Sitting of 23 June 1982

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

    Airey Houses
    Mr. Edwin Wainwrightasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will arrange for his Department to monitor the results of the inspections he has recommended of every Airey house in England for structural defects.
    The Minister for Housing and Construction (Mr. John Stanley): I did so in May of last year.
    Mr. Wainwright: Will the Minister take account of the fact that there are 800 such houses in Doncaster, 200 in Barnsley and 300 in Rotherham and that the tenants are now worried about the fire hazard and structural defects? Is he aware that the local authorities are deeply worried about the future costs to them of replacing those houses? Will the hon. Gentleman also bear in mind that the poor owners—like some local authorities—purchased those houses not knowing about their structural defects and the fire hazard, and are extremely worried about how much they will cost them in the near future?
    Mr. Stanley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of the number of Airey houses in his constituency, which, geographically, has one of the highest concentrations of such houses in the country.
    As regards the capital implications for local authorities, we have made it clear that refurbishment and, if necessary, replacement work on Airey houses are factors that we would take into account in making HIP allocations. I am sure that the local authorities in his area will draw attention to that fact in their HIP submissions for 1983–84.
    In reply to what the hon. Gentleman said about the owners of Airey houses, I am aware that there have been a number of sales at valuations which did not reflect the defects that have now become apparent in those properties. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the position of private owners, who bought their houses before the defects became known, is under consideration.
    Mr. Cormack: I should like to reinforce what was said by the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright). As my hon. Friend will be aware, a number of my constituents have purchased Airey houses. Will he ensure that, however the sum is arrived at, the owners will get at least as much in compensation as they would get if the houses were compulsorily acquired for a motorway or some other purpose and were perfectly good houses?
    Mr. Stanley: I assure my hon. Friend that I am aware of the problem. I, too, have constituents in the same position. I cannot today make any commitment of a financial nature, but I have said that we have this aspect under consideration.
    Mr. Dormand: Will the Minister confirm that he has received the report from the National Building Agency about defective houses in new towns? If so, will he guarantee that the district councils involved will have the opportunity to study not only the report but the Minister's comments before he takes any action? Is he aware—I am sure that he is—that thousands of tenants are involved, including hundreds of tenants in my constituency in the new town of Peterlee?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that that matter does not arise on this question. I am not aware of there being any Airey houses among the new town housing that he mentioned. I can confirm that we have now received the report.
    Mr. John Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that in rural areas many Airey houses have large gardens? If they are to be demolished, there may be scope for building perhaps three times the number of new dwellings, but there will be no scope for providing special dwellings for old people. Therefore, there will be a grave knock-on effect from the defects of Airey houses. Can my hon. Friend assure us about the provision of special accommodation for old people, because many old people are living in Airey houses?
    Mr. Stanley: I am well aware that my hon. Friend and geographical neighbour in constituency terms has a considerable concentration of Airey houses in his area. The decision about the type of accommodation that may be provided is entirely a matter for the district council, but I am sure that the Maidstone borough council will want to draw attention to the capital implications in the HIP submission that it will shortly make to the Department.

    Water Meters
    Mr. David Atkinsonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will introduce legislation to enable local authorities to require the fitting of water meters into all new domestic properties as a condition of planning permission.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): No, Sir. Optional metering is now available in most areas of England and Wales and purchasers of new houses can ask the builder to fit a water meter during construction. Detailed guidance notes on the installation of household water meters can be obtained from the water authorities.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is evidence that suggests that water meters significantly reduce the water charges on both domestic and commercial properties? Does it not make sense to encourage the installation of water meters in all new properties?
    Mr. Shaw: I accept that there is evidence that water metering can be beneficial. However, I do not consider it right to make it other than an optional service to the consumer. The benefits available for high street shops and other commercial premises are considerable. The benefits for domestic premises depend very much on rateable value.
    Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that one of the pressures for metering is the imposition of water rates, particularly on elderly people and widows living by themselves and people on low incomes? If he does not intend to make any change in respect of water metering, will he consider changes in legislation to allow water rebates for such people?
    Mr. Shaw: No, Sir. Water bills now reflect charges for a service that has already been consumed, whereas rates are local taxes. Therefore, as with other energy bills, the householder who finds it difficult to pay can obtain some redress through the DHSS.
    Mr. Squire: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the advantages of the metering of water supplies are to some extent not being realised because of the high cost of installation of the meters? Will he keep that matter under review?
    Mr. Shaw: There is a variable cost. Much depends on the individual property and the distance from the main. The average cost of internal domestic fitting is about £60.
    Mr. Marks: The Minister agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) that industrial and domestic users were better off as a result of water metering. Who is paying the bill?
    Mr. Shaw: I made it clear that industrial and commercial consumers were likely to be significantly better off. The position of the domestic consumer depends on the rateable value. However, the costs and the benefits should be spread amongst all consumers.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Environment which local authorities are still not completing council house sales with what he judges to be sufficient speed.
    Mr. Stanley: Those authorities whose right-to-buy progress is being monitored were listed in the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) on 13 May. To those authorities there should now be added the Wrekin district council and the Orbit Housing Association.
    I am glad to tell my hon. Friend that there has been a substantial acceleration of progress in recent months; that last year there was the largest number of sales ever recorded; and that since the Government came to office the number of council house sales completed in Great Britain up to 31 March is estimated to be approximately 300,000.
    Mr. Knox: Is there not a strong case now for introducing legislation specifying the maximum period between an application by a council tenant to purchase his house and the completion of the sale by the council? Why does it take some councils so much longer than the private sector to effect such sales?
    Mr. Stanley: I have every sympathy with the spirit behind my hon. Friend's question. The problem of specifying a statutory maximum period is that there are enormous variations in the complexity of sales of individual houses and flats. To prescribe a practical and realistic maximum would give rise to the danger of its being applied to every property, when there are many simple cases that can be dealt with very quickly. We must rest on the basic provisions of the present legislation.
    282
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has powers to intervene in any case where the tenant's right-to-buy is not being applied effectively and expeditiously. He has already exercised those powers in respect of one authority. The possibility of exercising that power elsewhere has contributed substantially to the acceleration of the progress that has been made.
    Mr. Winnick: When will the Government apply the same urgency to the building of council houses as they do to their sale? Should there not be some kind of hit-list or penal action against the Government for allowing the building of council dwellings to fall to its lowest level since the early 1920s?
    Mr. Stanley: I do not think that that question arises on the right-to-buy. The Labour Government whom the hon. Gentleman supported allowed the construction of council houses to fall to the lowest level since 1945 before they left office.
    On the general issue, I draw attention to the fact that in the last financial year local authorities underspent substantially. It is certainly our hope and wish that all local authorities will be able to make full use of the increased financial provision that is available this year.
    Mr. Heddle: Notwithstanding the encouraging reply that was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox), will my hon. Friend confirm that some Labour-controlled authorities are still employing intimidation tactics by imposing onerous restrictive covenants, black lists, and so on, to dissuade council tenants from exercising their democratic right to buy their homes?
    Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend draws attention to the fact that some of the covenants that have been used by, I am glad to say, a limited number of authorities are not considered to be reasonable. We have taken up this matter in detail with certain authorities. In some instances, the local authorities concerned have agreed to make changes to their basic conveyancing documents. We are watching this aspect extremely closely.
    Mr. Cartwright: Is the Minister aware that several of my constituents have been struggling for well over a year to buy their flats and maisonettes from the London borough of Greenwich? Now that a purchase price has finally been agreed, they are being asked for service charges which in some instances amount to £75 a week for an ordinary council flat on a not particularly attractive estate. Does the Minister regard that as fair and reasonable? If not, what will he do about it?
    Mr. Stanley: I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that we have already taken this matter up with the Greenwich council and are actively pursuing it.

    Rates
    Mr. Cyril Smithasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the current levels of rates for local authorities in the North-West of England.
    Mr. Altonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what have been the latest levels of rate increase in the North-West region.
    The Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services (Mr. Tom King): The average

    283
    general rate poundage in local authorities in the North-West region is 177p. Average general rate increases in April were just over 14 per cent.
    Details for the individual authorities will be circulated in the Official Report.
    Mr. Smith: Does the Minister agree that the rate increase for the Cheshire county council is 18·6 per cent? If so—I see that the Minister agrees-will he explain why, in a party political broadcast on 5 May, the Secretary of State stated that, because of the SDP-Liberal Alliance and the Labour group in Cheshire, the rate increase was 32·5 per cent?
    If not for the sake of honesty, at least for the record, does not the Minister consider that he should now agree that it was 18·6 per cent? Is he aware, first, that there are no SDP councillors on the Cheshire county council, and, secondly, that Liberal councillors voted with Conservative councillors against Labour councillors' rates proposals?
    Mr. King: I should like to see the figures that the hon. Gentleman is quoting. The figure that I have here is 18·6 per cent. I am not sure whether he was quoting from the original rate increase or the supplementary rate increase. The Liberal Party is not the only party capable of using figures to suit its purposes.
    If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was seeking to make the point that Conservative authorities generally have lower rate increases than authorities of other political persuasions, looking at the overall pattern that would be correct.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Minister accept that, instead of criticising Liberal-controlled councils, such as Liverpool city council, which had an 8 per cent. increase in its rates this year, it would be far better if his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State were to restore the massive cuts in the rate support grant than to crow about Liberal or Labour authorities having to grapple with the problems that he has created? Liverpool has sustained cuts of about £63 million over the past four years, which have resulted in massive reductions in service.
    Mr. King: With respect, I shall not take lectures from the hon. Gentleman on how to help the city of Liverpool, nor shall I condemn my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Nobody could have done more to alleviate the problems of Merseyside. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would take the opportunity to rise to his feet and pay tribute to the work that has been done.
    Mr. Mark Carlisle: Even if the Liberals on the Cheshire county council prevented the realisation of the Labour party's worst intentions, does my right hon. Friend agree that the rate increase of 18·6 per cent. is well above the level of inflation and that Cheshire ratepayers are now paying for having been stupid enough to put in a Labour authority?
    Mr. King: My right hon. and learned Friend is correct to draw attention to the fact that in those counties controlled by Conservative authorities rates increased on average by 11 per cent., in Labour-controlled authorities by, on average, 31 per cent. and in counties that were unfortunate enough to end up with a mish-mash of Opposition parties, rates increased on average by 21 per cent.
    Hon. Members: Eight per cent.
    Mr. Oakes: I agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) that it is a question not of who is in control of a council but of that council's problems. Does the Minister agree that the rate support grant arrangements do not accord with the problems of a council, whether that council is Labour-controlled, Liberal-controlled or Conservative-controlled? That is the fault of the rate support grant.
    Mr. King: It would be the biggest delusion to blame the problems faced by several authorities on difficulties in the rate support grant. The problems faced by the vast majority of authorities are those of management, organisation and the need for determination to achieve value for money. That is a high priority.
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the ratepayers of the North-West should be very pleased that they are not in the GLC area? Unless something is done to curb the financial irresponsibility of that lunatic body, and particularly the way in which it conducts London Transport, the burden will fall on, among others, the taxpayers of the North-West.
    Mr. King: I am aware that on walking out of the Chamber and looking across the river I see a record of the number of unemployed in London. As the figure increases, it will become the most telling epitaph to the GLC's disastrous policies. As a result of its rating and transport policies, it is clearly driving both jobs and people out of London.
    Following is the information:

    Area

    General rate percentage increase (1981–82 to April 1982)

    General rate poundage (p) from April 1982

    Greater Manchester

    Bolton

    15·7

    162·08

    Bury

    13·1

    189·50

    Manchester

    11·2

    228·20

    Oldham

    14·7

    164·14

    Rochdale

    20·7

    215·50

    Salford

    13·7

    157·50

    Stockport

    16·0

    157·60

    Tameside

    19·0

    191·00

    Trafford

    18·4

    154·54

    Wigan

    16·7

    196·04

    Merseyside

    Knowsley

    24·3

    190·54

    Liverpool

    14·4

    197·97

    St. Helens

    9·5

    194·77

    Sefton

    23·6

    165·36

    Wirral

    17·9

    181·50

    Cheshire

    Chester

    17·7

    172·80

    Congleton

    16·8

    166·30

    Crewe and Nantwich

    16·8

    170·53

    Ellesmere Port and Neston

    15·6

    170·40

    Halton

    15·8

    171·43

    Macclesfield

    17·2

    164·40

    Vale Royal

    16·2

    168·93

    Warrington

    18·0

    173·36

    Lancashire

    Blackburn

    3·6

    163·53

    Blackpool

    5·6

    151·50

    Burnley

    4·4

    166·55

    Chorley

    5·7

    140·25

    Fylde

    3·0

    142·42

    Hyndburn

    6·9

    159·32

    Area

    General rate percentage increase (1981–82 to April 1982)

    General rate poundage (p) from April 1982

    Lancaster

    3·1

    150·00

    Pendle

    4·0

    154·48

    Preston

    5·3

    150·05

    Ribble Valley

    4·3

    148·88

    Rossendale

    3·2

    159·71

    South Ribble

    4·9

    140·61

    West Lancashire

    4·7

    143·08

    Wyre

    3·6

    142·97

    Craft Apprenticeships
    Mr. Marksasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will estimate the reduction in craft apprenticeships in his own Department and in local authorities during the past three years.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Sir George Young): The latest figures from the Local Government Training Board show that the number of craft apprentices in local authorities in England and Wales was more than 300 greater at the end of 1981 than it was three years earlier—6,897 in 1981 compared with 6,574 in 1978. Over the same period the number of craft apprentices in my Department fell from about 1,100 to 600, mainly because the Property Services Agency direct labour force was being reduced.
    Mr. Marks: Is the Minister aware that only three months ago the Secretary of State said that he wanted training programmes in the construction industry to be maintained? However, as a result of the cuts, Manchester has had to cut its apprentice intake from 140 in 1979 to 39 in 1982, and there have also been cuts in other cities and in his Department. Handing over Government and local authorities work to private industry has not solved the apprenticeship problem. Will the Secretary of State begin to take his word seriously?
    Sir George Young: I am aware of the situation in Manchester, and I understand that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment has offered to meet representatives of the city's direct works committee. As the PSA direct labour force is being reduced because work is being contracted out, its apprentice requirement has fallen.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Is the Minister aware that the report of the independent training research group shows that direct labour organisations have a far better record on apprenticeships than private builders? Why does he continue to put pressure on the PSA and on direct labour organisations when it means that they must reduce training and apprenticeships? If the Minister is concerned about circular 6/82, will he meet local authorities and representatives of the building industry, such as the Union of Construction and Allied Trades and Technicians, because they are concerned that skills will not be available if there is an upturn in the economy? If the Minister wants to improve training, will he discuss that matter? However, if he does not intend to help—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Both questions and answers have been unreasonably long. That is very unfair to those who have questions on the Order Paper.
    Sir George Young: The figures show that there has been an increase, not a decrease, in the number of
    286
    apprentices in direct labour organisations. I have seen representatives of the trade unions. The PSA's intake may be higher in the next few years than it is at present.
    Mr. Charles Morris: In the meeting to discuss the reduction in the number of craft apprentices in Manchester, will the Minister ensure that his ministerial colleague remembers that one in three youngsters in Manchester between the ages of 16 and 24 are unemployed? That makes the issue of craft apprentices crucial.
    Sir George Young: I am sure that that type of issue will be raised at the meeting with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Employment.

