, because, whether it be 70 per cent. of 78 Members or 85 Members, the proposal is possibly wrong in principle and will not achieve what the Secretary of State wishes. I applaud his reasons for proposing it. He wishes to have the broadest view of cross-community support. However, I rely on the figures for the Assembly general elections and the Constitutional Convention, which were remarkably equitable. I would not expect that a future election to the Assembly would produce different figures. In 1953 the Unionist Party and its associates took 52 of the 78 seats, the Alliance Party took eight, the SDLP took 17 and the Northern Ireland Labour Party took one. The only

      217
      difference in the Convention was that the Loyalists lost two seats and the SDLP gained two. It is possible to have a 70 per cent. majority even if all the SDLP members vote against or abstain on proposals. It is futile to pluck a figure out of the air and hope that it will guarantee cross-community support.
      Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the desirability of cross-community support and is interpreting that to mean support from political parties. Is he interested in Catholic Unionists or Protestant Republicans, or just in the political parties which represent cross-community support only if they all agree? Without political parties there would not be a problem.
      Mr. Concannon: I explained my position on Second Reading. I wish to delete this clause and leave the matter in the hands of the Secretary of State. I know that some people say that the Secretary of State should not have authority, but I disagree with that. We pay the Secretary of State fairly and I wish to see him doing his job.
      I also said on Second Reading that I do not believe that "acceptability" means acceptability to the 78 members of the Assembly. There are other organisations which, because of the politics of the border, do not interest themselves in straight politics. For example, the CBI and the trade union movement do not play their full role in the politics of Northern Ireland, as they would be expected to do in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Secretary of State, with his knowledge of Northern Ireland, could achieve the cross-community support for which he is looking. It is not a matter of choosing figures.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that, if the Secretary of State has a proposal that has cross-community support in the Assembly, he must test that in the context of cross-community support in the United Kingdom? Is that what he is arguing with regard to the trade union movement, the CBI and other organisations?
      Mr. Concannon: No, but the hon. Gentleman knows that in Northern Ireland those organisations are much closer to Ministers and the Secretary of State than in Britain and they can make their feelings known. If I were asking for the removal of the 70 per cent. proposal, I should come close to his amendment and the Secretary of State would consider every proposal that has over 50 per cent. support. However, the added rider would be cross-community support and the only person to judge that is the Secretary of State.
      Mr. James Molyneaux: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that what he has said does not introduce a new factor into the debate? I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who does not fully understand that the real issue is cross-community support. No matter how figures are juggled and no matter what the percentages are, it comes back to the Secretary of State's requirement of cross-community consent. As the Secretary of State knows, at our previous meeting on 8 March that was the bombshell that put an end to any conversation between my party and the Secretary of State and his officials.
      The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) is accurate when he talks about widespread acceptance throughout the community, because that is precisely what
      218
      the Bill says in subsection (4)(b). It does not necessarily mean widespread acceptance in the Assembly. That is another fatal flaw that we saw from the beginning.
      Mr. Concannon: The hon. Member sees it as a fatal flaw. That is the difference between us. I see it as the Secretary of State trying to get as much cross-community support for his proposals as he possibly can.
      Mr. Ivan Lawrence: That touches on a point about which I tried to ask the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) yesterday, but I did not get a reply. Does the right hon. Gentleman, with his experience of Northern Ireland, know the answer? We are told by the Government that the Bill has the support of a majority of interests and organistions, both political and quasi-political, in Northern Ireland. [Hon. Members: "No."] We are told by others that the Bill has no support from any of the institutions or organisations that would be required to support it. With his wide understanding, knowledge and experience of Northen Ireland, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us the position?
      Mr. Concannon: I started by saying that everybody in Northern Ireland was against the Bill, and that if one of the three main parties had been for it the Secretary of State would have been in trouble from the start. That is the norm in Northern Ireland. The three main parties will not accept that the Bill is good for Northern Ireland. If one of the leaders of those parties were in favour of the Bill, the other two would be up in arms.
      None of the three major parties has said that it will not stand for election. If everybody in Northern Ireland is against the proposals I fail to see what we are doing here. There is no reason for us to have sat last night, to sit again tonight or to continue sitting in two weeks' time.
      Mr. Nick Budgen rose—
      Mr. Concannon: I knew that the hon. Gentleman would wish to intervene, but I should like to finish this point. If the Bill is to be killed off, it need not be killed off here. The hon. Member for Antrim, North has the means to do it at the snap of his fingers. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) can kill it with the snap of his fingers. If the leader of the SDLP were here, I should say the same to him. However, they do not want to be blamed for killing it off. They want somebody else to be blamed for that. That is why my party has taken the stand that it has. The Labour Party is not going to be blamed for killing the Bill off. Hon. Members must do their own dirty work.
      Mr. Budgen: Is not the Labour Party condemned for something much worse than that—for taking no interest in the Bill and not exercising its proper responsibility to consider legislation as it goes through the House? Is not the right hon. Gentleman arguing that it ought to be decided by the parties in Northern Ireland and that it is not a United Kingdom matter?
      The Chairman: Order. Before we get rather off the track early in our debates, I should say that I believe that that intervention will tempt the right hon. Gentleman to go beyond the scope of these amendments.
      Mr. Concannon: I did not say that I was not interested in the Bill. In fact, I have been rather disgusted at the light-hearted throw-away attitude to the people of Northern

      219
      Ireland that has been shown in the Chamber. If hon. Gentlemen want to play games like that with the people of Northern Ireland it will be done without the help, the votes or the assistance of the Labour Party.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that if he wants the leaders of the parties in Northern Ireland to deal with the Bill the only way that they can deal with it is by standing for election and getting their parties in the Assembly to say "No" to its power-sharing content? There are two parts to this subsection. There is the part that contains 70 per cent.—straight off—and the other part which contains the requirement for cross-community support. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) is being misled. The first part deals with 70 per cent. without any cross-community support. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is against that because he wants cross-community support. The other part deals with power sharing as it stood in the previous Act.
      Mr. Concannon: I am pleased to have the hon. Gentleman's support. He seems to be saying that he is prepared to go along with seeking cross-community support as the main plank of acceptability. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that, I am pleased with his intervention. He did not contradict my statement that, with the support of his party, which he obviously has, he could kill the Bill stone dead without any of the machinations that are taking place here.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Only by standing for the Assembly.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Concannon: The hon. Gentleman is still not contradicting my view that if he wished he could kill the Bill without going through these procedures. The Official Unionist Party and the SDLP could also do that if they wanted to. Those are the political facts of life of Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Molyneaux: It may be of some help to the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) if I read from the notes on clauses:
      "Should 70 per cent. support be achieved without the support of the minority, the proposals would still have to secure the approval of Parliament before a devolution Order could be made under Clause 2."
      Presumably when Parliament was invited to approve the proposals the hon. Member for Antrim, North and his friends would object.
      Mr. Concannon: That is the next point that I am coming to. I believe that the Government have probably underestimated the symbolic effect of a vote of 70 per cent. or more in the Assembly. The Government have set up that majority as something to be worked for. That majority would be significant if it were achieved. A 70 per cent. majority could easily be obtained without the votes of the SDLP. That majority will undoubtedly be more symbolic and important than proposals which have the support of between 50 per cent. and 70 per cent. of Assembly Members.
      The Secretary of State and his successors could be placed in a most invidious position if devolution proposals obtained 70 per cent. or more support of the Assembly but did not have cross-community support. That is not an impossible position. The Secretary of State would have to come to Parliament and recommend that such proposals be
      220
      turned down. That would be difficult to justify in Northern Ireland since Parliament would previously have set so much store by such a majority. I could not conceive of a more difficult position for the Secretary of State. The figure of 70 per cent. will have been set, but if that figure is reached without cross-community support and the House has to decide on the proposals the Secretary of State, under the Bill, would have to recommend rejection.
      The danger that we see in subsection (4)(a) is that it will lead to two types of report coming from the Assembly. Inevitably, any report that has 70 per cent. support in the Assembly will have a certain status, regardless of the party affiliations of those supporting it. It will be difficult for Parliament to reject devolution proposals that have fulfilled the superficial criteria of support laid down by Act of Parliament. Subsection (4)(a) will cause more trouble than it is worth, especially if the Government are compelled to reject devolution proposals that have a 70 per cent.-plus majority, but obviously lack support across the community.
      It is clearly the intention to introduce into Northern Ireland only those devolution proposals that have cross-community support. It would be wise, in our opinion, to dispense with subsection (4)(a) and to allow any report with over 50 per cent. support in the Assembly and backing from both sides of the community to be debated in Parliament. It is important that Members of the Assembly, Members of Parliament and the people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain understand any reasons that the Secretary of State may have for refusing to lay an Assembly devolution report before Parliament.
      We could either establish the precedent of a statement in the House when the Secretary of State reaches a decision on an Assembly devolution report or we could go much further and ask that every Assembly devolution report with the support of 50 per cent. of Assembly Members should be laid before Parliament, which, under the guidance of Ministers on the spot, could decide whether such proposals had the all-important cross-community support. We should like to see that in place of the arbitrary 70 per cent. figure.
      I am sure that the 70 per cent. figure was proposed honourably by the Secretary of State in his search for cross-community support, but I believe that that is the wrong way of going about it. There may be other reasons for the 70 per cent. and the weighted majority, but I have not heard them. If there are other reasons, I shall be pleased to hear them so that we can reconsider our amendment. At present it seems to us that the deletion of subsection (4)(a) is a sensible alteration to prevent undue attention and status being afforded to devolution reports that do not command cross-community support.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: It would help us if the right hon. Gentleman would reply to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook). What exactly does the right hon. Gentleman mean by cross-community support? Is he referring to support from two main political groupings or from two main religious denominations?
      Mr. Concannon: Cross-community support will obviously have to start within the Assembly, but the Secretary of State and his Ministers spend a considerable time in Northern Ireland and they will have a part to play in the process. Ministers in Northern Ireland meet

      221
      individuals and organisations much more than do Ministers in the rest of the United Kingdom and they have a feel for such matters. That role, coupled with the views of the elected Members of the Assembly, will have to be taken into consideration and explained to the House. We shall then have to decide whether to accept the advice of the Secretary of State. We would be presented with reports that had the support of 50 per cent. of the Assembly, but there would be the added dimension of an assurance from the Secretary of State on proposals that had cross-community support.
      Mr. Stanbrook: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise the wildly undemocratic nature of the proposals, including that in his amendment? He is saying that, no matter what support there may be in the Assembly for any proposition, the Secretary of State should have power to refuse his sanction, perhaps because of a subjective idea about what constitutes cross-community support. That is the antithesis of parliamentary democracy as we understand it.
      Mr. Concannon: Yes, as we understand it. However, the House took note of the White Paper, which included some very good introductory remarks, including the reference to two identities.
      We are dealing with the historical facts that Northern Ireland had devolution for 50 years, the country was arbitrarily divided and there are two separate identities. We are not dealing with sleepy Dorset or North Yorkshire, which I would not describe as sleepy. We are dealing with something different. I accept that democracy as we know it in the rest of the United Kingdom seems to be stood on its head, but there is a difference. If hon. Members do not accept the difference, they will not accept my arguments. If they accept that there is a difference, they have to accept that there must be different solutions.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman has said that if a report got the support of 70 per cent. of the Assembly and came before the House the Secretary of State would have a duty to recommend its rejection. That is not what is said in the notes on clauses, which make it clear that the basis of the Bill is that power sharing is neither required nor ruled out.
      The right hon. Gentleman said that the leaders of various parties in Northern Ireland could do certain things, but when we met the Secretary of State he told us that power sharing was not ruled in and not ruled out. We were told that the Assembly would have the choice.
      There will probably be Assembly Members who would vote for devolved powers, but who would not take part in the administration. Should they have a say? For example, the Workers Party says that there should be devolved government for Northern Ireland, but its principles would not allow it to go into a coalition with Unionists. Would the Workers Party be part of the cross-community support?
      Mr. Concannon: I am merely pointing out what is in the Bill; it is not my Bill. Under the Bill it will be possible to get not only 70 per cent. but 75 per cent. acceptance in the Assembly and still not have an SDLP or minority vote in favour of a report. The Secretary of State would have to bring that report to the House, but if it did not have cross-community support he would either have to do some
      222
      pretty fast footwork or lose the minority group in the Assembly, in which case the Assembly would he put at risk.
      I know that everyone is walking a tightrope. If we upset the balance we shall lose the DUP or the OUP or the SDLP. It is important to keep them all together. It may be difficult, but I have been involved in Northern Ireland matters for about [0 years and I shall keep on having a go. Surely we can keep on trying.
      If we cannot get cross-community support and the Secretary of State has to argue against the proposals in the Bill, the exercise will not be worthwhile. Cross-community support is the only way to judge devolution reports. However, it will be possible to get 70 per cent. support in the Assembly without a member of the minority voting for a report. If such a report were accepted by the House without any examination of whether it had cross-community support, members of the minority in the Assembly would be irritated.
      The Secretary of State can answer for himself, but I expect that he may have to explain to the House that although a report has 70 per cent. support in the Assembly the House should reject it because it does not have cross-community support.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. John Farr: The right hon. Gentleman said that he did not think the actual figures in the Assembly when broken down would vary very much. He put forward an interesting argument when he pointed out that he thought it would remain at about the 75 per cent. level. Does he agree that one of the difficulties in discussing the matter now is that we are still not certain of the total number of Members who will be in the Assembly? We do not know whether there will be 78 or 85. If it is the larger number, the percentage might break down in a substantially different way. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the difficulties is that we do not know what the total membership of the Assembly will be?
      Mr. Concannon: The proposals are for five seats in each of the 17 constituencies. Having considered the boundaries of those 17 constituent parts of Northern Ireland, I stick to my argument. We are talking about 70 per cent. then of 85, not 78. The percentage would probably not vary by more than 1 per cent. I do not think that there will be any disagreement about those figures.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman seems to be implying in a dangerous manner that the SDLP is the only representative of the minority. That is not right. He has referred to 70 per cent. apart from the SDLP. If candidates representing workers' clubs are elected and vote for the Government's proposals for devolved government but do not join the Government, is that cross-community support? This seems to be a religious issue. If Alliance Members, who are Roman Catholics, vote for devolved government, are they to be regarded as part of the minority? The question is: who are the minority? If everybody in the Assembly agrees except the SDLP, is that cross-community support?
      Mr. Concannon: All I am saying is that a sizeable proportion of the minority support would be out of that 70 per cent. In Northern Ireland parlance, when one refers to the SDLP, one is talking about minority representatives.

      223
      In regard to these figures I was talking almost about the same thing, because I noted that there were others. I have counted the others in with the SDLP vote. That will not unduly affect the minority representation. We can settle this argument later when we know the figures.
      Cross-community support is the best arbiter. We want this left in the hands of the Secretary of State and his Ministers. At the end of the day Parliament will have to take into account the wider spectrum of opinion.
      Mr. Prior: Before responding in detail to the various points raised so far in the debate—
      Mr. Budgen rose—
      Mr. Prior: I will not give way. Before responding to the points raised on this group of amendments or to the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), I should like first to remind hon. Members of what the Government are seeking to do in the Bill and to draw attention to some of the background to it. I believe that this has a direct bearing on the provisions of clause 1(4) which we are now considering.
      The two main themes which I ask hon. Members to bear in mind are set out in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the White Paper, which were mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. In paragraph 3 the Government said:
      "Political stability, economic recovery and the defeat of terrorism go hand in hand."
      We went on to say two more things. First, political instability discouraged the domestic and international investment which the Province so vitally needs if it is to become more prosperous and if something is to be done to reduce the rate of unemployment. Secondly, we said that there is a direct link between the creation of a durable and fair system of government and the ending of violence from which members of both sides of the community have suffered so much. I doubt whether many would disagree with those broad propositions.
      We then went on to point out in paragraph 4 that nothing in the Government's proposals required any group in Northern Ireland to compromise its deeply held beliefs. The proposals were designed to provide an opportunity for both sides of the community to establish a workable form of government, but it is for the people elected to a Northern Ireland Assembly to decide whether they are prepared to adopt that approach. That came out clearly last night in the speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) when he said that he liked, as it were, the early phase of the legislation—the Assembly—but he objected strongly to the second part. That is at least an option which is open to the Assembly once it is elected.
      I hope that hon. Members will keep these points in mind. Many of those who have expressed opposition to the Bill have said that they do not doubt the genuine nature of the Government's motives in bringing these proposals forward, and for that I am grateful. But there is more to it than that. The themes to which I have just referred contain, I think, the essence of what, for want of a better term, is described as the Northern Ireland problem—namely, a community divided within itself and political institutions lacking, for whatever reason, the confidence of a sizeable minority. It has come out time and again in the debates that that is the kind of confidence that most of us here take for granted.
      224
      The right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) yesterday referred to some of these underlying factors, but I fear that, in our eagerness to examine the various amendments, they have for the most part been lost sight of during the Committee's proceedings.
      This leads me to turn in more detail to the provisions of clause 1(4) which we are now considering. Let me first explain briefly what they are. Under the first test, in clause 1(4)(a), if not less than 70 per cent. of the membership of the Assembly agrees on devolution proposals, then those proposals automatically go to the Secretary of State. Clause 1(4)(b), the alternative test, provides that if a majority of the Assembly, but not 70 per cent., can agree on devolution proposals which, in the Secretary of State's view, appear to command widespread acceptance throughout the community, the Secretary of State could ask for those proposals to be sent to him.
      Clause 1(5) provides that the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament any proposals submitted to him, by whichever route they reach him, whether it is through the 70 per cent. route or by the 50 per cent. plus one route, but always, of course, provided they have widespread acceptance throughout the community.
      I assure hon. Members that the Government have not simply plucked the figure of 70 per cent. in the first of the two tests from the air. Nor have they lightly embarked on a measure which is, as we all recognise and as we have been reminded on a number of occasions during the debate, different from the principles of the simple majority to which we would normally expect to subscribe. I ask my hon. Friends sincerely to take this point.
      These proposals are different from what is normal because, in the crucial respects to which I have just referred, Northern Ireland is different. We have to find something suited to the circumstances of Northern Ireland and designed to overcome some of the problems which have bedevilled the Province for so long. The task in Northern Ireland is essentially to create political institutions which, at least to a greater degree than hitherto, attract the confidence and the loyalty of the mass of the community. Without that confidence and loyalty, institutions in a democracy, as we all know as parliamentarians, will not prosper or flourish.
      Viscount Cranborne rose—
      Mr Prior: I will give way shortly.
      If the institutions receive no more than the acquiescence of a sizeable proportion of the population, they cannot do their jobs properly. In Northern Ireland this is particularly crucial when it comes to the forces of law and order.
      I think that it is widely recognised—but hon. Members have not taken this on board sufficiently—that the terrorists can be finally isolated only if the forces of law and order attract in Northern Ireland the kind of support and loyalty that they attract automatically in Great Britain. If we do not recognise this, we fail to rise to the challenge with which Northern Ireland presents us. That is the crux of it all, and I beg hon. Members who have spent so much time on so many issues over the past few days just to take on board what is happening in Northern Ireland, the security situation there and the real grief and distress that so many people suffer and that we in the House have a duty to face. We do not face it just by saying that there are problems of the past that cannot be dealt with because people have got themselves into compartments from which

      225
      they cannot move. We as politicians and as people who are trying to improve the lot of a part of the United Kingdom have a duty' to try to put forward proposals that will have some chance of success.
      Mr. Budgen: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Prior: No, because I am getting very worked up, and I want to get on a little further before giving way.
      As I said a moment ago, however, the 70 per cent. test is only one of the ways in which proposals for devolution from the Assembly can be submitted to the Secretary of State and, as a result, debated in the House. If proposals have the support of the majority of the Members of the Assembly—that is to say, the 50 per cent. plus one to which there has been repeated reference—they can come forward so long as the Secretary of State is satisfied that they are likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community. I shall return in a moment to what it is that might constitute such widespread acceptance.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that—
      Mr. Prior: Let me just—
      Mr. Budgen: Why give way to the hon. Member for Antrim. North (Rev. Ian Paisley)?
      Mr. Prior: I shall give way to whoever I choose, but I am not at the moment giving way to anyone. I shall give way in a moment. Let me first respond, however, to two challenges that have been made. The first is that the Government have approached this matter in a colonial frame of mind—a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) last night.
      I have been accused of many faults during my political career and I have no doubt that I shall be again in the next few hours, but I have never come across that one before. The Government have not said to themselves that the people of Northern Ireland are less worthy than the people of the rest of the United Kingdom. On the contrary, they have sought to analyse the situation existing in the Province and to produce proposals suited to it.
      During our debates there has been remarkably little attempt by a number of hon. Members who have expressed their views at length to start by seeking to identify the true nature of the situation in Northern Ireland and then to make proposals suited to it. Nor under the scheme put forward by the Government in the Bill is Northern Ireland being offered a lower standard of democracy than obtains in the rest of the country. It is being offered the opportunity, which it has never had during its history, to participate in the process of creating for itself political institutions that will be fair and durable and that will win the confidence of the community as a whole in a way which we must all recognise frankly has not happened so far.
      I now give way, first to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), and then to the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
      Mr. Budgen: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. The only preliminary point that I want to put to him is to ask him to say at this stage, so that we know whether we should interrupt him later, whether he intends to move the closure immediately after his speech, because some of our discussions have been interrupted in that way.
      Mr. Prior: The answer to that is "No."
      Mr. Budgen: I am grateful.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman has made a very moving plea on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, and no one in the House, other than those hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, knows exactly what is happening in the Province and feels so deeply about it. But the right hon. Gentleman is telling the Committee that to get support for the police, we have to do a deal with a political party that does not support the police. I was in the European Parliament the other day when the leader of the SDLP put his name to a motion that said that the police in Northern Ireland were killing women and children in Northern Ireland with plastic bullets. How can people who give their support to the police he asked to enter into an alliance with a party which says that it cannot and will rot support the police? If the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that in any way the proposed Assembly should have security powers, that party would have nothing to do with it.
      Mr. Prior: Let us wait. Let us not always draw conclusions about the future from what has happened in the past, although regrettably all too often that is precisely what happens not only in Northern Ireland but in other places, too.
      All that I say to the hon. Member for Antrim, North is that I believe that if we can seek to create some local form of parliamentary democracy that enables the people of Northern Ireland to have a bigger say in their own affairs, and if that can stretch wider than it has done up till now and embrace some form of coalition that is entered into voluntarily between the various political parties—I do not name any political parties, but if it is to get over the hurdle of the different religious views that tend to be reflected in the political parties it must include a wide spectrum of the political parties—there will be ample opportunity and a good chance for ail the political parties and all the people of Northern Ireland to support the forces of law and order. If we accept that that will never happen, we are reconciling ourselves to an intolerable situation persisting for all time. We have to make an effort.
      4.45 pm
      While we are dealing with the 70 per cent. point, it might be worth considering whether it would be 70 per cent. of a 78 or 85 seat Assembly. This matter was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan) and others, including the right hon. Member for Mansfield. This is a good deal simpler than hon. Members appear to have grasped or as I thought at first.
      Provision for the conduct of elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly is made in the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973 as extended by the Constitution Act. The Bill before the Committee does not amend the number of constituencies from which Members are to be drawn or the total number of Assembly Members, which is currently 78. All that paragraph 11 of schedule 2 does is to adjust the number of Members to be returned by each constituency to take account of changes in population distribution throughout the Province since 1973. The figures are based on the 1982 local government register, which is the most up-to-date record of the distribution of the Northern Ireland electorate.
      In line with United Kingdom practice for parliamentary elections, section 28 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 makes provision for the Boundary Commission

      227
      to make recommendations from time to time on the number of Assembly Members to be returned from each parliamentary constituency. The fact that the Boundary Commission is allowing a further month for representations on the revision of its provisional recommendations makes it even more important to include the demonstrably fair provision in paragraph 11 of schedule 2. Until I have received the Boundary Commission's final recommendations, it will not be possible to consider whether the Assembly elections should be held on the basis of those recommendations. Any changes arising from its report will be brought into force in time to affect the proposed Assembly election only if there will be a reasonable period for the Northern Ireland parties and for the chief electoral officer and his staff to reorganise on the basis of new constituencies.
      When the Boundary Commission final report is available any changes in the existing arrangements will be effected by Order in Council under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 as extended by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which deals with the Assembly seats. Thus, no amendment to the Bill either before or after it is enacted will be required.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I was following the right hon. Gentleman very closely until his last sentence. His last sentence threw me because I did not see how it followed from his clear explanation up to that point. The political parties in Northern Ireland are at this moment organising upon the new constituencies.
      Mr. Prior: Yes.
      Mr. Powell: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to contradict what I have just said. If that is so, the right hon. Gentleman is not correctly informed. At this moment, the Northern Ireland political parties are reorganising on the basis of the 17 constituencies and in many cases that reorganisation is approaching completion. All the more so because the right hon. Gentleman, with great candour in our debate yesterday, affirmed with an explicitness that could not be misunderstood that he anticipates a report reaching him in the next few weeks, that he will act on receiving it in accordance with his constitutional duty and will place before the House an order against which he will not vote to implement those recommendations. What I did not understand in the last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's exposure is how, since the new Assembly's seats are to be recommended and those recommendations are to come into force within the next few weeks, he can possibly contemplate that an Assembly election could be held in the autumn— whenever that is—on constituencies that will no longer exist nor any organisational purpose for the vast majority of the party structure in Northern Ireland and that are obsolete in every sense of the term.
      I am conscious of the patience of the right hon. Gentleman and the Chair but perhaps I might make one further point. If the right hon. Gentleman had said that he would introduce into the Bill a form of words—I am sure that it could be drafted—that would enable automatically, without further amendment of the Bill, the new Assembly seats to be effective for the purposes of the Bill, all would be well. It is the automatic conclusion that all is well with the Bill as it stands that did not seem to me to follow from the clear statement that the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to give to the Committee.
      Mr. Prior: I am sorry if I was wrong about all the political parties being organised now into the new constituencies. That is not the information that I have had up to now. In a number of cases, some of the parties have been busy selecting their candidates for the Assembly elections—perhaps rather prematurely—on the basis of 12 constituencies. That is what the Democratic Unionist Party and the Alliance Party have been doing, so I was not as wrong as the right hon. Gentleman made out. I want further time to discuss this matter—although it does not affect the Bill in terms of further amendments or anything of that nature—to see how quickly the final report from the Boundary Commission will be made available and whether, therefore, it would be possible for the parties and for the chief electoral officer and his staff to organise on the basis of the new constituencies. That is important. But as it does not require any change to the Bill and as it can be effected by an Order in Council, it is the right way to proceed.
      I shall be taking further soundings with the political parties to find out whether they are properly organised or could be properly organised. I shall have to take further soundings from the chief electoral officer to find out whether he could be organised. I shall then have to find out when the Boundary Commission is likely finally to report. The Boundary Commission has changed its mind considerably since a month ago. Therefore, it may change its mind again and that may add another period of time. At a suitable moment—not necessarily in Committee—I shall make a statement—it would be to the House at that time—about the Government's intentions in the light of the considerations I have just referred to.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: It would be better for everyone concerned for the election to take place on the 17 constituencies. As the right hon. Gentleman has well said, he introduced the Bill; a date was leaked to the press concerning an election in September. July and August are not good political months for organising in Northern Ireland. The only thing for the parties to do is to go ahead on the 12 constituency basis. It would be better if we could have the 17 seats, if that is possible, but with the representations made to the Boundary Commission and with the change made by the Boundary Commission it will need another month to examine this. It would be unfair to the people and the political parties of Northern Ireland if the election comes in September and we are notified only at the end of August that there will be 17 constituencies.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Was I right in understanding the right hon. Gentleman to say that he could, by Order in Council, for the purposes of an election under the Bill, alter the seats and constituencies prescribed for that election in the schedule to the Bill? He appeared to say that. It would help us if he could clarify that matter.
      Mr. Prior: Under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, it can be done by Order in Council. I can change the number of seats to reflect the 17 constituencies. It does not have to be done in the Bill. It can be done by Order in Council because it is not legislation relevant to the Bill. I hope that my legal knowledge on that point is correct. Unless I hear to the contrary I shall presume that it is.
      Mr. Stanbrook: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He did say that he would be liberal in his attitude to interventions on this point. Schedule 2(11)

      229
      amends the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 so as to provide specifically for 12 constituencies and for the numbers of seats per constituency. Surely, therefore, the schedule will have to be amended. Is the Secretary of State saying that it can be amended by Order in Council under the Bill?
      5 pm
      Mr. Prior: Yes. The schedule is then superseded. The only purpose of having a new schedule in the Bill, compared to that in the 1973 Act, is that since 1973 the constituencies have changed and we thought it right to bring them up to date, otherwise we should have been accused of gerrymandering. For example, West Belfast has more seats than it is entitled to and North and South Antrim have fewer seats than they are entitled to. That is why we made the change. The change will not have to be made in the Bill. Existing legislation provides powers for an Order in Council.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Perhaps it would help the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) if I point out what I had not perceived when putting questions to the Secretary of State. What we have been describing as the schedule to the Bill is not a schedule to the Bill, but an amendment to the 1973 Act and the schedule thereto, and therefore it lies within the mischief of the order-making powers which apply to the 1973 Act. I hope that that puts the matter right.
      Mr. Prior: That is precisely and exactly right.
      A good deal of attention has been paid in Committee to the possibility of reforming local government in Northern Ireland. The Government have been accused of disregarding the undertakings in the Conservative Party manifesto three years ago and of dismissing suggestions for the reform of local government simply because they would be too contentious. I hope that by now hon. Members will not accuse me of ducking contentious issues because if I did I doubt whether I would be in the Chamber this afternoon.
      I have recognised from my earliest days as Secretary of State that the existing powers of local authorities in Northern Ireland are derisory. I referred to that in my speech to the Conservative Party conference in October last year—a month after assuming office. I have not changed my mind. I still think that the powers of local authorities are derisory. But—and this is the most important point—what matters is not simply whether the powers are too restricted, but whether enhancing them, no doubt as part of some wider scheme of local authority reform, shows any prospect of getting to the heart of the real difficulties facing the Province. I simply do not believe that, taken in isolation, local government reform brings any nearer a solution to the kind of difficulties to which I have already referred—that is, the difficulties created by a divided community and the absence of political institutions holding the confidence and respect of people right across the community.
      It is of course true that changes to the structure of local government, even of the most minor kind, would be highly contentious within Northern Ireland, and we know why that is. Whatever hon. Members may feel about the history of local government in Northern Ireland—and we do not want to examine that history here—it is enough that there is a deeply held belief that abuse of local government was the cause of many injustices in the past and that the
      230
      restoration of powers might see the return of those injustices. I do not believe that that would happen, but it is the belief.
      It is a factor, but as I have said it is not the whole story. Any kind of change in Northern Ireland must be tested against the question "What does it do to help overcome the Province's long-standing difficulties?" After a lot of detailed examination, which I initiated because I wanted to go into this vital matter personally and with care, I am wholly satisfied that the local government route does not advance solutions and in some respects will make them more difficult to attain. That is my conclusion after much advice from a wide cross-section of people who agree that the powers are derisory but who still have a hang-up about the past. I have to take that into consideration. It would be unwise of me at this stage not to do so.
      Mr. John Dunlop (Mid-Ulster): Does the Secretary of State agree that since 1973 and the reorganisation of local government when the introduction of one man-one vote produced 26 councils in Northern Ireland, quite a few councils in the Province have become controlled b). the so-called downtrodden minority? Does he agree that that has created a new set of circumstances? Such people now have a majority on many councils and are exercising power in their own way. Does he agree that the same local government circumstances no longer exist in Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Prior: The past has a habit of raking a long time to die. If I went for changes in that way now, I should make it difficult to attain the support of many people whose support we need if we are to achieve acceptance of a change of spirit in Northern Ireland. It is better to concentrate on the main issues and for the Assembly, as and when it takes devolved powers, to take what action it considers right at that time.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Prior: I am taking a long time.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: Perhaps if I can ask a question it will save me introducing some remarks into a future speech. The future of local government is important. I was not aware that my right hon. Friend was conducting an inquiry. It is of the greatest importance. I do not know whether the political parties were aware of the inquiry. Some hon. Members might have liked to contribute to the inquiry which my right hon. Friend is so properly making. Will my right hon. Friend allow us a sight of the report following his inquiry? Perhaps we could then debate it, either here or in the Northern Ireland Committee.
      Mr. Prior: Ministers are entitled to make their own inquiries in any way that they like without having to make it an official inquiry. As I said at the party conference, I genuinely believe that there is a case for more reform and more powers for local government. I have asked each delegation that has been to see me, the churches and many other bodies, for their views. I must say to the House firmly that at this stage I believe that those who think that the answer to Northern Ireland problems is to have more local government do not understand what is happening in the Province.
      Mr. Molyneaux: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way.
      Mr. Prior: If I can move on a little, I shall give way later.
      I shall first deal with those amendments, Nos. 15 and 16, which seek in essence either to remove clause 1(4) in its entirety or to substitute in its place, as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) wishes, the lesser requirement that the Assembly shall not submit any proposals under this section unless they have the support of a majority of the Members of the Assembly.
      The Committee will immediately see why such amendments strike at the central purpose of the legislation. If carried, either ensure that the Assembly would no longer be constrained in submitting proposals to the Secretary of State, either by the requirement that they have secured the support of no less than 70 per cent. of the membership of the Assembly, or by the alternative test provided for in clause 1(4)(b). Neither amendment would do anything to make it more likely that the proposals of the Assembly would command an acceptable degree of cross-community support nor, I am afraid, are they meant to. Indeed, given the nature of Northern Ireland politics, it would make it positively unlikely that such proposals would command the kind of support that is essential if just and durable political institutions for Northern Ireland are to emerge from the Bill. Both should accordingly be rejected.
      Much has been said about the 70 per cent. provision. Hon. Members wish to amend the clause in similar ways, but for totally opposite reasons. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) wants to amend the 70 per cent. provision because he wants us to rely entirely upon clause 1(4)(b) rather than clause 1(4)(a)—the cross-community support proposal. The hon. Member for Antrim, North wants us to take out the 70 per cent., because he believes in a straight majority. Although the two want the same thing, they want it for totally opposite reasons.
      The next amendment is No. 17, which proposes that clause 1(4)(a), which provides what I may call the "70 per cent. test", should be deleted from the Bill. I know that the right hon. Member for Mansfield and his colleagues are unhappy with this test, but I hope to set their minds at rest. It might be convenient at this point to take also amendment No. 117, under which clause 1(4)(a) would be retained, but, before proposals could be submitted under that provision, they would require the support of at least 70 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly drawn from all sections of the community. The facts are these. If not less than 70 per cent. of the membership of the Assembly agrees on devolution proposals, those proposals will automatically go to the Secretary of State. The figure of 70 per cent. should ensure that any proposals which enjoy that degree of support in the Assembly are acceptable to both sides of the Northern Ireland community. I recognise—and this is at the heart of the right hon. Member for Mansfield's concern—that it might be possible for the 70 per cent. to be achieved for proposals which do not meet this criterion. Therefore, it is important to be clear that 70 per cent. support for any proposals simply guarantees that they will be sent to the Secretary of State, who will lay them before Parliament. At that point, the proposals will be debated, and the Government will have to give a clear view on whether those proposals meet the essential criterion of acceptability to both sides of the community.
      That is written into the White Paper. In paragraph 42, we make it clear that the crucial requirement is that the
      232
      Assembly's proposals should be likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community. Only if that criterion were met would the Government ask Parliament to approve the Assembly's recommendations so that devolved government could be restored. It will be for Parliament, and Parliament alone, to decide whether powers should be devolved. Nevertheless, I emphasise that the Government fully understand the depth of the concern of the right hon. Member for Mansfield and others on this point. I shall return to that matter at the end of my speech.
      The next set of amendments with which I propose to deal represent various adjustments to the operation of the 70 per cent. principle. I understand why hon. Members have tabled amendments Nos. 20, 21 and 98. But, even apart from the reasons which I have already given—that the 70 per cent. does not in fact represent a necessary hurdle which any devolution proposals must surmount—I fear that I cannot recommend the Committee to accept any of them. The Government's proposals recognise that no system of devolved government is likely to get off the ground, let alone prove durable and stable, unles it enjoys support in both parts of the community. The object of the figure of 70 per cent. of the whole Assembly in clause 1(4)(a) is accordingly to provide a broad indication that any proposals have that degree of acceptability. Amendments, such as this, which could enable the Assembly, if necessary, to make such proposals without having that support are accordingly inimical to the spirit of the Bill. What the Committee—and, in due course, the Assembly—should be concentrating on is how the Assembly might evolve proposals for devolution that command broad cross-community support. We should not allow ourselves to be diverted by questions of political arithmetic.
      I now turn to a group of amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and his colleagues—Nos. 18, 22, 19 and 25. They fall into two categories. The first appears to consider that the "70 per cent. test" is expressed in insufficiently exact language. Clause 1(4)(a), as drafted, provides that the Assembly shall not submit any proposals unless they have the support of at least 70 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have tabled an amendment which seeks to make it explicit that no less than 70 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly have voted for such proposals. I am grateful for their suggestion, but I believe that this provision is already sufficiently clear. I do not see how clause 1(4)(a) could be satisfied unless 70 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly had voted for any proposals.
      Nor have the same right hon. and hon. Gentlemen convinced me by their arguments in favour of amending clause 1(4)(a) and (b) so that references in both to "the proposals have" should be replaced by references to
      "every such proposal at that time submitted has".
      As my hon. Friend made clear last night, a report proposing devolution would comprise a package of proposals. That package would stand or fall as a whole. These amendments would seem to break down any devolution package into discrete units, and consequently make the possibility of reaching an agreement considerably more remote.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My hon. Friends and I, in these amendments, had in mind the rolling devolution operation. It seemed a pity that if two or three specific rolling proposals were put forward, although they might not be inherently connected, they would have to stand or fall together and suffer the same fate. For example, the proposals for devolving the Department of the Environment might be more acceptable and more likely to pass these criteria than those involving education and health. It therefore seemed to us a pity, and inconsistent with the theory of rolling devolution, to insist, where two or more are rolled at the same time, that they should be rolled together or not at all.
      Mr. Prior: We considered this matter carefully. We reached the conclusion that, in cases where more than one Department is rolled at the same time, there may have been some form of deal which enabled the two or three parties to be intertwined in the deal. Therefore, one would not wish to unravel that stage. That is why we thought that the process should be contained in one order, not in the way that the right hon. Gentleman suggested. We considered his method, but decided that the form in the Bill was much better. However, if the right hon. Gentleman would like me to have a further look at the matter, without giving any commitment at all, I shall certainly do so, because I am trying to be as helpful as I can.
      Mr. Powell: As the right hon. Gentleman has been good enough to undertake to look at the matter again, in the light of the exchanges between us, before Report, I have the agreement of my hon. Friends not to move the amendment in our names.
      Mr. Prior: I can give the right hon. Gentleman no commitment of any sort in this respect, but I will look at the matter again. Clearly, if I felt that a change should be made, I should table an amendment on Report.
      Finally, I turn to the proposed amendments to clause 1(4)(b). Amendment No. 24, tabled by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, would cut out the second test provided for in clause 1(4)(b). Yet this is one of the most significant features of the Bill. It has been included to ensure that if workable proposals for devolution were devised by the Assembly and commanded cross-community support, they could still be submitted to the Secretary of State and thus automatically go before Parliament even if, for some reason, they have not obtained the support of 70 per cent. of the Assembly, provided that they have still obtained the support of a majority of its Members. To remove that prospect from the Bill would reduce the room for manoeuvre of all the parties in the Assembly, limiting their scope for constructive negotiation and compromise. In the Government's view, it is essential, subject to the central principle of cross—community acceptability, to give the local parties as much flexibility as possible. The Government believe that it is essential to retain clause 1(4)(b) and we urge the Committee not to close an avenue of approach to devolution which may prove useful when the Assembly convenes.
      The last amendment with which I wish to deal, No. 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Antrim, South, to whom I have not given way, although I shall certainly do so after I have finished these comments if he wishes, will
      234
      substantially alter the second test for the submission of devolution proposals to the Secretary of State. The effect of his amendment would be that, if the Secretary of State had notified the Assembly that he was satisfied that the substance of the proposals was likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community, then the Assembly would be empowered to submit them, whether or not they have the support of the majority of its Members. This amendment would gravely, and unnecessarily, diminish the role of the Assembly. In particular, once an Assembly had been elected, it would, in my view, be quite improper for the Secretary of State to consider proposals for devolution that did not command the support of at least a majority of its Members. The test of widespread community acceptance is, as I have repeatedly emphasised, fundamental, but it is surely a necessary condition of such acceptance that a proposal has at least the support of a majority of the Assembly. Clause 1(4)(b) ensures that they must have this opportunity.
      In any case, the amendment, as drafted, seems contradictory. Subsections (1) and (4) envisage that the Assembly as a whole should submit its proposals to the Secretary of State. I find it difficult to understand how this could happen if at least 50 per cent. of its Members were not in favour of these proposals. We therefore trust that right hon. and hon. Members will not press this point.
      The amendments proposed to clause 1(4) appear, in the Government's view, to suffer from two particular defects. Either they would make it more difficult for the Assembly to submit to the Secretary of State proposals for devolution that would command widespread acceptance throughout the community, or they would make it easier for the Assembly to submit proposals that did not enjoy such support. On neither ground, therefore, do they accord with the fundamental principle of the Bill—to enable the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland to devise a scheme of administration that has the support both of a substantial majority of the Assembly and is acceptable to both sides of the community. Accordingly, I urge the Committee to reject them.
      I should like to assure the right hon. Member for Mansfield and the right hon. Member for Crosby that the Government fully understand those whose doubts about the provisions of this clause are based on the quite different grounds that they might—contrary to the Government's intentions—lead to insufficient consideration being given to the views of one of the communities.
      I do not believe that an amendment to clause 1(4) would be right, but, having heard the arguments put forward, I shall consider carefully whether specific provision should be made elsewhere in the Bill to make it quite clear that there can be no question of a devolution order being made unless and until Parliament has satisfied itself that the provisions of that order, which will require the approval of each House of Parliament by affirmative resolution, are likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community. We are prepared to consider whether we can give greater resolution to that issue.
      I am aware that I have spoken for a long time, but there are many amendments and many issues have emerged. I hope that our proceedings in Committee will be reasonable. I have Tied to take this debate extremely seriously. We are dealing with a difficult and, in some respects, dangerous problem. We have a duty to express our views, but we also have the duty—the Government see it in this way—to seek to make progress so that the

      235
      measure is put on the statute book and the people of Northern Ireland are given the opportunity once more to form local democracy of their own making.
      Mr. Concannon: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that he will consider carefully what we have said and that he is prepared virtually to accept our argument in principle? Is he also saying that subsection (4)(a) is not the appropriate part of the Bill in which to lay stress on our argument—cross-community support is the main plank—and that he will consider whether it is necessary to introduce an amendment on Report? If that is what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, he is going a long way to meet our argument.
      Mr. Prior: Broadly speaking, that is what I am saying. I think that it would be a mistake to remove clause 1(4)(a). If we are to give greater credibility to the need for widespread acceptance throughout the community and to give greater force to the 70 per cent. provision, we can consider an amendment to clause 2 along the lines that I have suggested. If that will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman, I ask him to withdraw the amendment. If he takes that course, I shall introduce an amendment on Report.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I count myself fortunate, Mr. Weatherill, in not catching your eye sooner. We have now had the advantage of hearing the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). It is quite like old times to hear someone addressing the Committee from the Opposition Front Bench. More importantly, we have been able to follow the extraordinarily valuable speech which has been delivered by the Secretary of State. His speech exposed some of the thought processes which have underlain the Government's proposals and baffled those who have sought to study them. I do not feel that it has solved the basic conundrum for those of us who are opposed to the Bill, but it has illustrated how our procedures in Committee are capable of providing mutual enlightenment, as happened in the unhappily relatively minor case of the manner of dealing with the constituencies in which the elections under the Bill may be fought.
      Perhaps I can best illustrate what I mean by the "basic conundrum" by referring to the greatest of all our satirists, Jonathan Swift, who devoted a good deal of his writing to the endeavours and absurdities of England in its attempt to cope with Ireland. It is a thousand pities that his spirit has not been available to continue the series of satires after contemplating the events of the past 10 or 15 years and the successive attempts of Parliament and Government to produce what for shorthand purposes I describe as a rigged constitution to deal with a partially misunderstood problem.
      Had Jonathan Swift intended to satirise the experience of those years, I imagine that he would have taken his traveller Gulliver to a land in which the inhabitants were engaged in attempting to alter by legislation the theorems of Euclid. In much of this proposed legislation we have been attempting to say "Parliament says so and Parliament has provided in an Act of Parliament a piece of machinery. Although it defies political mechanics and the principle of democracy, it will work because it should work and we want it to work."
      236
      I was struck by a leading article in The Times of Tuesday. It was an article that slashingly exposed the improbability of a Bill constructed on these lines functioning successfully. It stated:
      "Experience since 1974 teaches that a basis for such an unusual arrangement does not exist"—
      that is definite enough—
      "that politicians who are passionately divided on the most fundamental of all civil issues will not enrol or cannot survive as working colleagues in the administration of public affairs."
      5.30 pm
      But the Thunderer, having thus stated in lapidary fashion the probability which the Bill, like its predecessors and the preceding attempts that have not got as far as legislative form, defies, follows it up with a typical observation. It occurred to the leader writer that, after all, his principal duty as a leader writer for The Times was to sit upon the fence, so from that editorial seat there situated he hastened to resume and wrote:
      "But first Mr. Prior deserves to get his Bill."
      That is a remarkable sentence, remarkable in its implications and remarkable in its choice of words. Knowing the Secretary of State, we would all say that if an individual's qualities, merits and admirable traits of character could deserve to be able, by legislation, to change the laws of mechanics or, in my analogy, to alter the theorems of Euclid, we would all be hastening to declare the deserts of the right hon. Gentleman so that he could perform this magical act. However, of course the leading article has just stated that deserts will not do it, for it is not a matter of deserts. It is a matter of facts, which are as intractable as the laws of mechanics. Indeed, in a sense it is a kind of law of mechanics with which we are dealing.
      Perhaps I can illustrate most readily what I mean by a brief historical excursus, permission for which was contained in an expression that the right hon. Gentleman used. In the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century the House legislated to confer upon the island of Ireland, as such, wide powers of self-government through a Parliament, comprising powers not just of administration but of legislation. For the great majority of the inhabitants of the north-east of the island, that clearly meant that they would find themselves legislated out of the country to which they belonged. It was not the fear of maladministration under a Dublin Parliament which rendered the 1912 Act unacceptable to the people of Ulster. It was the fact that the powers contained in the legislation, the powers of home rule and making new law in the island of Ireland, were bound, so they saw—and events proved them correct—to be used so as to deprive them of what they regarded as their national heritage and birthright.
      When that became clear beyond the possibility of denial, this Parliament performed what would have been a judgment of Solomon if Solomon, instead of dividing the baby in the middle, had divided it higher up or lower down. It divided the Irish home rule into, roughly speaking, one-third and two-thirds—not quite one-quarter and three-quarters.
      Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Powell: I shall give way to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I wonder whether he would permit me to complete this portion of my similitude so that he may more effectively intervene.

      237
      In performing this act of Solomon, it was the same baby, portions of which were attributed to the two claimants. The House said that there would be home rule, and the home rule which it had enacted, in the island of Ireland, but for the time being, as the people were unreasonable and not agreed, they would each have their own piece of it.
      Therefore, there was conferred upon Ulster the same home rule, but limited to Ulster, which the Ulster people had seen would deny them everything that would make life worth living if it was applied to the whole island of Ireland. It followed from that that they would be bound to use the legislative powers of home rule in order to secure and make certain that thing which was above all to them the most important. Since there was a majority and an unquestioned standing majority, that did not involve any grave malpractices or malapplications of the legislative power. Nevertheless, the legislative power—the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) correctly implied this in something that he said in yesterday's debate—entrenched the majority and therefore the Union under the Government of Ireland Act 1920 as applied to Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Lyell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He used the simile of the judgment of Solomon before in his opening speech on this matter, which was most impressive. When one considers the judgment of Solomon, is not the problem of Northern Ireland the fact that no way has been found to find a mother who will put the interests of the baby first? Is not the object of the Bill to create a situation in which that can happen?
      Mr. Powell: I do not think that that is the object of the Bill. I gave way perhaps a little too early, after all. I am in the course of explaining why the Bill cannot do what it sets out to do. It is much more likely to produce, if there is an opposite, the opposite effect.
      When the structure which we call "Stormont" for short was destroyed in 1972—I choose a neutral word, merely descriptive of an historical fact—the House and, I think, this country concluded that they did not wish to recreate in any part of the United Kingdom a system which would be severed from the system of the rest of the United Kingdom, in this vital respect. There would be parliamentary—that means democratic majority—Government in circumstances in which, unlike the rest of the United Kingdom, there could not be an alternation of the essential differences and party allegiances. Therefore, there would be something contradictory to the nature of the United Kingdom's parliamentary democracy—that is, a permanent majority. Moreover, they apprehended that the party differences in Northern Ireland which since the 1920 Act had made the maintenance of the Union the critical factor for the politics of the Province, turned upon something even more fundamental than the difference between Socialist and Conservative, the difference between would-be national allegiance one way or another.
      There were two ways in which the House and country could go from that point. They could either recognise that it was not practicable on that basis, given that that was their will, to confer legislative powers upon a Parliament in part of the United Kingdom—in Northern Ireland that was for a reason that was more fundamental than the West Lothian theorem—or they could start a series of fiddles and arrangements whereby, through fudging the principles
      238
      of parliamentary democracy, they would seek to solve the insoluble and to deal with that insolubility so accurately described in the passage that I quoted from The Times leader. So they said "You have to have uniquely in Northern Ireland a structure that is only allowed to work if the two parties will agree. Since the two parties cannot alternate, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, we will make it the precondition that they must agree, at any late that they must sufficiently agree." But that was an impossible requirement. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to accept that we are really talking about parties when we discuss will and opinion in this context.
      The measurement of opinion and the judgment of opinion in our system, which we understand better than any nation on earth, is done by means of parties. The parties of which we are talking and to which we apply the misleading and—I state it impersonally—the lying word "communities", are divided by a view of what the State itself ought to be. They are divided by the ultimate incompatibility. To construct any constitution, any devolution and any Parliament on the basis that it is only to function if people will agree about that over which they were elected to disagree is a fool's errand. It is the fool's errand on which we have been engaged these last 10 years and—I say this in no abusive sense—still are.
      If we insist on attempting to establish a legislative system in a part of the United Kingdom and make it a condition of that legislative assembly that it shall only be exercised by people who were elected to do opposite things, to grab the machinery of power in order to use it in oppose directions for conflicting purposes, then we simply fasten upon the Province the incubus of an inherent impossibility.
      Mr. Lyell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way again. Is there not a fundamental illogicality in his argument? I say that with some trepidation. The right hon. Gentleman has argued that the parties can come together on local government matte:—s, that matters can be solved by restoring local government powers and that local councils work well together. Yet he argues that if there is any sort of legislative devolution to deal with education and health and transferred matters under the Bill and the previous Act, they will never agree. Is there not an illogicality in saying that they can agree on local government but that they will always be divided on the matters dealt with by the. Bill?
      Mr. Powell: It is uncanny—I say this in no carping spirit to the hon. and learned. Gentleman—how often one gives way immediately before coming exactly to the point that the intervention raises. There must be some reason somewhere. I was about to refer to what I found the most remarkable part of the speech of the Secretary of State and what I believe was the most hopeful part for myself and my hon. Friends. This was the revelation that on matters deeply important to us his opinions were not as we had supposed nor his observations nor his values different from ours. They were closely the same. The right hon. Gentleman stated, in many cases I think for the first time, with clarity, candour and eloquence, that the present powers were derisory and that he personally did not think that if powers of local government and local administration were increased they would be misused. His expressions showing that he saw the anomaly that we feel so painfully and that he wanted, as we want, to remove it, threw into all the sharper relief what the true barrier was.

      239
      5.45 pm
      The reason why local government in Northern Ireland carries with it this load of largely mythical hostility and bad names—myths are some of the greatest political realities—is paradoxically that it was local government within a legislative system local to the Province that I have just described. It is an interesting fact and cross-checks the proposition I have made that the allegations of electoral malpractice, of rigging of boundaries, and so on, derive from legislative powers and not from the administration of the government of Ireland under the 1920 Act. If, of course, one gives people powers of legislation—this is where the argument reunites—then they will use the power of legislation for their political purposes. But if one is conferring upon them the power, the duty and, indeed, the necessity, therefore, to administer the law that they do not make except in so far as they contribute to making it in this House, then one has taken the sting, the fons et origo of the whole problem, out of the scene and left them with matters over which they will contend.
      The SDLP and the Unionist Party on the Newry and Mourne district council will not desist in the foreseeable future from occasionally passing resolutions totally irrelevant to the subjects they are administering which express the notions that caused them to be elected and which they reflect on the part of those who sent them there. But when they administer a law that they cannot alter in order to serve their ultimate political purposes, they are found to be behaving remarkably like members of local authorities in the rest of the United Kingdom.
      Most commonly, they are found to be making common cause within the existing law in getting the benefits that it can yield, not, I assure the right hon. Gentleman—I know my people—for one section or the other of the inhabitants of the district of Newry and Mourne but for the places in that district where the perceived need exists.
      Mr. Budgen: The right hon. Gentleman says that the undoubted problems that occurred in local government over a decade ago arose from the legislative function that was performed by Stormont. Were there not also some allegations about the way in which local government in Northern Ireland ran its affairs in relation to housing and employment? Did those problems not arise from the administrative surveillance that Stormont exercised over those organs of local government in Northern Ireland? Would they not be less likely to occur if the surveillance was transferred from a devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland to this House?
      Mr. Powell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the word "surveillance" because—here I again utilise the point made yesterday by the hon. Member for Antrim, North—the power for surveillance of Ministers responsible to the House, if we should examine it acidly, derives from the ultimate power of the House to use the weapon of the law. It was an Administration that was armed with the full puissance of a legislative as well as an administrative authority under which it was believed, often not correctly, that administration was biased.
      Therefore, I conclude that, for reasons that are nothing to do with the intentions of the Secretary of State, this proposal will not work and cannot work, but we are now discussing it after three days in Committee with more common comprehension than we had even when this stage of the Bill started.
      240
      This is the central debate about the Bill, which, as is proper in Committee, each amendment of any consequence throws up once again, although with the crystal turned through a few degrees to a different light. I suggest, for our future advantage, that we forswear the words "community" or "communities", that we do not hide the reality from ourselves by irrelevant references to religion, and that we deal, as we deal in any other part of the United Kingdom, with party and with the purpose of party.
      It is in that context that it is not grotesque, but perfectly logical, for hon. Members of my party to ask the occupants of the Government and Opposition Front Benches how they would feel if they were told that they could only legislate and administer, and could only be trusted, if right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House, who have been elected to do opposite things, would come together. The opposite things that hon. Members in the isolated Ulster are elected to do are different, alas, from the opposite things for which right hon. Gentlemen have been elected, but the analogy is nevertheless perfect.
      As politicians, let us talk in terms of political purpose because it is political purpose with which we are dealing. The ultimate truth is that within the United Kingdom political purpose can only be dissolved and held in equilibrium, deprived of its dangers, and given beneficence, force and the power of improvement, within the single parliamentary legislative structure of the United Kingdom, and with that panoply of administrative devolution—devolution of management—that we enjoy throughout the realm, with the slight exception of Northern Ireland.
      Mr. James A. Dunn: Like the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I am pleased to make a contribution to the debate after hearing the explanation and assurance given by the Secretary of State. He used his words wisely, and while I do not share the joy of following the Secretary of State on a similar basis as the right hon. Member for Down, South, I took note of the strong logical arguments that have once more been placed before the House by the right hon. Member for Down, South.
      I have always recognised, and I respect this view, that the right hon. Member for Down, South wants integration with the United Kingdom. He has never sought to disguise that. He argues it with precision, and with a command of language and an enthusiasm that can, in its own way, have a great impact on the discussions of the Committee. It engenders only respect because he has never varied from the path that he has set himself. On the other hand, there are those of us who believe that it would not be possible at the moment effectively to implement what the right hon. Gentleman seeks without causing tremendous problems for the population of Northern Ireland.
      I return to what the Secretary of State said, and the way that he answered the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and his hon. Friends, and amendment No. 117 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams), and other hon. Friends.
      The idea behind our amendment was to take account of what was said on Second Reading by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) who made a telling contribution. He said that any Assembly required an unalienable right to bring before the House the recommendation of members

      241
      of that Assembly, although he did not go overboard on the 70 per cent., 65 per cent. or 80 per cent. majority specifically laid down. He was forewarning us that if the Assembly became a talking shop, and if recommendations were made that were not automatically brought before the House because they had serious import, there could be problems for him, and for others who were willing to give the Bill their general support and to see how it worked before making final decisions upon its outcome.
      I and my colleagues thought upon this deeply. I agree with the Secretary of State that in general 70 per cent. would be sufficient to mean that there should be the support of other than one or two political parties of similar identities. However, this might not be the outcome if, on any one election to the Assembly, the majority of seats were taken by one sector of the community.
      My party tried to find a way that would give the guarantee sought by the hon. Member for Armagh, which would also take into account the advice of the Secretary of State, but would add a protection that would give some widespread cross-community support. I do not hesitate to use the word "community", because it means different things to me perhaps from those it means to the right hon. Member for Down, South.
      If there is not general support in the community, the purposes of the Assembly will not be realised easily. They may never be realised if they give to the majority an automatic and unchecked right. I should be churlish if I proceeded to press amendment No. 117 on the basis of the broad-based explanation and illustration given by the Secretary of State of his approach to the Bill when he gave us the benefit of his thinking on subsection (4)(a) and (b) of clause 1.
      I am taken by the assurance that later in the Committee proceedings, or on Report, an amendment would be found that would meet the needs of amendment No. 117, and of amendment No. 15 and the other amendments grouped with it. In essence, they seek to give a qualification that anything that comes from the Assembly should have more than single sector support. Under those circumstances I do not intend to press the amendment. However, I ask the House, either in Committee or on Report, to take account of the amendments that the Secretary of State may propose after he has given due weight and consideration to what has been said in the debate on this group of amendments.
      6 pm
      I hope that the House will bear it in mind that if there is not broad-based support at the end of the day, if a substantial part of the Northern Ireland community feels that it is being thwarted, and if the right of veto is not given to any part of the community, the difficulties for an Assembly will be immeasurable. I want to see an Assembly. I want to see it quickly. I want to see transferred powers. I hope that the Assembly will be able to find a way to re—institute local government to serve the local needs of many parts of the Northern Ireland community. However, until such time as that arrives, and the Assembly has an opportunity to make recommendations, we should ensure that it will not fail even before it starts.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State has made an important speech. As far as my party is concerned, it is a complete breach of faith. In all our conferences with the Secretary of State, we were told that he stood by the
      242
      Northern Ireland proposals for further discussion as issued by the Government in July 1980. Nevertheless, we put before him the statement:
      "The Government believes that the holding of executive seats is not the only way:'or minority representatives to participate in and influence the process of Government in both the legislative and executive forms."
      The Secretary of State said that he still accepted that and he made the point that is to be found in the notes on clauses at page 3:
      "There is no requirement for a Northern Ireland administration to be composed in a particular way. These are matters for the parties in the Assembly to determine. Power sharing is neither required, nor ruled out. There are two (alternative) tests for the submission of devolution proposals. Such proposals can be submitted to the Secretary of State if they are accepted by 70 per cent. of the members of the Assembly;—
      that, of course, rules out the power sharing concept; it requires the acceptance of just 70 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly—
      "or, when they are supported by a majority but less than 70 per cent. of members, if the Secretary of State has notified. the Assembly that"—
      on this second way of doing it—
      "he is satisfied that their substance is likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community."
      Therefore, we were told that the 70 per cent. was straightforward and that power sharing was not required or ruled out.
      Now the Secretary of State has told us that he will write a new proviso into the Bill, that even under the 70 per cent. proposal Parliament must be satisfied that there is widespread community support. One can well understand how the people whom I represent feel. After various conferences with the Secretary of State they were under a mistaken impression, as the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said in the speech that has just been referred to by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), the spokesman for the Social Democratic Party.
      There will now be a radical change in the Bill in a proviso that we have not yet seen. We do not know exactly what it will contain. However, as far as the 70 per cent. proposal is concerned, it will specify that there must be cross—community support. That has been said clearly by both the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member far Mansfield, (Mr. Concannon), whom the Secretary of State is responding to by saying that if the amendment is withdrawn the Government will write this undertaking into the Bill. That means that the 70 per cent. must include those who support the SDLP.
      Mr. Prior: I should like to put on the record exactly what I did say. I think that the hon. Gentleman has not quite understood. I said:
      "I can assure hon. Members that the Government have not simply plucked the figure of 70 per cent., the first of the two tests, from the air. Nor have they lightly embarked on a measure which, as we all recognise and have been reminded of on a number of occasions during the debate, differs from the principle of the simple majority to which we would normally expect to subscribe".
      I then went on to say that the 70 per cent. is only ore of the ways in which devolution proposals from the Assembly can be submitted to the Secretary of State, and that stands. At the end, I said that I thought that the figure of 70 per cent. had teen chosen because it constituted what we would think automatically has cross-community support, but that I recognised that it could be that it did not have cross-community support. Therefore, I suggested

      243
      a possible amendment that would ensure that the cross-community element was taken into account in the 70 per cent. when the House was asked to make a decision.
      That is the change that I recommend. It does nothing more than confirm what was contained in paragraph 42 of the White Paper. It is what we have said all along. It is not power sharing as such because it is totally open. We do not know how that 70 per cent. could be made up or how the cross-community support could be made up. Therefore, we are not insisting on power sharing or imposing anything. As the hon. Gentleman has said on several occasions, if he does not like these proposals it would be for the Assembly to say that it would not accept them. That is the only point that I am trying to make.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I heard exactly what the Secretary of State said and I am under no misapprehension about it. When we met him to discuss the White Paper this was the very point that we put to him. We produced the Government document of July 1980 and asked him if he still stood by the paragraph that says that the Government believe that the holding of Executive seats is not the only way for minority representatives to participate in and influence the process of government in both the legislative and executive forms. He said that they were standing by that. Then we come to the note on this matter:
      "The Bill places responsibility for making such proposals on the Assembly. There is no requirement for a Northern Ireland administration to be composed in a particular way. These are matters for the parties in the Assembly to determine. Power sharing is neither required nor ruled out. There are two (alternative) tests for the submission of devolution proposals. Such proposals can be submitted to the Secretary of State if they are accepted by 70 per cent. of the members of the Assembly".
      There is no qualification. However, the Secretary of State now says that he will write into the Bill the qualification that the 70 per cent. must have cross-community support. That is exactly what he did not tell us. Indeed, that point was made by the hon. Member for Armagh. That is why we discussed the White Paper with the Secretary of State and faced him with his proposals.
      Mr. Bill Walker rose—
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The notes continue:
      "or, when they are supported by a majority but less than 70 per cent of members, if the Secretary of State has notified the Assembly that he is satisfied that their substance"—
      that is in the second proposal—
      "is likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community."
      Mr. Molyneaux: I apologise for not being in the Chamber earlier, but I was called out to deal with an urgent matter. Perhaps I can help by reading the minutes of the meeting that a delegation from my party had with the Secretary of State on 8 March. I have already referred to the fact that the Secretary of State dropped a bombshell on that occasion. I differ from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) not because I want to, but because he seems to have been mistaken all along. I say that not in an aggressive spirit, but because it is a fact. The words that triggered things off were:
      "if the Secretary of State was not satisfied that the weighted majority of 70 per cent. contained a sufficiently large Roman Catholic Republican involvement, he would be unable to recommend the formation of that department to Parliament."
      That mentions one Department, but the principle is the same. The previous page contains the double requirement
      244
      that there must be 70 per cent. and that it must contain cross-community support. When the hon. Member for Antrim, North discussed this point earlier, I believe that the Secretary of State agreed with my view rather than with that of the hon. Gentleman.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I faced the Secretary of State with that minute. It appeared in the press, in a scathing attack made on my party and me by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). The Secretary of State said that that minute had been put out by the Official Unionist Party and that he did not accept it as a minute of the meeting. The hon. Member for Londonderry said that he was reading from a copy of the White Paper, but the Secretary of State said that no one at that time had a copy of the White Paper and that he could not have been reading from it.
      I am not in any way mistaken about what took place at the meetings, or about the undertakings that were given to me. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) had his own meetings and drew his own conclusions. He wrote his own minutes, made his own interpretations of what was said. However, when we faced the Secretary of State with his "Proposals for further discussion"—a vital document—and asked him whether he was departing from that, in view of the statement made in the White Paper, he said that he was not. He said that the 70 per cent. proposal would be in the Bill. It is clear from the notes that that 70 per cent. was a 70 per cent. vote, full stop. At that meeting I asked whether a religious or political alliance was needed. I asked what sort of community support it had to be. The answer has been given that it must include the SDLP. That is clear from this debate.
      6.15 pm
      One issue is vital. The House is entitled to be told the nature of the new provision to be written into the Bill. We should know now. The right hon. Member for Mansfield asked what was the point of being here. As soon as I have seen the provision, I will ask myself what is the use of wasting time in the House when there has been a breach of faith on such an important matter. As the hon. Member for Armagh said, some of us were prepared to work to attain that 70 per cent. and then to discuss that 70 per cent. in the House. Of course the House has the final say, but if the House is to be tied down by the statement that widespread support must include the support of the SDLP we may as well not proceed any further.
      The SDLP has a vested interest in ensuring that nothing works in Northern Ireland. Its members believe that our problems can be solved only by getting Northern Ireland into the Republic. Therefore, they have a vested interest in destroying anything that could work. We are apparently being asked to get over an impossible hurdle and to make some sort of alliance with those who have vowed not to allow things to work. I shall not waste my time, or that of my party, when we were assured that there were no qualifications to that 70 per cent. We now find that something is to be written into the Bill. We do not yet know what it will be. I have already had word from home that the people are flabbergasted by what the Secretary of State said at the Dispatch Box today. They say that there must be some deal between the Secretary of State and the Labour Party and that that is why the Labour Benches are empty, with the exception of two Labour Members. The Labour Party has got exactly what it wants.