    Rents
    Mr. Greenwayasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to monitor the level of rents currently being charged in enterprise zones.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: We have commissioned consultants to monitor the effects on rents of enterprise zones. We are being kept informed of interim findings, but they will not be reporting fully on what has happened in all the zones until the autumn. This report will include information about rents being charged on comparable properties in the zones and in the surrounding areas.
    Mr. Greenway: I welcome that aspect of comparability. Is my hon. Friend aware that a business that sets up in an enterprise zone is not charged rates for 10 years, whereas businesses that are striving to create new jobs in the surrounding local authority area have to pay rates? It is senseless that people should be encouraged to move out of one area into an enterprise zone, thereby causing the loss of jobs in one area and the creation of jobs in another. Is that not silly?
    Mr. Shaw: That inference cannot yet be drawn. We are monitoring the performance of the zones. The results will undoubtedly be varied, but to date the information is that many jobs and prospects have been created in zones and that they are of great benefit to the area as a whole.
    Mr. Eastham: Has any information been fed back to the Department to show that, as a result of the concessions given to enterprise zones, some of the owners of land in those zones are increasing rents considerably? If so, that means that we, as taxpayers, are subsidising those landowners.
    Mr. Shaw: The consultants will monitor that problem and we shall consider the results carefully.
    Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that local authorities, which own much of the land in enterprise zones, are charging far higher rents than those dictated by market forces and that, in addition, they are claiming back money from the Treasury for rates that would have been paid if the companies had not been exempt from them? Will he ensure that that aspect is monitored?
    Mr. Shaw: Rating valuations and the rates charged outside zones are matters not for me but for my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. We have no evidence that rents have risen to a level that nullifies the benefit of the rate concession offered in the zones.
    Mr. Ioan Evans: May we have an early report on the Department's monitoring of the zones? The original idea of the zones was to attract manufacturing industry, but are they not attracting retailers and wholesalers and gaining financial benefits that are denied to those outside the zones who are competing with them?
    Mr. Shaw: We shall consider the report carefully when it is available and take advice on whether to make it available to hon. Members. The way in which zones affect local industries and produce net additional jobs undoubtedly varies. However, the Government remain committed to the view that the experiment is catalytic in nature and, therefore, of great benefit.

    Rate Support Grant
    Mr. Bulmerasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he is satisfied that the present method of calculating the rate support grant gives sufficient weight to the problems of rural depopulation.
    Mr. King: The Association of County Councils has made proposals for increasing the recognition given to the cost of providing services in areas of sparse population in the 1983–84 rate support grant settlement. These proposals are currently under discussion. I shall be reviewing the position on this during the summer.
    Mr. Bulmer: Will my hon. Friend consider extending the sparsity factor beyond education to other essential services? Will he relate it to the local community and not to the county as a whole, which penalises counties, such as Hereford and Worcester, which have declining rural populations offset by growth points such as Redditch new town?
    Mr. King: Such matters are under discussion in the grants working groups. I shall be interested in the outcome of those discussions. It would be unwise to go further than that now, although we are aware of the problems to which my hon. Friend has referred.
    Mr. Marks: Is giving more money to the county councils the answer to the problem, since many county council members are farmers and landowners who are causing the depopulation? Will the Minister consider the suggestion that the Government should do for rural problems in specific grants what they have been doing for the inner cities?
    Mr. King: We shall examine the problem in the light of the RSG settlement. There has been a sparsity factor, as we recognised in the previous needs assessment. That is a matter to be examined. There is something on which to spend the money, in the sense that there are higher costs for services provided by councils, such as school transport, when much greater distances might have to be covered than in the inner urban areas. That is an illustration of how higher costs may fall on a rural and more depopulated area.

    Ethnic Minority Projects (Funds)
    Mr. Proctorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what extra funds have been provided by his Department for the ethnic minorities since the appointment of the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) as the Minister responsible for race relations within his Department.
    Sir George Young: There is no special allocation of funds for ethnic minorities within the Department's programmes. However, urban programme approvals announced since my appointment show that the upward trend in support for ethnic minority projects is continuing.
    Mr. Proctor: Does my hon. Friend agree that no level of public expenditure and no level of extra resources devoted to the inner city areas will be sufficient to avoid a deterioration in race relations and further riots this summer?
    Sir George Young: When I need advice on these matters I shall turn to a large number of my hon. Friends who represent the inner cities before I turn to the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor).
    Mr. Anthony Grant: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Asians in my constituency, the majority of whom support the Government, greatly admire the work done by him and welcome his appointment, as I do?
    Sir George Young: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support. He represents more members of my party than the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor).

    Housing Improvement Grants
    Mr. Beithasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the take-up of the increased improvement grants announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement; and if he will extend these arrangements.
    Mr. Stanley: We shall not have authority-by-authority figures for improvement grant applications received since the Budget until the autumn, but the early indications of the response to the Budget initiative are encouraging. We have no present plans to extend the higher rate of grant announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor beyond the end of this calendar year.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Minister keep the matter under review, because 400,000 building workers are on the dole and many properties could benefit from improvement? Does the Minister agree that the general economic effects of continuing the work would be immeasurable?
    Mr. Stanley: I note what the hon. Gentleman says. One of my right hon. and learned Friend's objectives was to make the 90 per cent. grant time-limited to ensure an early influx of applications for improvement grant work to produce an early benefit in employment for the construction industry.
    Mr. Colvin: In view of the rising costs of heating, what response has there been to circular 11/82 on home insulation grants?
    Mr. Stanley: Following the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget announcement, there has been a further allocation of funds for home insulation work. The bids from local authorities were somewhat below the total available. It seems that local authorities have sufficient funds in hand for the work.

    Partnership Authorities
    Mr. Beaumont-Darkasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he is satisfied with the progress of the partnership authorities.
    Mr. King: I believe that the partnerships are now operating in a more effective way following the changes that we have made, and we are anxious to stimulate further activity to tackle inner city problems. In this connection my right hon. Friend, myself and other Ministers will be holding a series of one-day presentations in different parts of the country covering the whole range of initiatives that can help these problems.
    Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new Conservative-controlled Birmingham city council values its partnership authority and would welcome an early meeting with the Minister to discuss the many problems that we must solve if we are to put Birmingham on the move again?
    Mr. King: I welcome what my hon. Friend says. As chairman of the Birmingham partnership I can say that there has been good bipartisan support from both sides of the council. In recognition of the importance of these issues I can confirm that the first of the one-day presentations, with my right hon. Friend, myself and other colleagues, will take place next Monday in Birmingham, with representatives from Birmingham and other neighbouring areas.
    Mr. Eastham: Do not Ministers contradict themselves when they recognise the needs of the partnership areas and yet, using the illustration of Manchester, take away assisted area status, which would help to create jobs and prosperity in an area?
    Mr. King: I do not want to trespass into the problem of assisted area status, but one of the problems was the wide distribution. In an effort to help everybody, nobody was helped. We are determined to bring real help to the assisted areas.
    Mr. Steen: Does the Minister agree that one of the best ways to help the inner city areas is to reclaim derelict land? Can he explain why the Government's plan in the Derelict Land Bill is to give the public sector a 100 per cent. grant towards land reclamation, but the private sector only 80 per cent.? Surely we should discriminate in favour of the private rather than the public sector.
    Mr. King: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Bill to which he has referred, which I hope will complete its progress in the House by the end of this week, concerns much more than the possibility of more flexibility in the derelict land programme. The 80 per cent. grant is an improvement on the arrangements that exist. Derelict land reclamation is an important part of our inner city programme. We have taken a range of initiatives for which we shall seek wider understanding in the country. We believe that we have created a package of considerable size to help with the problems.
    Mr. Tilley: Does the Minister appreciate that the word "partnership" rings somewhat hollow in Lambeth, because the Secretary of State has decided that, in relation to the biggest development in the Lambeth partnership area for many years—the Vauxhall bridge foot development—the local consultation and democratic procedures are being swept away by the use of a special development order, which means that the local people, with whom the Secretary of State claims to be in partnership, have no say at all in what happens on that site?
    Mr. King: I understand that the development is taking place in accordance with local planning policies and
    290
    conforms with them. I understand that local people were invited to be involved in the procedure. I do not wish to trespass on a matter that will come up later, but in relation to the south bank of the Thames one can only pray for some initiative to bring more distinction to the architecture. If the present process contributes to that it should be welcomed.

    European Community Map
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many copies of the map of the European Community, its member States, regions and administrative units, which marks Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland but not England, have been distributed by the Ordnance Survey; and if he will take steps to prevent further circulation of this map until the word "England" has been added.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Ordnance Survey has distributed about 9,500 copies of the smaller version of the European Community map, at 1 in 8 million scale, and about 6,000 copies of the larger version. The map is published by the Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. The Office and not the Ordnance Survey is responsible for its editorial content. The map is concerned with the major regional units of a member State. In this context the nomenclature is appropriate and I do not intend to seek its alteration.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: How was it that the Ordnance Survey, a distinguished agency of the Crown, could bear to distribute this matter? Will my hon. Friend take steps to ensure that either it is overprinted with the word "England" in the appropriate place, or reprinted?
    Mr. Shaw: No, Sir. I shall not take that step. I remind my hon. Friend that the United Kingdom, and not England, is shown on the map as the member State. The other regions of England that are shown are comparable with Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland because they are regional planning areas.
    Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that increasingly, unfortunately, there is a tendency to omit, or be shy about mentioning, the words "England" or "English"? Is that not thoroughly disgraceful? Should not the Government put a stop to it immediately?
    Mr. Shaw: I trespass on dangerous territory when I have to clash with my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes). I can plead only that the map is produced neither by the Government nor by the Ordnance Survey as an editorial matter. It is produced for a customer—the European Economic Community.

    Inner Urban Programme
    Mr. Tilleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment whether he plans further to expand the inner urban programme.
    The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I announced last December that in 1982–83 urban programme resources would be £270 million, the highest level ever in real terms. Public expenditure plans for 1983–84 are still under consideration.
    Mr. Tilley: I welcome the increase that has already taken place. Does the Secretary of State accept that since his announcement evidence in my constituency and elsewhere has shown that youth unemployment is 50 per cent. higher even than last year and that there is a need for a massive increase in next year's inner urban programme to provide not only temporary work but successful schemes to help viable enterprises survive and provide long-term jobs?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am not sure that I wholly agree with the solutions advocated by the hon. Gentleman, but he will be aware that his London borough has been invited to bid for part of the £70 million worth of urban development grant. which aims to attract private sector funds at a considerable gearing ratio into the inner cities. I hope that the borough will participate.
    Mr. Alton: Does the Secretary of State accept that the partnership committees are a much better way of channelling money into the inner cities than organisations such as urban development corporations, which are about as democratic as the Argentine junta? Does he also accept that far too many agencies are meddling in the affairs of inner cities and that a partnership committee, using the urban programme, is a better way of channelling resources? Will he also consider involving the industrial and commercial communities in their organisation?
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman reveals clearly that he has never attended a meeting of a partnership committee.
    Mr. Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that urban areas such as the Greater London Council area need every penny that they can get for urban renewal? Is he not disturbed to hear that the chairman of the proposed Greater London enterprise board will cost London ratepayers £72,000 a year and that he is the deputy Labour leader of Wandsworth borough council?
    Mr. Heseltine: I do not make such appointments, but the issue is not how much a person is paid but whether he can deliver the results. The matter will be judged by that standard.

    Homes (Inside Sanitation)
    Mr. Geraint Howellsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many homes in England and Wales are without inside sanitation.
    Sir George Young: The 1981 census of population shows that 479,000 households living in permanent buildings in England and Wales did not have an indoor WC. That figure represents 2·7 per cent. of all households in permanent dwellings.
    Mr. Howells: In view of the seriousness of the position, what plans does the Minister have to help local authorities to solve the problem?
    Sir George Young: We have introduced mandatory intermediate grants to owner-occupiers, landlords and tenants to help with the cost of installation. Applications made before the end of this year are eligible for a grant of up to 90 per cent. That is one of the best offers that has been made to try to tackle this serious problem.
    Mr.. Edwin Wainwright: Does the Minister agree that it is a condemnation of the Government that they allow so
    292
    many hundreds of thousands of houses to have no indoor toilet facilities? What will the Government do? We have 3 million unemployed, among them thousands of building workers. Why cannot we build more houses and cure that terrible crime against society?
    Sir George Young: I outlined the action that the Government are taking to make a further impact on the problem, but it is right to put the matter into perspective. The present figure of 2·7 per cent. must be contrasted with the 1971 figure of 12 per cent. We are tackling the problem.

    Petrol (Lead Content)
    Mr. Dubsasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has received on the effects of lead in petrol.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: Between 1 January and 24 May, 75 letters were received by the Department, three-quarters from right hon. and hon. Members, the remainder from industrialists, local authority representatives, officers of other organisations and members of the public. The Campaign for Lead-Free Air invited its supporters to write to me on 24 May, and a further 130 letters had been received by the end of last week, mainly from members of the public.
    Mr. Dubs: Do the Government believe that there is a safe level of lead?
    Mr. Shaw: The Government believe that there is a tolerable level of lead that is free from hazard, but our overall policy must be directed to closing the gap between what is regarded as totally safe and what is regarded as acceptable. We are closing the gap by the fastest possible means and are reducing the lead content of petrol from 0·4 to 0·15 grams per litre.
    Dr. Mawhinney: For how long do the Government intend to withstand the overriding pressure of the evider ce that any amount of lead is harmful to adults and children?
    Mr. Shaw: I apologise to my hon. Friend. I did riot fully hear his question.
    Dr. Mawhinney: My question was: for how long does my hon. Friend intend to withstand the overriding pressure of evidence that any amount of lead is harmful to adults and children?
    Mr. Shaw: I have made it clear to my hon. Friend several times that we are taking steps substantially to reduce the hazard across the wide range of its applications in petrol, water or the air. That is the correct policy for us to pursue.

    Derelict Land
    Mr. Hawksleyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many acres of vacant and derelict land within new town boundaries are currently entered on the register set up for that purpose.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: I fear that it would require a disproportionate effort to estimate the total, but if my hon. Friend has a case in mind I shall consider it.
    Mr. Hawksley: Although I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask whether, because the amount is quite large, he is prepared to give further encouragement to new towns to release surplus land?
    Mr. Shaw: We certainly wish to do so. My hon. Friend will be aware that there are many other owners in new towns besides the new town development corporations. The land registers are based on local authority districts, but I accept the tenor of my hon. Friend's remarks.
    Mr. Steen: As the Under-Secretary of State well recognises that the best way to rid the country of derelict and dormant land is to reclaim it and to use private money to do so, will he explain why, in the new Bill, the private sector receives only an 80 per cent. grant whereas nationalised industries and the public sector receive 100 per cent. grants?
    Mr. Shaw: The reason is simply that the public sector grant-aid system is designed to encourage private sector investment in the development of land thus reclaimed. It is wrong for my hon. Friend to insist that the only benefit to the private sector is the absolute rate of grant available. It also benefits from the major activities undertaken by local authorities.
    Mr. Cadburyasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what steps he is taking to encourage local authorities to ensure that derelict land once cleared is developed and occupied.
    Mr. Heseltine: In the programme for this year I have given priority to schemes by local authorities that involve firm prior agreements with private sector interests for immediate development after reclamation. Those arrangements will continue in 1983–84, and I have just invited authorities to submit bids for the priority schemes by 1 October.
    Mr. Cadbury: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. Is he aware that large amounts of land in the inner city area of Birmingham that are owned by British Gas and British Rail are still lying idle? Will he apply the same pressures to those nationalised industries as he has applied so successfully to local authorities to release the land for development?
    Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter. I assure him that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has had conversations with the Gas Board. I and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services have discussed those matters with the city authority. We shall be continuing the dialogue.
    Mr. Graham: The Secretary of State will be aware that the Opposition fully support the Derelict Land Bill and related measures. We wish to see encouragement for the reinstatement of land, but we are worried about the continuing decline in the number of employees at the Department of the Environment. Will the Secretary of State assure us that there will be sufficient inspectors to ensure that when land is reclaimed there is not deposited on it toxic waste and other noxious substances? We are anxious because a shortfall in the number of inspectors many lead to decisions by the operators to negate the conditions that are attached to planning permissions.
    Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The number of staff employed in my Department is now about 12,000 to 13,000 less that it was three years ago. However, we should not prejudice our ability to carry out essential work, such as inspecting for toxic threats.
    Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that many local authorities are unaware that they can pass derelict urban land to the private sector and build houses on half-and-half, shared ownership schemes? Will he do all that he can to ensure that the local authorities that are ignorant of that fact involve the private sector forthwith?
    Mr. Heseltine: There is some lethargy and political prejudice in local authorities, but it is not ignorance.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the best ways to use derelict land owned by local authorities is to build council houses on it? Will he help authorities in places such as Merseyside, where waiting lists are becoming longer and longer, to do that?
    Mr. Heseltine: The most casual observation of Merseyside would reveal that it has the highest number of empty properties in Britain. The idea that we should build more houses—whereas the local authorities make a priority of renovating existing houses—has nothing to do with housing policy.

    Damaged Cars (Compensation)
    Mr. Brintonasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on compensation for the owners of the cars damaged by the falling tree outside the Norman Shaw, North building in October 1981.
    Sir George Young: At my request the Treasury Solicitor is discussing with the North Thames Gas Board how claims for damage might be met.
    Mr. Brinton: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Has he become aware that this interdepartmental nationalised industry pregnancy has now run its full term of nine months and that two secretaries of hon. Members have had their cars damaged and are considerably out of pocket? Cannot the Government recompense these secretaries while they continue arguing?
    Sir George Young: Others were affected, apart from the two secretaries. The tree fell because its roots were cut, but they were not cut by my Department. The finger of suspicion has alighted on the North Thames Gas Board, which was seen digging near the area shortly before the tree fell. Time-consuming inquiries were needed to ascertain exactly what had happened. I am having a meeting with the Treasury Solicitor next week and I hope that the matter can shortly be resolved.

    Rents
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received about the phasing of rent increases arising from the operation of section 60 of and schedule 10 to the Housing Act 1980.
    Mr. Stanley: A number of letters have been received from hon. Members, the National Federation of Housing Associations and housing association tenants.
    Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware of the problem created by the operation of the Act for housing association rents? The increases in service charges are no longer able to be phased over three years and have to be paid immediately. Is he aware that as a result of this some pensioners are having their rents increased by up to £10 a week? Will he and the Government take action to limit such increases?
    Mr. Stanley: I shall examine the statutory service charge position and if I can shed any further light on it for the hon. Gentleman I shall do so. The problem goes back to 1972, when a statutory ceiling on housing association rent increases of 75p was imposed as part of the counter-inflation policy of that time. Throughout the tenure of office of the Labour Government there was no upward adjustment of that figure. That is why there is a certain amount of catching up to be done to meet the fair rent level.
    Mr. Tilley: As the hon. Gentleman is taking us down memory lane, does he remember that in Committee on the Housing Bill 1980 Opposition Members told him that housing associations were deeply concerned that statutory burdens would be placed on them to create exactly the unfairness and hardship that my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) has mentioned? Does he recollect that the Opposition tabled amendments that would have averted these impositions?
    Mr. Stanley: My memories of the proceedings in Committee while considering the Housing Bill 1980 will for ever be with me. I think that the hon. Gentleman will remember that the statutory position created by that measure places housing association tenants within the existing fair rent system. No housing association tenant is being asked to pay a higher rent than any private sector tenant. All housing association tenants have exactly the same rent allowance protection as all other private tenants.
    Mr. Pittasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what are the current average levels of council rents in England and Wales.
    Sir George Young: Full details are not yet available, but preliminary estimates indicate that average unrebated rents of local authority dwellings in England and Wales stood at some £13.54 per week at the end of April.
    Mr. Pitt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his reply. Is he aware of the soaring discrepancy in many areas between housing association rents and local authority rents due to rent officers' registrations? Will he consult rent officers so that all rents in the community housing sector can be kept at parity?
    Sir George Young: My Department has no control over the rents that are fixed by rent officers. If we were to start to go down the road that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, there would have to be a major change of policy.
    Dr. Mawhinney: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my constituents are paying rent for between six months and two years longer than they should because of the unwillingness of the Peterborough city council to sell council houses? When will he take action to assist these people so that they can stop paying rent and start to pay mortgages?
    Sir George Young: My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction keeps under close scrutiny the progress made by local authorities in implementing the right-to-buy policy. I understand that he will shortly be writing to the local authority at Peterborough on this subject.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: The Minister says that his Department has no responsibility for the decisions of rent officers, is it not a fact that his Department has issued
    296
    beacon rents, which are guidelines on regional averages, and that rent officers are using these guidelines to increase rents in their areas?
    Sir George Young: I understand that the Department gives no advice or direction to rent officers. However, it makes available some information, which the officers asked the Department to supply.
    Mr. Marlow: In how many local authority areas is the rent revenue from council house rents less than the cost of management, administration and maintenance?
    Sir George Young: I should need notice of that question before I could even begin to answer it.
    Mr. Allan Roberts: How many local authorities' housing revenue accounts are in surplus because of the high rents that are now being charged? How many of them are making a profit out of their council tenants?
    Sir George Young: I refer to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow).

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Environment what recent representations he has had from the heads of the construction industry concerning the future prospects of the industry.
    Mr. Stanley: My right hon. Friend and I met the Group of Eight on 15 February and we are regularly in touch with many people in the construction industry. Whilst the industry is still concerned with its work load, the measures taken by my right hon. and learned Friend in his Budget have been welcomed, and it is encouraging that so far this year there has been a rise in new house building in both the public and private sectors, in home improvement grants, and in construction new orders.
    Mr. Hughes: When will the Government realise that the best possible stimulant for the economy is a major boost for the construction industry? Such a boost would be the means of putting the unemployed back to work. There are so many schemes—for example, road building, sewerage, railway electrification and housing—that are crying out for action. When will the order be given for the go-ahead?
    Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman should consider the announcement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget Statement and the overall provision that has been made in this financial year. I am glad to say that private housing starts for the past three months were 38 per cent. more than for the same period last year and 49 per cent. more than those for the previous three months. Total orders for new construction were 13 per cent. higher than a year ago. In the first quarter of this year the improvement grants paid were 29 per cent. up on a year ago.
    Mr. Kaufman: Despite the cosmetic figures that the hon. Gentleman has offered the House, unemployment and bankruptcies in the building industry are at the highest levels ever recorded. As the Government were ready to respond at short notice to the Argentine crisis by spending £1 ¼ billion, will they spend £1¼ billion on constructing 50,000 houses, thereby putting 125,000 building workers to work?
    Mr. Stanley: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's definition of "cosmetic". The increase in private and public sector house building starts and the increase in home improvements, as well as the general rise in new orders for total construction work, do not suggest to me that the figures are merely cosmetic. We have made a significant increase in the gross provision available for housing and we look forward to all local authorities making full use of it this year.

    World Cup
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for the Environment how many meetings he has had to date with the football authorities to discuss arrangements for the World Cup.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Neil Macfarlane): I first met the chairman of the three Football Associations last November to discuss arrangements for the World Cup. At that meeting I established a liaison group between the Government and the football authorities to carry things forward. This group has met formally on four occasions, and has also met together in Spain for discussions with the Spanish authorities in the areas where our teams were due to play. There has been regular and informal contact in between these meetings.
    Mr. Canavan: Has the Minister yet been able to ascertain the exact circumstances of the violent confrontation between Scottish and English football fans at Lloret de Mar last night after the Scotland v Soviet Union match? As the Scottish Office Minister responsible for sport is reported to have been at the match, would he not be an appropriate person to conduct an on-the-spot investigation into this tragic and deplorable incident, which should not be allowed to mar one of the greatest sporting occasions in the world?
    Mr. Macfarlane: So far I have not had detailed reports of the incident to which the hon. Gentleman refers. I and other Ministers have attended some of the matches over the past week and, from what I have seen, the behaviour of our fans in the stadium has been exemplary. There have been one or two bad examples outside the stadium. I shall look into the incident at Lloret de Mar and report back in due course.
    Mr. Crouch: Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important meetings in the World Cup that are now about to take place will be carried out by the English team and that we hope that it will win all those meetings?
    Mr. Macfarlane: That is a statement which I—and I am sure other hon. Members—wholeheartedly support.
    Mr. Canavan: England got an easy draw.

    Council House Sales
    Mr. Teddy Taylorasked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the progress made in selling council houses to sitting tenants.
    Mr. Stanley: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Leek (Mr. Knox).
    Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that we have every reason to be proud of the fact that we have ensured that so many thousands of families have the opportunity of becoming owner-occupiers who otherwise would never have had that opportunity? Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the arrangements in his Department to ensure, first, that councils that are not co-operating with the Government's policy are sorted out and, secondly, that councils meeting genuine problems, such as difficulties over the ownership of property, can be assisted by his Department?
    Mr. Stanley: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend that it is an important achievement by the Government that about 300,000 council dwellings have become owner-occupied since the Government came to office. I assure my hon. Friend that I am satisfied with the rigorous and detailed measures that we take inside the Department to monitor progress in general. I am also aware that we must take into account the limited number of cases when there are special technical difficulties, to which my hon. Friend has referred.

    Falkland Islands
    Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the important letter that the Prime Minister wrote on 3 February stating that the Falkland Islands were sufficiently protected against aggression, should we not, as a matter of urgency, have a statement from the Prime Minister? Some 250 members of the Armed Forces died in the Falklands operation. Many more were injured. In view of the letter that has now come to light, a statement should be given at once to the House of Commons.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a matter for which I am responsible.