      245
      In my first speech I caused quite a stir because I wondered whether the Secretary of State had a deal about the Council of Ireland. We pushed the right hon. Gentleman about that. Before the end of the day, the Secretary of State may have something else for us.
      Mr. Budgen rose—
      Mr. Prior: When the hon. Gentleman reads what I have said, he will find that I have been consistent throughout. If he is not satisfied that I have been consistent, he should wait until the amendment has been tabled. We can then argue the matter out again.
      On Second Reading, I said:
      "If 70 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly agreed on devolution proposals, I would be required to lay those proposals before Parliament, where they would be debated. The Government would give their view on whether the scheme was acceptable to both sides of the community."—[Official Report, 28 April 1982; Vol. 22, c. 859.]
      I have always made that clear and have never sought to gloss over the issue. The Opposition have attacked me for not making things clear enough. They wanted me to go further. If there has been a misunderstanding, I shall try to put it right. I do not want to negotiate from a basis of mistrust. However, there has never been any doubt in the minds of those with whom I have dealt that that would happen.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I have pressed the Secretary of State today, as on other occasions, to explain what he means by the support of both sides of the community. Does he mean that if there is to be a 70 per cent. majority vote in the proposed Assembly Roman Catholic Members of the Assembly may be included in that 70 per cent.? If that is what he means, it is acceptable, but if he means that one Republican party only must be associated with the 70 per cent. majority it is not acceptable. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he has given an assurance that both sides must agree, but the key issue is who should discern the composition of the two sides.
      We have been told in Committee that Roman Catholics vote for Unionists. Are Roman Catholic Unionists on the other side or not? We must be perfectly clear on that point. To fob us off, as the Secretary of State is now doing, by saying that on Second Reading he said "provided both sides agree" will not do. He knows perfectly well that he cannot get entire agreement from both sides. That is impossible. Does he mean that the IRA, Sinn Fein or another Republican movement such as the INLA should agree?
      Mr. Budgen: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that there are almost no members of the Labour Party here today? Did not the Labour Party know all along that some, admittedly limited, concession would be made to them?
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I disagree that this is a limited concession. It goes to the heart of the negotiations that my party has had in good faith with the Secretary of State. He emphasised to us over and over again that there were two ways in which the devolved proposals could be made. The first is the 70 per cent. proposal. At the conference the Earl of Gowrie said that the Government had told the SDLP that it may not be included in the 70 per cent. I see that the Secretary of State agrees with that.
      The contention of the right hon. Member for Mansfield was that the 70 per cent. was a dangerous proposition, because the Secretary of State might have to come to the
      246
      House and say that 70 per cent. plus—he even said that it might be 75 per cent.—would show that the people of Northern Ireland wished to have devolved government. The Secretary of State would find himself in a most difficult position, because he would have to say "No" to that proposal.
      I tried to intervene and to point out to the right hon. Member for Mansfield what the document said, because it is a vital provision. The Committee is entitled to examine a draft of the undertaking. We must know what we shall have to discuss and agree because an addition will be made to this Bill which cuts at its very heart. I wish to see a simple majority vote in the Assembly. That is democracy and that is my principle.
      If there is to be a 70 per cent. provision, as is evident, that 70 per cent. must be 70 per cent. and the House has no right to analyse the political colour of the vote. Everyone in this House could analyse a vote and say that it was not a majority because someone had a different religion or a different political complexion. The Government are in power today because of the principle of one Member, one vote. Now we are forced to talk about the political complexion of a vote, which is an impossible position.
      The other proposal in the Bill is 50 per cent. plus one. That gives the minority a decided advantage over the majority. It puts a far more powerful weight upon a Republican vote than on a Unionist vote. The Government wish to push through such a proposal, but we must find out exactly what is in the Secretary of State's mind. He should tell us precisely what the amendment will be. I, my party and the people of Northern Ireland will feel very disillusioned if we discover that, no matter the wishes of those who believe in the Union—whether they be Protestant or Roman Catholic—they are overridden by those in the alliance who wish to destroy the State altogether.
      The Secretary of State must face the fact that it is impossible. It puts a new complexion on his Bill and my party must now consider carefully the undertaking. We did not have any response from the Secretary of State in the previous debate about the amendment to be moved by the right hon. Member for Mansfield on the Council for Ireland. That is equally serious. Will the Secretary of State, when that amendment is moved, say "I shall go along that line as well"? That is another matter that causes me anxiety.
      We have always had a strong vocal response from the Labour Party about Northern Ireland. Many members of the Labour Party have spoken in such debates and disagreed strongly with Ulster Unionist Members of every political persuasion. Now there is no debate from the Labour Benches and I wonder whether what the hon. Member for Wolverhapton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) said is true and that there has been an agreement. The right hon. Member for Mansfield said that the Labour Party is behind him anyway and that he does not need their support. I, too, would not wish to come here if someone told me that all my amendments would be accepted. I would go to bed tonight and not sit here until the morning.
      Mr. Concannon: This is the first time during the progress of the Bill that I have asked my party for a Whip. It is rather stupid to say that there has been collusion between myself and the Secretary of State over the amendments. If there had, I would not have put my party

      247
      on a Whip. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where are they?"] Hon. Members may be assured that they are around the House. As the Secretary of State said, the Labour Party is not against the Bill. The opposition comes from other quarters, so it is not necessary for my colleagues to be here. They are quite happy with the way in which I and my hon. Friend are handling the matter.
      Mr. Budgen: The right hon. Member for Mansfield—
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot intervene in an intervention.
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not challenge the integrity of the right hon. Member for Mansfield. We have had many disagreements both in Northern Ireland and here, but I respect his word. I suggest that those who are under the Labour Whip are in the same place as the rest of the Tory Party. It has been useful to put the Labour Members on the Whip because it means that the right hon. Gentleman has got what he wishes and that the Secretary of State has given way to him. We should congratulate him on the fact that he can bring in his battalions.
      Mr. Budgen: It was asserted that I had made a stupid observation about the Labour Party. Does the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Paisley) see many Labour Members in or around the House today? While the right hon. Member for Mansfield might at first sight have given the impression that he would press for a Division, he had no troops to back that resolution. I suggest that he had no troops because he knew that a battle would be unnecessary.
      6.30 pm
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I can make no comment on the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention. During my 10 years' experience in the House, there have always been lively contributions from the Labour Benches on issues relating to Northern Ireland. I was here when the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973 and the Northern Ireland Act 1974 were discussed. We have not had similar contributions in this debate and hon. Members will draw their own conclusions from that.
      I should like to press the Secretary of State to tell us exactly what the amendment will be. We have a right to know what it will be and we can then make up our minds and comment on it. The Secretary of State must tell us, as it will bind the House to this strange concept of cross-country support. We have a different-definition on that. We are not talking about the Assembly.
      The right hon. Member for Mansfield says that we should go outside the Assembly and talk to the CBI and the trade unions. The only way that cross-community support can be decided is by the ballot box. We are getting further and further away from the ballot box, which is the only discipline of democracy. We are to take soundings here and there and then the Secretary of State will make the decision. The people of Northern Ireland should decide by the ballot box what they want and what is best for the government of that part of the United Kingdom.
      I hope that the Secretary of State will soon be able to tell us what wording he will use and that there will be no need for clarification and explanation. There is now no
      248
      difference between 70 per cent. and 50 per cent. plus one. That is just something that was used—I use the words carefully—to con the loyalist population. We now find that the 70 per cent. is meaningless and we might just as well have had the 50 per cent. plus one. It is a serious matter and I never thought that I would hear the Secretary of State make such a statement. He can say "I said this that and the other thing", but the fact is that it was made clear to my party in the same way as it is in the notes on clauses. That is what the 70 per cent. meant. The Secretary of State should give us details of the amendment that will meet the wishes of the right hon. Member for Mansfield and we will know where we are going.
      Mr. Lyell: I am glad to have the opportunity on this important clause and these critical amendments to say briefly that I support what the Secretary of State seeks to do in this Bill. There have been complaints in Committee that there has not been much opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members who support the Bill to say why.
      Mr. Budgen: There has been plenty of opportunity. It has not been taken.
      Mr. Lyell: I am now taking that opportunity. The Secretary of State, in one of his dramatic horse-riding episodes, stood at the Dispatch Box, got the whip out and explained in the profoundest terms his anxiety, which I am sure is shared by all hon. Members, about the problems of Northern Ireland. To that extent he was on common ground with every hon. Member in the Chamber. We need to find some way in which the processes of democracy can be restored in Northern Ireland in a way that will receive the support not only of the majority but of the significant minority of the population; that will approximate with the way in which democracy works in the rest of the United Kingdom. Those ideas expressed in the Bill in this part of the clause are the 70 per cent. majority and cross-community support proposals. They have been debated in detail for the past several hours. The minutiae are obviously important, as the forceful and impressive speech of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) made clear. That motion of cross-community support has a great deal of support in the Committee. I do not suggest that it has complete support but many of my hon. Friends who have worries about the Bill do not have worries about that aspect of it.
      It has been suggested that the local government route would provide an acceptable alternative to the partial devolution route that the Secretary of State seeks to follow. I agree with him, although my view comes from much less knowledge of the problems of Northern Ireland than that of many other hon. Members. If the local government route provided the easy answer to the problems as a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends have suggested it does, I find it difficult to believe that we would not have solved the problems of Northern Ireland long ago.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It is because those promoting the measures—I am not referring to the Minister but others elsewhere—will have a vested interest in ensuring that the trouble goes on.
      Mr. Lyell: I take careful note of what the right hon. Gentleman says. It seems unlikely that the simple local government route will provide a sufficient answer. If we ever have to return to this problem I shall reread the

      249
      speeches of my hon. Friends and see whether this route is promoted should the present worthwhile initiative of the Government not succeed.
      I want to deal with what I believe are the underlying fallacies of what is known as the West Lothian question in the context of Northern Ireland. I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), whom I deeply respect, what was meant by the West Lothian question. It was obviously not convenient for him to provide me with an answer.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: It would have been more sensible and easier to have asked the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) or to have read the reports of the debate.
      Mr. Lyell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It would have been more sensible, but I had hoped that it could be put succinctly. It was not, so I have indeed read the debates going back to the Scottish devolution debates which took place when I was not a Member of the House and had no knowledge of the matter. I shall not weary the Committee with all the details, but the West Lothian question seems to have been put in about five different ways and not always consistently.
      Mr. Budgen: It can be put in 55 ways.
      Mr. Lyell: I have no doubt but that, for the legitimate purposes of doing what some of my hon. Friends are seeking to do to the Bill, they would like to explore all 55, but it is a fallacy to suggest that the West Lothian question, put in a correct form, provides an overriding or fatal flaw to the Bill.
      I was interested to go to the fountain head. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) said, the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) created the West Lothian question, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) iterated the soubriquet and gave the name to that bundle of varied concepts. I found in 1977 perhaps not the earliest but certainly one of the most authoritative statements of the West Lothian question. The right hon. Gentleman said:
      "But behind there looms the much larger question not of the function of Scottish Members in this House in regard to Scottish affairs, but of the whole functioning of this House, when 71 of its Members come from a part of the United Kingdom where the responsibility for a great range of legislation, and consequently of policy, is borne by elected representatives elsewhere."
      That was one of the early statements of the West Lothian question. At that time, the Government were seeking to shrug off the West Lothian question by reference to the history of Stormont and Northern Ireland. That was in the days of the Lib-Lab pact, when there was no majority for the Government, except through the assistance of the Liberal Party. The right hon. Member for Down, South said forcefully that the West Lothian question did not function in relation to Northern Ireland. He said it was de minimis and added:
      "Northern Ireland has been de minimis" in this matter over the last 50 or 60 years."
      From 1977 that took us back over the history of Stormont and up to the days of the smallest majority that any Government had had, certainly in this century. If it was de minimis then, why is it not de minimis now? I do not invite an intervention, but I look forward with interest to hearing the answer to that question.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The answer is twofold. First, we are now to have 17 seats and there is a considerable
      250
      difference, even in a House with 635 Members, between a group of 17 and a group of 12. Secondly, it is one thing to live with an anomaly for fear of worse, but it is quite a different thing to recreate that anomaly when we no longer have it.
      Mr. Lyell: I have read both those aspects in the succeeding debates but it is illogical to argue, as the right hon. Gentleman did in 1977:
      "It is one thing for 71 Members, or half that number—especially in Parliaments where majorities may be narrow—to hold the balance on great issues of policy. It is quite a different thing, during decades in which such narrow majorities have been unusual, for a very small number of Members to have been tolerated in this House and for the adherence of the majority of them to one of the great parties to have been overlooked, not without criticism, by those who belonged to other political parties."
      However, after that preamble the right hon. Gentleman said:
      "But I will not rest upon the matter of scale, though in itself the de minimis rule applies".—[Official Report, 14 November 1977; Vol. 939, c. 87–88.]
      The difference between 12 and 17, at a time when there was no majority for the Government and when 12 votes would have obliterated it, does not sufficiently answer the point that I have put.
      6.45 pm
      This is a profound constitutional matter and I turn to another illogicality that has arisen from time to time over the West Lothian question. I pick up again a point made by the right hon. Member for Down, South—no one puts these matters with greater clarity—not in 1977, but about 10 days ago. The right hon. Gentleman put the West Lothian question in a slightly different way, although it is some of my hon. Friends and not the right hon. Gentleman who would like to use the 55 different explanations. The right hon. Gentleman referred to an anomaly that could be lived with but not recreated—I recognised that expression when he intervened—and he went on:
      "There is no answer, and there will shortly in practice he found to be no answer, to the question addressed to those 11 hon. Members: 'How come you here to debate and to vote with us on a whole range of subjects for which you are not responsible to your constituents as we are responsible to ours?' More than that, 'How come you 17 Members, whatever may be the majority among you one way or the other, of one inclination or the other, to decide, perhaps on the Address upon a Queen's Speech, what form of government there shall be in the United Kingdom, when the subjects on which the election was conducted in Great Britain were very largely not the subjects on which the election was conducted in your own part of the United Kingdom?'."— [Official Report, 27 May 1982; Vol. 24, c. 1147.]
      I see the force of that point, but I fail to see why it has any less force whether the Bill is on the statute book or not. Elections in Northern Ireland are always decided on matters that are substantially different from those that decide the election in the rest of the United Kingdom. The logical solution to the conundrum posed by the right hon. Gentleman is that Northern Ireland Members should not be allowed to have any part in the Assembly.
      Mr. Budgen: That is what the Secretary of State wants.
      Mr. Lyell: We know that that is not what the Secretary of State wants.
      Further, the right hon. Member for Down, South picked up from my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) the suggestion that his argument was reinforced by the French system in Martinique and the concept of metropolitan France going far beyond the seas.

      251
      if that were the fatal flaw to the Bill that it is claimed to be, one must wonder how the French Government can exist.
      The election in Martinique, which has no local government electorate—I have checked on that—is likely to be decided on issues that are personal to Martinique, but the island's representatives could hold the balance in the French Parliament. If the West Lothian question were the fatal flaw that it is claimed to be by those who do not give it careful thought, one must ask why the French Government do not collapse.
      Mr. John Gorst: Is not my hon. and learned Friend making a mistake in assuming that electors in all constituencies vote for their representatives only on the basis of national issues? Sometimes personalities count for something—perhaps not much, but quite a lot in some places and even more in remote places. In addition, local factors are the reason why some people are sent to Westminster. Surely he cannot take this line of argument because in Martinique and Guadeloupe there will be local issues, even if Mitterrand's face or Giscard d'Estaing's face appears on the posters during the general election campaigns. I do not think that my hon. and learned Friend has made his point with this argument.
      Mr. Lyell: I apologise for failing to get the point across to my hon. Friend. I fully understand what he says. It is not I who have set up a West Lothian question or a West Falklands question or any other question under a soubriquet as a fatal flaw to the Bill. I agree that election issues cover a great diversity of matters and that they do not provide fatal flaws to the working of democracy. The simple point I make is that the West Lothian issue does not provide a fatal flaw to the Bill.
      We are dealing with a matter of the most profound difficulty for the nation—a Province that is torn for reasons of history that we all understand, more or less, and which many in the Chamber understand in detail better than I. We are seeking to find what has to be admitted to be an unusual and unique solution to an unusual and unique difficulty. We are right to make the search. The way that the matter is being approached by a diversity of interests properly represented here gives reason for hope, rather than reason for despair, that it might carry us through to an improvement in the Province.
      Nobody should be over-optimistic. I know that the Secretary of State is not over-optimistic, but I am happy to go along with him for those reasons and I wish the Bill well.
      Mr. Prior: Several points have arisen in the debate this afternoon. When I spoke some time ago I tried to deal with some of the points which arose last night.
      The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised with me a point about amendment No. 19. I have been looking into this matter. I said that I would consider it between now and Report. I have taken further advice on the way that clause 1(4) operates. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that it would be sensible if, in rolling devolution, it was possible to have separate proposals for each Department. I argued that one might want to put them all together as a package because a package might laboriously have been sewn together.
      I am told that the wording of clause 1(4), when it talks about "the proposals", enables the proposals to be put
      252
      either separately or together. As the Bill permits the Assembly to adopt either course and therefore to recommend either course to Parliament, the point that amendment No. 19 was seeking to cover is already covered by the Bill. I do not think that there is anything between us now on this matter. Therefore, there is no need for further consideration to be given to it.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I have followed the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I am not sure whether we may not have to return to it on clause 2. The question involved in some of the amendments of the official Opposition is as to whether it should be possible for the orders to be made separately for each devolved Department. Unless they are, the considerations, the application of which has given such grave, if not mortal, offence to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), cannot be applied to them.
      Mr. Prior: Perhaps we might leave this matter until we come to clause 2. There are several amendments on this matter. It is a question of whether we want to have a separate order on each. We will listen to the arguments that are adduced at that time.
      I suggest to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that there must have been some misunderstanding. I have looked again at the notes on clause 1. Paragraph 10, on subsection (4), says:
      "The figure of 70 per cent. should ensure that any devolution proposals are acceptable to representatives of both sides of the community. Should 70 per cent. support be achieved without the support of the minority, the proposals would still have to secure the approval of Parliament before a devolution Order could be made under Clause 2."
      I remind the hon. Gentleman of an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown) in my speech on Second Reading:
      "Can my right hon. Friend confirm that it is possible that the House might not agree to a proposal, even though it has the 70 per cent. approval of the Assembly? Can my right hon. Friend envisage such circumstances occurring and what a possible subject might be?"
      I answered:
      "That would be a matter for the House. The figure of 70 per cent. was struck because it should, under normal circumstances, ensure that there is cross-community support. All that it actually does is to ensure that there is a discussion by the House. It does no more nor less than that. I must make it absolutely clear that the House is not likely to grant a transfer of powers unless it is satisfied that there is cross-community support, otherwise there will not be the political stability that we are aiming to achieve."—[Official Report, 10 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 476.]
      I thought that I had made it clear there. Paragraph (vi) of part 6 of the White Paper also makes it clear.
      The hon. Gentleman also asked me what "cross-community support" meant. That is something that the House will have to decide from its soundings and from the attitude of the Assembly towards it. Naturally, the Government in making up their mind would have to have regard to the nature of the support for the proposals in the Assembly. The Assembly will be the primary means of articulating the views of the people of Northern Ireland.
      Given the nature of Northern Ireland politics, it is a fact that most of the parties draw the bulk of their support from one side of the community or the other. It will thus be possible to make an assessment, difficult as this may be, as to whether the devolution proposals enjoy substantial support from elected representatives drawn from both sides of the community. I must emphasise that what really matters is whether there is sufficient support from both

      253
      sides of the community for any devolution scheme to be viable. That would be the issue on which Parliament would have to make a judgment.
      My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Lyell) made an outstanding speech. I am glad in some ways that we have not had too many supportive speeches, because that would have taken too long, but it is nice to have one occasionally.
      We have had an important series of debates. I hope that my hon. Friends will do me the credit of believing in this measure as being in the interests of Northern Ireland. No one doubts that there are great difficulties. One has only to listen to the hon. Member for Antrim, North and to the right hon. Member for Down, South to know how easy it is to create and to express the difficulties that there are. We have more to do than that.
      Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members acknowledge his good intentions in that this is, in his view, in the best interests of Northern Ireland? Does he also accept that many of his hon. Friends honourably believe that it is not in the interests of Northern Ireland?
      7 pm
      Mr. Prior: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that view. However, I have already made that clear.
      In the interests of what I hope will be reasonable debate, I trust that we shall try to make a little more progress than we have, because I do not think that we are getting on fast enough. I know that there is a lot to do, but we have been sitting for long hours—
      Mr. Budgen: My right hon. Friend has dealt with the Committee very fairly in this extremely important debate, and he has disposed of all the issues very well, but I remind him that he is now on his second speech and that in his first speech he spoke for 52 minutes. No criticism is made of that, because it is plain that this matter has to be debated fully and properly.
      Mr. Prior: All that I can say to my hon. Friend is "Come off it".
      Rev. Ian Paisley: I am under no illusion about the need for this proposal to come to the House. It must come to the House, and we all know it. There is no misunderstanding about it. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that he intends to write an amendment into the Bill which will tie the House of Commons in that any 70 per cent. proposal must have cross-community support, although he has not decided what cross-community support is and he says that it will be a matter for the House. Despite that, the amendment will tie the House to that issue. I read all that he said with great care. I understand exactly what he said.
      However, I hope that he will apply himself to one matter. What is the use of this 70 per cent. mechanism if it is the same as 50 per cent. plus one with cross-community support? We do not need it at all. However, the Unionists and the people I support took it as being in line with what we were told by the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends, which was that this was an opportunity for them to do something along lines which would be useful to their constituents.
      Mr. Prior: I make two comments in reply to the hon. Gentleman. The first is that he had better wait and see what the amendment is. It will seek merely to confirm what we
      254
      have said all along, but will substantiate it perhaps it a rather more satisfactory manner, and certainly it will have to be debated on Report. I suggest that he waits for that amendment.
      Secondly, I believe that the 70 per cent. has value. It is a target at which to aim. Provided that it can be reached and provided it has that cross-community support, I think that it ensures that the debate upon it must take place in the House. That has value, too.
      We have had an interesting debate generally. I hope that we can make progress—
      Mr. William Ross: I heard the Secretary of State say just now that 70 per cent. was the target at which to aim. Will he concede that from the other side of the question the opposition has to aim at only 31 per cent.?
      Mr. Prior: Yes. There are infinite ways in which a Northern Ireland Assembly can cease to make progress if it wishes to do so. In the light of what we have been trying to suggest, there an overpowering need for the House and the Committee to seek to produce some political initiative for the Province which will enable the people to play a greater part in the political responsibilities for their own affairs. On that basis, I ask the Committee to be generous and to recognise what we have said about certain of the amendments and the reasons why we cannot accept them, but not to go to the extent of dividing the Committee.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
      Question put, That the Question be now put:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 168, Noes 23.

      Division No. 185]

      [7.5 pm

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Crouch,David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Dorrell,Stephen

      Alton,David

      Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

      Arnold,Tom

      Dunn, James A.

      Aspinwall,Jack

      Eggar,Tim

      Banks, Robert

      Elliott,SirWilliam

      Beith, A. J.

      Eyre,Reginald

      Benyon,Thomas(A'don)

      Fairgrieve,SirRussell

      Benyon, W.(Buckingham)

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Best, Keith

      Forman,Nigel

      Blackburn,John

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Blaker,Peter

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Goodlad,Alastair

      Boyson,Dr Rhodes

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Braine,SirBernard

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Bright,Graham

      Greenway, Harry

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Brotherton,Michael

      Hamilton,Michael(Salisbury)

      Bulmer,Esmond

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Butcher,John

      Hawkins,Paul

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Hawksley,Warren

      Cadbury,Jocelyn

      Henderson,Barry

      Campbell-Savours,Dale

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Carlisle, John (LutonWest)

      Hogg, HonDouglas (Gr'th'm)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

      Hooson,Tom

      Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Horam,John

      Cockeram,Eric

      Hordern,Peter

      Colvin,Michael

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Cope,John

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Howells,Geraint

      255

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Irvine, BryantGodman

      Ridsdale, SirJulian

      Jessel, Toby

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Kaberry, SirDonald

      Roper, John

      Lang, Ian

      Rost, Peter

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Royle, SirAnthony

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Loveridge, John

      Sandelson, Neville

      Luce, Richard

      Scott, Nicholas

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      MacGregor, John

      Shersby, Michael

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Silvester, Fred

      McNally, Thomas

      Sims, Roger

      Magee, Bryan

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Major, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Speed, Keith

      Mather, Carol

      Speller, Tony

      Mawby, Ray

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Mawhinney, DrBrian

      Steen, Anthony

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Stevens, Martin

      Mellor, David

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Meyer, SirAnthony

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)

      Thompson, Donald

      Moate, Roger

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Trippier, David

      Morgan, Geraint

      Trotter, Neville

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Myles, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Neale, Gerrard

      Waddington, David

      Needham, Richard

      Wall, SirPatrick

      Nelson, Anthony

      Waller, Gary

      Newton, Tony

      Warren, Kenneth

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Weetch, Ken

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wells, Bowen

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Wheeler, John

      Pawsey, James

      Whitney, Raymond

      Penhaligon, David

      Wickenden, Keith

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Pollock, Alexander

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rathbone, Tim

      Mr, David Hunt and

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 23, Noes 233.

      Division No. 185]

      [7.5 pm

      AYES

      Alexander, Richard

      Crouch,David

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Dorrell,Stephen

      Alton,David

      Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

      Arnold,Tom

      Dunn, James A.

      Aspinwall,Jack

      Eggar,Tim

      Banks, Robert

      Elliott,SirWilliam

      Beith, A. J.

      Eyre,Reginald

      Benyon,Thomas(A'don)

      Fairgrieve,SirRussell

      Benyon, W.(Buckingham)

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Best, Keith

      Forman,Nigel

      Blackburn,John

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Blaker,Peter

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Goodlad,Alastair

      Boyson,Dr Rhodes

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Braine,SirBernard

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Bright,Graham

      Greenway, Harry

      Brittan, Rt. Hon. Leon

      Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Brotherton,Michael

      Hamilton,Michael(Salisbury)

      Bulmer,Esmond

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Butcher,John

      Hawkins,Paul

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Hawksley,Warren

      Cadbury,Jocelyn

      Henderson,Barry

      Campbell-Savours,Dale

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Carlisle, John (LutonWest)

      Hogg, HonDouglas (Gr'th'm)

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

      Hooson,Tom

      Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Horam,John

      Cockeram,Eric

      Hordern,Peter

      Colvin,Michael

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Cope,John

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Howells,Geraint

      255

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Irvine, BryantGodman

      Ridsdale, SirJulian

      Jessel, Toby

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Kaberry, SirDonald

      Roper, John

      Lang, Ian

      Rost, Peter

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Royle, SirAnthony

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Loveridge, John

      Sandelson, Neville

      Luce, Richard

      Scott, Nicholas

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      MacGregor, John

      Shersby, Michael

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Silvester, Fred

      McNally, Thomas

      Sims, Roger

      Magee, Bryan

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Major, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Speed, Keith

      Mather, Carol

      Speller, Tony

      Mawby, Ray

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Mawhinney, DrBrian

      Steen, Anthony

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Stevens, Martin

      Mellor, David

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Meyer, SirAnthony

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Tapsell, Peter

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)

      Thompson, Donald

      Moate, Roger

      Townend, John (Bridlington)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Trippier, David

      Morgan, Geraint

      Trotter, Neville

      Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Myles, David

      Viggers, Peter

      Neale, Gerrard

      Waddington, David

      Needham, Richard

      Wall, SirPatrick

      Nelson, Anthony

      Waller, Gary

      Newton, Tony

      Warren, Kenneth

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Weetch, Ken

      Onslow, Cranley

      Wells, Bowen

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Wheeler, John

      Pawsey, James

      Whitney, Raymond

      Penhaligon, David

      Wickenden, Keith

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Wiggin, Jerry

      Pollock, Alexander

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Rathbone, Tim

      Mr, David Hunt and

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

      NOES

      Biggs-Davison, SirJohn

      McQuade, John

      Body, Richard

      Molyneaux, James

      Brown, Michael (Brigg&Sc'n)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Budgen, Nick

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

      Dunlop, John

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Farr, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Goodhart, SirPhilip

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Gorst, John

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Knight, MrsJill

      Mr. William Ross and

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

      McCusker, H.

      Division No. 186]

      [7.15 pm

      AYES

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Colvin, Michael

      Biggs-Davison, SirJohn

      Dunlop, John

      Body, Richard

      Fairgrieve, SirRussell

      Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

      Farr, John

      256

      Goodhart, SirPhilip

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Gorst, John

      Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Knight, MrsJill

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Winterton, Nicholas

      McCusker, H.

      McQuade, John

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Molyneaux, James

      Mr. William Ross and

      Morgan, Geraint

      Mr K. Harvey Proctor.

      Murphy, Christopher

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Allaun, Frank

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Alton, David

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Arnold, Tom

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Greenway, Harry

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Griffiths, E. (B'ySt. Edm'ds)

      Banks, Robert

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Beith, A. J.

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Bennett, Andrew (St'kp'tN)

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hampson, DrKeith

      Best, Keith

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Hawkins, Paul

      Bidwell, Sydney

      Hawksley, Warren

      Blackburn, John

      Haynes, Frank

      Blaker, Peter

      Henderson, Barry

      Booth, Rt Hon Albert

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Holland, S.(L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

      Braine, SirBernard

      Home Robertson, John

      Bright, Graham

      Homewood, William

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Hooson, Tom

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Horam, John

      Brotherton, Michael

      Hordern, Peter

      Buchan, Norman

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Buck, Antony

      Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)

      Bulmer, Esmond

      Howells, Geraint

      Butcher, John

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

      Irvine, Bryant Godman

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Jessel, Toby

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      John,Brynmor

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

      Cockeram, Eric

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

      Kaberry, SirDonald

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Kerr, Russell

      Cope, John

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Lang, Ian

      Crouch, David

      Leighton, Ronald

      Crowther, Stan

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Cunliffe, Lawrence

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Loveridge, John

      Dewar, Donald

      Luce, Richard

      Dormand, Jack

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

      McCartney, Hugh

      Dubs, Alfred

      McDonald, DrOonagh

      Dunn, James A.

      McElhone, Frank

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      MacGregor, John

      Eggar, Tim

      McGuire, Michael (Ince)

      Elliott, SirWilliam

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Maclennan, Robert

      Evans, John (Newton)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Ewing, Harry

      Magee, Bryan

      Eyre, Reginald

      Major, John

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Marks, Kenneth

      Field, Frank

      Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)

      Fisher, SirNigel

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Forman, Nigel

      Mather, Carol

      Foster, Derek

      Mawby, Ray

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Mawhinney, DrBrian

      257

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Maynard, MissJoan

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Mellor, David

      Silverman, Julius

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Silvester,Fred

      Millan,Rt Hon Bruce

      Sims, Roger

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Mills, Peter (WestDevon)

      Skinner,Dennis

      Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

      Smith,Tim(Beaconsfield)

      Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)

      Soley,Clive

      Moate, Roger

      Spearing,Nigel

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Speed, Keith

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Spriggs,Leslie

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Morton,George

      Stevens,Martin

      Myles, David

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Neale,Gerrard

      Stoddart, David

      Needham, Richard

      Stradling Thomas,J.

      Nelson,Anthony

      Tapsell, Peter

      Newton,Tony

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      O'Halloran,Michael

      Thomas, DrR.(Carmarthen)

      Onslow,Cranley

      Thompson,Donald

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Townend,John(Bridlington)

      Palmer,Arthur

      Trippier,David

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Trotter,Neville

      Penhaligon, David

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Percival, Sir Ian

      Viggers,Peter

      Pollock,Alexander

      Waddington, David

      Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

      Wainwright,E.(Dearne V)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Wall, SirPatrick

      Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

      Waller, Gary

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Watkins, David

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Weetch,Ken

      Rathbone,Tim

      Wells,Bowen

      RhodesJames, Robert

      Welsh,Michael

      Rhys Williams,SirBrandon

      Wheeler,John

      Ridsdale,SirJulian

      Whitney,Raymond

      Rifkind,Malcolm

      Wickenden, Keith

      Roberts,Albert(Normanton)

      Wiggin,Jerry

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Wigley,Dafydd

      Robertson,George

      Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Williams,D.(Montgomery)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Winnick, David

      Roper,John

      Wolfson,Mark

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Woodall,Alec

      Sainsbury,HonTimothy

      Woolmer,Kenneth

      Sandelson, Neville

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Scott,Nicholas

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Mr, David Hunt and

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

      Shersby,Michael

      Question accordingly negatived.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: We now come to the other amendments in the group on which Divisions can take place if requested.
      Mr. Concannon: In view of what the Secretary of State has said in response to our representations, I am prepared to wait until Report. I shall not move amendment No. 17.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 2, line 13, leave out paragraph (a)'.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 161.

      Division No. 187]

      [7.30 pm

      AYES

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Body,Richard

      McCusker,H.

      Brown,Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

      McQuade,John

      Budgen,Nick

      Molyneaux,James

      Dunlop,John

      Morgan,Geraint

      Farr,John

      Murphy,Christopher

      Goodhart,SirPhilip

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Gorst,John

      Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

      258

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Mr. William Ross and

      Winterton,Nicholas

      Mr. K. Harvey Proctor

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Jessel, Toby

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

      Alton,David

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Arnold,Tom

      Kaberry,SirDonald

      Aspinwall,Jack

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Lang, Ian

      Banks,Robert

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Beith, A. J.

      Lewis,Kenneth(Rutland)

      BenyonJhomas(A'don)

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Benyon,W. (Buckingham)

      Loveridge,John

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Luce,Richard

      Best, Keith

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Bevan,David Gilroy

      MacGregor,John

      Bidwell, Sydney

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Blackburn,John

      Magee, Bryan

      Blaker, Peter

      Major,John

      Boscawen,HonRobert

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)

      Mather,Carol

      Boyson,Dr Rhodes

      Mawby, Ray

      Braine,SirBemard

      Mawhinney,DrBrian

      Bright,Graham

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Brocklebank-Fowler,C.

      Mellor,David

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Meyer,Sir Anthony

      Brotherton,Michael

      Mills,Iain(Meriden)

      Buck,Antony

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Bulmer,Esmond

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Butcher,John

      Moate,Roger

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Cadbury,Jocelyn

      Myles, David

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Neale,Gerrard

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Needham, Richard

      Cockeram,Eric

      Nelson,Anthony

      Colvin, Michael

      Newton,Tony

      Cope,John

      O'Halloran,Michael

      Crawshaw,Richard

      Onslow,Cranley

      Crouch,David

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Dorrell,Stephen

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.

      Penhaligon,David

      Dunn, James A.

      Percival,Sir Ian

      Eggar,Tim

      Pollock,Alexander

      Elliott,SirWilliam

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Eyre,Reginald

      Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

      Fairgrieve, Sir Russell

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Fisher,Sir Nigel

      Rathbone,Tim

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      RhodesJames, Robert

      Forman, Nigel

      Ridsdale,SirJulian

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Rifkind,Malcolm

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Garel-Jones,Tristan

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Goodlad,Alastair

      Roper,John

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Sainsbury,Hon Timothy

      Greenway, Harry

      Sandelson,Neville

      Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)

      Scott,Nicholas

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Grimond,Rt Hon J.

      Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Shersby, Michael

      Hamilton, Michael(Salisbury)

      Silvester,Fred

      Hampson,Dr Keith

      Sims, Roger

      Hawkins, Paul

      Skinner,Dennis

      Hawksley,Warren

      Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)

      Henderson,Barry

      Speed, Keith

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

      Stevens,Martin

      Holland,Philip(Carlton)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Hooson,Tom

      StradlingThomas,J.

      Horam,John

      Tapsell, Peter

      Hordern, Peter

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Thompson,Donald

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

      Townend,John(Bridlington)

      Howells,Geraint

      Trippier,David

      Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

      Trotter,Neville

      Irvine, BryantGodman

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      259

      Viggers, Peter

      Wiggin,Jerry

      Waddington, David

      Wigley,Dafydd

      Wall,SirPatrick

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Waller, Gary

      Wolfson,Mark

      Wells,Bowen

      Wells,John(Maidstone)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wheeler,John

      Mr. David Hunt and

      Whitney, Raymond

      Mr. Selwyn Gummer.

      Wickenden, Keith

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 20, in page 2, line 14, after 'Assembly', insert
      'who have taken their seats and voted on the proposals'.—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 214.

      Division No. 188]

      [7.40 pm

      AYES

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Molyneaux,James

      Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

      Morgan, Geraint

      Body,Richard

      Murphy,Christopher

      Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Budgen,Nick

      Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

      Dunlop,John

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Farr,John

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Goodhart,SirPhilip

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Gorst,John

      Kilfedder,James A.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Mr. William Ross and

      McCusker,H.

      Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

      McQuade,John

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Dubs,Alfred

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Dunn, James A.

      Alton,David

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Arnold,Tom

      Eggar,Tim

      Aspinwall,Jack

      Elliott,SirWilliam

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Ellis, R.(NE D'bysh're)

      Banks,Robert

      Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

      Beith, A. J.

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)

      Eyre,Reginald

      Benyon ,Thomas (A'don)

      Fairgrieve,SirRussell

      Benyon,W. (Buckingham)

      Faith, MrsSheila

      Best, Keith

      Field, Frank

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Blackburn,John

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Blaker,Peter

      Forman, Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Forrester,John

      Boyson,Dr Rhodes

      Foster, Derek

      Braine,SirBernard

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Bright,Graham

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Brotherton,Michael

      Garel-Jones,Tristan

      Buchan,Norman

      Goodlad,Alastair

      Buck,Antony

      Gower, Sir Raymond

      Bulmer,Esmond

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Butcher,John

      Greenway, Harry

      Butler, Hon Adam

      Griffiths, E.(B'ySt.Edm'ds)

      Cadbury,Jocelyn

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'th N)

      Callaghan,Jim (Midd't'n & P)

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Campbell-Savours,Dale

      Gummer, JohnSelwyn

      Carlisle,Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Clarke,Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

      Hamilton,Michael (Salisbury)

      Cockeram,Eric

      Hampson,Dr Keith

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Colvin, Michael

      Hawkins,Paul

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Hawksley,Warren

      Cope,John

      Haynes, Frank

      Crawshaw,Richard

      Henderson,Barry

      Crouch,David

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Crowther,Stan

      Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

      Holland,Philip(Carlton)

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Holland,S.(L'b'th,Vauxh'll)

      Dewar,Donald

      HomeRobertson,John

      Dormand,Jack

      Homewood,William

      Dorrell,Stephen

      Hooson,Tom

      Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.

      Horam,John

      260

      Hordern,Peter

      Raison,Rt Hon Timothy

      Howell,Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)

      Rathbone,Tim

      Howells,Geraint

      RhodesJames, Robert

      Hoyle, Douglas

      Ridsdale,SirJulian

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Rifkind,Malcolm

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Roberts,Albert (Normanton)

      Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Irvine, BryantGodman

      Robertson,George

      Jessel,Toby

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      John,Brynmor

      Roper,John

      JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Jopling,Rt Hon Michael

      Sainsbury,Hon Timothy

      Kaberry,Sir Donald

      Sandelson, Neville

      Kerr, Russell

      Scott,Nicholas

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Lang, Ian

      Shaw,Michael(Scarborough)

      Leighton, Ronald

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Shersby, Michael

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Loveridge,John

      Silverman,Julius

      Luce,Richard

      Silvester, Fred

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      McDonald,DrOonagh

      Skinner,Dennis

      MacGregor,John

      Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)

      McGuire,Michael(Ince)

      Soley,Clive

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Spearing,Nigel

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Speed, Keith

      McNamara, Kevin

      Spriggs,Leslie

      Magee, Bryan

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Major,John

      Stevens,Martin

      Marks,Kenneth

      Stewart,Ian(Hitchin)

      Marshall, D(G'gowS'ton)

      Stoddart,David

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      StradlingThomas,J.

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Tapsell, Peter

      Mather,Carol

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Mawby, Ray

      Thompson, Donald

      Mawhinney,DrBrian

      Townend,John(Bridlington)

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Trippier,David

      Mellor,David

      Trotter,Neville

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Millan,Rt Hon Bruce

      Viggers,Peter

      Mills,Iain(Meriden)

      Waddington, David

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Wall,SirPatrick

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Waller, Gary

      Moate, Roger

      Ward,John

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Watkins,David

      Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

      Weetch,Ken

      Morton,George

      Wells,Bowen

      Myles, David

      Wells, John(Maidstone)

      Neale,Gerrard

      Welsh,Michael

      Needham, Richard

      Whitney, Raymond

      Nelson,Anthony

      Wickenden,Keith

      Newton,Tony

      Wiggin,Jerry

      O'Halloran,Michael

      Wigley,Dafydd

      Onslow,Cranley

      Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Williams, D.(Montgomery)

      Palmer,Arthur

      Winnick,David

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Wolfson,Mark

      Penhaligon,David

      Woolmer,Kenneth

      Percival,Sir Ian

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Pollock,Alexander

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

      Mr. Robert Boscawen and

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Mr. Peter Brooke.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 24, in page 2, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 20, Noes 208.

      Division No. 189]

      [7.55 pm

      AYES

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Brown,Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

      Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

      Dunlop,John

      Body,Richard

      Farr,John

      261

      Goodhart,SirPhilip

      Paisley, Rev Ian

      Gorst,John

      Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Lawrence,Ivan

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      McCusker,H.

      Winterton,Nicholas

      McQuade,John

      Molyneaux,James

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Morgan, Geraint

      Mr. William Ross and

      Murphy,Christopher

      Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

      NOES

      Alexander, Richard

      Gummer,John Selwyn

      Alison, Rt Hon Michael

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Alton,David

      Hamilton,James(Bothwell)

      Arnold,Tom

      Hamilton,Michael (Salisbury)

      Aspinwall,Jack

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)

      Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

      Banks,Robert

      Hawkins,Paul

      Beith,A.J.

      Hawksley,Warren

      Bennett,Andrew (St'kp'tN)

      Haynes, Frank

      Benyon,Thomas (A'don)

      Henderson, Barry

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

      Best, Keith

      Hogg, HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

      Bevan,David Gilroy

      Holland, Philip(Carlton)

      Blackburn,John

      Holland,S. (L'b'th, Vauxh'll)

      Blaker,Peter

      HomeRobertson,John

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Homewood,William

      Boyson,Dr Rhodes

      Hooson,Tom

      Braine,SirBernard

      Horam,John

      Bright,Graham

      Hordern, Peter

      Brotherton,Michael

      Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldf'd)

      Buchan,Norman

      Howells,Geraint

      Buck,Antony

      Hoyle,Douglas

      Bulmer,Esmond

      Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

      Butcher,John

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Butler,HonAdam

      Hunt,John (Ravensbourne)

      Cadbury,Jocelyn

      Irvine, BryantGodman

      Callaghan, Jim (Midd't'n & P)

      Jessel, Toby

      Campbell-Savours,Dale

      JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Jopling,Rt Hon Michael

      Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Kaberry,SirDonald

      Cockeram, Eric

      King, Rt Hon Tom

      Cocks, Rt Hon M. (B'stol S)

      Lang, Ian

      Colvin, Michael

      Leighton,Ronald

      Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Cope,John

      Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

      Crawshaw,Richard

      Lloyd, Ian (Havant & W'loo)

      Crouch,David

      Loveridge,John

      Davis, Terry (B'ham, Stechf'd)

      Luce,Richard

      Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Dormand,Jack

      McDonald, DrOonagh

      Dorrell,Stephen

      MacGregor,John

      Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

      McKay, Allen (Penistone)

      Dover,Denshore

      MacKay, John (Argyll)

      Dubs,Alfred

      Maclennan, Robert

      Dunn, James A.

      McNamara, Kevin

      Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

      Magee, Bryan

      Eggar,Tim

      Major,John

      Elliott,SirWilliam

      Marks, Kenneth

      Ellis, R. (NE D'bysh're)

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Evans, John (Newton)

      Mason, Rt Hon Roy

      Eyre,Reginald

      Mather,Carol

      Fairgrieve,SirRussell

      Mawby, Ray

      Faith, Mrs Sheila

      Mawhinney,DrBrian

      Field, Frank

      Mayhew, Patrick

      Fisher,Sir Nigel

      Mellor,David

      Fookes, MissJanet

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Forman, Nigel

      Millan,Rt Hon Bruce

      Forrester,John

      Mills,Iain (Meriden)

      Foster, Derek

      Mills, Peter (West Devon)

      Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Moate, Roger

      Garel-Jones,Tristan

      Morris, Rt Hon C. (O'shaw)

      Goodlad,Alastair

      Morris, Rt HonJ. (Aberavon)

      Gower,SirRaymond

      Morton,George

      Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

      Myles, David

      Greenway, Harry

      Neale,Gerrard

      Griffiths, E.(B'ySt.Edm'ds)

      Needham,Richard

      Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

      Nelson,Anthony

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Newton, Tony

      262

      Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

      Spearing,Nigel

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Speed, Keith

      Onslow,Cranley

      Spriggs, Leslie

      Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

      Stevens, Martin

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

      Palmer,Arthur

      Stoddart, David

      Patten, John(Oxford)

      StradlingThomas,J.

      Penhaligon, David

      Tapsell, Peter

      Percival,Sir Ian

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Pollock,Alexander

      Thomas, Dr R.(Carmarthen)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Thompson,Donald

      Price,SirDavid (Eastleigh)

      Trippier,David

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Trotter,Neville

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Rathbone,Tim

      Viggers, Peter

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Waddington, David

      Ridsdale,SirJulian

      Wall,SirPatrick

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Waller, Gary

      Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

      Ward,John

      Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

      Watkins,David

      Roper,John

      Weetch, Ken

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Wells,Bowen

      Sainsbury,Hon Timothy

      Wells,John(Maidstone)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Welsh,Michael

      Scott,Nicholas

      Wheeler,John

      Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

      Whitney, Raymond

      Shaw,Michael(Scarborough)

      Wickenden,Keith

      Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

      Wiggin,Jerry

      Shersby,Michael

      Williams, Rt Hon A.(S'sea W)

      Shore, Rt Hon Peter

      Williams,D. (Montgomery)

      Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

      Winnick,David

      Silverman,Julius

      Wolfson,Mark

      Silvester, Fred

      Young, David (Bolton E)

      Skeet, T. H. H.

      Skinner,Dennis

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Tim(Beaconsfield)

      Mr, Robert Boscawen and

      Soley, Clive

      Mr, Peter Brooke.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. May I seek your guidance on the validity of the Division that has just taken place? I understand that a Minister was locked in the Lobby. I believe that for some reason he was unable to get out. I wonder whether 20 or 21 should have been the vote for the Ayes.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman or the right hon. Gentleman concerned did not pass the Tellers, he cannot have been counted.
      Mr. Proctor: Further to that point of order, Mr. Dean. I can confirm that he Minister in question did not come out of the Division Lobby.
      Mr. Farr: I beg to move amendment No. 101, in page 2, line 19, at end insert—
      (4A) A referendum shall be held of the electors of Northern Ireland on any proposals under this section which have been submitted by the Assembly, and the Secretary of State shall not lay before Parliament any such proposals which have not been approved by a majority of the electors.'
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take the following:
      Amendment No. 102, in page 2, line 21, at end insert
      'which have been approved by a majority of the electors of Northern Ireland in a referendum as provided in subsection (4A) above'.
      Amendment No. 26, in page 2, line 21, at end add—
      "(6) Before laying before Parliament any proposals submitted to him under this section the Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll or polls for the purpose of obtaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland on any matter contained in or arising out of such proposals or otherwise concerned with the future Government of Northern Ireland.'.
      New clause 11—Referendum (No. 1).

      263
      ' .—(1) A refendum shall be held in accordance with Schedule [Referendum] to this Act on the question whether effect is to be given to the provisions of this Act.
      (2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that less than 40 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted "Yes" in reply to the question posed in the Appendix to Schedule [Referendum] to this Act or that a majority of the answers given in the referendum have been "No" he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this Act.
      (3) If a draft laid before Parliament under this section is approved by a resolution of each House, Her Majesty in Council may make an Order in the terms of the draft.'.
      New clause 12—Referendum (No. 2)
      ' .—(1) A referendum shall be held in accordance with Schedule [Referendum] to this Act on the question whether effect is to be given to the provisions of this Act.
      (2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that a majority of the answers given in the answers given in the referendum have been "No" in reply to the question posed in the Appendix to Schedule [Referendum] to this Act he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this Act.
      (3) If a draft laid before Parliament under this section is approved by a resolution of each House, Her Majesty in Council may make an Order in the terms of the draft.'.
      Amendment No. 65—

    New Schedule

      REFERENDUM
      Date of Referendum
      1. The referendum shall be held on such day, not less than six weeks after the making of the Order, as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint.
      Persons Eligible to Vote
      2. Those entitled to vote in the referendum shall be—

      (a) the persons who, at the date of the referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency in Northern Ireland; and

      (b) peers who at that date would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in any electoral area in Northern Ireland.

      Questions to be asked and form of ballot paper
      3. The question to be asked in the referendum and the front of the ballot paper to be used for that purpose shall be in the form set out in the Appendix to this Schedule.
      Conduct of Referendum
      4. Subject to the following provisions of this Schedule, Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision as to the conduct of the referendum and apply in relation to it, with such modifications or exceptions as may be specified in the Order, any provision of the Representation of the People Acts, any provision of the enactments relating to returning officers and any provision made under any enactment.
      5. An Order in Council under this Schedule shall not charge any sum on the Consolidated Fund but may provide for the expenses of the returning officers to be defrayed as administrative expenses of the Secretary of State.
      6. The functions which, in relation to a parliamentary election, are conferred on returning officers by any provision applied by an Order in Council under this Schedule shall in relation to the referendum be discharged by the persons who may discharge the functions of returning officers, at elections of councillors for district councils.
      7. The Secretary of State shall appoint a Chief Counting Officer, who shall appoint a counting officer for each constituency; and each counting officer shall conduct the counting of votes cast in the area for which he is appointed in accordance with any directions given to him by the Chief Counting Officer.
      8. The counting officer for each area shall certify the number of ballot papers counted by him and the number of respective answers given by valid votes; and the Chief Counting Officer shall certify the total of the ballot papers and the respective answers for the whole of Northern Ireland.
      Exclusion of legal proceedings
      9. No court shall entertain any proceedings for questioning the numbers, as certified by the Chief Counting Officer or any counting officer, of any ballot papers counted or answers given in the referendum.
      Orders in Council
      10. No recommendation shall be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order under this Schedule until a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
      APPENDIX FORM OF BALLOT PAPER
      Parliament has decided to consult the electorate in Northern Ireland on the question whether the Northern Ireland Act 1982 should be put into effect.
      DO YOU WANT THE PROVISIONS OF THE NORTHERN IRELAND ACT 1982 TO BE PUT INTO EFFECT?
      Put a cross (X) in the appropriate box.

      YES

      NO

      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I hope that I am not anticipating anything that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) may say, but I wonder whether you would assent to the wish of the Committee, if it were expressed to you, that there should be a separate Division upon amendments Nos. 101 and 26 and on the two new clauses. You will have observed that, although the term "referendum" is common to all, they are referendums taken in essentially different circumstances, to which, consequently, different arguments might apply. An hon. Member might wish to vote differently on any one of them.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I shall consider the right hon. Gentleman's request.
      Mr. Farr: Much of the time that we have spent on the debate so far, and may spend in the future, could have been avoided if there had been a greater period between the publication of the White Paper and the printing of the Bill. In the previous debate, to which most hon. Members present listened to with fascination, an interesting and excellent point was put to the House by hon. Members from both sides of the Committee. I cannot help feeling that if only there had been the normal pause of at least a few months between the publication of the White Paper in April and the printing and publication of the White Paper in April and the printing and introduction of the Bill in the same month, much of this confusion could have been avoided.
      All hon. Members are anxious to do what they can to get this matter right. I think that we all feel that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, although he is passionately interested in the welfare of Northern Ireland in this respect, has been his own worst enemy by rushing into this problem. As a result, he has not given the necessary and normal amount of time for consultation between the different parties that is so important in any new legislation, and even more so in Northern Ireland. It is because of this lack of proper consultation that the Committee has to deal with many matters that could probably have been dealt with by delegation and correspondence in the usual way during the normal lengthy period of discussion for a White Paper.
      I believe, although I do not know whether my hon. Friends agree with me, that the White Paper that is the

      265
      basis of the Bill is one of the most important White Papers that the Government have produced. Yet we are rushing into legislation in the month that the White Paper was published.
      One can compare this strange rush with the circumstances of the White Paper introduced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment relating to the new training initiative. The White Paper was published in December 1981, six months ago, and the Secretary of State is nowhere near the stage of publishing a Bill to bring it into effect. That is quite proper because consultations are taking place, and the White Paper is still being considered. There is a large sum of money involved and it is not likely that we shall proceed with legislation to put the White Paper into effect until later this year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment clearly said in December that it was his intention to bring the new training initiatives into effect from the autumn of 1983.
      8.15 pm
      I wish to stress this point before I proceed to the nitty-gritty of my amendments by comparing the Northern Ireland Bill, that is being rushed through this week and next week, with the Green Paper on rate reform. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment produced a Green Paper on rating reform, with a whole series of ideas to put into effect the Conservative election pledge of 1974. We could not carry the pledge out in 1974 but we hope to carry it out soon. The Green Paper was introduced nine months ago. Since then the Secretary of State has had extensive and detailed consultation throughout the country. However, I should not like to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland should emulate what has been done by our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
      I cannot think of a right hon. or hon. Friend who has not seen the Secretary of State for the Environment privately in the past year in the Secretary of State's room at the back of the Chair to discuss the Green Paper. That is how it should be done. Rating reform for the United Kingdom as a whole is a massive task to undertake. Immense sums of money are involved and the Secretary of State is naturally treading warily. There is a good deal of unfairness in the present system and we must be careful that any change that takes place does not transfer a disadvantage from one group of people to another.
      The widest consultations must take place on the Green Paper, but in terms of human suffering, care and concern, many of us think that the White Paper and the Northern Ireland Bill are of far more consequence to the well-being of a group of people than the Green Paper on rating reform. After all, when all is said and done, all that it does is turn over different ways of extracting money from the ratepaying public to see if there is a less painful way of extracting that money. The answer is that there is not. However, having given a pledge that he will try, my right hon. Friend will have to do his best.
      I mention those two cases because I think that it is generally recognised that in so vital a matter as the Northern Ireland Bill a proper interval should have occurred. On Second Reading, the Minister gave his good reasons for proceeding apace with the Bill. However, he
      266
      is now having to pay the price because the Committee is having to deal with matters that could have been cleared up in consultation with him.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: If there had been the interval of which my hon. Friend speaks, would there not have been time for us to consider with the Secretary of State the result of his inquiry into the structure of local government in Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Farr: My hon. Friend is right. If proper consultation had taken place, we should probably have been aware before now that the inquiry was taking place. My hon. Friend is a great student of Northern Ireland affairs and is looked upon with great respect by all hon. Members. However, even he found to his surprise that the inquiry had been launched. He was not aware of it. It seems a little strange that the whole matter should be dropped upon us in this way. If there had been closer consultation in what one can call the gestation period between the introduction of the White Paper and the production of the Bill, we should all have been better informed.
      The purpose of amendments Nos. 101 and 102 is to safeguard the general public by ensuring that the Bill's proposals are not put into effect without the prior consent of a referendum. That referendum, as the first of my two amendments says,
      "shall be held of the electors of Northern Ireland on any proposals under this section."
      As I have said, the purpose is to try to protect the people of Northern Ireland by ensuring that should the Assembly proceed with any of the proposals in the Bill, it has public support.
      The Secretary of State said a short while ago that he would take all the proper steps to ascertain public opinion. When we discussed an earlier group of amendments, it was said that he had to satisfy himself that public opinion supports the Assembly's proposals. The purpose of this group of amendments is to satisfy us that the public wants the measures that are proposed by the Assembly in the best way, by a referendum.
      If one looks at the Bill—
      Mr. Lawrence: Before my hon. Friend does that, I must tell him at once that I am not with him on that matter. I ask him seriously to consider where the proliferation of referendums will eventually lead us. We had a referendum in 1975 as a result of the European Economic Community referendum Act and they have spread. In the context of Northern Ireland, would my hon. Friend be prepared to submit to a referendum the question whether the troops should stay in or go out?
      Mr. Farr: Unlike my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart), I am not a referendum specialist, but if someone wanted to hold a referendum I see no reason why that question should not be put to the Northern Ireland public. However, my purpose is to ensure that the Minister properly interprets the public point of view on this vital issue.
      Mr. Roger Moate: Has not my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) answered his own point? We have had referendums before and there has not been any subsequent proliferation of them. In other words, they are only to be used advisedly when the House considers that there is a major constitutional point at issue.
      Mr. Farr: My hon. Friend has answered the point quite clearly for me. There has been one referendum or perhaps two referendums on whether Northern Ireland should remain in the United Kingdom and referendums have also taken place in both Scotland and Wales. Northern Ireland is a special case because, strangely, we are being asked to rely on the Secretary of State's interpretation of public opinion.
      I supported the amendment to delete clause 1(4)(b) but that amendment was defeated. Paragraph (b) states:
      "the proposals have the support of a majority of those members and the Secretary of State has notified the Assembly that he is satisfied that the substance of the proposals is likley to command widespread acceptance throughout the community."
      There is only one fair and proper way of discovering the public's point of view. There should be properly conducted referendum so that the people can express their opinions. The Secretary of State can then be sure of receiving the correct answer.
      My right hon. Friend is an expert on assessing people's views. I know of no man who uses the skill, knowledge and expertise of his civil servants better than my right hon. Friend and of no man—I was going to say who has his ear closer to the ground than my right hon. Friend. However, he knows what I mean. There is no doubt that he can sense how people feel and has a good idea of how to assess the feelings of a group of people. With the greatest respect to my right hon. Friend, for all his qualities the only way to be certain is to have a referendum and to ask each elector whether he agrees with the proposals.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has defended the part of the Bill that requires him to satisfy himself
      "that the substance of the proposals is likely to command widespread acceptance".
      That provision is so important that we cannot leave it to my right hon. Friend to discover the answers in some cloak and dagger or mysterious way. For example, will his opinion be formed by talk in the Division Lobby? Will he receive clerical opinion and advice? Will he receive advice from the dignitaries and officials in local government? Will he conduct a door-to-door canvass such as those performed by opinion polls? Much as we respect the Secretary of State, the only way of getting a better answer and one that has a chance of being more correct is by the use of the referendum. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will merely back a hunch.
      8.30 pm
      Mr. Clive Soley: I appreciate that these speeches are part of the rebellion in the Tory Party. That is why, by and large, I am happy to let them continue. However, if the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) is to argue seriously, he must be more consistent. He has already said that he believes that the use of the referendum is a special case, yet his amendment No. 102 clearly implies many referendums. Secondly, if he expects us to take his speech seriously and not as a filibuster, would he give some thought to the many people in Northern Ireland who, whether he likes it or not and whether they are right or wrong, believe that the border was wrongly drawn in the first instance in a way that makes referendums and other forms of voting unfair.
      That view may be rubbish but it may also be true and if people are to discuss this issue, especially the rebel group in the Tory Party, they had better face the fact if they are to be taken seriously outside the House.
      Mr. Farr: This is the first time that the hon. Gentleman has intervened in the debate and I cannot say that I regard it as an advantage. No doubt he is trying to make up for the total absence from the Chamber of anyone else in the Labour Party. His attitude is similar to the hostile attitude adopted earlier by his right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). Practically no one from the Labour Party was here then either. I remind the hon. Gentleman that his right hon. Friend said that he was shocked at the way in which Conservative Members opposed to the Assembly were playing what he called "party games". I did not intervene at the time but I wish to place it on record that we are not playing party games. The reason why many Conservatives oppose the Bill is that we believe that the Government are entirely wrong. We may be entirely wrong, but we are so convinced that we are determined to do what we can to make the Government think again and preferably to drop the Bill or at least manifestly to improve it before we proceed.
      Mr. Soley: I am glad to hear that, because to many people outside the House it must seem that the Conservative rebels are playing games; that is what is so tragic.
      I understand the split in the Conservative Party on this issue as I understand the split in the Unionist parties, but that does not absolve them from the responsibility of facing up to the original division of Ireland and the fact that many of the minority communities believe that the division was unreasonable. Right or wrong, the issue of the original division must be faced. It cannot be ducked.
      Mr. Farr: The best answer I can give is to remind the hon. Gentleman of what he probably did not hear earlier in the day. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) referred to an extract from a leader in last Tuesday's issue of The Times. Had I been called in that debate, I should have said that I was only sorry that The Times had not followed its attitude on 6 April. I do not know whether The Times has more than one editorial writer. I do not even know whether the right hon. Member for Down, South is an editorial writer for that newspaper.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell rose—
      Mr. Farr: I am not being rude.
      Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. I seek your protection at once. I have been accused not only of belonging to the disreputable profession of journalism in general but of being a leader writer on The Times, a newspaper at whose expense I had a little innocent fun earlier. Nothing could be more discreditable to me. There is no imputation that I would wish more hastily to disown than that of being a leader writer on The Times. I seek your protection against the imputation, which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw and for which I hope he will have the grace to apologise.
      The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will set the record straight.
      Mr. Farr: The right hon. Member for Down, South may have noticed that I was reluctant to give way. If I had been allowed to conclude, he may have decided that I need not apologise. I said that I did not know whether he was a leader writer for The Times or whether The Times has

      269
      more than one leader writer. However, I was going to say that I believed that he is probably a leader writer for The Daily Telegraph.
      Mr. Powell: I ask for your protection, Mr. Armstrong, and ask you to deal severely with the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), who has repeated and made more severe the offence of which I previously complained and for which, if I heard correctly, you directed him to make amends.
      Sir Philip Goodhart: My hon. Friend should try the Sunday Express.
      Mr. Farr: The reason why I said that is that The Times has prevaricated on the issue, as the right hon. Member for Down, South said earlier, and has now adopted an attitude of lukewarm support for the Bill. However, in two successive leaders, The Daily Telegraph has come out firmly against the Bill. If we could only secure the shield of the principle of referendums, some of the uncertainties and curses in the Bill that are outlined in those leaders will be less likely to fall upon the population of Northern Ireland.
      One reason why I believe that protection is needed by introducing referendums is outlined in The Daily Telegraph editorial of 18 March, which says, about relations with the Republic:
      "Moderate Roman Catholic Nationalists reject it because they believe that the British will ditch them en route and, in order to achieve disengagement, hand them over to a Protestant majority. In these circumstances, to persist in the plan to elect an assembly would be an act of madness productive, almost certainly, of still more violence. The paramilitaries have already begun to respond."
      That editorial was followed by another on 8 June, which deplored the fact that the Bill is making progress or that it was introduced at all. The gist of the editorial refers to the unease among Back Bench Conservative Members about some matters in the Bill. It said that the prevailing view among the newly met Council for the Union at its inaugural meeting in Belfast last Saturday gave substantial support to the thought that
      "many of Ulster's current troubles sprang from the decision, 60 years ago, to impose on her a devolved parliament which the majority of her people did not want."
      It is apparent from the editorials in two of the most widely read serious newspapers in the country that the authors believe that there are defects in the Bill. By introducing the priniciple of a referendum we can protect the electorate of Northern Ireland from some of the consequences of the Bill.
      We have discussed the number of seats in the Assembly. The Secretary of State said that there would be 85 and not 78 Assembly Members. In answer to questioning by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, he said that he believed that the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973 gave him the right and power to change the number of Members of the Assembly. Section 2(5) lists the powers of Secretary of State to make provisions concerning elections under the Act. Nowhere, as far as I can see, does it relate to changing the number of Members of the Assembly. It would be difficult for him to rely on that Act to change the total number.
      Mr. Prior: If my hon. Friend looks at the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, section 28—which is the one that I quoted—he will find out that it is in order.
      Mr. Farr: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I hope that the Government will accept the amendments. I feel
      270
      that most of my right hon. and hon. Friends ought to support them, if only to ensure that justice is done. It is important that we should have this additional protection for the people of Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Barry Porter: Does not my hon. Friend accept that the House is the shield that the people of Northern Ireland would need? If the Secretary of State tells us that he is satisfied that proposals are likely to command widespread support, he will have to give evidence in support of his view. It is up to the House and elected representatives of the whole United Kingdom to deal with such matters. We do not need shields such as referendums. The House is the shield
      Mr. Farr: If my hon. Friend had been here earlier he would have heard the doubts expressed about the West Lothian question. As the responsibilities of the Assembly increase, the nuraber of hon. Members from Northern Ireland will decrease. The present number may be adequate, but if the West Lothian principle is applied there will not be an adequate number to look after the rights of the people of Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems odd that the people of Scotland and Wales were not to be protected by the House and required a referendum on constitutional changes? It would be disturbing to me if I had to tell my constituents that they were not to be protected by Westminster, but the people of Northern Ireland are to be protected.
      Mr. Farr: My hon. Friend has been listening with attention to most of our debates and he must realise that Northern Ireland is a special case. I am not normally a fan of referendums, but I believe that additional protection should be provided so that we do not have to rely on the Secretary of State's interpretation of what is likely to command widespread acceptance. That is too wide and woolly and it is essential to include referendums for the protection of the public.
      Mr. Bill Walker: I welcome the opportunity to speak on these important amendments. I am one of the few hon. Members who have taken part in a referendum of the sort called for in the amendments. I knocked on doors and consulted my constituents on whether the Scotland Act should be implemented.
      Many hon. Members are unhappy about referendums, but Scotland has had two, not one as was suggested earlier. If we had not had those opportunities, the Scotland Act would have beer implemented and we would have a Scottish Assembly of a different political complexion from the Government. One can easily imagine the situation that would have existed in the recent difficult times. Instead of having problems only with Lothian regional council and Dundee district council, there would have been a talking-shop Assembly speaking out against the Government. King-sized headaches would have been created for the Secretary of State for Scotland.
      My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland visited my constituency and other parts of Scotland before the devolution referendum. He knows what problems devolution caused within the Conservative Party in Scotland. There were those who were keen to have devolution. There were others, like myself, who had grave doubts about the kind of devolution proposals contained in what was then the Scotland Bill. My right hon. Friend

      271
      knows well how divided we were in Scotland, how deep the divisions were within the Conservative Party and what difficulty we had in repairing those divisions. I do not overstate the situation when I say that this was brought about because the Conservative Party in Scotland was facing a traumatic situation. Some believed that devolution was a way to get the Scottish National Party off our backs.
      In Scotland, we have people such as they have in Northern Ireland—individuals who do not believe that the rule of law is necessarily the way forward. There are incarcerated in Scotland people who decided that the way to get change was not through the ballot box but through blowing up pipelines and other things. That was why it was deemed necessary to have a referendum in Scotland. If it was right within this unitary Parliament that one part of the United Kingdom should have a referendum to decide on a change of that magnitude, surely there can be no argument against having a referendum in another part of the United Kingdom which is also served by this unitary Parliament.
      We must ask ourselves whether we are likely to put at risk the unitary Parliament. That is fundamental to everything that we should be thinking and doing. I have travelled the road of devolution. For 10 years I fought an uphill fight to get my sincerely held views listened to within my own party, never mind among other parties. Finally, we had to go to the Scottish people with the referendum to discover how they felt.
      What happened when one stomped around the country to find out about the referendum? At least 40 per cent. of those entitled to vote had to support the proposal. That was not 70 per cent. but 40 per cent., as is proposed for Northern Ireland in one of the new clauses. If it was right that the Scots and the Welsh should have the 40 per cent. provision, surely that amendment must be acceptable to the Government.
      Many Conservative Members voted for the referendum. I look to those who supported that type of referendum for Scotland with the 40 per cent. provision to support this amendment. I assure them that the people of Scotland will be watching carefully. The Scots do not like to be treated differently from others. They do not like to think that they are not a special case. They are a special case. That was why there was the movement for a devolved Assembly in Scotland and why the Scottish Grand Committee now meets in Edinburgh. There was a demand for something.
      Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend will recall that the referendum principle was put into the devolution proposals not just by the votes of Conservative Members but because of a great deal of work done by members of the Labour Party in defence of the unitary Parliament. On a matter of such great constitutional importance, is it not appalling that present at our discussion we have just one solitary member of the Labour Party?
      Mr. Concannon: He is a good one.
      Mr. Moate: He may be outstanding, but he still has only one vote. On this major issue I hope that the Scottish electors will note that the Labour Party is apparently taking no interest in defending the unitary Parliament and the system which is so important to us.
      Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I, too, am concerned about the absence of Opposition Members when we are discussing a matter of such importance to the House of Commons, to the country and to this unitary Parliament. I find it disturbing that so few hon. Members are prepared to be here—[Interruption.] I am delighted, however, to espy the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson). [HON. MEMBERS: "He is not in the Chamber yet."] He may not yet technically be with us, but he is one hon. Member who is very keen to have some form of devolved Government in Scotland. I see the hon. Gentleman nodding his agreement, so he must be in favour of a referendum to demonstrate that the people of Northern Ireland will be given the same opportunity to express their views as were the people of Scotland and, what is more, a referendum with the requirement that it shall be approved by 40 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in it.
      There is no doubt in my mind if my right hon. and hon. Friends do not accept the fairness and logic of my argument they will put me and other Conservative Members in Scotland at risk. I know that that will delight the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian, because he knows exactly what I am talking about. Conservative Members are in a minority in Scotland. We are the minority. We are the individuals who require the protection afforded to other minority groups in the House. Scottish Conservatives look to my right hon. and hon. Friends to give us the same protection. If they treat Northern Ireland differently, obviously the weight of my views and those of my colleagues in Scotland will be of little consequence. The Government may feel that it would not matter if we returned to the circumstances of October 1974. It may interest hon. Members to know that, if a Conservative Government had been returned then, the number of Scottish Conservatives elected would have meant the Government being unable to staff the Scottish Office adequately, to say nothing of the Scottish Standing Committees. There would have been a problem for the Government of the day.
      Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend tell the Committee what is the opinion in Scotland at present? I suppose that there may be some people in Scotland who see this Bill as a precedent for further devolution legislation for Scotland. I have no evidence of that, but if there is some evidence perhaps my hon. Friend will tell the Committee about it.
      Mr. Walker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. In my judgment, in Scotland there is still a demand—
      The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not follow that line too far. We are dealing with Northern Ireland, and the hon. Gentleman must relate his remarks to the amendment.
      Mr. Walker: Thank you, Mr. Armstrong. Obviously I accept your ruling on the matter. I say only, in all humility, that my concern with the referendum that I judge to be necessary for Northern Ireland is based on my experience of the referendum in Scotland. I suggest that that makes me unique on this side of the Committee.
      Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is unique in the whole House. He is a one-off.
      Mr. Walker: Despite the hon. Gentleman's sedentary comment, what should not be in doubt is my concern about

      273
      this unitary Parliament, the Conservative Party in Scotland and the voters of Northern Ireland. It is essential that we find a method whereby the views of the people of Northern Ireland are made public. If my right hon. Friend is so confident that what he proposes is the best form of government for Northern Ireland, I am sure that he will be delighted to accept the proposal for a referendum. There can be no better way of testing the views of the people. That is why I keep making references to Scotland. The Scotland and Wales Acts are the only evidence we have of this unitary Parliament being able to test the views of the voters in the parts of the United Kingdom that would be affected by the devolution proposals.
      9 pm
      Mr. Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman would not expect me to share his concern about the fact that the Conservative Party in Scotland is an endangered species. Before he speaks further about the democratic merits of referendums, would he care to reflect on the fact that the majority of those who voted in the referendum on Scottish devolution voted "Yes" for a Scottish Assembly? How can he defend that outcome on any democratic pretext?
      Mr. Walker: I have no difficulty, because the rules were clearly set out. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my argument, he would realise that I am speaking in favour of new clause 11, with the 40 per cent. requirement of those entitled to vote. I do so, first, because that is exactly what Scotland and Wales had. If we are to give equality of justice and opportunity, it is surely right that we should use that which has already been used before.
      Mr. Harold McCusker: The hon. Gentleman's experience in Scotland is relevant to Northern Ireland, but does he imagine that a majority, let alone 40 per cent., of the Scottish people would have voted for devolution proposals akin to the proposals that are being offered to the people of Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Walker: I am endeavouring to give the people of Northern Ireland the same opportunities as those that were given to the people of Scotland and Wales. I deem that to be just and fair. I can go to my constituency in Scotland and defend that position. I would find it indefensible if we were not to give the people of Northern Ireland exactly the same opportunities as we gave to the people of Scotland and Wales.
      If it was right for the people of Scotland to vote in a referendum for devolution, it must also be right for the voters of Northern Ireland. Even the terrorists could not claim that they and the people of Northern Ireland had not been treated as fairly as people in other parts of the United Kingdom. So often we hear the plea from those who wish to cause disruption in Northern Ireland that they are not receiving the same treatment as others. That is why I feel that in all justice and fairness the Government cannot turn down the new clauses. If they do, they will not be giving the people of Northern Ireland the same treatment as the people of Scotland and Wales. That cannot be defended.
      I have based my argument on the fact that the devolution proposals for Scotland were fairly recent. It is not so long since the Scots voted on whether they wanted the Scotland Act to be implemented.
      I have grave doubts about many parts of the Bill. I have grave doubts about its constitutional aspects, but in the
      274
      final analysis it must be judged and tested by the voters of Northern Ireland. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is serious in his view that we must carry out the wishes of the majority, I can see no better way to do this than through a referendum. The precedents are there, It is on precedent that I rest my argument.
      Sir Philip Goodhart: I commend in particular the kindly attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to new clause 11 which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) pointed out so ably and so vigorously, is taken precisely from the amendment that was included in the Scotland Act 1978.
      It would be idle to deny that over the past 70 years the Conservative Party has taken an ambivalent attitude to referendums. Many colleagues have found it particularly difficult to reconcile a referendum with the concept of representative parliamentary democracy. However, many members of my party are well aware that we lack the sort of constitutional safeguard that can be found in many other democracies.
      As long ago as 1911, the leader of the Conservative Opposition, Mr. Balfour, made an impassioned speech on an amendment to the Parliament Bill. According to the pamphlet "Politics Today", he said:
      "In the referendum lies our hope of getting the son of constitutional security which every other country but our own enjoys … I am convinced that whatever is done now … before long, practically in the lifetime of all of us, we may see this great democratic engine brought into practice."
      Mr. Balfour was moving an amendment to the Parliament Bill which could fit neatly into this Bill. The amendment said:
      "A Bill which (a) establishes a national Parliament, or Assembly, or a national council in Ireland, Scotland, England or Wales, with legislative powers therein .… shall not be presented to His Majesty nor receive the Royal Assent under the provisions of this Act until it has been submitted to a poll of the electors and approved at such a poll in accordance with the Schedule of this Act."
      I shall move closer to our present controversy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire will remember, although he was not in the House, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) moved an amendment in Committee on the Scotland Bill which said, broadly, that the Bill would not come into effect unless it was supported in a referendum by 40 per cent. of the electoral roll in Scottish constituencies. In successfully moving that amendment the hon. Gentleman said:
      "It is desirable. to hold a referendum on any major constitutional matter on which the opinion of the electorate cannot be gathered from the way in which the electorate voted in a general election. That will normally be the situation where there is a division of opinion … within the main political parties."—[Official Report, 25 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 1466.]
      Does the Cunningham qualification apply to the Bill?
      Mr. Home Robertson: Did 40 per cent. of the electorate of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland vote for the present Administration at the last general election?
      Sir Philip Goodhart: They certainly did in my constituency, I am happy to say. I suspect that they did the same in the Secretary of State's constituency.

      275
      Is the Bill a major constitutional matter? I happen to believe that it is. The political editor of The Sunday Times last week described this Bill as "modest and ingeniously unmenacing".
      I am sorry to see the representative of the Social Democratic Party, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), leaving the Chamber, because I preferred the description of the Bill that was given by the Northern Ireland forum of the Social Democratic Party:
      "It was generally felt that the Assembly as envisaged would be inherently unstable and that it would be likely to exacerbate the divisions within the community".
      I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) that the Assembly as envisaged by my right hon. Friend could turn into a boxing ring. I suspect that it is more likely to be a wrestling arena without a referee. However, the Secretary of State thinks, with evident sincerity, that the Assembly will produce stability. All right; there is a division of opinion. Let the people of Northern Ireland themselves decide whether they want to run that risk.
      The second part of the proposition advanced by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury a mere four and a half years ago was that it was
      "desirable to hold a referendum on any major constitutional matter on which the opinion of the electorate cannot be gathered from the way in which the electorate voted in a General Election."—[Official Report, 25 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 1465.]
      In so far as the opinion of the Northern Ireland electorate can be gathered from the last general election, it would appear that it is against this Bill. Virtually all the elected representatives from Northern Ireland have voted against it. Even the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) thought that it would not work. Certainly most of us in the Conservative Party who were concerned with Northern Ireland policy at the time of the last election do not recognise this Bill as the natural child of our manifesto committee. Thus, the second part of what might be called the Cunningham qualification has, in my opinion, been fulfilled.
      Mr. Prior: I, too, have looked at the Cunningham qualification and I spent part of my Whitsun Recess reading through the debates on the referendum stages of the Scotland and Wales Bill in preparation for this debate. In this part of what we might call the Cunningham amendment, to which my hon. Friend has just referred, the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury said that he wanted a referendum where
      "the opinion of the electorate cannot be gathered from the way in which the electorate voted in a General Election. That will normally be the situation where there is a division of opinion or a major division of opinion within the main political parties."—Official Report, 25 January 1978; Vol. 942, c. 1465.]
      However, my hon. Friend knows that neither of those premises applies to Northern Ireland. The opinion of the Northern Ireland electorate can be gathered clearly from the way in which it voted in a general election and the way in which it would vote in Assembly elections. Divisions in Northern Ireland are between and not within the major political parties. There is a significant difference and my hon. Friend may wish to comment upon it.
      9.15 pm
      Sir Philip Goodhart: In so far as it is possible to ascertain the views of an electorate from a general election
      276
      in Northern Ireland, it seems irrefutable that a majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland voted in the 1979 general election for parliamentary candidates who are against the Bill. It is therefore impossible, taking into account the Cunningham qualification, to argue that there is a mandate from the electorate in Northern Ireland for this measure.
      I have paid particular attention to the Cunningham qualification, for a reason that my right hon. Friend knows well. When it came to a vote on the qualification, a majority of the present Cabinet voted for the Cunningham amendment. My right hon. Friend the Chief Whip voted for it—
      Mr. Home RobertsonThen it must have been wrong.
      Sir Philip Goodhart: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland voted for the amendment.
      Mr. George Foulkes: That makes three reasons why the amendment must have been wrong.
      Sir Philip Goodhart: Surely what is right for Scotland must be right for Northern Ireland.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison rose—
      Sir Philip Goodhart: I wish to bring my remarks to a close. I do not believe that it is the duty of the Conservative Party or the duty of the Government to thrust on any part of the United Kingdom a system of devolution that it does not want.
      Sir J. Biggs-Davison: May I bring my hon. Friend from Scotland to Northern Ireland and remind him, or ask him whether he recalls, that he was good enough to act as a sponsor of a Bill of mine which the House gave me leave to introduce without dissent? The purpose of the Bill was to amend the Ireland Act 1949. That Act provided that the constitutional status of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom could not be changed against the wishes of the Northern Ireland Parliament. We foresaw the threat to the Stormont Parliament and we were right. That Parliament was abolished, so that buttress of the constitutional position was removed. We sought to provide that there should be no change in the constitutional status of the Province without putting the proposal to the people of Northern Ireland by plebiscite or referendum.
      Sir Philip Goodhart: My hon. Friend is right and he was right on the occasion to which he has referred. I was delighted to support him then as I have been on so many other occasions.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: It would be normal when considering a proposition of this character, as it is raised by the three amendments—there are substantially three that we are considering in the group—to proceed from the general to the particular and to consider, first, the general aspects, objections and advantages of referendums and then to turn to consider the proposed applications under the individual amendments. However, I think that it will be both briefer and more logical in this case to proceed in the contrary direction. I therefore want to look at the three substantial amendments separately and test the application of a referendum in each case before concluding by drawing some general observations about referendums in a more abstract fashion.
      There are three distinct circumstances in which the amendments that we are debating together envisage the use of a referendum. First, according to the amendment, and

      277
      its companion, moved by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), when an Assembly has formulated and put forward proposals to the Secretary of State under clause 1, they should first be submitted for the approval of the electors of Northern Ireland before the subsequent stages for which the Bill provides take place.
      The second circumstance is to be found in amendment No. 26, on which we hope to hear one of the members of the Democratic Unionist Party speak. For a considerable time during the debate I have assumed that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade) would be dilating for the Committee on amendment No. 26. At any rate, en attendant, I shall observe for purposes of definition that a different sort of referendum is there envisaged, a referendum whereby the Secretary of State can inform himself on specific questions.
      There are points that might be raised in the Secretary of State's mind that he would wish to take into account in coming to his decision on the proposals before laying an order before the House. The suggestion is that he should be enabled to use a referendum for the purpose of informing himself as to the state of opinion on those specific points.
      Thirdly, and different again, there is that circumstance to which the hon. Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) not unnaturally addressed himself—the South Islington and Finsbury type referendum. After a measure—in this case, this particular measure—has passed from the House to another place and has received Royal Assent, it should then be submitted, as it were, as a long-stop to a referendum of the electorate of Northern Ireland. Therefore, in each case the subject matter is different.
      In the new clauses tabled by the hon. Member for Beckenham it is proposed that a finished Act of Parliament should be submitted to the "Yea" or "Nay" of a referendum upon certain conditions. If it fails, it is to be repealed, as, so happily, the Scotland Act was repealed in 1979. At the opposite end of the scale is the first amendment, whereby before any legislative action to create any devolved powers has taken place by means of the machinery of the Bill a referendum is required to approve the initial proposal that comes from the Assembly.
      There is one consideration that attaches particularly to the first case, that of amendment No. 101. That was illustrated dramatically by the quarrel that took place—it is perhaps not too rough to describe it as a quarrel—between the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and the Secretary of State. That was a disagreement about a substantial aspect of the whole matter. It was a disagreement on a matter upon which the view and vote of an elector in a referendum might depend. There cannot be any doubt that the hon. Member for Antrim, North has been applying himself to those proposals in the Bill for a considerable time. It cannot be said that he is a person lacking either in perception or in diligence. The least that can be said is that he has devoted more time to these matters than any ordinary elector voting in the referendum would be likely to devote or would be able to devote to them. There have been various stages through which he has been able to study the incubation of the proposals, the White Paper and the Bill itself, not to mention the notes on clauses recently vouchsafed to us by a generous Minister.
      At the end of all that, it appeared this afternoon that the hon. Member for Antrim, North was taken by surprise to
      278
      learn a most vital fact that was implicit in the Secretary of State's scheme and in the Bill itself. If there can be a misunderstanding of those dimensions—it is certainly no intentional misunderstanding, if that is not a contradiction in terms—between the Secretary of State, who is no doubt right in this case about what the Bill means and does, and the hon. Member for Antrim, North, let us consider what we would be doing in submitting to a referendum for the approval of the electorate at large a set of proposals of a possibly complicated character arrived at in the Assembly. You may recall, Mr. Armstrong, in our proceedings yesterday, when we were examining subsection (3) of the clause, it was only after considerable labour and investigation that we became aware of certain arrangements that might perhaps be arrived at by the Assembly in framing a proposal to put forward, if the necessary conditions were fulfilled, to the Secretary of State.
      How can it be rational, having elected an Assembly to lucubrate upon proposals, to mull them over and debate them, to draft them and redraft them, with all the complications that it is considered may be necessary to produce the checks, balances and safeguards for minorities and the rest, to put all that in the lap of the electorate and to tell it that its "Yes" of "No" will decide whether the proposals go forward to the Secretary of State? The proposals will net even have been presented to this House. They will not even have been debated in the House.
      We would flatter ourselves greatly if we supposed that anything like 70 per cent., a figure much bandied about, of the electorate of Northern Ireland follow these debates with the degree of attention that would be necessary for it to inform itself of what the whole thing is about in the manner that hon. Members, somewhat laboriously, right and day, win through to some comprehension of the proposals before us.
      Yet, before any of that has happened, and before the proposals have been processed by debate in Parliament—an imperfect instrument but nevertheless an instrument of ellightenment—it is suggested that we should throw them at the electorate with a little ballot paper asking "Do you agree or don't you agree?" I am afraid that the result is that the electorate would be voting under the influence of a gross misapprehension even if it was not deliberately encouraged by evilly disposed persons in those misapprehensions. The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten), shakes his head at my reference to evilly disposed persons. I hope that he did not misunderstand me and think that I supposed that he or any member of the Government or anyone sitting on the Conservative Benches was in my mind at the time. Now the hon. Gentleman expresses assent. I am in even greater embarrassment. I can only say that if the motion of assent indicates that the hon. Gentleman did think that I was applying that description to the denizens of the Front Bench, I assure him that he is completley mistaken. I invite him to give me a negative signal. He is not giving me a signal at all. I have, at any rate, put upon the record my disclaimer and must leave it at that.
      We know very well in our profession that not all of us are above concealing from the electorate on some matter of which we may particularly be desirous of persuading them a material or relevant aspect of a subject that is in political agitation. I state the matter more cautiously in those terms.

      279
      9.30 pm
      What useful reliable result, that was not in itself an insult to the intelligence of the electors, could be produced by throwing at them a proposal that came from the Assembly and saying "There, do you agree with that? Yes or No? Tell us: it depends on you."? That cannot be a sensible way in which to proceed, whatever other use we are to make of the instrument of a referendum in the Bill.
      I am sorry to be making these remarks in the absence of the hon. Member for Harborough, but one has to proceed with the debate. I cannot conceive that there can be a genuinely useful purpose or a practical result from the machinery that he proposes in his amendments Nos. 101 and 102.
      It is a somewhat different difficulty that assails me when I consider the application of a referendum that is proposed in the name of the hon. Member for Antrim, North. There would be greater precision in the matters submitted under that proposal for a referendum, if referendum is the correct term in so narrow a context, of the electorate.
      Under these amendments we should have to apprehend almost the opposite danger. It would be almost inevitable that the terms in which the inquiry was drawn would mean—I am not imputing the desire to fudge the result to any Secretary of State availing himself of the provision—that in formulating the sort of question to which the Secretary of State would have to address himself between the clause 1 stage and the clause 2 stage, the terminology of that question would prejudice the decision in the minds of the electors to whom the question was submitted.
      The hon. Member for Harborough spent a considerable part of his speech ruminating upon the unsatisfactory nature of such inquiries that the Secretary of State might informally be able to make for satisfying his mind on such a matter as the widespread acceptance of proposals among the people of Northern Ireland generally. Those criticisms and doubts may be well founded. However, if I had to choose between the Secretary of State informing himself by such inquiries as he might decide to make as to the state of opinion about one subject or another, or his having to formulate his question in the terms of a referendum and go through the balloting process, I should be much more inclined to rely on the outcome of the former procedure, submitted as it would be to the House in terms of debate with the possibility of cross-examination and questioning.
      That would be better than having the proposal brought to the House by the Secretary of State, who could say to the House "There is no argument about this. These are the relevant factors which I have, in accordance with the Act, ascertained by means of a referendum." I should not wish the House to be confronted either as to the main question or as to any of the ingredients of its answer with a predetermined result, served up to it, apparently, by its electoral masters. Again, I do not find much that appears advantageous in amendment No. 26.
      That brings me, finally, to the precedented new clause 11, or its alternative, new clause 12; the difference being either a straight majority or an affirmative vote of 40 per cent. of the electorate, which has been applied in my view successfully to the Scotland and Wales Acts that were passed by the House in 1978. Therefore, it is a much more practical and challenging question to which one addresses oneself in considering the content of those two new clauses.
      280
      Despite the precedent and the happy outcome, to which I should like to think that I contributed—if not in Scotland where I made an occasional foray, then in the land of my fathers where I addressed the final meeting in the campaign—I am doubtful of the utility of applying the same procedure to this measure.
      Sir Philip Goodhart: I remind the right hon. Gentleman that on 21 January 1978 he did not appear to have so many qualms, because he voted for that amendment.
      Mr. Powell: I well remember what my motives were. [Laughter.] The laughter in the Committee suggests that I hardly need specify what those motives were.
      I may have created another difficulty for myself because there is no secret of the fact that I voted against the Second Reading of this Bill. Unhappily, I remain convinced that it will do harm and no good to those to whom it is proposed to bring benefit if it reaches the statute book. Nevertheless, I find myself resisting the notion of applying to the Bill, if it should reach the statute book, the procedure that is outlined in the two new clauses.
      There would be an essential difference between the Wales and Scotland Acts and this Bill, should it ever become an Act. Each of those Acts prescribed and laid down, in as much detail as was necessary legislatively, a scheme of legislative and administrative devolution—Cabinet-style devolution—for Scotland and Wales. It was a definite proposition. True, the consequences of those Acts being implemented, and one's understanding of the consequences, were largely determined by the study to which those measures had been subjected during their long and repeated passage through the House. One might have had some anxieties as to whether the electorates of those parts of the United Kingdom were fully aware—even though the finished product stood in front of them—of the dangers,
      disadvantages and possible political disasters which they portended for Scotland and Wales.
      However, that is not what the Bill will be. If the Bill, or anything that looks like it, is to become an Act, it will not be a scheme for devolution. It will not be a devolution Act. It will not be comparable with the Scotland and Wales Acts. It will be an instrument whereby some sort, or degree, of qualified devolution—admittedly, legislative as well as administrative—might, at some time, come into existence in Northern Ireland.
      That is a very different matter upon which to seek the suffrages of the electorate through a referendum. After all, only a referendum stood between the Scotland and Wales Acts and their implementation. One feels a retrospective shudder—I think that such a phrase was once coined by Nietzsche—and one feels that one has narrowly escaped a past danger when one contemplates the fact that but for the outcome of those referendums, those monstrous structures might have been at their deadly work of breaking up the Union of the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] One can always rely on confirmation from the Scottish nationalist Bench for that self—evident proposition.
      For all the dangers, difficulties and disadvantages that the Assembly imports, the Bill, if enacted, would not be a measure of devolution. It would be a measure by means of which an unpredictable type of devolution might come into existence. Therefore, the analogy drawn by the hon.

      281
      Member for Beckenham, that was apparently so telling, between the Scotland and Wales Bills and this Bill, is imperfect.
      There is a further consideration. Under the Bill, devolution could not be realised other than as a result of further processes to come before the House. In some cases, that will not only mean a debate on an Order in Council. A substantial matter would no doubt involve a debate on the proposals, before the question of debating the operative Order in Council arose. There would be subsequent opportunities to alarm, alert, consult or express public opinion before devolution could occur.
      That brings me to the more general considerations of using referendums in a unitary parliamentary State such as the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, a referendum fundamentally impugns the status and function of a Member of Parliament. The first amendment impugns the Assembly's function and status. After all, the first amendment would say "Elect an Assembly; discover—through those whom the Assembly elects—the proposals that should be put forward and then do not believe them or take them at their word. Do not say that we have discovered the proposals that the electorate would like to put forward. Go back to square one. Refer to drawer and discover whether the whole operation of having an Assembly produced any useful result."
      The challenge, conflict and incompatibiltiy is much more severe when the key to measures is held by the House. Hon. Members are empowered—as the medieval formula said—to grant and decide on behalf of those who elected them. Our entire system of control over the executive and over legislation is based upon the principle that those who sit in this House have been entrusted with that full power, on behalf of the part of the Kingdom that they represent, for the duration of a Parliament.
      It is a denial of that basic assumption to say that Members of Parliament are not fit or competent to approve an Order in Council. They may be competent to decide other things and to make other laws, but they are not competent to speak for their constituents on that matter. It should be borne in mind that the election of Northern Ireland Members would largely impart to the electorate the type of considerations that are most relevant to whether this or that Order in Council should be made under this measure. Therefore, we who represent Northern Ireland constituencies could claim more than most hon. Members in most contexts in which they vote in the House that we were sent here because we share the views of the majority of our constituents.
      9.45 pm
      The point about the quality of Northern Ireland Members brings me to my last general observation that the Committee should take into account before coming to, or even approaching, a conclusion on the question of a referendum attached to such a constitutional matter. To which electorate should the referendum be submitted?
      During yesterday's proceedings, I interrupted an hon. Member to register with him the fact that in this Bill we are enacting constitutional legislation for the United Kingdom and that, in as much as Ulster is an integral part of the United Kingdom, this is constitutional legislation for the United Kingdom. In Government pronouncements about responsibility for Northern Ireland there has always been the careful formulation that the future of Northern Ireland is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland and
      282
      for the Government and Parliament of the United Kingdom as a whole. Of course, initially, it must be a matter for the people of Northern Ireland in as much as they debate their future and elect Members whom they send to this sovereign Parliament as the repositories of their views and wishes. However, we come here to form an integral part of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
      The central implication of our Unionist claim is that, no less than any other part of the United Kingdom, Northern Ireland should be legislated for by this House. It is inconsistent with that claim that we should not just overturn the discretion and the authority of hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies but that we should repudiate the authority and qualifications of the House to legislate for Northern Ireland.
      The hon. Member for Beckenham might be entitled to say that the objection was implicit in the South Islington and Finsbury clauses of the Scotland Act and the Wales Act. It was one of the objectionable aspects of those clauses. If I had not wished to see the trigger mechanism installed, good or bad, I would have been prepared to argue that if there were to be a referendum on those Acts, since they were Acts that involved the future of the United Kingdom, it should have been a United Kingdom referendum.
      After surveying the different and cogent inconveniences of the successive applications proposed in the three amendments, upon which I hope the Committee can come to a conclusion separately, my general conclusion is that there is an undeniable inconsistency between our constitutional position and the use of a referendum, which is at its extreme in the case of this Bill.
      It will probably have occurred to you, Mr. Armstrong, with increasing force as my remarks proceeded, that I do not feel able to support any of these amendments.
      Mr. Prior: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if I begin with a resume of the effect of the amendments. The first amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) would preclude any devolution proposals produced by the Assembly from being laid before Parliament until a majority of the Northern Ireland electorate had approved them. The Democratic Unionist Party amendment and the Tory Back-Bench new clauses tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Sir P. Goodhart) and others provide for the holding of a referendum, but in different circumstances. In the DUP amendment, the Secretary of State, before laying before Parliament any proposals from the Assembly for the devolution of powers, would have the discretion to hold a referendum on part of the content of such proposals or on anything concerned with the future government of Northern Ireland. My hon. Friend's new clauses provide for a referendum to be held after the enactment of the Bill to determine whether the people of Northern Ireland wish the provisions of the new Act to be put into effect.
      I have considered carefully the case for a referendum on devolution proposals put forward by the Assembly, but that would not be the right course. The people of Northern Ireland will elect the Assembly, which will then have the task of producing devolution proposals. Once those proposals have been produced, they must be submitted to me and, through me, to the House of Commons. Parliament would then have an opportunity to decide on

      283
      at least two separate occasions whether the devolution proposals meet the criteria that we discussed in the previous series of amendments.
      I agree that the main justification for a referendum would be to assist Parliament in deciding whether any devolution proposals should be implemented. Parliament will naturally know which parties and Assembly Members are in favour of such proposals and can take that into careful account in deciding whether the proposals enjoy widespread acceptance throughout the community. But—it is a big "but"—unless devolution proposals are supported by an extremely high proportion of the Northern Ireland electorate, the referendum results will not tell Parliament whether the proposals enjoy cross-community support.
      I point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Walker) that the position in Northern Ireland is different from that in Scotland because, as the White Paper illustrated, in Northern Ireland there are two distinct traditions and identities, both of which must be taken into account. The 1978 referendum on Scottish devolution provided the necessary information on whether devolution should go ahead, but it would be difficult to interpret a referendum result in Northern Ireland as there would be no way of knowing, or even guessing, the support enjoyed by a proposal in each part of the community.
      In a recent article about the possibiliy of holding a referendum, Mr. Bogdanor said:
      "A referendum, however, would have to be held separately amongst each of the two communities for, clearly, the minority Catholic community would not regard itself as bound by a majority composed exclusively of Protestants but it would be difficult and a remarkable departure from British practice to hold an official referendum amongst two separate electorates. Moreover, there would be no point in holding a referendum unless politicians had already agreed a basis for settlement for the 1973 border poll showed that the electorate of Northern Ireland would follow the advice of the politicians. The Protestant vote is solidly for the link with Britain while the Catholics did as their leaders asked and boycotted the poll."
      I do not believe that the idea of a referendum in the Northern Ireland context can be compared with the Scottish or Welsh position.
      Mr. Moate: Would not the logic of that argument lead the Secretary of State to the conclusion that the border poll itself is unsatisfactory?
      Mr. Prior: The article discusses that point. It says:
      "Were there to be any change in the outlook of either of the two communities it would be fanciful to suppose that a referendum would be needed to register it just as if there were ever to be a swing of opinion in the Province so that the majority came to favour union with the Republic no referendum would be required to exhibit that fact."
      That may be right, but it is no case for a change in the border poll legislation. By the time there had been that swing of opinion we should all know about it and would not require a referendum.
      There could be a number of devolution proposals. If the Assembly favoured the partial devolution route to full devolution under amendment No. 101, there would be a requirement to have a referendum on each of the proposals. We should have a series of referendums. Similar arguments apply to amendment No. 26, although I recognise that that gives the Secretary of State discretion
      284
      to hold a poll to obtain the views of the people of Northern Ireland on devolution or anything else concerned with the government of Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I am sure that the Secretary of State is aware that in the 1974 Act there was a section that was almost identical with amendment No. 26. Is he now saying that the draftsmen of that Act were ill-advised to put in such a section, or is he saying that there has been a miraculous change in events that makes it unnecessary?
      Mr. Prior: I am aware of the section in the 1974 Act to which the hon. Gentleman referred. It provides that the Secretary of State may obtain
      "the views of the people of Northern Ireland on any matter contained in or arising out of a report of the Convention or otherwise concerned with the future government of Northern Ireland."
      The inclusion of that provision was a matter for the Government. I remain convinced that a referendum would not be right. The provision in that Act has never been used.
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, at this day's sitting, the Northern Ireland Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  The House divided: Ayes 158, Noes 28.

  Division No. 190]

  [10.00 pm]

  AYES

  Alexander, Richard

  Eyre,Reginald

  Alison, RtHon Michael

  Fairgrieve,SirRussell

  Alton,David

  Faith, MrsSheila

  Ancram,Michael

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Arnold,Tom

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Ashton,Joe

  Forman, Nigel

  Aspinwall,Jack

  Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

  Baker, Nicholas(N Dorset)

  Gardner, Edward(S Fylde)

  Banks,Robert

  Goodlad,Alastair

  Beith, A.J.

  Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

  Benyon,W.(Buckingham)

  Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)

  Best, Keith

  Griffiths, Peter Portsm'thN)

  Bevan,DavidGilroy

  Gummer,JohnSelwyn

  Blackburn,John

  Hamilton, Hon A.

  Blaker,Peter

  Hampson,DrKeith

  Boscawen,HonRobert

  Hannam,John

  Bottomley, Peter(W'wich W)

  Hawkins,Paul

  Boyson,DrRhodes

  Hawksley,Warren

  Braine,SirBernard

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Bright,Graham

  Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Holland,Philip(Carlton)

  Buck,Antony

  Hooson,Tom

  Bulmer,Esmond

  Hordern,Peter

  Butcher,John

  Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)

  Butler, Hon Adam

  Howells,Geraint

  Cadbury,Jocelyn

  Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)

  Campbell-Savours,Dale

  Irvine, BryantGodman

  Carlisle, John(Luton West)

  Jessel,Toby

  Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

  JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey

  Chapman,Sydney

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Clarke, Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Cockeram,Eric

  Lang, Ian

  Colvin, Michael

  Lester, Jim(Beeston)

  Cope,John

  Lewis,Kenneth(Rultand)

  Crouch,David

  Lloyd, Ian(Havant & W'loo)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Loveridge,John

  Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.

  Luce,Richard

  Dover,Denshore

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Dunn, James A.

  MacGregor,John

  Eggar,Tim

  MacKay, John(Argyll)

  Elliott,SirWilliam

  McNally,Thomas

  285

  Magee, Bryan

  Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

  Major,John

  Sainsbury,Hon Timothy

  Marten, Rt Hon Neil

  Sandelson,Neville

  Mather,Carol

  Scott,Nicholas

  Mawby, Ray

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Mawhinney,DrBrian

  Shaw,Michael (Scarborough)

  Mayhew, Patrick

  Shersby, Michael

  Mellor,David

  Silvester,Fred

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Mills, Peter (West Devon)

  Steen, Anthony

  Mitchell,David (Basingstoke)

  Stevens, Martin

  Moate, Roger

  Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

  Morgan,Geraint

  Stradling Thomas,J.

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Smith,Timothy

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Tapsell, Peter

  Myles, David

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Neale,Gerrard

  Thompson, Donald

  Needham, Richard

  Thornton,Malcolm

  Nelson,Anthony

  Townsend,CyrilD, (B'heath)

  Newton,Tony

  Trippier,David

  Onslow,Cranley

  Trotter,Neville

  Page, Richard (SW Herts)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Viggers, Peter

  Penhaligon, David

  Waddington, David

  Percival, Sir Ian

  Wakeham,John

  Pollock,Alexander

  Wall,SirPatrick

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Waller, Gary

  Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

  Ward,John

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Wells,Bowen

  Raison,Rt Hon Timothy

  Wheeler,John

  Rathbone,Tim

  Whitney, Raymond

  RhodesJames, Robert

  Wickenden, Keith

  Rhys Williams,SirBrandon

  Wigley,Dafydd

  Ridsdale,SirJulian

  Williams, D. (Montgomery)

  Rifkind,Malcolm

  Wolfson,Mark

  Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Roper,John

  Mr. David Hunt and

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

  NOES

  Bennett,Andrew(St'kp'tN)

  McQuade,John

  Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

  Molyneaux,James

  Body,Richard

  Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Murphy,Christopher

  Brown,Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Budgen,Nick

  Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

  Dunlop,John

  Skinner,Dennis

  Farr,John

  Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)

  Goodhart,SirPhilip

  Stanbrook,Ivor

  Gorst,John

  Walker, B. (Perth)

  Kilfedder, James A.

  Winterton,Nicholas

  Knight,MrsJill

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

  Mr, William Ross and

  McCusker,H.

  Mr, K. Harvey Proctor.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Northern Ireland Bill
Again considered in Committee.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
Mr. Prior: I was just beginning to give the reasons why I felt that new clauses 11 and 12 and the new schedule had many differences from the position in Scotland and elsewhere.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: In fact, the right hon. Gentleman had just been dealing with the interruption by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) drawing attention to the identity or near identity of amendment No. 26 with section 2(3) of the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, that being the context of the Convention, it is entirely different from the context which would be produced by a report from the Assembly under that Act, so that it would not strictly be true to say that section 2(3) of the 1974 Act was either a precedent or an analogy?
10.15 pm
Mr. Prior: I would agree with that. I said that it was within the context of the Convention. That makes it different. I have more sympathy with the Democratic Unionist Party amendment than with the others. However, I still hope that the amendment will not be pressed to a Division.
I turn to new clauses 11 and 12 and the new schedule. I am aware that the proposed referendum question in the new schedule is the same as that which was put to the Scottish and Welsh electorates in 1978 and that the Conservative party was in favour of those referendums. It has also been pointed out that I voted for them. But I do not believe that a valid parallel can be drawn between Scotland and Wales, on the one hand, and Northern Ireland, on the other.
First, as I have said, Parliament could not be sure that the devolution proposals were acceptable to both sides of the community, unless a very high proportion of the electorate voted in favour of them. That is clear in a Northern Ireland context. Secondly, the Bill is different in character from the Scotland Act and the Wales Act in that it provides—indeed, this is a large element in the scheme—a framework in which elected representatives can seek agreement on devolution proposals. That is totally different from what was proposed in the Scotland and Wales Acts. Thirdly, Northern Ireland history, geography and political traditions suggest that the case for devolved government there is of a quite different order from that which might obtain elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The central issue is, not whether there should be devolved government for Northern Ireland, but how it should operate. That is the point to which the Bill addresses itself. For those reasons, new clauses 11 and 12, which have been ingeniously devised from the Scotland Act 1978, are not required and are not suitable. If the Government were introducing predetermined arrangements for the exercise of devolved government in Northern Ireland, the case for a referendum might have rather more force, but it is for the elected representatives to produce proposals for the resumption of devolved government.
The first election to an Assembly will inevitably be contested by people with varying attitudes to the

287
Government's proposals. The main issue at that election is likely to be what attitudes should be adopted as regards the initial scrutinising and monitoring functions and the possibility of devolved government. In that sense the elections will constitute a type of referendum. When complex issues are involved, elections are a far more effective way of taking the views of the electorate. What matters is not agreement or disagreement in principle to the Government's proposals but a readiness to work them in practice.
A referendum with a positive majority, even if it were to tell us something about the composition of that majority throughout the community would be of little use if it was followed by elections in which those with negative attitudes to the Assembly were successful and vice versa. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will tell us that that can often be the case in the Northern Ireland context.
There are three possible ways of testing opinion in a democracy: by elections, by referendums and by opinion polls. Each is of some value according to circumstances. In my view, the prime and most reliable test is the first—elections. In this respect I share the view of the hon. Member for Antrim, North that the ballot box is what really matters.
I shall offer the House an illustration, which, in a sense, works against my proposals. If a referendum was held which produced a substantial majority in favour of the Government's proposals, which was then followed up by elections which returned a great majority of Members of the Assembly who were committed in varying degrees to opposing those same proposals, the elections would matter much more than the referendum. If the Government were introducing predetermined arrangements for the exercise of devolved government and were saying in advance exactly what was to happen, the case for a referendum would have rather more point. But it is really for the elected representatives themselves to produce proposals for the resumption of devolved government.
The first election to an Assembly will inevitably be contested by people with varying attitudes to the Government's proposals. A major issue is likely to be the attitude that should be adopted to the initial scrutinising and monitoring functions. When complex issues are involved we believe that elections are a more effective way of assessing the electorate's views.
Opinion polls are another way of assessing people's reactions. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has strong views about such polls. I share any experienced politician's caution about relying too much on opinion polls. In the Northern Ireland context the hon. Member for Antrim, North may be right to suggest that polls underestimate the support that he possesses.
Opinion polls have one practical advantage over referendums. The pollsters can ask a wide set of questions and analyse the results according to party, age and religion so that they show, more than a simple "Yes" or "No" to one or two referendum questions, whether support or opposition is concentrated in one community or another.
The results of the recent poll sponsored by and published in The Irish Times are of interest. They are of interest to some of my hon. Friends who have wondered whether our proposals have any support. For example, we
288
know not only that 60 per cent. of those polled were in favour of an elected Assembly but that 62 per cent. of the Protestants who responded and 51 per cent. of the Catholics were in favour.
Only 16 per cent. were against an Assembly. A total of 24 per cent. did not know. The poll breaks down the 16 per cent. so that we can see that hon. Members who regard the proposals for an Assembly with deep opposition are, according to the poll, expressing the views of 13 per cent. of Northern Ireland's Protestant population. We can see that those in the Republic and in Northern Ireland who have expressed opposition to the proposed Assembly on behalf of the minority community express the views of 21 per cent. of the Roman Catholic population. The figures are worth pondering, recognising that they are only opinion poll figures.
Mr. Farr: I agree with my right hon. Friend's reservation about opinion polls, which can be misleading. It would help if the Secretary of State could give an idea of the size of the sample to which he has referred. My impression is that the sample is so minute as to make the findings of no value.
Mr. Prior: I cannot remember the exact figure, but I know that the sample was proper and that it was rather bigger than one might have expected. I believe that the sample was about 1,000.
Mr. Farr: The sample was well under 1 per cent. of the Northern Ireland population. It involved about 0·25 per cent. of the Republic's population. Not much value can be attached to it.
Mr. Prior: The poll was taken in Northern Ireland. I am not trying to make out a case for opinion polls, but as polls go it was representative, and as accurate as polls are likely to be. I do not want to become too tied down in polls.
Mr. Moate: Why is my right hon. Friend quoting an opinion poll which seems to favour his argument when earlier he argued that he preferred the views of the elected representatives, the majority of whom seemed to be against the proposals?
Mr. Prior: The elected majority has not been tested on the proposals. What my hon. Friend says does not follow. Some hon. Members have asked what evidence I have that a large number of people in Northern Ireland favour my proposals. I am entitled to say that an opinion poll provides that evidence. I am not asking anyone to draw too many conclusions from that.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am rather puzzled by what is going on. Beside my right hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench is the Under-Secretary, who rebuked me roundly for presuming to quote from a public opinion poll. So I said that I would not go in for quoting polls. Now my right hon. Friend says that we should all pay great attention to the results of public opinion polls. Might I ask whether the main question put to the victims of that poll refers to the Assembly or to the Bill as a whole?
Mr. Prior: I do not believe that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State rebuked my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest—certainly not about quoting public opinion polls. It was more about his interpretation of public opinion polls.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: "Can we not bury this poll?", he said, with great passion.
Mr. Prior: Perhaps I should read the last portion of what I was saying.
My view remains that this kind of opinion—welcome though it may be in suggesting that the vehemence with which my proposals have been denounced by party leaders is not necessarily an indication of the opinion of the people of Northern Ireland—offers a no more secure basis for progress towards devolution than would a referendum result. That I accept. What really matter are elections.
I end on that note, because in my view elections are what matter. The election to the Assembly will be the best manner in which we can move to the preparation of
290
devolution proposals, which in turn can be placed in front of the House, and this House will be better able to judge whether the proposals match the requirements of clause 1(4)(a) and (b) better than any other referendum or public opinion poll might do. Given all the other difficulties with referendums, particularly in the context of Northern Ireland, it would be better to do as we have done on a number of other occasions and regard Northern Ireland as involving slightly different circumstances from those of the rest of the United Kingdom. By accepting that the circumstances are rather different, surely that is the best manner in which we can help Northern Ireland to remain a wanted part of the United Kingdom, sharing the full benefits which I believe that that brings.
Mr. Peter Robinson: In rising to speak to amendment No. 26, I am sure that I shall please the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who seemed a little concerned that the Democratic Unionist Party was not intending to speak.
I speak following a most remarkable contribution from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. He appears to say that while the ballot box must be the final arbiter in these matters, he is prepared to accept only a certain type of ballot. To him, the ballot box is worthy of consideration only if it is electing personalities, not if it is to vote for issues. It is the same ballot box and the same people putting in pieces of paper, and that is what I am asking the Secretary of State, in what is a most reasonable amendment, to accept.
Is the Secretary of State saying that, after whatever length of time he takes under clause 1(4) to notify the Assembly that he is satisfied that
"the substance of the proposals is likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community"
he will say "An opinion poll has been undertaken by a Republic of Ireland opinion poll research firm and the results have been printed in a Republic newspaper showing that there is great support for the proposal and, therefore, it is one that I can commend to the House of Commons"? Having heard the right hon. Gentleman's glowing comments about opinion polls, I assume that if such a poll were taken—it could be convenient for a poll research organisation to do so—the right hon. Gentleman would heed the results rather than have the proper—
10.30 pm
Mr. Michael Brown: I am following the hon. Gentleman's line of argument. My right hon. Friend may have it in mind to employ the resources of the Northern Ireland Office to conduct its own opinion poll, thereby ensuring that the answer will always be right.
Mr. Robinson: It is not unknown in Ulster history for opinion polls to be conducted in the most convenient way. I think back to the time of Terence O'Neill, when the most convenient results were obtained from polls. I do not know whether they were taken to the Northern Ireland Office and published thereafter. Certainly the results did not accord with the well known and later expressed views of the Northern Ireland electorate.
I hate to dampen the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for opinion polls—I am sorry that I have to refer so much to polls, but the Secretary of State referred to them and said that they are an alternative to referendums—but I must remind him of some of the results that have been obtained over the past few years. I think especially of the poll that was conducted prior to the European Assembly elections. The then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason), used the results of an opinion poll that showed that moderation was coming to Northern Ireland and predicted that the representatives of the Official Unionist Party and those of the Alliance Party would sweep the boards and be elected to the Assembly. The poll revealed that the Democratic Unionist Party and the SDLP would be kicked to the side. Indeed, it showed that the Democratic Unionist Party leader, who was appointed by my party to be the candidate, would get only 8 per cent. of the vote and that John Hume would get only
292
2 per cent. more than that. The result of the election was that the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party topped the poll, getting more votes than the two Official Unionist Party representatives put together, while the leader of the SDLP took second place. I wonder how the Secretary of State can explain that if he thinks that opinion polls give anything like an accurate result.
Prior to the 1981 local government elections, an opinion poll showed that the Official Unionist Party was to get 41 per cent. of the electorate's support and that the Democratic Unionist Party was to get 19 per cent. The result of the election showed that the Democratic Unionist Party had slightly more votes than the Official Unionist Party and any other political party. If the Secretary of State is to use opinion polls as his means of deciding whether there is widespread acceptance of his proposals, he should consider a better alternative.
I am pleased to offer the right hon. Gentleman a better alternative. It is one that was provided in the Northern Ireland Act 1974 for the Convention. I think that the right hon. Member for Down, South has been slightly pedantic in his approach to the Assembly because basically it will end up as a convention that will look for and bring forward proposals. There is not a great difference between the two concepts. The Secretary of State is happy to clutch at the straw offered by the right hon. Gentleman but he should not clutch it too tightly.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that when this issue was put to the select few in Northern Ireland, many of them may have thought that the Secretary of State's proposals would restore Stormont? There is considerable support in Ulster for the restoration of Stormont, as many in Northern Ireland remember it. Is it not for that reason that the results of the opinion poll to which my right hon. Friend referred were as favourable to his point of view and his proposals as he has highlighted to the Committee?
Mr. Robinson: I cannot give the answer to the hon. Gentleman because his guess is as good as anyone else's as to the thinking of whoever the faceless people were who were interviewed by the opinion pollsters. It appears from the opinion polls that the answers given are the answers that the interviewee believes that the interviewer wants to hear. That seems to be what often happens. The interviewee's impression of the interviewer is shown in his answer rather than his own views.
Mr. Winterton: Is it the hon. Gentleman's view that the people of Ulster see in the proposals a restoration of Stormont, giving them the authority and power that they had prior to the abolition of Stormont, which is why the people of Ulster are perhaps relatively favourably disposed towards the Government's proposals?
Mr. Robinson: I do not accept that it was an accurate opinion poll, but, if one accepted that, that could be the belief. It is the opinion of many people in Northern Ireland that the Secretary of State's proposals could be the first step towards getting some real and meaningful Stormont structure in Northern Ireland. Therefore, prior to today, many people in Northern Ireland were saying that they were prepared to give the Bill a chance.
I shall mention amendment No. 26 specifically, which deals with discretionary referendums. What we are asking for in the amendment is not something that is binding, or

293
is forced upon the Secretary of State, but which gives him the power, should he wish to use it, to clarify in his mind the views of the electorate on specific issues. Therefore, I see little reason why the Secretary of State should stand back from our amendment. It is a reasoned and reasonable amendment, which I should have thought the Secretary of State would find to be an extra weapon in his arsenal, should he wish to use it.
I should have thought that the Secretary of State would have the most secure argument if he were to go to the people of Northern Ireland and gain their support through a referendum. How could any of the politicians about whom the Secretary of State is most exasperated, who oppose his measures, say a word in the House if the Secretary of State were to come to the House with the result of a referendum tucked under his arm and say "You might say that you are opposed to this measure, but because you have a vested interest in the matter here is what the people of Northern Ireland say." Surely the Secretary of State would have the most powerful of arguments in those circumstances.
I wonder why the Secretary of State is shying away from such a reasonable proposition. In his introduction of the Bill and his forcing of it through the House, is not the Secretary of State claiming, at the same time, to have the support of the people of Northern Ireland without testing it. Is it the hope that at a later stage something just as obnoxious could be put before the House without testing it, with the Secretary of State claiming to the House of Commons that it has the support of the people of Northern Ireland.
I make one point to the Secretary of State with considerable regret. There are at least two types of people in the Committee. There are those, first, who genuinely wish to have devolved structures in Northern Ireland, both executive and legislative, and who are doing their best to make the Secretary of State's Bill into something that is not dangerous to those whom they represent and, moreover, which can work in the Province. A second set of people—I do not agree with them, but I respect their views—do not want devolved structures at all. They use the obnoxious clauses of the Secretary of State's Bill to scuttle any prospect of devolution. As someone in the first category, I regret that the Secretary of State has not found himself able to accept even the most reasonable amendment. It appears to many of us that the right hon. Gentleman intends to walk roughshod over whatever may be the views of the Northern Ireland representatives and to push through the Bill.
There is one exception. I invite the Secretary of State to take this opportunity to show that he is sincere and genuine in wanting to achieve a measure that has the support of some people in Northern Ireland by accepting an amendment that does nothing to cut away the roots of the Bill but which can offer strength to the Bill and, at the same time, provide a safeguard to the people of Northern Ireland should he try, at a later stage, to bring forward legislation that is not supported.
The lessons of history show the dangers that can be involved. I wonder if I need remind the Secretary of State and the Committee of what happened in 1974 when a Secretary of State set up a Northern Ireland Executive in the belief that the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland at that time commanded widespread support. The Secretary of State claimed that the Executive had the approval of the people of Northern Ireland. On the basis
294
that the people had voted for these representatives the Secretary of State considered that the natural consequence was to establish the Executive. If there had been a test by referendum, Northern Ireland could have been saved much of the suffering that followed. If the present Secretary of State was to seek support in a referendum—
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman will recall the circumstances leading up to the election in 1973. Will he not agree that if the politicians standing for election at the time had been more honest with the electorate about their intentions after they were elected, they would never have been elected? Does this not indicate that one should be absolutely honest with the electorate about what is contained in the Bill?
Mr. Robinson: The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) speaks with great candour. I am sure that it was difficult for him to utter the remarks that he has just made. It was his party and his then party leader that were dishonest. There is a need for the electorate to be given clearly the views of politicians before an election and for the politicians to stand up for the issues on which they have been voted into office.
If the Secretary of State were to gain support through a referendum, he would be able to come to the House in a strong position, able to argue that the people of Northern Ireland were behind him. Without that support through a referendum, it would be better that he did not proceed. If he has the referendum, he will know.
Mr. William Ross: I have listened with great interest to the debate over the last two days. It seems more like two hours, because of the ability of hon. Members to put forward their views. If it had not been for the harshness of the Government Whips, it might have been possible to investigate matters in the detail that they deserve rather than skating so lightly over the surface. In a few hours we shall debate clause stand part, and be able to re-examine in considerable detail the matters that have been touched upon.
Mr. Molyneaux: We shall also be able to examine those matters that have not been dealt with in the debate on the amendments.
10.45 pm
Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will be aware that I am not as experienced in these matters as he is, as I have not had an opportunity to speak on as many of the amendments as he has, because of the quick closure of the debates. He will appreciate that I should like to put a few views to the Committee before we put the Bill on the statute book—if we ever do. We are worried about the serious defects in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 have one benefit that commends them to me, although I am against the general principle of referendums. The amendments lay before us the simple majority system. No democrat can object to that. The proposal is simple and straightforward and it works. However, I am rather concerned about where we should get if it did come into operation, because if the Secretary of State were to use a referendum to judge how widespread the support was, he would run into the difficulty, touched upon earlier, of knowing whether that support existed only in one section of the community, or right across all sections.

295
Cross-community support is the key, regardless of whether it is 50 per cent. plus one or 70 per cent. If it is not cross-community support but cross-party support, or a mixture of community and party support, there can be no devolution of any significance. How will the Secretary of State make the subjective judgment that he will have to make of anything that is put forward? He has to know what colour these votes are. There is such a myriad of political colours in Northern Ireland, one wonders whether it would be possible to print ballot papers in different colours. The voter could select the ballot paper according to his political or religious affiliations.
If the Secretary of State were to follow that procedure, which seems simple, there is no doubt that some people would cheat. One could not use that procedure unless the individual had absolute proof of identity. That would mean that the Government would have to accept—
Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I am listening intently to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He is making important points, and I hope that the right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench are listening carefully.
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): That is not a point of order.
Mr. Ross: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, knowing how much care and thought I have put into my remarks, the Ministers are listening with great care to my point of view.
If one were to adopt my general principle for identification at the polling station, we should find it necessary to introduce a system that we have long sought for security, with every individual in Northern Ireland having an identity card. Moreover, it should be an identity card that not only states a person's name and has a photograph and perhaps a thumb print, but also states a person's religious and political affiliations. That would obviate the difficulty caused by impersonation which is supposed to be widespread in Northern Ireland, although I have never found it to be so. I think that it is grossly over-estimated.
If the Government were prepared to consider my suggestion, every elector could be positively identified along with his political affiliation. They could not get a ballot paper of the wrong colour and whenever the ballot was counted the Secretary of State would have an accurate count of opinion.
Mr. Michael Brown: The hon. Gentleman's idea should be treated seriously. The political system in America is so structured that there is an official registration of electors which states what political party persons belong to. When electors in certain States vote on an issue that is not concerned with the election of a person for a political office—for example, alcohol consumption or Sunday trading—the presiding officers and the State know how many republicans voted in favour of a certain issue and how many democrats. Therefore, what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting for Northern Ireland is in being as a model in some states in America.
Mr. Ross: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point and giving my idea an impeccable foundation. After all, we are talking about the greatest
296
democratic State in the world. If he were present, my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) might have disagreed with me on that. However, the United States of America is a democratic country and I should have thought that any scheme that it was prepared to adopt would be worthy of consideration in Britain.
I was in New Zealand during the last general election in November 1981 and I noticed that it had a slightly different way from us of conducting elections. Garages, private houses and so on were used as polling stations. That would not be acceptable in the United Kingdom.
There are many and varied possibilities. There is no doubt that the Secretary of State should put his officials to work to consider some of them.
Mr. Richard Body: If the hon. Gentleman is seriously arguing for identity cards in Northern Ireland, would he go so far as to say that all persons in the United Kingdom should have such identity cards? Or is he suggesting that it should apply only to those in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Ross: That raises the important question as to whether we should distinguish between citizens in one part of the United Kingdom and another. Given the number of people across the Irish Sea and the number of people who visit England from Ireland, not all of whom come with good and peaceable intentions, it would be wise to consider extending such a scheme to the United Kingdom. It was necessary in the antiterrorist legislation in the past and it has proven necessary to keep such legislation up to the present. If the scheme could be made available to the security and police forces throughout the United Kingdom, one could look upon it with great favour.
In those circumstances, I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the scheme and put it to his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for consideration in relation to Britain. There are other democratic States, such as France, in which it is necessary to carry an identity card. If such things are necessary to protect life and property and to identify people at the poll—sour most important asset—there is no reason why we should not give careful consideration to the whole subject.
Mr. Lawrence: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will develop his point about parity of treatment in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. What would be the ramifications if the British people were encouraged, by referendum, to decide whether the troops should stay in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Ross: When they fully understand the issue, the people of Great Britain always make a sensible decision. The arguments that apply to the "troops out" question are not fully explained, so we might need some good public education. There should be more explanation of that issue than there was when we entered the Common Market. Those who said that we should stay out of the EEC were eventually proved right.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Is not the hon. Gentleman's proposition alien to the British voting system? If, as I believe, Northern Ireland is very much a part of the United Kingdom, should not the voting systems in Northern Ireland be precisely the same as those in the remainder of the United Kingdom? Is not one of the most sacred features of our voting system that votes are cast privately and confidentially? Therefore, is not his proposition alien and will he not reconsider it? I am sure that he shares my

297
view that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. We want it to remain part of the United Kingdom, but the hon. Gentleman's proposal will not help towards that end.
Mr. Ross: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point that the secrecy of the ballot must be maintained and that the same procedures should prevail throughout the United Kingdom. However, the same standards and systems do not prevail. After all, all hon. Members in the United Kingdom are elected by the simple majority system. However, that is not true of all elections in Northern Ireland. We have to contend with the single transferable vote and with so-called proportional representation. That matter has been ignored in our debates so far, but we should give it serious consideration. The system in Northern Ireland can have a result different from that which would otherwise prevail if the simple majority system were used.
The idea of using identity cards at polling stations has been thrown out for discussion to help the Secretary of State to decide whether the poll that he might hold has the widespread support in the community that he evidently desires. He must discover what the vote is, before making up his mind one way or the other. A secret ballot would be a great help if there was some way of identifying the proportions of the parties that voted for the proposals.
11 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the identity card would be a much more sensible means of identification than the showing of, for example, a rent book, because many people in Northern Ireland are not terribly keen on paying their rent and would be only too happy to hand over their rent books?
Mr. Ross: There is perhaps some levity in the hon. Gentleman's comment, but unfortunately it is true. The difficulty in some parts of Northern Ireland is not so much the rent book as the rent. Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office know about those difficulties.
I have had some difficulty with amendment No. 26. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), but I noticed that his amendment talks about a "poll or polls". It would appear that the hon. Member for Antrim, North is thinking of moving towards the Swiss system of a torrent of polls to try to determine the opinion of the people on many different issues. That is a fascinating idea in the British Parliamentary context and we must consider it carefully. The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has not expanded sufficiently on the possibilities of his amendment and the matter is so wide that we must hear from him again.
I can understand one poll for a specific purpose, but now we have been told that there could be a poll or polls, so it is clear that the hon. Member for Antrim, North is thinking of the need for more than one. Therefore, perhaps he will agree with those who said earlier that only one function at a time should be devolved and that we can have a poll on each. That would be fairly costly and the public purse might suffer, but he is leaving the door open for that and we should applaud his vision. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have performed a valuable service for which they should be commended, because it is a serious proposal.
New clause 11 is very interesting and I have listened to hon. Members' remarks. However, a few points have
298
not yet been raised and perhaps the movers of the new clause can set my mind at rest as to the proposals. We meet again in subsection 2 the words
"If it appears to the Secretary of State that less than 40 per cent."
The word "appears" has many connotations that worry me. It is not an objective, hard and fast judgment but a subjective judgment that must be added to all the questions that were raised on the amendments put down to the Scotland and Wales Acts about how accurate the register was, how many had died or moved away, how long the register had been in print and the exact number of electors in the community.
I do not believe that those matters were ever satisfactorily concluded. Certainly they all need to be considered again. How is an accurate 40 per cent. to be arrived at if there is difficulty in settling the precise number of electors? How do we find out what 100 per cent. is? How many mistakes are there on the register? How many people are on twice and how many not at all? There is a monthly updating of the register, so when is the 100 per cent. figure for the electorate in the Province to be decided?
It is a serious problem because I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members recall that when the vote was taken in Scotland there was a vote in favour of the Scotland Act 1978 but it failed on the 40 per cent. rule.
Mr. Bill Walker: There was a slim majority in favour in Scotland. It was about 31 per cent. against 30 per cent. The majority of Scottish Members were in favour of devolution. The hon. Member may wish to consider that, because the majority of Scottish Members and the Scottish electorate were in favour of the Scotland Act.[Interruption.] It was the Scotland Act at the time of the referendum. I wish that a few more of my English hon. Friends would pay more attention.
One of the problems that the hon. Gentleman and I share is that so many hon. Members are naturally interested primarily in English matters that they rarely understand in great depth the problems of Scotland, Ireland or Wales. We face the difficulty of making them understand the problems. It is important to note that the majority of Scottish Members were in favour of the Scotland Act 1978 and the majority of Scottish electors who voted were in favour. It failed because it did not achieve the required 40 per cent.
Mr. Ross: The Committee will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who ha .s confirmed my view. I am sure that he will confirm that a small mistake in arriving at an accurate total of the electorate could have produced a different result in Scotland with regard to the percentage of votes cast. If the figure had been lower, the 40 per cent. would have been achieved. We have no way of knowing how accurate the figures on the register are. Whenever there is an election every Northern Ireland Member—I am sure it happens elsewhere in the United Kingdom—is approached by a number of electors either on election day or afterwards who say, "I do not have a vote. Where is my vote? I have been here for 10, 20 or 30 years. I have always been on the electoral register, but I went to cast my vote and suddenly my name is not there." That is a serious matter and we cannot allow it to rest without a full explanation—
Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman is talking about people entitled to vote, and those are the electors on the electoral register. It is just too bad if persons are not on the register. They are not included in the 40 per cent.
Mr. Ross: But what does "entitled" mean? I am not a lawyer, but the law of this country provides that, in general, a person over 18 is entitled to vote. The final entitlement is that he or she is on the register, but what sort of entitlement is included in the amendments? What about those who are ill on the day? A host of problems remain unresolved after the intervention of the hon. Member for Antrim, North.
Mr. John Gorst: It is rivetingly interesting that, in the first of today's four Divisions on amendments, only 40 per cent. of hon. Members who were entitled to vote actually did so. In the second Division a mere 28·7 per cent. voted and on the other two Divisions 37 per cent. and 36 per cent. of hon. Members voted.
If we examine the numbers voting against the amendments, we see that there has not been a majority of as much as 37 per cent. Does the hon. Gentleman draw any conclusions from that in relation to the matters that he is discussing?
Mr. Ross: I have always found electoral matters riveting. The hon. Gentleman made an interesting intervention. It demonstrates the powers of the Whips. The Secretary of State is prepared to force the Bill through in the absence of many of his right hon. and hon. Friends and without asking whether he has cross-community or cross-party support. Evidently he does not even have the total support of his own party. The right hon. Gentleman and the Government are not prepared to accept for themselves the principles that they are laying down for Northern Ireland.
I cut my political teeth on electoral matters. Before we appointed electoral officers in Northern Ireland to look after these matters—inefficiently as they do so—the political parties had the responsibility of seeing that their supporters were on the electoral registers and that the dead, whom we are told rise and vote, were not on the registers. I did that over a large rural area, part of it densely populated and part of it sparsely populated. It was a most interesting experience. I had to inquire who had left and who was there, and check on their ages. We used to collect the odd pound for the Unionist Party as well. All politicians know how necessary it is to get the odd fiver, as I suppose it is now, to keep the ship of the party afloat. I was about to say the ship of State, but perhaps that would not be fitting.
11.15 pm
New clause 11 raises some important issues. Not only do I have an interest in electoral registers—indeed, who in Ulster has not?—but I have long, detailed experience of the checking of registers and of lists which are issued so that the population may ensure that the register is correct. I have also taken part in elections as a personation agent—something which is rarely done in Great Britain.
I have taken a great interest in electoral registration courts. No doubt legislation provides for such courts here, but I understand that the detail is not carried out as assiduously as in Ulster, where we object to the inclusion of those who are not entitled to be on the register. We go to the courts which are held specially for the purpose and
300
which are chaired by the local deputy electoral officer. A person's name may be taken off or put on the register, depending on proof of entitlement to vote. It was on that basis that I was putting the question earlier about the meaning of entitlement in regard to this new clause.
In new clause 12 the word "appears" occurs again. In those circumstances many of the same questions could be asked about that new clause as about new clause 11.
Amendment No. 65 is a proposed new schedule put forward by some members of the Conservative Party. Paragraph 1 refers to a referendum to be held
"not less than six weeks after the making of the Order, as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint."
It is not clear to me precisely what sort of an order this is. Those who are more experienced in these matters or the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who have tabled the new schedule may be able to tell us whether it will be possible to pray against the order or to debate it. If so, what will be the effect?
There is also the problem of electors who may vote in a parliamentary constituency in Northern Ireland. What about Irish citizens? What about Irish peers, who have the right perhaps to vote for Members coming here, or even to sit in the House? All these matters need to be gone into in great depth. So far, we have only skated over them.
I referred just now to Irish citizens. I do not know how many live in Northern Ireland and are entitled to vote in parliamentary elections, but I suspect there are quite a number, and there is the possibility of those people, not even being United Kingdom citizens, any more than is the noble Lord Gowrie who is in the Northern Ireland Office, all having the right to vote. If we accepted the new schedule, in my view it would have to be amended to remove from Irish citizens the right to vote on this constitutional issue. Of course, I should be prepared to remove it from the Irish citizens in any case. Anyone who votes in this country should be a citizen of this country. I do not see why we should give to Irish citizens the right to vote on any matter which can affect the composition of this place. We heard complaints about Northern Ireland Members sitting and voting here when the Stormont Parliament was in operation. Surely, it is far worse when citizens of a foreign country have the right to affect what is going on in the House of Commons and in the United Kingdom.
In paragraph 5 of the new schedule we see a reference to the cost of a referendum and how it is to be met. We read:
"An Order in Council …shall not charge any sum on the Consolidated Fund."
Again, we have to ask whether the Order in Council is debatable. Reference is also made to the Order in Council in paragraph 4. All these matters probably would have to be debated in great detail before we got round to holding a referendum, and we should need to take on board all these problems and give them much deeper consideration than they have had so far.
I have not yet mentioned the form of the ballot paper. My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South spoke of the view of the Assembly being ignored, to say nothing of the views of Members of Parliament. We also need to be told how we are to arrive at the question which is to appear on the ballot paper. How is the wording to be decided? There is so much that could be said about opinion polls. There is even more to be said about the character of the Irishman who, we are told, is always willing to tell

301
folk what he thinks they want to hear. This is a vast subject. I hope that I shall be able to catch your eye, Mr. Weatherill, in order to speak on it again.
Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston): There are many arguments against referendums. Some people say that they are too expensive. It is never an easy time to spend money if the expenditure can be avoided. Some people say that we in the House are elected to decide the matters that come before us and that there is no need to keep running to ask our electors for their opinions on this or that subject. It is felt that if we once started down the path of referendums, we could deteriorate into a sort of maxi-Switzerland with all sorts of referendums on all sorts of different subjects.
It is said that the British people do not like referendums and would not vote in them. It is said that they like to elect their Parliament once at a general election and that that should be the end of the matter. I would go along with all of those points, but the pass has already been sold. If it is true that we can ignore all these arguments in a referendum about the EEC, or about Scotland or Wales, I cannot see how there can possibly be a determination by Ministers to block a referendum on this subject.
Viscount Cranborne: I am sure that my hon. Friend has observed during our debates on the Bill that many members of the Official Unionist Party have rested their case on an integrationist argument. That argument, as I have understood it, is based on the overwhelming power of the parliamentary system at Westminster. I wonder whether my hon. Friend would consider just how much damage the introduction of referendums might do to the strength of parliamentary government and therefore to the arguments of members of the Official Unionist Party.
Mrs. Knight: Yes. I take my hon. Friend's point. As I have shown in the few comments that I have already made, I am not necessarily a supporter of referendums. My point is that the time for saying to the people of Britain that referendums are not to be permitted has gone. The whole argument has been swept away. I am not so much a reluctant convert to referendums as a student of history and a lover of logic. I simply do not understand what argument there can possibly be against asking the people of Northern Ireland if they want the monstrosity that the House is preparing to wish upon them.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to Ulster as a wanted member of the United Kingdom. I took down those words as he said then. That is a warm phrase unless one thinks of it in a criminal context. I am anxious that Ulster should feel a genuinely wanted part of the United Kingdom. I share my right hon. Friend's view on that, but how can Ulster consider itself wanted when so many conditions are forced on Northern Ireland which do not apply elsewhere in the United Kingdom?
The Bill proposes that there should be a different system of election and that there should be no chance for any of the citizens of Northern Ireland to say whether they want that different system of election. I am an opponent of proportional representation. I believe that it throws up weak Government. I could speak at great length on the dangers of changing the system.
Sir John Biggs-Davison rose—
Mrs. Knight: I shall finish my sentence and then I shall gladly give way to my hon. Friend. If there is to be a
302
different system of election from that in he rest of the United Kingdom—I know that there has been proportional representation in Northern Ireland—the people of the Province should at least have the chance to say whether they want it or whether they do not.
Sir John Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friends and I tabled an amendment on the electoral system and we look forward to my hon. Friend's assistance when that amendment is debated.
11.30 pm
Mrs. Knight: I have noted that amendment and I shall speak to it later.
I wonder how we, who have the honour to be Members of the House of Commons, would feel if different systems were forced upon us against our will, without our having the right to say whether we wanted them.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Lady is aware that the House put the proposition to the Northern Ireland people, not during the troubles in the 1970s but in 1920.
Mrs. Knight: The system was changed for good reason. I shall deal with that later.
I wish to deal with other differences, because we are not discussing PR alone. I refer to the yardstick which determines whether a measure should or should not be approved. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) has already drawn to the attention of a fascinated Committee the voting that we have experienced tonight. If the 70 per cent. majority rule had applied tonight, none of the Bill would have been approved. If the figure were 40 per cent., the same would have applied.
Mr. Lawrence: If cross-party agreement were necessary, the result would be affected because seldom has more than 1 per cent. of the Labour Party been present in the Chamber.
Mrs. Knight: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. It has crossed my mind that the pairing arrangements for this evening must be interesting. We have watched with admiration the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley)—the Laurel and Hardy of the Opposition Front Bench—nobly taking the burden. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was so moved by the sight of the empty Opposition Benches that he put more beef into the Back Benches, and moved over to sit there.
The 70 per cent. proposition must be put before the people. I remind the Committee that on one famous occasion in this House, one was enough. One vote led to the last general election. What a night that was! How different it will be in Northern Ireland with no such arrangements allowed and no views sought in the Province.
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Lady said that just one vote decided out of over 600. Has she reflected that that is one sixth of 1 per cent?
Mrs. Knight: I confess that one of my many failings is that I am not a mathematician. I have no doubt that what the hon. Gentleman says is true. How can Ulster consider itself to be wanted, needed and loved if a totally different set of rules is imposed and no one there is allowed to judge?
Mr. Gorst: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Devolved government is not democratic government. By democratic government I mean
"government of the people, by the people, and for the people."
Our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State means government of 30 per cent. of the people, by 70 per cent. of the people, and for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mrs. Knight: I have cause again to congratulate my hon. Friend on the pithiness and accuracy of his remarks.
We in this House should not forget that on the day of the Second Reading of the Bill, The Daily Telegrapha— a newspaper that is not normally reckoned to be against the Government; indeed, it normally supports the Government—contained an opinion column which could hardly be more damning of any Government Bill. Perhaps I might read one or two brief excerpts from it. It said:
"the Bill, bitterly unpopular with nearly all politicians in both parts of Ireland, will also face determined opposition from a substantial number of Conservative backbenchers"
That is perfectly true. I say again to my right hon. Friend that we are not here out of mischief or malice. We are here fighting against the Bill because we all believe that it is wrong for Northern Ireland. We feel that very keenly. I am sure that my right hon. Friend, who is a fair-minded man, will recognise the motives behind our fight.
The other comment that I wanted to read was:
"The most probable outcome of this irresponsible adventure is an impotent assembly bitterly divided and manifesting all the rage associated with impotence. There is something almost insulting about the inadequacy and mutual incompatibility of the arguments used to defend the measure".
That is what The Daily Telelgraph felt should be said about this Bill.
I come back to this crucial group of amendments. I do not understand how my right hon. Friend could say—it may have been the other Minister—in an earlier debate that it would be contentious if the local authority in Northern Ireland were given more power. He thinks it would be contentious if the local authority had more power, yet it would not be contentious if this Bill went through. If that is true, let us test it by a referendum. It is an easy thing to do, and that is what this series of amendments seeks to do.
The name of Stormont came up earlier in this debate. Of course, we are not debating Stormont. It has gone, and we cannot turn back the clock. I wish that we could. Two of the major mistakes made by this House over Ulster were, first, getting rid of Stormont, and second, getting rid of the B Specials. Those two enormous mistakes are difficult to set right. It is not possible to talk about Stormont being reconstituted because, certainly in the period of my knowledge, it did not have PR, although the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) pointed out that it started out with PR. Proportional representation was withdrawn, and the ordinary system of voting was introduced into Stormont, because of the character of the problem in Northern Ireland. It was clearly recognised that that system was not right for Stormont, and it was withdrawn, yet here we are going down the same road again.
It was most unfortunate yesterday that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) should have sought to imply that no one who had not lived in Ulster or visited Ulster frequently should speak in this debate. I have a deep affection for Ulster, and I have a right to express that affection. I shall go down fighting for
304
the right of Ulster to say what Ulster wants on this Bill. Cannot my right hon. Friend recognise that this is not a wildcat demand, that it is not a determination to hold up the passage of the Bill? This is a moderate and reasonable demand. If we really want the people of Northern Ireland to feel that they are part of us, we can do no less than grant them this demand.
Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) made an elegant and persuasive speech, demonstrating that we are discussing a major constitutional principle and illustrating the great skill and selectivity that we show in applying this principle when it suits us and ignoring it when it does not. She said that we had always sold the pass, as indeed we have. There are many examples in legislation of the introduction of referendums, and I have heard not one convincing argument against doing so in the Bill. Nevertheless, it is clear that we shall find any pretext—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State produced some fairly thin ones—for not using the referendum technique if it happens not to suit us at a particular time.
Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his speech. He said that he had heard no convincing argument for rejecting the referendum route. Perhaps he will consider one argument that is adduced in favour of referendums—that if a simple question is put to the electorate, it will finish the argument once and for all. I suggest, particularly in the presence of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), that the referendum on the Common Market did not finish the argument once and for all. Regrettably, in my view, as I support the Common Market, many hon. Members would argue that it did exactly the opposite. My hon. Friend might consider that that is one powerful argument at least which can be refuted by those who have doubts about the use of referendums.
Mr. Moate: That point can be taken both ways. I do not believe that any vote can settle a matter that represents permanent divisions within the electorate. Thus, the Common Market issue could not be settled by the use of a referendum. Without that referendum, however, our continued presence within the Community would have been very difficult for the Government to sustain. The wholehearted consent of the people, in the phrase used at that time, at least gained us a veneer of respectability. To that extent, a referendum helps for a while.
I was worried somewhat by the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). He gave a riveting account of how he cut his political teeth, but at the end of his dissertation on electoral dentistry, which lasted well over half an hour, it was still not clear to me whether he was for or against the use of referendums. He suggested that if we had referendums it might be necessary also to have identity cards. That is about the most powerful argument against referendums that I have heard. If it meant that identity cards would be necessary throughout the United Kingdom, many of us would vote against the proposal on that ground. I believe that the British people would resent it. Indeed, there would probably have to be a referendum on whether identity cards should be introduced, and no doubt the proposal would be voted down.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made a significant point. I do not wish to misquote him.

305
I think that he argued, in effect, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was prepared to see the ballot box used to vote for personalities but not for issues. That summarises the whole argument about the use of referendums. It was odd, therefore, that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State then found great comfort in an opinion poll that seemed to support him on the particular issue. If my right hon. Friend places such value on that poll, which seemed to support him, surely that suggests that he, too, would like to have reassurance on the introduction of this proposed legislation. It was clear that he found great comfort from the poll. He said that polls had great advantages. One great advantage is that we can ignore those that we do not like and select those that we do like.
I do not think that my right hon. Friend was at his most convincing when, having quoted the result of the opinion poll and suggested that a majority of the electorate was in favour of the proposition that he has put forward, he added that he was in favour not of single issue politics but of representative Government, and that he preferred the views of elected politicians.
11.45 pm
Surely we are talking in this instance about politicians who have been elected to the Westminster Parliament. If we are to make any judgments on the prospects for this legislation being successful, we must consider the opposition of the elected politicians of the Province. That being so, I suggest that those who support the Bill should be pessimistic about its chances of contributing anything to Northern Ireland.
I voted in favour of the Bill's Second Reading. I have supported the Government since then. However, the more that I have listened to the debates, the harder I find it to justify my support. The longer that I stay in the Chamber, the more I regret what I did. However, if we can insert a referendum clause, at least we shall be able to say "Bad though this legislation might be, at least the people of Ulster will have the opportunity to endorse or reject it."
My right hon. Friend should not discard this proposition lightly. If he is right in thinking that the measure has the support of the electorate, surely he will be strengthened in his resolve and it will have a greater chance of success if he puts it to the electorate as a specific issue. I am puzzled because my right hon. Friend has not used the technique as a means of endorsing his proposals. It would have saved him a great deal of heartache, hardship and late nights in Committee. He could have referred throughout to the long—stopthe facility of the electorate to make the final judgment.
I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider his position. I ask him especially to reconsider his arguments, which were not totally convincing. My right hon. Friend argued that there is a great difference between Northern Ireland and Scotland and Wales. His main argument seemed to be that in Northern Ireland we must establish that both communities will support or reject the proposition and that that cannot be done in a referendum. If so, he is demolishing the argument for a border poll. If there is a normal vote on a border poll, it will be impossible to distinguish authentically between the way that the communities vote. I do not think that my right hon. Friend is devaluing the border poll in suggesting that we should leave it entrenched in the constitution. If that is valid, I suggest that a referendum on this issue—
Mr. Gorst: I put a question to my hon. Friend with much diffidence because of the presence on the Treasury Bench of my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. Amendment No. stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). If accepted, it will put to a referendum the proposals in clause 1. One par: of the proposals consists of the Assembly's standing orders. Does he feel that paragraph 38, which deals with the closure of debate. might be the subject of a referendum, especially on whether it is appropriate in a devolved Assembly for there to be any closure of debate? I wonder whether my hon. Friend would give me his opinion on whether he would support amendment No. 101, because he has addressed himself mainly to the new clauses.
Mr. Moate: I shall come to points regarding amendment No. 101. The closuring of the Irish is an impossible proposition. As my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip will discover, we might be able to secure it on a temporary basis, but in the long term it would not be a fruitful exercise. It concerns me greatly that not only do we often have to closure major constitutional debates but that hanging over the whole question is the shadow of the guillotine. That is much more worrying. I shall come to that point, because. it is relevant to the question of whether there is a referendum.
Mr. Gorst: I think that I can assist my hon. Friend again. According to the standing orders of the Irish Assembly, it would be necessary for a closure to have 25 Members voting. In the closure that we have had today, a mere 26·5 per cent. voted for it. If we take the figures of those who would be in the Assembly under the Bill as it stands or as it might be if there were 85 Members, the necessity for 25 Members voting would mean that no form of closure would carry a sufficient percentage of those eligible to vote. Also, there are no standing orders in the Irish Assembly that provide for any guillotine.
Mr. Moate: Heaven help us if we introduce the principle of a quorum or such minimum figures into our legislation. If we had done so, certainly on a Friday, hardly one Bill would have been passed in the whole history of Parliament. Perhaps that would be a good thing. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do no go down that path too far.
I was trying to deal with the seond argument advanced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He said that if we had proposed a fully fledged devolution and a major transfer of powers now, as we did with Scotland and Wales, there would be a strong case for a referendum in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said something akin to that. We are proposing not anything of that sort at this time but an elected Assembly that would have the power to seek devolved powers at a later stage. They would come later as creeping devolution.
We are saying that the net result, in the long term, could be the same because the Assembly could acquire devolved powers. Admittedly, there would be subsequent parliamentary procedures. We could consider how effective they might be, but the net result would be the same devolved powers being held by the Northern. Ireland Assembly. My right hon. Friend is saying that, had we done that in one go, the people of Northern Ireland would have the right to decide but that, if we do it by creeping devolution, they will be denied that right to decide.

307
If we are arguing about anything and if opposition to the Bill means anything, it is because we believe that ultimately power will be transferred and that the Bill is the beginning of real devolution in the sense of the devolution of Scotland and Wales, which we discussed. If we believed that a referendum was justified then, I cannot see how we can argue that it is not justified now.
My right hon. Friend advanced another argument. He said that we might ask the electorate, under amendment No. 101, to vote upon a package of powers to be devolved. The Assembly of elected Members may be opposed to the package. I accept that this is the classic conflict in any referendum. It is a situation that could have arisen over Scottish and Welsh devolution or Common Market legislation. It is the dilemma that has to be resolved if referendums are ever used. The argument cannot be employed to demolish the use of a referendum in the situation now being discussed. It is always the way if, on the one hand, we wish to maintain the sovereignty of Parliament and, on the other, to use this electoral device occasionally to seek the views of the electorate on particular issues.
An element of coexistence has been produced. All hon. Members believe in the sovereignty of Parliament. Many of us have come to believe in the validity of an occasional referendum on single issues. It is because we can be pragmatic and not ideological that this element of coexistence is achieved.
The Northern Ireland issue is the classic instance for the use of a referendum. There are a number of special reasons. One is the relatively empty nature of the Chamber tonight. It has filled up a little. There are now two Labour Members present—double the number seen for much of the evening. Hon. Members will recall that when the issue of the 40 per cent. requirement was debated on the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill, the Chamber was packed. A tremendous sense of drama existed. It was a great constitutional issue.
Those proposals had been discussed for months. There had been long periods of consultation. The Bill now before the Committee has not received such consideration. When there has been inadequate consultation and debate on a Bill at this stage of a parliamentary Session—I find the timing strange—there is an even stronger case for consulting the electorate.
We have no written constitution. Our checks and balances are very much influenced by the power of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary, by the party system and by the whipping system that all hon. Members support, understand and value. Within that system, there is a need sometimes for checks and controls on major constitutional issues. Much legislation can be changed and reversed without people being much the poorer. Even the Government can be changed. However, a major change in the constitution requires tremendous care and caution.
With a written constitution, such a change could not be effected. If the change was contrary to the written constitution in a nation that believed in the rule of law, it would have to go to the Supreme Court. A matter could not be passed unless it was approved by an overwhelming majority in both Houses. That is not the case here. When a Bill is introduced in this manner and at this time, the need arises for the check and balance of the referendum. The electorate acts as the long stop. It can prevent violent
308
and radical change. It can prevent Parliament abusing its power and its sovereignty through passing too quickly, helped by excessive use of the whipping system, a major and radical change through both Houses.
This is, in principle, the sort of issue on which there should be a willingness to use the referendum. If my right hon. Friend was prepared to consider this approach, and perhaps introduce it in the other place, he would find his own position and the prospects for this legislation working strengthened.
That might be regarded as arguing against myself because I am increasingly beginning to believe that the legislation is a mistake. It is either an exercise in futility, because the Assembly will remain a talking shop that will provide another platform for yet more talk, or it will move towards the taking over of devolved powers granted by the House. That will cause immense damage to the unity of the United Kingdom. It will be a precedent that will be seized by those who wish to give similar powers to Scotland and Wales. Whichever of those propositions turns out to be correct, the people of Northern Ireland ought to have the right to say whether they want to take that risk. Even if it goes wrong, if the people have backed it in a referendum, there will be much less odium heaped on the heads of those who introduced the legislation.
12 midnight
This is an important proposal. It should be passed. I can see defects, particularly in amendment No. 101. The right hon. Member for Down, South was right in his criticism of the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). It would be difficult to put a package of proposals to the voters and then to put it to Parliament and ask Parliament to vote for or against it. Parliament would not wish to be presented with what has been described as a predetermined package by our electoral masters.
I should still vote for the amendment in the hope that it could be altered, that we could then suggest that it be passed by the House, but that it should not come into effect until it had been supported by 40 per cent. of those entitled to vote. That is a strong case.
We should vote for the amendments—they might need tidying up and changing—and perhaps the new clauses. Above all, we should incorporate the principle of the referendum in the Bill because, as a number of hon. Members have said, this is an issue on which we should let the people decide.
Mr. Prior: We have had a further considerable debate on this subject, and I shall deal with a number of the points that have been raised.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), discussed amendment No. 26, which he tabled. He said that it appeared that we were not prepared to consider or accept amendments moved by anyone, regardless of whether they appeared to be reasonable or not, and that we spent our time knocking down amendments. That is not the case. So far we have not found amendments that we think are particularly appropriate, but if amendments come up, and if there are other matters in the Bill that I think can be improved, I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall have an open mind.
Some weeks ago the hon. Member for Belfast, East came with a deputation to see me on a particular matter.