National Health Service (Pay)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Norman Fowler): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on pay negotiations in the National Health Service.
On 10 June I told the House that the Government were considering the points made by the Royal College of Nursing following the ballot on the pay offer of 6·4 per cent. I reported also the initiative I had taken in asking Mr. Lowry to undertake consultations with the Health Service unions affiliated to the TUC to establish whether there was any common ground between us. My objective has been to secure agreement so that negotiations can be resumed in the respective Whitley councils.
Following careful consideration of the position and after consultation with some of the chairmen of the management sides of the Whitley councils, I entered discussions with the representatives of the Health Service unions and professional bodies. I was able to tell them that the Government had decided that a further £90 million would be available in negotiating a new pay offer—partly from the Government and partly from the existing Health Service budget. Together with the additional resources made available in March this year, this would increase the average pay of nurses and midwives and the professions supplementary to medicine by 7½ per cent., ambulance men and hospital pharmacists by 6½ per cent. and other groups of staff by 6 per cent. The increases for particular grades would be for negotiation within the Whitley councils. These improved offers both maintain the special position of nurses and other staff providing direct patient care and bring offers to all groups of staff on a par with other recent awards in the public sector.
My hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health and I have been in discussions over the last two days with the Royal College of Nursing and the Health Service unions affiliated to the TUC. I am glad to report to the House that the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Health Visitors Association and the Association of Nurse Administrators have agreed to recommend to their responsible bodies that their negotiators be authorised to return to the negotiating table. I hope that their Whitley council will resume discussions very shortly.
Regrettably, the representatives of the Health Service unions rejected the improved offers out of hand and were unwilling to resume any negotiations. They intend to report that back to the full TUC health services committee with the proposal that industrial action should continue.
The Government have moved substantially to improve the offers to the Health Service. The average increases in pay offered for Health Service staff range between 6 per cent. and 7·5 per cent. That compares with 5·9 per cent. for civil servants, 6 per cent. for teachers and 6·1 per cent. for the Armed Services.
I do not believe that the Health Service unions are justified in rejecting this offer and I deplore their decision to continue a campaign of industrial action, which can only harm patient care. I hope that they, and in particular their members, will reconsider the position very carefully and I urge them to return to negotiations in the Whitley councils.
Mr. Bruce Millan: Is the Secretary of State aware that it is no use his regretting the chaos and disruption in the National Health Service, which we all deeply regret, when that chaos and disruption has been caused directly by his pigheaded, maladroit and provocative behaviour? For evidence of that behaviour we need look no further than what happened yesterday, when the right hon. Gentleman attempted to reach an agreement with the Royal College of Nursing—which represents only a minority of the workers concerned in the present dispute—while letting the TUC unions kick their heels for no less than four hours, with the result that they had to find out the details of the new offer from the press conference that was held by the Royal College of Nursing. If the Minister behaves in such a way, does he not understand that he is bound to increase the anger and bitterness that are felt already in the National Health Service?
Is it not a fact that the present offer, apart from its divisive nature, will still mean a real reduction in he standard of living of some of the lowest-paid workers in the country? It is no use the Secretary of State mentioning carefully selected other groups of workers and omitting to mention some higher-paid sections of the community, such as judges and higher grades of civil servants, not to mention the police services, which have had vastly higher offers than those made to the National Health Service. Is it not also a fact that in any case much of the money for the new offer will have to be paid directly from cuts in the services to patients, about which the Minister keeps weeping crocodile tears during the industrial action?
All through the dispute the Secretary of State has refused to allow genuine negotiations in the Whitley councils. He is still doing that. He has refused to go to independent arbitration, which is completely indefensible. He has failed to persuade—because he cannot persuade—the workers in the National Health Service that there is any sense of justice or fairness in the way in which the Government are treating different groups of workers. As long as that continues, is not the dispute likely to be prolonged? If that happens, does not the Secretary of State bear a heavy responsibility for the damage that is being caused to the National Health Service?
Mr. Fowler: I totally reject virtually everything that the right hon. Gentleman said. He should know that two separate negotiations were taking place from the beginning. The Royal College of Nursing and the other professional organisations are not affiliated to the TUC and the TUC does not negotiate for them. Therefore, it is necessary that two sets of negotiations take place.
I asked the unions yesterday whether it was procedure or handling that was keeping us apart. They said that that was not so and that they rejected the substance of the offers. Let us have no more of such nonsense. The fact is that at no stage did the unions mention any other figure than 12 per cent., which is totally unrealistic.
We have made a fair offer. It means an average increase of at least 6 per cent. It is on a par with the offers that were made to civil servants, teachers and the Armed Forces. [HON. MEMBERS: "Top salaries?"] I do not believe that industrial action can conceivably be justified in the context of the new offer. I hope above all that the Opposition will now take the opportunity of condemning industrial action that harms patient care.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House is aware that the main business today falls under the allocation of time motion. Therefore, we must be fair to those who wish to debate the Northern Ireland Bill. I suggest that questions are finished in a quarter of an hour, at five minutes to four.
Mrs. Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend be assured that the vast majority of hon. Members reject utterly the accusation that he is either pigheaded or maladroit? On the contrary, they recognise that he has listened most carefully and sympathetically to the case made by the National Health Service employees and has gone as far as possible to meet their demands. He has not only offered them the maximum that the country can afford but has also kept wisely in line with other groups of workers so that inflation shall not start again.
Mr. Fowler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What she says is absolutely right. We are offering a 7·5 per cent. average increase to the Royal College of Nursing and to nurses in general. We want to see new permanent arrangements for nurses' pay in operation by 1 April 1983. The Government will do their utmost to achieve that.
Mr. William Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that I have just returned from a big demonstration across the river on this matter, when it was evident that every union in the country, including the National Union of Mineworkers, the firemen and so on, were behind the National Health Service workers, who are low-paid workers by the Government's own definition? We on the Opposition Benches are determined to carry on the campaign of industrial action until the Government come to their senses. It makes no sense to reduce the standard of living of those who are among the most loyal and moderate of workers. The sooner that the Government and the Minister realise that we are determined to win the campaign for 12 per cent., the better. It is not an extravagant claim. Those concerned are merely asking to stand still. The Minister had better be warned that much more drastic action will be taken unless he is much more flexible.
Mr. Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has confirmed exactly what I said. He is sustaining a case for a 12 per cent. increase in pay, which will cost an additional £750 million. That is an utterly ludicrous claim for the hon. Gentleman to support. The hon. Gentleman must decide, when he mentions the other supporters, whether it is a dispute about pay or a political dispute.
Mr. Hamilton: It is both.
Mr. Fowler: I believe that the hon. Gentleman will lose any remaining credibility if he turns this into a political dispute.
Mr. David Alton: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is anxiety among some members of the Royal College of Nursing that the impression has been given—before local consultations take place tomorrow—that the offer has in some way been accepted? Will the Secretary of State say something about the long-term consequences of the divide-and-rule policy of coming to an agreement with one set of people and not another?
Mr. Fowler: It is in no sense a divide-and-rule policy. We are meeting the special case of the nurses. I should have thought that the Liberal Party—for whom I assume
302
the hon. Gentleman speaks—would be in favour of that. I said that the professional bodies have agreed to recommend to their responsible bodies that their negotiators be authorised to return to the negotiating table, which means the Whitley council. I hope that the Liberal Party will support that.
Mr. Anthony Nelson: May I assure my right hon. Friend that he enjoys widespread support for the way in which he has managed what have been undeniably difficult negotiations? Does he agree that the guidelines for the Conservative Party and the Government should be that the patient comes first? It is no way forward for increased provision for the National Health Service to be consistently pre-empted by excessive wage settlements.
Mr. Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government have increased the resources available to the National Health Service over the past two and a half years. We are spending over £12 billion on the National Health Service, and it is a matter of regret that some of the money for the additional pay will have to come from the National Health Service. There is no way round that.
Mrs. Renée Short: Is the Secretary of State aware that no less than 62 per cent. of full-time staff employed in the National Health Service earn less than £100 a week? Within that figure, 7·4 per cent. earn less than £60 a week. It is phoney to compare the miserable increase of 6 per cent. that he is offering them with the increase that was offered to teachers and civil servants who are on much higher salaries. Will he look at this again in all equity and produce more money to make them a better offer?
Mr. Fowler: I want to make it absolutely clear that this is the Government's final decision. Industrial action will not force us into providing more money. The sooner that that is taken on board, the better it will be.
Mr. Mike Thomas: If the nurses and hospital workers are a special case, can the Secretary of State explain why they are not on a par with the miners and the power workers, who are not special cases?
Mr. Fowler: What I have just said to the House—it is an important part of what we are offering the Royal College of Nursing and the nursing profession in general—is that we want a new permanent arrangement for nurses' pay in operation by 1 April 1983.
I also said to the trade unions—this is a point that the hon. Gentleman raised with me on a previous occasion—that if they want to talk to me about new arrangements for pay, I am perfectly willing to do so. We have had no response to that offer.
Mr. Thomas: Why are they not on a par with the miners?
Mrs. Sheila Faith: Does the Secretary of State agree that, although the House is delighted that the nurses have been made a special case, it is always unwise for them to link their pay claim with that of the ancillary workers? Although ancillary workers do important work, they do not have the long training that nurses have, nor do they have the life and death responsibility. Also, they have often not taken due notice of patient care when pursuing their pay claims.
Mr. Fowler: The Government say that a differential for nurses' pay is justified, and that is what we are fighting for. We recognise that the nurses are a special case, and I pay tribute to the fact that even on a day of action the vast majority of nurses are working.
Mr. David Ennals: Is it not extremely unwise for the Secretary of State to negotiate separately with one organisation that represents less than half the nurses and with other organisations that represent the majority? Is that not a recipe for dispute? The Secretary of State has said that the growth rate for the National Health Service in the future is only 0·5 per cent., while 0·7 per cent. is needed just to keep pace with the rising aged population. Is it not absolutely wrong that any part of the new increase should be taken from patient care when the right hon. Gentleman has said that patients must come first?
Mr. Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman is in no position to lecture either me or the House on recipes for dispute.
Mr. Ennals: Answer my question.
Mr. Fowler: Those people who remember the winter of discontent remember that. To respond to the two questions—the Royal College of Nursing and the other professional organisations are not affiliated to the TUC. They have a perfect right to say that they do not want to be represented by the TUC. It gives me no pleasure to say that money will have to come from the National Health Service budget. I have made that clear throughout. The majority of the money will be new money provided by the Government, but I must make it clear that some money will have to come from the substantial National Health Service budget, and that that will have implications.
Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Has not the Secretary of State been too clever by half in differentiating between the groups? Has that not hardened attitudes and led to the present reaction? Does he not accept that there is a widespread feeling that he should evenhandedly put on the table an offer that at least keeps everyone up with the cost of living?
Mr. Fowler: I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman believes the offer should be or how it would compare with the other offers made in the recent round of pay increases. I believe that the public are in favour of the Government's stance that the nurses are a special case.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the National Union of Mineworkers and others who have pay settlements coming up next year can show their support for the special position of the nurses and ancillary workers by asking for a pay increase lower than that which the nurses and ancillary workers are getting?
Mr. Fowler: That is right. It would be wrong if the issue was turned into a political dispute and against the interests of the Health Service.
Mr. George Foulkes: Why can the Government provide unlimited finance for the task force and promise unlimited finance to garrison and to supply the Falkland Islands but cannot find the money to meet the nurses' justified and reasonable claim?
Mr. Fowler: The Government are already providing over £12 billion for the NHS. That is not only more in cash but more in real terms than any other Government have provided.
Mr. Toby Jessel: If a doctor believes that a patient needs an operation, is permission now to be required not only from the hospital porters but from the NUM?
Mr. Fowler: There is absolutely no question of that. The only people who can make decisions about medical care are medically qualified staff. I hope that the Opposition will at least agree with that.
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: Will the right hon. Gentleman study with humility the leader in The Times health supplement of 11 June which shows that to bring the nurses' pay up to the Halsbury award under the Labour Secretary of State, Barbara Castle, would require a 50 per cent. and not a 12 per cent. increase? Does he agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. Alton) that there has been no decision by the Royal College of Nursing to advise its members to accept the 7£5 per cent. award, but that it will be meeting tomorrow and offering the advice at that time? Is he aware that if he pursues his present tactics and strategy of trying to split into different categories members of the Health Service who work under the same roof he will sow discord and destroy morale to such an extent that it will take 10 years for the Health Service to recover?
Mr. Fowler: That is not the case. The Royal Collge of Nursing is entirely committed to the principle of differentials. It is rubbish to talk of splitting the Health Service. A standard percentage increase year after year for over 1 million people working in the Health Service is not realistic. It is right to show a preference on this occasion for the nurses.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: Will my right hon. Friend accept my congratulations on what he said about the special case for the nurses? If there is to be industrial action, will he give an undertaking that he will not permit unlawful action and that the hospitals will be protected against unlawful picketing or any other unlawful measures, especially if other unions try to come in to engage in unlawful action, so that the Health Service can be fully and properly protected?
Mr. Fowler: We issued a circular at the end of 1979 giving advice to health authorities in the event of industrial action, but the decision rests with the health authorities. If damage is done to the Health Service by people who do not work in it, there is a remedy under the industrial relations legislation.
Mr. Laurence Cunliffe: Does the Minister not understand that the 12 per cent. claim was based on need and not greed and that if we are to have good health care it is imperative to have fair pay in the Health Service? If the right hon. Gentleman is so confident about public support for what he considers to be a fair offer, will he conduct an opinion poll to see whether the public, who have given massive support to the case of the Health Service workers, are willing to pay the additional cost?
Mr. Fowler: The Government must take decisions based on the resources available. We have made the decision. It is final and I believe that it is fair.