309
We are raking into account some of the points he raised, and shall be putting down amendments that I hope will be helpful to him.
In the case of referendums—this applies to the other amendments—my strong advice to the Committee is not to accept any of the amendments. I say this because I believe that Northern Ireland, both in its history and in its geography, as in its political traditions, is different from the other parts of the United Kingdom and raises, in respect of referendums, different considerations from those that would normally be raised.
In particular, because of the arrangement that we have made for this legislation whereby any question of a transfer of powers has to come back to this House for its decision, it is far best left, first, to the Assembly and then to this House to make the decision. It is for that reason that I am asking the Committee to reject these amendments.
Mr. Julian Amery rose—
Mr. Gorst rose—
Mr. Prior: May I complete my point?
To take the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), it is not necessarily that I am against referendums or the selection of a single issue. In recent years, that has had a fair degree of success. However, in this particular case it is not a straight matter of "Yes" or "No". The transfer of power is a delicate and difficult matter. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, it would be difficult for most of the people to make an adequate decision without being asked a whole range of questions that I think would be inappropriate to a referendum.
Mr. Gorst rose—
Mr. Prior: I will give way when I have completed my reply to my hon. Friend's speech.
My hon. Friend went on to talk about the Border poll. He said that if I did not think that referendums had a part to play, there was no need for a Border poll. We have provision for a Border poll as part of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act and that remains. However, when people vote on the Border poll in Northern Ireland they tend to vote along the lines of their religious or constitutional views. I am not saying that they should not, but the way they vote is pre-ordained. That has emerged in the referendums that we have had and I think that it would do so again in referendums on virtually any subject. I do not believe—
Mr. Gorst rose—
Mr. Amery rose—
Mr. Prior: If I give way at all it will be to my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), because he has been trying to intervene.
Mr. Gorst: I do not mean to be disrespectful, but my right hon. Friend's argument is completely pragmatic it order to obtain a pre-determined result. Many hon. Members fear that in the process of his pragmatism he is selling principle down the road.
Mr. Prior: I cannot for the life of me think why my hon. Friend has to accuse me of selling principles down the road because I am taking a view against referendums.
Mr. Amery rose—
Mr. Prior: No, I will not give way to my right hon. Friend.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the Secretary of State give way to a Member for Northern Ireland?
Mr. Prior: I shall give way in a minute.
It would be quite wrong for us to believe that this issue in relation to Northern Ireland is in any way connected with the Scotland. or Wales Acts. It is a completely different situation and in this scheme there is a large—
Mr. Amery: I grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. It is quite absurd for him to tell the Committee that there is no parallel between Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Of course there is a parallel. What he is really saying is that the democratic wish of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland should not prevail and that the minority should have a veto. That is the core of the proposal that he is putting to us. I do not say that that is wrong, but let us be clear that the idea that the minority should prevail is at the front of his mind.
Mr. Prior: That is absolute nonsense and my right hon. Friend knows it. We are setting up an Assembly. There will be an election. to the Assembly. That is the first and most important factor. In that way the democratic wish of the people will be expressed by those whom they vote for in an Assembly. It will then be for the Assembly to put proposals to the Secretary of State, as laid down in clause 1(4)(a) and (b), for the consideration of the House. That is perfectly democratic and correct.
Mr. Amery: It is not democratic.
Mr. Prior: In the context of Northern Ireland, it is more democratic than simply going for a referendum.
Rev. Ian Paisley: How can the Secretary of State stand at the Dispatch Bo K saying that people voted in the Border poll according to their religious convictions? Only 6,000 people voted against. Is he saying that there are only 6,000 Roman Catholics or republicans in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Prior: I should have said that the people either voted because they were told to vote, or abstained because they were told to abstain.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That is an assumption.
Mr. Prior: My hon. Friends the Members:for Faversham and for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) were not in the Chamber during an important debate covering all the principles in the Bill. Like everything else in the Northern Ireland context, the Bill has its difficulties. It is not hard to put obstacles in the way of any political initiative in Northern Ireland. However, we should all know that the position in Northern Ireland is unsatisfactory for the people, for employment, for the level of industrial investment and for the level of political responsibility.
Mr. Amery: The Secretary of State will make things worse. There will be more unemployment and terrorism.
Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend has no right to make that sort of remark. The White Paper makes it abundantly clear that political stability, economic recovery and the defeat of terrorism go hand in hand.
Mr. Budgen rose—
Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. As the Secretary of State is clearly coming towards the end of his

311
speech, may I point out that he has made many controversial points and that there are many points that we may wish to raise. I make that point in case you have any doubts about how to proceed after the Secretary of State's speech.
Mr. Budgen: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I see the Patronage Secretary sitting in the Chamber and in previous debates his coming has usually presaged the moving of the closure. I respectfully suggest that you should not allow the closure at this stage. The Secretary of State reminded the Committee a moment ago about the excellent debate upon the fundamentals of clause 1. About 10 of my right hon. and hon. Friends—I see that you disagree with me, Mr. Weatherill. I am certainly one of three or four Members who have sat in this Committee for five or six hours in the hope—
The Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman come to his point of order and not make a speech?
12.15 am
Mr. Budgen: This is an important issue and about 10 right hon. and hon. Members still wish to speak. I urge you, Mr. Weatherill, not to allow the closure motion which the Patronage Secretary is about to put before you.
The Chairman: That is a purely hypothetical question. Nothing of that sort has arisen.
Mr. Body: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Some of us are poised to make very short speeches, having waited for a very long time.
The Chairman: It is a hypothetical question. I know nothing about a closure.
Mr. Lawrence: Further to that point of order—
The Chairman: Order. No point of order arises when nothing has occurred.
Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. What is the position of the Committee if you say that a hypothetical position might arise and while we may be considering it the Patronage Secretary might move the closure? Then it is too late for anyone to object. How can the rights of hon. Members be protected if we are to fall between a hypothetical position and the rising of the Patronage Secretary? On no fewer than six occasions, as I have been about to rise in the hope of catching the eye of the Chair, the Patronage Secretary has drifted in like Jaws himself, and walked slowly to his seat and at an appropriate moment a sort of feeling passes between the Secretary of State or the Minister and the Patronage Secretary, who quickly rises to the Dispatch Box and it is finished.
I have been waiting for 16 hours to make a speech. My speech is anxiously awaited by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State because only yesterday morning at three o'clock—time is meaningless in this debate—I said to my right hon. Friend that I would forbear to make a speech if he accepted—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman must make a point of order to me and not to the Secretary of State. What is the point of order?
Mr. Lawrence: May we have some guidance on how we may behave in the time between the hypothetical position and the rising of my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary?
Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order—
The Chairman: Order. I shall deal with this point of order first. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me how he should behave and the answer to that, of course, is well. Secondly, if the Chief Whip seeks the closure, it is not I but the House that decides it.
Mr. Budgen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Weatherill. There is a serious constitutional problem here. Once the Patronage Secretary rises and moves the motion and you accept it, we can say nothing further. However, as you would rightly say, Mr. Weatherill, you are the servant of the Committee and you would wish to know the view of the Committee before you make a decision. The only way in which you can know the view of the Committee is to allow points of order. There are sometimes occasions when hon. Members rise and wish to speak, perhaps feeling that they can air the same views at a later stage. There are other occasions—I give the example of earlier today when we were discussing that important amendment—when many hon. Gentlemen feel that once excluded they have lost the chance to express their views.
Might I respectfully suggest, Mr. Weatherill, that you allow a generous system by which somebody on the Government side says when they are proposing to offer a closure and you allow the House to express its views? Otherwise, there is a rather disagreeable feeling among some of us that we are being bounced, not by the Chair but by the Patronage Secretary. We do not like that. It makes us feel unhappy and sometimes even awkward.
The Chairman: These are purely hypothetical matters. No closure has been sought and we do not know whether one will be.
Mr. Gorst: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I should like your guidance. We have listened for a long time to many speeches. We are now having one from the Secretary of State that raises new and highly contentious points. How can we avoid being gagged if at some early moment after the Secretary of State sits down, the closure motion is put? Is there any procedure open to us to avoid being gagged?
The Chairman: The Secretary of State is answering the debate and he has barely started. We should let him get on and hear what he has to say.
Mr. Molyneaux: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Was it not your impression that the Secretary of State was making the type of speech one would expect in a debate on clause stand part? If the Secretary of State inadvertently slipped into that role, would it not resolve the problem if he were to confine himself to dealing with the amendments that have been moved instead of matters that have not been raised.
The Chairman: The Secretary of State is responsible for his own speech.
Mr. Prior: As I was trying to say to my hon. Friends the Members for Edgbaston and for Faversham—
Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. There have been several occasions when I have sought to catch the eye of the Chair. Following remarks that have been made by—
Mr. David Crouch: That is utterly bogus and my hon. Friend knows it. It is a bogus point of order.
The Chairman: Order.
Mr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Weatherill. Following remarks made by the Secretary of State and other Ministers—that he would not permit interventions and said that he hoped that his speech would end the debate—I have been prompted to want to catch the eye of the Chair. I was prevented from doing that, quite reasonably, by the fact that the Patronage Secretary wanted to move a closure. That is understandable, but within the last 10 minutes the Secretary of State has raised new issues. He is not summing up the debate in his second intervention. He has raised new material which has prompted me to want to catch your eye when he sits down. I wonder whether—
The Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will catch my eye when the Secretary of State sits down. I have no idea what will happen, but the night is young.
Mr. Prior: I am sorry if anyone feels that he has been gagged. That has not been my impression. As for introducing new elements in a speech at this time of the night, I assure my hon. Friends that after two nights I do
314
not have many new thoughts left and that what I am saying was said on earlier debates or in my previous intervention in this debate. Nothing that I am likely to say should, in normal circumstances, produce such a reaction from my hon. Friends.
I was trying to say to my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Edgbaston, who were not here this afternoon—I make no complaint about that—s that we are seeking to take a political initiative in extremely difficult circumstances. Anyone can say that it is the wrong initiative, but no constructive views have been put forward in all our debates, other than the point about local government which I dealt with at length this afternoon, and the view that integration is the only answer, which is a respectable view, but is not shared by any political party in Northern Ireland.
I am trying to produce a possibility of bringing about change in the political climate of Northern Ireland. I defy any hon. Member to say that we are wrong, as a party, a Government or a people, to put forward to our own people in Northern Ireland what we believe to be the right policy. That may not meet with the approval of all, but for me it is good enough to be a member of a Government who are seeking a political initiative in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Jopling rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 136, Noes 28.

Division No. 191]

[12.30 am

AYES

Alexander,Richard

Lyons,Edward (Bradf'dW)

Alison,RtHonMichael

MacGregor,John

Arnold,Tom

MacKay,John(Argyll)

Aspinwall,Jack

Major,John

Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Banks,Robert

Mather,Carol

Beith, A. J.

Mawby, Ray

Benyon,W.(Buckingham)

Mawhinney,DrBrian

Berry,HonAnthony

Mayhew,Patrick

Best,Keith

Mellor,David

Bevan, David Gilroy

Meyer,SirAnthony

Blackburn,John

Mills,Iain(Meriden)

Blaker,Peter

Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)

Bottomley,Peter(W'wichW)

Myles, David

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Neale, Gerrard

Braine,SirBernard

Needham,Richard

Bright,Graham

Nelson,Anthony

Brooke, Hon Peter

Newton,Tony

Brotherton,Michael

Onslow,Cranley

Bruce-Gardyne,John

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Bulmer,Esmond

Patten,John(Oxford)

Butcher,John

Penhaligon, David

Butler, HonAdam

Percival,SirIan

Cadbury,Jocelyn

Pollock,Alexander

Campbell-Savours,Dale

Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

Carlisle,John (Luton West)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Carlisle,Kenneth (Lincoln)

Raison, RtHonTimothy

Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

RhodesJames, Robert

Colvin,Michael

RhysWilliams,SirBrandon

Cope,John

Ridsdale,SirJulian

Corrie,John

Rifkind,Malcolm

Crouch,David

Roberts, M. (Cardiff NW)

Dorrell,Stephen

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

Roper,John

Dover, Denshore

Royle, SirAnthony

Dunn, James A.

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Eggar, Tim

Sainsbury,HonTimothy

Elliott,SirWilliam

Scott,Nicholas

Eyre, Reginald

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Faith, MrsSheila

Shaw,Michael (Scarborough)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Shersby,Michael

Forman,Nigel

Silvester,Fred

Fraser, Peter (SouthAngus)

Skeet, T. H. H.

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Smith,Tim(Beaconsfield)

Goodlad,Alastair

Speed, Keith

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Speller,Tony

Griffiths, E.(B'ySt. Edm'ds)

Stevens,Martin

Gummer,JohnSelwyn

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Hamilton, Hon A.

StradlingThomas,J.

Hamilton,Michael (Salisbury)

Tapsell, Peter

Hampson, DrKeith

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Hannam,John

Thompson,Donald

Hawkins, Paul

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Hawksley,Warren

Trippier,David

Hayhoe, Barney

Trotter,Neville

Hooson,Tom

van Straubenzee, Sir W.

Hordern,Peter

Viggers,Peter

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Waddington,David

Howells,Geraint

Wall,SirPatrick

Hunt,John (Ravensbourne)

Waller, Gary

Irvine, BryantGodman

Wheeler,John

Jessel, Toby

Whitney,Raymond

JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey

Wickenden,Keith

Jopling,RtHonMichael

Williams,D.(Montgomery)

King, Rt Hon Tom

Wolfson,Mark

Lang, Ian

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lewis,Kenneth(Rutland)

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Luce,Richard

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Lyell,Nicholas

NOES

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Cranborne,Viscount

Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

Dunlop,John

Body,Richard

Farr,John

Brown,Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

Goodhart,SirPhilip

Budgen,Nick

Gorst,John

316

Knight,MrsJill

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Lawrence, Ivan

Robinson, P. (BelfastE)

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Skinner,Dennis

McCusker,H.

Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)

McQuade,John

Stanbrook,lvor

Moate, Roger

Walker, B. (Perth)

Molyneaux,James

Winterton,Nicholas

Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

Murphy,Christopher

Tellers for the Noes:

Paisley, Rev Ian

Mr. William Ross and

Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
The committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 144.

Division No. 192]

[12.40 am

AYES

Amery, RtHon Julian

Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

Blackburn,John

Paisley, Rev Ian

Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Goodhart,SirPhilip

Gorst,John

Tellers for the Ayes:

Knight, MrsJill

Mr. John Farr and

McQuade,John

Mr. Christopher Murphy.

Moate, Roger

NOES

Alexander,Richard

Hamilton, Hon A.

Alison, RtHon Michael

Hampson,Dr Keith

Arnold,Tom

Hannam,John

Aspinwall,Jack

Hawkins,Paul

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Hawksley,Warren

Banks,Robert

Hayhoe, Barney

Beith,A.J.

Hooson,Tom

Benyon,W. (Buckingham)

Hordern,Peter

Berry, Hon Anthony

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Best, Keith

Howells,Geraint

Bevan, David Gilroy

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)

Blaker, Peter

Irvine, BryantGodman

Body,Richard

Jessel,Toby

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey

Boyson,DrRhodes

Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

Braine,SirBernard

King, Rt Hon Tom

Bright,Graham

Lang, Ian

Brooke, Hon Peter

Lawrence, Ivan

Brotherton,Michael

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Bruce-Gardyne,John

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Budgen,Nick

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Bulmer,Esmond

Luce,Richard

Butcher,John

Lyell, Nicholas

Butler, Hon Adam

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

Cadbury,Jocelyn

MacGregor,John

Campbell-Savours,Dale

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

Major,John

Clarke,Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Colvin,Michael

Mather,Carol

Cope,John

Mawby, Ray

Corrie,John

Mawhinney,DrBrian

Crouch,David

Mayhew, Patrick

Dorrell,Stephen

Mellor,David

Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Dover,Denshore

Mills,Iain(Meriden)

Dunlop,John

Molyneaux,James

Dunn, James A.

Myles, David

Eggar,Tim

Neale,Gerrard

Elliott,SirWilliam

Needham,Richard

Eyre, Reginald

Nelson,Anthony

Faith, MrsSheila

Newton,Tony

Fisher, SirNigel

Onslow,Cranley

Forman,Nigel

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Patten,John(Oxford)

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Penhaligon, David

Goodlad,Alastair

Percival,SirIan

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Pollock,Alexander

Griffiths, E.(B'ySt.Edm'ds)

Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

Gummer,JohnSelwyn

Prior, Rt Hon James

317

Proctor, K. Harvey

Stevens,Martin

Raison, RtHon Timothy

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Stradling,Thomas,J.

RhodesJames, Robert

Tapsell, Peter

Rhys Williams,SirBrandon

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Ridsdale,SirJulian

Thompson,Donald

Rifkind, Malcolm

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Trippier,David

Roper,John

Trotter,Neville

Ross,Wm. (Londonderry)

Viggers,Peter

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Waddington, David

Sainsbury,HonTimothy

Wall,SirPatrick

Scott,Nicholas

Waller, Gary

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Wells, Bowen

Shaw,Michael (Scarborough)

Wheeler,John

Shersby,Michael

Whitney,Raymond

Silvester, Fred

Wickenden, Keith

Skeet, T. H. H.

Williams.D.(Montgomery)

Skinner,Dennis

Winterton,Nicholas

Smith,Tim(Beaconsfield)

Wolfson,Mark

Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)

Speed, Keith

Tellers for the Noes:

Speller,Tony

Mr. Robert Boscawen and

Stanbrook,Ivor

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Question accordingly negatived
Amendment proposed: No. 26, in page 2, line 21, at end add—
'(6)Before laying before Parliament any proposals submitted to him under this section the Secretary of State may by order direct the holding of a poll or polls for the purpose of obtaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland on any matter contained in or arising out of such proposals or otherwise concerned with the future Government of Northern Ireland.'.—[Rev. Ian Paisley.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee Divided: Ayes 8, Noes 138.

Division No. 193]

[12.50 am

AYES

Brown,Michael (Brigg&Sc'n)

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Dunlop,John

McCusker,H.

Tellers for the Ayes:

McQuade,John

Rev. Ian Paisley and

Moate, Roger

Mr. Peter Robinson.

Molyneaux,James

NOES

Alexander, Richard

Crouch,David

Alison, RtHon Michael

Dorrell,Stephen

Arnold,Tom

Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ,

Aspinwall,Jack

Dover, Denshore

Baker, Nicholas (NDorset)

Dunn, James A.

Banks,Robert

Eggar,Tim

Beith, A.J.

Elliott,SirWilliam

Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

Eyre,Reginald

Berry, Hon Anthony

Faith, MrsSheila

Best, Keith

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Bevan, David Gilroy

Forman,Nigel

Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Blackburn,John

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Blaker,Peter

Garel-Jones,Tristan

Body,Richard

Goodlad,Alastair

Boscawen,HonRobert

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Griffithis, E. (B 'ySt. Edm'ds)

Boyson,Dr Rhodes

Gummer,JohnSelwyn

Braine,SirBernard

Hamilton, Hon A.

Bright,Graham

Hampson,Dr Keith

Bruce-Gardyne,John

Hannam,John

Budgen,Nick

Hawkins,Paul

Bulmer,Esmond

Hawksley,Warren

Butcher,John

Hayhoe, Barney

Butler, Hon Adam

Hooson,Tom

Cadbury,Jocelyn

Hordern,Peter

Campbell-Savours,Dale

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Howells,Geraint

Colvin,Michael

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Cope,John

Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)

Corrie,John

Irvine, BryantGodman

318

Jessel, Toby

Rhys Williams,SirBrandon

JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey

Ridsdale,SirJulian

Jopling, RtHon Michael

Rifkind,Malcolm

King, Rt Hon Tom

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Lang, Ian

Roper,John

Lawrence, Ivan

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Sainsbury,Hon Timothy

Lewis, Kenneth(Rutland)

Scott,Nicholas

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Luce, Richard

Shaw,Michael(Scarborough)

Lyell,Nicholas

Shersby,Michael

Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

Silvester,Fred

MacGregor,John

Skeet, T. H. H.

MacKay,John(Angyll)

Skinner,Dennis

Major,John

Smith,Tim(Beaconsfield)

Marten, RtHon Neil

Speed, Keith

Mawby, Ray

Speller,Tony

Mawhinney,DrBrian

Stevens,Martin

Mayhew, Patrick

Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)

Mellor,David

StradlingThomas.J.

Meyer, SirAnthony

Tapsell, Peter

Mills,Iain(Meriden)

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

Thompson,Donald

Murphy,Christopher

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Myles, David

Trotter,Neville

Neale,Gerrard

Viggers, Peter

Needham,Richard

Waddington,David

Nelson,Anthony

Wall,SirPatrick

Newton,Tony

Waller, Gary

Onslow,Cranley

Wells,Bowen

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Wheeler,John

Patten,Jobn(Oxford)

Whitney, Raymond

Penhaligon,David

Wickenden,Keith

Percival,Sir Ian

Williams, D.(Montgomery)

Pollock,Alexander

Winterton, Nicholas

Price,SirDavid (Eastleigh)

Wolfson,Mark

Prior, Rt Hon James

Proctor, K. Harvey

Tellers for the Noes:

Raison, RtHon Timothy

Mr. Carol Mather and

RhodesJames, Robert

Mr. Peter Brooke.

Question accordingly negatived.
THE CHAIRMAN, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matter arising thereon has been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the Amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No.48 (debate on Clause or Schedule standing part). That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
The Committee divide: Ayes 127, Noes 28.

Division No. 194]

[1 am

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Colvin, Michael

Arnold,Tom

Cope,John

Aspinwall,Jack

Corrie,John

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Crouch,David

Banks,Robert

Dorrell,Stephen

Beith, A. J.

Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ

Benyon,W. (Buckingham)

Dover,Denshore

Best, Keith

Dunn, James A.

Bevan, David Gilroy

Eggar,Tim

Blackburn,John

Elliott,SirWilliam

Blaker, Peter

Eyre,Reginald

Boscawen,HonRobert

Faith, MrsSheila

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Boyson,DrRhodes

Forman, Nigel

Braine,SirBernard

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Bright,Graham

Gardner, Edward (SFylde)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Garel-Jones,Tristan

Brotherton,Michael

Goodlad,Alastair

Bruce-Gardyne,John

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Bulmer,Esmond

Griffiths, E.(BySt.Edm'ds)

Butcher,John

Gummer,JohnSelwyn

Butler, Hon Adam

Hamilton, Hon A.

Cadbury,Jocelyn

Hampson, DrKeith

Campbell-Savours,Dale

Hannam,John

319

Hawkins,Paul

Raison,Rt Hon Timothy

Hawksley,Warren

Rhodes James, Robert

Hayhoe, Barney

RhysWilliams,SirBrandon

Hooson,Tom

Ridsdale,SirJulian

Hordern,Peter

Rifklnd, Malcolm

Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Howells,Geraint

Roper,John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Hunt,John (Ravensbourne)

Sainsbury,HonTimothy

Irvine, BryantGodman

Scott,Nicholas

Jessel, Toby

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey

Shaw,Michael (Scarborough)

Jopling,RtHonMichael

Shersby, Michael

King, Rt Hon Tom

Silvester,Fred

Lang, Ian

Skeet, T. H. H.

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Smith,Tim(Beaconsfield)

Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

Speed, Keith

Luce,Richard

Speller,Tony

Lyell,Nicholas

Stevens,Martin

MacGregor,John

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

MacKay, John (Argyll)

Stradling Thomas,J.

Major,John

Tapsell, Peter

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Mawby, Ray

Thompson,Donald

Mawhinney,DrBrian

Townsend, CyrilD, (B 'heath)

Mayhew, Patrick

Trotter,Neville

Mellor,David

Viggers, Peter

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Waddington,David

Mills,Iain(Meriden)

Wall,SirPatrick

Myles, David

Waller, Gary

Neale,Gerrard

Wells,Bowen

Neednam,Richard

Wheeler,John

Nelson, Anthony

Whitney, Raymond

Newton,Tony

Wickenden,Keith

Onslow,Cranley

Williams,D.(Montgomery)

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Wolfson,Mark

Patten,John (Oxford)

Penhaligon, David

Tellers for the Ayes:

Pollock,Alexander

Mr. Antony Berry and

Price,SirDavid (Eastleigh)

Mr. Carol Mather.

Prior, Rt Hon James

NOES

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Molyneaux,James

Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

Morris, M. (N'hamptonS)

Body, Richard

Murphy,Christopher

Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

Paisley, Rev Ian

Budgen,Nick

Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

Cranborne,Viscount

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Dunlop,John

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Farr,John

Skinner,Dennis

Goodhart,SirPhillp

Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)

Gorst,John

Stanbrook,Ivor

Knight, MrsJill

Walker, B. (Perth)

Lawrence, Ivan

Winterton, Nicholas

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

McCusker,H.

Tellers for the Noes:

McQuade,John

Mr. William Ross and

Moate, Roger

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. It happened. Nothing in my remarks is critical of the Chair, but what you assured me was purely hypothetical. Quick as a flash, happened. My right hon. Friend was on his grande finale, in his purple passage, when all of a sudden, quick as a flash, the speed of the hand deceiving the eye, the Patronage Secretary was there. I lost my rights again. I have been sent here to represent the constituents of Burton. I know that the question of Northern Ireland in general, this Bill in particular and clause 1 in particular, is of great concern to them. I have waited for 17 hours to make a contribution to the debate—
The Chairman: Order. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman come to the point of order?
Mr. Lawrence: My point of order is to seek the assistance of the Chair in protecting an hon. Member such as myself who is unable to respond—I am quite young and reasonably agile—with the speed that is necessary between the Chair ruling that a question is hypothetical and the Patronage Secretary leaping up and depriving me of my rights. I do not know what a member of this Committee can do. He cannot interrupt the Chair to argue about the hypothetical not, in fact, being hypothetical. He cannot raise a point of order when the Patronage Secretary, after prowling three of four times around the notice board, suddenly rushes to his seat and intervenes.
Hon. Members must feel themselves at a considerable disadvantage. I know that you, Mr. Weatherill, as the occupant of the Chair for this debate, must be extremely concerned. I had intended to suggest, if the opportunity presented itself, that a compromise solution and a reasonable suggestion would be to ask you to safeguard my rights by allowing a more wide-ranging debate on clause 1 stand part. But the Patronage Secretary was on his feet and it was finished—
The Chairman: Order. I must have the point of order if I am to rule.
Mr. Lawrence: My point of order is to ask how I will be protected. I ask you, Mr. Weatherill, not to think that this is any criticism of the Chair, but the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), much earlier in the proceedings, raised matters that the Chair had undertaken to consider in due course—that is to say, those matters that were not specifically chosen for amendment under clause 1 would be considered in due course. I had hoped that the course was when all this happening and the amendments were moved and that then, on clause stand part, there would be an opportunity for discussion to help you—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is getting on rather dangerous ground because he is in danger of criticising my decision.
Mr. Lawrence: Nothing could be further from my mind. I make the point, to clarify it, that no other opportunity might present itself for me to exercise my rights as a democratically elected representative. Therefore, although I make no claims to being the sort of speaker that anybody in their normal mind would prefer among others, at the end of 16 hours of debate, with a contribution to make, I have, by the system, fairly and properly, been deprived of those rights.
I hesitate to say that I throw myself on the mercy of the Chair, because the Chair might respond as quickly as it has in the past, or the Patronage Secretary might get up and move something. I hope that the Chair will consider that I have a genuine grievance and, under the protection of the point of order, the Chair might give consideration to how that grievance might be removed so that hon. Gentlemen such as myself and my hon. Friends might be able to make a contribution where now we feel that we have been rendered impotent.
The Chairman: Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen who are seeking to rise on a similar point. There are 25 amendments for debate on the provisional selection. If we

321
run out of those I shall gladly have a selection conference to produce more. The hon. and learned Gentleman will have plenty of opportunity on the next group of amendments.
Mr. Lawrence: Could I ask, Mr. Weatherill whether you are allowing me to raise on these new amendments the points that I should have raised on the earlier amendments if I had been called?
The Chairman: I can answer that in two words—certainly not.
Mr. Budgen: On a further point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Could you give the Committee your guidance? Many of us had hoped that there would be a substantial debate on clause stand part. You may recollect that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) prepared the way for that in his discussion of the way in which the amendments had been grouped. All of us thought that if there had been any injustice at any stage during our discussion of clause 1, it would be remedied by our ability to contribute to the clause stand part debate.
There is a difficulty here. None of us wishes to put down a motion critical of the Chair, but it seems that we are in a difficult position—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh".]. Of course we do not wish to do that. We wish to be fair to the Chair, and we wish also to have some guidance from the Chair.
As I understand the position, the Chair makes its decision whether there shall be debate on clause stand part. On the other hand, the Chair is the servant of the Committee and might wish to hear arguments as to whether there should be discussion on clause stand part. Our difficulty is that if we expect that there will be a discussion on clause stand part and the decision is made without any argument, we do not have an opportunity to influence the mind of the Chair. That could be unfair to the Chair because it might make a decision in error. We might have the sad position of a motion critical of the Chair being put down when, if the Chair had given an opportunity for discussion, nothing of that sort would have happened. Will you, Mr. Weatherill, give us some guidance?
The Chairman: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes too far along that line, I shall repeat—I do it for the benefit of the Committee—that every amendment that was in order on clause 1 was selected for debate. There was plenty of opportunity for hon. Members to speak. We have had two full days, a night, part of another night and well into this night for debate. That is all that I am prepared to say on that subject.
Mr. Budgen rose—
The Chairman: No, I shall not take another point of order on that subject.
Mr. Michael Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I raised a point of order before the series of Divisions. I wanted to inquire about the situation in which I found myself. I was undecided in the previous debate, awaiting as I was the speech of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) at the untimely point at which the debate ended. Had I been able to hear one or two other contributions, my vote, and possibly those of many of my hon. Friends, might have gone a different way. The result of a Division might be affected by the fact that sometimes hon. Members have had only
322
the opportunity of hearing a limited number of contributions in ore direction when we have been told by one or two of our hon. Friends, seeking to catch your eye, that they will be persuading us to cast our votes in another direction.
There are hon. Members, such as myself, who had genuinely not made up their minds which way to vote on the referendum question that was discussed earlier. I am sure hon. Members will testify to that.
The Chairman: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman be brief, please?
Mr. Michael Brown: Can you assist hon. Members such as myself, Mr. Weatherill, who are awaiting the contributions of spine of our hon. Friends to help us to decide which way to cast our vote, when the closure prevents us from hearing a speech?
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman has not been here as long as some right hon. and hon. Members, but he will know that all hon. Members have to make up their minds on the balance of the arguments.
Mr. Gorst: I beg to move, That the Chairman do report progress and ask leave to sit again.
There are cogent reasons why this motion might now be thought acceptable. As you have observed, Mr. Weatherill, we have had an enormously wide-ranging and profound debate on clause 1. We have made great progress. We have got one-seventh of the way through the clauses or one-tenth of the way through the clauses and the schedules. There are only about 10 or 12 new clauses in addition, and it is by no means certain, Mr. Weatherill, that you will wish to select all of them.
We have gone a long way towards completing our task on the Bill. We have had, particularly in the last hour or so, what I think many hon. Members would agree has been a passionate discussion of the principles embodied in the Bill. In flights of impressive oratory, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State unloosed many interesting arguments. I think that many hon. Members will feel that he has worked extremely hard with his colleagues on the Front Bench. Because of my right hon. Friend's onerous administrative duties in Northern Ireland, he is entitled to a rest now. The progress that we have made and the duties of those on the Front Bench are strong enough reasons in themselves for reporting progress, but in addition the House must debate extremely important business tomorrow. Unlike the position today, the Opposition will no doubt be here in force tomorrow, because it is a Supply day. That will be extremely taxing on some of my other right hon. Friends, who will have to listen to the Opposition's arguments and to give impressive replies. However, no doubt they will do that.
Last night the House did not sit particularly late. We concluded our debates as early as 6 am. That is tolerable on a Tuesday, because it is the beginning of the week. However, towards the end of the week many of my right hon. and hon. Friends begin to feel the strain—[Interruption.] We also respect the tenacity of the Chair in listening to our debates and are mindful, Mr. Weatherill, of your position. However, all of us are bothered by the effect of such late sittings on the efficiency of our right hon. and hon. Friends in carrying out their duties without enough sleep.
As we approach 1.30 am, it is reasonable to report progress. After all, enormous progress has been made.
Mr. Stanbrook: I support the motion because it is in the interests of all hon. Members. Yesterday we sat continuously for about 16 hours. Tonight we have been sitting continuously for about 11 hours. That must be bad for the Committee and for our powers of concentration, and damaging to the other business of Government.
Yesterday, in a similar context, I said that such late sittings must have some effect on the ability of Ministers to work properly in their offices. Tonight, the normal standard of decorum observed by members of the Parliamentary Conservative Party slipped—[Interruption.] The normally placid features of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) were distorted by rage only half an hour ago, when he shouted—rather like the hon. Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds)—across the Chamber, accusing another hon. Member of raising a bogus point of order. Such conduct is quite unbecoming for a Conservative Member and we are not used to it.
Even more importantly, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said not 15 minutes ago that he had run out of thoughts. Obviously, that is the result of over-concentration on the same subject for too long. It is time to draw stumps, and to retire to the pavilion—[Interruption.]—to return refreshed another day. This is not a laughing matter. Standards in the Committee must be maintained and, most importantly, our minds must be capable of dealing with the serious problems before us. Therefore, I hope that the motion is accepted.
1.30 am
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I, too, support the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst). It is unreasonable that the Committee should be sitting now on an important constitutional issue, having sat yesterday for about 16 hours. We are debating a critical matter for an important part of the United Kingdom and it is utterly wrong that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench should have to deal with important amendments that are argued in great detail by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, and must answer those arguments, when clearly they are not in an adequate state of mind or even body to do so. In this way we are handing more and more of the power and influence of the House of Commons to the civil servants who are briefing the Ministers. Ministers are perhaps following advice to which they have not given adequate thought.
In my experience of 11 years in the House, from time to time we have legislated in ignorance of the effect of that legislation. We are doing that tonight. We should bear in mind the rather unpleasant position that developed a few moments ago when many hon. Members tried to catch your eye, Mr. Weatherill, to make a contribution on the most fundamental of the clauses in the Bill, and you in your wisdom, which I do not question, deprived many of us of the opportunity to make a speech on clause stand part.
For the good behaviour and reputation of the House of Commons, it would be appropriate at 1.30 am for the Committee to report progress so that we can return to the legislation on another day and give it the attention and consideration that it merits.
I was a little concerned earlier about the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He was becoming extremely worked up. He is not known for that sort of temperament and it can only be because he put in so many
324
hours yesterday that he reacted so sharply to the reasonable points being made from the Conservative Benches. [Interruption.]
Many of my hon. Friends who question what I am saying were not in the Chamber when many of these important points were debated. Some of them may be on the payroll vote and they trot in for Divisions. I emphasise to my right hon. Friend, who has just been in conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), that this is a critical constitutional issue. I am sure that he agrees and that he does not wish to proceed further tonight. For the reputation of the House of Commons and the sense of the legislation, I hope that the Treasury Bench and you, Mr. Weatherill, as Chairman of the Committee, will accept this reasonable motion.
Mr. Farr: I support the motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) and the remarks made by many of my colleagues so far. Some of my hon. Friends have rightly drawn attention to the rather unnatural approach of some Conservative Members. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), I am privileged to be on the most charming terms with all my Conservative colleagues, but some of my colleagues, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Beeston (Mr. Lester), are behaving most untypically and unnaturally.
If we continue the discussion into the early hours yet again, there will be actions taken and words said by hon. Friends to each other which will be regretted in the morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) is not here now. If there is anybody I hold in great esteem, apart from yourself, Mr. Weatherill, it is my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury. He has always brought a benign, clerical and respectable attitude to our proceedings, yet I clearly heard from him the most virulent abuse of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown). It is so untypical of him that I fear that if we continue others of my hon. Friends may make remarks—I hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James) muttering now-that they may regret in the morning when they appear in Hansard.
I have a more serious point that I wish to put before you Mr. Weatherill. The Secretary of State made some im—ortant and vital revelations on fundamental matters. To those of us who humbly try to follow the affairs of Northern Ireland to the best of our ability some of those matters were critical. I was hoping that we would have proceeded a little further with clause 1 by having a debate on clause 1 stand part. Although the debate has been all-embracing and voluminous many important points have not been properly and fully discussed.
The Secretary of State made several important new statements upon which our whole attitude in subsequent debates must hinge. I am sure that nine-tenths of my hon. Friends are not aware that the Secretary of State has established an inquiry in Northern Ireland. That information was released in reply to an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs—Davison) who is probably as learned a student of Northern Ireland affairs as anybody. Even he was surprised at the revelation—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is seeking to persuade the House that it should adjourn. He seems to be encouraging the Secretary of State to say something more. The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the motion.
Mr. Farr: The Secretary of State has said that an inquiry is in progress. He has provided little additional information and we do not know the extent of that inquiry, its guidelines, who laid down the guidelines, whether its findings will be approved by Parliament or whether the Secretary of State will get away with establishing a detailed inquiry without being responsible to Parliament. There should be a pause in the proceedings in the hope that the Secretary of State will publish the details in the Vote Office or make a statement when we resume relating to the inquiry.
The Secretary of State has made a number of significant contributions to our debates and given us much to think about. It would be right for the Committee to adjourn for a few days and for us to have a statement from my right hon. Friend, preferably in writing, before we meet again, so that we can have better debates next time and perhaps arrive at more speedy conclusions.
Mr. Lawrence: There are four reasons why we should report progress and I shall put them as briefly as I can. First, there is no doubt that this is an important constitutional Bill, which requires considerable thought and consideration. On two or three occasions when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had no ready answer to points put by hon. Members, he resorted to the White Paper and read out important and significant passages such as:
"Political stability, economic recovery and the defeat of terrorism go hand in hand…There is a direct link between the creation of a durable and fair system of government and the ending of the violence which has brought so much suffering to Protestant and Catholic alike…The Government's proposals do not require any group in Northern Ireland to compromise its deeply held beliefs. They provide an opportunity for both sides to create a workable form of government in the interests of the common good and in the face of the urgency of the Province's problems. It will be for the people elected to a Northern Ireland Assembly to decide whether they are prepared to adopt this approach."
This is not just any item of Government legislation. It requires the greatest careful thought and consideration by men of good will to avoid political instability, lack of economic recovery and, worse, the terrorism that may continue or escalate. The passage of the Bill has not so far given us much opportunity for the necessary quiet, careful and helpful consideration.
Hon. Members may think it amusing if I refer again to the fact that I have been waiting 18 hours to make a speech, but that underlines the fact that we have sped through, rather than considered carefully, something which came upon us quickly. The White Paper was published in April and there was a time lapse before we were assured that it would be debated. I did not take part in the debate. I do not remember whether I sought to catch Mr. Speaker's eye. Within two weeks, the Bill was published and we had the Second Reading. Now, barely into June, we are in Committee on a Bill of great constitutional importance.
Even as we have been debating the Bill there has been, in effect, a guillotine. We can pretend that there has not, but on amendment after amendment there has been a guillotine in the form of a closure. I do not begrudge the Secretary of State the need for speed, but we have hurtled through clause 1. I see you, Mr. Weatherill, moving to the edge of your chair as though you think that I am about
326
wander from the relevant points. It is significant that clause 2, which we are next to discuss, is very much consequential upon clause 1.
The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is speaking to a motion that we should adjourn the debate. He is now arguing that we should get on with clause 2.
1.45 am
Mr. Lawrence: The fact that at a quarter to two in the morning of Thursday of this week I am unable, practised as I am, to make my point to you, Mr. Weatherill, is some indication that our ability to think clearly and to express ourselves adequately is somewhat blurred and blunted. [Interruption.] I concede to my hon. Friends that I might be the first of the ninepins to go down, such is my inadequacy. I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) made some slips of the tongue which can only have been occasioned by great tiredness, resulting from the intense concentration which he has given to the matter.
Clause 2 is dependent and consequential upon clause 1. A number of complicated points have been discussed. Some have not been discussed. Some have been touched on. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has dealt with matters with great skill and care. Lest he thinks otherwise, I have nothing but the greatest admiration for, among other things, his hope that the Bill will achieve the end which he wishes, hoping that hope itself will be salvaged from the wreck of hope. That is the impression that he has given, and I have great admiration for that attitude.
We must have time to consider the significance not only of what we have debated but of what we have not debated in the context of the replies we have been getting from my right hon. Friend. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough has alluded to the local government inquiry. I do not know whether that is important. It may be irrelevant. The only commitment in our manifesto was to local government reform. That must have some bearing upon the importance of this constitutional Bill.
Then there is the amendment about the cross-community arrangements—
The Chairman: Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman is consistently arguing that we should get on with the debate. He must confine his remarks to arguing why we should not proceed.
Mr. Lawrence: The only persistence is of my failure at this late hour, try as I might to concentrate and to have my judgment and my explications clear, to persuade you, Mr. Weatherill, that, because clause 2 is so dependent upon clause 1, we must have a break to enable us to consider, in the cool light of day and after sufficient sleep, the ramifications of clause 1 as they affect our contributions on clause 2.
Apart from anything else, it may be that a reconsideration of the speech I was about to make on clause 1 and its relevance to clause 2 will mean that the proceedings will be shortened substantially. Many of the things that I was hoping to say on clause 1 may be irrelevant. If I think about it, my speech may in the end be much shorter than it might otherwise have been, to the great assistance of the Committee and the inspiration of my hon. Friends.

327
That is the first point. Surely, in a matter of such importance, what we are about to discuss is so much dependent upon a sensible consideration of what we have just discussed that it is necessary for us to take time to consider the matter more fully.
The second point is that our judgments—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), for whom I have the greatest respect, is very impatient. He is a man of great restraint. His impatience indicates the impatience which is being felt generally by hon. Members not just at my speech but at the fact that we are not getting anywhere very fast because we are past consideration of the kind merited by the Bill. My second point is that there have been many indications of impatience—
Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford): Mr. Weatherill, I beg to move, That the question be now put.
The Chairman: I cannot accept that motion in the middle of a speech.
Mr. Lawrence: There have been manifestations of impatience, and my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford has just underlined them. There have been manifestations of irritation. There have been manifestations of over-exuberance leading to ill-judged comments from one colleague to another. The time has really come to cool it. The atmosphere is such that we should go away and reflect coolly.
My third point is that we have to consider other people. I am not alluding to the fact that those of us who are concerned about proper arrangements for Northern Ireland may be inadvertently holding here a large number of colleagues who have not very much interest in the minutiae of the Bill and come into the Chamber to see how quickly our deliberations are moving. I am mindful that many people are involved in every hour that we spend here longer than is strictly necessary. It is not just our colleagues, ourselves, our wives and our families; it is also the people who serve us—the staff of the House, the Clerks, the civil servants, the Hansard reporters, the messengers, the policemen and representatives of the press. Everyone is involved in this. If the choice is to shut up and go home or to let this measure go through without proper care, which would be a negation of democracy and of the reason why we are here, I suggest that we do the former and return to the matter refreshed.
For three very important reasons—and I underline the importance of them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Four."] If some of my hon. Friends are complaining that I ought to add a fourth, I must tell them that I do not seek to delay the Committee. I am trying to make a reasoned, sensible and useful contribution to the debate on this motion. There are three very cogent reasons why we should say "Enough is enough. Let us draw stumps." Let us go away, think about it, and come back refreshed so that the contribution which each of us makes to this very important Bill is a good one and not the bad one that might result if we are too hurried.
The Chairman: Mr. Enoch Powell.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: I beg to move, That the question be now put.
The Chairman: I cannot accept the motion at this moment.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No doubt presently the Secretary of State will be addressing you, Mr. Weatherill, on this motion, and it is obvious that his view of it will weigh most with the Committee. I put to you one or two considerations before the right hon. Gentleman comes to do that.
We have made progress in that clause 1, which is in many senses the principal clause of the Bill and contains most, though not all, of the major matters of principle in the Bill, has now been disposed of. Many of the major debates which had to take place have already taken place on clause 1. In that literal sense, the Secretary of State is entitled to consider that he has made substantial progress with the Bill.
However, at today's sitting there has been progress on the Bill in a different and more important sense. You will be aware, Mr. Weatherill, that the Bill is bitterly opposed my almost every section of political opinion in Northern Ireland, the Province to which it has to apply. It has been a matter of bewilderment and incomprehension to those of us who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland that the reasons which appear so clear to us why the Bill with which the Secretary of State clearly and sincerely hopes to confer a benefit upon the Province will evidently have the opposite effect. We have been unable to understand, until today's sitting, why the Secretary of State appeared to close his mind to the reforms which, in the view of almost every political section in Northern Ireland, would be beneficial to the Province and helpful to its conditions and administration.
What happened today, and the reason why we made progress, was that the Secretary of State made a remarkable speech which began to disclose—I cannot say that it fully disclosed—that his mind was more open than had previously appeared to the reforms which many of us wish to see for the sake of Northern Ireland and our constituents. It also began to disclose the differences between us—the differences of perception—which have been the cause of this mutual incomprehension as to the foreseeable effects of the Bill.
At present, the Secretary of State's speech is only in shorthand. In a few hours—certainly before the next sitting of the Committee, which may be next week—that speech will be available in Hansard and we shall be able to study it carefully. We shall be able to define in that speech those points which can still be exploited within the framework of the Bill and bring about some reconciliation between the view of the right hon. Gentleman and the views of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, although I speak only of those who have opposed it from the point of view of Northern Ireland.
That will not be possible if we are to proceed now with the subsequent clauses of the Bill. For practical and psychological reasons, that will make it impossible for the disclosure of mutual positions, such as took place during this sitting, to produce the benefits for Northern Ireland that the Bill ought to produce. For example, after debate, and partly in response to a speech by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), the Secretary of State undertook to table an amendment to clause 2. That will be an amendment to which severe exception will be taken not only by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) but, I should imagine, by most Northern Ireland Members. Nevertheless, it is of great importance for clarification of the working and intentions of the Bill. What I have just said would not be disputed by the right

329
hon. Member for Mansfield, in response to whom the undertaking was made, nor, indeed, by the Secretary of State.
If we now proceed with clause 2, that amendment will not appear until Report. If we report progress now, it will be possible to study clause 2 with the addition of that clarificatory amendment in the name of the Secretary of State.
2 am
I do not see how it could be disputed from either side of the Committee that that would not be to the advantage of our proceedings. I hope that the Secretary of State, who has repeatedly passionately disclosed his sense of the importance of the Bill for which he is responsible, will listen to my plea that, for the benefit which he will bring to the consideration and improvement of this measure, he should report progress and allow an interval for the mutual study of our respective positions and for the tabling of Government amendments to the next clause.
I hope that just to gain a few hours—and hours gained at this time of night are frequently lost in subsequent procedures—the Secretary of State will not throw away the advantages which he has disclosed to the Committee by simply pressing on with the Bill.
Mr. Body: I draw the Committee's attention to the progress that we have made. We have disposed not only of clause 1 but of three substantial issues. We have disposed of the West Lothian question. When that question arose in Scottish devolution debates, several days were taken. On this occasion, the question has been dealt with with considerable speed. It would be out of order for us now to refer to the West Lothian question.
We have dealt with local government. Hon. Members have explained how we fought a contest with a manifesto containing undertakings for local government in Northern Ireland. We have spent many hours dealing with and disposing of that issue. It would be out of order for those of us, no matter how strongly we may feel about that promise, to revert to that matter.
We have also dealt with the referendum. It would be out of order to come back to it. The referendum issue took many hours, or days, of debate when we considered it in the context of Scottish devolution. It was dealt with today. Those substantial matters are now completely discussed. Hon. Members could have made long speeches on any of the main issues. They could have detained the Committee unduly on any one. The opportunities for making long speeches are over. We have dealt with only a small number of amendments, but the amendments selected deal with comparatively narrow issues.
The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) seeks to substitute the word "Orders" for "Order."
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that we should proceed. The motion is the reverse of that.
Mr. Body: I was pointing out that we have made a great deal of progress and that the debates will now be short and sharp. Not even hon. Members, such as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence), who can speak for a minute or two if he wishes, will be able to say very much on whether it is "Order" or "Orders" on the coming amendments. Indeed, most of the amendments, if they are not probing amendments, relate to narrow detailed issues.
330
Some days ago my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was good enough to say that he would make available his notes on the Bill, and I have had the advantage of seeing them. I am grateful to him, because they explain most lucidly much of the detailed matters arising out of the rest of the Bill. Many of the probing amendments and points that we might raise in an interrogatory fashion will no longer be necessary. My right hon. Friend has taken a sensible course in shortening the debates from now on, because many of the matters that we might have raised will not now be necessary.
I suggest that we have galloped on well in dealing with clause 1, which contains the substance of the Bill. From now on, we shall be dealing with matters almost of minutiae—certainly matters which are subordinate to clause 1. It might be correct to say that numerically we have not made much progress, but in substance we have made much progress. It would therefore be right and sensible, at this hour, to report progress.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): A number of hon. Gentlemen, including the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) mentioned the progress that we have made so far. I accept that we have made substantial progress, but I find it difficult to accept that we have made rapid progress. We have spent 18 hours discussing clause 1, excluding the time that we have taken on Divisions, and I do not see that as a description of rapid progress. We have given careful consideration to a constitutional Bill, but there is now plenty of time to proceed, before the end of the Committee stage, to make further progress on the Bill.
A few other matters were raised, in particular by the right hon. Member for Down, South. It seems to me a remarkable concept of debate, and somewhat foreign to this House, that when a Minister or any other Member makes a speech, it is proposed that there should be an adjournment for days while textual analysis is put on that speech and it is subjected to that sort of examination. The whole concept of debate in this House, of which the right hon. Gentleman is one of the greatest exponents, is that one should be able to respond quickly and promptly to points that are made in debate. So far, there has been no difficulty in our proceedings in doing that, and I see no difficulty arising in the future.
Secondly, the amendment to clause 2 will be tabled on Report, and there will be ample time to consider it when we reach that stage.
Mr. Molyneaux: Does not the Minister realise that something very significant happened this afternoon, when the Secretary of State disclosed two things? He disclosed the real nature of cross-community consent—which, incidentally, I had known about for quite a long time but which came as news to certain of my Northern Ireland colleagues—and he also said that for the first time he was proposing to yield to the plea made by the official Opposition to introduce an entirely new amendment.
The Minister will say that there is nothing unique in that, but I beg him to realise that those announcements have completely transformed our attitude to clause 2 and to the Bill in general. I firmly believe that time should elapse before we can assess the impact of those announcements on political thinking in Northern Ireland. I am sure that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) would be the first to concede that that impact

331
could be very serious. Frankly, it is in the Government's interests that Northern Ireland Members should have the opportunity to go back and—I shall not say try to sell those new ideas—perhaps clarify the thinking behind them.
Mr. Scott: That is a point of view, but it is not one that I accept. I do not accept that there were any radical disclosures about the nature of cross-community support. The Government's approach to that has been clear, certainly since publication of the White Paper. In any case, the amendments with which we shall be dealing if the motion is rejected would be in no way affected by such alleged disclosures.
Mr. Paisley: The Minister must face the fact that the Secretary of State's statement that the 70 per cent. must have cross-community support makes nonsense of having the 50 per cent. plus one in the Bill as well. One does not need 70 per cent. with cross-community support, but only 50 per cent. plus one. This is a new departure and a revelation to my party. It goes against the conditions that were put to delegation after delegation. I pleaded with the Secretary of State today to tell us exactly what amendment he intends to propose so that in all fairness we may consider it.
It is all very well for hon. Members who do not live in Northern Ireland. They will not have to live with the effects of the Bill. We shall. The future of our people is concerned in the matters dealt with by clause 2. It is only right that we should know what is proposed. It is not good enough for the Minister to say that there is nothing new. There is indeed something new, and it has come as a bombshell to those of us who remember the undertakings given by the Secretary of State to delegation after delegation, that there were two ways to get power—70 per cent., or 50 per cent. plus one so long as there is cross-community support. We now discover that the Opposition suggestion is to be accepted and that the 70 per cent., too, must have cross-community support. That destroys the undertakings that we felt were made to us in good faith.
I shall not repeat any more of the argument that I made to the Secretary of State. The record of that long debate is in Hansard. I shall examine carefully the report of the Secretary of State's speech when it is available and we shall see where the matter rests. In all fairness, however, he should meet the representatives of Northern Ireland and the two major Unionist groupings in the House.
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is turning into a long speech. I allowed him to go on, as I know that this matter is important to him, but he must bring his remarks to a conclusion.
Mr. Paisley: The two major parties in Northern Ireland are represented here and have made that plea to the Minister. Strangely, however, the one representative in the House of the republican community, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), has not turned up. Does he believe that everything is all right from his point of view because the Government intend to give in to the proposals sought by his grouping? That is a great worry to Northern Ireland Members. I hope that the Minister will now fairly meet us on this problem.
Mr. Scott: Whatever weight the Committee gives to the hon. Gentleman's two points—on the amendment,
332
which there will be ample time to discuss later in our proceedings, or on the concept of cross-community support—neither argument should prevent the committee from continuing its proceedings now.
I wish to clear up one small point. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) referred to certain phrases from my right hon. Friend's remarkable speech earlier, to the effect that in the course of consultations and inquiries in the Province since taking up office as Secretary of State he had frequently raised the question of local government powers. My hon. Friend seems to have constructed from that the idea that some formal inquiry had been launched. I assure him that that is not the case. I can assure him that that is not the case. My right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that he put before the House Commons after the many meetings that have taken place since he assumed office.
2.15 am
I am disappointed, knowing some of my hon. Friends as well as I do, that they should apparently be running out of stamina and commitment at this early hour. They are all Members who have been renowned for their vigorous contributions to debate. Having had this brief interlude in our proceedings, I suspect that they will find restored vigour for the debates that are yet to take place.
I find it difficult to accept the arguments of the right hon. Member for Down, South and of some of my hon. Friends that time gained at this time of the night might subsequently be lost or that the reputation of the House of Commons should be at stake. My experience during my years in the House is that frequently at this time of night, when the attendance is thinner than at other times of the day, those of absolute commitment to the debates that take place are present and there are debates of the highest standards and not the lowest.
Mr. Gorst rose—
Mr. Scott: My right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State and myself are grateful for the solicitous remarks that have been made about us. It will not have escaped the Committee's attention that so far in this sitting the burden of answering debates has been borne by my right hon. Friend. The Committee will be aware that it has heard today one of the most effective speeches that has been made in recent years. I do not think that we need to worry about my right hon. Friend's stamina. However, I can assure my hon. Friends that from now on in this sitting my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and myself will be bearing—
Mr. Gorst rose—
Mr. Scott: —the burden of replying to debates. We have not taken part in the proceedings of the Committee so far today and in Shakespeare's words—perhaps the physical analogy may not be appropriate to myself—
"I see you stand like greyhounds in the slips, Straining upon the start."
I hope that we can now make some more progress with the Bill.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Jopling rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 111, Noes 25.

Division No. 195]

[2.20 am

333

AYES

Alexander, Richard

Lyell,Nicholas

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

MacGregor,John

Arnold,Tom

Major,John

Aspinwall,Jack

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Mather,Carol

Banks,Robert

Mawby, Ray

Beith,A. J.

Mawhinney,DrBrian

Benyon,W. (Buckingham)

Mayhew, Patrick

Berry, Hon Anthony

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Best, Keith

Mills,Iain(Meriden)

Bevan, David Gilroy

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Boscawen,HonRobert

Neale,Gerrard

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Needham, Richard

Boyson,DrRhodes

Nelson,Anthony

Bright,Graham

Newton,Tony

Brooke, Hon Peter

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Bruce-Gardyne,John

Patten, John (Oxford)

Bulmer,Esmond

Pollock,Alexander

Butcher,John

Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

Cadbury,Jocelyn

Prior, Rt Hon James

Campbell-Savours,Dale

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Carlisle,Kenneth (Lincoln)

Rhodes James, Robert

Colvin, Michael

RhysWilliams,SirBrandon

Cope,John

Ridsdale,SirJulian

Corrie,John

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Crouch,David

Roper,John

Dorrell, Stephen

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

Sainsbury,Hon Timothy

Dover,Denshore

Scott,Nicholas

Dunn, James A.

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Elliott,SirWilliam

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Eyre,Reginald

Shersby,Michael

Fisher, SirNigel

Silvester,Fred

Forman, Nigel

Smith,Tim(Beaconsfield)

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Speed, Keith

Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

Speller,Tony

Goodlad,Alastair

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Stradling Thomas,J.

Griffiths, E.(B'ySt, Edm'ds)

Tapsell, Peter

Hamilton, Hon A.

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Hampson, DrKeith

Thompson,Donald

Hannam,John

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Hawkins,Paul

Trotter,Neville

Hawksley,Warren

Viggers, Peter

Hayhoe, Barney

Waddington,David

Hogg,HonDouglas(Gr'th'm)

Wall,SirPatrick

Hooson,Tom

Waller, Gary

Hordern,Peter

Wells,Bowen

Howells,Geraint

Wheeler,John

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Whitney, Raymond

Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)

Wickenden, Keith

Jessel, Toby

Williams, D.(Montgomery)

JohnsonSmith, Geoffrey

Wolfson,Mark

Jopling,Rt Hon Michael

Lang, Ian

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Mr. Selwyn Gummer and

Lewis,Kenneth (Rutland)

Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

Luce, Richard

Division No. 195]

[2.18 am

NOES

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Molyneaux,James

Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

Murphy,Christopher

Blackburn,John

Paisley, Rev Ian

Body, Richard

Powell, Rt Hon J.E (S Down)

Brown,Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Budgen,Nick

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Cranborne,Viscount

Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)

Farr,John

Stanbrook,Ivor

Goodhart,SirPhilip

Walker, B. (Perth)

Gorst,John

Winterton,Nicholas

Knight,MrsJill

Lawrence, Ivan

Tellers for the Noes:

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Mr. William Ross and

McQuade,John

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

Moate, Roger

Question accordingly agreed to.
Question put accordingly:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 25, Noes 115.

Division No. 196]

[2.30 am

AYES

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Murphy,Christopher

Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

Paisley, Rev Ian

Blackburn,John

Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

Body,Richard

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Brown, Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

Budgen,Nick

Skeet, T. H. H.

Cranborne, Viscount

Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)

Farr,John

Stanbrook,Ivor

Goodhart,SirPhilip

Walker, B. (Perth)

Gorst,John

Winterton,Nicholas

Knight,MrsJill

Lawrence,Ivan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

Mr. William Ross and

McQuade,John

Mr. K. Harvey Proctor

Molyneaux,James

NOES

Alexander,Richard

Lewis,Kenneth(Rutland)

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Luce,Richard

Arnold,Tom

Lyell,Nicholas

Aspinwall,Jack

MacGregor,John

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Major,John

Banks,Robert

Marten, Rt Hon Neil

Beith,A.J.

Mather,Carol

Benyon,W.(Buckingham)

Mawby, Ray

Berry, HonAnthony

Mawhinney,DrBrian

Best, Keith

Mayhew, Patrick

Bevan, David Gilroy

Mellor,David

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

Mills,Iain(Meriden)

Boyson,DrRhodes

Moate, Roger

Bright,Graham

Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

Brooke, Hon Peter

Neale,Gerrard

Brotherton,Michael

Needham,Richard

Bruce-Gardyne,John

Nelson,Anthony

Bulmer,Esmond

Newton,Tony

Butcher,John

Page, Richard (SW Herts)

Butler, HonAdam

Patten, John (Oxford)

Cadbury,Jocelyn

Pollock,Alexander

Campbell-Savours,Dale

Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

Carlisle, Kenneth(Lincoln)

Prior, Rt Hon James

Colvin,Michael

Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

Cope,John

Rhodes James, Robert

Corrie,John

RhysWilliams,SirBrandon

Crouch,David

Ridsdale,SirJulian

Dorrell,Stephen

Roberts, Wyn (Conway)

Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

Roper,John

Dover,Denshore

Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

Dunn, James A.

Sainsbury,HonTimothy

Elliott,SirWilliam

Scott,Nicholas

Eyre,Reginald

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Shaw,Michael(Scarborough)

Forman,Nigel

Shersby,Michael

Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

Silvester,Fred

Gardner, Edward (SFylde)

Smith,Tim(Beaconsfield)

Garel-Jones,Tristan

Speed, Keith

Goodlad,Alastair

Speller,Tony

Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

Stevens,Martin

Griffiths, E(B'ySt.Edm'ds)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Hamilton, Hon A.

StradlingThomas,J.

Hampson, DrKeith

Tapsell, Peter

Hannam,John

Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

Hawkins, Paul

Thompson,Donald

Hawksley,Warren

Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

Hayhoe, Barney

Trotter,Neville

Hooson,Tom

Viggers, Peter

Hordern,Peter

Waddington,David

Howells,Geraint

Wall,SirPatrick

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Waller, Gary

Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)

Wells,Bowen

Jessel, Toby

Wheeler,John

JohnsonSmith,Geoffrey

Whitney,Raymond

Jopling,Rt HonMichael

Wickenden,Keith

Lester, Jim (Beeston)

Williams,D(Montgomery)

335

Wolfson, Mark

Mr. Selwyn Gummer and

Mr. Ian Lang.

Tellers for the Noes:

Question accordingly negatived.

Northern Ireland Bill
  Clause 2

    GENERAL OR PARTIAL SUSPENSION OF DIRECT RULE
    The Chairman: We now come to amendment No. 29, with which it will be convenient to take the following amendments:
    No. 30, in clause 2, page 2, line 28, leave out from 'to' to `as' in line 30 and insert `such transferred maters'.
    No. 31, in clause 2, page 2, line 30, leave out 'Order', and insert 'Orders'.
    No. 33, in clause 2, page 2, line 30, at end insert—
    `(1A) No Order made under subsection (1) shall specify transferred matters within the responsibility of more than one Northern Ireland department.'.
    No. 99, in clause 2, page 2, line 39, leave out subsection (4).
    No. 37 in clause 2, page 2, line 39, leave out from `specify,' to end of line 41, and insert 'finance and personnel matters'.
    Mr. Concannon rose—
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I apologise once again for forestalling the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), but I respectfully submit that, although the remainder of the group of amendments is clearly homogeneous and it is obviously convenient to take them together, amendments Nos. 99 and 37, which relate to the same point, are essentially different in content.
    The first four amendments deal with the question—to simplify it—of half a Department, one Department at a time, or several Departments at a time. Amendments Nos. 99 and 37, in different ways, deal with the prohibition of a devolving Department and thus raise an entirely different question of policy; not whether Departments that are to be devolved should be taken together, but whether the devolution of a particular Department should be prohibited by statute and placed beyond the reach of the Assembly's proposals.
    I hope, Mr. Weatherill, that you will enable us to have two separate debates. That would be more convenient and rational, and would probably not take any more time.
    The Chairman: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the reasonable way in which he has raised his point of order. I went into the selection of amendments very carefully, because I understand the Bill's importance to the Committee. I think that the two amendments hang with amendment No. 29 and I prefer not to change my selection at this moment and off-the-cuff.
    Mr. Powell: I appreciate your difficulty, Mr. Weatherill, which was conveyed by the words "at this moment" and "off-the-cuff'. As a result of sitting on successive days, we are in great difficulty, because it is impossible for those debating the Bill to become aware of the selection proposed by the Chair early enough to make submissions that you can fairly consider. Therefore, we are both working under difficulties. That is the excuse for putting propositions to you that one would not normally
    336
    put at such short notice. I hope that you will understand that my remarks are an explanation and apology rather than a criticism.
    The Chairman: I certainly understand that, but I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that the selection was made before the Whitsun Recess. The amendments to clauses 1 and 2 were selected then. I review them all the time and I think that I must stick to the grouping.
    2.45 am
    Mr. Concannon: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, leave out 'Order' and insert 'Orders'.
    Amendments Nos. 31 and 33 are consequential to amendment No. 29.
    The amendments spring from the points that I made on Second Reading about our worries as to how powers would be devolved and scrutinised by the House. There are three ways in which powers can be devolved to Northern Ireland. All the Departments can be devolved at once, some Departments can be devolved or parts of Departments can be devolved which, by sleight of hand, suddenly become whole Departments again. That is how I understood the reply of the Minister.
    I understand that there is always a changing climate in Departments. An order will come before the House soon to join together two Northern Ireland Departments. When I first went to Northern Ireland in 1974 after the downfall of the Executive, there were 17 Departments in full flight. We all know why there were so many Departments. It was to facilitate a good spread of offices around the many political groups. When I arrived there with my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moyle), the only order that we received was to "get up that hill and take that lot over". Only then did I find out that we were taking over 17 Departments. Many of those Departments have now disappeared or been amalgamated, which makes sense.
    It worries Labour Members that if devolved powers return in a complete package, as we stand now—I hope that Ministers can clarify the point—that operation will be achieved by orders. That is what usually happens with Northern Ireland business late at night, but in this case it will not be satisfactory to us, to the Government or to anyone else.
    If one is searching for an easy example, the best one is the Department of Agriculture. I understand the Government's fears that there might be a package deal to devolve two or three Departments at a time. That can be argued with us at the time, but what we are saying in our amendments is that we wish to see each Department devolved by a separate order. We wish to limit the devolving of powers to one Department at a time. To use the Department of the Environment as another example, if there were a proposal to devolve all of it we would wish to scrutinise that carefully.
    Within the Department of the Environment is the Housing Executive. We all know why the Housing Executive was set up and I am certain that the House would want to scrutinise that carefully. The Department of the Environment might be one of those partial devolutions where one finds that the parts that want to be devolved suddenly become Departments again. If only half the Department were devolved the Government would have to place another order before the House. There would

    337
    be two separate Departments, the one left to the Government and the other to be devolved. By sleight of hand that becomes a Department again.
    The object of the amendments is to ensure that if and when devolved powers come before the House by means of either of the methods we have discussed they come one at a time so that we can discuss them properly. Has the Minister anything further to say as to how these would be debated and whether they will be by order, for an hour and a half, or late at night? Having gone this far with the Bill I am sure that the Government would not want one of the first devolved orders dealt with for an hour and a half at the conclusion of the ordinary business of the day. That would not be the right way of proceeding.
    Mr. Proctor: It is a delight, Mr. Dean, to catch your eye after listening to many hours of debate on previous groups of amendments. It is also a delight in the middle of the night to speak immediately after the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). Alas, during the earlier proceedings when the right hon. Gentleman caught your eye and made his other contribution I had to take a constituent to tea. I blinked and I missed the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I have been waiting all this time to apologise to him for blinking and missing his speech. It was a unique occasion yesterday, although not during the sitting of the Committee, to hear him speak. I heard some parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech but not the whole of it, as I would have wished. I am assiduous with my constituents. I make sure that they get a good cup of tea and not just a short cup of tea. I support the amendment. It may seem to be making only a small grammatical change, but it raises a matter of importance to the Committee. It is a House of Commons point and I shall comment later on the time available for debating devolution orders.
    The right hon. Member for Mansfield said that there were three ways in which powers might be devolved. First, all Departments could be devolved in one go. From what I have heard in Committee and on my visits to Northern Ireland I gather that it is unlikely that that will happen, but even if the Assembly wanted all the Departments to be devolved together the House should have the opportunity to vote on each one separately. I hope that we shall be given an absolute assurance that that will be the case.
    Mr. Michael Brown: Does my hon. Friend agree that the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) has done us a great service by tabling the amendment? When an order or orders come before the House, that will be our final opportunity to take the monumental decision on the suspension or partial suspension of direct rule. Since that is the final opportunity that the Committee may have, it is crucial that it should be able to consider the possibility of devolving different Departments at different times within the context of separate orders and therefore separate debates.
    3 am
    Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for leading me on to the other two-thirds of the equation which the right hon. Gentleman has set down.
    The second proposal is that certain Departments would be devolved. When we refer to certain Departments, I am not sure whether we are talking about two, three or four being devolved at one time or whether over a period,
    338
    which might be relatively short, a number of requests will be received by the Secretary of State for the Assembly for the devolution of this, that and the other Department.
    Could the Secretary of State over a period of, say, a month act as a collecting agency for the requests from the Assembly, or will he have to come to the House immediately on each individual request? I do not know which would be the best administrative practice from the point of view of the Northern Ireland Departments and of the Secretary of State. From the point of view of the House, the preference of most Members would probably be so to engineer the situation that a separate vote could be taken on each Department, even if the requests are collated by the Secretary of State and brought forward in twos and threes and we have one long debate.
    If I understood the right hon. Gentleman correctly, his third category covers parts of Departments. Once a part of a Department has been so defined, it has then to be reconstituted as a new Department. I thought I understood him aright, because I referred to it at an earlier stage of our deliberations on another group of amendments dealing with the heads of Departments and how such a situation would affect them.
    The authority for what we are talking about is in clause 1, and the briefing notes are very helpful. It might assist the Committee if I refer to them:
    "Under Subsection (1), devolution can be 'full' or 'partial'.… It would be preferable if the Assembly agreed that all the functions of a given department should be devolved. Though if the agreement on devolution was critically dependent on some but not all of a department's functions being devolved that would be possible: in that event, the existing departmental structure would need to be changed before devolution so that when devolution took place it would be by reference to all the functions of a particular department."
    Clause 1 undoubtedly makes allowance for part or parts of a Department to be devolved. Here, again, I believe that the House of Commons would be even more concerned to discuss an individual order dealing with that part of a Department that was to be devolved, and it would be even more important for the House to be able to vote on it because of the complex position which would arise as a result of splitting one Department into two, certain responsibilities of the Department being devolved to the Assembly and others being retained by the Northern Ireland Office.
    Earlier, it was said that the Secretary of State would somehow sweep these up in his general umbrella powers and keep them himself if they were not to be devolved. Sweeping them up was, I think, the purport of the Minister's answer to my intervention, although I hope that I shall be forgiven at this hour for failing to remember the precise words. Sweeping them up or pushing them under the umbrella of the Secretary of State was the purport of the Minister's response.
    I should be out of order if I made any further reference to wheeler dealing or cobbling together, because that arose when we discussed another group of amendments, but I think that each of the three different circumstances described briefly by the right hon. Member for Mansfield should be the subject of a separate order rather than one global order.
    I am a relatively new Member, and therefore I am not fully apprised of all the ins and outs of procedure. Frequently, Mr. Weatherill, I have to seek your guidance and that of your colleagues in the Chair on procedural matters, but if I understand it correctly, the debate on any

    339
    order would have a duration of one and a half hours only. In the absence of any immediate intervention to the contrary, I assume that that is so. If that is the case, I submit that is not adequate time for a debate on such a weighty matter, whatever Department is proposed to be devolved or in which of the three categories it may fall.
    I say that as one of the great unpaired who frequently moan about orders being debated late at night. Sometimes these one and a half hour debates are regarded as an irritant to hon. Members who perhaps are not all that interested in the subject matter and as a particular irritant to the great unpaired. But these matters are of such magnitude and importance to Northern Ireland and to the constitutional aspects that we have debated at length in clause 1 that I do not believe that the House of Commons could do justice to a proposal to devolve any or all of these Departments to the Assembly in a debate lasting only one and a half hours. That is nonsense and all Members of the Committee know it. It is nonsense because usually on those occasions the right hon. Member for Mansfield would not make the type of speech that he made tonight. He would make a longer speech.
    Mr. Scott: I was going to deal with all of these points later in the debate. Perhaps it would save time now if I made it clear that the Government would not demand that the time allowed for these orders be constrained to one and a half hours.
    Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful suggestion. I shall not now pursue the difficulties of the one and a half hour debate. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will be grateful to my hon. Friend for his assurance and help on this matter. It may, indeed, shorten our deliberations on the amendments.
    Mr. Molyneaux: I would not like to diminish the pleasure that the Minister's announcement has given to the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor). While it is true that the time can be extended from the standard 90 minutes by a given period of two hours, four hours and so on, that is done normally on the initiative of an opposition party. Today, I signed a letter to the business managers requesting that we have a time extension for an order to be discussed next Monday evening. I should like to extend an invitation to all present to be with us at that late hour when we shall be doing the reverse of what is outlined by the hon. Gentleman. We shall be discussing the amalgamation of certain Stormont Departments. We have asked for a time extension. We wait to see whether we shall be successful. It has to be done on our initiative. Governments do not agree to such extensions out of the kindness of their heart, because they do not like being kept late at night.
    Mr. Proctor: The hon. Gentleman intervened at the point at which I had thanked the Minister for his assurance but before I had had time to probe it. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish me to forgo the delight of probing him on these matters. As I said earlier, I am an innocent in procedural matters. My hon. Friend's intervention was helpful, but I should like the Minister to be even more helpful. If we are saying that the Government hold certain specified powers to extend in
    340
    certain circumstances the time of debate on an order but that only the Government can trigger them, I would wish to press my hon. Friend for assurances with regard to the length of time of such debates. In his reply to the debate I am sure that he will give assurances concerning the length of time such devolutions orders merit from the House.
    We are fortunate to have with us the right hon. Member for Mansfield. If we can tempt him to the Dispatch Box again we might discover how long the official Opposition wish to allow. We assume that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to devote a considerable amount of time to orders. Otherwise, the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would not have tabled the amendments. It would be helpful to know his view about how long the orders should be debated.
    3.15 am
    Mr. Concannon: In my Second Reading speech I said that we might have to find another way to examine the special Northern Ireland powers. I was questioning whether that should be done by order or in some other way. I tried to solicit the help of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) because of his expert knowledge. The amount of time involved will depend on the Departments involved and whether they will be dealt with one at a time or in a group. There might be another way to deal with such matters.
    Mr. Proctor: I shall not pre-empt the contribution by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) because he might wish to comment on that. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) seems to say that one and a half hours for one Department is not enough. We should examine the length and form of debates. I understand that that will depend upon whether all Departments are involved.
    If all Departments are involved we shall need a sizeable debate, probably not limited to one day. The Under-Secretary of State looks at me quizzically, but if all Departments were devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, we should need a substantial debate. I do not see how such a debate could be confined to one day.
    Mr. Farr: I appreciate my hon. Friend's difficulty. The answer to the conundrum rests not with Opposition or Government spokesmen, but with the Leader of the House. Orders in Council relating to Northern Ireland are limited to one and a half hours' debate. It is not normally within the Minister's discretion to say that fresh arrangements should be made without consultation with the authorities of the House. I agree with my hon. Friend. Some of these orders are so important that they should not be debated in less than three-quarters of a day--never mind one and a half hours. The difficulty lies in the mechanics of this place, and not with the good intentions or otherwise of the Minister.
    Mr. Proctor: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) for that intervention, although I do not necessarily fully agree with him. Although Northern Ireland orders are normally discussed for one and a half hours, there are procedures of the House for extending discussion, as the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said.
    Mr. Scott: In the interests of brevity, perhaps I should point out that, although an order is exempted business for

    341
    one and a half hours after Ten o'clock, it can start at any point after the commencement of public business. So it is perfectly possible for an order to start at 3.30 and run to 11.30.
    Mr. Proctor: I thank my hon. Friend, because he has put into precise words what I was fumbling to say—that there should be a full day's debate on an order devolving one Department. That is a sensible suggestion. If the Secretary of State proposed that a Department should be devolved to the Assembly, there should be a full day's debate in the House. I hope that that is how my hon. Friend sees the matter.
    I am conscious of what the right hon. Member for Mansfield said about when the order might be debated. Certainly, it would not be right to constrain a debate on such a major issue as whether or not to devolve a Department of State to the Northern Ireland Assembly to late at night—still less the middle of the night, as now.
    I have sought to put what I wanted to say as briefly as I could, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for helping me. I hope that he will be able to allay my worries.
    Mr. Body: Would my hon. Friend be satisfied—or, more important, would Northern Ireland be satisfied—if this business were taken on a Friday? That might be a compromise. Certainly, that would not be as appalling as taking it late at night for one and a half hours. If we are realistic, we realise that the business managers are unlikely to agree to a full day's debate, except in exceptional circumstances. Perhaps a full Friday might be a compromise. Would my hon. Friend think that that was satisfactory'?
    Mr. Proctor: I had drawn my remarks almost to a close, but I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) for raising this matter. This debate is important because the Leader of the House and the business managers, when discussing a devolving order, will no doubt take note of what has been said in it. This debate may therefore give valuable guidance to the Government and the business managers.
    I am not avoiding my hon. Friend's suggestion about a Friday. That might be very attractive to an hon. Member such as myself, with a constituency close to London, who can be and often is in the House on a Friday. Although it is normally regarded as a private Members' day, Government business can be and, indeed, is taken on a Friday. It might be a great deal easier for London Members to attend debates on a Friday than for right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies.
    I believe that Northern Ireland Members should have a big say in the debates when the orders come before the House. Their direct links with their constituents will allow them to shed another light on the Secretary of State's proposals, as the Assembly's views will be funnelled through the Secretary of State rather than coming directly to the House. Northern Ireland Members therefore should and, I hope, will have a large say and influence in the House when we are deciding whether to devolve various Departments.
    Therefore, my hon. Friend may, on reflection, consider that his helpful suggestion is perhaps not such a good idea as he first thought.
    I look forward to hearing my hon. Friend the Minister's reply to the debate.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell:: Like the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), I took a rare pleasure in the speech of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). I found particularly enjoyable the description of his entry into the many mansions on Stormont Hill. It was a reminder of an aspect of the Bill and of devolution to which I sought to refer, with as much decency as possible, in an earlier debate—the means of providing inducements to as many people as possible who come within the ambit of the Bill, as Assembly members or otherwise, for conformity with whatever may be the wishes, policies and intentions of the powers at the time. After all, that is part of the mechanism for which this whole operation is being undertaken. As explained in the important and striking daily notes from the 1979 Conservative Party campaign that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) communicated to the House yesterday—perhaps it was this morning, I have rather lost count—
    Mr. William Ross: It was yesterday.
    Mr. Powell: I am grateful. I think that it was indeed yesterday.
    In the brief period of the former vitality of the 1973 Act, the motive power and the multiplication of inducements have led to fissiparous nature of Departments of Government in Northern Ireland and hence to a pullulation of those Departments, resulting in the increase in their number and the subdivision of their functions that made such an impression upon the right hon. Member for Mansfield—an impression that he succeeded in communicating vigorously and vividly to the House this morning.
    The amendments before us all deal with various aspects of a problem which, as the right hon. Member for Mansfield said, was mentioned on Second Reading—the control by this House of the inception of the various stages of resumed devolution under the 1973 Act. Strictly speaking, the ideal method would be that those stages should be authorised by legislation, for only legislation in the proper sense can enable the House of Commons properly to debate and properly to control that which it authorises. There is no substitute for legislation. That is an aphorism which trips readily off the tongues of Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies, who are often presented with a substitute for legislation in the form of Orders in Council.
    3.30 pm
    I draw attention to a delightful irony which may have escaped those who are contemplating the future delights of devolution by virtue of this proposed legislation. It is an irony that at the moment when power is being devolved we still find ourselves using Orders in Council. There is a certain tacky quality. about direct rule, such that when we think that we have got rid of it we suddenly find an Order in Council again under the 1974 Act. The moral of this takes us back to the previously mentioned aphorism that there is no substitute for legislation.
    There is no remedy for direct rule other than getting rid of direct rule altogether. I do not want to use words which fall unpleasantly upon the ears of any hon. Member present or absent or of any person present or absent, but there is only one way within the United Kingdom of getting rid of direct rule altogether—I will pronounce it in as low and hushed a tone as I can manage, not to say husky at this hour of the morning—and that is integration As

    343
    long as Northern Ireland remains part of the United Kingdom there will always be some measure of direct rule associated with however lavish and extensive an integration may be contrived for the Province.
    We are considering the procedure whereby with the mechanisms of direct rule and Orders in Council we can implement instalments of legislative and administrative devolution in Northern Ireland. We shall find that we shall come up against another inconvenience. It was brought to my mind when I was contemplating how much more preferable it would have been if instead of Orders in Council we had genuine legislation by Bill.
    When I was musing upon that, I realised that the meat of the matter will not be in the Orders in Council. I suspect that the drafting of an Order in Council will be terse indeed. It will probably be a single effective article. Principally that article will be concerned with nominating a Department of the Northern Ireland Government. That is all that the Order in Council will need to do. It will need to say that the 1974 Act does not apply to the following Department of State. But that is not the essence of the matter. That says nothing about the conditions and modalities which we have been debating in the context of clause 1.
    In the context of clause 1 we were being informed by the Secretary of State of all sorts of wheeling and dealing, horse trading, cobbling together, agreements and packages whereby the proposals would get themselves into a form likely to prove acceptable to the Secretary of State. Therefore, the real meat is in the proposals.
    Perhaps I am not alone in this thought. During the debate I allowed myself to imagine that while we were debating clause 1, the proposals would somehow emerge from their chrysalis into actual legislative provision by the magic of clause 2. But that will not happen. Clause 2 will simply result in the most terse of Orders in Council. All the meaty matter, all the skulduggery and all the reciprocal arrangements that will induce and condition the instalments of devolution will not be laid down at all. They will not be brought before the House at all for its specific approval because they will be just in the proposal and the proposals that have been presented to the House.
    Therefore, I would imagine that during the extended debates on the Orders in Council hon. Members will have before them two documents. One document will be the proposal of the Assembly and the second will be the actual Order in Council. The House will have to contrive to debate the proposals because only they will render intelligible the circumstances in which the devolution of a particular Department will be allowed to take place. Therefore, the House will not be able to apply itself to the details of the proposals and the detailed conditions and modalities as it can do when it legislates in the normal manner.
    So much by way of preface as to the general procedure with which clause 2 deals. I now come to the purposes of the various amendments that we are considering as one group. I am not sure whether the amendment should have run: "'Order' or 'Orders', as the case may be". Surely under subsection (1)(a) there can be only one order in any case. The object of pluralising the word "Order" is to make it possible, as the wording of the clause as it stands may
    344
    not have made possible, to present several Orders for several Departments of which the administration and legislation is being devolved at the same time.
    To put the matter negatively, the object is to prevent the Government from presenting a single Order for a whole clutch of Departments. There are to be no clutches. We shall devolve Departments Department by Department—one Department, one Order. That is the purpose of the right hon. Member for Mansfield in amendments Nos. 29 and 31. It is a purpose of which my hon. Friends and I heartily approve and which I hope will win the approval of the Government and consequently the acceptance of the amendments.
    But then there is an opposite to the combination of Departments in a single order, which we hope to prevent. That is the bisection—it might be trisection or even a more minute fragmentation—of a single Department so that the several parts of that Department might be devolved by one of the Orders. To provide for that, my hon. Friends and I tabled amendment No. 30. If the amendment is made, then, with such skill in construction as one can muster at this hour of the morning, clause 2(1)(b) would read:
    "suspend the operation of those provisions so far as relating to such transferred matters … as are specified in the Order".
    That is a beautiful, not to say deft, simplification of the wording of paragraph (b). It is not only more beautiful and chaste as a specimen of English but also makes it possible to devolve some, though not all, of the matters falling within the ambit of a Department. I draw your attention, Mr. Armstrong, to that important definite article "the" in "the transferred matters" within the responsibilities of such Department as may be specified. That would appear to mean all the transferred matters within one given Department must be transferred all together or not at all.
    I am at one, as are my hon. Friends, with the Secretary of State and, I think, with the Committee generally, in preferring to envisage that whole Departments should be devolved without diminution. But there are Departments where diminution may be convenient. The right hon. Member for Mansfield gave, I believe, the Department of the Environment as a conspicuous case in point. I can imagine other Departments such as Agriculture or Education where such subdivisions might be convenient.
    We are considering here the process of rolling devolution. There could be cases where it was convenient not to roll all at once but to roll a piece at a time, to devolve in the rolling manner one part and not the whole sweep of education that falls within the compass of the Department of Education. I hope therefore that the purpose of amendment No. 30 will commend itself to the Committee and to the Government, remembering always that its liberating power is permissive. It does not exclude and, indeed, it would normally provide for devolution Department by Department, but its wording makes subdivision possible where that is evidently preferable.
    Amendment No. 33 might be seen as an alternative to amendments Nos. 29 and 31. At any rate, if I understand it correctly—the right hon. Member for Mansfield did not refer to it at great length, if at all—it is an additional protection and safeguard and specific prohibition of devolution to more than Department at a time.
    I skip certain amendments to which we shall return in connection with a later grouping and come to amendments Nos. 37 and 99. I shall deal with amendment No. 37 first

    345
    because it is partly in the nature of a drafting and partly in the nature of a query, and hence, essentially, a probing amendment.
    3.45 am
    Subsection (4) of the clause refers to an order that specifies
    "the Department of Finance and Personnel or any matters within its responsibilities."
    I cannot see the point of attaching the words
    "or any matters within its responsibilities"
    since, if the specification of a Department of Finance and Personnel is forbidden, then presumably the specification of any matters is within the responsibility of the Department forbidden. A drafting or clarification query prompted the tabling of amendment No. 37.
    The purpose of amendment No. 99, in the name of the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison), is very different. I should apologise to him that the luck of the draw and the luck of catching your eye, Mr. Armstrong, the chance effect of that procedure of alteration that we commonly practice between the two sides of the Committee, should put me in the paradoxical position of referring to the hon. Gentleman's amendment before he has the opportunity to do so.
    This is an important amendment, because it draws attention to what will be one of the besetting weaknesses of the process of rolling devolution, although I am not advising the committee to accept the amendment. The Department of Finance and Personnel is the Treasury in United Kingdom terms, the Treasury being what Plato would have called the architectonic Department, the Department that supervises, controls, and in a sense, comprehends all the other Departments. It would be absurd to devolve that Department, without devolving all the other Departments that are dependent upon it.
    The reverse process is possible, although inconvenient, and it is to that inconvenience that the amendment in the name the hon. Member for Epping Forest attracts the attention of the Committee. As the Department of Finance and Personnel cannot, as the Bill stands and as common sense requires, be devolved until all the other Departments have been devolved, and cannot be devolved until the "big bang" of paragraph (a) in subsection (1); then all the devolved Departments under the rolling procedure will be subordinate in respect of all those forms of control and limitation that it is the business of the Treasury to impose and administer, while that Department is still undevolved and is still the direct responsibility of the Secretary of State, answerable to the House.
    This is a reminder that the reality, the red meat of devolution, the real independence of devolution, the responsibility of devolution, will be withheld as long as the rolling process continues, although the more the rolling process continues, the more painful and perceptible will be that deprivation.
    Mr. Budgen: The principal reason for the comparative success of Stormont over many years was that it had that responsibility. It was because it had that responsibility that it did not exercise, at any rate initially, its substantial powers unjustly against the minority. However, if a system of rolling devolution is set up, there will be none of that clear responsibility, felt and recognised by all as residing in the devolved Government. There may well then
    346
    be a much greater inclination to feel less cautious about exercising powers in such a way as to be unjust to the minority.
    Mr. Powell: I am not sure that I followed the hon. Gentleman's reasoning that leads him to conclude that a Department that is being administered under the financial constraint of another Department is more likely to be biased in its administration. However, doubtless when he catches your eye later in the debate, Mr. Armstrong, the hon. Gentleman will be able to assist the Committee and myself in understanding his argument.
    The hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that, with one extremely important exception, Stormont had total devolution. Indeed, it had the full devolution that is provided in this Bill, plus a number of subjects that are not to be devolved at all in this Bill.
    Mr. Budgen: Plus security.
    Mr. Powell: Yes, plus security principally.
    As the Committee has been reminded in earlier stages of its work, Stormont was dependent upon United Kingdom Treasury decisions, as the United Kingdom controlled not all but some of the major inputs into the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland.
    The devolved Department will be a highly constricted one. Not merely the total of what it can spend, but a great deal of what it can spend it on, will continue to be decided by the Minister re sponsible for the Department of Finance and Personnel: the staffing, the pay, the total expenditure of the Department, the estimates of the Department—that is, the expenditure under its different heads and subheads. The policy that results in that expenditure will continue under the surveillance, and, more, under the control of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, and hence of this House.
    The amendment is a warning not to suppose that the head of a devolved Department will not constantly be under the temptation—perhaps that is putting it a little unfairly: will constantly be obliged—to explain to those with whom he debates, to the Assembly to which he is responsible, that he cannot be held to account. To bring to account the person who is responsible, they must call upon the Secretary of State.
    As long as finance is not devolved, there will be little reality in administrative devolution, because the administrative responsibility vests so deeply in the hands of whoever controls the finance.
    Mr. Farr: I am trying to follow the right hon. Gentleman's interesting argument. Whoever in theory controls finance when the Department of Finance and Personnel is officially devolved by the House, Whitehall will surely still hold the purse strings because of the huge annual subventior from the Treasury to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Powell: I am sure that that is right. As long as Northern Ireland is treated as a separate element for financial purposes under the peculiar system instituted in 1920—which still largely continues—there will be dependence, and consequently a dilution of responsibility. When some Departments are devolved and others are not devolved, the priorities as between those Departments will not be settled upon devolved responsibility and will not be a matter that comes within the purview of the Assembly—to which the devolved Departments are

    347
    nominally responsible—because the Treasury will have to make the allocations to all the devolved and undevolved Departments.
    The remark that priorities are the language of Socialism is attributed to the late Aneurin Bevan. However, since the establishment of priorities is at the heart of politics and Government, it should be understood that that essential function of government and politics will remain firmly with the Secretary of State as long as there is only rolling devolution. As the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said, even when full devolution under subsection 1(a) has taken place, there will still be the overhanging financial influence and decision making of the Treasury.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Before you entered the Chamber, Mr. Armstrong, and before the debate began, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) raised a point of order with your predecessor in the Chair. He respectfully questioned lumping together these amendments. I confess that I was a little worried because I tabled amendment No. 99 and thought that I might catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair when we were still discussing the other amendment. However, the Chair's prescience and efficiency have been demonstrated because, in the event, the forebodings of the right hon. Member for Down, South have not been realised. We have slid gracefully from one amendment to the other. The right hon. Gentleman, in touching on my amendment, gave the Committee some interesting reflections and thoughts and has enabled me to be much briefer than—
    Mr. Lawrence: Oh dear!
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my hon. and learned Friend wish to intervene?
    Mr. Lawrence: I was concerned that my hon. Friend should appear to be sitting down so soon after rising to his feet. Although I may have dozed off in the middle of the exposition by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)—if I may say so, it was extremely effective and comprehensive—I am a little hazy about the effect of deleting subsection (4). That Department will be the last to be devolved and no partial devolvement will affect that Department. I was hoping that my hon. Friend, before he sat down, would have told me, as I am sure is appreciated by everyone in the Chamber, that that is precisely the effect of the abolition of subsection (4).
    4 am
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: I sat down because I believed that my hon. and learned Friend wished to intervene. It is against the rules of order for more than one hon. Member to be on his feet at the same time.
    I now intend to expound the effect of amendment No. 99, although I cannot guarantee that my hon. and learned Friend will not be even hazier at the end of my remarks than he is now. He may doze off if he wishes, subject to the Chair, but I hope that he will not.
    Clause 2 provides for the general or partial suspension of direct rule under the 1974 Act and the corresponding full or partial devolution. Subsection (1)(a) provides for full devolution and subsection (1)(b), which I propose should be left out, provides for partial devolution. Subsection (4) provides:
    348
    "No Order under subsection (1)(b) above shall specify the Department of Finance and Personal or any matters within its responsibilities."
    Like the right hon. Member for Down, South, I wondered why the words
    "or any matters within its responsibilities"
    were included. No doubt my hon. Friend will explain that to the Committee's satisfaction.
    If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) had not been asleep but had listened with the same attention to the speech of the right hon. Member for Down, South, he would have heard that it should be obvious that the Department of Finance and Personnel must be the last Department to be devolved.
    Mr. Lawrence: If my hon. Friend had been listening, he would have known that that is precisely what I said a few moments ago.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: I apologise to my hon. and learned Friend.
    This is a probing amendment. I assure the right hon. Member for Down, South that I am happy to agree that the Committee should be advised not to accept it. The right hon. Gentleman forcefully made the point that there is no reality in legislative autonomy or devolution without financial autonomy or devolution.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) intervened to say that the good thing about Stormont was that it had such responsibility.
    Mr. Budgen: No. I mentioned responsibility generally within the parameters of that form of devolution. I drew a distinction between the general granting of powers to Stormont and the piecemeal granting of powers that is envisaged in this proposal.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It occurred to me that perhaps he had not appreciated that the financial autonomy of Stormont was more apparent than real. There is no separate income tax for Northern Ireland under the Stormont system.
    Mr. Budgen: On Saturday, my hon. Friend and I attended an interesting lecture by Professor David Harkness that covered that point. If I catch your eye, Mr. Armstrong, I might be able to say something about the disadvantages that were suffered by Stormont as a result of it having no independent source of revenue.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: My hon. Friend is referring to the inaugural meeting of the Council for the Union. It was not Professor David Harkness the historian who spoke; it was the economic gentleman.
    Mr. Budgen: It was both.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State tell us how the overlapping Treasury functions will be exercised, because they would apply both to Departments that have been devolved and to those that have not? It will be complicated. How will it work in practice?
    Mr. Body: While listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) and the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) I was reminded of what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) said on Second Reading. He is the spokesman for the Social Democratic Party on Northern

    349
    Ireland. One appreciates the fact that he has given many hours to the debates although he has not been an audible spokesman. No doubt he will be in the future.
    Mr. Farr: I support what my hon. Friend has said, because the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) not only has taken a keen interest in Northern Ireland affairs but was a hard-working Minister in a responsible office in Northern Ireland at a difficult time. Those of us who watched his work admired the manner in which he did that job and shared with him the tremendous responsibility.
    Mr. Body: My hon Friend has said what I was about to say. I remember the hon. Member for Kirkdale, when he was a Minister, speaking sympathetically and conscientiously late at night about the problems of Northern Ireland. We shall not forget the way that he discharged his responsibilities.
    On Second Reading the hon. Gentleman said:
    "Ultimately,"—
    an appropriate word, for this debate—
    "we shall require sufficient time in which to consider each of the clauses and any amendments. The Secretary of State should appeal to those who control the parliamentary timetable to ensure that that happens."—[Official Report, 10 May 1982; Vol. 23, c. 511.]
    May we have an assurance from the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary that an appeal has been made through the usual channels that we should have ample time to consider the amendments and new clauses?
    The more time that we have, the more opportunities there will be for the right hon. Member for Down, South to add items to the catalogue of inconsistencies, anomalies and plain absurdities that he has already listed. The bigger the catalogue grows, the more convinced we shall be that the Bill will prove to be unworkable and will cause grave harm to Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Lawrence: The other view, which is held by a number of hon. Members, is that the legislation ought to be made more workable. Does my hon. Friend agree that the more time that is given for consideration of the legislation the more likely it is that all the parties that will have to work it will be able to do so sensibly and amenably, so that it can become more effective and efficient than it is likely to be if it is rushed through, causing anger, irritation and a determination not to make it work?
    The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. I hope that the hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) will not follow that line of argument. We must get back to the amendments.
    Mr. Body: Perhaps I may be permitted to say that I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
    Most of my Back-Bench colleagues who are in the Chamber agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South, but my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) is not quite persuaded.
    Mr. Crouch: I am a devolver.
    Mr. Body: If my hon. Friend listens to other hon. Members he may gradually be persuaded that devolution is no answer and that what the Conservative Party argued
    350
    at the general election is the right course. We should not go back on what we proposed and we shall make a grave mistake if we allow the Bill to go through.
    Considering how we have treated Northern Ireland in recent years, it would be disgraceful if an order were debated for only one and a half hours. It is many years since I played any part in Ulster politics—long ago I was defeated for the Antrim, North nomination, and perhaps that was just as well—but there is sufficient Ulster blood in my veins for me to have strong views about how we have behaved towards Northern Ireland in recent years, certainly since 1970.
    It would be an insult, piled on to other insults, if we allowed only one and a half hours to debate an Order in Council on devolution. I hope that even my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury, devolutionist though he may be, agrees that such a short debate would be an insult to the people of Northern Ireland and would only add to the ill-feeling that exists in Ulster towards the House and the Government.
    4.15 am
    I gauged just a glimmer of hope a few moments ago when the right hon. Member was speaking. Even if the Bill goes through, it is; obvious that we will not get devolution, no matter what the hopes of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury may be. What the Assembly may try to get is some form of local government. Although it will be encouraged to pursue a devolutionary course, it may say that that is not what it wants but that it is seeking local government and wants the Province to be treated like the rest of the United Kingdom. It may seek in the name of partial devolution some form of local government functions for, say, education, planning or other matters. It may put before the Secretary of State proposals couched in devolutionary terms but for local government.
    This fits in with the views that have been expressed in Northern Ireland in the opinion poll and, as we understand, by other organs of opinion. The people of Northern Ireland want some say in the decision-making processes that affect their everyday lives. They are getting impatient with direct rule. If they could have returned to them local government functions comparable to those in England, Wales and Scotland, they might be satisfied.
    The proposals put to the Secretary of State, although couched in devolutionary terms, may be much narrower and more akin to local government functions. If the Secretary of State realises that that is what Northern Ireland wants, he should be persuaded to put before the House an Order in Council along those lines. In that case it would not be necessary to have a full day's debate or even a complete Friday's debate, as I hinted earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor). It would be tolerable to have a shorter debate of only an hour and a half on an Order in Council.
    There may be some merit in what this clause proposes. Those of us who have listened to the right hon. Gentleman and others pour scorn on the Bill have our doubts. Although there is that hope, I cannot see much more hope than that. Therefore, although I support the amendment, I acknowledge that there is no solid ground for optimism.
    Mr. Molyneaux: The debates today have brought back many memories, happy and unhappy, of the Scotland Bill. I mention this because the Minister who will be replying tended to chide us for wasting too much time on our deliberations. He is a generous soul and on reflection he

    351
    will acknowledge that a Bill such as this one raises many issues that go far wider than one might have envisaged when embarking on the debate. We have seen many examples of that in the past two days and two nights; no doubt we will see some more before we reach four of five o'clock this afternoon.
    It follows that this constitutional Bill is bound also to raise many matters of principle, which again may not have been foreseen, certainly not by those of us who have been destined to debate the Bill. There is a fair chance that they were not foreseen either by the draftsmen. Even today—and perhaps today is the best example—the Committee has been brought up short by an unexpected major issue. That is bound to happen, and it will continue to happen as we pick our way through the minefield that the Bill provides.
    Ministers may feel that we ought to move a little faster, but, being experienced politicians, they will recognise the real value of the Committee stage of any Bill, especially that of a complicated constitutional measure such as this Northern Ireland Bill. It is not just what appears in a subsection that triggers off thoughts that lead to various calculations and then to probing questions that may have to be shelved for the time being until answers can be provided. In many cases, a harmless, innocent form of words can hide very prickly points and matters of real substance.
    None of us can be at all confident about the outcome or the product of this very important measure. We have been amazed by the disclosures that have been made today, the chief one being, perhaps, in response to the request of the official Opposition for some addition to the clause now under discussion. We are shooting in the dark, because we do not know what effect the Government's proposed amendment will have on clause 2. The announcement came as a bombshell to the entire Committee. The Secretary of State and his Ministers were ill-advised to proceed with the debate without right hon. and hon. Members even having had sight of their proposed amendment.
    Ministers have had a considerable amount of time to mediate since they engaged in the deal alleged by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen), and I have cause to wonder why the amendment could not have been made available to right hon. and hon. Members, even in manuscript form, so that the Committee could look at it in the course of its deliberations.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) sketched out for the Committee the course that will be followed if the road show ever starts rolling, rambling or creeping. He reminded us that we shall still have direct rule and all its objectionable features even when the Bill has been implemented, assuming that it is evr implemented in that second improbable stage.
    Three options were outlined by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). The hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) discussed them more fully, and they were touched upon by my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South. The first, which we prefer, is where all the Departments are devolved in one go, though not of course in one order, and we feel that it would be only prudent, since they cover so many facets of Government, for the House to give detailed scrutiny to each of the orders laid before it. But in our view all those
    352
    Departments should at least be transferred in one block and not in penny packages such as those proposed in the option provided in amendment No. 102. We believe that that would be highly undesirable. It would lead to the destruction of collective responsibility, with British Ministers responsibile to the United Kingdom Parliament and native Ministers responsible and answerable to the Assembly at Stormont.
    There is then the question of confidence. What would be the effect on the native Ministers of a highly unpopular measure that is proposed by the Secretary of State, or the British Ministers, as they would come to be called? Would the native Ministers go to their Departments of Agriculture, Education or Health and Social Services and say "Do not blame me. I am only the native Minister. You must go up to the castle and talk to the boss because, after all, we are under his thumb. We hold our seals of office through his approval. Those can be taken away from us in the twinkling of an eye. You would not want us to put our jobs at risk, so you had better discuss the matter with the great man himself."? I fear that that would be the result of a penny package devolution, a hotchpotch operation where no one would know where he stood, particularly when the machine went into reverse.
    The famous clawback powers have not attracted much attention in the debate. Perhaps, before we finish the proceedings on the Bill, we shall come face to face with that structure. Those powers have been inserted because, as you know, Mr. Armstrong, they were not included in any of the 1973 Acts nor in the Northern Ireland Act 1974. It was assumed by those who drafted the Bills and by the parliamentarians who passed them into law that the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 had a fair chance of surviving and operating satisfactorily. The draftsmen and those who proposed it and defended it in debate did not admit that it was likely to fall on its face and that therefore, some type of salvage gear would be needed close at hand ready to remove the debris.
    The Northern Ireland Office has learnt something from that operation, which explains why we have the peculiar clauses and subsections in the Bill. An explanation was given by the Secretary of State when he was asked by some of my colleagues what would happen if there were another hunger strike, which might impose intolerable pressures, particularly on the minority who had provided the cross-community consent. Without batting an eyelid or without having to give the matter a second thought he said that the Government would have to sack the native Ministers and the whole thing would come down. He said that it would not all be demolished—it would be demolished only to the level of the Assembly.
    Unlike the 1973 operation which, had to be put into cold storage by the Northern Ireland Act 1974, this operation will continue. The jobs for the boys in the Assembly, whether there are 78 or 85 of them, will stay there presumably as long they are paid to stay there. They will go through what I would describe to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) as the phoney exercise of scrutinising and offering advice. We all know to our cost precisely how much weight the Government attach to advice that is given. If they had paid heed to advice, perhaps we would not be in the present mess, discussing this intolerable measure at this time of the morning. There were other occasions on which we would have been happy to offer advice, but even that advice was not sought. It was not sought in the inquiry that we learnt

    353
    about yesterday afternoon. We do not even know whether that committee has concluded its deliberations. We were not asked for advice. I suspect that the Secretary of State knew that he would not like the advice and he did not want the embarrassment of rejecting it.
    4.30 am
    The third of the dazzling options involves what might be called partial devolution. It is partial only in the sense that it would make one Department devolve a portion of its functions. That is too terrible to contemplate. My right Friend the Member for Down, South has dealt with the matter adequately. As he illustrated, it would be possible to carve up the Department of the Environment. If one were looking for jobs for the boys at the second salary level and at the higher grade, carving up the Department of the Environment is the way. One could make a good case for separating planning, roads and airports, and for putting them under control of well-paid Ministers. The Department of the Environment would be the first victim if such a carve-up were contemplated.
    It would be disastrous if such an experiment were tried in the Department of Education and Science. One can imagine the confusion if primary, secondary and higher levels of education were covered by three separate ministries and Ministers. That would be sheer vandalism. I do not know which body has the power to prevent such vandalism. The Assembly could not expect to have such power because it would merely put to the Secretary of State a cobbled together proposal for devolution.
    If the Secretary of State wished to retain a section of a Department the Assembly could do nothing to break his grip. He would be the paymaster. The United Kingdom Parliament is unlikely to be any more successful. We should be told that the Secretary of State knows best and that he had decided, in his wisdom, that the Agriculture Department, for example, should be subdivided into three separate ministries. We should be told that the Secretary of State knows best. That has been his attitude to the Bill. The Secretary of State is so certain that he knows what is best for the people whom we represent that his confidence is unshaken, even when elected representatives tell him to his face, almost to a man and to a woman, that they reject totally the proposals in the Bill.
    If the ultimate disaster should befall the Government and the Secretary of State should be seized with doubts about his wisdom, the Patronage Secretary will be on the corner seat to move the Closure. I have to admire the Patronage Secretary. He has become so successful that I doubt that he could break the habit, even if he tried.
    There is another reason for the partial devolution. It is contained in the notes on clauses. It makes no sense unless one considers the whole. Paragraph 4 states:
    "Under subsection (1), devolution can be 'full' or 'partial'. Either all the legislative and executive powers formerly devolved in 1974 by virtue of the Constitution Act can be devolved in a single transfer of responsibilities; or"—
    and that is the important word—
    "or only certain functions can be devolved in the first instance. Proposals for partial devolution can be in respect of all or some of the responsibilities of given departments. It would be preferable if the Assembly agreed that all the functions of a given department should be devolved, though if the agreement on devolution was critically dependent on some but not all of a department's functions being devolved that would be possible: in that event, the existing departmental structure would need to be changed before devolution so that when devolution took place it would be by reference to all the functions of a particular
    354
    department (see clause 2(l)(b) of the Bill). This differs from Section 2 of the Constitution Act, which made allowance only for full devolution "
    There we have the reason for that provision of what I call partial partial devolution—the fragmentation and splitting up of a given Department. All that operation, as the right hon. Member for Mansfield reminded us, comes at a time when we are about to complete the scheme of amalgamation of Government Departments at Stormont. I understand that we shall be engaged in that operation on Monday evening or in the early hours of Tuesday morning. So we seem to be setting out to undo that which the Government have been engaged in, and in which I congratulate them, over the past two years, at least.
    The time factor in considering orders was dealt with: by the hon. Member for Basildon, assisted by the Minister. Presumably, time will be needed to discover whether conditions have been fulfilled. That is an extension of time, because if Parliament is to be invited to approve by resolution, by order, a proposal for devolution, whether for one Department or a group of Departments, time will be necessary to listen to the Secretary of Stale's recommendation. We should remember that he has undertaken to give advice. Even when the 70 per cent. figure has been cobbled together, he will still offer advice.
    Mr. Farr: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), but he keeps using the frightful term "cobbled together". Every time that he says "cobbled together", I wake up with a start. Surely, there is no such word in the Oxford English Dictionary. My right hon. Friend used the term in the context of bringing about a package. Might I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is possibly not the ideal word to use. It seems to have the stigma of making an arrangement or a bargain, preferably not in the open, or making some compromise arrangement which was unexpected. Surely, part of the failure of the Bill is that it is not wanted, and the term "cobbled together" somehow symbolises the whole hopeless idea behind the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will net use it.
    Mr. Molyneau: I will refrain from using the term too frequently in the many debates that are still to come. I agree that it is not very elegant. I imagine that it comes from a Lowestoft dialect or something of that nature. The Secretary of State used the term, perhaps in its propier context, in discussions. When he was asked how to illustrate how this improbable structure would be erected, he said that when the various parties were elected to the Assembly those who thought that they might be able to agree on something might get into a huddle and "cobble together" a 70 per cent. majority. He also used it in facing realistically the problem of the salvage operation and demolition down to Assembly level. He was asked who would run the show when all the native Ministers had been sacked. He said that the power would be clawed back to him and to British Ministers. He may not have .used the word "British", but that was the meaning. I am sure that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) agrees that it is better to be accurate in these matters in dealing with such vague and woolly legislation.
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman has been led astray by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). The amendments relate to whether

    355
    one Department should be dealt with in each order, with special reference to finance, personnel and so on, not to the more general matters covered by the Bill.
    Mr. Farr: On a point of order, Mr. Armstrong. My intervention was perfectly serious. The hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend repeatedly used the term in the form of a verb "to cobble". I know that in the Irish context the word "cobble" exists as a noun, meaning an antique or fairly out-of-date fishing boat, made of wood and of very rude and rudimentary construction, but so far as I know the English dictionary contains no word meaning "to cobble". We cannot have a meaningful discussion unless the point is cleared up.
    The First Deputy Chairman: I did not suggest that the hon. Gentleman was not raising a serious matter. I simply said that it was not relevant to the amendments before the Committee.
    Mr. Molyneaux: I gladly abide by your guidance, Mr. Armstrong, the point to which I was coming is relevant to the clause and especially to two of the amendments.
    When the Secretary of State was asked what would happen after the native Ministers had been sacked, he said that the show would be run by the Secretary of State and his British Ministers until such time as some other group could cobble together—I apologise, I will use the phrase used by the hon. Member for Basildon—could come together and wheel and deal until they could get another 70 per cent. majority, or as near as made no difference. They could then arrive at some arrangement—I am trying to avoid the Secretary of State's term—
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Package.
    Mr. Molyneaux: —some package or compromise to get the show rolling, creeping or rambling again. I think that that is as far as I can go. I do not wish to go or even to roll too far down that road.
    Mr. Farr: Perhaps you will allow me to make one further comment, Mr. Armstrong. If we persist in using that term we shall eventually be talking not about rolling devolution but about cobbling devolution, which would be most confusing.
    Mr. Molyneaux: I have undertaken to be of good behaviour and to watch my terminology, Mr. Armstrong, but I am frail and human and I cannot promise anything with certainty.
    The time factor is important, particularly when the proposals are put before Parliament. I think that there is a fair amount of agreement that, one way or another, time will be made available for adequate scrutiny of the proposals. The Secretary of State will make the initial proposal and, presumably, move the motion. He will then give the Government's view and advise Parliament and the House on whether, in his view, sufficient support exists, not necessarily in the Assembly but in the community.
    4.45 pm
    An additional complication that we were not aware of when we started the debate was whether the proposal is likely to command widespread acceptance throughout the community. When we were appealing for time to be made available to reflect on the implications and consequences of the new amendment the Minister made light of them.
    356
    However, I have experienced difficulty in deciding where the amendment should be inserted in clause 2. There might be a case for inserting it between paragraphs (a) and (b). Alternatively, there might be a case for adding a paragraph (c).
    It would have been a great help if, first, we had had a sight of the amendment and, secondly, if we had had some indication of where it would be inserted in the clause. In the absence of that information we are not in a position to judge the overall effect that the amendment would have on the clause. For that reason, we shall not be able to progress very far into the debate on the clause. A severe restriction has been thoughtlessly and unnecessarily placed upon us by the combined operation of Her Majesty's Government and the Opposition Front Bench.
    Mr. Budgen: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) for having tabled amendment No. 99, which draws attention to subsection (4). One of the most important advantages seen by many advocates of devolution was release from some of the financial constraints that they imagine presently press down upon the administration in Northern Ireland. Subsection (4) clearly demonstrates that such hopes for devolution are illusory.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest referred to the meeting that some of us attended on Saturday in Belfast at the inaugural meeting of the Council for the Union. We had the good fortune to have a number of distinguished academics address us on the record of devolution after 1920. Both Professor David Harkness, professor of Irish history at Queen's University, Belfast, and Mr. David Nesbett, a don in economics, gave us their assessment of the financial constraints that were suffered by Stormont after 1920. Between 1920 and 1945 the financial constraints suffered by Stormont were considerable. They were considerable to begin with, because the United Kingdom Treasury took the view that devolution meant financial self-sufficiency. In 1945, after Ulster had been warmed for some years by the rhetoric of Winston Churchill, who reminded the British people of the advantages of the Northern Ireland ports, the purse strings of the Westminster Parliament were somewhat loosened and the doctrine of self-sufficiency was mitigated.
    Here I have to make a concession. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Cranborne) will agree that, in what we hoped would be an almost exclusively Unionist gathering, some substantial dissident voices—the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) nods agreement—called not for the integration that we hope ultimately will come to Northern Ireland but for a return to devolution.
    I dare say that the hon. Member for Belfast, South will remember the gentleman from Fermanagh who made a forceful intervention at the end of the conference. He said that he wanted some control over the factory that was to close in Fermanagh in the near future as 300 people who lived in his ward would become unemployed. He reflected upon subsection (4). He said that, even if there were devolution and a return to some form of quasi-Stormont that he wanted, there would not be the financial autonomy to enable him to retain employment for those 300 people in Fermanagh.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman take us a little further along that road? The Secretary of State has

    357
    argued that the Bill will enable us to get a better economy and deal with job problems. Will the hon. Gentleman enlighten us and help us to help people such as the gentleman to whom he referred, who would like to do something? If the Secretary of State, with the powers and undoubted experience could not persuade the firm to continue, how could a devolved Administration under the terms of the Bill have greater success?
    Mr. Budgen: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can explain his proposals with both more passion and precision than I can, particularly at this hour of the morning.
    As I understand my right hon. Friend's argument about the advantages of rolling devolution in relation to the economy, a settled constitutional framework for Northern Ireland will give increased stability, though heaven knows how he can describe this essentially unstable system of rolling devolution as being a stable constitution. That seems to me to be a contradiction in terms. None the less, my right hon. Friend likes to have it not only both ways, but all ways. He described this as a potentially stable situation. Thus, he would say that those who have funds to invest will bring those funds to Northern Ireland and will use the undoubted skills of the people of Northern Ireland with the assistance of that imported capital.
    Secondly, my right hon. Friend would argue that he, as an economic interventionist, would wish to see a progressive industrial policy exercised from Westminster, but not by the devolved procedure that he wishes to set up. The gentleman from Fermanagh, if he were sitting as an Assemblyman, would not have the direct powers to intervene, as he would put it, to save the factory in Fermanagh, but he would be able to make suggestions to the Secretary of State. However, the decision, in the end, whether to subsidise the factory and so keep it open would not rest with the Assembly. There would be no vote by which that Fermanagh Assemblyman could directly support a subsidy. The best that he could do would be indirectly to bring his influence to bear upon the decision of the Secretary of State. Subsection (4) demonstrates clearly that the Assembly will have no direct control over finance.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The hon. Gentleman is, I believe, mistaken in talking about Fermanagh. If my memory is correct, the factory concerned was at Moygashel in South Tyrone. It was profitable and productive but was affected by the cutbacks among British firms. The issue is one not of asking for more money, but of ensuring that profitable factories in Northern Ireland continue. It has nothing to do with the stability of the community. If the Secretary of State cannot deal with that situation, I cannot understand how a devolved Assembly can deal with it. The factory was profitable and the community stable, but the firm withdrew.
    Mr. Budgen: I believe that the gentleman who addressed us at the conference came from Fermanagh and South Tyrone. I was not especially attentive to the exact details he gave of the reasons for the factory closing. Nor did I take particular account of the exact geographical location of the factory. Hearing his remarks, I turned over in my mind whether the constitutional arrangement for which he argued would provide the powers that he hoped to exercise to bring benefit to those he represented. I did not take notes and I do not have the privilege of the
    358
    friendship of that gentleman. The hon. Gentleman may know him and the; details of the factory better than I do. I tried, however, to consider the essentials of the problem to which the gentleman referred. I concluded that he would never obtain the powers that he wanted from this proposal of rolling devolution.
    Mr. Molyneaux: The identity of the gentleman concerned is relevant to the subsection. His name is Maginnis, and he was the Unionist candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. The electorate, unwisely, elected not him, bat Mr. Carron who will not come here. Mr. Maginnis cannot come here. Therefore the constituency is left without representation.
    Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for fleshing out the point I make. I hope that Mr. Maginnis will read the record of these proceedings at a time when, after a long period of sleep, he has the opportunity for reflection and clear thinking. I hope that, when he does, he will reflect that, albeit without the clarity that I would attempt to achieve at other times, I have demonstrated that he would not get what he wants under these proposals.
    5 am
    I ask Mr. Maginnis to reflect on the different situation that would obtain if there were to be a system of enhanced local government in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Local government has its own system for raising revenue. I believe that in the United Kingdom generally the rate support grant has grown too large as a proportion of the expenditure of load government. None the less, there is still some, albeit tentative, relationship between the money that is spent and the revenue that is received by local authorities. This gives local authorities a great deal more discretion and dignity in deciding what they will spend.
    I shall take as an example an equivalent county in the West Midlands. I do not wish to rake up old sores in the Tory Party, but Wolverhampton is no longer part of the ancient county of Stafford. In these progressive, ongoing days, it is now, thanks to the activities of the Conservative Administration of 1970–74—a great reforming Administration, although that is a contradiction in terms—part of the new West Midlands county council.
    That county council, because it can raise funds, has taken to itself a new organisation—a sort of West Midlands NEB—which gives subsidies, picks winners arid does all the things that interventionist Administrations like to do. That is done by the county council and by the Wolverhampton district council. I disagree with that form of economic philosophy, but it makes it plain that, because a county council and a district council have, in the English context, the power to raise funds, they also have the power to do what Mr. Maginnis wants a devolved Administration to do. That demonstrates the central proposition that many of us are making—that only by an enhanced local government, not by this unstable system of rolling devolution, will the people of Northern Ireland get what they crave.
    The same argument interestingly applies to the other part of subsection (4), because the Department of Finance and the Department of Personnel are excluded. Why is that? It is all part of the process by which the Secretary of State retains overall control.
    Mr. Scott: The Department of Finance and Personnel is a single Department.
    Mr. Budgen: I am grateful. However, I suspect that it is the control over personnel that is important if the Secretary of State is to retain the control over the personality of the Executive to which I referred in some of my earlier observations when I invited the Committee to consider paragraph 61 of the White Paper. It is plain that if the Executive lost the broad support in the Assembly, which had led to devolution, the Secretary of State has powers to draw back to himself control over the Executive and its powers.
    The Committee may remember that I reminded it that the Secretary of State would be able to invite the existing Executive to continue on a caretaker basis for up to six months, to appoint a caretaker administration of his own choosing for a maximum of six months, the Members of which need not come from the Assembly, or to resume himself the powers that had been devolved.
    If the Secretary of State is to have the power to appoint his own placemen, his own quango, to the Executive, it is important, as is made clear by subsection (4), that he should not lose control over that part of the Department of Finance and Personnel that relates to personnel.
    I suggest that we are beginning to see some of the enormous disadvantages that attach to this unstable system of rolling devolution. It can never have those advantages that Mr. Maginnis hoped for when he made his observations at the meeting that some hon. Members attended last Saturday. Nor can it ever have the advantages that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) hopes that he will find in devolution. He demonstrated yesterday the grave dangers that the Secretary of State is likely to fall into whenever he makes even the smallest concession to any group concerned with this system of rolling devolution.
    I hardly understood the sensitivities that were so obviously and keenly felt by the hon. Gentleman. I hardly understood how it was that the small concession that seemed to be about to be made or promised the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) could cause such enormous offence to the hon. Gentleman. However, offence it did cause; great offence.
    I dare say that equal offence will be caused to the SDLP when we consider the proposals for clause 3. All the powers are linked. The powers of finance and of personnel are all linked to the mix, and to the important balance created by this unique proposal for rolling devolution, which has the advantages of flexibility and stability.
    The hon. Member for Antrim, North will ask, with all the passion at his command, to be able to discuss security matters with the Assembly. Once he starts talking about security and recommending the return of the B Specials, will that not inevitably lead to a countervailing sensitivity on the part of the SDLP? Therefore we should be extraordinarily grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest. In drawing our attention to subsection (4), he has once again drawn it to the extraordinary restraints being imposed by the Secretary of State on this system of rolling devolution. The system does not have the certainty, dignity or width of power previusly granted to Stormont, but has the overriding disadvantage that it cannot have the direct surveillance of the Westminster Parliament. Despite out multiplicity of faults and our frequently defective individual judgments, Parliament's collective judgment is very often good. For obvious reasons, the devolved Administration will be shorn of power at every stage.
    Mr. John McQuade: A few months ago I had a stroke at the House and I had not intended to speak. Do the House and my hon. Friend know that the war was directed from Stormont senate? The senate of Stormont was given to the military. Does my hon. Friend know that our men carried out Churchill's orders and worked in the shipyards 24 hours a day building ships? We did not only throw ports open. Half an hour after the Luftwaffe bombed Belfast there was not a shell left to fire at it. That is the Stormont that hon. Members are kicking in the dust. It helped in the war effort to bring stuff from America and to guard our ships until they reached the ports of Northern Ireland. Let us hear less of this talk about Stormont and let us hear about what was done during the war. As a result of such action, we are all sitting here.
    5.15 am
    Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. McQuade) for his intervention. It supports the point that I made earlier that there is, understandably, an extremely warm feeling between all those who sit in the House of Commons and the people of Northern Ireland. I wish that I could remember the words of Winston Churchill, but it was a recognition that the ports and the people of Ulster had been a vital factor in our survival in the Second World War. That bore fruit in a more generous attitude towards finance for the people of Ulster in 1945. I agree entirely with what the hon. Gentleman said about the sterling efforts of the people of Ulster in the Second World War. They fought for Ulster, but they also fought for the remainder of the United Kingdom. They stood shoulder to shoulder with us.
    Mr. McQuade: In 1939 Churchill was not Prime Minister. I was in France with the British Expeditionary Force in September 1939. The Prime Minister then was Mr. Chamberlain and there were no good words about him from the troops in France.
    Mr. Budgen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting me straight about who was Prime Minister in 1939. My point was that at the end of the war, much gratitude was expressed by Winston Churchill for the contribution made by the people of Ulster to the war effort. I am sorry if, because I am undoubtedly tired, I put it inaccurately and inelegantly. The hon. Gentleman takes me to task for the way in which I prefer the integrationist solution to a return to Stormont. I understand that he wishes a return to Stormont with all its powers.
    Mr. McQuade: The rebs were not in France in 1939.
    Mr. Budgen: I entirely understand that.
    Mr. McQuade: I was only a sergeant in the Paratroop Regiment. I was not "Mr." Maginnis.
    Mr. Budgen: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, in his role as a sergeant in a most distinguished regiment, was one of the many to whom my father's generation and mine felt a deep debt of gratitude. However, unhappily, in later years Stormont lost the confidence of the minority community. I suggest that if a devolved Administration—
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I know that the hon. Member has strong feelings on these matters, but he must come to the substance of the amendment.
    Mr. McQuade: I apologise, Mr. Armstrong. I did not intend to take part in this debate. I am very nervous because only a few months ago I suffered a stroke in the House.
    Mr. Budgen: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations and his attendance. I do not mean that insincerely. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We know of his ill-health and it is a delight to see him in the Committee and to compare his attendance with the absence of younger and fitter men from the ranks of the Labour Party, of whom it is said that during yesterday they were stringently Whipped to vote on one of their amendments. At the time that that amendment was before the Committee they seemed to be conspicuously absent.
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is abusing the procedure. We must come to the amendment.
    Mr. Budgen: I return to the amendment immediately, Mr. Armstrong. I am sorry that my sense of resentment which I am sure the Committee shares at the absence of members of the Labour Party led me to stray from the path, if not of virtue, of strict order.
    I was genuinely grateful for the remarks made by the hon. Member for Belfast, North. I know that it is his earnest desire to return to the Stormont system. We are now discussing some of the disadvantages of the new system of devolution which the hon. Member for Belfast, North may at first sight have believed had some advantages. This system can never have the advantages for him that Stormont had. The hon. Gentleman must understand that with all the good will that was undoubtedly felt by many Members of Stormont towards the minority community, in the end Stormont lost the support of the minority community. As a result a Secretary of State in this House will always look for various forms of constraint that he will impose upon any substitute for Stormont.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has said over and over again that Stormont lost the support of the minority community. I challenge that because the minority community representatives in Stormont did not leave because of opposition that they felt towards anyone in Stormont. They left because the Secretary of State for Defence refused to set up an inquiry into the shooting of two people in Londonderry. Let us not have the nonsense that the Opposition left Stormont because they had something against people who were in office. They left because of the actions of somebody in this House.
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We must not be led astray in this way. We must keep to the amendment and not have a general discussion about Stormont.
    Mr. Budgen: I am grateful, Mr. Armstrong. I intend to adhere precisely to the constraints of your admonitions. I was referring to the constraints imposed upon the system of a partial return to Stormont by the effects of subsection (4). It was because I was dealing with that problem that the hon. Member for Antrim, North intervened so helpfully. Whatever the final reason for the withdrawal of the representatives—
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman really must take note of what the Chair is
    362
    saying. I have to protect the proceedings of the Committee. He ought not to pursue that line, because it is far away from the amendment.
    Mr. Budgen: May I explain why I think that you, Mr. Armstrong, may feel on reflection that my remarks are relevant to subsection (4)? The subsection sets out two of the most important limitations on the powers conferred by rolling devolution. I believe that I am entitled to ask the rhetorical question; "Why are those restrictions imposed on the system of rolling devolution?" The answer to that question lies in the history of the constitution from which devolution is take over.
    The Committee is entitled to look briefly at the constitution that went before and which conditions the new constitution. The question why the minority community allegedly lost confidence in Stormont can be tangentially referred to by an hon. Member speaking principally to subsection (4). Whatever the final reason for the withdrawal of those representatives, the general view of history is that the minority community lost confidence in Stormont.
    Mr. William Ross: The hon. Gentleman is inaccurate when he talks of a reason. The minority representatives at Stormont were locked in a leadership struggle with the leaders of the civil, rights campaign and various other bodies. They were looking not so much for a reason for withdrawing from Stormont as for an excuse for doing so. They wanted to boost their popularity with their own community.
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) will realise that what he says about Stormont must be related to the amendment. Otherwise, we shall be led into matters that are wide of the amendment, as has happened in the past few minutes.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: If the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Budgen) has discovered an instability in Stormont arising out of a decision by a Secretary of State in this House, does he believe that there will be instability in the proposed Assembly because of the Secretary of State's powers over financial matters? Time and again, there will be collisions between the Assembly and the Secretary of State because he will hold the purse strings.
    Mr. Budgen: If I were feeling fresher and more intellectually agile, I could, while keeping strictly to the constraints that you, Mr. Armstrong, have imposed on me, discuss at greater length the causes for the final breakdown of Stormont. However, in spite of the assistance of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who has passed me a glass of water, I am feeling somewhat jaded and I do not intend to continue the discussion on the sad demise of Stormont.
    However, I shall take up the question of the instability of the new system of rolling devolution. The reference that the hon. gentleman makes is not so much to the inconsistent way that the Secretary of State puts it when he says that in every circumstance it has all the advantages of flexibility, and yet those advantages do not bring with them any risk of instability. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the extraordinarily grave risk of serious friction and conflict between the Assembly and the House.

    363
    5.30 am
    Let us take for a moment the example of the hon. Gentleman's friend, Mr. Maginnis, who ought to be the Member of Parliament for Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Mr. Maginnis believes perhaps that if he were elected to the Assembly he could make a promise to the 300 people employed in that factory and that there would be some means by which he could get subsidy or support for it. Mr. Maginnis is not seized of subsection (4) which has been so helpfully brought to our attention.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: May I bring my hon. Friend back to the Department of Finance and Personnel? He was referring to the experience of Stormont. Was it not the very strict Treasury control that was applied to this supposedly autonomous Northern Ireland Government that was one of the unsatisfactory features of the Stormont system of devolution? Is that not one of the reasons why my hon. Friend, like myself, would prefer integration?
    Mr. Budgen: Indeed, Mr. Maginnis would not have had the advantage that he wants even under the old system for Stormont. He will not get it under the new system either. He will say, "When I get to that Assembly I will make sure that you in your factory have the subvention of the subsidy that you want." Then he will say, "I am being deprived of the power that I ought to have to support you because of the frugality of the British Treasury." He will be talking about people who have been in the past Financial Secretaries to the Treasury, about the Treasury mind and about the meanness of the English and of Westminster. He will work himself up into a lather talking about monetarists and strict financiers. He will get angry about financial constraints. He may acquit himself with a few slogans about sterling M3.
    The effect of Mr. Maginnis's oratory will be to stick a wedge between Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) says, the effect will be to create friction between the House and the proposed Assembly. As the people of England or of Wolverhampton watch Mr. Maginnis on the television they will say to themselves—and they will be wrong—"The people of Northern Ireland are different from the people of the remainder of the United Kingdom. Those people want independence and they may be right. Perhaps they are different from us. Perhaps they should be separately governed. Perhaps they are right in their resentments. Perhaps they would be better off on their own." When they say that, then surely there will be the same sort of cry from other separatists in both Scotland and Wales. We shall see the road towards a separate and divided kingdom, and we shall see the end of much that those of us who sit on these Benches came here to preserve—the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Scott: Although one might have been tempted to forget the fact, we are discussing six specific amendments, three of them tabled by the official Opposition, two by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and his colleagues, and one by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison). I shall deal first with amendment No. 30 and then with the two probing amendments.
    Amendment No. 30 is concerned with the devolution of powers and whether they should be on a departmental or on a functional basis. The Bill is quite clear about it. Proposals for such devolution and a partial devolution
    364
    order would relate to matters within the responsibility either of a single specified Northern Ireland Department or of a number of Northern Ireland Departments. This makes practical common sense and, in practice, is the way in which devolution is likely to proceed. It would keep the lines of responsibility between devolved and non-devolved matters as clear as possible, and I am sure that the Committee can quickly imagine the sort of administrative problems which would ensue if a Government Department were to be responsible to two political heads.
    Over a period, Departments will have learnt to work as cohesive units and for them to be split would cause considerable problems. I am not saying that those problems are necessarily insurmountable. If a case were made out by the Assembly for the splitting of a Department, I believe that it could be done, but it would create problems and it would be better if it could be avoided if at all possible.
    If such a proposal came forward, it would be necessary to get the organisation right. Proposals for partial devolution could be in respect of all or some of the responsibilities of given Departments. It would be preferable, as I say, for all the functions to be devolved, but if the Assembly's agreement depended critically on some of the functions being devolved and not all of them, it would be possible by altering the Department's structure for devolution still to take place.
    Mr. Proctor: A point that occurs to me and perhaps to other right hon. and hon. Members is what happens if, on a date after the first partial devolution of responsibilities, the Assembly desires to have the rest of those responsibilities of that Department? What are the provisions by which the Assembly might get those responsibilities from the Secretary of State? Would that be done by order in the same way?
    Mr. Scott: It would operate in exactly the same way as the original proposal.
    I move on to amendment No. 37. Some of the matters raised on that also apply to the other probing amendment, No. 99. It is important to be clear that amendment No. 37 would prevent any order specifying financial and personnel matters—that is, matters not only concerned with the Department of Finance and Personnel but within individual devolved Departments. The Departments themselves have at the moment, and the devolved Departments would have, wide discretion to establish their expenditure priorities. The heads of the Departments would have to work closely with the Secretary of State since total resources for Northern Ireland would be shared among devolved and non-devolved Departments.
    This amendment would appear to prevent any order giving effect to partial devolution from dealing with such matters. It would put in jeopardy all the financial and personnel functions falling within the responsibilities of any Department which became devolved. It would make any scheme of partial devolution far less likely to get off the ground and if it did it would seriously impede its operation.
    Amendment No. 99 would delete clause 2(4) which provides that no partial devolution order shall
    "specify the Department of Finance and Personnel or any matters within its responsibilities."
    Perhaps I could clear up that phrase. There are a number of responsibilities which are laid upon the Department of Finance. For example, other Departments, which may be

    365
    in the process of giving grants to outside organisations or to companies, may have to get the permission of the Department of Finance and Personnel before they can do it. That matter falls within the responsibilities of the Department of Finance and Personnel. The wording makes it clear that those responsibilities are covered.
    The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) made clear the basis on which the Government have come to the view that while any other Departments remain undevolved, the Department of Finance and Personnel could not be devolved because of the central role it plays over the whole area of Government.
    I turn now to the amendments tabled by the Official Opposition which are concerned with two matters, both of which were raised by other hon. Gentlemen: first, the time and the procedures provided for the proceedings of all proposals going through the House; secondly, whether there should be one order at a time or several. I hope that I can reassure the Official Opposition and other hon. Members who have raised this matter that Parliament will give adequate time and attention to the scrutiny of proposals for devolution. The Government are determined to see that that is so. We do not believe, however, that those amendments which seek to increase the scope for discussion by requiring separate orders for the devolution of executive responsibility to each Northern Ireland Department are required for this purpose, although that would be possible if the Assembly so wished it to be handled in that way. Indeed, we consider it best to leave open the possibility that a devolution order could consist of a complete package of proposals if that is what the Assembly desired.
    I have said before that we want to leave as much flexibility in the hands of the Assembly as possible. If, for example, the Assembly produced a package for the devolution of three Departments and Parliament was satisfied when it received the proposals that they commanded the necessary support and should be implemented, it would make little sense to have three devolution orders, although in theory it would be possible under the Bill. The Government would want to listen to what was said in the debates on the proposals before making up their mind.
    A single order would be sensible in some circumstances. If the Assembly produced a series of separate freestanding proposals for one Department at a time, almost certainly separate orders would be required to get the proposals through the House. Both the debates on the devolution proposals and the debates on draft orders to give effect to them would be major parliamentary occasions. The Governmet would seek to ensure that ample parliamentary time was made available. An Order in Council is exempted for one and a half hours, but there is no reason why it should not commence at any time after the commencement of public business. Debates on the emergency provisions and the extension of direct rule last at least half a day, and have sometimes lasted a whole day.
    5.45 am
    The Bill makes provision for the maximum flexibility in the devolution of Departments. That is sensible since we cannot tell at this stage what agreement the Assembly may make. We do not want an agreement painfully reached in the Assembly to fail because it takes a form which is not provided for in the Bill. That is why the arrangements are as flexible as we can make them. That does not mean that
    366
    Departments will be split and rearranged, roving in and out of devolution continually. Any discussion will be a major parliamentary occasion. We should not be going through this now if we did not recognise that.
    It is important to recognise that there would be a two-stage process. The proposals would first come from the Assembly. The House would, in my view, have a full day to debate the proposals. The Government would then take account of that and prepare the draft orders. Further debates would be of appropriate length, depending on the number of Departments to be devolved, to provide a further full discussion.
    In the event of all the Departments being devolved in a single order, the business managers of the House may think that debates in excess of a full day might be necessary. I emphasise to the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that the Bill is as flexible as possible in terms of the number of orders necessary for any devolution. The Government envisage adequate time being provided in the two-stage process to ensure proper consideration.
    I was asked whether there was something between an order and an Act. I believe that in the provision for discussion and for the order, which would involve a time greatly in excess of the one and a half hours to which we have become accustomed on Northern Ireland matters, we have met the demands. I hope that it will not be necessary to press the amendment. I cannot advise the Committee to accept amendment No. 30.
    Mr. Jopling rose in his place and claimed to move,
    That the question be now put.
    Question put, That the Question be now put:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 121, Noes 15.

    Division No. 197]

    [5. 45 am

    AYES

    Alexander,Richard

    Forman,Nigel

    Ancram,Michael

    Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

    Arnold,Tom

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Baker,Kenneth(St.M'bone)

    Garel-Jones,Tristan

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Goodlad,Alastair

    Banks,Robert

    Gow, Ian

    Benyon,W. (Buckingham)

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Greenway, Harry

    Best, Keith

    Gummer,JohnSelwyn

    Bevan,David Gilroy

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Blackburn,John

    Hampson,Dr Keith

    Boscawen,HonRobert

    Hannam,John

    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Boyson,Dr Rhodes

    Henderson,Barry

    Bright,Graham

    Hooson,Tom

    Brotherton,Michael

    Hordern,Peter

    Brown, R. C. (N'castle W)

    Howell, Rt Hon D.(G'ldf'd)

    Bulmer,Esmond

    Hunt,John(Ravensbourne)

    Butcher,John

    Jessel,Toby

    Butler, Hon Adam

    Jopling,Rt Hon Michael

    Cadbury,Jocelyn

    Lang, Ian

    Carlisle,Kenneth(Lincoln)

    Lee, John

    Channon, Rt. Hon. Paul

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th, S'n)

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Colvin, Michael

    Luce, Richard

    Cope,John

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Corrie,John

    MacGregor,John

    Crouch,David

    McQuarrie,Albert

    Dorrell,Stephen

    Major,John

    Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

    Marshall,Michael(Arundel)

    Dover, Denshore

    Mather,Carol

    Dunn, James A.

    Mawhinney,DrBrian

    Elliott,SirWilliam

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Mellor,David

    Eyre,Reginald

    Meyer,SirAnthony

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Mills,Iain(Meriden)

    Fookes, Miss Janet

    Mitchell, David(Basingstoke)

    367

    Moate, Roger

    Speller,Tony

    Montgomery, Fergus

    Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Squire,Robin

    Neale,Gerrard

    Stevens, Martin

    Needham,Richard

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Nelson,Anthony

    Stradling Thomas,J.

    Newton,Tony

    Tapsell, Peter

    Page, John (Harrow, West)

    Thompson,Donald

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Thornton,Malcolm

    Patten, John (Oxford)

    Townsend, Cyrill D,(B'heath)

    Pollock,Alexander

    Trotter,Neville

    Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

    Viggers, Peter

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Waddington, David

    Raison,Rt Hon Timothy

    Wall,Sir Patrick

    Ridsdale,SirJulian

    Waller, Gary

    Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

    Walters,Dennis

    Sainsbury,HonTimothy

    Wells,Bowen

    Scott,Nicholas

    Wheeler,John

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Whitney,Raymond

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Wickenden, Keith

    Shelton,William (Streatham)

    Williams,D.(Montgomery)

    Shersby,Michael

    Wolfson,Mark

    Silvester, Fred

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Smith,Tim(Beaconsfield)

    Mr. Peter Brooke and

    Speed, Keith

    Mr. David Hunt.

    NOES

    Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

    Murphy,Christopher

    Body, Richard

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Brown,Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

    Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

    Budgen,Nick

    Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

    Cranborne,Viscount

    Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)

    Farr,John

    Gorst,John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Mr. William Ross and

    McQuade,John

    Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

    Molyneaux,James

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—
    The Commitee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 114.

    Division No. 198]

    [6 am

    AYES

    Body, Richard

    Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)

    Budgen,Nick

    Cranborne,Viscount

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Mr. William Ross and

    Molyneaux,James

    Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

    Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

    NOES

    Alexander, Richard

    Corrie,John

    Arnold,Tom

    Crouch,David

    Baker, Kenneth (St, M'bone)

    Dorrell,Stephen

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Douglas-Hamilton, LordJ.

    Banks, Robert

    Dover,Denshore

    Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

    Elliott,SirWilliam

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Best, Keith

    Eyre,Reginald

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

    Forman, Nigel

    Blackburn,John

    Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

    Boscawen, Hon Robert

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Bottomley,Peter(W'wich W)

    Goodlad,Alastair

    Boyson,Dr Rhodes

    Gorst,John

    Bright,Graham

    Gow, Ian

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Brotherton,Michael

    Greenway, Harry

    Brown,Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

    Grylls,Michael

    Bulmer,Esmond

    Gummer,JohnSelwyn

    Butcher,John

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Butler, Hon Adam

    Hampson,Dr Keith

    Cadbury,Jocelyn

    Hannam,John

    Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Colvin, Michael

    Hooson,Tom

    Cope,John

    Hordern,Peter

    368

    Hunt, John(Ravensbourne)

    Sainsbury,HonTimothy

    Jessel, Toby

    Scott,Nicholas

    Jopling,Rt Hon Michael

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Lang, Ian

    Shaw,Michael(Scarborough)

    Lester,Jim (Beeston)

    Shersby,Michael

    Lewis,Kenneth(Rutland)

    Silvester, Fred

    Luce,Richard

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Lyell,Nicholas

    Smith,Tim(Beaconsfield)

    MacGregor,John

    Speed, Keith

    McQuade,John

    Speller,Tony

    Major,John

    Sproat,Iain

    Mather,Carol

    Steen,Anthony

    Mawhinney,DrBrian

    Stevens,Martin

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Stewart, Ian(Hitchin)

    Mellor,David

    Stradling Thomas,J.

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Tapsell, Peter

    Mills,Iain(Meriden)

    Thompson,Donald

    Moate, Roger

    Townsend, Cyril D.(B'heath)

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Trotter,Neville

    Murphy,Christopher

    Viggers, Peter

    Needham,Richard

    Waddington,David

    Nelson,Anthony

    Wall,SirPatrick

    Newton,Tony

    Waller, Gary

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Walters,Dennis

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Wells, Bowen

    Patten,John(Oxford)

    Wheeler,John

    Pollock,Alexander

    Whitney,Raymond

    Price, SirDavid (Eastleigh)

    Wickenden,Keith

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Williams, D.(Montgomery)

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Wolfson,Mark

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Ridsdale,SirJulian

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

    Mr. David Hunt and

    Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

    Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

    Question accordingly negatived
    Amendment proposed: No. 30, in page 2, line 28, leave out from 'to' to 'as' in line insert 'such transfereed matters'.—[Mr.Molyneaux.]
    Question put. That the amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 15, Noes 102.

    Division No. 199]

    [6.10 am

    AYES

    Biggs-Davison,SirJohn

    Murphy,Christopher

    Body,Richard

    Paisley, Rev Ian

    Brown,Michael(Brigg&Sc'n)

    Powell, Rt Hon J.E. (S Down)

    Budgen,Nick

    Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

    Cranborne,Viscount

    Smyth, Rev. W. M. (Belfast S)

    Farr,John

    Gorst,John

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

    Mr. William Ross and

    McQuade,John

    Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

    Molyneaux,James

    NOES

    Alexander,Richard

    Corrie,John

    Arnold,Tom

    Crouch,David

    Baker, Kenneth(St M'bone)

    Dorrell,Stephen

    Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

    Douglas-Hamilton,LordJ.

    Banks,Robert

    Dover,Denshore

    Benyon,W.(Buckingham)

    Elliott,SirWilliam

    Berry, Hon Anthony

    Emery, Sir Peter

    Best, Keith

    Eyre,Reginald

    Bevan, David Gilroy

    Fisher, Sir Nigel

    Blackburn,John

    Forman,Nigel

    Boscawen,HonRobert

    Fraser, Peter (South Angus)

    Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

    Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

    Boyson,Dr Rhodes

    Garel-Jones,Tristan

    Bright,Graham

    Goodlad,Alastair

    Brooke, Hon Peter

    Gow, Ian

    Brotherton,Michael

    Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)

    Bulmer,Esmond

    Greenway, Harry

    Butcher,John

    Hamilton, Hon A.

    Butler, Hon Adam

    Hampson,DrKeith

    Cadbury,Jocelyn

    Hannam,John

    Carlisle,Kenneth (Lincoln)

    Hayhoe, Barney

    Colvin,Michael

    Hooson,Tom

    Cope,John

    Hordern,Peter

    369

    Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

    Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

    Jessel, Toby

    Scott, Nicholas

    Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

    Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

    Lang, Ian

    Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

    Lester, Jim (Beeston)

    Shersby, Michael

    Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)

    Silvester, Fred

    Luce, Richard

    Skeet, T. H. H.

    Lyell, Nicholas

    Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

    MacGregor, John

    Speed, Keith

    Major, John

    Speller, Tony

    Mather, Carol

    Stevens, Martin

    Mawhinney, Dr Brian

    Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

    Mayhew, Patrick

    Stradling Thomas, J.

    Mellor, David

    Tapsell, Peter

    Meyer, Sir Anthony

    Townsend, Cyril D, (B'heath)

    Mills, Iain (Meriden)

    Trotter, Neville

    Moate, Roger

    Viggers, Peter

    Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

    Waddington, David

    Needham, Richard

    Wall, Sir Patrick

    Nelson, Anthony

    Waller, Gary

    Newton, Tony

    Wells, Bowen

    Page, Richard (SW Herts)

    Wheeler, John

    Patten, John (Oxford)

    Whitney, Raymond

    Pollock, Alexander

    Wickenden, Keith

    Price, Sir David (Eastleigh)

    Williams, D.(Montgomery)

    Prior, Rt Hon James

    Wolfson, Mark

    Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

    Rhodes James, Robert

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Ridsdale, Sir Julian

    Mr. Selwyn Gummer and

    Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

    Mr. David Hunt.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Mr. Concannon: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. Due to the technicalities at the end of the last debate I did not have the chance to withdraw amendment No. 29. I wished to do so because I accept the assurances given by the Secretary of State that the debate would not have been of an hour and a half's duration, but a full parliamentary debate.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move,
    That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    It is now about three and a half hours since the Committee took the decision not yet to report progress. From the single fact that you have accepted the moving of this motion, Mr. Weatherill, it follows that the Committee has made progress in the meantime.
    As is common at this time of day, the progress has not been spectacular, though we have made progress in disposing of some not unimportant amendments to clause 2 of the Bill. Therefore, this is the appropriate time to invite the Secretary of State to reconsider one point in particular that I ventured to put to him when the motion was last before the Committee, The advantage of reporting progress at this stage, while the question that clause 2 stand part of the Bill has not yet been put, and while there is still a group of amendments, although only probing amendments, to be dealt with, is that it will enable the Secretary of State to table the amendments to clause 2 that he referred to earlier before the Committee resumes its consideration of the Bill. I am sure that he is not unaware of the importance of those amendments.
    The Secretary of State having given his assurance, there is no question whatever in anyone's mind that he would not in any case table the necessary amendment or amendments on Report. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the effect of the amendment, which produced an almost sensational effect earlier in this day's sitting should be made known by being placed on the Order Paper. I assume that there is no practical problem,
    370
    that it is relatively simple to draft the necessary amendment or amendments and that the provision could be introduced into clause 2 at a later stage, so that we could deal with it when the Committee resumed.
    I hope that the Secretary of State accepts that I am making a point that is not only serious but directed towards the better conduct of the Bill's remaining stages. From any point of view it is undesirable to proceed—as we proceeded until a certain point—under a misapprehension. However, that was not the Secretary of State's fault
    At this time in the morning, other grounds could be put forward in support of the motion. I shall not urge them now, because I expect that the Secretary of State w ill wish to respond fairly soon. I shall, content myself with referring back to what I said about his speech and to the value that will accrue to our subsequent handling of the Bill from reporting progress. We shall all then have an opportunity to study the right hon. Gentleman's statements. Therefore, I hope that he feels able to support the motion.
    Mr. Farr: I support the motion, largely for the reasons outlined by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), but also for other reasons. Since we last discussed this motion a few hours ago, several changes and inflections have been given to the Bill by the Front Bench. The additions that are implied, or promised in a week or two are now so numerous and perhaps of such significance to the Bill, that it would be right and proper to adjourn proceedings until next week.
    Furthermore, it would be desperately unfair to expect the Committee to discuss meaningfully further amendments to clause 2, when we are not sure what the Front Bench's statements mean. As we reach the meat of clause 2, I find it difficult to assess the impact on the remaining amendments to the Bill. We still do not know the final number of Members of the Assembly. The difference between 78 per cent. and 85 per cent. is quite big. It is nearly 10 per cent
    The uncertainty that my right hon. Friend, with the best will in the world, cannot clear up is being reflected more and more in our progress, such as it is. If we broke off now, my right hon. Friend could make a statement and perhaps table some relevant amendments to schedule 2(11), which details the number of Members in the proposed Assembly. He could also make a short statement relating to the committee of inquiry that he has set up. The matter is still rather mysterious. It would be fair to Committee members, if we are not to have a statement on it, to have the opportunity to study in Hansard tomorrow what my right hon. Friend said today about this new and previously unknown committee of inquiry and to study its effect, implications, scope and role.
    6.30 am
    It will be generally recognised that we have completed clause 1, which is probably the most important clause of seven. We are well into clause 2 and the heart of the Bill. I appeal to those responsible and stress that the lateness of the hour for the staff and other members of the Committee is not as important as knowing the implications of the revelations that my right hon. Friend made today. We need time to reflect upon them and perhaps to table further amendments in Committee next week. In the circumstances, it would be right and proper for us to adjourn now until next week.
    Mr. Gorst: I wish to add two points to those that I made five or six hours ago when I moved,

    371
    That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    For all the reasons that I stated then, we should report progress now and, having heard what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said originally, which I had not heard when I moved the motion previously, it is important that we should not create the impression that we are railroading a measure of constitutional significance through the House.
    I have kept a tally of votes. On clause stand part only 20 per cent. of those entitled to vote in the Committee voted in favour of it. For such a small proportion of the Committee to vote on such an important constitutional matter and to railroad it through two successive nights until nearly breakfast time will create a bad impression if this measure reaches the statute book. I hope that we can consolidate the progress that has been made by reporting progress now and give it the necessary thought that was suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Molyneaux: I support the plea of my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and others who have spoken, both on the grounds of the necessity of clarification and the fact that there has been misunderstanding. It is not for the Committee now to try to identify the causes of that confusion. Some clarification was achieved earlier today, but then we had the further complication of the surprise announcement of the new amendment, which is designed to make watertight the arrangements for what is called cross-community consent before powers can be devolved to any section of the Administration at Stormont. The effects will be incalculable upon the political parties in Northern Ireland. I am certain that some hon. Members will want to consult and obtain the views of their parties on the surprise development regarding the new amendment. It would be wise if we had a little time to reflect on those matters.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). Northern Ireland representatives find themselves in great difficulty because they are asked to discuss a clause when they are not cognisant of the wording of an important amendment to be tabled by the Secretary of State. It is unfair that Northern Ireland Members should have to discuss that clause until they see the wording of the amendment.
    It makes nonsense of the fact that there are two conditions in the Bill regarding the triggering-off mechanism to enable the devolved powers to reach the Assembly at Stormont. One is the 70 per cent. and the other is the 50 per cent. plus one with cross-community participation. If there is cross-community participation with 50 per cent. plus one, to say that there must be cross-community participation with 70 per cent. makes nonsense of it. There is no need for the 70 per cent. if it can be 50 per cent. plus one. If the amendment writes that into the Bill, the sooner we know its terms the better, because the Committee can then discuss the matter. Northern Ireland Members find difficulty in being asked to discuss part of the Bill when they are unaware of the wording of the amendment. The time has come for the Secretary of State to call it a day. When we return, we shall have the amendment before us.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I moved the motion which is under discussion. It has come to my knowledge that it might be possible for the Committee to dispose rapidly and satisfactorily with the next group of amendments, Nos. 34 and 35. If that were so I understand that the Secretary of State—once the question that clause 2 stand part had been proposed—would have it in mind to move to report progress. Upon that understanding, which I hope is correct, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 34, in page 2, line 37, leave out from 'subsection,' to end of line 38.
    The Chairman: With this it will be convenient also to take amendment No. 35, in page 2, line 37, leave out 'one or more,' and insert 'all'.
    Mr. Powell: This is somewhat more, though not a great deal more, than a drafting amendment. I can explain the effects of it briefly if the Committee would be good enough to look at schedule 1(2). It will be seen that when a full devolution order—I am translating as I go—is made it automatically wipes out any rolling devolution orders which at that time are in force. The relevant words are
    "the Order or Orders under para (b) shall thereupon cease to have effect."
    That is clear and satisfactory and my hon. Friends and I could not understand why, with those words in the schedule, it was necessary to write into clause 2(3):
    "or so as to supersede one or more Orders made under para
    (b)."
    Those words seem to be not merely superfluous but undesirable. The word "supersede" is potentially ambiguous or certainly not as clear as the wording in the schedule and the expression "one or more Orders" is definitely ambiguous because it could mean that there were three orders and that one or two could be superseded, which is not the intention. I hope that the Government will accept that the schedule does the job as it stands.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): We cannot accept amendment No. 34, because of the complexities involved. The Bill's intention is to ensure maximum flexibility and it is curious to propose an amendment that would prevent full devolution via partial devolution, while not preventing full devolution or partial devolution.
    Amendment No. 35 is a different matter and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) for drawing the issue to the Committee's attention. He is right to say that the clause may contain a small element of ambiguity. As he suggested, we need to look at the wording again. I have considered the amendment carefully, but I am not convinced that the substitution of the word "all" is the entire answer, because it might not be appropriate when only one devolution order is in force. However, we should like to look at the matter again and bring forward an amendment on Report.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am grateful for the UnderSecretary's explanation and suggestion. I am sure that it is better that the drafting should be looked at before the next stage of the Bill. Provided that the effect of the Bill is that a full devolution order simultaneously wipes out partial devolution orders, which must be the intention, I

    373
    am sure that the wording that the Government will bring forward will achieve that purpose. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Prior: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. I think that it would be appropriate if we discussed clause 2 at the next sitting of the Committee. Therefore, I beg to move,
    374
    That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Seven o'clock.