Lead-free Petrol
3.55 pm
Mr. Alfred Dubs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the compulsory sale of lead-free petrol by filling stations; and to ensure that all new petrol-using vehicles sold in the United Kingdom shall be designed to run on lead-free fuel.
Lead is a poison, and I welcome the opportunity to seek the leave of the House to introduce a Bill which will take us significantly further towards getting rid of all lead that enters human bodies. The Bill will set dates by which the proposals will be introduced. As new motor cars replaced old ones, those that run on petrol with lead in it would gradually be phased out until no vehicles in the country would use petrol with lead in it.
There are no vested interests arguing to take lead out of petrol. Our view is based simply on the need to safeguard the health and well-being of children mainly, but also of adults. Vested interests seek to oppose the measure. Those who argue that lead should be taken out of petrol are not influenced by financial or other considerations.
There is massive support in my constituency for the measure. I have had numerous letters and have recently been invited to a couple of meetings, all to urge that lead should be taken out of petrol. I welcome the recent establishment of the Campaign for Lead-free Air, which is doing useful work and with which I have had helpful discussions in preparation for today.
The opponents of the proposal use four arguments: they dispute the medical and scientific evidence, they argue that the measure would be too costly, they argue that the motor industry could not cope and they talk about difficulties with the EEC. I shall refute all four arguments. The Government seek refuge in the Lawther report, but it is rapidly on the way to being utterly discredited. First, it underestimated the contribution made by lead in petrol to the burden in the body. Secondly, it underestimated the proportion of lead in petrol that ultimately found its way into food. Thirdly, it set far too high a safety threshold. Fourthly, it underestimated the health risk of lead.
Nevertheless, as a result of the report, the Government took one step on which they were widely commended. They agreed to reduce the level of lead in petrol by 1985. Ministers have since said that that is all that they need do. Unfortunately for the Government's case, there has recently been increased evidence of the harm caused by lead to children's intelligence and behaviour.
It is not my purpose to go through all the scientific evidence, but I mention a little of it to support what I have said and to show that the Lawther committee's conclusions are no longer sound. Last month the British Medical Association stated:
"Taking into account all the available evidence it would appear that the elimination of lead from petrol would reduce considerably the concentration of lead in the atmosphere. This in turn would produce a reduction in the burden of lead absorbed by individuals. For those individuals already exposed to higher than average concentrations of atmospheric lead, the body burden might be reduced by as much as one third …
On the basis of the evidence which it has received the BMA considers that lead is capable of causing harm at levels of exposure previously considered safe".
The BMA also said:
"Associations have been demonstrated between impairment of mental functioning and lead levels below the range previously
306
considered harmful. At first there was some doubt about the validity of these studies but it is now generally accepted that the association is real and it should not therefore be disregarded."
The second authority is Professor Michael Rutter, a leading member of the Lawther committee. Last month he said:
"The removal of lead from petrol would seem to be one of those worthwhile and safe public health actions. The evidence suggests that the removal of lead from petrol would have a quite substantial effect on reducing lead pollution and the costs are quite modest by any reasonable standard."
Thirdly, Dr. William Yule carried out some research with London schoolchildren, and his conclusions broadly replicated the North American studies of Needleman and others in that they indicated a dose-response relationship between increased lead levels and an increased likelihood that teachers would record deviant behaviour. They also demonstrated that hyperactivity was found to be significantly related to children's blood lead levels.
A few days ago The Times reported the May proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, which revealed further evidence
"with the publication of a biochemical study which claims to show that even 'normal' blood lead levels can inhibit the production of haemoglobin, the essential oxygen-carrying molecule of the blood."
The evidence is overwhelming that any level of lead in petrol that goes into the human body is dangerous and should be eliminated.
Mr. Keith Best: Absolute nonsense.
Mr. Dubs: The hon. Gentleman says "Absolute nonsense", but I have quoted scientific and medical authority. If he is in some doubt, what about the comment in the New Scientist, which said on 4 March that
"the scientific evidence of the damage that lead can do to the brains of children convinces everyone except the deliberately obtuse."
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take note of what the New Scientist said.
Lead in petrol is not the only source of lead. It can be found in paint, in certain industries and in water pipes, particularly water pipes in Scotland. With the possible exception of water pipes in Scotland, about which my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) knows more than I do, deliberate action is now being taken to reduce lead in paint, to eliminate it as far as possible and to deal with lead emissions from industry.
The evidence is that, in contrast to what the Government maintain, lead from petrol contributes between 30 per cent. and, in urban areas, up to 60 per cent. of the lead that works its way into children's bodies.
Other countries have already taken a lead. The United States, Australia, Japan and the Soviet Union have all taken steps to eliminate lead from petrol. That is being done by phasing out the lead. For example, in the first four years of the policy, the United States, through that deliberate action, used 55 per cent. less lead in its petrol than previously. There was a reduction of 37 per cent. in the blood lead level of people measured throughout the United States, and not just in urban areas. That is clear evidence, on top of the other that I have quoted, that there is a positive relationship between a reduction in the amount of lead in petrol and the subsequent lowering by a large and significant amount of lead in the human body.
Some people have said that the Bill is desirable on health grounds but that we simply cannot afford it. The trouble is that as there is no clear legislation on the subject

307
the vested interests that oppose this move will inevitably exaggerate the cost as part of their argument and as a means of putting pressure on the Government. That was clearly demonstrated in Australia, where the oil industry said that it would cost a vast amount of money to go in this direction. However, after the Australian Government took positive action, the oil industry's estimates came down significantly. The latest estimate is that the cost of taking this step is one-fifth of the Australian oil industry's original estimate.
This must be the only area of human endeavour where financial estimates go down under the pressure of Government legislation. The most realistic view is that if we were to take this step, the extra cost to the motorist would be between 2p and 4p a gallon. Although such an increase is not desirable, it is fully justified by what is at stake and is pretty small compared with the 9p increase announced in the last 10 days.
There is also the argument about the motor industry—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to come to a conclusion, because his 10 minutes are up?
Mr. Dubs: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I shall rapidly draw my remarks to a conclusion.
There are those who argue that the motor industry cannot cope. We already export cars to the United States that are designed not to run on petrol containing lead, and in any case Japan has already taken this step. Those who believe that we cannot take the step because of the EEC should look at article 36 of the Treaty of Rome, which talks about the protection of the health and life of humans as overriding EEC regulations.
If we regard the health and welfare of our children as paramount, there is no alternative to taking the measures that I ask the House to give me leave to introduce.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Alfred Dubs, Mr. Ted Graham, Mr. Laurie Pavitt, Mr. Phillip Whitehead, Mr. Robin Squire, Mr. Clive Soley, Mr. J. W. Rooker, Mr. Allan Roberts and Mr. George Foulkes.

Lead-free Petrol
  LEAD-FREE PETROL
  Mr. Alfred Dubs accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the compulsory sale of lead-free petrol by filling stations; and to ensure that all new petrol-using vehicles sold in the United Kingdom shall be designed to run on lead-free fuel: 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 149.]
Orders of the Day

  Northern Ireland Bill
  [IST ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee [Progress, 16 June]
  [MR. BERNARD WEATHERILL in the Chair]

  Northern Ireland Bill
    Clause 3

      MATTERS FOR CONSIDERATION BY ASSEMBLY PENDING GENERAL SUSPENSION OF DIRECT RULE
      4.8 pm
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Weatherill. You will recall that when the Committee last sat it dealt with the first of a group of three amendments. It was put to the Chair, reported in column 1025 of the Official Report, that a Division would be desirable upon the other two amendments that were grouped with it as they were essentially separate matters on which it might be desirable for the Committee—and some members of the Committee did desire—to mark a decision.
      I therefore ask you, Sir, to permit the Committee to come to a decision on amendment No. 44, which is on a distinct and important point, and for which a separate Division was requested when that group of amendments was entered upon.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): It is perfectly true that when we debated this matter last week I said that the Chair would consider a Division on amendment No. 44. However, in view of the subsequent guillotine motion, I thought that it might be the desire of the Committee to get on with discussing the Bill. Therefore, I did not have that amendment put on the provisional selection. If it is genuinely the wish of the Committee to have a Division on this amendment, I shall, of course, allow it, despite the guillotine motion.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am obliged, Mr. Weatherill. That was indeed the desire of a number of members of the Committee on that occasion, and I hope that you will test that desire by putting the Question.
      Amendment proposed: No. 44, in page 3, line 19, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.—[Mr. J. Enoch Powell.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made.
      The Committee divided: Ayes 20, Noes 132.

      Divison No. 232]

      [4.10 pm

      AYES

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Budgen, Nick

      Murphy, Christopher

      Dunlop, John

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

      Farr, John

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

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

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Gorst, John

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Winterton, Nicholas

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Mr. William Ross and

      Molyneaux, James

      Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

      309

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Arnold, Tom

      MacGregor, John

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

      Major, John

      Beith, A. J.

      Marland, Paul

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Marlow, Antony

      Best, Keith

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Mather, Carol

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Blackburn, John

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Moate, Roger

      Bradley, Tom

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Bright, Graham

      Moore, John

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Mudd, David

      Buck, Antony

      Neale, Gerrard

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Needham, Richard

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      O'Halloran, Michael

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R' c 'n)

      Onslow, Cranley

      Cartwright, John

      Osborn, John

      Chapman, Sydney

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Cope, John

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Pawsey, James

      Crouch, David

      Penhaligon, David

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Pitt, William Henry

      Dover, Denshore

      Pollock, Alexander

      Dunn, James A.

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Durant, Tony

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Eggar, Tim

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Roper, John

      Fry, Peter

      Rossi, Hugh

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Sandelson, Neville

      Greenway, Harry

      Scott, Nicholas

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Grist, Ian

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Silvester, Fred

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Sims, Roger

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Smith, Dudley

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Haselhurst, Alan

      Speller, Tony

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Stainton, Keith

      Hawksley, Warren

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Heddle, John

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Hill, James

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Thompson, Donald

      Hordern, Peter

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Trippier, David

      Howells, Geraint

      Trotter, Neville

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      van Straubenzee, Sir W.

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

      Jessel, Toby

      Waller, Gary

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Warren, Kenneth

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Watson, John

      Knox, David

      Wellbeloved, James

      Lang, Ian

      Wells, Bowen

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Lee, John

      Wickenden, Keith

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Wolfson, Mark

      Loveridge, John

      Luce, Richard

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones and

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Mr. Peter Brooke.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. John Farr: I beg to move amendment No. 151, in page 3, line 29, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
      The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to take the following: Amendment No. 152, in page 3, line 31, leave out from 'section' to end of line 33.
      310
      Amendment No. 148, in page 3, line 33, leave out 'a specified period' and insert
      'one month of the request being made'.
      Amendment No. 138, in page 3, line 33, after 'period', insert
      'and such report for the greater convenience shall be in the form of the Official Record of proceedings.'.
      Amendment No. 139, in page 3, line 33, after 'period', insert
      'and in any event within 4 weeks of the conclusion of the relevant Assembly discussion.'.
      Amendment No. 140, in page 3, line 35, after 'section' insert
      'and shall do so at once by placing copies in the Vote Office.'.
      Amendment No. 155, in page 3, line 35, at end insert 'within seven days'.
      Amendment No. 156, in page 3, line 38, at end add—
      '(6) The Assembly shall ensure that its proceedings and its decisions are recorded in writing and a copy of the proceedings is submitted to the Secretary of State.'.
      Amendment No. 157, in page 3, line 38, at end add—
      '(6) The Secretary of State shall place in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the minutes of the proceedings of the Assembly.'.
      New Clause 24—Television—
      'The proceedings of the Assembly shall be televised for transmission by the British Broadcasting Corporation and Independent Television companies.'.
      Mr. Farr: Will it be possible, Mr. Weatherill, to have a separate Division on amendment No. 139, which covers a fundamental point? It relates to the time limit of four weeks within which a report must be submitted.
      The Chairman: I should like to consider that without giving an answer at the moment.
      Mr. Farr: In the group of amendments which we are discussing, there are four with which I should like to deal—Nos. 151, 138, 139 and 140. This group of amendments gives the lie to the criticisms made yesterday that a series of time-wasting and destructive amendments without substance had been tabled. These nine amendments are all designed to make the Assembly a better, more effective and more efficient working place than it would otherwise be.
      Amendment No. 151, the first one in the name of some of my hon. Friends and myself, relates to the desirability of changing the word "may" to "shall" in the first line of subsection (3). It is essential that the Assembly shall have a duty to make a report to the Secretary of State. It is not good enough to leave the subsection in its present rather haphazard form under which the Assembly may make a report or it may not. Amendment No. 151, along with the other three amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends, suggests that the best way of making the official report to the Minister by the Assembly is by keeping an official record similar to Hansard in the House of Commons.
      This is outlined specifically in amendment No. 138 which says that an official record of proceedings shall be kept. As I said, all these amendments are designed to be helpful and to streamline the procedure. They are constructive and in no way can they be construed as time-wasting.
      The Assembly officers would be well advised to try to emulate the feats of our Official Reporters in the Gallery. The accuracy, speed, efficiency and exactitude of our official reporters in the Hansard Gallery, working often in difficult conditions, are such as reporters of any official

      311
      proceedings throughout the world would wish to emulate. Those of us who tabled the amendments can think of no better way of going about it than for the Assembly officers to try to establish an official record of proceedings on the lines of our Hansard records.
      Amendment No. 139 is of significance inasmuch as it desires to maintain the relevance of any report by the Assembly to the Secretary of State. If my right hon. Friend accepts some of the amendments—he has not been very co-operative so far—it will not be necessary to have this four-week time limit. An official report, as compiled by Hansard here, comes out overnight; the official report of proceedings in the Assembly could be made available to the Secretary of State overnight.
      On the other hand, if my right hon. Friend does not feel inclined to accept amendment No. 138, which suggests that an official report should he kept, then it is strongly desirable that reports of proceedings should be up to date. It is no good an Assembly report being prepared, then delayed perhaps for one reason or another and not coming to the Secretary of State for an indeterminate time.
      Many of the matters which the Assembly will be discussing, as outlined in clause 3(1)(a) and 3(1)(b), will be of considerable gravity and importance. There is no reason why a four-week deadline could not be put into the Bill, assuming that the Secretary of State does not accept the amendment about having an official report, so that the reports of the Assembly are not withheld indefinitely for a known or unknown reason.
      Amendment No. 140 relates to the placing in the Vote Office of the House of Commons of copies of the proceedings in the Assembly. I hope my hon. Friends on the Front Bench are listening occasionally because so much destructive criticism has come from the Front Bench to the effect that the amendments are all time-wasting and designed to wreck the Bill.
      Mr. Gerard Fitt: Where are the hon. Member's Friends this afternoon? There are not too many here.
      Mr. Farr: These amendments are designed to improve the working and the machinery of the Assembly and to make sure that reports are produced rapidly and made readily available to Members of the House. The House of Commons is supreme in these matters. The best and recognised channel for making reports available to all Members of Parliament on both sides of the House is via the Vote Office. We can see no reason why, first, an official report such as Hansard cannot be kept by the Assembly, and, secondly, why that report cannot be made available at the earliest opportunity in the Vote Office to Members of Parliament who are interested, so that they will know where to go in the same way as they go there for all other important documents.
      The Vote Office has been specified for another reason. A few weeks ago we were seeking from the Secretary of State notes on the proceedings of the Bill in Committee. We had the greatest difficulty in getting the notes. When they came they were helpful. They were voluminous. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was not to be seen during the week; I am glad to see him now.
      We had a frightfully difficult job getting the notes. They were not available in the Vote Office and there was only one copy in the Library. I photocopied them, but as
      312
      they totalled more than 50 pages it was a laborious and time-consuming job. A much more efficient and effective way of informing hon. Members about the critical proceedings of the Assembly would be to put documentation in our Vote Office.
      4.30 pm
      Mr. J. Grimond: I do riot oppose the amendments, which raise a number of matters that have concerned me previously about the nature of the Assembly.
      As the Assembly will be in charge of its own procedures, I thought that it would have powers to keep a record if it desires. I am surprised that it should be considered necessary to write such a provision in the Bill. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will clear up that matter.
      If a record is kept by the Assembly it should be available to hon. Members. We keep the proceedings of all sorts of subordinate bodies and I should not have thought that it was necessary to write such a provision into the Bill. Once again, I should like the Government to confirm whether it is necessary.
      The main question is whether the Assembly will be compelled to report its views to the Secretary of State or will merely be given the power to report if it so wishes. Leaving the decision to the Assembly should be reasonably satisfactory, and nothing that the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said convinced me that it should be compelled to report to the House. It should be for the Assembly to decide whether views are worth reporting to the House.
      The hon. Member for Harborough seems to think that the Assembly will not have powers over its own proceedings unless we give it specific authority to record them and report them to the House or the Secretary of State. The Bill would not prevent the reporting and recording of proceedings and it would allow the Assembly to report to the Secretary of State any views that it wished to convey to him. So far, I have not been convinced that that is not reasonable.
      Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I support some, if not all, of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan), and there are three amendments in the group in the names of myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Body).
      Clause 3 deals with the pre-devolution Assembly. The title of the Clause is:
      "Matters for consideration by Assembly pending general suspension of direct rule."
      Much of the work of the Assembly during that period will be debates in which Members will air their views about Northern Ireland matters. The Secretary of State and this House should know the feelings of the Assembly and I support amendment No. 151, which would require the Assembly to report to the Secretary of State views expressed on any matter that it had considered and rot just the views on matters on which the Secretary of State had asked for its opinion.
      My amendments Nos. 155 to 157 go a little wider than those of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough. No. 155 applies to subsection (4), which states:
      "The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament any report received by him under this section".
      My amendment proposes that a seven-day time limit should be placed on the Secretary of State in the exercise

      313
      of that function. Other time limits are proposed by other amendments, but I believe that one week should be sufficient for the Secretary of State to make the necessary arrangements for a report to be laid before the House. Barring administrative and technical difficulties, there should be no delay before the House is informed of the views of the Assembly.
      There are no provisions in the clause to enable the Assembly to record its proceedings and decisions and no duty is imposed on it to pass a copy of its proceedings to the Secretary of State. There may be occasions when the Assembly would rather that the House and the Secretary of State did not know its views, but we and my right hon. Friend should know all about the proceedings and the decisions taken by the Assembly.
      As the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said, the Assembly's Standing Orders may allow it to agree the manner in which it will record its proceedings, but that will be no substitute for imposing duties on the Assembly to report its proceedings and to ensure that the Secretary of State knows what decisions are being taken. I ask the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland to reflect on that.
      Amendment No. 157 would ensure that a copy of the minutes of the Assembly's proceedings—not merely a record of the proceedings on matters referred to the Assembly by the Secretary of State—was placed in the Library of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough suggested that the minutes could be placed in the Vote Office and I look forward to hearing the comments of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on this group of amendments, which are intended to close substantial gaps in clause 3.
      The amendments are varied. They are almost a step-by-step approach to improving clause 3. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough made caustic comments about the briefing notes and their availability. I was principally responsible for asking my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State whether he would make the briefing notes available at a very early stage in our proceedings, in fact, on the first day of our Committee proceedings. I have to acquit the Secretary of State of any discourtesy. My right hon. Friend was swift to respond to my suggestion that the briefing notes should be made available. He made it clear at the time that they would be available on request to his Department. I have to say that the briefing notes were promptly supplied to me. I believe that the criticism by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough of the Secretary of State and Ministers is, on this occasion, misplaced.
      Mr. Farr: I should like to point out to my hon. Friend that I am not part of the gang of people who are alleged to have it in for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I was not criticising my right hon. Friend. I was merely suggesting that the best means of making the notes available was through the Vote Office, which is the normal procedure.
      Mr. Proctor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I acquit him, of course, of any blanket condemnation of the Secretary of State. My remarks are strictly related to the briefing notes on the Bill. The notes are not normally made available by Ministers at the Committee stage. It was because of my experience on the Standing Committee on the Mental Health (Amendment) Bill, where such notes
      314
      had proved useful, that I thought they would be useful to hon. Members considering this Bill. I believe that, as our debates have progressed, the notes have turned out to be very useful indeed.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough mentioned criticism of the Secretary of State on a personal basis or on a basis other than that related to the subject before the Committee. I fully supported my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on employment matters and on the step-by-step approach that has been followed through by my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for Employment.
      There is, however, a clear disagreement within the Tory Party over the best approach to the problems of Northern Ireland. There are those who profoundly disagree with the establishment of this Assembly. They wish that some other approach had been adopted to tackle the many problems of Northern Ireland rather than saddle it with an unnecessary Assembly that will come to naught and will create many more problems than it will solve.
      Mr. William Ross: A considerable number of amendments in the present group cover a small but important point related to the manner in which the Assembly is to conduct its business and make known the results of its deliberations to the world at large. The amendments standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and myself are simple and straightforward. They have been expanded by amendments tabled by other hon. Members. We simply ask that the Assembly shall report to the Secretary of State and, through him, to Parliament on any matter that it considers.
      4.45 pm
      Amendment No. 156, in the name of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), goes further. The hon. Gentleman seeks what I also consider is essential—a permanent, full record of the proceedings of the Assembly, as well as reports, to be placed in the hands of the Secretary of State.
      In amendment No. 157, the hon. Members for Basildon and Holland with Boston (Mr. Body) are asking that the record should be kept in the Library, like the records of the former Northern Ireland Parliament, where they can be consulted at any time. Under subsection (3), as it stands, it seems that no action need be taken by the Assembly other than to debate the matters put before it. In other words, the Assembly is expected to be powerless not only in action but after it has spoken. It simply speaks words that fade away in the Chamber and that is the end of them.
      I believe that we must write it into the Bill that a proper record be kept and a proper report made of the Assembly's proceedings. There can be no doubt that the Assembly will discuss anything under the sun that it considers necessary. A permanent written or printed record of the proceedings should be kept and made available to the news media generally, the public, the Secretary of State, the House of Commons and Members of the Assembly.
      The Assembly may not fulfil any useful role in its preliminary stages—I believe that it will never get beyond that preliminary stage—but if its views are not to be put to the Secretary of State in a sensible and reasoned fashion, its whole existence is useless. It will be even less than a powerless talking shop. If the amendments are not accepted, how are the conclusions of the Assembly to be put to the House and to the other place? How will they be conveyed to the Secretary of State? Will there be an

      315
      equivalent of Hansard for the Assembly? Will hon. Members be expected to wade through every dot and comma, cough and bark to discover the result of the Assembly's deliberations? Hansard itself is not all that accurate, even in this place. That was demonstrated only yesterday evening in the remarks of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who, in column 204, is reported twice in the same paragragh as referring to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) when he was quite evidently looking at my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and the whole context of what he was saying referred to my hon. Friend. The Secretary of State will no doubt take steps to have the record corrected. Unless the Members of the Assembly are given the same facilities as exist in this place to correct mistakes in Hansard, I see no point in asking hon. Members to wade through the acres of printing which no doubt will come from the Assembly, as there will be nothing else for it to do.
      The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James Prior): I have just looked at column 204. It is clear that I was referring to the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). I shall certainly see whether the change can be made in the Official Report.
      Mr. Ross: I thank the Secretary of State for taking up the point. However, it is not every day that we discuss previous business and have the responsible Ministers present on the succeeding day so that matters may be brought to their immediate attention and corrected. Therefore, it is necessary that amendments such as ours are accepted.
      Mr. Proctor: Surely the interchange that has just taken place shows the need for the Assembly's proceedings to be set down in writing and for a duty to be placed upon the Assembly to set them down in writing, so that such corrections can be made. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the interchange has given added weight to the amendments standing in my name and in the names of my hon. Friends?
      Mr. Ross: I thank the hon. Member for Basildon for his support. Certainly, the interchange that has just taken place illustrates, as no other argument on the Floor of the committee could, especially as it involved the right hon. Gentleman, the necessity for such changes in the Bill.
      After the Assembly's views and conclusions have been decided and put down in Hansard, which is now to be written into the Bill, and brought to the House, what will happen? Will the decisions be binding? We covered some of this ground earlier, but there is no good reason to let the matter pass again without drawing it to the right hon. Gentleman's attention. If the Assembly reaches a consensus agreement, a majority agreement, or a unanimous agreement, what will happen when it comes to the House of Commons? This shows the foolishness of having a body which is without power and which can, at best, make recommendations. When that information comes here and reaches the hands of the Secretary of State, what will the Government do? How will the Assembly's conclusions and deliberations be put to the House? Will a number of resolutions be put down on the Order Paper? Will those resolutions embody the Assembly's conclusions? Will the right hon. Gentleman, or his successor,
      316
      stand at the Dispatch Box and ask the House to pass or reject the conclusions reached by the Assembly? What will be the procedure?
      It is ridiculous to ask Members of the Assembly to spend hours considering matters, which may be of great importance, and then quietly to forget the conclusions that are taken by those who live close to the people involved. That raises the problem of the colour of the majority who arrive at conclusions in the Assembly and how it affects the subjective view of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. How can he judge whether there is widespread support or—as the Under-Secretary of State the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Patten) corrected my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) the other day—acquiescence? I think that was the word he used. The Secretary of State could give much greater weight to that word if he used it instead of "widespread acceptance", "cross-community support", or all the other nonsense that he has used up to now. "Acquiescence" is an acceptable word to the Under-Secretary, but in my mind it does not mean quite the same as those other terms.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. John Patten): The hon. Gentleman is quoting me in a quite different context. I had a semantic debate with the right hon. Member for Down, South, (Mr. Powell), when he kindly gave way to me, as to whether people in the Province accepted or acquiesced in direct rule.
      Mr. Ross: This matter could be discussed in greater depth before the debate is concluded. To be consistent, the same attitude could be held throughout this whole matter.
      If no full and accurate record of the votes, such as is kept in our own Official Report, is available to the Secretary of State, he will have no way of knowing the complexion of votes in the Assembly. Unless he knows, he has no way of reaching a conclusion. Therefore, there must be a permanent, accurate and detailed record of all that is said and done within the walls of the new Chamber.
      My final point relates to new clause 24—the idea of allowing television into the Assembly. I have consistently voted against that idea in the House of Commons. However, I am not so sure that I would vote against it in the Assembly. If people could see their elected representatives in action, they might change their views, and change them considerably. We all know what happens now. The gentlemen of the press, who are present in all Assemblies of elected representatives, tend to pick the most spectacular and newsworthy items—the most outrageous statements. If all the world could see what was going on, people would see those who really do the work.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is perhaps fortunate that we do not have television to reveal to the world the fact that the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), who tabled the new clause, is not even here to defend it?
      Mr. Ross: I know the view that my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South takes on these matters, but I do not want to be too hard on the hon. Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), who has been most helpful to date in these matters. He has exposed many of the weaknesses and much of the foolishness in the Bill. The fact that the Secretary of State does not yet wish to acknowledge those weaknesses and that foolishness is unfortunate, but I have no doubt that, in the fullness of