TRADE
  Wine (Measures)
  Wine (Measures)
  Manufacturing Trade Statistics
  Manufacturing Trade Statistics
  Insolvency Law Review Committee (Report)
  Insolvency Law Review Committee (Report)
  European Movement (Investment) Ltd.
  European Movement (Investment) Ltd.
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  College of Air Training, Hamble
  College of Air Training, Hamble
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Oil Taxation
  Oil Taxation
  Civil Service (Pay)
  Civil Service (Pay)
  North Sea Oil
  North Sea Oil
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Contingency Reserve
  Contingency Reserve
  European Community
  European Community
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Liverpool (Constituencies)
  Liverpool (Constituencies)
  Repatriation
  Repatriation
SCOTLAND
  Consultant Obstetricians
  Consultant Obstetricians
  Birth Weight Statistics
  Birth Weight Statistics
WALES
  Truancy
  Truancy
  Consultant Obstetricians
  Consultant Obstetricians
ENERGY
  Nuclear Waste
  Nuclear Waste
  Oil Stockpile
  Oil Stockpile
  Birth Weight Statistics
  Birth Weight Statistics
  Spot Operations
  Spot Operations
  Nuclear Energy
  Nuclear Energy
  Renewable Energy Sources (Meeting)
  Renewable Energy Sources (Meeting)
EMPLOYMENT
  Manchester (Direct Works)
  Manchester (Direct Works)
  Merseyside and Sefton
  Merseyside and Sefton
  Temporary Short-time Working Scheme
  Temporary Short-time Working Scheme
  Manchester (Apprentice Employment)
  Manchester (Apprentice Employment)
  New Training Scheme
  New Training Scheme
  Community Work Programmes
  Community Work Programmes
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  Benefit Plus Scheme
  Benefit Plus Scheme
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
  European Community (Council of Ministers)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  European Community (Grants)
  European Community (Grants)
  University Research
  University Research
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Marketing
  Agricultural Marketing
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Management Advisory Services
  Management Advisory Services
  Health Care (Exemption Certificates)
  Health Care (Exemption Certificates)
  Sterilisation and Vasectomy Services
  Sterilisation and Vasectomy Services
  Radiotherapy (Lincolnshire)
  Radiotherapy (Lincolnshire)
  Health Charges (Remittance)
  Health Charges (Remittance)
  District Dental Officers
  District Dental Officers
  Cancer and Leukaemia
  Cancer and Leukaemia
  Lead Exposure
  Lead Exposure
  Wales (Population Statistics)
  Wales (Population Statistics)
  Family Practitioner Committee
  Family Practitioner Committee
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Peritoneal Dialysis Patients (Telephone Bills)
  Peritoneal Dialysis Patients (Telephone Bills)
  Mr. Alfred Gibbs
  Mr. Alfred Gibbs
  Consultant Obstetircians
  Consultant Obstetircians
  Birth Weight Statistics
  Birth Weight Statistics
  Electron Microscopes
  Electron Microscopes
  Pneumoconiosis Panels (Asbestosis)
  Pneumoconiosis Panels (Asbestosis)
  Housing Benefit Regulations
  Housing Benefit Regulations
  Statutory Sick Pay Scheme
  Statutory Sick Pay Scheme
  First Aid Dressings (Report)
  First Aid Dressings (Report)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Devolution
  Devolution
  Obstetricians
  Obstetricians
  Birth Weight Statistics
  Birth Weight Statistics
  Employment Prospects
  Employment Prospects
  Unemployed Persons (Belfast)
  Unemployed Persons (Belfast)
TRANSPORT
  Motor Cycle Driving Test
  Motor Cycle Driving Test
  Traffic Examiners
  Traffic Examiners
  Heavy Lorries (A40)
  Heavy Lorries (A40)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Accountants
  Accountants
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Argentine (British Citizens)
  Argentine (British Citizens)
  Malaysia
  Malaysia
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  China (Prime Minister's Visit)
  China (Prime Minister's Visit)
  Israel
  Israel
  Syria, Jordan and Egypt (Talks)
  Syria, Jordan and Egypt (Talks)
  Latin America
  Latin America
  Republic of Ireland
  Republic of Ireland
  Syria
  Syria
  British Possessions and Dependencies
  British Possessions and Dependencies
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Middle East
  Middle East
  European Movement
  European Movement
  Overseas Student Trust
  Overseas Student Trust
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Foreign Policy
  Foreign Policy
ENVIRONMENT
  Planning Applications
  Planning Applications
  Sefton
  Sefton
  Merseyside
  Merseyside
  New Towns
  New Towns
  Manchester (Apprentice Training)
  Manchester (Apprentice Training)
  Shared Ownership Schemes
  Shared Ownership Schemes
  International Garden Festival (Liverpool)
  International Garden Festival (Liverpool)

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

Jury Service and Criminal Convictions
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that people with a substantial number of criminal convictions are entitled to he called for jury service; and what action they propose to remedy this.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, on 25th March last my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced that it is the Government's intention to widen the area of disqualification from jury service to exclude anyone convicted of an imprisonable offence during the last 10 years, even where no immediate sentence of imprisonment was imposed. The Government intend to bring forward proposals on these lines at an appropriate stage of the Administration of Justice Bill.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that Answer. It presumably means that Government amendments will be put down in another place. May I express my great pleasure in the reply given by the noble and learned Lord and ask two questions? First would he agree, as his Answer implies, that it is a very serious matter when people who have been convicted on 10, 12 or 14 separate occasions ate entitled to serve on juries and are only now not subject to imprisonment because of the extension of the range of non-custodial penalties in the past few years? Secondly, is the noble and learned Lord aware of the disturbing amount of evidence—admittedly, anecdotal—of tampering with juries, particularly in London, where it is suggested that bribes have been offered to individual jurors? Is he aware that this is causing a great deal of disquiet among many members of the Bar and others concerned with the administration of justice in London?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I agree that it is a very serious matter that persons with a criminal record—the noble Lord said, "indicted", but of course some of those get off—should sit on juries. It is for that reason that my right honourable friend proposes his change. Regarding the second part of the question, I am concerned about some evidence of the suborning of jurors. I caused my department to make inquiries in the latter part of last year. What one finds are the ones which do not come off. It is the ones which do come off which cause anxiety.
190
There is some reason to believe that there are such cases.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, suborning jurors is a serious criminal offence, is it not? Have there been convictions in recent years on this account?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I think there have been such convictions, but the one that I have in mind is that the person was guilty of an attempt and was, I think, sentenced for contempt of court. There is more than one case at present under investigation as to which I can give no more information. There have been cases. My investigations went wider than merely the question as to whether someone had been convicted. There were complaints where juries were discharged. Suborning took two forms. There were those who offered an inducement; there were those who offered a threat which of course raises different and perhaps even more serious issues.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, is not the real problem posed by the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, one of enforcement? Are there not believed to be already a number of people who are disqualified by reason of their previous convictions from serving on juries, who nevertheless have been sitting on them? Would it not help if the noble and learned Lord were to publicise the fact that it is a criminal offence for a person to serve on a jury when he knows that he is not elicible to do so?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it is the case that it is a criminal offence to sit on a jury under a disqualification. The present disqualification rules—I hope I get them right because I am speaking without reference to the authority—are contained in the second schedule to the Juries Act 1974. There arc two types of disqualification. There is a lifetime disqualification and there is a 10-year disqualification. I cannot say that I would know of cases where this has happened or whether there have been successful prosecutions. There are grounds to believe that it can have happened. However, without making rather detailed inquiries into the previous history of individual jurors, which would certainly give rise to a good deal of protest, it is not very easy to make quite sure that, say, eight or nine years ago they were not convicted and sent to prison for three months.

The Current Account Surplus for 1981
2.42 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the latest estimate of the current account surplus of 1981.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the latest estimate for 1981 is a surplus of £7 billion.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, may I congratulate the Government very much on those admirable results of their financial policy. 1 hope that they will continue at that rate for a long time to come.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for what she says. We and the country owe a great debt of gratitude to our exporters who have succeeded in putting up a very fine performance, despite the considerable difficulties that many of them face.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that this is not simply a matter for congratulation? If there is a surplus of £7 billion in our overseas account, that means that there must be a deficit of £7 billion in other countries. Would he not agree that some countries are suffering because of our surplus, particularly those whose exports have been reduced because of protectionism in the industrialised world?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord's economic analysis. The fact that we have a surplus of £7 billion means that we are investing this money abroad often for the benefit of the kind of economies the noble Lord has in mind, as well as using it for the benefit of our own economy. So far as the price of primary commodities is concerned, it is perfectly true that these tend to fall during a world recession, which is one of the reasons why we, and indeed all the industrial countries, would wish to see our way out of the recession as soon as possible.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the balance of payments tends to be much better the more depressed the economy becomes, just as it tends to get much worse when the economy is over-stimulated? Would he not agree that, although this is a very splendid performance in a depressed world, it is to some extent the other side of a coin that is not so attractive?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I note the noble Lord's acceptance of the fact that over-stimulation of the economy—a matter with which he will be very familiar—leads to deleterious results.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, in giving his congratulations to exporters, would couple with them congratulations to those responsible for invisible exports such as tourism and insurance?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I should be only too glad to do so. In fact I myself led a deputation from the Committee on Invisible Exports to Portugal last year, and this was one of the major subjects I discussed with Ministers in Canada during my visit there last week.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, would not the Minister also add his congratulations to the workers in those industries whose exports have led to this very desirable result?
Lord Cockfield: Yes, my Lords. I am most grateful to the noble Lord and I join with him in congratulating the workers in these industries, many of whom have also put up a magnificent productivity performance.
Lord Whaddon: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform the House what proportion of the surplus is due to manufacturing industry, as distinct from the oil account and invisible exports?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to write to the noble Lord to give him some further information on that point. In fact, exports of oil during the first quarter of this year amounted to £2·3 billion, which was not significantly different from the figure last year.

Rehabilitation: Appointment to Professorship
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: 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 when a new appointment is to be made of a Professor of Rehabilitation for England.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, this is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government, but rather for the University of Southampton.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for that rather vague reply, may I ask him whether the medical faculties of universities do not have a lot to do with clinical work on patients? Is the noble Lord aware that Professor Glanville, the last professor of rehabilitation at Southampton, did a tremendous amount of work in the Wessex region and that this spread all over the country? It is now two and a half years since he retired, and no other appointment has been made. Is the noble Lord not aware that rehabilitation is very important, with so many severely disabled people in the community and so much high technology now surrounding the severely disabled?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree about the merit of the work of Professor Glanville, who was the previous holder of this seat. Also, of course, I agree about the importance of rehabilitation work, but l have to say that the filling of this chair is a matter for the university and not for the Government.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that this means there is now only one professor of rehabilitation in the country and that is in Edinburgh, in Scotland? Is he aware that that chair is widely regarded, in Scotland and beyond, as performing a very useful role and as fulfilling completely the purposes of its foundation?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am certain that the merit of the chair in Scotland is equal to that of the one in Southampton, when that chair is filled. Also, of course, I agree with my noble friend about the importance of the work carried on.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that unfortunately Scotland seems once again to lead the field in these matters? Is the noble Lord also aware that, though, as he said, it may be the case that this is a matter for the University of Southampton, he ought, in view of his ministerial office, to come to the point and say that in his opinion it would he desirable that the post should be filled at the earliest opportunity?—that is, without committing the Government to becoming involved in it.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the filling of this chair is a matter for the authorities of the university in question. Of course, it is desirable that the chair should be filled. In fact, the chair was originally endowed by the Government some eight or nine years ago, but it is also necessary, of course, that the chair should be filled by an appropriate candidate.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, if it is the responsibility of the university, is it not the case that the university may not be able to fill this chair because of the lack of resources? In view of the recent cuts imposed by the Government—not by the University Grants Committee—on the universities generally, can the noble Lord say whether that is a factor in the consideration at the present time?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the chair was endowed by a gift from the Government of £100,000 some eight or nine years ago, so I do not think that resources are a problem in connection with the filling of the chair itself.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that what is really important is that the occupant of this chair should be the best available man, and not the first available man?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly agree with that. It is also the case that the best available man is not always able or willing to take the job.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, does the Minister think that the interest on £100,000, even at the present rate, would pay the best available man?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that depends on how long the sum of money is expected to last.

Mathys Committee Recommendation: Service Marks
2.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: 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 when they
194
propose to implement recommendations of the Mathys Committee (May 1974) concerning the registration of service marks in line with practice now adopted in four members states of the EEC, Australia, Canada, USA, and 27 other states including the USSR
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, a draft regulation and a draft directive on trade marks have recently been published by the European Commission. We will need to consider what action to take on service marks in the light of decisions taken on the Community proposals.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. Would he not agree that this problem is basically a matter of municipal law, national law, as distinct from Community law? Would he not agree that the fact that Australia and Germany—one being a common law country and the other being a Napoleonic code country—have within the last year introduced this type of protection, points to the fact that this type of industrial property ought to be protected? If he will agree with that, would he not consider it appropriate to introduce a short Bill on a non-controversial matter, or, at all events, to give some sort of avuncular, benign support to the introduction of a Private Member's Bill?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the fact that the Mathys Committee, to which my noble friend refers, reported in 1974, suggests that there has been no desperate sense of urgency in dealing with this problem. The position which we now face is that the Community have published a draft regulation and a draft directive. These will have important bearings on the whole of our law of trade marks. It will almost certainly be necessary to legislate if the directive is adopted, and that would be the appropriate moment to consider what legislation to introduce in the case of service marks.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that the term, "avuncular", which was attributed to him by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was an appropriate one?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his support of my noble friend's description. Whether it was appropriate or not is not a matter for me to express an opinion on.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, while joining in the thanks given to the noble Lord the Minister for his very helpful statement, may I ask whether he agrees that to give statutory rights to service marks in the United Kingdom at the present time would help, to some small extent, to remove one of the obstacles to trade between the United Kingdom and the other EEC countries? While noting that the noble Lord the Minister considers that legislation on trade marks will be wanted in due course, having regard to developments in the EEC, may I repeat the question that was put by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway? In view of the help that statutory rights for service marks would give to industry, would he not be sympathetic to a short Bill to deal with this matter?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I do, indeed, sympathise with the general case which is being made here. But what the noble Lord himself says underlines the very point that I have made; namely, that this needs to be considered primarily in the EEC context. So far as special legislation is concerned, I think the noble Lord will appreciate that the possibility of the Government introducing a Bill of this kind, at a time when the legislative programme is so crowded, is a remote one.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, we have talked rather pleasingly about a surplus of £7 billion, but is the noble Lord aware that in certain industries, such as the pharmaceutical industry, trade marks and patents arc of paramount importance and can be easily cheated on? There has even been talk in the Common Market for a long time that Frankfurt should become a headquarters where discussion of these matters can take place. I do not want to ask any further questions; I just want to press upon the Minister the fact that there is a definite urgency about the Question asked by the noble Lord opposite.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and I agree with him that these matters need to he approached with a sense of urgency.
Lord Spens: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a sense of urgency is also necessary because of the evolution of new technologies which are now gaining speed, and which we hope will result in the evolution of a lot of new service industries? Surely we ought to be protected, in the same way as these other countries are protected, by having some form of service marks protection.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I entirely support the objective of expanding the service industries, for which my department is particularly responsible. But the point which the noble Lord makes indicates the breadth of this problem and the depth of consideration that it requires.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in view of the fact that a previous answer by the Minister indicated that there is a deficit of £2·2 million in manufacturing exports, when you take away oil, is this question not quite urgent enough to be included in the programme?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I suggest that the noble Lord is placing the wrong interpretation on the figures that I gave. The figures related to the actual exports of oil during the quarter in question.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any indication as to when the proposed new legislation will be put before the House?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, if the noble Lord is in a position to forecast the speed with which the European Community will move, he is in a much stronger position than I am.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if you multiply the quarter's exports by four, which I understand you can do, you come to a deficit of approximately £2 million?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I really think that the noble Lord is straying from the question of service marks, which is an entirely different question from that of the export of oil. But perhaps I might write to him to clear up any misunderstanding that he may have on the question.

Business of the House
2.59 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, that Standing Order 34 and paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the Rules for the Conduct of Short Debates set out in Appendix D to the Companion to the Standing Orders apply to the Motions in the names of the Lord Vaizey and the Lord Mottistone set down for debate on Wednesday 23rd June.—(Baroness Young.)
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, as this matter refers to the conduct of short debates, it occurs to me that this might be the appropriate occasion to make some reference to the subject. I am not certain whether I am in order, or even whether this is the appropriate occasion, but I am unaware of any other occasion when I can raise the matter. It sometimes happens that when there are short debates—for example, there is to be one this afternoon—there are a great many speakers, and time has to be allotted accordingly in order to suit the occasion.
The decision as to the time allotted is left to the House itself, but somebody intervenes and seeks to supervise the arrangements. This is usually left to a member of the Government. It may happen—it has happened quite recently—that the decision of the member of the Government as to the amount of time to be allotted to each speaker in the course of a short debate arouses some dissatisfaction, because the person who decides on behalf of the Government may not be watching the clock carefully enough, or his own watch may be out of time. Or he might even be—I shall he very careful about this; I am not making any charge—prejudiced against a particular speaker who he thinks is inclined to take more time than he is entitled to. Prejudice does sometimes enter this House. We try to avoid it but, somehow, it creeps in, and occasionally it creeps in on the occasion of short debates.
I should like to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether she will be kind enough—I do not ask for her answer now—to refer this matter either to the Procedure Committee or to whatever is the appropriate committee to consider whether or not it would be more appropriate, instead of a member of the Government intervening and seeking to allot the time, to ask one of the Deputy Speakers, or a succession of Deputy Speakers, to take the chair during short debates and allot time in a fashion which would seem to be much more satisfactory.
Baroness Young: My Lords, first, may I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that the debate which is to take place this afternoon is not a short debate?

197
There is therefore no question of the time limit which applies in the case of debates which it is agreed will last for only two and a half hours. I think the House will recognise that the point which the noble Lord is raising arises from the fact that recently there were two short debates and one noble Lord was unable to speak because time ran out. I have taken the opportunity to read Hansard. Therefore I know fully what happened on that occasion. In this case, the appropriate course of action is for me to ask the Chief Whip through the usual channels to look at the matter before the next occasion, which I believe is 23rd June, when there will be two short debates, so that agreement is arrived at before the debates begin and thereby we can avoid any such occurrence.
Finally, may I clear up a procedural point which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, made. He suggested that rather than the usual channels or the Leader of the House being responsible, it should be a matter for people whom the noble Lord described as "Deputy Speakers". There is nobody in this House who goes under that name. The whole House will, I think, agree that it would be inappropriate for the Deputy Chairman to intervene and that it is very much a matter for the usual channels. I am replying to this point because one of the tasks of the Leader of the House is to deal with business questions of this kind. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied that through the usual channels we shall be looking at the matter before we have the next two short debates on 23rd June.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Opportunities for Young People: MSC Report
3.5 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock Lord Kilmarnock rose to call attention to the urgent need for improved opportunities for unemployed and other school-leavers with special reference to the Manpower Services Commission's Youth Task Group Report (April 1982); and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name. This, for me, is a significant occasion on a number of counts. In the first place, it is the first time that the Social Democratic Party has been allocated a day for a Motion of its own choice, and it is eloquent testimony to the importance we attach to an early and dramatic improvement in the prospects for the young people of this country that we have chosen this theme out of so many competing for attention. We wish also to place on record in Parliament our strong support for the main thrust of the Manpower Services Commission's Youth Task Group Report, to which the Motion refers.
It is also very timely that we should debate the report. The chairman of the commission in his introduction has asked for the Government's response by the end of June—only three weeks off. One must therefore assume that the Government have been giving it very serious thought and will be able to indicate to the House this afternoon, in broad terms, the nature of that response. Of course they will presumably want to give their final decisions in the form of a statement, and I am not aiming to pre-empt that. At the same time, I believe it will be useful to them to have the
198
benefit of the views which will be expressed in this House this afternoon before adopting their final position.
Finally, the report is animated by the obvious conviction of its authors that they were embarked upon something of great moment. In paragraph 3.8 they write:
" A new comprehensive scheme is an historic step which marks a turning point in the industrial history of this country and a decisive break with the past as far as the education and training of young people are concerned".
If their proposals are converted into reality, I do not think that these words will prove to be inflated.
Before we go any further, I should like to dwell for a minute on why exactly we are contemplating and, indeed, are, I hope, on the verge of commitment to a very ambitious and far-reaching scheme. The answer is not far to seek, though it must surely come as a shock to anybody unfamiliar with the subject to discover that this country has not only proportionately the largest workforce in the EEC but also the least trained. The prime cause of both phenomena is that we release a far larger number of unskilled and ill-equipped 16- and 17-year-olds on to the labour market than any comparable country. In 1977, for example, 44 per cent. of our 16-year-olds went directly into work or unemployment as against 9 per cent. in Germany and 19 per cent. in France. Among those who are lucky enough to find jobs, this report tells us—in paragraph 2.1—that:
" Around 35 per cent. of 16-year-olds entering jobs receive no training at all, and a further 18 per cent. receive hardly any training ".
These figures speak for themselves.
The scheme devised by the Youth Task Group is a response to these dismal figures. I shall devote most of my speech to the scheme, but the terms of the Motion are intended to encourage other speakers to range more widely or to concentrate on certain aspects in greater depth, if they feel so inclined. I myself shall try to pick out what seem to me to be the salient points.
In paragraph 1.1, the first paragraph in the report, we are told:
" This report is about providing a permanent bridge between school and work. It is not about youth unemployment ".
As youth unemployment is one of the burning issues of the day, this may seem paradoxical. But the paradox must be seen in context. The context is that the present Youth Opportunities Programme was designed for, and is still restricted almost exclusively to, the young unemployed. That unemployment should be a condition of entry is no doubt a natural result of the temporary and counter-cyclical origin of the programme. But this approach is no longer a realistic one. The Youth Task Group tell us in paragraph 2.3 that:
" Without policy intervention we estimate that 57 per cent. of I6-year-olds and 48 per cent. of 17-year-olds in the labour market will be unemployed in September 1984 "—
I repeat, without policy intervention.
We are facing, in my view, a shift in employment patterns which is more than a temporary hiccup in the system. Accordingly, the report signals in its very first paragraph a corresponding shift from a scheme whose exclusive entry requirement is unemployment to one of much wider coverage. That is a very im

199
portent change of scope and emphasis because it seeks to prevent rather than merely alleviate the disease. Although it will continue to give priority to all minimum age school-leavers who are unemployed, the task group states firmly in Chapter 4.12 that:
" The scheme we are designing is a youth training scheme. It is designed to cover both employed and unemployed young people, including those who arc undergoing the first year of apprenticeship and also other existing training ".
It may appear from this, on first sight, that the group have accepted fully the view of the Birley Report—I refer to Opportunities at 16, published in 1978—that,
" the concept of employment/unemployment is inappropriate to the under-18s ";
in other words, that they should be taken out of the labour market altogether. Although the task group go much of the way towards Birley they do not go the whole way. In the first place, they have had to take into account financial limits set by the Government. Secondly, they deliberately do not exclude the possibility of contracts of employment for young people within the age group, provided certain minimum training requirements are met. But they confidently expect that the majority of 16-year-olds not continuing in full-time education or in a job, and most eligible 17-year-olds, will opt for the scheme. I want to say here that my party would want to step this scheme up as speedily as possible to the point where it could cover all those under 18 years of age who wish to take up the opportunities it offers.
In a confusing time of rapid innovation, coupled with high unemployment, when training is mentioned many people ask, "Training for what?" The content of the programme is clearly of the essence. The report attempts to grasp the nettle in Chapter 2 where it recognises that as the trainee's future employment is uncertain, more than a job- or firm-specific training is required and that, as unskilled work is declining, a basis for higher levels of competence needs to be laid. In Chapter 4 the task group go on to elaborate on this point. I believe we should take to heart the importance attached by the authors to a minimum three months off-the-job training and/or relevant further education; to a defined core of skills on to which others can he built; to an introductory programme of training and skills related to a broad group or family of related operations; to planning and diagnostic skills; and, last but not least, to guidance and counselling.
I turn next to the importance of quality. The report quite frankly admits the shortcomings of the Youth Opportunities Programme in this respect. Quality control demands a coherent structure of supervision and assessment. It also requires a new relationship between the education and employment departments. I want to stress this point because we as a country are not alone in having to face it. In June 1980 the European Commission sent to the Council of Education Ministers a communication on the subject in which it said:
" The employment sector has…become deeply involved in attempting to provide on a long-term basis for the educational and training needs of the least skilled school-leavers. This development has frequently meant that a new range of training and temporary work experience opportunities now exist in parallel "—
I emphasise, "in parallel"—
200
" to the post-compulsory education sector. The complexities and anomalies created by this situation remain a challenge to inter-ministerial planning in many countries ".
What could be more true here'? The complexities and anomalies are perhaps even more of a challenge for us than for a more centralised administration, precisely because of the devolved nature of our education system and the checks and balances we have very properly set up between local and national interests. But proper though these checks and balances may be, they must not simply become lets and hindrances.
The machinery devised by this scheme to secure the involvement and commitment of all parties is one of local boards. There will be 50 or 60 of these, replacing the 29 Special Programme Area Boards which now exist. The new areas would coincide with one or more LEA boundaries. Membership would include representatives of all the professional and governmental interests, voluntary and youth organisations, and the careers service. Their role and task is set out in Chapter 5 of the report, which repays reading. The Manpower Services Commission is apparently to publish a further consultative document on the final shape of these boards, which I hope we shall also be able to debate in due course because obviously they are going to be very important.
The tasks before all those concerned, and most particularly the sponsors, are formidable. Some 460,000 young people are to be catered for during the first year of operation—that is, from September 1983, which is less than 18 months from now. It is the local boards that will have to sell the scheme to the local employers, who will receive a block grant of £1,850 per head at today's prices, out of which they are to pay the trainee's allowance which is set, according to the scheme, at the current YOP rate of £25 a week. The amount remaining to the employer for non-wage costs and training may not seem a vast incentive, but it is important to be clear that employers will receive the grant for their normal intake as well as for the additional trainees taken on as a result of the scheme, with the proviso that, wherever possible, programmes should cater for three additional trainees for every two recruited as part of an employer's habitual intake; three for two is the ratio which is sought.
But employers will not be able to take all the strain, so an alternative mode of delivery—called Mode B—is provided for, under which the Manpower Services Commission itself will act as managing agent, much as it does at present with the YOP scheme. I believe it is very important that the scheme should not become too monolithic. There must be room for diversity. My noble friend Lord Hunt and, I believe, others are interested in the idea of community service. It seems at least possible that this could find a home under one or other of the modes of delivery of the main scheme. I await with great interest to hear what he has to say on this subject.
I want now to say a few words about the receiving end. We can be as ingenious, committed and generous as we like, but it will be to little avail, or to no avail, if the scheme does not catch the imagination of the young themselves. I understand from the British Youth Council that status, income, quality and choice are the keys to a widespread and willing acceptance of this or any other scheme. The weakness of YOP

201
was that there could be no sure status based on unemployment; one was and is merely at the receiving end of a state charity. Work is the badge of the adult world but if one cannot have it at once then something nearly equivalent is needed. The idea of a traineeship contract with rights and obligations set out in one of the annexes to the report is therefore a great advance. As I have already indicated, there is no reason why this should not be converted into a contract of employment.
Next, income. This is what contributes most to independence from parents. It is felt very strongly by youth organisations that this should be indexed like most social security and national insurance benefits. The young do not want to be second-class citizens in the national system nor—should they be. Next, quality. Some 40 per cent. of YOP schemes have no training element at all. Thus, the guarantee of a minimum of three months off-the-job training is seen as a very important inducement, as are the quality assurance arrangements. Here, trainee feed-back seems essential and the task group suggests that there should be trainee representatives on local boards.
Finally, choice. Here I come to what is possibly the only really contentious issue, to which I would like to give a little thought. The success of any scheme such as this must rest on the willingness of employers to help, and the enthusiasm of the young participants. Employers do not want reluctant conscripts. Young people should not be compelled to enter such a scheme, and such an approach is one that my party could not accept. Our aim should be not to compel but to devise a scheme that is sufficiently attractive and worthwhile that the majority of the eligible young people will want to participate of their own free will. I shall revert to this point at the end of my speech.
First, however, there are some further questions of detail which I should like to ask of the Government and of which I have given the noble Earl prior notice. I would be grateful for some indication of whether the Government accept Part VI of the report entitled Next Steps. The first and most important question here is, will the Government be in a position to meet the commission's request for a positive response by the end of this month? Related to this and following from it is the subsidiary but none the less important question of whether the Government accept the task group's recommendation as to timing: that is to say, that information on the scheme should be available in schools and careers offices early in the academic year commencing next September; that a national supervisory hoard should be in place by 1st September this year; that there should be further consultation on the composition of local boards and that these should be in place by April 1983; and finally that a strong implementation team should be set up at the earliest possible moment.
On the question of changes in legislation, touched on briefly in the report, it will be interesting to hear from the Government whether they accept that these should be deferred. According to the authors, the scheme as advanced here does not require any legislative measures. Personally, I would agree with them that the question of any statutory underpinning that may be desirable should be deferred pending the review of progress in 1985. I wonder what the Government think.
In the last chapter of the report there is one short sentence in 7.25 which runs: "Our report is unanimous". That is a remarkable achievement. The membership consisted, apart from Mr. Holland the chairman, of three representatives of the CBI, three from the local authorities, three from the unions and one each from the British Youth Council, voluntary organisations, the careers service and the education sector: that is to say, widely differing, and not infrequently opposed interests. Yet they were unanimous on all the things I have endeavoured to outline, both for employers and for young people; not least on the principle that the scheme should be entirely voluntary both for employers and trainees. This point is reiterated at several places in the report.
Opposition to the removal of the supplementary benefit network, as foreshadowed in paragraphs 36 and 38 of the White Paper, is not simply a matter of special pleading by youth interests. Compulsion is opposed by the CBI, who do not want reluctant recruits. This is also a very important condition of union support, which is of course fundamental to the success of the scheme. The contribution the unions have made is remarkable and it would be a tragedy if the unanimity achieved through imaginative participation all round were to be put at risk over what is a relatively minor issue. 1 say "minor" because I understand on good authority that if the good things promised are put into effect there is likely to he a 95 per cent. voluntary take-up.
I am not asking the Government to make any commitments this afternoon on this issue. I would prefer them to ponder it very seriously between now and when they make their statement. I very seriously urge them to bear in mind that the unanimity of the members of the group is bestowed upon the totality of the report. The chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, Mr. Young, stressed in evidence to a House of Commons Select Committee only last month that the various recommendations in the task group's report must be considered as constituting a single package. If the Government are over-selective unanimity could disintegrate very fast. If they choose to press ahead on ideological grounds, with an insistence on compulsion, they could endanger the entire scheme.
The Manpower Services Commission's Youth Task Group Report is by any standards an outstanding document. The scheme it outlines seems to me to be very well designed. The degree of support it has attracted from all sectors and interests concerned with it is quite remarkable. We on this Bench wish it a fair wind. If we were in office we would implement it, or something very like it. As we are not, yet, we hope the present Government will do so. I will end with the last words of the report, which are these:
" The Government has created a major opportunity for itself, for the country, and above all, for young people. The opportunity is there for the taking ".
If I were in their shoes, I would seize that opportunity with both hands. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.24 p.m.
Lord Scanlon: My Lords, may I first take the opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for the opportunity of this debate, and say at

203
the outset that I thought his contribution was quite thoughtful, and in my view much along the lines of the contribution I hope to make to your Lordships' debate this afternoon. Many of your Lordships may well say that he needs examining or I need examining in those circumstances, but in the contribution he made the important principles he enunciated will bear repetition. To do otherwise is difficult, recognising that on three or four occasions in the last months your Lordships' House has had the opportunity of debating this subject in one form or another. But repetition does not in any way detract from the importance of this subject. Given that importance, the Government seem to want to create the impression of ostracising and alienating all those who can assist and want to assist in fulfilling the aims of the new training initiative. Politics, we are constantly reminded, is the art of the possible. If the Government will not listen, or cannot listen, to their opponents, I hope at least they will listen to their friends. I would like to come back, as did the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, to this point.
The three main points in the White Paper (Cmnd. 8455) are as follows: first, that skilled training in the future shall be to standards and status should not be achieved by a given period of time; secondly, that all young people up to the age of 18 years should either receive a period of training or full-time education; thirdly, there must be developed a scheme for the training and retraining of adults.
Taking the first point, it must surely be worthwhile for any Government to achieve this objective. But how much more important is it to industry in general and to manufacturing industry in particular. Modern technology and production will demand that people will have to undertake two or three varied forms of training during their industrial life, rather than one specific form which is the pattern at the moment. So point number one of the White Paper is very important in that setting.
Turning to the second point—it must be the main emphasis of the task group's review—it will now become increasingly necessary, in spite of inspired and optimistic suggestions of an upturn in the economy, of fuller order books and of more overtime (as though the latter were some form of virtue rather than sometimes a necessary evil), to recognise that the calculated assessment of most authorities is that a figure of 3 million unemployed will remain with us throughout the 1980s. That is despite any upturn, and possibly because of, as a large contributing factor, the new technologies which are developing. Therefore, the second point of the White Paper is paramount indeed. The third point is self-evident. Many adults are already well trained and only need some adaptation of their existing skills to cope with the new technology with relatively very little additional training.
Now I come to the detailed points of the task group's report. The report cannot be specific, because it attempts to deal with all aspects of working life, with industry, with commerce, with plants, wherever training is required. Your Lordships will forgive me, I hope, I if try, illustratively at any rate, to deal with the manufacturing industry and particularly with engineering. The Youth Task Group Report suggests a new hier
204
archy of bodies with training responsibilites and they are the approved sponsor; the managing agency; local boards; a national supervisory board and a quality assurance group to advise on standards. I want to deal briefly with each of those proposals and to stress the reservoir of expertise and professional knowledge that is available if each or any of these bodies wish to avail themselves of it.
I turn first to the sponsors. These are essentially the providers of training opportunities. It is stated that the scheme must use all types of sponsors individually or in groups; employers, local authorities, local education authorities, voluntary organisations and industrial training boards and I want to emphasise once again the importance of the latter.
However, perhaps of all their proposals the managing agencies are paramount. Managing agencies will be required to assume responsibility for managing whole programmes linking together contributions of different providers. The report indicates that any kind of organisation—including a national organisation—might apply to be a managing agency. Training boards, I stress again, are well placed to assume such a role for the whole of an industry. Training within those industries is provided through a wide variety of different agencies and by different means. Certainly in the engineering industry, through its local staff and by means of the levy, exemption and grant scheme, the board is well-informed on training in all forms in the industry. It could be of tremendous assistance to the whole scheme if the Government, through the MSC, could find their way to recommend that training boards should be included in the managing agencies.
I do not wish to sound too much like a commercial advertisement for training boards, for I will shortly be relinquishing any responsibility for training in engineering. But the new chairman of the EITB is, as we now know, the past chairman of the MSC; and the new chairman of the MSC, together with the new chairman of the EITB, are both committed to the task group's proposals. What a wonderful opportunity this provides of fully involving the latter with the former in the realisation of their joint ideals. Let me also add that, additional to all this expertise, this part of the task group's report dealing with the training of young people up to the age of 18 will eventually, in my view and in the view of many others, supersede the first year of the job training that presently exists. There are over 26,000 places already in engineering—in employers' factories, in colleges, in group schemes and in training boards' own workshops, which can be of tremendous assistance if only the Government, through the MSC, would utilise these opportunities. One could say the same about local boards, about the national supervisory board and about the quality assurance body. Let me conclude this detail of the task group's report by saying that the task group's proposal that the MSC should establish a group of professionals to secure the quality of the youth training scheme is welcome indeed, and I hope will be taken on board by the Government.
Therefore, through such agencies are the opportunities of redressing what again the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred to as Britain being one of the least trained workforces in the industrial world. But

205
this remedy can only be achieved by co-operation; it cannot be achieved by confrontation. It will involve co-operation between Government, employers, trade unionists and educationists. To believe that we can ostracise each or any one of those and expect the fulfilment of the task group's report is, in my view, cloud cuckoo land. Are the Government really prepared to initiate and secure this co-operation? If they are, they proceed in a most mysterious way.
We do not know at this stage what the Government's response to the task group's report will be. I hope that the remarks that will be made during this debate will prompt the Government to give us some indication. But I urge them on behalf of all those who have been involved in this stupendous task which is so vital for the economic recovery of Britain, to accept the report in its totality. To do anything less, to ostracise or to embitter any of the participants will, in my view, bring about the demise of what is a most excellent report which is full of good common sense.
I refer now to some of the specific problems and again the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has emphasised them. In a nutshell, any idea of compulsion is repulsive to those who have been involved in these discussions. The CBI do not want it for the reasons already stated. They do not want reluctant, resentful trainees. Neither is it correct that someone who does not want that particular form of training should keep out of the opportunity for that training somebody who might not be quite as bright, but who is anxious and willing to learn. That he should be kept out by such means is, in my view, unthinkable.
I want to return to the question of the trade unions, because they are, in my view, vital and I make no apologies for so mentioning them. Many of them presently think that there is no purpose in continuing the dialogue with the Government in view of the many Acts that are being taken against what they consider to be—and, in my view, rightly—their long-cherished and hard won rights and opportunities. They have had two Acts restricting their long-established rights. They are now faced with the abolition of wages boards, or the possibility of that. They are also very sore indeed at the abolition of the 17 training boards that have been abolished and there is now doubt, due to the difficulties with the EEC, whether that body might further restrict its social funds in any activities for training purposes as far as Britain is concerned.
I sincerely hope that the trade unions will not use these difficulties, real as they are to them, to refuse cooperation in the task group's proposals, for which we are all concerned and for which they, together with the trade unions, have worked so hard. But they can only do this provided the Government accept the task group's proposals in their totality.
But what if the Government do not accept them? What if, in spite of the advice from the CBI, from educationists, from trade unionists and, yes, from the all-party group of MPs within the House itself, they reject it? I sincerely suggest to your Lordships' House that that will not only spell the beginning of the end of this wonderful opportunity for a revolutionary approach to training, but could place in jeopardy the workings of the MSC itself. It is against such a background that I make my plea to the Government to think hard indeed
206
before they even consider rejecting any of the main proposals of the task group. It would be disastrous if they were to do so. I know that it is bad debating form to anticipate the very things that one does not want one's opponents to do, but I think that these matters must be spelt out so that we know the difficulties that will have to be faced if, unfortunately, the Government determine otherwise. Given that they are prepared to accept the group's recommendations, given that all the parties co-operate, this can be a new opportunity. There will be difficulties; there will be vested interests to be overcome. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said, I am sure that, given that goodwill by the Government and given their willingness to accept the report, it can speed up and play a vital role in Britain's eventual economic recovery.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
3.40 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble ally, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for introducing this debate this afternoon. I should also like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, who is about to relinquish his responsibilities as chairman of the Engineering Training Board, for sweeping away in that industry so many deeply conservative ideas about training which have bedevilled the industry in the past, and for giving the new ideas embodied in this report and in others a chance for development in what is still, after all, Britain's premier industry. We owe him a very great deal.
This afternoon we are discussing training and we are discussing employment but, above all, we are discussing a matter of the very greatest urgency. There is a danger that we are becoming accustomed to the idea of unemployment. There are even voices—usually very well-educated voices—which suggest that unemployment is something with which we have to learn to live and that there are ways of turning it to advantage by excellent use of leisure. For some, for a very few—for a small, privileged proportion—there may be some truth in that. But, for the great mass of people, and particularly for the people with whom this report is concerned, that is certainly a blind alley up which to attempt to walk.
I would ask your Lordships to look particularly at two paragraphs in this report—at paragraph 2.3 and paragraph 2.1—and to look at the figures in those paragraphs as if you had never seen them before. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has already referred to them, but I wish to underline them with all the force at my command. It says that in September 1984 57 per cent. of 16-year-olds and 48 per cent. of 17-year-olds will he unemployed. Ten years ago it would have been inconceivable to contemplate that there would be that proportion of young people with nothing to do. What can the social effects of this be? I ask your Lordships to ask yourselves this question: what do you suppose that 57 per cent. of 16-yearolds with nothing to do will get up to? The imagination boggles. Not long ago someone said—I think I can remember who it was, but I shall not name him—that there was no evidence that unemployment bore any relationship to crime. Is it possible to imagine

207
that, with 57 per cent. of 16-year-olds with nothing to do, there will not be consequences of a totally deplorable kind which will show up in the courts and elsewhere?
Paragraph 2.1 makes the point—again it has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, but I ask your Lordships to dwell on it—that in comparison with other countries we have for generations under-trained our school-leavers. It is, of course, worse than that, because we have given them a totally inadequate preparation for the world of work in school and then we do far too little—nothing at all for a high proportion of them—to compensate for that in training as they leave school and enter employment. Let us look at the figures. Only just over half of our young people receive any systematic vocational or educational preparation, compared with more than 90 per cent. in West Germany and more than 80 per cent, in France. Around 35 per cent. of 16-year-olds entering jobs receive no training at all, and a further 18 per cent. receive hardly any training. Girls—and I would underline this—fare worse than boys because they often enter service industries, which provide less training than manufacturing. Other groups, such as disabled young people and those from ethnic minorities, also fare badly.
This not only demonstrates how inadequately we have been coping with this problem compared with Germany and France and our other industrial competitors, but there is an implication in these figures which adds to the urgency of this afternoon's debate. The noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, has said that we must anticipate continuing to have in the region of 3 million unemployed during the 1980s. There are indications that trade is looking up and that there will be recovery, but—and this is the point that should be taken on board and considered in great depth—if there is to be recovery, it will be recovery in trades with a high degree of skill. The opportunities will be for the people who have skills and who have the ability and the training to acquire new skills as those new skills come to be demanded.
The nightmare is that as the world economy recovers and as there are new opportunities and new demands, those markets will be won by the countries which have a high proportion of skilled labour. Unless we begin to do something about it now—and hence the urgency—to compensate for the neglect as regards the provision of training in the past, then that world recovery will benefit our industrial competitors but it will leave us behind.
Therefore, it is not only a question of how you deal with unemployment of the young now and in a few years ahead; it is a question of ensuring that we have people to take advantage of the new opportunities and that we reduce this alarmingly high proportion of people without skills, for whom the employment prospects—not just of the 1980s but stretching on into the future are very bleak indeed. Speaking for myself, I am a guarded optimist about employment prospects in this country. However, if we do not do the things which it is in our power to do—and we may not do them—I am deeply gloomy about the employment prospects of those who have nothing to sell but time and physical strength—the unskilled—and we have far too many of them. It is no exaggeration to
208
say that unless we greatly reduce the percentage of the unskilled in our labour force, there are boys and girls leaving school today who will never have a regular job between now and the time when they reach retirement age, 50 years hence. That has never been true in the past and it is a hideous prospect to contemplate. Therefore, this is a matter of the very greatest possible urgency.
I should like to make some reference to those two groups mentioned in the last part of paragraph 2.1—irls and ethnic minorities. It is difficult to get an exact measure of the effect of unemployment on girls and women because of well-known inaccuracies in the figures. But there is a good deal to suggest that girls and women are faring worse in terms of unemployment than are boys and men, although, goodness knows, they are faring badly enough. However, it is very likely, because of the concentration of girls in office jobs, that over the next decade they will be pretty severely hit by unemployment. The need for girls to get training so that they can move into the new industries is paramount unless we are to have a very high precentage of unemployed women and a large number of women of considerable potential confined to the chance of unskilled jobs, which chance is likely to be a very poor one.
We know already that the opportunities for ethnic minorities are far worse than the opportunities for the white school-leavers. I would remind your Lordships of the Scarman Report which said that already 55 per cent. of West Indian school-leavers in Brixton were out of work. Unless action is taken to see that these youngsters are given training that position will deteriorate still more, so I underline the question of urgency. I have no doubt that the Government are going to say that they already have made very considerable plans and that they have changed considerably the programmes they have had in the past, that they have their own schemes and are satisfied to go ahead with those schemes.
I want very much to support what two previous speakers have said about the need to adopt these recommendations virtually as they stand. Over the last five years the Government have had a number of schemes for dealing with youth unemployment, a bewildering number of schemes characterised by a bewildering number of alphabetical descriptions which even those of us who attempt to study the question closely get completely confused over in trying to remember what they all mean. I believe the Government have got into a state of confusion over this, understandably, because their initial analysis of the problem was wrong.
They were not alone in this, but there was initially a belief that we were dealing with typical unemployment and what was needed was a temporary stop-gap provision to get people into some kind of job for short periods of time and that then things must pick up, jobs would become available again and the situation could be cured. We now know that this is a wrong diagnosis and that those initial plans and indeed most of the Government's subsequent plans, including their latest plan, have ignored the fact that the shortage of skilled people and the inadequate provision of training are the centre of the problem so far as young people are concerned.

209
What the Government are being asked to do in this report is to scrap the piecemeal approaches they have made in the past and to accept a radical change. The radical change is, of course, that for all youngsters between the ages of 16 and 18—the 16-year-olds and the 17-year-olds—those years are to be virtually years for training, not years in which they will hope to be in employment with perhaps a little training thrown in if they are lucky. It is to sweep away those piecemeal arrangements and to substitute the idea of traineeship for a two-year period, traineeship essentially based upon work, because the report says—and I am sure that everyone who has read it closely will agree—that the training should not be divorced from work experience. It needs to be work-based but the emphasis is on training.
Here the Government are offered a clean-cut scheme for 16- to 18-year-olds to turn them from young workers into trainees. Perhaps I may make one point following the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, emphasising trade union support and how far they have come, because there is an acceptance in this that as trainees they will not get the wage for which the trade unions fought very hard in previous years. This is a very considerable sacrifice in trade union support and it is not something to be lightly turned down. I, for one, believe that we have made the juvenile wage too high a proportion of the adult wage and that has added to our difficulties. In treating them as trainees we get rid of that problem.
Then, again, there is the recommendation that this should be voluntary. If the scheme is a good one—and potentially it is a very good one indeed—we need not he afraid that most people will not be willing to accept it. The scheme will sell itself by its quality. It would be the greatest mistake to have compulsion or quasi compulsion which is implied when all financial support is withdrawn from youngsters who are not prepared to take part in the scheme. I would like also to stress the importance of local initiative. There is no way in which bureaucracies at the centre can develop and control schemes of this kind. The schemes ought not to be the same in all local areas. The more one looks at these problems the more one is aware that there is a wealth of experience, initiative, skill and concern at local level if we can find ways of harnessing it and if we can trust local committees to get on and do the job—and why should not we? After all, they are dealing with the jobs of their sons and daughters, their nephews and nieces and they have every reason to want to make schemes work.
It is, however, a very big undertaking. This is not just another new version of YOP, another new scheme that the Government have introduced. As Lord Scanlon has said, it is a revolutionary change. There needs to be a great deal of machinery set up if these local committees are to be established in time, and time is not on our side. We dare not leave this to drift on for yet another year. If the Government are prepared to accept that this is the way in which we need to go, that we need to scrap the old machinery and introduce this scheme, worked out here with great skill and clarity and with strong backing and support from all interested parties, and if we are to do this, then we have to start now.
This report asks that the Government should tell
210
us by the end of June whether they are prepared to accept it. Even that leaves very little time to be ready by September 1983 to cover the vast numbers which need to be covered. Surely, the Government are not going to turn down the chance to redeem the past and give hundreds of thousands of youngsters a chance which we dare not refuse them.
3.58 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: I expect, my Lords, that when I have finished you will say that what I will have said before you have gone to tea was more like a sermon than a speech, but your Lordships must remember that a sermon has one advantage over a speech; it is shorter. It has taken me five years to produce three speeches and I can rattle off three sermons in one day. I believe the days may well have departed for a very long time, if not for ever, when it used to be well said that,
" man goeth forth to his work and to his labour until the evening ".
For good or for ill, whether we like it or not, leisure is likely to dominate men's lives; and before leisure degenerates into the kind of idleness which is so satisfactory to Satan, we must apply all the sanctified or semi-sanctified common sense given to us to recreate an entirely new prospect for daily existence which will supersede the long-accepted assumption that everyone has to work like the psalmic labourer to earn his daily bread and, if he does not, or if he cannot, there must be something wrong with him.
How long the promised new self-evident, self-confident economy will take to gain self-perpetuating motion no one, I suppose, really knows; but we are told, and there seems no reason for disputing it, even for the sake of it, that most people will not be required to work for more than a few hours a week. So apart from the work-happy few who will have to give all their time and energy to keep the system going, and apart from those whose continual work consists in direct service of others, the rest—especially those leaving school—must be so equipped to develop some interior resources as alone can create contentment. Easy to say? Yes. Hard to implement? I wonder.
Ever since civilisation became identifiable some people were in such a way educated they found fulfilment in an existence which was not confined to the necessary making of money, and many of them were benefactors of the others. in the past so much of what would now be catalogued as unemployment was really lively leisure. Now, what was the life and lot of the few becomes the problem of the many. This problem must be solved quickly, without any second thoughts or looking back over shoulders.
There are dangers. One is that well-intentioned people think that, by helping a few unemployed to find for a short time something to do, they are solving the root problem. It is of course vital that we should alter the limit of our human imagination, and share—and regard it as our privilege to share—a little of the blank misery of neighbours who find that they are not wanted in the work market. But it is infinitely and lastingly more important that we all deliberately set out first to rid the unemployed of their sense of shame. This sense can be very deep, especially in localities

211
which have had a proud record of work. It is important that together with this we discover and enlarge the prospects—or the prospectus, if you like—of creative leisure. There is far more to explore, I am sure, than many of us heretofore have dreamed of.
One other incidental danger—and I like to look for dangers because then one can dodge them, or jump over them—or rather dead end, can lie in the setting up of parasitic industries of unwanted advisers, who will talk, and talk, and talk and manufacture a philosophy out of the miseries of others. We are all of us in the midst of this problem together, and we cannot take refuge in abstractions; talking about society instead of talking about "us"; asking for a lead from somebody else—and that usually means a politician or, worse, a bishop.
To give a name to a problem is not to solve it. There are some questions we should be awake to notice and which we ought to ask continually. One springs from the self-evident sense in not reducing the forms and means of higher education. The other from the temptation to extract more and more money from the diminishing employed in order to sustain the increasing young unemployed. The Government—and I like to support Governments so long as they do not misgovern—have given some token proof that they see this.
A place in my diocese, a town called Corby, which was to us a few years ago a grim spectre of doom, is now beginning to take a new heart. So is Peterborough where the schemes for the education and care of the young unemployed are having some effect and bringing a light to eyes which otherwise would be dimmed. But there are still in the villages—and I come across this continually in my ambulations—growing patches of idleness and decay, and sometimes despair. They do not make headlines because they are not so spectacular as the stains of the great ex-industrial centres.
I must not go on, because I must not disprove my opening sentence. I hope that we, and all other responsible people in this realm, will set our minds to grasp and propagate a new and verifiable assumption, and make extinct the old unquestioned acceptance that every man ought to earn his own bread in the sweat of his face, and that there was something wrong with him if he did not. Many of us would add that whatever comes can be made for all not only endurable but the source of hope and of some thanksgiving.
4.6 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for enabling a subject of the utmost social importance to be discussed this afternoon. On one thing there will be broad agreement in this House and elsewhere, and that is that the amount of unemployment in this country has reached an unacceptable total. The main question is as to how all this problem is going to be resolved. Whether or not the admirable Youth Task Group report will be able in itself to contribute to a reduction of this social evil on any scale remains to be seen, when one bears in mind that unemployment today has grave international implications.
212
Last September I was in the northern part of Finland in a town of some 30,000 inhabitants, most of whom earned their living in the paper industry, to some extent in the tourist industry, and in small businesses. In this hardworking town the unemployment rate was 20 per cent. In talking to the town mayor I was told that they were deeply worried by this situation in a particularly beautiful part of a lovely, if very depopulated, country. I make this point because of course unemployment, like so many things, is often a regional problem. There are some areas in this country, as your Lordships will know better than I, where unemployment is unacceptably high, even in times of relatively full employment. The Highlands of Scotland, the South-West of England, South Wales, to name just three areas.
Of course it is with such areas as these in mind that we must look both at this report and at any measures to combat unemployment, be it with regard to school-leavers, as the main subject we are discussing today, or those who are declared redundant in their mid-forties. In many cases this is an even more serious problem, and one which, although not specifically the subject of our debate this afternoon, we can never get clear from our minds.
I am particularly pleased to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough, because a few weeks ago I went up to that fine city and I presented certificates to a number of young people in an organisation known as, I think, the Phoenix Workshop Scheme. This is run in part by a good friend of mine. There I met a number of young people. Because it was a very short visit, I did not have much opportunity of seeing exactly what they did; but I hope to go there again in the autumn for a longer visit, because I believe the scheme has much to commend it in a city which, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, will know, has grown enormously in the last decade.
It is to cities of that kind, with large overspills, to use a ghastly word, we must look, and especially to the new towns—places like Milton Keynes—for it is to the new towns (I lived for many years near the new town of Stevenage) that young people are encouraged to go. They raise families and their youngsters go to school there, and there is always the danger of too little industry chasing too few jobs, although there are many instances of industrial estates being built. I wonder whether successive Governments have taken on board the fact that in building new towns—Milton Keynes, for example, is still being developed—we can have splendid areas with many young people but with too little industry to attract them. Will admirable bodies, such as the Manpower Services Commission and the others who are looking into the problem, be able to cope?
Much has been said about village industries, and it is an important point. I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, is to speak, and I imagine he will concentrate on the small business, which is vital because in the present Government climate small businesses are making encouraging progress, though far too many of them are finding it difficult to compete with the large monopolies. We have many delightful villages in Britain, but the young people in them find it difficult to obtain employment; not all of them want to work on farms or in other rural industries. There is need to develop, possibly through the new body, more local

213
industries, remembering also that they could have an enormous export potential. There is a crying need for hand-made goods for export, and that could provide more employment and increase our balance of payments. That is particularly true of Scotland, where the Highland Development Board has done splendid work, particularly north of Inverness. Although that area has enormous transport and weather problems, encouraging schemes are going on.
The real question before us is whether debates of this kind, and the sort of measures envisaged in the report and the White Paper, can solve the problem in the short-term. I believe that if there were more liaison between school careers officers and local captains of industry, employment exchanges and other bodies, the situation could be more encouraging. Perhaps the Minister could say how much liaison there is in that sphere. This promises to be a most useful debate. We have speakers with immense knowledge of young people. I am sure we all hope that, as a result of it, at least some sunlight will be able to pervade through the present severe gloom of unemployment.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I must begin my brief intervention with an apology. I should at this very moment be in the chair of a meeting at some distance from your Lordships' House. I deemed it essential to be here today, not because I presume to suppose that there is anything unique I have to say but because I regard this as a most important debate, and I thank my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock for putting down the Motion. It can be said to be a very timely Motion, although the timetable, which your Lordships will have noted, is extremely tight. Had the report appeared earlier and the time for decision recommended in the report been as it is, it could be said that it would have been easier to believe that the timetable could be adhered to.
There has already been an impressive build-up of support for the report, which perhaps makes this a rather less interesting debate. I shall do little more than add my own support, and I should be very surprised if support in one form or another were not forthcoming from all those who will speak subsequently. I regard it as an excellent and enlightened report. It presents a sound and feasible course of action. It is a great improvement on existing and previous Government-sponsored schemes, and it takes into account what a good many people have been advocating for some time in regard to the need for a more comprehensive and more broadly-based strategy for education and training for all young people, which alone can provide an adequate basis for adult life and responsible citizenship.
A very important point is that the scheme is capable of encompassing a number of existing programmes which are already being run within the ambit of industry, the youth services, voluntary and statutory, the social services and the probation service, but I shall return to that shortly. It adopts a pattern which a few firms with the means to do so are providing already with the help of voluntary programmes, and your Lordships will forgive me if I mention two of them, the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme and Endeavour Training.
214
Most speakers have mentioned the voluntary nature of the scheme. I shall do what the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, felt there would be no harm in doing, and repeat once again my view on the subject. I have for long held that there is a strong case for the extension of a statutory requirement in education and training beyond the age of 16, with an element of service to the community built into it. But I recognise that that goal is not within sight at present. I recognise that it is intended to be a voluntary scheme, and I would go so far as to say that to include a penal clause by withholding supplementary benefit from those who do not go in for it would be a contradiction and mockery of the principle of voluntary entry.
I have two points to make, and just one or two queries—and I shall be quite brief. The first arises in Part V, paragraph 19, and the subject is equal opportunity. The importance of equal opportunity for all the young people who will come within the ambit of the scheme seems to me to be of tremendous significance. It underscores the point that I made just now of the importance of linkage with appropriate existing schemes so as to spread the available opportunity. It places a premium on an even quality of provision being available nationwide. We surely do not want a scheme which exists in some places and is non-existent in others, which is good in one or two places, and is indifferent in others. In no single respect is equal opportunity more important than for those young people who themselves suffer from difficulties and disabilities. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, who mentioned one group with learning and writing difficulties. The right reverend Prelate referred to the young people among the ethnic minorities, and I would add to those groups those who are physically handicapped and those who come into the general category of being ex-offenders. They should all have special opportunities to partake in and benefit from the scheme, alongside everybody else.
My second point is this. I am well aware that, given the remit of the Manpower Services Commission, the emphasis in this report has to be on the quality and quantity of the actual and potential young workforce in this country. But I have no hesitation in saying that in my view the non-vocational element intended in the programme is its most important part. In my submission the scheme must aim to elicit the qualities of inventiveness, enterprise, curiosity, perseverance, self-reliance, self-awareness, concern about other people and about the community and environment in which they live, and, not least, an ability to enjoy life. Those are the qualities so eloquently expressed in a report to the Department of Education and Science by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, quoted in Part VII, paragraph 10. For that reason I should like to make a strong plea for including as an integral part of the package, provided that it is available and the young person will take it, some form of service to the community. I go so far as to say that without that clement, the necessary degree and quality of motivation—which is referred to in Part I, paragraph 3, and which is a very important word, depending as it does on positive attitudes to life and society, as well as work—are likely to be lacking.
The scheme surely is not perceived by its authors

215
just as a factory tool for producing more and better qualified technicians. It is also a means by which young people can develop their full potential abilities as members of the community, for their own advantage, as well as that of their place of work.
I now turn to my queries, some of which have been raised by previous speakers. The first two queries relate to the point that I have stressed—equal opportunity. First, with regard to those young people in the 16- and 17-year-old bracket who are employed, the question is, will all employers of those young people accept and include that vitally important non-vocational element for the benefit of the young people themselves, as well as for the benefit of the firm? My second query is in regard to those who are not employed—that very large number that has already been referred to—and to the guarantee to all 16-year-olds who leave school without finding work. Will there be a sufficient response in terms of approved sponsors, and will the managing agencies, which are envisaged in Part V, paragraph 5, be able to put together sufficient support from all the other organisations—the local education authorities and others—so as to include all the half million or so young people in question, already referred to?
My noble friend Lord Kilmarnock quoted from a particularly important paragraph in the report; I think it was paragraph 8 in Part III. I am not going to repeat what he quoted, but I should like to preface it by quoting from the previous paragraph and to add something that he did not mention in the quote that he gave your Lordships. I quote from paragraph 7, where it is stated:
"… the scheme must engage the full support of the local education authorities…much of the youth service, and the Careers Service, on all of which "
its success will depend. The report goes on to state, in paragraph 8:
" It is out of the question unless all parties are prepared to accept that…a new comprehensive scheme…marks…a decisive break with the past so far as the education and training of young people are concerned ".
That really presents a challenge to everybody who has concern and responsibility for young people in that age bracket.
Lastly, and most important of all, there is the timetable. It is a very tight timetable. The report was published in April, and the Government are being asked to approve it by the end of this month. Can the scheme be delivered in the time envisaged? I ask that question only to bring to your Lordships' attention just two factors which bear on it. First, there is, quite obviously, the promptness of the Government's response. As we have heard, the report calls for a decision by the end of the month. I understand that the Government are already committed to a scheme, outlined by Mr. Tebbit, which involves a similar financial outlay. I would only say to the Government that, given that fact, it ought to make it easier to reach a quick and positive decision.
My second point concerns the prerequisite need of highly-skilled and motivated leadership at the place of sponsorship. Part V, paragraph 24 draws attention to this. What obviously is needed is a sufficient cadre of men and women with the vision, the experience,
216
and the skill with young people for overseeing and running this scheme in all its aspects. My view is that a crash training programme is quite essential, in service, or out of service, to produce that leadership. I believe that what is needed is a new type of person, an industrial youth tutor, and, with the greatest respect to training personnel in firms which have training establishments, I would say that I venture to doubt whether they possess all the qualifications without a specialist training. Can this essential prerequisite be delivered in time for the operational date, which is September 1983?—tat seems to me to be absolutely vital.
Finally, will the Government approve the scheme? That question has already been put, but I should like to put it again, because, as one who is interested much more in consensus politics than adversary politics, I should like to hope that the Government will enhance their image and give an earnest of their concern for the future young generation by giving an affirmative reply.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock for giving us the opportunity to debate the report this afternoon. I should like to go a little wider than the report itself, though I believe that the proposals in the Task Group Report are a very considerable improvement on the Government's White Paper. As the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, has said, the MSC report recommends a traineeship programme for all school-leavers and wants the programme to be ready to be offered in September 1983 to all the 16-year-olds leaving school, or full-time education, and not just the unemployed, as the Government's own youth training proposals envisage.
In its recently-published Agenda for Action, the MSC produced some very good, well-researched programmes, stemming from the expertise that it has built up over the years, whereas I believe that the proposals in the Government's White Paper aimed more at reducing the price of labour and taking more off the unemployment lists by making a pool of low-paid workers, and suggested somewhat amateurish schemes which did not seem to have been thought out and which I am sure were not subject to consultation with both sides of industry.
The White Paper proposals which change the status of jobless young people give cause for concern. Will the proposed contract be as equitable as it is claimed to be? I think not. I see it as a substantial cut in unemployment benefit and a virtual tax on parents whose children cannot get jobs; and it will be most inequitable in areas where there is already high unemployment and severe deprivation. Sanctions, such as the reduction of allowances, penalties and the intention to depress the income of young people, will be bitterly resented by all those young persons, and it could place the sponsors in ethical difficulties in supporting those suggestions. And where does this concentration on school-leavers leave the 17- to 18-yearold unemployed? It can lead only to a further reduction in the provision for this slightly older group. I believe there will be widespread trainee resistance unless Government policy goes much further in relating

217
training schemes to actual jobs, and unless they are willing to accept the task group report.
I was hoping that the right reverend Prelate, who is no longer in his place, might have been referring to some of the problems we have in our home city of Peterborough. We are both of us vice-presidents of the Youth Opportunities Council in our city—both, I regret to say, rather absentee vice-presidents because of our commitments in this House and in other places; but we both receive very regular reports from that council as to the problems and the successes that they have had. The experience of the need in my home town of Peterborough I believe mirrors that of the nation as a whole. The high level of unemployment among adults and teenagers—and we are at the moment at the national average—means that the first real need is for jobs; and no amount of work experience or training initiative can substitute for the real thing.
But we are finding that at the same time of continuing high unemployment there is a marked decline in the number of young people taking up the YOP placements. From about 1,000 youngsters who are now not in work in my city, only 40 per cent. are in YOP schemes. There are many reasons for the low take-up, including high travel costs in getting into the city to do the training, the small differential between the benefit and the training allowance, and concern that they are being used as cheap labour. But overwhelmingly there is a growing sense of dissatisfaction with the YOP programme itself, because many youngsters feel that it is not leading them anywhere and that it will not result in a job, or even significantly improve the chances of a job, at the end of the 12-month period. In effect, as the secretary of our Youth Opportunities Council put it, "The youngsters are voting with their feet".
We should be seeking policies which give priority to real job attainment after training, so that the economic activity of the young adults is maintained as a matter of social urgency. Because, today, the worst effects of unemployment are falling on precisely the generation that we need to be sufficiently prosperous to set up house and family, and sufficiently active in work to generate wealth and to provide adequate social services.
We need the Government to lead. Policy decisions on cash limits are a matter for Government decision and for the politicians, but they should then let the MSC use their expertise to carry out the policies. If tension builds up between the MSC and the Minister, then decision-making is going to be slowed down and the MSC will be forced to produce schemes which do not really fit the policy and may not even work properly. We want schemes and resources available that are going to avoid tension between the MSC and Government, not reinforce it. The Government White Paper has politicised the approach to youth unemployment schemes, and I think has done a lot to damage the tripartisan support which has been given to them. This will inevitably reduce the number of sponsors willing to support the programme, and could even make it fail.
The rising levels of long-term unemployment have now begun to build up, and there is an increased demand for the community enterprise programme. The MSC had hoped that the Government would
218
respond by permitting an increase in the number of places available to 60,000. Instead, the Government have frozen that programme at 30,000 places. It is reckoned that a million adults currently fall within the definition of "long-term unemployment"—that is, 12 months or more without a job for those over 25 and six months or more for those under 25. Even in their own White Paper, the Government acknowledge that unemployment is now structural, and the young people themselves know that those coming off the training schemes do not get the jobs they need.
I have talked to my local industrial chaplain, and I believe his views are typical of other industrial chaplains across the country. They believe that any trainee status has to be chosen freely by the young people; that they must choose it because it is attractive and because it is a meaningful option for them to take up. Only then are they likely to co-operate fully with training programmes. The chaplains feel that if young people do not see the scheme in this way then coercion is not going to help, and more fundamental problems may have to be faced.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, referred to his recent visit to Peterborough and to the success of the Phoenix training scheme. We have had imaginative and committed efforts of people running many schemes in my city, but there is a growing frustration now among the trainees, which is coming to be shared by the supervisors, when a trainee leaves his or her placement and returns to the dole. Overwhelmingly, the clear experience in my own area has led the Youth Opportunities Council to support and urge the implementation of the task group's recommendations. It is important that the quality of the training being offered to our young people during the 12 months is of a much improved standard. It is also vital that the allowance is a realistic one, and we hope that the recommendation of £25 a week will be agreed. I see considerable resentment if the Government's earlier proposals to reduce this to £16 a week are implemented. We shall have an even greater exodus from the scheme than we have from YOP.
My own Youth Opportunities Council believe that any attempt to introduce compulsion by withholding benefit will increase resentment and, in effect, be no more than an ill-advised, enforced additional year at school. No one will be fooled, least of all the teenagers: such a move would be principally a means of reducing the embarrassment of high youth unemployment by redesignating the youngsters as "students '. The main reservation about the task group's report is that even the best training schemes must be training for something. There are some assumptions in both the Government White Paper and in the MSC's overall strategy that I believe are perhaps questionable, notably that British industry is suffering from a lack of skill. The local industrialists in my city deny this. The noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, will probably know more about this at first-hand than I do.
But the assumption that MSC trainees should be treated as students is also misleading, because, although it is no longer as true as formerly, nevertheless most students who go on technical and professional courses have a clear objective and a job prospect ahead of them. There is no such specificity about the MSC programmes, though, in fairness to them, they did suggest that their

219
programme would not create real jobs; that is the task of Government.
I come from a new town with an unemployment rate about the national average. This would have been much higher if it had not been for the effect of our development corporation in bringing many new jobs to Peterborough over the years. New towns vary immensely not only in their regional location and attractiveness but in the strength of their economic base. Therefore, it is not surprising that in the new towns unemployment is higher in the North and Scotland, but it is surprising that it has now reached 15·8 per cent. in the Milton Keynes area. What is significant is that unemployment is now creeping up in the new towns around London and elsewhere in the South-East. It varies from 21·7 per cent. in Skelmersdale, 20·5 per cent. in Corby and 19·7 per cent. in Telford to only 5·4 per cent. in Welwyn. Yet it is now up to 9·4 per cent. in Harlow, 9·6 per cent. in Northampton, 12 per cent. in Stevenage and 14·3 per cent. in Basildon.
The Government view is that junior labour has been priced into unemployment. The White Paper laid stress on reducing the cost of junior labour as a major factor in opening up more job opportunities. The Government hope that more jobs will become available to young people by subsidising employers so that the effective cost of a young person is only £30 a week in direct wages. But presumably such jobs will be available only because women and lower-paid men will be displaced in favour of junior labour, because this will have a generally depressing impact on wages and adult employment rates. Employers are likely to be sensitive, too, about industrial relations problems they may have to face if the Government White Paper proposals are accepted, because they do not have the consensus backing of trade unions and management. While both sides probably agree with the training ideal, the change of status, the use of sanctions and a reduction of allowances and benefits and wages can only be divisive.
What the Youth Task Group has set out to do is to provide that permanent bridge between school and work. It is not a scheme for dealing with unemployment. The White Paper mentioned the "high level working group being established by MSC and charged with bringing forward proposals for a wider and more general scheme than the youth training scheme itself: a scheme for all young people whether or not they are in work. The Government went on to say that if the proposals from this group were a more effective contribution, then "resources available" could be reallocated. What I take that to mean—and I hope the Minister may confirm this—is that if the task group can do better for the same money and get the full backing from industry, trade unions and education, then their proposals will replace the youth training scheme.
On the other hand, if the task group fail then the White Paper proposals will be implemented. I hope that the Government will very quickly accept the proposals from the task group because they meet many of the objections that were raised against their own White Paper. I hope that the MSC will also be able to achieve their acceptable and improved programme
220
for long-term adult unemployed. The policies to meet the three objectives of the new training initiative must not be such that broadly-based consensus support and sponsorship for all these measures begins to break up. 1 believe that the White Paper contained too much that was divisive. We need a clear statement of policies backed by the will to carry them out. I believe the task group provides a means of starting along that road. I hope that we shall have a speedy acceptance of their recommendations by the Government.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Spens: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock on a masterly introduction to this debate. I think I can call him "my noble friend although he has crossed the narrow gangway recently; but he and I have been concerned together for more than three years about the problem of unemployment and, to that extent, he is certainly my noble friend. I do not think that I am as optimistic as he about the Youth Task Group scheme. It seems to me to be running into the danger of creating a further bureaucracy. I myself have never been very happy with the way that the MSC have started to run the present Youth Opportunities Programme. The bureaucracy there has been quite frustrating for would-be sponsors. They have to fill in enormous piles of paper and then sit about waiting for someone from the MSC to come along and vet them. That often takes three or four months and by that time their enthusiasm has disappeared and they are no longer interested.
I fear that this new suggested scheme will be even more bureaucratic because it is going to introduce an additional layer of bureaucracy, the management agencies. These appear at first sight to be all right, but, if one starts to analyse them, they are going to come partly from large firms, who may cover much more than a local area, and partly made up of a conglomeration of small firms getting together. I wonder to what extent they are really necessary. I like the idea of the local boards being linked to the local education authorities. That is very important. I should have thought that that was the principal way of getting what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said was the interest of local people involved—because it is vitally important that local people in all parts of the country should become involved in this. I am certain that they are ready to he so involved, but I am not sure that they would be prepared to become involved under the aegis of management agencies who themselves are being paid to do the job of running the agencies.
The scheme, so far as it goes, is very good, but there are one or two omissions. The first is that it does not appear to cater in any way for the major arts. I do not know what happens to the would-be musicians, drama students and so on. Will they get a chance under this scheme; or do they go in for general training under it and then have to develop those arts later on? I do not know. It is a thing which is not mentioned in the scheme. I should be interested to know how that point develops. Then there is the point which was touched on very strongly by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the problem of how the youth coming out of

221
school is to be trained to tackle adult life. There does not appear to be any means of training in the art of communication, the art of writing a letter, or a short report, or even answering or ringing someone on the telephone. All of this is absolutely vital particularly when one realises—I give these figures from memory—that some 46 per cent. of all school-leavers will have left school without any form of certificate and I believe that something like 30 per cent. will have left school without being able to read or write. There does not appear to be any means of catering for these people.
I should like to quote briefly from a note which was given to me by an employment agency, because it is rather pertinent to what we are talking about. It says:
"Ninety-five per cent. of the youngsters that I have been associated with on leaving their educational institutions have received little or no career guidance. These youngsters therefore have no real idea of how to begin to look for a worthwhile job, no matter how enthusiastic they may be to find work. Just as we are all trained throughout our early lives to eat, to dress and to behave, I think it is now vital that youngsters are trained in the correct ways of presenting themselves to prospective employers. From my own experience I believe that their training should include instruction on how to prepare a curriculum vitae. Let them each prepare their own and subject them to in-depth discussions and group assessment. It is possible that the youngsters' future opportunities could revolve around hobbies and interests in addition to or even instead of the formally studied subjects. Finally, once a personal interview is gained, the applicant's overall appearance is of prime importance. The interviewer's mind is 90 per cent. made up as the applicant enters the door. Consequently, overall appearance is of the most vital importance if the interviewee is to have any chance of getting the job ".
I do not think that that is catered for in the scheme. I only hope that it will be catered for as they go along, particularly if and when the scheme is broadened to be able to be run over two years instead of the present one year.
There is a final aspect which is missing from the scheme. This was touched on by the right reverend Prelate and also by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. She said that there were some educated voices—I suppose mine is one of them—who should not be listened to in this respect, but the fact is that we are faced with the prospect of there not being enough jobs to go round for many, many years to come. I am quite convinced of this. I think that we have the likelihood of seeing the total numbers of jobs getting smaller and smaller because of the evolution of the new technologies, and the new technologies are going to improve productivity but not improve the opportunities for jobs. This aspect—the fact that there may be numbers of people who will not get jobs—is a very serious subject which I believe ought to qualify for a debate by itself, so I am not going to go into further detail on it today.
I am sorry to be depressing about this programme. I wish it the very best of good fortune. It will only get that if the Government make up their minds very quickly to accept it, and I think that the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that there is need during this coming 15 months until the programme starts for a crash training programme for the people who are going to train these youths, these school-leavers, is absolutely essential. I hope that that will be brought into effect immediately.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I challenge him on what he said at the end of his speech? I do not believe that our technological advance will not get rid of the unemployment. People speak on this—and one or two have spoken this afternoon—but I do not believe it is true. This is the challenge we have. It simply will not do.
Lord Spens: My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very important point, and it is one which I believe has to be debated over a long period—given the opportunity of a full debate. My own feeling is this: the new technologies are producing ways of increasing productivity while not creating further jobs. The machines are themselves creating better machines which will carry out the additional requirements for productivity; but there will not be the human element to come in there. I think that we are faced with this awful problem of perhaps from 3 million to 4 million people being unemployed for the next 20 years.
4.57 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I should like to join with all those who have spoken before me in thanking my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock for opening the debate on this grim subject that we are discussing on this fine summer afternoon. My noble friend Lord Kilmarnock said that whatever scheme was adopted—and he like me is very much in favour of this task force report—it must catch the imagination of the young people themselves. I would be a little less ambitious than he was when he said that, in saying that at least any new scheme that is introduced must not be scorned by young people, as it could be in my view if the training allowances paid to them are any less than those proposed in this report.
Unfortunately, it has been put about that the allowances may be less than those that are proposed here. I hope that the noble Earl who is replying on behalf of the Government at the end of this debate may be able to reassure us that this is not the case and that the allowances will be paid at least at the level which is proposed in the report. I also hope that there will be no penalties, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was saying earlier, for people who do not decide to take part in this or any other scheme of this type.
I say this because leaving school and getting a job has in the past mattered so much to young people because it is a sign of becoming an adult and getting adult status. One of the keys is money. You are not paid at school and you are not paid afterwards. This has been, is and could be specially important for children who have been failures at school, and those who have had unsatisfactory home lives and perhaps very little pocket money or other financial support from their parents—sometimes because their parents are unemployed, just as they are in danger of being. A good deal of research has shown that people out of jobs—and this applies to younger people as well as to older people—become socially isolated from those who do have jobs, and the lower the allowances that are paid the more likely it is that this social isolation will occur. Young people cannot meet their friends in situations which involve the spending of money. Neither girls nor boys can necessarily afford to buy

223
clothes. They do not have the kind of capital which older people have which can make unemployment slightly less unbearable, and they can only too easily become ashamed even about going out of the house because they do not have any money themselves—or not enough money—and so have to be treated by others. So my plea on this point is that although we cannot expect training allowances to be at the level of that would get if they were in jobs, at least something approximate to those wages should be paid and anything less than the training allowances suggested here would be a disgrace.
One of the many sad results of the current recession is that the division in our society has been sharpened, especially among young people. On the one hand, we have children often from the better-off families, who go into the sixth forms in schools and thence, some of them, into higher education, universities and the like, carrying with them very large subsidies from the State, particularly those who go into universities—and this despite the fact that they often come from better-off homes, as I have said. Then, on the other hand, we have the children who leave school at 16 and go straight on the to dole or into a training school, which is very much second best, or has been so far, to any job they might have hoped to have got.
This new division reproduces, but in a sharper form, the old division between the grammar school children and the modern school children which some of us hoped we were going to see the end of before the end of our lifetime. I am arguing that meanness on the question of allowances could make even more frightening the kind of divisions I have been talking about and some show of generosity, even though it did not mean that divisions do not any longer exist, could at least alleviate them somewhat.
The other point I wanted to make concerns the question of administration referred to by the noble Lords, Lord Kilmarnock and Lord Hunt. On this, I think I am going to come rather close to what the noble Lord, Lord Spens, said a few moments ago. I may not necessarily be speaking on behalf of my party on this question: I am not sure that my party has a policy on it. The strategic decision, taking a long view and not a short view on administration, is whether responsibility should be with the Manpower Services Commission, using allowances and subsidies for training and sometimes to cover young people's wages. That is on the one side. On the other side, we have local education authorities having the prime responsibility and using not training allowances but education and maintenance allowances in one form or another.
I personally accept that the first goal is to get this report accepted and acted upon; but, taking the longer view, I very much query whether any Government so far has got it right about the division of responsibility that there has been and still is for the training of young people. I believe there is a great deal to be said for this responsibility being given to local education authorities and not to the Manpower Services Commission. That may be a long-term view, but even in the short term there is a case for much closer involvement of local education authorities even than the report itself pleads for.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred to
224
Section VII of the report, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. This section appeals for comprehensiveness—not for comprehensive schools—at the stage the report is referring to. This part of the report reminds us that most of the young people in colleges of further education, and many in schools, are already taking courses of direct vocational relevance. It also reminds us that there is a need for something much more than narrow vocational education for the trainees who we hope will get a much better deal if the recommendations of this report are accepted.
The question is whether that kind of comprehensiveness can be achieved, particularly at the local level, unless local education authorities are given the primary responsibility—even if it is only the primary responsibility at local level and acting as the agents, for this purpose, of the Manpower Services Commission. The report calls for greater decentralisation and more flexibility: yet the instrument for bringing about the decentralisation which is pleaded for is perhaps the largest and most centralised quango that this country has ever seen. There may possibly be no harm in that, at any rate for the time being, but could not local education authorities be considered as the main local agencies for carrying responsibility for putting this programme into effect? They do have the great advantage that they exist everywhere and that there is a local system everywhere. There would not be the same need to rely on sponsoring agencies or voluntary bodies, although voluntary bodies would be needed of course, alongside the local education authorities and in large measure.
It would require somewhat of a new attitude on the part of administrators in local education authorities and also on the part of teachers. At any rate in the longer term, it would require new and more adult institutions for young people to attend after the age of 16. In this respect, it seems to me that the new tertiary colleges which are springing up throughout the country do have a great deal to commend themselves. In a tertiary college, not only are there sixth formers but there are people of different academic levels of ability, receiving a wide variety of vocational training. Work experience schemes can be, and are, organised from tertiary colleges and people engaged on apprenticeship schemes can come to them for their non-vocational training.
These tertiary colleges seem to me so hopeful that they could well be the centre in many localities as and when they can be built up and with whatever speed they can be built up for children over the age of 16—not only those in sixth forms but all other children between 16 and 18 at least; and they would be the centres to which all teenagers would respond.
I was very sorry to see in the newspaper today that Sir Keith Joseph has issued a new circular, which I have not yet had an opportunity of reading, saying that he is not going to approve the alteration of any schools that have decent sixth forms in them. This could greatly slow down the further development of tertiary colleges. But I hope we can all comfort ourselves a little, by recognising that Sir Keith Joseph is not likely to go on forever in his present post, and that one day we may even have a Government who are prepared to see the Department of Education and Science become the Department of Education and Training.
5.11 p.m.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, I begin by associating myself with all those who welcome the opportunity given to us by my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock to discuss this very important subject, which is part of the whole question of what is to happen to the next generation. But I feel some diffidence in addressing your Lordships on this subject because, unlike all the previous speakers, I have had practically no direct experience of youth unemployment. The first part of my life was spent in the university world, and even in those days a university degree was very nearly a passport to employment. In the second part of my life when I was in public service, I spent a great deal of my time in advising the Government about problems of full employment.
In those days, it was not only the people who had been to universities who could find jobs. There was really no lack of demand for school-leavers, because, in a growing society and one which aimed at a high level of employment, the vacancies created by natural wastage on the one hand, and by growth on the other, were at least enough to provide opportunities for all the young school-leavers who wanted jobs. As a result of my comparative ignorance, I shall confine myself to one or two general points and make a few remarks on the macro-economic aspect of the subject, where I have had some experience.
In reading this admirable report, I was very much struck by the first sentence of Part V, which reads:
" It is no easy task to deliver such an ambitious scheme as the one we have proposed ".
That is certainly true. It is a very ambitious scheme and it will not be an easy task. The most general point one can make in circumstances of this kind is that you can get it done only if there is enough drive and energy at the top. Of course, I hope that the Government will accept the report and that, if they do, they will see that there is drive and energy at the top. But, in addition, there are several detailed problems.
The first one that struck me was the very admirable desire expressed in the report to introduce a quality element. As I understand it, if the Manpower Services Commission is asked to go ahead, it will have to recruit and improvise the people who will advise on the quality element. Anyone who has had much experience in education will know how desperately important it is to get the right advice in anything in which you arc seeking quality.
There are two things that are absolutely essential. One is that the people who can do it can, as it were, write the specification, or the curriculum, in a form which will be recognised by experts as having some sort of quality about it. Furthermore, you must remember the people who will be teaching, so that the people at the top will have to be practical people who can not only write a sensible specification, but can write one which can be explained clearly to the people who will teach it. In this connection, I very much agree with what my noble friend Lord Hunt said—that it will be very important indeed that the people who will lead this on the ground are enthusiastic and trained. I believe that another speaker made the same point.
I turn now to the more general question on which
226
I want to make two points. The first—and, to some extent, the second—is about the content of the programme. The first point is that we are now in a very deep recession indeed. In my view, it is even deeper than the great depression which led to the now abandoned revolution in economic thinking. Looking at this recession, the index of industrial production, excluding oil and gas, reached a peak of 109 in 1973, which was nine years ago. It is now at about 90. Even allowing for a very modest figure for the underlying growth of capacity, we are now somewhere about 30 per cent. below what would have been our trend line. With a gap like that, it is extremely difficult to make any forecasts about the composition of the demand for labour, if we get back. The noble Lords, Lord Scanlon and Lord Spens, drew attention to the fact that we have been going through a technological revolution which very much exacerbates the unknown area which is facing people, who are asking themselves: what sort of training do we need?
I think that the task group is absolutely right when it goes for a two-stage, quite general programme. First, there are what it calls getting the core skills. Some of them have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, though I think he was pitching his sights a little high. I was thinking more of knowing one end of a hammer from another, or perhaps using a telephone. I do not think most of them will get quite so far as the noble Lord, Lord Spens. But there should be the kind of original training which everybody going into industry needs to have. In the second stage, there will be large groups of industries, such as the building or distributive trades, or even the engineering industry, which can be divided up into a number of sections, where people would be given more specific training. In view of the enormous reduction in the number of apprentices, a programme of this kind will need, at some stage, to look a little further and, at least, to envisage some higher training.
But then we come to the second difficulty which faces the Manpower Services Commission in trying to think about what kind of training is needed. At present, we have roughly 3 million unemployed. Practically all the forecasts suggest that in the next two years this figure is more likely to increase than to decrease. If this trend continues, all the training programmes in the world will not do anything about the problem. It would be a great mistake on our part to think that the adoption of this programme will end our troubles.
I have already said that this is one part of the programme. The other part of it is a return to expansion. I am entirely on the side of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and against the noble Lord, Lord Spens. All economic history is against the noble Lord. The problem of unemployment is the problem of the backward countries—countries with no capital and no industrial skills and where, literally, there are no jobs. It would be extraordinary if a country like ours could not get back to a better use of its resources. By that, I mean not having this ridiculous position of a large unemployed labour force when all sorts of things are crying out to be done. To start with, what about the sewers? But we cannot do it.
The subject is an immensely difficult one. If this kind of unemployment continues, although we shall

227
put people through this course which may help them to get jobs more easily than would otherwise be the case, it will not affect the total unemployment position. There will still be a substantial amount of unemployment and a great deal of youth unemployment. This will have the effect of demoralising those running the programme and those who are on it. From this point of view, the policy of the Government is much too vague. There is nothing in it, as I understand it, which will give people hope.
The Government's objectives appear in the first financial statement, which opens with the words:
" The Government's objectives for the medium term are to bring down the rate of inflation and to create conditions for a sustainable growth of output and employment ".
Since then, output has gone down and unemployment has gone up. We seem to be further away from those objectives and there is no indication of the Government's plans and intentions: whether we shall go on putting at the top of the list the control of inflation through the instrument of unemployment or whether, as the Alliance to which I have the honour to belong is proposing, we shall give people something to think about and something to hope for. Our plan would begin with a substantial expansion, for which there is certainly room. This is no place for a general debate on the economic system. However, it helps to deal with the reason why we are screwed down now. The inflation should be controlled by an incomes policy rather than by 3 million unemployed.
5.24 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I had written a speech and had meant to speak to it, but as I am the eleventh speaker I have decided to put it aside in order to counter some of the arguments which have been put forward in this debate. I wholly support the principles and the precepts behind the Youth Task Group Report. I should not want it to be thought that I do not support those principles and precepts. Nevertheless, I say with great diffidence that I thoroughly disagree with the way in which it is recommended that those principles should be carried out. I feel slightly nervous about saying this when speakers such as the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, disagree with me. Nevertheless, I feel that I must say it, though I do so with great diffidence. I was grateful when 1 heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, for I felt then that there is one other person in the House who is of my opinion.
What is my testimonial for speaking today? My testimonial is that I am the vice-chairman of a scheme called Work for Tomorrow. This is a training workshop and a social training scheme in Oxford for the young unemployed of 16 years of age. I have learned a great deal from the setting up and administration of this scheme. I have learned what are the assets and what are the liabilities. One of the reasons why I do not agree with the recommendation to set up 40, 50 or 60 boards is because of what I learned during the setting up of the Oxford scheme. With the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, I believe that these schemes, however administered, should be the responsibility of the local authority—probably of the education
228
department in conjunction with the other departments of the council.
When we set up our scheme. we reviewed the areas of work in and around the City of Oxford which required people. I do not think that this had been done before. Then we reviewed who were the young unemployed. They were not the high academics or the high technology people. It was a very different band. The band which we found needed work included the very people who could have fitted in to the work which was available, had this been made possible for them. Therefore I learned the first lesson: that, if an important piece of work is to be done, it must be done locally, with knowledge of local conditions—of both the work available and the children needing work. As I sat on this committee, it appeared to me that we must be very careful not to impose upon young people. It is their lives which we are dealing with. What is it that they want? What is it that they can do? And what is it that they want to be trained for?
Secondly, I found that it was no good bolstering up young people and encouraging them to come on the scheme when they could see that there would be no work at the end of it. If they could see no work at the end of it, they would not co-operate. You could do what you liked: you could force them to come, or you could say that they would or would not be paid. However, the scheme would not be a success unless they saw that at the end of it there would be something to do.
The third lesson I learned was that unless you work very closely with local people you run into difficulties. We ran into very real difficulties. The local authority did not feel that they were responsible, although they were interested. There are many buildings in the education system. Schools are open only from nine until four or five o'clock, so there are empty schools. One particularly good school in the centre of Oxford would have been the most marvellous centre for the young unemployed, but because this scheme is not the responsibility of the education department they felt that they could not let us have the building. I must say, in fairness to the Oxfordshire education department, that subsequently they did let us have a building. But suppose we wanted to undertake some very imaginative schemes. We should need buildings, but the rent of buildings is very expensive. Rents for day or evening activities are very expensive, yet the education department has buildings at its disposal which nobody else will have.
The next point we discovered was that a number of the children who were leaving were not really up to standard. It is not a party political matter in any shape or form. I am not quite sure whether one is allowed to use the name of a person in another place but the ex-Prime Minister, Mr. Callaghan. said he had representations made to him by the CBI and employers that children were not adequately educated when they left school: that talking about training and employment was only two-thirds of the story because one had to talk about education as well.
The present Secretary of State for Eudcation and Science has assessed—and like the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, I have not seen the circular—that 40 per cent. of children in school at the moment are bored and fed-up during the last year they are at

229
school and are therefore learning nothing. There are two factors here. One is education, and the other is employment. The two must go together. A number of the colleges of further education are hurriedly setting up courses for the young unemployed and are having very real difficulties.
While 1 agree with the Youth Task Group Report, I do not agree with the setting up of 40, 50 or 60 group organisations to carry out the recommendations of the report. I think that the recommendations of the report must be carried out and must be imaginatively carried out. But if we are going to involve local people, local employers, local teachers, local community people, local voluntary organisations and the local authority, then the activity must be locally based. if we are to use the local authority buildings, it must be the local authority that is responsible. For that reason, I do not support the setting up of this tremendous number of boards. This would be very expensive and we could well use that money in other ways. We could well ask the education authorities of this country if they will—and we hope that they will—allow their schools to be used more imaginatively. Furthermore, I ask a question. Would it not bring it nearer to the education departments' concept of assessing what work they are doing if they found that they were responsible for educating—not preparing for employment—a number of children who at the moment are not adequately educated for the world of employment?
Perhaps I may turn to the content of the courses. First, in this scheme that we are setting up we have divided the course into two sections. One is the work that would be done, and we hope not to give training unless we are sure that there will be a job. Secondly, we are hoping to involve participants in social projects. I should like to draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that we have already approached the social services department, who have gratefully accepted our offer, for instance, to help in the distribution of meals on wheels. There are not enough people to distribute the meals, and it is perfectly possible that the young unemployed could be involved in such activities as the distribution of meals on wheels, gardening and so on. Indeed, out of that may grow a sense of worth and value and responsibility—I even dare to suggest that in some instances, work may grow from it too.
I hope that we shall proceed with the Youth Task Group Report but I hope that we shall not proceed with it in its present form, bearing in mind that to set up something new is going to take time. To set up something that will be imposed on the local authority is going to be difficult. Relationships take a long time to build. I submit to your Lordships that to use what we already have to involve further those people who are already most involved with young people would be the best way of getting this scheme off the ground more quickly.
5.36 p.m.
Viscount Chandos: My Lords, if I can lay claim to the good fortune of comparative youth, I am also far more fortunate in never so far having been unemployed. Indeed, I faced the daunting move from education to employment at a time when economic circumstances were more favourable than today and with the advantages
230
of a university degree. In the same way as my noble friend Lord Roberthall did, I find it difficult to imagine fully the depression and demoralisation that so many school-leavers now face. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, mentioned that more than 50 per cent. of them are in that situation this year.
Many of your Lordships may be involved, as I am, in helping to decide on behalf of one employer or another who shall be given jobs and who shall be turned down. In doing so I am struck, even among those leaving universities and polytechnics, by the far greater anxiety that the current employment prospects create than existed even 10 years ago. How much worse that anxiety is among school leavers for whom competition for any job, let alone a good job, is so fierce. I therefore join with other noble Lords in thanking not only the Manpower Services Commission for the speedy production of their Youth Task Group Report but also my noble friend Lord Kilmarnock for initiating today's debate.
My noble friends have already highlighted many of the worthwhile and welcome recommendations made in the report in giving it their support, and I should like to add my unreserved support also. As well as making one or two specific points about the report, 1 will try to set it and its potential in a wider context.
I believe that the report demonstrates clearly the magnitude of the problem that faces the Government in improving the training of our young population. I hope that the Government will not hesitate in putting into effect the recommendations made by its agencies. I hope too that the other parties essential to the successful operation of this scheme will likewise put their full force behind it. The Youth Task Group Report and my noble friends today have emphasised that it would be highly undesirable to introduce any form of compulsion among school-leavers in joining a training programme. I fully support this. It would be equally undesirable to compel companies and other bodies to take part in the scheme. Nonetheless, I am sure that the Government must realise that even the financial carrot offered to companies in the proposed scheme, combined with the natural instincts of most businessmen to make a contribution to the training of a future workforce, provides only some encouragement to those companies to divert scarce managerial resources towards their participation in the proposed training scheme at a time when there is still much to be done in the training of existing and older employees.
If the Government adopt the recommendations of the report, I would urge them to use every means at their disposal to persuade companies in every sector of business and commerce, as well as every trade union and trade or business association, to make what is undoubtedly a sacrifice, at least in the short term, in diverting some resources towards making this scheme a success. In particular, the Government must ensure that the training programme is based on the technology and techniques of the 1980s and 1990s and not on those of the 1960s and 1970s.
The speed of change in technology, whether it is in numerically controlled machine tools, computers or other electronic office equipment, is so great that existing employees of many companies find it easy to fall behind in their knowledge of the new tools at their disposal. We must not allow the training for young

231
people to be given on the oldest and most obsolete equipment or by those people who have been least able to adapt to the changed practices of modern industry. There have been for many years Queen's Awards for exports. Perhaps the noble Earl the Minister might recommend to Her Majesty that a Queen's Award for industrial training would be an appropriate innovation in current times and might offer one additional incentive to companies and other bodies to support this scheme wholeheartedly and with enthusiasm. I think that the vital importance of improving the training available to young people would justify a new award of this type.
If the sponsors of the proposed scheme participate with real commitment, then the guarantee of a place on a training programme for every school-leaver who wants one would really mean something. I am sure your Lordships would agree that the fruits of such commitment would be evident very soon after, when the newly trained school-leavers join the permanent working population with far higher skills, and, just as important, far better morale and pride in those skills than would otherwise have been the case.
That, however, begs one question. Even if the new generation of school-leavers does receive the training the report recommends, will there be jobs within which they can exploit their training and experience? Moreover, will those jobs offer the long-term potential and prospects that the school-leavers' education and training entitle them to expect? As my noble friend Lord Roberthall has already said, improved opportunities for today's school-leavers simply will not emerge from improved training schemes alone. The noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has also pointed out the need for jobs at the end of the training programme simply to ensure the willing participation of the school-leavers.
The noble Earl the Minister has heard on many occasions before today how sceptical noble Lords on this side of the House are at some form of spontaneous combustion whereby a dangerous mixture of rigid monetarist policies, free market dogmatism and benign neglect explode to produce demand for goods, and hence employment, as if there is some form of mediaeval alchemy. The noble Earl may perhaps once more blame the worldwide recession and the policies of other Governments whose influence on the world economy is greater than ours. None the less, the Government cannot abdicate their responsibility for the role they have played in depressing the domestic economy and in encouraging directly and indirectly other countries to pursue similar misguided policies.
As my noble friends and I have argued on previous occasions, modest and cautious reflation of the economy could have a substantial effect on the level of employment in this country and give rise to a virtuous, not a vicious, cycle of rising employment and growth. Perhaps when this Government, or more likely the one that succeeds them, demonstrate how much can he achieved at how little cost, then other countries may also adopt a more enlightened and modestly expansive economic policy. If this does not happen here and in those other parts of the world, then the provision of training programmes for school-leavers will be like supplying the finest fishing equipment to the famished inhabitants of a desert.
Even when a better trained workforce have found
232
the jobs that they need, the challenge is not over. We must make those jobs secure and we must make them satisfying. Security of jobs will come through increased productivity, the abolition of restrictive practices of all sorts, a stable economic environment in which companies can plan for the future, and the introduction of new technology ahead of our competitors and not behind them. Job security does not mean the guarantee of the same job for the same person for ever, but the availability of a good job within one company, and, if that is not possible, within another, without financial or other sacrifice on the part of the employee. For that reason I applaud the Government's recent call for pension rights to be freely and fairly transferable so that job mobility is not restricted.
Finally, we must give school-leavers the prospect of job satisfaction throughout their careers. While to a large extent that satisfaction will come from being involved in a successful industry, we must allow these employees to play the fullest possible role at work and feel that their involvement is central to the success of their company. Industrial democracy, therefore, is neither irrelevant nor some plot to bring successful companies under hostile or irresponsible control. It is an essential part of the strategy needed for the revival of the British economy, which should go hand in hand with improved training, more enlightened macroeconomic policies, and the abolition of restrictive practices which I have already mentioned. Not many school-leavers in the 1980s have been subject to Dickensian disciplinarian style of education. They have been encouraged to participate and innovate within their academic environment. Why then should they expect to have a less involved or satisfying role in their future work career?
My Lords, I urge the Government not only to adopt urgently the recommendations of the Youth Task Group Report but also to change their economic and industrial policy to allow a far better future to be open to those who receive the new training.
5.46 p.m.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I owe the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the House an apology which I have already made to my own Front Bench leaders and the noble Lord who leads for the Government. I did not place my name on the list for this debate because I feared that I might not be able to attend. I have for a long time been committed to speaking in a conference on the provision of extra opportunities for leisure for those who were not employed and for those who would be employed for shorter hours in the future. May I add to that apology my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and my congratulations to the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos. It is a great delight to hear a young voice speaking authoritatively in this Chamber of the older Members of Parliament, and although it might be a surprise to find him sitting where he does it is a delight to hear him speak.
The first sentence of this report talks about building a bridge between school and employment, and the debate has pointed out that for many people the bridge leads nowhere, the 40 per cent. who are alleged to be fed up and bored in the school system converting into the 50 per cent. who would like to be bored and fed up in the work system but are in fact unemployed.

233
The debate has taken a course that was fairly predictable. There is a sense in which our political system, all the parties in it and all parts of it, contribute to a blockage when we come to discuss new problems and new solutions to those problems. Inevitably, we have heard during this short debate and good debate this afternoon polarised positions on the question as to whether we are going to have more unemployment in the future or not. There is in a sense a commitment of people according to their history, whether they see unemployment as endemic to the system or whether they see it as a discipline upon the system changing the direction in which the economy is moving from time to time. As a result it was inevitable that the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, should take the defensive position that she took, as it was that Lord Spens and Lord Roberthall should take the view they took. Nevertheless, it is the fact that circumstances have changed so violently and in such a revolutionary manner that we will be faced with a great problem of providing work for people who wish to work and developing leisure for those who will not be able to do it. I take the view that the noble Lord, Lord Spens, took. Indeed, that might surprise him as much as my noble friend Lady Gaitskell and my noble friend might be disappointed that I am not at this moment raising her elbow in the debate.
It is a fact that this country has changed from a heavy, industrial, basic economy to what is rapidly becoming a high technology, light industrial economy aided much more by the service sector of the economy. It could be—and I only put this down as a marker for a future debate and not to take up the time of the House at this hour of the day—that the leisure industry, the service sector and tourism, in which I am involved, may provide some better clues than those that have been offered thus far in this debate as to how we occupy young people whose opportunities do not match their expectations.
I cannot believe that we can restore faith to a bored youngster whose education at school has been largely irrelevant to his hopes and his parents' ambitions, by asking him to do some short-term gardening or meals-on-wheels. I hope that the noble Baroness will not think me vicious in attacking her remarks, but I really do not see it as a solution that the odd jobs of society, important though they are, can be the basis of an economy that will offer opportunities to a younger generation.
Baroness Faithfull:My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord's remarks. It is not giving young people time to fill in; it is helping them as part of a bigger programme to use and to understand the needs of the community, as well as training for industry.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I readily accept that explanation and make whatever apology is necessary. I did not understand that from what the noble Baroness said earlier. However, the point remains absolute that what we have is a changed situation and one that cannot he met even by the very good, modest, proposals of this report. Those proposals go only a very short way up the road to the sort of understanding that we have to come to of the future needs of the economy of Great Britain.
234
I put it down as a marker for a future debate—I hope it will be taken up—that we have to find more opportunities within the service of economies based elsewhere. It is probable that our industrial revolution is over. It is probable that there will not be in future a heavy industrial revolution anywhere in Europe. The industrially-based economy seems to have moved from Western Europe almost altogether, and from now on the countries of Western Europe, and certainly our own small islands, will have to find their opportunities in servicing, as they can do brilliantly, the employment revolutions that will be taking place elsewhere.
In my view this report goes a little way towards measuring up to some of the expectations of the young people whom it seeks to serve. I go no further than that. But I believe that we should accept the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and coupled with it perhaps a suggestion that I have laid down, and take up the opportunity that already exists on our advanced papers for considering the future employment opportunities of young and middle aged people in Great Britain in the light of the total economy and the contributions that can be made to it by the service sector and by tourism and leisure.
5.54 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, we are drawing nearer the end of this debate and like others I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for having introduced it. At one time I thought that we were all going to be of one voice. But some of the more recent contributions have clearly been dissentient from the general body of opinion that this task group report is to be welcomed. As regards the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and to some degree the noble Lord, Lord Parry, I might have had somewhat more to say in answer to their criticisms were it not for the fact that, in my view at least, what they had to say has largely already been answered by the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall. I do not think that I can usefully add to the comments that he made except perhaps to say how very much I agree with what it was he had to say right at the end; namely, that this report has something to offer us that is constructive and in that respect at least offers perhaps rather more than—and I do not want to introduce a controversial note—some of the policies of the present Government leading as they have done, not I am sure deliberately but in their effect, to larger scale unemployment among young people.
However, I must make some comments, however inadequately, in response to some of the remarks that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, and particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful!. I began to think, as the noble Baroness was speaking, that she was really disagreeing, as regards many of the essentials, with the task group report, despite her disclaimer at the beginning of her speech. I can only say that, as I listened, practically all that she had to say seemed to me to be well capable of being accommodated within the findings of the report, but perhaps as I proceed I may respond to one or two of the specific points that she made.
In debates such as this I am always happiest when I am speaking as far as possible from personal experience. On this occasion I am able to do that as someone who was responsible at one time for training large numbers

235
of people, including young people, in industry and now I can speak as chairman of one of the district manpower committees set up by the Manpower Services Commission to help in trying to solve employment and training problems in the localities.
I very much welcome the principle set out in the report that to qualify under the youth training scheme, any programme should satisfy criteria established by the commission, requiring the provision of an integrated programme of training, work experience and relevant education, including off-the-job training or further education. I am sure, too, that the task group are right to recommend that in practice the aim should be to ensure that the majority of the managing agencies that they have in mind to design and deliver training programmes should themselves be sponsors of the training and wherever possible large employers. As regards that, having worked for a large employer, I must acknowledge that I may be biased. I can only express my opinion and I say what I do simply because in my experience the best training is provided by such employers.
What I fear is still insufficiently realised is how much it now costs to provide the training. In paragraph 2.6 of the report it says that:
" annual costs associated with a first year apprentice will soon exceed £5,000 ".
The report does not add that the grant that employers receive in respect of first-year training of apprentices—the numbers of whom often far exceed those that the firm concerned are ever likely to employ—has now risen over the full four-year period to something approximating, as the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, will well know, £28,000. After the first year employers receive no grant at all. I recognise that the task group envisages the payment of a grant in respect of all trainees, whether they are employed or unemployed and including first-year apprentices, of £1,850 per person per year. 1 know, too, that the intention is that in future apprentice training should be related to the achievement of standards rather than to the serving of time.
Those are both welcome developments, but I very much doubt whether they will be proved sufficient to reverse the process under which our best companies are now taking on fewer and fewer apprentices for the benefit of the nation at large, simply because they can no longer afford such altruism. However, I pin some hope on paragraph 4.12 of the report of the task group, where they first anticipate that there will be no other MSC support for youth training for the age group covered by the scheme, but then add that they would expect the commission to make provision under a modified Training for Skills Programme for selective support for the development and modification of skill training arrangements beyond the first year.
I would urge most strongly that under the umbrella of that paragraph additional financial support should be given to employers who satisfy the relevant criteria to enable them to resume the training of young people for skill on the scale and of the quality which in the last few years they have increasingly had to reduce, or altogether to eliminate, in face of the overriding need simply to survive.
236
Next, I should like to turn to the problem of how this rightly ambitious youth training scheme is actually to be delivered. I welcome the proposal that local boards should be established to supersede the present special programmes area boards and that the boundaries of the areas for which they are responsible should coincide with local education authority boundaries. 1 recognise—as was advocated by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful!, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Young—that it would be possible to seek to base the delivery of a programme such as this on local education authorities themselves, but 1 suggest it is significant that among the signatories to this report are at least three directors of education in local authorities or very senior people within such authorities. They have subscribed to the findings of this report, which is indeed unanimous.
Therefore, I have to say that although it may be the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—I say this with respect—that the job should have been tackled in another way, it is plain that that is not the view of those highly placed educationists. The noble Baroness also said that she would rather have built on what is already there and not on something new. These local boards are new in the sense that they are, as I have said and as the report says, to replace the special programmes area boards, but they are anything but new in the sense that they are very much akin to the existing district manpower committees. I think that I can speak with authority on that, being, as I have said, chairman of one of them. Indeed, I applaud the idea of these local boards precisely because, in my view, it is essential that the administrative structure to be established should enable training to be related—and again this is a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull—to local needs and to local labour markets.
Further, I welcome the proposal in paragraph 5.4 that:
" each Local Board should establish and maintain a list of approved sponsors for its area. But no sponsor should be admitted to the list until he satisfies certain criteria ",
in conformity with overall guidelines and policies established by the MSC. I am sure that the task group are right to say that membership of kcal boards should be adequately representative of employers, trade unions, local authorities, local education authorities, voluntary and youth organisations and the Careers Service. All these have a stake in the problem, and I am satisfied from my experience that the problem will not be solved without such general involvement. I hope that that may help to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, as to one at least of the points that she raised earlier in her own contribution to this debate. As the report well puts it in paragraph 3.13:
" The scheme must appeal to, and release, the energy of local communities and all who live or work within them ".
How could it be put better than that
Paragraph 5.12 goes on to say:
" It would be a considerable advantage, wherever possible, for members of Local Boards to have direct experience of sponsorship of schemes ",
and there are arguments for education and training professionals to be represented. There are indeed. I go further. In my opinion these boards will succeed or fail depending more than any other factor on the

237
extent to which they possess managerial competence in having the capability to persuade organisations and individuals wholeheartedly to participate in the scheme. This point is touched on in Part V of the report under the heading of what the task group calls, "Quality Assurance ". They say openly in paragraph 5.23 that the record of the MSC on the Youth Opportunities Programme and other schemes is not impressive in this matter, and they believe that something new is required. This is that to assist the commission practitioners should be recruited who have practical experience and who are drawn from industry, the education service and other sources. The task group believe--and so do I-- that many organisations would be happy to second good quality hand-picked individuals for the task, and they say that these people will need to have the necessary status, experience and expertise to deal with the proposed managing agencies, rather than with the kind of organisation which typically has sponsored opportunities under the Youth Opportunities Programme.
From my experience in the field, such as it is, I should like to back the task group in those judgments as strongly as I can. Indeed, in my view it is desirable, perhaps even essential, that one such person should be appointed to advise and act on behalf of the chairman of every one of the prospective local boards, and I urge the Manpower Services Commission to give this suggestion its most earnest consideration.
I was struck by what the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, had to say, speaking with all the authority of being chairman of the Engineering Industry Training Board, about the need for these training boards to play a part in the organisational framework. I should very much like to support that and even to suggest a possible way in which it might be clone, simply as something to be considered. May there not, in fact, be scope for two types of institution: first, the sectoral training bodies—of which the Engineering Industry Training Board is an example—whether they be statutory or voluntary; and, secondly, the local bodies, to which reference has already been made? The role of the sectoral bodies would be to formulate ideas and determine standards appropriate to their sector, while the local bodies would ensure that these ideas and standards were taken into account in concerting the action to be taken on a cross-sectoral basis in the localities.
I was going to say more about this vexed question of voluntarism, but I shall largely spare your Lordships. However, I must briefly join with those who feel that voluntary participation by sponsors and by young people is essential for the scheme's success. Young people must want to take part in it, and reluctant recruits would be a disruptive influence which potential sponsors would not be prepared to face. Here too, for me the decisive factor is that no comprehensive training programme for young people will work unless it has the support of all the main interests involved; that is, employers, trade unions and educationists. They were all represented on the task group, they together back the voluntary principle, and because I fear greatly, like other noble Lords, for the future of the scheme if the recommendation of the task group is not accepted, I very much hope that the Government will defer to their advice.
238
More than that—and perhaps I may put this in the form of a question, since I have not given any notice of it at all to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and I do not believe he will be capable of responding to it in any very definitive way today, though if he feels able to say anything perhaps it might be that the suggestion will at least be considered—why should there not in future be Government representatives on the Manpower Services Commission in the same way as there are on the National Economic Development Council? In this way the Government would actively participate in discussion rather than merely receive recommendations which they then accept, alter or reject. The Government, after all, foot the bill at the end of the day, and in discharging that function responsibly, surely the Government should be prepared to expose themselves to the process of debate with the experts before they take decisions. Perhaps only in that way shall we ultimately achieve the national consensus which is so essential in this field.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I too would like to offer my appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for giving this opportunity to us to debate this very important subject today, particularly at a time before the Government have actually made up their mind, an event which cannot be long delayed. I also congratulate him on a very impressive speech. I believe it has been a very successful debate and there has been support, if qualified, in most parts of the House for the Youth Task Group Report.
I should like to congratulate the Youth Task Group on a very thorough and imaginative piece of work. 1, like my noble friend Lord Scanlon, support it very strongly although, like the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful!, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, I have reservations about control, an aspect to which I will come later. The best thing to be said is that the report discloses a very serious state of affairs showing how much over the years we have failed to meet the challenge of the training of our young people and the support of our industry; and if we do not understand the seriousness of the problem we will not capture the sense of urgency that is necessary to get the report off the ground and to understand what still has to be done even then.
We ought not to believe that this is merely due to recession or even new technology. It is a problem which has been with us for a very long time and one with which we have to deal, whether there is recession or not; because the report says that ours is one of the least trained workforces in the industrialised world. That is an appalling indictment for an industrialised power like ourselves and perhaps explains some of the difficulties we have had over the last 20 or 25 years. It says that the whole situation varies from sector to sector. Only half of our young people receive any systematic vocational or educational preparation compared with 90 per cent. in Germany and 80 per cent. in France. As the noble Baroness, Lady, Seear, said, around 35 per cent. of 16-year-olds entering jobs receive hardly any training according to a survey conducted in 1980; and, as she said, girls fare worse than boys, and disabled young people and ethnic minorities even worse.

239
In recent years, however, despite major public efforts and major public provision our performance has tended to get worse, not better. In 1960 40 per cent. of 16-year-olds leaving school got apprenticeships in manufacturing. By the 1980s this proportion had halved. The number of apprentices in manufacturing declined from a peak of 236,000 in 1968 to under 150,000 in 1980 and is now about 100,000. The number employed in manufacturing receiving other forms of training of any kind varied from 210,000 in 1968 to 90,000 in 1981.
It is widespread in respect of practically all industry and practically every kind of activity. Youth Aid say that already there are a quarter of a million unemployed between the ages of 16 and 25 who have been out of work for more than 12 months, and the tragedy is that this group represents a bigger proportion of the total unemployed than they represent of the total population at large. The prospect for these young people even with the Youth Task Group is very bleak. Unemployment quadrupled between 1975 and 1982, despite the intervention of large-scale work experience measures, notably youth opportunity schemes. Unemployment among the 18-year-olds multiplied five times over the same period. The report estimates that for the future, without policy intervention, 57 per cent, of the 16-year-olds and 48 per cent. of all 17-year-olds will be unemployed by September 1984.
In 1983–84 just over half a million 16-year-olds will leave full-time education and only just over 200,000 will find jobs of any kind. Most of those under 24 will not benefit at all from this scheme and these facts present a horrific implication in terms of social consequences if they persist. I should remind the House that, splendid though the report is and strongly as we support it. if we are to deal with the whole problem of youth unemployment we ought not to confine ourselves to relying on the quality of specific measures but have to accept that it will need action over the whole field of economic policy if we are to get the nation, and particularly our young people back to work.
I had a great deal of sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Parry, because I believe that it may need also a much more fundamental kind of thinking about our problem, the approach to work, to status and to income, if we are to come to terms with it and secure a new equilibrium in society after the effects of new technology and the recession. It is a problem with which very few of our main institutions have even begun to deal in this kind of depth; and as the noble Lord, Lord Parry, said, the problem is: how are we to come to terms with the situation when we can no longer ensure the full employment that we have had, except in recent years, since the war? I say this not to denigrate the task group report but to urge that because of the importance of the whole problem we should lose no time in getting it under way. It is a highly ambitious programme and will need the maximum co-operation from all concerned.
It has been hinted, however—and perhaps more than hinted—that the Secretary of State is opposed to voluntarism although he may not be as opposed as he was to an increase in the allowance, as suggested
240
in the report; but if it is to go ahead at an early date there are several things he ought to recognise. The first is that the report comes from a group of people—the CBI. the TUC, local authority associations and voluntary bodies—and that it was a unanimous report because each group made some compromise. It is, therefore, a package which it will be difficult to upset without serious consequences. To succeed it needs the co-operation of many companies and local education authorities as well as voluntary bodies.
Co-operation can be assured only if the scheme is voluntary. It is clear that the CBI in its original approach and co-operation gave it on the basis of a voluntary scheme. Reluctant recruits would create a big disciplinary problem which would drive away potential sponsors who would not be prepared to face the disruption of their businesses which compulsion will involve. Many employers during the work on the report warned the group that 300,000 angry conscripts would cause considerable damage and disruption to their companies, and a scheme like this needs a large number of sponsoring companies who will be prepared to take young people into their businesses if it is to succeed.
Equally, if the suspension of benefit was used to secure attendance, this would almost certainly lead to the withdrawal of the TUC who warned, at the time of the White Paper, that they would not cooperate in a scheme that was compulsory. It would be quite impossible, in my view, for a scheme as large as this to succeed without the support of the unions. Even those members in another place of the Select Committee on employment, who favoured the withdrawal of the allowance against refusal to co-operate, were not prepared in this way to put the scheme at risk if there was a risk, and we believe that there is a very severe risk involved.
Perhaps the House ought to remember that in 1930, when a training scheme was adopted and the Government of the day decided to make it compulsory, or at least decided to take away the actual benefit for those people who refused to take part, Ministers were soon advised that, while there had been a great increase in applicants for the scheme, the increase in the problems of discipline were very great indeed and made it difficult to ensure effective training.
If the benefits were taken away there may be quite a large number of young people who, while they would like training, may feel that it is incumbent upon them to seek jobs to help the family in one way or another. I think Clare Short of Youth Aid in a letter to the Guardian on 12th May summed it up very well. She said:
" The real danger of the change to compulsion is that it will lead to resentment and truanting, and that the atmosphere of keenness to learn, which has been created by the best of the Youth Opportunities Programmes, will be destroyed ".
We urge the Government to give the scheme the best chance of success by not making participation compulsory, and by not withdrawing the benefit as a means of forcing young people into the scheme.
There is another question I should like to raise with the Minister. Mr. Peter Morrison, the Parliamentary Secretary, reported in the Sunday Times by the Labour editor, John Fryer, on 23rd May, hinted at the possibility that there may be a payroll tax to finance the scheme and

241
its 460,000 participants. I wonder whether the Minister has any information on that. I would just say to him that it would be then difficult for some companies to pursue the course that they have done up to date. A company in my own area has given the local council £50,000 to be put with Manpower Services Commission money to establish a permanent training centre for about 60 young people, and I see this kind of support not being as widespread as it might be if there were to be a payroll tax.
I very much appreciate the question of a contract. This is important. It is particularly important in giving each participant certainty and status. It is also important that not only are the courses properly constructed and of quality but that they should be properly accredited. They should be built into a progressive course of training upon which the trainee can build in the future. There is a grave danger in building new organisations and structures separate from the many which already exist.
It is perhaps unfortunate that the scheme has come forward at a moment in time when the Government have disbanded a number of training boards. But I would hope that in those that continue to exist, like the Construction Industry Training Board—and 1 had the pleasure of presenting a number of awards of that board to special apprentices only last week—and indeed the voluntary bodies that are being built up, as in the case of the paper and board industry with which I am connected where there is a training committee which is taking the place of the training board, that people who are associated with this kind of training will be closely associated with the new structures being established.
Last year the Macfarlane Report was introduced to Parliament. It is a very important report indeed. It sought to look at the last years of secondary education and further education in a radical way so that they could get rid of the rigid division between secondary education and further education, and to tailor the whole of those provisions to the needs of young people in the locality and of local industry. It will he singularly unfortunate if the new development under the group scheme should go ahead separately from this new planning, which is essentially trying to bring into further education the opportunities for people to get a mixture of education and training. I hope when this revision is complete that we will see a lot more of the relationship between the group scheme and the new structures in education.
I warn against the separation of education and training. I believe this is an artificial division that would do harm in the long run. Like the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, I accept the report as it is because we want it to go ahead, but it would be shortsighted if we were to separate it in the long run from the education service. I should like to see the development over the years of a military tertiary system of further education for 16 to 19-year-olds, with a student traineeship available to all 16 year olds, and eventually to 17year-olds, giving them access to education, training and financial support.
An educational maintenance allowance should be payable to those on full-time courses. A fair allowance, pegged to average earnings, to those on YOP schemes;
242
and a negotiable wage paid by employers to those in employment, with subsidised training should be the aim of the whole of this kind of activity. There should be a common assessment form which develops a profile of the individual, and modules which can be built on, so that no individual will feel that it is a disconnected kind of training or education he is getting, but that he can embark, if he wants, on a further course which will already have had the foundations laid by the course he has already taken.
I too should like to see the Career Service enlarged and given the whole role of guidance up to the age of 21. 1 think it is inevitable, and I certainly would like to see it, that the unified tertiary system of education should be rationalised under the local education authorities in the various parts of the country. In the meantime, an interdepartmental board should coordinate programmes in the short run with the idea of there being established eventually a Department of Education and Training.
We ought not to allow the short-term needs to prejudice our long-term objections. However, we believe that in the shorter run the package proposed by the Youth Task Group is welcome and should be given every opportunity. We hope that the Government will not prejudice its chance of succeeding and stultify its development by introducing compulsion or by withdrawing benefit for those who refuse training, but seek the co-operation of all in this imaginative enterprise.
6.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, for giving us the opportunity of discussing what is a matter of very considerable concern, and this is a timely opportunity in which to introduce the debate. It has indeed been most helpful. No one has a monopoly of wisdom in dealing with the problems and we have listened—I have listened and I know the department will consider very carefully—to all that your Lordships have said on what is a most important matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, used the word "sensitive" to describe the issue. It is indeed a very sensitive area. It is sensitive when unemployment, youth, with its future and prospects, trade unions, employers, inflation, recession and the Government all get involved, and they all have a part to play in this delicate and intensely human area in which each one of those is affected by all the others.
I could not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Spens, that we must accept that there will be 3 to 4 million unemployed for the next 20 years. Rather, I agreed with the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, who said that was the challenge. Lord Spens said new technology improved productivity but did not provide jobs. I do not agree. Though the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, might not like to hear it yet again, it is inflation and recession, not new technology, which removes jobs. New technology creates competitiveness and competitiveness creates jobs.
If one is frightened of new technology, I suggest one takes oneself back to the era of the last century when,

243
as I have said before, farm workers would burn the threshing machines because they thought they would be done out of the job of flailing corn throughout the winter. New technology is a creator of jobs and is not something of which we should be frightened. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Parry, when he said he was glad to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, a young man, come and make his contribution. I was sorry that he made some of his remarks about the Government's economic policy with a tinge of bitterness, but I accept that with the grace with which it was intended.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough made what I thought was a most moving speech in which he said how terrible it was that people should not be wanted on the labour market. So it is. It is terrible not to be wanted. He said we would be living in an era of leisure and drew the distinction that leisure should not slip into idleness, which was—I believe they were his words—the satisfaction of Satan. I agreed with that. I could not help but reflect that the age of leisure has been pronounced by some as a desirable objective. I say that with some hesitation in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Parry, who is involved so much with leisure. It may be an inevitable result, but I do not know whether it should be a desirable objective because one should be on this earth to work at or for something and it should not be an exercise too much orientated in self-indulgence. I will not trespass on the right reverend Prelate's ground, otherwise I shall fall into the mistake of making a sermon and not a speech, which would only have the advantage of being slightly shorter, as was the right reverend Prelate.
Lord Parry: My Lords, I would not wish the Minister to take me on on the Welsh Nonconformist ethic of work. The argument, when we have time to develop it, is not that we move into a hedonist leisure-enjoined society, but that service, as it always has been, becomes recognised as a tool, and service by the human individual is probably the greatest work of all.
Earl Ferrers: That was an excellent way of putting quite a complicated problem, my Lords, and I congratulate him. T hope your Lordships will see the current proposals of the Government as part of a continuing series of measures which have been designed over the past few years to meet the changing challenges which are posed by youth unemployment. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in his concern to direct the attention of the House to this important subject, refers
" to the urgent need for improved opportunities for…school-leavers ".
I think it is fair to say that the Government have always seen the training needs of this group as a priority and have constantly sought to improve provision for it. We are now on the threshold of important and exciting new developments, and I hope your Lordships will feel able to accept that and agree with it. Youth unemployment has for a long time been a cause for concern. The last Administration responded in 1978 with the Youth Opportunities Programme, which itself was developed from two previous measures, the
244
Work Experience Programme and the Job Creation Programme.
Youth unemployment, though, is not yet falling. The most recent figures, for April 1982, are complicated by the fact that this year they include unemployed Easter leavers, whereas last year they did not and therefore the comparison is more difficult. But in March, for example, school-leaver unemployment was still about 50 per cent. more than in March 1981, but the rate of increase is falling; the rise was well over 100 per cent. between March 1980 and March 1981.
I would not wish to juggle with figures which everyone agrees are bad. But before considering the nature of the Government's response, it is as well to know that there are some signs of improvement. There are signs that the Government's general economic policy is succeeding in restoring the competitiveness of British industry and in creating the right conditions for growth. The rate of growth in unemployment is slowing down and inflation is falling; the annual rate of inflation has now fallen to less than 10 per cent. Those are hopeful signs, which are also reflected in the youth unemployment scene, and I will give two examples. Of last year's young people who left school looking for work, half were in jobs by the end of October. Most of the rest were in the Youth Opportunities Programme. Youth unemployment last October was 26 per cent. higher than in October the year before, but the latest comparable figures, for January 1982, were only 16 per cent. higher than those for January 1981, which was an appreciable slowdown in the rate of increase.
I wish to emphasise that measures designed to help school-leavers make a smooth transition into work must be seen in their proper context, and that it is no good developing excellent training arrangements for them when, at the end of the day, the jobs are not there; and that is why so much depends on economic policies, a sound economy and industry being competitive with low inflation. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, referred to 58 per cent. of young people being unemployed in 1984. That is a frightening thought and we must do all we can to see that does not come about. My noble friend Lord Auckland rightly referred to the fact that villages need jobs. That is so, but in the end one must be both well trained and have an economy which requires the products of our work to be needed and wanted, and that means it must be competitive.
I believe that our economic policies present the right strategy for the development of proper foundation training for young people, although I realise that other noble Lords—the noble Viscount, Lord Chandos, will be one of them—would disagree. The result is that young people who are being trained now should be able to take full advantage in the future of the opportunities which economic revival will bring when it comes. I agreed greatly with the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, when she said that when the economic upturn comes, the fruits will go to the most competitive countries. That means, among other things, those with the best training.
The Youth Opportunities Programme, which was started in 1978, has consistently been improved in both scope and content. The noble Baroness was again correct when she said that it was started very much as a short-term response to what was then seen as a short-term problem, but the enduring nature of youth

245
unemployment has presented the programme with an increased challenge, which in fact it has met very effectively.
The Youth Opportunities Programme started in its first year with about 160,000 entrants. In the most recent complete year of its operation, which was 1981–82, it had helped four times as many young people. Spending on the programme is now seven times larger than it was in 1978–79, and the resources which will in future be devoted to our training schemes, in 1984–85, will be 17 times as much. Those are very substantial figures. In 1984–85 we will be spending over E1,000 million on youth training. The Government have sometimes been accused by some people of ruthlessly squeezing public expenditure and caring little for the employment consequences. I hope that those figures will show that that in fact is not the case.
All of this should help three things: the future of the economy of the country, the standard of excellence of industry; and the personal pride and self-respect of young people—and let nobody, as I know nobody would, under-estimate the value of that.
But the scope of the programme is of course only part of the picture. As many of your Lordships have pointed out, there is also the question of its content. As unemployment has persisted and the need for a longer-term approach has been highlighted, so the quality of the programme has become more important. It has been no easy task for the Manpower Services Commission to achieve improvement in quality when at the same time the size of the programme and the demands placed upon it have also been rapidly growing. Nevertheless, the Youth Opportunities Programme has provided an increasing number of good training places with release to off-the-job training.
The Manpower Services Commission has put a great deal of research into the grouping of basic skills which are needed in a range of jobs. The relevance of the programme to the new technology has been assessed. Good quality training schemes, which link further education and varied work experience, have been developed. Projects which show good training practices have been set up with local education authorities in order to demonstrate the potential for integrating further education and work experience elements of the programme. In fact many of the aims for quality training which were outlined last December in the Government's White Paper on training are already met to some extent in the present programme.
Perhaps before I pass on to the consider the next stage of development, including in particular the Manpower Services Commission's task group report to which the noble Lord's Motion specifically refers, I should mention one further performance measure of the Youth Opportunities Programme—perhaps the most important feature. It is the number of young people who go on to jobs after their courses end. A further survey has been completed, and although these exercises are always subject to some measure of qualification, the results look encouraging.
An earlier survey of young people entering the programme in the summer of 1980 and leaving it about six months later showed that only 30 per cent. were getting jobs after training, with around another 12 per cent. going on to full-time further education or some other opportunity. The most recent survey,
246
results of which we have, and which is of young people who entered the programme in the autumn of 1980, shows that on leaving around 47 per cent. got jobs, with another 12 per cent. progressing to further education or training. Those figures may be subject to qualification, but the overall trend is there; it is that the proportion who are getting jobs after training is moving upwards.
Of course, it is always possible to look at survey evidence such as this from a different point of view and to say that underlying economic conditions are influential and that therefore we can afford to let up on our training efforts. But I believe that the figures indicate the good work which is already being done by the Youth Opportunities Programme, and they must determine us to make greater efforts. Indeed, those efforts have already been outlined. The Youth Opportunities Programme has laid a sound foundation as a training programme, and we need to link it closely with the Government's wider training objectives in order to ensure that a full year's training is provided for every unemployed 16-year-old school-leaver. It is time to make the important transition from the programme just being there to help young unemployed people, to one where there is a sharper, more defined, aim of becoming part of the vocational preparation system for all young people, so that their future learning can be guaranteed, just as we should like to see all young entrants going into work being assured of proper vocational preparation. That is the message of the New Training Initiative.
Our White Paper entitled, A New Training Initiative: A Programme for Action, which was published on 15th December, contains far-reaching proposals for industrial training, in particular the major proposal designed specifically to help unemployed young people. Our aim is that the new youth training scheme should provide a full year's foundation training for all unemployed 16-year-old school-leavers. We shall build on the experience which has been gained from the current Youth Opportunities Programme in order to produce a better trained and more adaptable workforce. The White Paper made clear that the Youth Opportunities Programme will be developed in the current year in order to provide 100,000 of the new 12-month training places, which is consistent with the objectives of the New Training Initiative.
We also announced last December the resources which we were prepared to devote to youth training, and these show the very substantial scale of our commitment. As I have said, they will total more than £1,000 million by the year 1984–85. Therefore we are, I hope, on the verge of creating a proper and lasting system of foundation training for young people, a system which is itself based on the foundation of the Youth Opportunities Programme. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, said that there is here a great opportunity and that, if his party were the party in government, they would take that opportunity. I would only say to him, with the greatest of respect, that they are not in Government and that we have taken the opportunity.
Perhaps I may now deal specifically with the Manpower Services Commission's Youth Task Group, to which the majority of your Lordships quite rightly referred, and to which the noble Lord's Motion

247
specifically refers. The Government welcomed the establishment of the task group when the White Paper was issued last December. The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked why should there not be Government representation on the Manpower Services Commission. It is an important question, and I could give him an off-the-cuff answer. If I were to do so, it would probably be wrong, but it would be that there is something to be said for keeping Government and the political innuendos which may go with it away from specialist thinking and specialist advice. However I shall see that the noble Lord receives a proper reply, which will substantiate, or even correct, my off-the-cuff reply.
The Government made it clear that if it proved possible to draw up schemes which would provide more jobs with training for young people, they would be willing to transfer resources within the available total. We therefore welcome the task group's report. We think in general terms that it would be an important step forward towards our aim of providing a comprehensive and enhanced training scheme for all 16-year-old school-leavers. By all of us working together we can ensure that after September next year we will have removed the fear of unemployment from every 16-year-old in the country. If that comes about, it will be a considerable achievement. From that date 16-year-olds will have the opportunity of continuing in education, finding a job, or participating in one of the most comprehensive foundation training schemes anywhere in Europe. That is an immensely exciting prospect, and the task group is to be thanked for its substantial contribution.
Despite a number of significant differences between the task group proposals and those of the White Paper, there is common ground. The report is based on an agreed objective of the new training initiative (to which the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, quite rightly referred) to move towards a position where all young people under the age of 18 have the opportunity, either of continuing in full-time education or of entering a period of planned work experience combined with work-related training and education. It also reflects the Government's aim to guarantee training places for all unemployed 16-year-olds as soon as possible; and what is said about the kind of training which needs to be provided and the machinery for delivery is on the same lines as the White Paper, although the task group have developed and adapted what was proposed.
Of course, there are a number of difficulties which the Government will need to think about very carefully. We need to satisfy ourselves that it can be financed within the funds which are being made available. Our White Paper proposals envisage necessary Government support in times of high unemployment. But training remains primarily the responsibility of industry. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and indeed, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Irving, asked whether I thought there would be sufficient sponsors available. We have no reason to doubt that sufficient sponsors will come forward, and Ministers in the Department of Employment are now busy encouraging major employers to participate.
My noble friend Lord Auckland referred to the part which schools can play. It is true that they can play a very important part. Both the Department of
248
Education and Science and the Department of Industry are well aware of the part which schools can play, and they encourage the development of links between the schools and local industries. That is what they are doing; and, of course, the operation of the new local boards of employers and education interests will help to strengthen the industry links. So there are considerable links being strengthened, which is absolutely essential. The task group's proposals for the inclusion of employed youngsters raises questions about the longer-term financial implications for the Government.
The noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, said that the Government must get co-operation, and he said that if that is what we want we are going about it in a curious way. Of course, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, in the first part of his premise: we do need co-operation. The whole essence of such a training scheme must be co-operation--the co-operation of employers, of trade unions and of trainees. The Government can find the money, but in the end success depends on individuals; and I was glad that, with all the authority that he has, the noble Lord advised the trade unions not to refuse to co-operate.
We do require co-operation, and I agree with my noble friend Lady Faithfull so much when she says that a lot of this depends upon co-operation at local level. In the task group's report it says—this was quoted, but it needs re-emphasis, I think:
" Satisfying all these requirements is by no means easy. It is out of the question unless all parties are prepared to accept that, however much the ground has been prepared, a new comprehensive scheme is an historic step which marks a turning point in the industrial history of this country and a decisive break with the past so far as the education and training of young people are concerned.
" The key to any new scheme lies with employers in both the private and public sector. Though many other sponsors and providers must be involved, it is to them that any scheme must look for a new attitude to investment in the training of young people, a willingness to do more for young people than they have done in the past and a readiness to make the resources of the workplace available for learning and work experience ".
That needs the co-operation of all.
The proposals also call for a higher level of commitment from employers, and we shall need to be sure that sufficient sponsors will come forward. We do not want to see increased allowances paid at the expense of training standards. These and other difficulties will need very careful consideration. But it is important to be clear that the Government are now committed to doing whatever they can, through whichever form the scheme finally takes.
There will be a new scheme from September 1983. There will be no let-up between now and September 1983 in our endeavours to help unemployed young people. Indeed, the Manpower Services Commission aims to increase the number of entrants to the Youth Opportunities Programme to 630,000 this year. So we want to assure existing and potential YOP sponsors that we are most anxious that they should make their contribution to the continuing success of this programme. Indeed, Ministers in the Department of Employment are already seeing a number of people who represent leading industries, leading companies and leading organisations to encourage their fullest participation.
The new scheme will offer training places to all unemployed 16-year-olds. This we have guaranteed, and we regard it as most important that the guarantee

249
is in fact met. Building on the lessons which have been learned from Youth Opportunities Programmes, we shall take a major step forward in improving the training content of courses; in other words, that which is actually taught. So far as I can see at the moment, there are no significant differences between the new report and the White Paper on the question of training content.
What, then, will the new training scheme, of whichever model, include? It will include, first, a full year's foundation training; secondly, at least three months' off-the-job training; and, thirdly, structured courses of learning and training which will combine basic skills, occupationally-based training, guidance and review of progress. Basic skills training will include numeracy, literacy and general communications training, as well as general skills like problem-solving and decision-making.
Whether it will in fact include, as the noble Lord, Lord Spens, wanted, training in appearance and in how to get a job, I am bound to say I cannot tell him. My personal view is that I hope that it will, because I think he is quite right in saying that in an era when employment is difficult to come by the appearance of a new entrant is likely to make a very considerable impact, for better or for worse, on the potential employer.
While we are determined to make a success of our training scheme, the Government do not believe that they have a duty to provide for those who turn down such exciting and comprehensive opportunities. The Government can only go so far. There may be some who decide they do riot want to participate in education, training or employment, for whatever reason. That is their decision to make; but it is not the duty of Government to provide, with taxpayers' money, an incentive for them to opt out of working life. We do not think it is justifiable to provide supplementary benefit to 16-year-olds in their own right when they have taken a conscious decision not to participate in what is offered.
That, with respect, is not compulsion. I know, and I expected, that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and others would be concerned about this. Not only the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, but the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, I think said that compulsion was "repulsive The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was more generous and described it as "quasi-compulsion". The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, also referred to it. The noble Baroness said it was a tax on parents. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington—almost the majority of noble Lords, for some extraordinary reason—regarded this as compulsion.
I would say only this. Nobody is forcing people to be trained; the choice is theirs. All that the Government are saying is that if they do decide to opt out, a person should not expect to receive money for that. There is a moral consideration here. If a youngster has had little schooling and may be poorly motivated, then the cash available—and it is limited—should be used to train him and not to pay him to do nothing. The Secretary of State has always said that supplementary benefit should not be withdrawn until the scheme is fully operative. Special categories of people, such as the disabled, will still be able to get supplementary
250
benefit, and all the needs of the family on supplementary benefit can still be recognised.
This is a separate question from that of whether or not to run a training scheme as the task group propose. Their report rightly treats it as a separate question, and we must be careful not to muddle the two issues. September 1983 may sound a long way off, but we are conscious that there is a lot of preparatory work to be done, and, in order to give time to that, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment will want to announce the Government decision as soon as possible this summer.
The noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked a number of pertinent questions about whether the Government accepted the task group report and its recommendations. I hope I have been able to explain that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is at present considering this and he will be stating his conclusions in the fairly near future, probably within a few weeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked whether the Government considered that legislation would be required for new training arrangements for young people. I should like to make it clear that the resources for the new scheme are available until 1985 and the Government will naturally have regard to the results of the study that they will undertake with the MSC on the much broader question of the future financing of training as a whole. I hope that I have been able to show the thread of continuity which runs through the Government's efforts to help young people to make the important transition from school to work. But with levels of youth unemployment as high as they are, there has been an urgent need in recent years to provide opportunities which are useful and relevant to the world of work.
I agree that the priority here is the school-leaving group and I hope noble Lords will agree that the Government have responded fully and now have set their hand to the next stage of their response: the equipping of this country with an effective national system of foundation training which will mean that in this respect we shall be in the vanguard of the training of youth in Europe.
Lord Scanlon: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House, but 1 must press the Minister more strongly on this point of what I still think is correctly described as compulsion. The Minister has heard from every side of the House and from every speaker how they view with abhorrence the suggestion of the loss of supplementary benefits; he has heard my own hope that the trade unions will co-operate but with the condition that the Government accept the task group report as a whole. We anticipated that the noble Earl would say that the Secretary of State was considering it; but may we not press the Minister to say that, in view of all that is being said in this House and in view of what has been said by the all-party committee in another place, at least there is some possibility that representations can be made by the noble Earl, as the Minister responsible, in the hope that this very important point will he accepted by the Government, so avoiding the prejudicing of the whole of the task group report?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, to press further. I would say, with respect, that I cannot go further than I have. I have told him that the Secretary of State is considering the whole task group report and the impact that it will have on his decision-making. It would he erroneous for me to sample out one particular aspect of the matter and seek to answer questions on it in isolation. I assure the noble Lord that the views that have been expressed tonight throughout the House will be conveyed to my right honourable friend and will help him in his decision.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I think I may say without exaggeration that we have had a very good debate. That is often said but I think that on this occasion it is true. I started by saying that I had some sense of occasion in introducing this Motion, and that has been diminished by no single speech. We have had no bad speeches. I know that we do not often have bad speeches in this House. It does happen from time to time, but did not this evening.
I do not want to make another speech. There are two themes that I want to pluck out of the debate. First of all, as a small footnote at the beginning rather than at the end, I want to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon, in his suggestion that the remaining training boards, and in particular the engineering training board, should become managing agencies under this scheme. We must build on what we have.
An area of concern was touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. I was grateful for her intervention in the debate. It is an area of concern. I tried to indicate in my speech that this whole area, an awkward area where the educational and employment departments are increasingly having to co-operate, obviously has its problems. I had intended to say in my original speech—I cut out the passage, but I will now read it:
" It would be a tragedy if jealousies and rivalries were to develop between an education sector smarting under cuts and an employment sector replete with funds. If this scheme is to work, sectoral rivalries can have no part in it ".
I agree with the noble Baroness. I think the difference between us is a question of emphasis. In this case, it seems that the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, is showing little faith in the capacity of the departments concerned to co-operate. If this connection, I thought that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, with his experience, were of considerable reassurance.
It would be a pity if the White Paper and the task group report came to be seen as being in opposition to one another. The noble Earl, Earl Ferrers, made the point that they are not essentially so. The Government's 10-point programme in the White Paper started with a commitment of El billion a year. The fourth strand of the programme for action is the setting up of the group which produced this report and which was asked to report on ways of developing the youth training scheme to cover employed as well as unemployed young people within the available resources.
This is what it has done. The scheme it came up with is within the amount of money that the Government have laid down for this purpose. There is no conflict there. I am not going down the macroeconomic corridor followed by the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, into a
252
debate on technological unemployment. That is something that we shall have to have another talk about, but not now. I was struck by the image of my noble friend Lord Chandos when he talked about not giving brand new fishing rods to inhabitants of the desert. I think that our party's economic proposals are ones which would irrigate that desert, but he was right to point that out.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, was, I thought, cautious in his reply. He referred to the report we have been debating as an important step, and as having much common ground, and he wondered what form the new scheme would finally take. I was glad that he quoted from paragraph 3.8, to which I referred in my opening speech. It refers to the words "a decisive break with the past". It is building on the past but a decisive break and a step forward.
Finally, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scanlon: I. have listened to every single speech and no single speaker has supported compulsion. By that I mean the withdrawal of supplementary benefit. That is something the Government must consider very seriously. I said in my opening speech that I was not going to press them. The noble Earl has said that the Government are going to make an announcement as soon as possible, which we are very glad to hear; but between now and then I beg the Government to take note of Lord Scanlon's final and passionate plea and the views which have been expressed on all sides of your Lordships' House this evening. My Lords, on that note, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Cinematograph (Amendment) Bill
7.11 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I shall try to persuade your Lordships to agree with that Motion. The Bill concerns certain commercial exhibitions of material on film, video-tape, disc and other electronic wonders with which I have not yet become acquainted, which are not at the moment subject to the licensing procedure. There is nothing new about licensing procedures for commercial exhibition of film. It goes back to the Cinematograph Act 1909 and that Act was reviewed and amended in 1952.
The original target of licensing was safety. I should think this was because film in those days being highly inflammable, there was a very high fire risk. In due time the courts held that the licensing authority was also able to control the content of films. In other words, there was a censorship system set up. That indeed was confirmed by Parliament in the 1952 Act.
Those who have been in this House over recent months will know that there is currently much preoccupation with the sexual content of films, tapes and other forms of publication together with the extremes of violence and sadism with or without sexual connotations. There have been a number of debates about the rapid increase of the production of this sort of material. It will also be no novelty to your Lordships that views about obscenity, pornographic violence and censorship have been seen to vary enormously.

253
There has recently been the advice of the Williams Committee and much debate in Parliament on the subject, as I have said, not least on the relevant parts of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which has now gone back to another place. That was used by my friends on the Front Bench in another place and here to introduce and refine a licensing system for sex shops and other sex establishments. That is very relevant to this Bill, as I shall explain.
However broad that debate may have been and however passionately held are the views of various noble Lords, I have learned that Private Members' Bills need usually to be fairly modest if they have any ambition to succeed. I suggest to your Lordships that such a Bill is the one now before you which was introduced into another place by my honourable friend the Member for Fareham and carefully chosen by him as being a comparatively narrow area in this general subject under discussion.
What it does is this: it deals with two quite serious loopholes in the licensing system which have increasingly become of concern. Secondly, it fits in—and intentionally fits in—with the provisions in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which I have just mentioned so that the two will work, as I understand it, hand in hand in order to deal with the totality of this problem.
But there is one added advantage to this Bill which I hope will increase its recommendation to your Lordships because the chance has been taken to modernise certain aspects of the cinematograph legislation so that in clue course it may be clarified by the consolidation procedure. I hope that my noble friend may be able to confirm what was said in another place, that there is some reasonably urgent intention so to do.
Some clauses as a result need more comment than others. I have spoken about consolidation and I think that it will be fairly obvious to those concerned with that rather recondite subject that Clause 10 and the first schedule are mainly concerned with that. I hope that I need not go any further into them. There are two main clauses in this Bill and I should explain them and some of the connections that need to be discussed when they are considered.
Clause 1 is intended to close the first loophole. The two earlier Acts of 1909 and 1952 probably—and I say "probably" because it has never been interpreted by the courts—do not cover video in many of the forms in which it is currently employed. The formula in the existing legislation which attracts licensing is an exhibition of moving pictures on a screen by means which include the projection of light. There are those, including myself, who doubt whether this necessarily and safely can be interpreted to cover the activation of a television screen by a tape or a disc scanned by any number of different electronic heads.
As I indicated before, no doubt technology will continue to advance apace and there may be any number of new varieties whereby the moving picture may be exhibited. But already there are numbers of clubs, pubs, and so on, which use an ordinary television screen together with a video screen. What the clause therefore does is to introduce a comprehensive definition of what kind of moving picture shall be covered, and that is in the body of Clause 1. It is repeated in
254
the first paragraph of the schedule for the purposes of consolidation. The only aspect excluded is the simultaneous exhibition of BBC or IBA television transmissions or cable television transmissions licensed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
The reason for that exclusion, of course, is that in all those forms of transmission there are strict standards and authorities which ensure that those standards are maintained. I should say that I stress "simultaneous exhibition" of these television pictures because, of course, in the process of ensuring strict standards some programmes are put out at a certain time of day—for instance, late at night when children are not so likely to be watching—and those would not be exempted if they were reproduced at a different time of day.
The way in which this licensing system will work is no different from that with which those concerned are already very familiar. The licensing authorities will be the same; there will be district councils in England and Wales; the Greater London Council in London; and district and islands councils in Scotland. The Bill, as Clause 11(4) shows, does not extend to Northern Ireland. The reason for that is in no way sinister. It is merely that the basic legislation there is rather different. But if it should be thought fit—and I am sure my noble friend Lord Elton knows all about this—there is no difficulty about making a statutory order which would extend a proper system to Northern Ireland if local circumstances should so require.
The councils that at present issue licences for cinematograph exhibition usually make use of the Home Office model licensing conditions. They can make their own rules if they want to, of course, and some in fact make a practice of looking at films. But, on the whole, they use the model conditions, and the model conditions are based upon the work of a body which I am sure is very familiar to your Lordships, the British Board of Film Censors, which produces the A, AA or X certificate or, now in increasingly rare cases, the U one where all may attend. It may be that at the moment purpose-made video tapes are not normally submitted to the board for their certification hut, as 1 understand it, the board is happy to take on that task should it be asked to do so. There are great advantages in this.
There is no charge on the taxpayer or ratepayer, because the certification process is paid for by the person who makes the film or video tape and, if I may introduce a slightly personal reminiscence, when I was a Minister at the Home Office I went to see the work of the board and examined some films they had considered and had decided whether or not to allow them to be exhibited under their certificate at all and, if so, with what cuts. I was surprised at the original that was in some cases presented to them, and full of admiration about the judiciousness of the editing that they required to be made to the film before they would give it any kind of certificate at all. So they are highly experienced, I would have thought most responsible and, above all, they are paid for by the people who make the programmes in the first place. So there is the introduction of modern technology within an old and well-tried system.
In Clause 2 is perhaps the kernel of the Bill. It has been very carefully drafted so as to catch what I

255
would suggest to your Lordships is generally thought ought to be caught, while allowing the proper exemptions from licensing where those are still wholly acceptable. The trouble stems from Section 5 of the 1952 Act, which exempted from licensing exhibitions to which the public are not admitted. That has led, and increasingly so in recent years, to the cinema club. Most such clubs are no true clubs at all. Membership can be obtained often in a matter of minutes by filling in a form at the door and giving a name and address. I say "a name and address" because they do not necessarily have to be your own. Sometimes—indeed quite frequently—these clubs are advertised publicly; but as the law stands at the moment there is no scrutiny of them either in terms of safety or in terms of the content of the material they exhibit.
The Bill now introduces the test of private gain in Clause 2(2). That is intended to be a wide enough definition to take on those who might contemplate further methods of circumventing the law, such as giving free admission but charging £5 for ice cream, or for the privilege of hanging up your coat. It also covers the front organisation ", which is in itself non-profitmaking but is handing over a wholly unreasonable and intentionally excessive fee for hiring the equipment or the premises, and similar abuses. However, I would hasten to reassure your Lordships that the bona fide film society or club will not be caught, because there will be no gain; nor would a charitable, sporting or political organisation or society which uses the money for an exhibition not for a particular private gain but for the purposes of its overall activities. Your Lordships will find that that is carefully spelt out in Clause 2(3).
The desire to catch these less-than-desirable activities has existed for some time. The aim of Clause 2 was covered by the Cinematograph and Indecent Displays Bill, which was introduced by the Government in 1973 but did not get very far before that Government, and with it I myself, fell in 1974. But at any rate I now hope that, eight years later, we may be able to accomplish what was then, and still is, I think, in many quarters felt to be a most desirable aim.
This is the clause which interlinks particularly with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Your Lordships will remember that the provisions of that Bill exempt from licensing those cinematograph exhibitions which are licensed under the cinematograph Acts, and this Bill I am now introducing. The provisions will therefore lock together. They will come into force at the same time and this Bill, as a result, will be the first line of supervision for exhibitions of this sort, whether it is videos, clubs, films, or whatever it may be. The body of the cinematograph Acts will be the first line of defence.
But there remains, by virtue of the provisions in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the position of a sex cinema which falls outside the provisions of the Bill I am now talking about, and the local government Bill will catch it—for instance, arguably a demonstration of "blue" videos at the back of a sex shop shown in order to encourage people to purchase or hire the tapes which are being demonstrated but for which no charge for entry is made. I say "arguably" because of the point I am just coming
256
to—because if there is one criticism which has been drawn to my attention and that of my honourable friend in another place about Clause 2, it is that it might catch what is on all counts a perfectly legitimate activity: that is, the display in high street shops up and down the land of the video tapes that they have available for sale or hire and whose contents cannot possibly earn the rebuke or dismay of anybody. It is a problem and it is one that certainly requires to be considered.
I am not, at the moment, sure that there is any grave need for apprehension about it, although it has been to some extent expressed in the newspapers and in correspondence, because an exhibition under Clause 2 has to be promoted for private gain and these particular exhibitions will be only incidental to the ordinary business of the shop, which is, among other things, the hiring or selling of video tapes. But I see that there could arguably be said to be an element of private gain, in that the person or the company owning the shop would hope to make some money out of the sale or hire of the tapes.
There is therefore a drafting difficulty here. I do not necessarily propose to leave it as it is, because I should like to explore, if my noble friend Lord Elton will assist me, the possibilities of looking further into this matter, although I cannot promise that there will be a satisfactory amendment, at least at this stage in the Bill. I will say just one thing about amendments. Your Lordships will know that the time for Private Members' Bills in another place is limited; there is only one day left. Therefore, I think we are all bound to be very careful, if we wish to see what is a really useful measure going through, not to obfuscate it by large numbers of amendments which will inevitably mean that it runs out of time. However, that does not mean to say that I am not prepared to consider further this point which has been most justifiably raised.
On subsequent clauses, I can go very quickly, though I shall be happy to try to answer any questions that noble Lords have. Clause 3 brings the application for licences into line with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill itself, and it does, I think very properly, allow time for fire authorities to give advice to licensing authorities, which will not necessarily be the same. Clause 4 deals with appeals. It re-enacts and extends the earlier rights of appeal in which certain gaps have been found. Clause 5, which is about powers of entry, is closely paralleled with the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, again, so that we have a coherent code. But it replaces the 1909 provision, which now needs to be brought up to date.
In Clauses 6 and 7, we have the penalties. In Clause 6, there is the power of arrest and seizure which was, not unnaturally, a subject of some interest in another place, and may well be here, though I think perhaps it is now right. As for arrest, one needs to have powers to deal with the front man who appears at the seedy club and who, if he is not apprehended at the very time, may not be there next day when the policeman comes back with a warrant. But there is nothing new about that either, because only last year that was agreed to in very similar circumstances in the Indecent Displays (Control) Act 1981. As for seizure, that is tied to the powers of forfeiture under Clause 7(5). But, lest your Lordships should think that that is an

257
extreme measure, an examination of that subsection will show that it goes only to cases where unlicensed premises are being used for an exhibition, and then only in regard to things relating to the offence or the supposed offence.
In Clause 7, there are truly enormous penalties. Again, these are in line with the final version of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. I believe that these two Bills are unique in enabling a magistrates' court to impose a fine of up to £10,000, but anyone who has listened to debates on this subject knows that there are truly massive gains and profits to be made from the business concerned, and that the power of the courts to punish ought to be commensurate. As I understand it, there may well be further consideration of penalties over a larger field—this happens from time to time—but I am taking the opportunity of fitting in with the exactly similar, sister provisions in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill; and this penalty has already been quite widely discussed in another place and finalised in your Lordships' House.
In Clause 8, we catch the director, the officers and the secretary of the £100 company which may be running the premises. That brings me to Clause 9, which is interpretation, and the rest of the Bill, which, unless there are any points of interest, is really intended to lead to the consolidation that I mentioned. I hope that this will be thought to be a wholly practical, even if modest, advance in this rather difficult field. It ought not, I suggest, to arouse any controversy, but it does something which numbers of people have been urging for some time. I hope that your Lordships will agree that it does it with moderation, in accordance with what has already been discussed in Parliament—indeed, so late as this year—but in such a way as will be truly effective to deal with a modern and somewhat pernicious trade. Accordingly, I hope that, as happened in another place, it will be allowed to go through with a certain amount of acclamation and will go on to the statute book in order to take its place beside the Government Bill to which I have so frequently referred. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
7.37 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, not only does the Bill, in the judgment of the Opposition for whom I speak, deserve acclamation. The noble Viscount himself deserves the acclamation of this House for the very clear, lucid and eloquent way in which he has dealt with the provisions of this Bill. We are indebted to him.
As your Lordships have been informed, the main purpose of this Bill is to block a loophole which was left by the Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act 1952. As has been explained, a rather nasty—and I am using an understatement—element in our national life in districts such as Soho and especially in London, has crept up by way of these bogus cinema clubs. It is not just a question of our dealing with something which is a minor element in our civic life. The estimate is that there are about 70 of these clubs in London alone, and the number is increasing. Therefore, this Bill is certainly a timely one in seeing that these
258
establishments have to be licensed. They are a moral threat to many of the people who go to those clubs, because the system of becoming a member is a completely false, bogus exercise. Children are getting there, as are people of a weak mentality, and your Lordships heard only recently from the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, what this introduction of easy access to pornographic material is doing in the case of the young criminals who go before him and who have committed sexual offences.
They are a death trap, too. Any of us who have seen these premises in Soho—I hope, most of us, from the outside—will realise what a complete and absolute death trap they would be, if fire occurred on the premises. Because these premises are not subject to any licensing control, as they would be if they were ordinary cinema premises coming under the 1909 and the 1952 Acts, they are a very dangerous risk.
I wonder whether—your Lordships, I am sure, would not otherwise know what is being shown in these premises—I may be permitted to quote from the Williams Report to which the noble Viscount referred. They carried out an investigation into what occurs in the very kind of premises we are talking about this evening. With your Lordships' permission, I shall quote from paragraph 12.35 of the Williams Report:
"…the club system means that, leaving aside the present criminal law,"—
This is a reference to the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and possibly to the Indecent Displays (Control) Act which has only just been passed—
" there is a total lack of control on the nature of the films shown and the audiences admitted to see them. Although many clubs show films which we would regard as acceptable for restricted viewing, this is not always the case. We were told that one sadistic sex film which we saw might have been shown in clubs in this country; our view was that the film would be turned down by any censorship system, however liberal, and we noted in our talks with the French film censor that the same and similar films are banned entirely in France despite the existence of a special category there for films which are pornographic or, indeed, incite to violence ".
For us to be behind France in this matter is indeed an extraordinary situation.
" There are a number of film clubs which specialise in oriental martial arts films which can be extremely violent and which are often required to he cut by the the British Board of Film Censors even before being given an ' X' certificate. The admission of children to these clubs means that uncensored films containing the kind of material which would not be passed, even for adult viewing in a public cinema, is being shown without any restriction at all on who may see it. We consider it desirable that the scope of the censorship system should be extended so as to impose some control on what at present is subject to none. There is a need both to draw the line at what is acceptable even for restricted audiences and to ensure that restrictions are properly observed ".
The Williams Committee was criticised, if anything, for having too liberal a tendency regarding their recommendations. I imagine that noble Lords will therefore consider that the recommendation of the Williams Committee that these clubs need to be dealt with by legislation ought to be treated with even more respect than your Lordships otherwise might.
Having given a general welcome to the provisions contained in the Bill, I move only to a few points before your Lordships, with some relief, will see me retake my seat. The first point is one which has already been raised by the noble Viscount: the need to consolidate the Cinematograph Acts. I am not claiming any

259
originality for that thought, because the Minister in another place recognised the need to consolidate and said that he would be proceeding with it. As the noble Viscount indicated, it would indeed help if we could hear not only that the consolidation is taking place but that the tidiness of the interaction between this Bill and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill has been looked at and that that interaction will be a sensible and tidy legislative process without any ends being left uncovered.
The second point which I wish to raise is one to which brief reference was made; namely, the British Board of Film Censors. Your Lordships should appreciate the very fine work which is being done by the board. I mention it because the Williams Report suggested that a statutory body, as opposed to this body which has been set up inside the film industry, should be set up instead. As somebody who has spent over 20 years in local authority circles, I can only say that by and large local authorities regard the British Board of Film Censors' certification and general licensing procedure with the greatest of respect. It has saved most of those authorities the job of supervising these films themselves. As the noble Viscount pointed out, the board keeps itself out of the fees which are paid by the industry itself for doing their work. This allows the board to retain its independence. The gratitude of all those who are looking into these matters ought, on the very rare occasions when one can do so, to be expressed to a body of that nature which is doing an extremely good job. The Williams Report recommended, as I have already mentioned, that a statutory body should be set up. I notice that I am speaking to many Peers who seem to dislike the idea of quangos. The setting up quite unnecessarily of one more quango would meet even with the opposition of my noble friends and myself.
In describing the penalties in the way that he did—the noble Viscount used the words "ferocious penalties"—I am wondering whether or not he was over-stating the position. As I understand it, the penalty of £10,000 is applicable only to the breach of the provisions in the Bill which relate specifically to the carrying on, upon unlicensed premises, of what should, in fact, be licensed. All the subsidiary offences, if I may call them that, attract a maximum penalty of £1,000. I raise this point only because I should not like it to be thought that I agree that this is a ferocious penalty. If you are in breach of these provisions—either because you are endangering life because your premises are not being looked at for fire risk, and they should be, or because you are endangering morals because of the kind of films you are showing, sadistic or otherwise—I should hate to think that the maximum penalty which the court could award would be £10,000, knowing, as the noble Viscount pointed out, the terrific profits which are made in this trade. I should not like it to be thought that this House regarded £10,000 as a ferocious penalty or as one which could not be looked at from time to time. It is a maximum penalty. I do not intend to take up any more of your Lordships' time upon it because, as I understand the situation, the Criminal Justice Bill which is going through its various stages in your Lordships' House at the moment will enable these penalties to be increased,
260
if it is thought fit to do so, without your Lordships having to provide for it in this Bill.
Lastly, in the general welcome which we on this side of the House give to the Bill and in wishing it well, may I turn for a moment to the point raised by the noble Viscount—he expressed some concern regarding it—as to whether the type of establishments covered by the Bill may not go into an area which he would not intend and which your Lordships would not intend. This is a very serious matter and I hope that the Minister will be able to ensure, with all those guiding him, that the definition clause is looked at. We all respect the great legal ability of the noble Viscount. I believe that the combination of that extremely able team, together with a parliamentary draftsman, may be able to assist.
But, if I may say so, we must not regard this as a minor matter. I am conscious of the letter that was written to The Times after this Bill left another place. It came from the editor of Screen Digest, who, after commenting that he was unhappy with the wording of Section 2, said specifically:
" A shop displaying the video programmes which are there offered for sale would become a ' cinema ' with all that entails in terms of licensing, fire regulations, British film quota and Eady levy requirements. Moreover, by extension, any point-of-sale display using film or video, whatever the commodity being sold, is in furtherance of private gain and thus open to classification as a cinematograph exhibition. Similarly affected would be industrial training courses (even when run in-company they are intended to enhance private gain), conferences, sales representatives' portable audio-visual desktop kits, the front-of-house video displays now appearing outside some cinemas, even videotext terminals and receivers ".
This has to be looked at. Mr. Fisher makes a plea in the last sentence of his letter, and it is a very realistic one, that it should not he left,
" to a succession of lengthy and costly lawsuits to re-define the meaning of ' cinematograph exhibition for private gain ' by means of case law ".
That is a perfectly justifiable request which a very respectable individual makes to ensure that the respectable carryings on of the parts of his industry in which he is interested are not interfered with by this Bill. That would not be the intention of those who are promoting this Bill either. Having said that, I repeat that, in my view and that of my noble friends, this is a worthy Bill which comes to your Lordships not a minute before time. I personally hope that it will have a rapid passage and that we shall see a diminution in what is a blot on London's landscape and on certain other parts of the country as well.
7.53 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I originally put down my name to speak on this Bill because I am the Peer charged on these Benches for dealing with the Arts, and this could possibly be regarded as verging on the Arts, if only just. But I then scratched ' because it seemed to me that apart from a general welcome to the Bill which the noble Viscount introduced, I had nothing to say and therefore that it was a very good thing not to say it. But in the course of the noble Viscount's remarks, a question has occurred to me which I should like to ask. I hope noble Lords will bear with me if I very briefly do so. I have not been able to give to the noble Viscount—who inquired

261
whether I had anything to ask—notice of my question and I shall of course understand if he is unable to deal with it in his winding-up speech.
Although my question may seem to be a little frivolous, it is perhaps a fairly serious question. It concerns Clause 2(3). This subsection gives an exemption,
" where the proceeds of an exhibition promoted by a society which is established and conducted wholly for purposes other than purposes of any commercial undertaking ",
are applied for any purpose calculated to benefit the society as a whole. My imagination has been running riot during the course of the speeches and I just wondered this. I believe that the noble Viscount mentioned political parties. My party is very badly off. If we were to have video shows which were open to all members of my political party and where payment was made, they would presumably be exempt from the provisions of this Bill. I hasten to say that no such thing would ever happen because the ghost of Mr. Gladstone would rise up in anger and strike us all down. But it is not a wholly frivolous question. It is quite possible, if I am right in what I have been saying, that there are societies whose objects are entirely other than making private gain from commercial showings but which might be composed of people who were reckless about how they raised money and that those societies would be able by this method to raise money for whatever their general purposes might be. I hope that I am wrong. If I am not wrong, possibly this is something that the noble Viscount and his advisers ought to look at again. Apart from that, I give a very strong welcome from these Benches to this Bill.
7.55 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I hope it will be to the advantage of your Lordships if I now give the Government's views on this Bill. I begin, as other noble Lords have done, by thanking my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross for the very clear exposition which he has given of the provisions of the Bill and of the thinking which lies behind them. As I am sure other noble Lords have discovered, the existing cinematograph legislation is far from straightforward—not least because it has been so heavily amended—and this is inevitably reflected in the detailed provisions of the present Bill. The House will be grateful to my noble friend for his guidance through this difficult territory.
The Government warmly welcome this Bill. We have, in another place, given every possible assistance to its sponsor, my honourable friend the Member for Fareham, Mr. Peter Lloyd, and we very much hope that it will receive the same degree of support from your Lordships as it received there. I was very glad to note the favourable reception it had from both noble Lords on the other side of the House in this regard.
Recent debates on some of the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and on the Dissemination of Pornography Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford have made many of us more familiar than we were with the seedier side of the entertainment world. I hope it has become clear in the process that the Government believe
262
that the most satisfactory means of tackling the problems posed by the trade in pornography is, at present, to concentrate on those areas where there is likely to be a large measure of agreement as to the action that should be taken. The discussions on the report of the Williams Committee on Obscenity and Film Censorship have, in our view, made it quite clear that this measure of agreement would not exist if we were to attempt a root and branch reform of all the existing legislation on obscenity. But progress can be made on more limited fronts—where the mischief is obvious and blatant and where there is a reasonably straightforward way of dealing with it.
This Bill is an example of that approach and will, I hope, show that it can achieve quite a lot and achieve it quite quickly. There are other examples. The Indecent Displays (Control) Act which was passed last session—has undoubtedly had a salutary effect on window displays in Soho and elsewhere, and on the covers of magazines; and the Government quite recently put forward their own proposals for the control of sex shops in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill which has already been mentioned. Those of your Lordships who took part in our discussions of them will recognise that they will prove extremely useful to those who seek to curb the spread of what has come to be called the sex industry and its very undesirable concomitants.
The present Bill can be regarded as the third prong of this attack. Your Lordships may think it odd that the Government have decided that it is better to deal with the issue of sex cinemas by means of this third prong than by tackling it also in Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. As my right honourable and learned friend the Minister of State at the Home Office explained in another place, we believe that the primary means of control over cinemas should continue to be through existing cinematograph legislation. This has worked very effectively for no less than 73 years, and it applies as much to so-called sex cinemas as to the ordinary high street cinemas. The sex cinema differs from the latter only because it does not conform with the usual film censorship conditions and is therefore able to show uncensored films. If such cinemas are brought within the ordinary cinematograph licensing arrangements, a licensing authority can impose censorship arrangements simply by means of imposing licensing conditions. This will give licensing authorities complete control over what is shown. It is unnecessary therefore to supplement these controls by the arrangements proposed in the miscellaneous provisions Bill in respect of sex shops.
Accordingly, to avoid duplication, Schedule 3 to that Bill provides that a cinema licensed under this Bill is exempt from the licensing controls of that schedule. That leaves the references that there are to sex cinemas in that Bill as a form of long-stop to deal with circumstances in which the cinematograph licence requirement could perhaps not apply, such as perhaps when a sex shop had a video-cassette operating in a back room showing a pornographic film, not as an exhibition for which admission was charged in its own right, but as an incidental sales gimmick. It could be argued that, depending on the circumstances, there could be doubt about the Cinematograph Bill's application, and in that event the provisions of Schedule 3

263
are there as a back-up, and I think the local authorities are a good deal happier that that should he so.
But for our main purpose it seems clear that a proper instrument lies to hand in the form of existing cinematograph legislation, and the Bill brought before your Lordships by my noble friend is a timely means of adapting it to that end. As he explained, it has as its principal purpose the ending of the abuse of the cinematograph licensing system by bogus cinema "clubs". These at present take advantage of the exemption afforded by Section 5(1) of the Cinematograph Act 1952 for exhibitions "to which the public are not admitted". In so doing they are able at one and the same time to escape both from the censorship conditions which local authorities invariably attach to a cinematograph licence and from the fire safety regulations made under the Cinematograph Act 1909.
In a debate in another place on the Williams Committee's report last June my honourable and learned friend suggested that it might be possible to take action to close this loophole, and we are delighted that this suggestion was acted upon so quickly by my honourable friend the Member for Fareham.
There is an overwhelming case for closing the loophole. My noble friend Lord Nugent, during our recent debates on the sex shop provisions in the local government Bill, referred to the extreme nature of the material being shown in these clubs. There is a complete lack of control over what is shown; if material which involves sadism, violence and bestiality, frequently with sexual connotations, is not already being shown, there is an imminent danger that it will be. Your Lordships will recall, and the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has recalled to your Lordships, the very strong views of the Williams Committee on the shocking offensiveness of some of the material available in moving picture form outside the licensing system. He referred your Lordships to a different passage. I would, without quoting it, refer those who have not read them to paragraphs 12.8 and 12.10. Together with his measured repetition, I think the case is overwhelming.
The committee recommended that there should continue to be a film censorship system applying to children and adults, although, as noble Lords have been reminded, it also proposed a number of changes, including the replacement of the present British Board of Film Censors by a statutory Film Examining Board and the abolition of the censorship powers of local authorities. I would not like the noble Lord to think that we were not sensible of the very great work that the present body is doing.
Another recommendation of the committee goes to the heart of my noble friend's Bill. It is for an extension of the film censorship system to cover the bogus cinema "clubs". They operate virtually in the same way as public cinemas. They go through the motions perhaps of asking someone to sign a membership form, but that is often not worth the paper it is written on, and very often it is not written. It is quite unacceptable that they should not be subject to the same controls as public cinemas. The Bill will bring all exhibitions promoted for private gain within the ambit of licensing controls and safety requirements.
The Bill also introduces another major change, and
264
my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross has rightly laid great stress on this. It extends the definition of cinematograph exhibitions. This extension will mean that it includes beyond any possible doubt exhibitions by means of video cassettes and similar apparatus. That at last brings the Cinematograph Acts fully into line with the realities of modern technology. It is quite wrong that people should be able to evade controls simply because they use equipment which has only recently been invented.
As to penalties, I find it very difficult to add to what my noble friend has already said. The provisions are, I think, robust perhaps rather than ferocious. I think they complement those in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. As my noble friend has said, they go hand in hand. I think their robustness is abundantly justified. Some of the material now available for exhibition is of a profoundly shocking nature and must not be unleashed upon the public in a responsible society.
I referred earlier to the complicated structure of the Cinematograph Acts, particularly after their heavy amendment. When, as I very much hope, this Bill is enacted it will be even more difficult for anybody but the most expert to find their way through them. This is exactly the sort of field in which consolidating legislation would be helpful, and I can confirm that the Government are examining very seriously whether they can introduce such a Bill in the reasonably near future. For that reason the opportunity has been taken in this Bill, with the agreement of its sponsors, to make various drafting, tidying-up and clarifying provisions. My noble friend has directed your Lordships' attention to examples of these in Clauses 3 and 4. I dare say a number of other drafting amendments may be tabled, for the same reason, during the passage of the Bill through this House, and I hope they will prove acceptable to your Lordships.
The last substantive point to which I would like to refer is the question of whether this Bill will, as has now been suggested is possible, accidentally operate to the disadvantage of legitimate commercial outlets. My noble friend has explained how this impression has arisen, as has the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I would only like to confirm that it is certainly not the Government's intention that the Bill should operate to bring licensing controls down on the head of someone who, for example, is innocently showing a demonstration video cassette as part of his shop's normal commercial operation. Nor do I think—and here I entirely agree with my noble friend—that the Bill does have this effect.
If we are not careful, specific amendments in order to put this beyond any possible doubt could actually have an effect upon the security of the Bill itself. I think my noble friend was very wise to make no promises on that score. But I can certainly give him the assurance he asked for, and which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, sought, that the Government will give the fullest assistance in seeing whether anything can be done on the face of the Bill to still any misgivings, even though these are, in our view, groundless, or unjustifiable.
This Bill has the Government's support. I hope your Lordships will assist its passage through this House. Private Members' Bills are a little less robust, if I

265
can so put it, than Government legislation, and they need that help. In particular, therefore, I hope that your Lordships will he very sparing indeed of amendments to it. Some for the purposes I have mentioned may be unavoidable. But clearly the more there are, the riskier will be the future of the Bill when it returns to another place. It deserves a place on the statute book. It can protect many of our fellow citizens from affront, and some of them, I believe, from real harm. I therefore wish my noble friend every success, and I commend this Bill to your Lordships' most favourable attention.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I cannot speak for them, but I would suspect that the noble Lords, Lord Mishcon and Lord Beaumont of Whitley, will be as pleased as I am myself with the speech to which we have just listened from my noble friend Lord Elton. It gives us the encouragement that I think we all wanted in the furtherance of this measure. It only leaves me with a very few points upon which I think I ought to comment.
The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has driven me off my epithet "ferocious" and I had better play if safe and be "robust", as my noble friend did. Nevertheless, it is worth drawing your Lordships' attention to the powers under Clause 7(7) whereby, if one is convicted of any of the offences other than the ones to which the maximum £10,000 fine is attached, the court can also revoke the licence. Of course, if you are making your living, or part of your living, out of the licence and the profits we have been talking of, revocation of the licence is a very serious step indeed. So that is not altogether to be overlooked.
As for the high street shops and the other outlets to which he has referred, I have already said that I take this matter seriously. I have looked at, and studied, the letter in The Times, and indeed the other representations that have been made. I have also to take into account the point well made by my noble friend Lord Elton that if we start trying to draft further exemptions it is all to well known that those who wish to evade the provisions of this brand of legislation could well use their ingenuity so as to take advantage of them. Therefore, anything that does go in has really got to be very carefully examined indeed. However, I withdraw in no way the promise that I made to continue looking at this matter.
As for the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, he has provided me with a true conundrum. I entirely appreciate that neither the Liberal Party nor the Alliance are intending to recruit members by the demonstration of films or videos of the nature so vividly described in the course of this debate. But I do at the same time accept that there is the possibility of political parties being tempted to do so and, therefore, I should like to look at the matter.
I see two points immediately although I shall, if I may, consider the matter further. I see two points which I would like the noble Lord to consider. The first is that the formula in subsection (3) is a faithful copy, or at any rate it contains the essence of what we have had in the law on lotteries and gaming since 1962 and in a provision in an Act called the Private Places of Entertainment (Licensing) Act 1967, in both of which, so far as I know, it has worked without any undue difficulty. One has to bear in mind that, if one has a
266
pattern of statute law which sets out a certain formula to achieve a certain object, and Parliament then comes along and passes a new Bill containing a different formula, it tends to throw doubt upon the scope of what has always been accepted as being perfectly understandable and clear in the earlier legislation. I put that marker down because I can see that it could cause difficulties.
I should also like to draw to his attention the point that the exemption in Clause 2(3) is one by way of a defence, and the defence is so phrased that the exhibition is to be claimed not to:
" be promoted for private gain by reason only that the application of the proceeds for that purpose results in benefit to any person as an individual ".
That gives rise to a very substantial argument on the facts, if that argument is merited. I cannot imagine exactly the type of circumstances that the noble Lord has in mind with sufficient accuracy at this moment to be able to give him a detailed answer. But I should have thought that the generality of the defence so expressed would enable the prosecution to deal with something which was patently bogus and was attempting to take advantage of this defence.
Nevertheless, and with the reservations that I have about the earlier legislation being in the same terms, the noble Lord has done me a service in raising this point and I am sure that he has done your Lordships a service in raising this point and I should like to consider it.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Viscount proceeds, I should like to ask him a question because he is always so helpful to me on legal matters. The noble Viscount has, of course, appreciated I am sure that the society referred to in subsection (3):
" is established and conducted wholly for purposes other than purposes of any commercial undertaking''.
As I understood the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, his particular plea was for a rather senseless political organisation that, forgetting everything, was merely for the purpose of one function, collecting money, in regard to the showing of a cinema film or video, as it may be. It would, of course, be an organisation (would it not?) that was wholly a noncommercial undertaking if it was a political party.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, indeed, so. But that does not get them home on the question of the defence, because they have to go further than that; they have to deal with the second limb of subsection (3) to which I have referred. Yes, of course they would pass that test, but I am not so sure that they would necessarily pass the second. I have in mind some of the things that have occurred from time to time in courts presided over by successive Lords Chief Justices when people seek to take advantage of this type of technicality. But let me consider the matter further as I have undertaken to do.
I should like to thank those of your Lordships who have spoken and those who have listened with, I imagine, approval to what we have all been saying. 1 am extremely grateful to my noble friend for his support and for his promises of continued support. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Gaming (Amendment) Bill
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, 1 understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill ankl that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, 1 beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural Prices: EEC Decisions
8.15 p.m.
Lord Balfour of Inchrye Lord Balfour of Inchrye rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the action of the European Economic Community in forcing through this year's farm prices package on a majority vote does not deprive Parliament of the power of decision on a matter of vital national interest; and whether, if majority voting is extended to other economic issues, the sovereign rights of Parliament will be made subject to a European Communities' majority, contrary to assurances given to the electorate at the time of Britain's joining the European Communities.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to ask the Unstirred Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper. I can make no apology for raising this Question at a late hour and to not exactly a packed House. But the reason I do so is that the Question raises possible results arising from the EEC farm package majority vote which the Minister of Agriculture accepted as a matter of national importance. Indeed, the result of the farm package has an effect upon every household in the country and so one can confirm that it is a matter of national importance.
This is the first time that an issue of vital national importance has been decided upon by a vote in the EEC. I question: where can this lead us? I say nothing at all about the merits or otherwise of the farm package deal. I am not qualified in any way to give a view upon that. But I want to put to Her Majesty's Government the possible results of this precedent and I look forward to hearing the reply from the Minister whom I am grateful for being here at this hour.
The Luxembourg understanding was not a formal agreement incorporated in the rules of the EEC. It accepted that matters of vital national importance to a country should be unanimously agreed. But this has now been thrown overboard over the farm package. Parliament has had to knuckle down to the majority verdict in the EEC. My fear is that once this majority voting is allowed, it could be extended and broadened in future.
One can of course question what is a vital national issue and who is to judge it? If we are all working together, as we are told we are in the EEC, then surely the fellow members of any country declaring something of a vital national interest would accept that country's statement that it is something of vital national interest. A decision of vital importance given on a majority vote brings to our affairs a grave constitutional issue. It is no good anyone saying, "Oh well, it will not
268
happen": it has happened. In the 1970s, when the campaign for entry to the EEC was waged, we were constantly assured that the supremacy of Parliament would not be endangered.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships at this hour with a large number of quotations, but I cannot resist quoting what a colleague of my noble friend on the Front Bench, Sir Keith Joseph, who was a member of the then Government, said. In 1971, he stated:
"It will never be requisite upon us once we are in the Community to take any decision, or to join in any decision, against our national interests".—[Official Report, Commons, 22/10/71; cols. 1114–
;1115.]
That seems to me to be pretty clear. I should like to remind your Lordships of what Mr. Heath's White Paper said on this matter. The White Paper, Command 4715, published in July 1971, said:
" Like any other treaty, the Treaty of Rome commits its signatories to support agreed aims; but the commitment represents the voluntary undertaking of a sovereign State to observe policies which it has helped to form. There is no question of any erosion of essential national sovereignty."
I could continue to quote, but I shall not weary your Lordships by doing so. However, even in your Lordships' House the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, confirmed on 26th July 1972 at column 1481 that:
" The practical position in the Community and the way in which the Community works, as most noble Lords know, is that in a situation in which a member State judges that its vital national interests are affected the Community, as it works at present, and is likely to work for some time to come, only proceeds by common consent."
I have given your Lordships three examples. Undoubtedly, any of your Lordships who took part in the campaign from 1971 onwards must accept that speeches like those were made by the leaders of the campaign. Let me interpose here that I speak as a supporter of the EEC, but I think that it is important to raise this particular issue of national sovereignty.
I believe that the danger lies in fields beyond this particular and comparatively minor national issue of the farm package deal as compared to other vital issues. Let us take fishing policy. Our proposals for the fishing policy have twice been rejected. Let us suppose that the Community becomes exasperated and says that Britain is too obstinate. There could then be a majority vote. There could be majority votes on taxation, on matters vital to this country, on social matters, on fishing or on any other matters. This country would be driven to knuckling down—as the Government have had to do over the farm package deal—or being faced with withdrawal from the EEC. Those are the alternatives.
Once we are overruled by the Community, can the Minister say whether there would be any alternative other than the Government's acceptance of being overruled, accepting a majority vote, or contemplating withdrawal from the EEC? We are constantly assured of the supremacy of Parliament. It was on that assumption that all of us supported the EEC. I would earnestly ask the Government to consider asking for the veto to be reintroduced in respect of matters which are accepted as being of vital national importance. The member States should say whether they could accept the veto or would wish to enshrine in the documents of the EEC a proviso that there should be a unanimous decision on all such matters. Unless some

269
protective measure is taken, we are putting the power of Parliament into pawn with our neighbours and colleagues in the EEC. That is a danger that I foresee looming up in a larger way than the farm package deal, which started this off and caused the knuckling down of the Government against the wishes of our Minister of Agriculture and probably against the wishes of the Government.
That is why I ask this Question tonight, and I sincerely hope that we shall receive a positive reply from the Government on such matters—a reply similar to that which we should receive if the fishing policy was before us again—and whether that could ever be decided on a majority vote?
8.28 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for raising this matter of considerable importance and for a speech which demonstrates his conviction that this is a serious matter for Parliament and for the country. In fact, the House debated the Luxembourg compromise when the matter was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, on 27th May. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour, has taken the matter a stage further in his speech this evening, with references to the sovereign rights of Parliament.
In my view, there are a number of crucial questions to be considered: were the negotiations on the price proposals conducted in a reasonable manner and was the United Kingdom justified in holding out so long against the majority of its Community partners? Further, were the majority justified in putting the Luxembourg compromise aside and ignoring the veto? Again, what now becomes of the compromise? This is a question which the noble Lord himself has just asked. It does not have legal authority and its breach was not a breach of the Treaty of Rome; it was a breach of a convention—of a gentleman's agreement, as my noble friend Lord Peart said in the debate on 27th May.
Finally, will that breach of the compromise mean that majority voting in future will be used to erode the sovereign right of Parliament, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, fears it may? On the first question—namely, the conduct of negotiations—the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, Mr. Francis Pym, had no doubt in his mind when he said in a debate in another place on 26th May:
" There is no doubt that the vote at the Agricultural Council on 18th May constitutes a major departure from the way in which Community business has customarily be conducted. It is a departure which will have the most serious implications for the future if we are not able to establish clear procedures which everyone follows as an essential basis for confidence between member states ".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/5/82; col. 937.]
We know, of course, that it was the French Government which argued in 1965 that majority voting should not carry the day if a member state considered that important national interests were at stake. A serious constitutional crisis had developed at that time. We were not members, but the French put up a sustained fight. They proposed an amendment to the treaty which would have given a veto a force of law; and they went so far as to boycott Community institutions for a period of seven months.
270
If France had succeeded then, the action taken on 18th May by the majority, which included France, would not have been possible. Although the French attempt to legalise the veto failed, the Luxembourg compromise produced what may be called a procedural understanding which has been honoured for over 15 years. This was the position when the United Kingdom entered the Community in 1973. We did so in the knowledge that the veto was in existence, and although it was not in the treaty, it had none the less become an established precedent by then; and the 1971 paper stressed this. The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, has quoted from speeches which were made at that time by leaders like Sir Keith Joseph which underline what was in the White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Soames, dealt with this aspect in his speech on 27th May, when he said:
" We must realise that me did not join a Community which takes its decisions on the basis of unanimity. There are carefully prescribed areas which do require unanimity, but, on the whole, decisions are taken by majority vote ".
Of course, we knew this at the time, but the precedent was by then well established and we did not think that the veto would be set aside where important interests were at stake. That is my point of disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Soames.
Obviously, the Government were wrong to think that the veto would continue to be recognised. They made a miscalculation—and I suppose an understandable one; but the very fact that they believed the veto would hold good gives credence to the view that the United Kingdom took the Luxembourg compromise very seriously when we entered the Community in 1973. It is necessary to look at the precise wording of the Luxembourg compromise. It justifies the use of the veto where:
"very important interests of one or more partners are at stake ".
What does this mean? That was a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. There is no guidance upon it. What may be of interest to one partner may not be regarded as important by another partner. In this particular case on 18th May, seven partners concluded that their important interests were best served by disregarding the veto. Mr. Pym had no doubt that,
" important British national interests were at stake in what was being decided ".
And he went on to make a further crucial point—namely, that the Community budget and the agricultural proposals are "effectively inseparable" because their influence on the budget is so great.
It is the linking of the agricultural proposals with the budget that makes the case for the validity of the use of the veto a strong one on this occasion. I do not suggest that the proposals themselves are not an important national issue. Sub-Committee D, of which I have the honour to be chairman, recently proposed a report on the draft proposals and on the Guidelines for European Agriculture submitted by the Commission. Taking both documents together, the sub-committee was in no doubt that the proposals were deficient and not in accord with the Commission's own guidelines. The House debated the report on 30th March and those who spoke endorsed that point of view. This point was stressed again by my noble friend Lord Peart in the debate, and he was right to do

271
so, because this House always takes careful note of the recommendations of its own committees. I will not go into detail on the report save to say that the average price rise in the final package was higher than the rise recommended by the March draft—that is to say, it was 10; per cent. as compared with the 9 per cent. when we debated the report of Sub-Committee D.
Even so, it would be unfair, in my submission, not to recognise that there were in the package elements which are advantageous to the British farmer; and this has been conceded by the National Farmers' Union. The question is whether the ultimate package in itself was so bad as to justify using the veto. We are getting near the heart of the problem there. There must be some doubts about this and one must relate it to the budget to make a complete case.
The root of the whole problem is our annual budget contribution. The demands made upon this country are very high and arguably excessive, though we did rather well last year. Currently our prosperity is lower than the average for the Community as a whole. We are a net contributor on a large scale to the Community budget, and it is the bearing which agriculture has on that budget which may justify the linkage to which I have just referred. What the Government seem to have said is, "We are proposing to veto this agricultural package mainly because it increases our annual budget contribution substantially, and therefore is against the spirit of the negotiations which have been going on since the 1980 agreement". Is that a fair summary? I shall be interested to have the Minister's reaction to that when he comes to reply.
That 1980 Agreement brought the CAP and the budget together and certainly, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, they are importantly related. Whichever way one turns one has to come back to the same conclusion, namely, that it is not the principle of our membership of the Community which is wrong but the fact that we joined it at the worst possible time. The annual haggle about the agricultural price package and the refunds is merely a reflection of the difficulty of making the system work during the last few years; and the long period of economic recession further compounds the problem.
This calls for great patience on all sides, perhaps more patience than may be available. We have to remember that disagreements on the one hand between us and most of our European partners have been matched by support for us at a very testing time. On the whole, the issues have been kept apart, but they are bound to impose a very great strain on our relationships. For example, we must not forget that Germany has been a good friend of ours in the Community and given us a good deal of support on a variety of matters, and they are particularly affected by the price proposals. We must not allow the tensions of recent weeks—and they have been extremely worrying times for us all and particularly for those who are in the Government—to upset the balance of our long-term judgment and our long-term interests.
The noble Lord has related these developments to the sovereign rights of Parliament. If the Luxembourg compromise is a dead letter that must have significant consequences. I am not sure that it is a dead letter,
272
as the noble Lord seemed to think it was. I have a feeling that the seven partners who decided to vote notwithstanding the Luxembourg compromise did not intend to kill the Luxembourg compromise by so doing. I believe they think that the Luxembourg compromise is still in being, and they may well invoke it again. This is something upon which the House will be glad to hear the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
If a majority of states can outvote others on issues which they regard as issues of vital national importance, then the Community may find itself in further trouble, as the experience of 1965 demonstrated. France could be the next victim, and we know how sensitive France is about what she regards as her national interests. Majority voting, therefore, must have some effect on our national sovereignty. I am not sure how much. That is a matter which has to be considered very carefully. Is this acceptable to all members of the Community? Have they weighed the full implications of what has taken place? I noted the interesting suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Soames, in his speech. It is worth considering, but he will accept that what he proposed in fact effectively does away with the veto.
We must also bear in mind that this is all part of a continuing debate and that it is best not to be too dogmatic at this point. The Colombo-Genscher proposals are on the table and will be discussed again at the next Council meeting on 20th June. Paragraph 8 of that document deals with the decision-making processes and voting procedures and there will clearly be lengthy debates upon it. I understand that we may have a revised version of the proposals and a Government memorandum upon them very soon, possibly during the next day or so. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when we may expect to see them. I also understand that there may be a debate in another place next week, and what is said there of course will be listened to with interest.
Lastly, Sub-Committee E of our own Select Committee on the EEC, which deals with legal matters under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, has been asked to look at the implication of the Colombo-Genscher proposals and the Luxembourg accord, and given the quality of that committee and of its chairman, that should be of some comfort to us all.
Even so, if the Community is to survive it must surely take a fundamental look at some of its rules, and this includes the Luxembourg compromise. This must be more precisely defined fairly soon so that member states know exactly where they stand. It was breached on 18th May in a fit of frustration and impatience—at least that is how it seemed to me—and it is clear that the Government had no hint from any quarter that this was to happen. That was extremely unfortunate and an act of some discourtesy. But, more important still, the causes of internal conflict and bitterness like the budgetary dispute must be studied and must be removed if we are to become a stable Community. The support Britain has received in the South Atlantic conflict shows that there is a big fund of goodwill for Britain in the Community, and this must be a foundation to build upon in the future.
8.43 p.m.
Lord Banks: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for asking this Question this evening, for he gives us a second opportunity to discuss the significance of the use of the majority voting procedure by the Council of Ministers with regard to the agricultural settlement. The noble Lord's Question lays the emphasis upon the political and constitutional aspects of that event rather than on the agricultural ones. Having thanked the noble Lord for putting the Question, I then must part company with him because I think that the view I would take would be diametrically opposed to the view which he has put so clearly before us this evening.
I do not share his fears. Personally I welcome the use of majority voting on this occasion as I would on others. I think that the veto, the practice—and both noble Lords who have spoken have made clear that it is only a practice—of searching for unanimity has held up the decision-making process and led to delay and frustration. A whole series of reports from committees, from wise men, from statesmen like Mr. Tindemans of Belgium, from the Commission, have laid emphasis on the paralysing effect of the unanimity practice. I do not believe that it will be feasible to run a Community of possibly 12 nations on the practice as it has been pursued in recent years.
I cannot see that the sovereignty of our Parliament receives a deadly blow if that Parliament decides to accept decisions taken in a Council of Ministers by majority voting where provided for in the Treaty of Rome, rather than merely being bound by decisions taken by unanimity. The Ministers in the Council of Ministers would still he responsible to the Parliament at Westminster for the way in which they voted, for what they said, and for their conduct generally at the Council of Ministers.
If there were a greater use of majority voting it is clear that some of the decisions would not go our way but other of the decisions certainly would. We might, for example, at last get some progress on the question of insurance; freedom for insurance operation in Europe. Our insurers might at last be able freely to seek business anywhere within the Community, for which we have been waiting so long. I would not weep any tears at the demise of the veto. However, I do not suppose for one moment that we have heard the last of it. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, I do not think it is dead by any means, whatever my own view of the matter or my own wish in the matter might be. I recognise that we may still need to have some form, a restricted form, of a veto: an opportunity for a nation to say that its vital interests are at stake, but with some much more precise rules, if you like, or agreement, as to how this is to be operated than exists at the present time. It would be of a restricted kind so that it would in fact be only in the extreme cases, where national interest of a very considerable degree of importance is involved, that it would be used.
Of course, what annoyed our partners over the agricultural settlement and the linking of it with the settlement of Britain's complaint over the budget contribution was that so far as the agricultural settlement itself was concerned—and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, hinted at this—the British Government
274
were not strongly opposed to it. They would have preferred a lower rate of increase, but there was much in it that was acceptable to Britain. The Government could not for one moment claim that Britain's vital interest was involved if that settlement were accepted. We were merely holding it up in order to get a more satisfactory, a more favourable, settlement of the other issue of the budget, and we pushed that linkage too far and the tactic backfired.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, has said, this matter is to be discussed on 20th June by the Council of Ministers in the context of the Genscher-Colombo plan. As he pointed out that plan makes some provision in this respect for a more precise and more specific procedure with regard to the declaration of vital interests being at stake. That plan also envisages a much greater use of majority voting. I am not suggesting for one minute that we ought to try to write into the Treaty of Rome the Luxembourg compromise, or any version of it. I am merely saying that we need to have what would be, in effect, a new convention about the convention that has operated since the Luxembourg compromise was originally arrived at.
It is sometimes said that majority voting would lead to more power for the Commission. I do not object to that at all so long as the Commission is firmly controlled by the democratically elected European Parliament. Reverting back for a moment to the Genscher-Colombo plan, I very much hope that when this is discussed the Government will be taking a positive and constructive attitude towards it in respect of not only the particular matter we are discussing tonight but also the wider nature of that plan for a European union. Incidentally, speaking of the European Parliament, it is interesting to note that 11 members of the British Conservative group there—if I have understood the reports aright—voted in favour of majority voting on the agricultural issue.
I conclude by making three points briefly about the budget, which was referred to by the noble Lord Lord Cledwyn. First, I think there is unlikely to be a substantial reduction in the total expenditure on the CAP. Clearly, we want to seek to reform it. Of course, we want to eliminate anything which leads to over-production, although I understand that the surpluses have now more or less disappeared. But, even when that is done, and even if the run-down continues in the number of people in the Community engaged in agriculture—a run-down which has gone on steadily since the Community was established—it would be unrealistic to suppose that there will be any great saving in the amount of money spent on the CAP.
Secondly, if that is so, then any long-term improvement in the United Kingdom budget position will be brought about by an increase in the Community budget through the development of other common policies, from which Britain will get more advantage than we do from the CAP. I believe that is more likely to be achieved if majority voting is the normal practice than otherwise.
My third and final point about the budget is that it is important to keep the figures in perspective. The year before last, £203 million was our net contribution to the budget; it was £55 million last year; and there is the possibility that it might go as high as £900 million this year. Those figures must be offset by the reduction which has recently been negotiated. The figures may

275
seem high, but when they are compared against the 110,000 million which is our total national expenditure, they are not so high. When one thinks that the EEC budget represents only 2½ per cent. of the total national government budgets within the Community, then the figures are seen in perspective. The budget represents I per cent. of the gross domestic product of the Community. If it were increased, as the McDougall Committee suggested some years ago, to 2½ per cent., the situation from our point of view could well be transformed. Therefore, I hope the Government will actively promote the greater use of majority voting and will press for an increased EEC budget as the best way to solve the problem of the British contribution to the EEC.
8.53 p.m.
Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, before we turned to uncensored films, the House was discussing the question of unemployment. Whatever else is uncertain, there is no doubt that were this country to leave the European Community, the prospects of decreasing unemployment would move over the horizon and the chances of the 2 to 2½ million jobs which depend directly on our membership of the Community continuing would be in jeopardy. Thus, while much of this interesting discussion tonight centres round the nature of our national interest and the way in which it can be protected within the Community, there is no question but that it is a major British interest to remain in the European Community. What the House is debating tonight is how that interest is best to be defined, how it is to be protected and how the overall interest of the Community itself is to be encompassed and developed at the same time.
I am glad that my noble friend Lord Balfour has asked this Question. It is a second barrel of, or complement to, the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Soames the other day, as others have commented. Like Lord Balfour, I feel that those assurances given in the past should be honoured. Admittedly, in my case, commitments made, undertakings given and words spoken in either House of Parliament before we joined veer into the era of my political childhood and I would not claim total responsibility for everything that was said then. Nevertheless, though progress has to be made and history develops, those undertakings are firm and I share with my noble friend an eagerness that they should be respected.
There are other assurances which I would like respected, too. There are Members—I hope not of this House—of another place who promised, when the referendum on our Community membership was over, that they would abide by the people's decision. Let those assurances be honoured as well and, when they are, we shall have a better discussion about the future of Britain in the Community.
The second part of my noble friend's Question comes to the nub of the matter which has been touched on by every speaker so far. I shall only make some comments in parenthesis, as it were, because the hour is late and your Lordships would not wish for a lengthy treatise from me at this time of night. If I understood my noble friend correctly, he was addressing himself to the key to our future relationship with
276
the Community and the scope of the power of the Community to resolve its own problems. We are talking in a thin House, too late at night, about the kernel of our link with the Community and its power to act. It is a major topic, and there is one major reason why it is a pity we are talking about it now. I do not reprimand my noble friend for raising it—I would not dare—but in the closing stages of the Falklands campaign and the South Atlantic crisis, there is a mood of vibrant patriotism in the country which makes us all particularly sensitive to the status and role of our nationhood and the way in which it is treated by others. Whether or not we arc as dispassionate as the noble and learned Law Lords at their best, Nye cannot help but be affected by that spirit which, rightly, is present in every quarter of the Kingdom.
Perhaps we do not remember often enough how many jobs have been endangered in other EEC member states, how many businesses have been put, even marginally, at risk and how much prosperity has been threatened because other Community nations have gone along with us in a conflict which, to them, often is strange, if not incomprehensible. Other countries have sacrificed their prosperity to some extent because of a political entanglement which involves this country primarily, if not alone. I suggest that we should put on record our gratitude—not our cringing obeisance but our gratitude—to the majority of the Community who have seen this one through; and it was this question, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, rightly hinted, which was in the atmosphere, if not on the agenda, that led to an unfortunate occasion, a single occurrence, so that constitutional progress within the Community happened in a particularly difficult way for we in this country to accept. I think—and I hope that I will not be sent to the Tower for saying this—that when an honourable friend of mine in the other place likened President Thorn to General Galtieri in the debate on 26th May, the mood of vibrant patriotism that I was talking about had gone a little far. In all the discussions about sovereignty and our national rights at the moment it is difficult to secure a dispassionate approach. I do not complain about it, but I beg my noble friend on the Front Bench to use his best endeavours to arrange in a month or two's time a major debate on the future of the Community, perhaps on the report to be issued in due course by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, when we can talk about these things at a better time of day, and with a fuller House.
I want to make it quite clear that I—as I hope do all of your Lordships—support fully the Government in their endeavours to secure a lasting solution to the British budget problem. I believe that Her Majesty's Government, and in particular the Prime Minister, should be backed in their efforts in this regard. As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, pointed out, we must settle the issue if we are to secure our relationship with the Community in a way that is acceptable to them and to us. Nevertheless while we are engaged in this important exercise, and afterwards when we can better develop the Community together, we must see to it that the treaty works. Wherever it can be made to function we must make it function.
When I studied the debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Soames on 27th May I supported the view

277
that he put forward about the way in which the Luxembourg accord, agreement or whatever you like to call it should be developed. I did not take it as I think one other Lord noble who spoke took it; that it involves the total abandonment of the veto. I also supported the notion put forward by my noble friend Lord Beloff who again addressed himself to the way in which the council of Ministers works and the manner in which it could be made to function better. I believe that this is what is necessary for all member states to focus upon now.
I consider that some of our partners have recoiled with some anxiety at what was achieved on the famous day on which majority voting was being reintroduced after a lapse of years. I believe that the smaller states, in particular, are worried about the effect that it might have on them. Indeed, President Thorn himself who was a key figure in the use of majority voting said that,
" It should not be deduced from the vote on agricultural prices that in future the use of the majority vote would become an automatic procedure which would threaten to steamroller the interests of some countries, especially the smaller ones ".
I say to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye that in the discussions on what are called the Genscher/ Colombo proposals there is an opportunity to reassemble the most useful and functional part of the Luxembourg accord in a way which will not lead to the Community being blocked on minor matters.
I come from the South-West; I represent Devon. If we were to be overruled on a majority vote on the common fisheries policy I would be in trouble and rightly so. I believe that the common fisheries policy is a major difficulty for this country, and I should never like to see this country in a position whereby we could be overruled on such an item as the common fisheries policy. Deep though my intellectual convictions might go along with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, I feel that it would not be practical politics either nationally or within the Community. But for such an anxiety to block the Community from re-examining its procedures would be very had indeed. If Her Majesty's Government are to be inhibited by this single occurrence—their frustration, irritation and cumulative anxiety about the future of the Community—from examining closely and with enthusiasm ways in which the Council of Ministers reaches decisions, that would be very bad, too. I say that because, as the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out, when we have a Community of 12, as I hope we will have and as I believe we should, then the present cumbersome procedures will be under even greater strain. If we care about the community, we must worry about the way it takes its decisions. Of course, it may not be possible in my political lifetime to do away with the veto, desirable though that might be in political theory but we must make progress towards achieving decisions quickly and firmly with general and common assent.
Before I become too enthusiastic, I would try to reassure my noble friend Lord Balfour and my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls (who has been sent here to take a note of what I say) that there are many other countries with our type of anxieties. There are countries such as Denmark and Greece with constitutional objections to the abolition of the veto
278
permanently. There are other countries with deep political objections to the quick elimination of the veto and if anybody thinks that the new member states will come into the Community to be overruled quickly then there is scope there for them to gain some reassurance.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, said, it is necessary for us to have a fundamental look at some of the Community's rules. We have had a major shuddering and juddering of the machinery which has led to many distorted and unpleasant interpretations, political recrimination, national distrust and a halting of progress on the policies which really matter, the kind of policies that would lead to helping with the problems of unemployment. What we now need to do is not what my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye implied—that this particular incident meant that we in this Parliament should knuckle under the will of the Community. That is not necessary, not at all.
What we have to do is to follow through the logic of those events on the night when the common practice of the veto broke down. We have to re-examine what the Community, in middle age—over 25 years old; grown up—wants to do, and can do. We have to examine the way it works and what it is best suited to do. It may be that (to misquote Polonius) neither a federalist nor a confederalist we should be; that the Community is something of its own. We must not forever rest on those rather faded laurels that it has already acquired. What we must do is examine what it is good at and make sure it can do it better.
In that spirit I welcome what my noble friend has said, because in introducing his Question he has given the Government an opportunity to reassure this House that there is going to be a chance for an increasingly positive contribution by Her Majesty's Government to the evolution of the Community. I hope my noble friend the Minister will use his endeavours to persuade my noble friend the Leader of the House to have a fuller debate on the future of the Community on some later occasion. But what I hope he will also do is confirm that the Government are not going to draw back from this unhappy incident into a mood of pained lack of constructive thought, but that they are going to use it to open a new chapter in our relationship with the Community in which we will maintain, with just as much firmness, if not more firmness, our own national position and rights, but will also increase and accelerate the extent to which we contribute to its long-term evolution by putting forward new policies of the sort to which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, referred, from which we can derive benefit, and at the same time engage actively in the procedural suggestions under Genscher/Colombo which will make the council function better.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the only reason why I want to intervene is that I do not believe that the three speeches we have heard from noble Lords—that is, with the exception of that from my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye—represent in any degree the reaction of the country as a whole to what happened when the majority vote went back on the Luxembourg compromise. The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, the

279
noble Lord, Lord Banks, and my noble friend Lord O'Hagan seemed to approach this (if I understood their words correctly) from the point of view that the Government would have their sympathetic understanding if they did nothing about it.
I believe that unless the Government do something about it, or try to do something about it, the reaction in the country will be such that it might precipitate the very thing that neither my noble friend Lord O'Hagan nor I, nor anybody, wants. It could precipitate the possibility of our having to leave the Community, and I believe it would be disastrous if we had to do that. It is vital we should remain now. It is vital that we should be there to see that the work to the universal good of every member of the Community is continued. But if this breach of faith is pushed under the rug—and unless the vital questions put by my noble friend are dealt with in some constructive way, which means that the Government are alerted to doing something about it—then I do not believe we shall he able to carry the country with us to do the vital thing of remaining there to take full advantage of being a member of the Community.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, knowing him, as I have, over very many years, would not wish to misinterpret my speech or cause any misunderstanding about what I said; but I made it abundantly clear—and he will read it in Hansard tomorrow—that I think that some conclusion about the Luxembourg proposals has to be reached very soon. That implies, of course, that the Government must take a lead in making certain that this will he done.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I accept that; and, of course, as the noble Lord has said, we have been good friends on issues now for many years. But I repeat: the general tenor of his speech gave me the impression that he would have a general sympathetic understanding if nothing very fundamental was done about it.
I do not expect very much of a reply from the Government tonight. I do not think that my noble friend ought to attempt to give a detailed answer. All I would expect from my noble friend, all I think it would be prudent for him to say, is that the Government are aware of this fundamental thing that happened and are giving detailed consideration as to how best we can extricate ourselves from the danger that that showed to the continuation of the Community; and I expect that he will ask us to wait until the Government have had a chance to weigh all the aspects so that they can be properly dealt with.
That something fundamental has happened, there is no doubt. And, the fundamental thing that has happened could be interpreted as interfering with our national sovereignty, as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye said. It could mean that, because of what happened, and the Treaty of Rome originally laid down directly and specifically—and we knew it before we joined—that there was no veto and that a majority vote was all that was required. That was clear as far as the treaty went. But before we signed it, as a result of the stand taken by France, by universal acceptance the rigid
280
position as originally laid down in the treaty by general acceptance had been replaced by what was known as the Luxembourg compromise. That was, without attempting an interference with the treaty, because the treaty itself could not be altered in any particular without having to go back to each of the ten Parliaments to be ratified again.
Everybody knew the practical possibility of that being done was not on, but they recognised the dangers shown by the French stand and there was this general understanding that, although the treaty said what it did, they were prepared to accept that the procedures in future would virtually give every member of the Community power to veto if they adjudged that their vital national interests were concerned. When we joined the Community it was with the existence of the treaty as written but amended in its application as universally agreed. When in the 1960s and 1970s those who were critical of the possibility of our signing the Treaty of Rome asked this question, they were told on every occasion by leaders in this country, of every political persuasion, who welcomed our signing the treaty, that this power to stop anything affecting national interests would be left in the hands of the individual nations. That was the understanding which we signed when we joined, and it has been the practice for 16 years.
The amendment of the Act by agreement is the thing which has operated and it is working well. During the 16 years, because every member of the Community knew it had this power to protect its interests, they got together and we have seen a strengthening and good things flowing and affecting our employment possibilities. Now all of that is at risk because the almost certainty of the power of veto to protect national interests no longer seems to be there. I believe the reaction in the country is not only against the ignoring of the Luxembourg compromise; I believe the reaction in this country, which is very strongly held, relates to the way it was done.
If the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, from the Liberal Benches is right, that they thought our vital national interests were not involved, or that we had agreed to the farm increases and we were wrong in tying them to the budget contribution, and in their view our interpretation of vital interests was not correct, then they should have given themselves and us time to consider the compromise procedure—and there was time. There was no special need for a quick decision to be made that night. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture made it clear when he resisted their applying the majority decision. He said that there was no timetable necessity for the voting to be done.
I believe that if our partners felt that our assessment of vital national interests and the possibility of applying the veto was wrong, they should have given themselves time to discuss with us whether or not we ought to amend the Luxembourg compromise. It should have been discussed, and not merely thrown down and accepted in their own interests. That is why they did it against our judgment of our interests. We cannot look at the treaty alone; we can only look at the treaty as amended by usage whereby for 16 years the Luxembourg compromise had been attached to it.

281
I want to say to my noble friend Lord Belstead, when he speaks for the Government, that while I do not expect him to answer fully any question that my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye put to him, I hope he will convey to his colleagues in the Government that the general mood presented by the three other speeches does not really represent the reaction of the nation as I have found it. When they are working out how best they can safeguard the continuance of the Community, despite this fundamental breach of what was an understanding, I hope that they will realise that, unless we can find an answer which is going to satisfy the feelings of people who consider they have been let down by what has been done and the way it has been done, then we shall be putting our membership at risk, and none of us want it to be put at risk.
My last word is this. I understood the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, to say that, while he had a lot of sympathy and understanding for the point of view of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye, he did not think that now was the time to put this Question to the Government. He did not think it ought to be asked. I think the timing of this Question is absolutely right. It is vital that the Government should know what the feeling is so that, when they are trying to find a good, constructive and workable answer to what has happened, they will realise the feeling that there is likely to be in the country when they are setting about it.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the noble Lord takes it upon himself to tell the House that he is the one who knows what the country are thinking and no one else in the House seems to have any opinion about the views of the people of this country. I can say to him that I know well what the people of my area are thinking about this problem. I should be grateful if he would be good enough not to misinterpret my speech. I sought to make careful analysis of the problem as I saw it and to indicate what action I thought the Government ought to take. I have no doubts about the gravity of the situation. I thought I had made that plain in what I had said. Therefore I regret that he should seek to, as it were, give the impression that somehow or other I am satisfied with the state of affairs as it is. I am totally dissatisfied, and I thought I made that abundantly clear.
Lord Harmar-Nichols: My Lords, I am delighted to hear what the noble Lord has said. He has given me a different understanding as to what the message of his speech was. He and I are thinking along the same lines in that case. I feel—and I repeat it—that up to the point when I rose to my feet the muted approach to this vital problem, with the exception of my noble friend's introduction to his Question, was one that would not give the Government the message that they ought to be getting. I am not expecting a detailed reply; but I hope, adding all the speeches together, that there is some advice he can give to his colleagues. I hope that my noble friend is in a position to tell us that the Government are seriously thinking of what steps they can take in order to rectify the damage that has been done so that we can continue honourably to be a Member of the Community, which has so much to offer.
9.23 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, the Government are grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye for asking this Question which illustrates the degree of concern at the events which took place at the Agricultural Council on 18th May. First, I want to assure all noble Lords that the Government share my noble friend's concern.
For the first time since 1966 when the Community resolved the most serious crisis of its early years by means of the Luxembourg compromise, decisions were taken by majority vote despite the fact that a member state had made it clear that very important national interests were at stake. This development constituted a major departure from the way in which Community business has customarily been conducted and created a very grave situation.
In sum, the reason why the common agricultural policy farm price settlement for this year involved national interests of importance to us was because the issues of agricultural expenditure and of our contribution to the European Community budget are so closely bound up as to be in effect inseparable. At the time of our accession to the Community, the situation in which we find ourselves—that of being one of only two net contributors to the Community budget though being one of the less prosperous members of the Community—was clearly foreseen by our negotiators. It seemed an inevitable consequence of the relatively small size of the agricultural sector in the United Kingdom and of a Community budget devoted largely to agricultural spending.
My noble friend was justified, I think, in referring to statements which were made when we joined the Community. May I refer in general terms to statements which were made from the Community. We were assured at that time by the Six that things would turn out differently and that the structure of the budget would change; and we obtained an undertaking that:
" if an unacceptable situation arose, the very survival of the Community would require the institutions to find a solution ".
That assurance remains of the utmost importance. In the event our fears proved justified, and the fact that an unacceptable situation had arisen was recognised by our partners in the agreement on the budget which this Government negotiated on 30th May 1980. That agreement produced very large reductions in Britain's net contributions to the Community budget in 1980 and 1981. It further required, as your Lordships will remember, that the Commission should produce a report on a longer-term solution to the problem and provided for a possible third year of refunds in this year, 1982, if the longer-term solution had not yet been found.
In the Commission's report, which was produced exactly a year ago, your Lordships may remember that the Commission again noted that the United Kingdom's problem arose largely from the excessive concentration of the Community's spending on agriculture, from which we got relatively little benefit. The Commission proposed that measures designed to shift the balance of expenditure away from agriculture and towards other policies ought to be adopted. But the Commission's report acknowledged that it would take some time to achieve this result and that meanwhile

283
there must be an arrangement for dealing with the United Kingdom's budgetary problem until this structural change could take effect.
The report thus falls into three so-called "chapters"—and I apologise for going over ground which may be familiar to your Lordships and not least to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, but I think it is important to put on the record the Government's view on this and to underpin it with some of the facts again. The three chapters concerned are the development of the Community's non-agricultural policies, agricultural reform and an arrangement for budgetary adjustment. The European heads of Government acknowledged the interdependence of those three chapters when, in London last November, they agreed that progress on all three should be made in parallel.
During the subsequent negotiations we really did make an effort to secure an outcome which all the Community partners could agree to be fair; but by the first half of last month a satisfactory solution to the budget problem was still well over the horizon and, while agreement was on hand on a CAP price package, it was one which held out little hope for the agricultural reform that the Commission's report had urged and which, in the absence of a budget settlement, would have added some £120 million to our net budget contribution.
It was in these circumstances and in defence of these important national interests that the Government argued that the farm price package should not be adopted by majority voting, and invoked the Luxembourg compromise. In doing so, we were relying on 16 years of unbreached practice and, if the noble Lord will forgive my saying so, contrary to the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I believe that the Government were right to rely in that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, in essence, pulled out that part of Lord Balfour's Question and asked: Will majority voting erode sovereignty? Of course, the treaty lays down how Community decisions are to be taken, and in many specific areas unanimity is the rule. It is the rule, in particular, if the Community is to take decisions in new areas not provided for explicitly in the original treaty, and that is an important safeguard. But, as your Lordships well know, the treaty also provides that, in certain other clearly defined areas of Community business, decisions shall be taken by a system of what is known as qualified majority voting.
In 1965 the French Government argued that qualified majority voting should not be applied if a member state considered that its very important national interests were involved, and the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, told the story in his speech. The end of the story was that the Community reached the Luxembourg compromise—not a legally binding agreement. But the French view on this was accepted as the practice of the Community, and it has been the case, without any exception until 18th May this year, that if a member state makes clear that its important national interests are involved, discussion is continued and no vote is taken. That was the Luxembourg com-
284
promise which, in effect, became a procedural convention.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls rightly pointed out that all British Governments have made clear the importance which they attached to the Luxembourg compromise. Its terms were explained in the White Paper dealing, with our accession to the Community. The procedure was regarded as an inherent and essential safeguard and, for the first time, it has been disregarded without the agreement of the parties concerned. My noble friend Lord Balfour said that something protective needs now to be done. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made our grave concern abundantly clear when he met his European partners in Brussels last month. My right honourable friend impressed upon them that there cannot be confusion about the way in which decisions are to be taken. This is for the good of the Community—not just for the good of the United Kingdom.
The Community's practice really must apply equally to all members and there must be a means of safeguarding the important national interests of any member state. There was a preliminary discussion in the context or the proposals recently put forward by the German and Italian Foreign Ministers for decision-taking in the Community. It was agreed that, after further reflection, the subject should be taken up again at the next Foreign Affairs Council on 20th June—only just over a week and a half away.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me what view our Community partners now take about the present status of the Luxembourg compromise. I really cannot answer that at the moment, except that I think it is common knowledge that France and the Federal German Republic have both made clear that, in their view, the compromise is still valid. But what I want to do is to give an assurance to my noble friend Lord Balfour and to your Lordships that the Government's aim in the discussions which are to come will be to clarify decision-taking procedures, with a view to ensuring that what happened on 18th May will not happen again.
Meanwhile, as your Lordships will be aware, agreement was reached at the council on 24th/25th May—that is, within a week of the overriding of the Luxembourg compromise in the Agriculture Council—on a settlement of our budget problem for 1982, which, though not as good as we would have wished, is reasonable in the circumstances. It was also agreed that the problem for subsequent years should be dealt with by the end of November this year. This gives the Community a much-needed breathing space to sort out these problems.
There are two questions which I feel I ought to answer before finishing. First, my noble friend Lord Balfour asked in essence: do we not now risk having to accept an unsatisfactory common fisheries regime being imposed by majority voting? It is unlikely that there would be pressure for such major issues as access and quotas in fisheries policies to be decided by majority vote, especially since, on the question of access, what are under discussion are successor arrangements to those explicitly set out in the Act of Accession. Our partners know that there would be no question of the United Kingdom accepting a situation in which

285
Community vessels were fishing right up to our beaches. In any case, the history of the negotiations shows that these are not issues upon which the United Kingdom is always the odd man out. Other individual member states have in the past blocked agreement on terms which we could have accepted so far as fisheries policy is concerned.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked about further information being laid before Parliament on the Genscher-Colombo proposals. I am advised that it is our intention to lay a further explanatory memorandum about the proposals in the near future in order to try to give more information to Parliament, but 1 am afraid I cannot be more definite than that.
I have tried to make clear that the Government view the events of 18th May as being unjustified and unreasonable. The Community cannot work if the important national interests of a member state can simply be overriden. Not by accident is the Luxembourg compromise so entitled, for it was born out of a spirit of compromise, of a readiness to find common ground which is fundamental to the operation of a community of sovereign states. We shall be ready to make our contribution to the reassertion of that spirit and to work constructively for the development of a Community in which we shall play a full and active part. I want to say that in reply to the speech which was made by my noble friend Lord O'Hagan.
Last month had its disappointments for us, but it also saw the heartening extension to us by our European partners of firm and strong support over the Falklands crisis. My noble friend Lord O'Hagan was absolutely right to emphasise that in his speech. Let us not, by over-accentuation of the negative, ignore the positive. The Government believe that it is a positive approach to the Community that is now more than ever necessary, and that is the approach which we are determined to adopt.

Thomas Brown and Sons, Limited Bill [H.L.]
Bill returned from the Commons, agreed to.
  TRAVEL BROCHURES: TARIFF INFORMATION
  TRAVEL BROCHURES: TARIFF INFORMATION
  MESOTHELIOMA AND ASBESTOSIS: DEATH NOTIFICATIONS
  MESOTHELIOMA AND ASBESTOSIS: DEATH NOTIFICATIONS