      317
      time, he will understand that the criticisms voiced about the Bill are well founded. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman is going down a path which will cause much damage and sorrow in Ulster.
      As the hon. Member for Basildon said earlier, we are dealing with the pre-devolution stage. The question of a permanent record, reports, and so forth, will arise. If we are proved wrong—which is unlikely—and the Assembly moves to full devolution, what will the procedures then be for keeping a permanent record?
      At that point, it is believed that the Assembly will talk only about those matters that have been devolved. However, if the Secretary of State is of that view, he is labouring under a grave misapprehension. The people of Northern Ireland will not be satisfied with a system which will, for instance, deny them the right to discuss security. No doubt, they will wish to make their views known and the Secretary of State will wish to hear them.
      5 pm
      Mr. Peter Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is putting the case forcefully, and rightly so, that the proceedings of the Assembly should be recorded. That there are amendments to this effect shows that those hon. Members who tabled them believe that this is not one of the procedures that the Assembly is permitted to organise for itself. Would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the fact that some of the former Hansard writers at Stormont have already been asked whether they might be interested in returning to carry out that function for the new Assembly?
      Mr. Ross: That is a most interesting piece of news. No doubt the Secretary of State will tell us precisely what other steps he has taken for the reopening of Parliament. If he is taking steps in one direction, he must be taking steps in many other directions. We look forward with great interest to the detailed statement that the Secretary of State will no doubt shortly make.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Under the guise of amendments which are superficially little more than procedural, some substantial and difficult points are raised regarding the Assembly.
      The Committee is waiting with some eagerness to know whether it will receive advice on the amendments from the official Opposition or whether their sturdy custom of non-participation in the debates on the Bill is to be continued even into these declining and truncated stages.
      The intervention of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond)—I regret that he has, perhaps temporarily, left the Chamber—was very much to the point. He inquired whether such matters as might be covered by the arrangements and Standing Orders of an Assembly were not proper to be left to the Assembly; indeed, whether it was not implicit in the nature of such an Assembly that it would decide itself what arrangements of this kind it would make.
      If the right hon. Gentleman had allowed his eye to fall upon the page on which clause 4 appears, he would have seen that the Government have thought it necessary to secure in the Bill that certain arrangements shall be made by the Assembly. Had he pushed his researches further, into the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, he would have found a whole section—section 25—which sets out
      318
      the minimum provision for its procedure and proceedings which the Assembly is to make. One can assure the right hon. Gentleman, even in his absence, that there is nothing untoward, unprecedented or derogatory to the character of the proposed Assembly in the amendments.
      The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, in reply to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) and others, that we should have a ready means of access to any printed proceedings of the Assembly. He added that we were accustomed to receiving the proceedings of subordinate bodies.
      I cudgelled my brains to recall what subordinate bodies the right hon. Gentleman had in mind. I am particularly at a loss in his absence. The only subordinate bodies that I can think of, the proceedings of which are accessible, but with great difficulty, and not necessarily always in our language, are those of the Council of Europe and European Assembly. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman, who has not always been with the angels in such matters, regards the latter as a subordinate body. I do, where the sovereignty of the House is concerned. I hope that if he reads these proceedings he will let us know whether he is a recruit to the good old cause.
      By that observation, the right hon. Gentleman raised the essential matter which is at issue in clause 12 and in the amendments. There is no analogy to the relationship that will subsist between the Assembly and the House. As far as I know, we do not receive the proceedings of the Estates of the Channel Islands, nor the proceedings and decisions of the House of Keys. However, those bodies debate and discuss matters for which the House is not responsible.
      The essential fact about the Assembly in the period to which clause 3, by definition, refers, is that it will be debating matters for which the House is responsible and for which hon. Members elected to the House are responsible to their constituents. That puts the relationship of the Assembly and its proceedings to the House in an entirely new light, which fully justifies the amendments.
      It would be worth the while of the Committee to look at the wording of clause 3(3) to which the amendments relate. It says:
      "The Assembly may report to the Secretary of State the views expressed in the Assembly".
      I pause at that point, because those are remarkable words. I am not so much concerned for the moment with the permissive "may". I shall come to the argument for amendment No. 151 in a moment. I am concerned with the expression:
      "the views expressed in the Assembly".
      That is by no means accidental phraseology. It is remarkable phraseology.
      When the House comes to a resolution, what emerges is not a report of the views expressed during the debate, but the view of the House. From the simplest to the grandest procedure in the House, the result issues on behalf of the House. No external body has any right to open up what happened in the course of our arriving at that decision or to pick and choose between one or another point of view. No judge sitting on the Bench, construing an Act of Parliament, is entitled to consider what the Conservative Party said on the one hand and what the Labour Party said on the other. He is concerned, not with the views expressed in the House or in Parliament, but with the decision.

      319
      We are here deliberately writing in as that which has to be reported to the Secretary of State if he requires it, and by him laid before the House, what is described as
      "the views expressed in the Assembly".
      Surely there is some significance in the fact that it is not the Assembly's decisions that are given that prominence and treatment. There is no reference to the Assembly's decisions and no suggestion that they should be called for by the Secretary of State or placed before the House. If we receive all the views, we may, as a matter of grace, receive the decision as well. We might even receive the Division List and the results of the Division. I am glad that the Secretary of State is taking an interest in the drafting of the clause. It was not drafted in that way unintentionally. It is the views that are expressed in the Assembly that are to be brought to the Secretary of State's attention and to that of the House.
      Who will do that? Who will report to the Secretary of State? Who will say that this or that view was expressed in the Assembly? In time gone by it was the custom for an exalted Minister, normally the Prime Minister, to sit on the Front Bench at about 5 pm or 6 pm, writing out for the Sovereign, in his best handwriting, what had been going on in the House. Later, a much more humble functionary, in the shape of the Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household, undertook that task. Her Majesty's Ministers are not merely entitled, but are duty bound, to convey exclusively to the Sovereign their view of opinion in the House.
      Should that be the relationship between the Assembly and this House? Who will summarise the views that have been expressed? Will the President say that one party said one thing and that the other party's argument were not as strong? Will he say that this or that argument was put forward? Would it be satisfactory for the President to perform the function that used to be performed by Mr. Gladstone when he penned his missive to go down to Windsor? If we want to know the views expressed in the Assembly, there is only one way to secure them legitimately.
      We must be able to know all the views that have been expressed and be able to arrive at our own opinions. The Secretary of State, along with the rest of us, must be able to decide the weight and importance to be attached to the respective views. Therefore, it would be unsatisfactory, in any case, for the subsection to remain in its present form. Whoever intends to report—"report" is the word—the views expressed in the Assembly, the concept remains unsatisfactory. It is right that those who have tabled the amendments should demand to know in what form the views that have been expressed are to be made available to us and to anyone else. There is only one proper way of making them available, and we should ensure that they are made available in that way. There must be a full record of what has been said in the Assembly. In that case, there should be no "may" about it. There should be no picking and choosing. No one should say that one debate was important, while another was not, or that the Secretary of State asked to have this debate, but that the other debate was held on our own initiative and so there will be no report of it.
      If we are to set up an Assembly which will in some ways duplicate the functions of the House, by enabling elected persons to express views on a range of matters—the Secretary of State has properly accepted an amendment and enlarged that range—for which the House
      320
      is responsible, and be responsible to the people of Northern Ireland, the House must have a record of what the Assembly has done, said, thought and decided. If we are left with a catch-as-catch-can, hearsay method of finding out, the situation will be intolerable. Perhaps we shall have to look up the News Letter and the Belfast Telegraph to see whether we can glean from their columns what went on.
      5.15 pm
      The Government cannot possibly leave the subsection as it is. Whatever view they may take about the amendments, they must tidy up the provision before they can expect the House to deal with the Bill on Report. It will be unsatisfactory to have an indeterminate gap between what is done in the Assembly and making knowledge of that available to the Secretary of State and the House. I can imagine many circumstances in which the House might not need to debate—perhaps for months—a matter that has been debated in the Assembly. That could easily happen. However, I can equally envisage circumstances in which an important matter, with tension at its maximum, is debated in the Assembly and is then debated in the House, not a week or two later, but shortly or immediately afterwards.
      Having established the concurrent representation of the people of Northern Ireland it would be intolerable if the House did not insist on the views expressed in it, the conclusions reached and how those conclusions were reached, being made known to the House. Several major changes need to be made to the subsection. It needs to be precise, instead of vague; mandatory, instead of permissive; and it should have an urgency and a time limit written into it. The time limit and the urgency should exist anyway, and not just if the Secretary of State thinks that it should be written into the Bill.
      I should mislead you, Mr. Dean, if I were to suggest that the improvement of the subsection and the possible easing of the relationship between the House and the putative Assembly, if the improvements adumbrated by the amendments are accepted, will bring an end to the conundrum of dual representation of the same electorate on the same subjects. That is the nature of the monstrosity of the Assembly. Those of us who oppose the Assembly in this form do so not because we do not wish the people of the Province to have an elective voice. Indeed, it was principally due to the initiative of my hon. Friends that the people of the Province are to have an elected voice in this House on a par with the other parts of the United Kingdom.
      It is not that we do not wish the electorate to have an elective voice in those matters which the House decides should be dealt with elsewhere. If the House decides—by Order in Council under the Bill, or otherwise—that certain matters should be removed from it and entrusted to other hands, that is all well and good. We shall all know where our respective responsibilities lie. However, the subsection creates an overlap, not of responsibility, but of representation.
      Responsibility will remain exclusively vested in the House and will be seen to be vested in those hon. Members who are elected to the House by Northern Ireland constituencies. However, representation will be seen, particularly in the Province, to be vested in an Assembly that has no responsibility. Again I should mislead you, Mr.

      321
      Dean, and the Committee if I were to pretend to think that any amendments, even on Report, would remove that particular inherent vice.
      I agree that that is no excuse for our not remedying what can be remedied within the ambit of the Bill. Because I think that a limited remedy can be applied by the amendments, I hope that either they will be accepted by the Government or that we shall hear from the Government Front Bench that the principle and intention is accepted and that they will be met at a subsequent stage.
      Mr. Clive Soley: We shall intervene when we think it appropriate. I have followed the right hon. Gentleman's argument with care. It is a reasonable argument, but why does he say that the provision should be made so much tighter, because the Assembly can report to the Secretary of State if it wishes? Why not leave that flexibility alone?
      Mr. Powell: I am not only delighted, but flattered, that the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) has been following the debate. It must have been difficult for him to follow preceding parts of the Committee stage, because it is not easy to concentrate when one knows that one is prevented from participating. It blunts one's interest in other contributions to know in advance that, as a matter of principle, one is not allowed to participate or comment. I welcome the hon. Member's liberation and intervention.
      If we in the House take a decision on a matter on which views have been expressed and decisions arrived at in the Assembly, it should not be chance whether we can find out what those views were or what the decision was. We should know. Let there be no doubt that the people in the Province will expect us to know. They will expect us to be aware of what their representatives have said there, not only about everything referred by the Secretary of State, but generally. That is not an unreasonable expectation.
      Mr. Soley: If a matter is not referred by the Secretary of State, it does not necessarily have to come back here.
      Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman has not grasped that the Assembly will be able to debate and arrive at resolutions on a whole range of matters not referred to it by the Secretary of State. We are talking of matters on which this House, from time to time, will hold debates and come to decisions. It is not good enough that we should have to depend either upon the chance of that matter being referred to the Assembly by the Secretary of State or upon the chance of the Assembly saying "That was a good debate, let us send it to Westminster", for our knowledge of what went on there.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: The Northern Ireland Assembly of 1973, upon which this Assembly is based, had its Official Report. It was difficult to obtain copies of it because of administrative difficulties, but it could be in the hands of hon. Members the following day. There was a proper procedure for that. Hon. Members knew what the views were and what the votes and resolutions were. I am puzzled by the clause.
      Mr. Powell: I do not need to remind hon. Members of the difference between the 1973 Assembly, let alone the 1922 Parliament, and this Assembly in the stage to which the cause refers. The 1973 Assembly took responsibility for a range of matters. Its debates related to those matters.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: The clause relates to views expressed. I assume that there will be an Official Report.
      Mr. Powell: We should not take it for granted that we shall have an Official Report of an Assembly which has no powers or responsibilities. After all, hitherto Assemblies had responsibilities, in some cases far-reaching responsibilities, entrusted to them by this House. At this stage the Assembly would be correct to say that it is a talking shop and there only to debate. It would be justified in deciding that it did not require a procès-verbal like an Assembly with responsibility attached to what is said and to its divisions.
      I am not sure that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) has attended to the construction of the subsection. Line 31 refers to "under this section," which imports the definition in clause 3(1) of non-devolution. We are dealing with the Assembly in its pre-devolutionary stage. We are dealing with an Assembly which the House has decided to permit to "consider any matter," including a reserved matter. There is a big difference, which I hope the hon. Gentleman will accept, between the former elected bodies, in themselves and in relation to this House, and the Assembly as it will be under the circumstances to which clause 3 relates.
      Mr. Fitt: Yesterday afternoon, during the debate on the timetable motion, many doubts were expressed about the sincerity of hon. Members, mainly on the Government Benches, who had prolonged debates on the amendments. I am inclined to cast doubt again on their sincerity because they are not here this afternoon.
      Yesterday, we heard vociferous protests about the timetable motion. Hon. Members argued that important amendments had to be discussed and that the Government were wrong to apply the timetable. I could be forgiven if I believed that the filibuster was still taking place, particularly in the speech by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and, to some extent, in the speech by the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). We do have important amendments to debate. Yesterday the right hon. Member for Down, South said that he had taken an interest in Northern Ireland affairs since 1972.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I did not say that.
      Mr. Fitt: The right hon. Gentleman must have a short memory about what happened between 1972 and 1982. The right hon. Gentleman talked about what the Assembly would do, whether or not it had devolved powers. An Assembly was elected in June 1973. From then until the Executive was set up and took office in January 1974, it was a talking shop. There was a full press gallery. There were reports of every debate that took place between July and 1 January. There was no question of meetings being held in secret.
      During that time, Assembly Members danced on the table in Stormont. Professor Kennedy Lindsay and members of the Democratic Unionist Party spat in the face of the late Brian Faulkner, the incoming Chief Executive. There were many other unrewarding scenes. If the television cameras had been there, we might have been able to decipher the dance by Professor Kennedy Lindsay. No secrecy was involved and the press was not kept out of the press gallery.
      The hon. Member for Londonderry must have read the all-important subsection:

      323
      "The Assembly may report to the Secretary of State the views expressed in the Assembly on any matter considered by it under this section and shall do so if the Secretary of State so requests".
      The protection is written into that subsection. The Secretary of State shall demand that the Assembly reports to him.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is this a filibuster?
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Fitt: We have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman filibustering all afternoon.
      Does anyone here believe that in the Assembly the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will make a speech lasting for one or two hours and then say "We shall keep it a secret"? Will the press not report it in the Belfast Telegraph and the News Letter the next morning? Will he say that he will not talk to journalists within the confines of Stormont? I have experience of that. The hon. Member for Antrim, North does not frequent some parts of Stormont that I might frequent, but I have often seen him in consultation with the doyens of the press there.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) will recall that, when the Assembly was sitting, no sooner had a speech been made than the person who made it was outside hailing a taxi to take him to the studios of Ulster Television or the BBC to tell everyone what he had just said in the Assembly.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. Is this a debate on the capacity of a Member to get publicity or on the accuracy of the reporting of the House?
      The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. Paul Dean): The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is going rather wide, although I realise that he is probably still on his preamble. The amendment is fairly wide, but not as wide as he is now going.
      Mr. Fitt: I was provoked by some of the claptrap that I have heard this afternoon. For example, the hon. Member for Londonderry queried a misprint in yesterday's Official Report when the Secretary of State obviously referred to a Member from a different constituency. I did exactly the same yesterday. I referred to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), but I understand now that I was mistaken.
      Rev. Martin Smyth rose—
      Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman has been asking for accuracy. If one wishes to consider accuracy in the reporting of proceedings—
      Rev. Martin Smyth: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. I did not query the Secretary of State's statement. I queried the accurancy of the Hansard report. There was no query about the Secretary of State using the wrong constituency.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. That point has been dealt with.
      Mr. Fitt: I am convinced that this is another filibuster and that hon. Members are trying to involve me in it.
      I remember a classic misprint in Hansard. In 1969 I referred to a speech made by the then Taoiseach of the Republic, Mr. Lynch, in Tralee. Lo and behold, in Hansard the next morning it was reported that a speech had been made by the tea shop in Tralee. I deliberately did
      324
      not use the 24 hours available to have it changed. One can check that in the Library. Since then, many people have got to know what the word Taoiseach means.
      Mr. Proctor: At the outset of his remarks the hon. Gentleman said that there were important matters to be discussed, presumably in this group of amendments. The guillotine falls at 6.30 pm. If the hon. Gentleman resumes his seat now and there is a Ministerial response, there will still remain 11 amendments in this group and four further groups to be debated. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that in mind and consider whether he is indulging in a filibuster to stop us debating the detail of the other four groups of amendments.
      Mr. Fitt: I was castigated roundly yesterday by many Conservative Members for not helping to perpetuate yesterday's filibuster. Now, having spoken for only five or 10 minutes, I am told that is too long. I have no intention of being dictated to by Conservative Members. That is the prerogative of the Chairman.
      We are making heavy weather about nothing in this amendment.
      Mr. William Ross: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Fitt: I shall not give way. It has been rumoured that the right hon. Member for Down, South will he a Member of the Assembly. It has certainly been rumoured that the hon. Members for Londonderry, Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) will be contesting seats. One cannot question the veracity of those hon. Members. They will bring back reports to the House, whether there is an Official Report or not. One can depend upon the right hon. Member for Down, South, if and when he is elected to the Assembly, to present in the House his interpretation of the proceedings of the Assembly.
      The subsection clearly gives the Secretary of State authority to demand the publication of any debates in the Assembly. With the experience of the Northern Ireland Parliament, the Assembly and the Constitutional Convention, no one in his right mind can possibly believe that restrictions will be placed by the major political parties on what happens within the confines of the Assembly.
      Mr. John Patten: We have nine amendments and one new clause to consider. Bearing in mind the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), I shall deal with them as quickly as possible, but I do not wish to be discourteous to the Committee by skating over the detailed points that have been raised, and I do not intend to do so.
      Clause 3 provides for the Assembly's functions pending full devolution. It is important to keep that firmly in mind. The Assembly will be empowered to discuss a wide range of matters, either of its own volition or those referred to it by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his successors. Subsection (3) enables the Assembly to report its views on any matter to the Secretary of State and obliges it to do so should there be a request. Subsection (4) provides that the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament any report that he receives from the Assembly under clause 3.
      I listened with great care to the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Fan). He and I differ on our basic and underlying philosophy for the

      325
      workings of the Assembly. The Government believe that we should provide a basic framework for the Assembly, after which the Assembly should, in a grown-up way, decide in detail how it will work out its future within those guidelines. That is very much in keeping with our general philosophy of allowing locally elected representatives the greatest possible freedom over their procedures. That philosophy underlies clause 3 and is the import of it.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my hon. Friend conceive of the possibility that the Assembly will not have an official verbatim record and that we must rely on those methods to extract the Assembly's views?
      Mr. Patten: I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) to wait until a later section of my speech, when I shall deal fully with that issue. My hon. Friend is ahead of me.
      Consideration of the amendments falls, in my view, into at least four separate parts. First, I direct the Committee's attention to amendment No. 152. If the amendment were carried, the power of the Secretary of State to require the Assembly to submit a particular report to him would be removed. We believe it sensible that the Government should be able to take the initiative and to ask for advice on both transferred and reserved matters by calling for the Assembly's views on a specific topic. This fits in well with the scrutinising and deliberative and consultative functions which it is intended that the Assembly should have from the first happy day when it meets.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am sure that the Minister understands that amendments Nos. 151 and 152 hang together. It was not the intention to eliminate the mandatory part of the clause without making the clause itself mandatory.
      Mr. Patten: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest, the right hon. Gentleman is slightly ahead of me. I was about to come to amendment No. 151, which is one of a group of amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough and Basildon, together with amendment No. 148, which was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Brown), whom I do not see in the Chamber. These amendments together seek to tighten the procedure by which the Assembly reports to the Secretary of State and then to Parliament. Amendment No. 151, which stands in the names of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and his hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and Londonderry (Mr. Ross), would ensure that the Secretary of State automatically received reports from the Assembly on every matter that it had discussed under clause 3.
      The Government believe that that would be an unnecessary provision. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is already empowered under clause 3(3) to receive such reports as he wishes. Moreover, it is surely right that the Assembly, which will be an independent elected body in the way in which it conducts its affairs within the terms of the Bill, should not be obliged to report to the Government on topics that it chooses to consider.
      Mr. Proctor: Is what my hon. Friend has said a rather convoluted way of giving the Committee an assurance that
      326
      my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will request from the Assembly every report that is discussed by it and will request a copy of the proceedings each and every time it sits?
      Mr. Patten: My aim is not to be convoluted. I was not suggesting what my hon. Friend has put in his question. As I have said, my right hon. Friend is already empowered under clause 3(3) to receive such reports as he wishes.
      Amendments Nos. 148, 139 and 155 would impose a mandatory time limit for the submission of reports by the Assembly to the Secretary of State. Such time limits, whether one month or one week, are unnecessary for two reasons. I shall leave aside the question of what form the reports should take. I shall come to it subsequently in answering the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest.
      5.45 pm
      If the Assembly had to report on some especially contentious and difficult matter—it is clear to me that a number of the issues that the Assembly will have to consider will be contentious and difficult—a rigid statutory time limit could be counter-productive. We must give the Assembly adequate and sufficient time in which to consider the nature of the reports.
      Secondly, it is important that any reports submitted by the Assembly reflect its considered views and are drawn up after mature consideration and not in any undue haste. Should it prove necessary, the Secretary of State can, under the existing provisions of the Bill, require a particular report to be submitted within a specified period. This period can be stipulated by my right hon. Friend and can be varied to suit particular circumstances.
      I suggest that that facility is far more flexible than those that have been suggested in various amendments. That might give my right hon. and hon. Friends cause to consider whether they wish to pursue their amendments.
      Mr. Proctor: Will my hon. Friend address himself to amendment No. 155, which deals with subsection (4) and the time limit between the Secretary of State receiving the report and laying it before Parliament? I have suggested that it should be seven days. Has my hon. Friend any observations to make on that amendment?
      Mr. Patten: This is an issue on which my right hon. Friend will have to use his discretion and judgment. When, for example, a report from the Assembly concerns what we have grown to regard as a devolution package—I accept that that is not a felicitous phrase—it may include details that will have to go back for further consideration. In the pre-legislative phase, with which we are dealing by analogy, there may be a need for the Secretary of State to consider a report before laying it before Parliament. There is no need to specify seven days, two weeks or one month.
      An issue that has excited considerable interest is the form in which the Assembly should report to the Secretary of State. It is an issue that has prompted the right hon. Member for Down, South to ask a number of specific questions.
      As I understand it, amendment No. 138 proposes that reports should be in a Hansard-type format, while amendment No. 156 seeks to ensure merely that the Assembly records its proceedings and decisions in writing and that a copy of the record is automatically submitted to the Secretary of State. The current provisions in the Bill

      327
      are designed to supply a basic framework within which the Assembly can operate and decide to operate. The Government believe that the Assembly itself, in the first important weeks and months of its life, should be left to determine the form of its reports. Clearly it will be preferable if the reports reflect the range of opinions expressed in the Assembly and do not exclude minority views. However, this is a matter for the Assembly to decide and is not one for the House of Commons.
      In 1973 and 1974 the Northern Ireland Assembly decided to keep a verbatim record of its plenary sessions both before and after devolution. I suggest that there is no reason to suspect, perhaps for the reasons to which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has alluded, that the Assembly will not follow that precedent. Indeed, in 1973 and 1974, the Assembly followed many precedents of the Northern Ireland Parliament before it. I do not see why the Assembly should attempt to depart from this well-established precedent.
      These are matters that are properly for the Assembly to determine, as is the question of who should draw up the report. Should it be drawn up by the Presiding Officer or should it be done by a committee of the Assembly? We do not believe that the Government should attempt to lay down rigid details within the framework of the Bill. As I have said, these are matters for the Assembly to decide.
      I shall endeavour to correct the memory of the right hon. Member for Down, South on what went on during the 1973–74 Assembly. I believe that the Assembly produced Official Reports of its proceedings only for matters for which it had legislative responsibilities. Legislative responsibilities were not devolved until 1 January 1974. However, before then, while the Assembly was, by analogy, in its pre-legislative discursive phase—for example when it was drawing up rules of procedure, deciding who should preside and debating general matters—it produced daily verbatim reports.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I draw the attention of the Minister to the fact that the expression "proceedings in the Assembly" occurs also in clause 5(3), where it is in an important constitutional and legal context. Do the Government regard it as satisfactory to leave it to the Assembly to decide what shall be the meaning and the effective content of a report of what happens in the Assembly? After all, the reversal of devolution will be triggered in some cases. That surely cannot be a matter which the Government think should be left to the discretion of the Assembly.
      Mr. Patten: At some time between 6.30 pm and 9 pm I hope that we shall have a chance to discuss in greater detail matters connected with clause 5. I shall not attempt to pre-empt that debate and the important point that the right hon. Gentleman has made.
      It would be wrong for us to lay down in detail any specific forms to be followed. In addition, amendment No. 156, like amendment No. 151, would appear to require the Assembly to send the Secretary of State copies of its proceedings. I have already said that we believe it to be unnecessary, and perhaps even offensive to the Assembly, which is, after all, an independent elected body—or it will be, should the Bill become law—and not the creature of the Secretary of State, to require that body to send reports.
      Mr. Proctor rose—
      Mr. Patten: I have given way twice to my hon. Friend. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not give way this time.
      The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond), with his usual clarity married to brevity, raised a number of points, all of which I have dealt with in my discussion of the amendments in the third part of my speech. I hope that the explanation that I have given of why we are doing what we are doing and, more importantly, why we desire to give maximum flexibility to the Assembly, is acceptable.
      It would be otiose for me to do anything more than mention the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe, as he is not in the Chamber. It would be wrong to impose upon the Assembly the requirement that its proceedings be televised. At a later stage, should the Assembly wish to have its proceedings televised, videoed, or made known to the people of the Province in any other form that it sees fit, for their greater information, it will have the right to do so after due consideration. However, any decisions should await that consideration.
      Mr. John Dunlop: In view of the graphic description by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) of some of the things that happened in the 1974 Convention, it is a thousand pities that we do not have a video record of some of the proceedings in that Assembly. It would be illuminating to see the self-satisfied smirk on the faces of Front Bench Members when they were constantly telling us that the Assembly was the vehicle that would soon trundle Northern Ireland into an all-Ireland Republic. There should have been a recording of the expression on the faces of that ill-assorted gang, some of whom should not have been there at all, because they were not elected. It is a pity that we do not have a video account of those proceedings.
      Mr. Patten: I am glad, as always, that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps he will forgive me if I do not follow him down the road of passing value judgments on the behaviour of politicians in that Assembly, of which I was not a member. I am sure that the people of Northern Ireland, like the people of the United Kingdom with regard to the House of Commons, would expect Members of the Assembly to behave in a due and meet fashion.
      Amendments Nos. 140 and 157 seek to have copies of the Assembly's reports placed in the Vote Office or the Library. It would not be suitable to do that before the report is formally laid before Parliament, but, of course, Assembly reports will be laid as soon as possible—I hope that this answers some of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon—after they are received from the Assembly, and once laid the Government will, as usual, be ready to meet the requests of hon. Members on such matters.
      I am of course aware that, taken together, the groups of amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Harborough and Basildon respectively would considerably tighten parliamentary monitoring of the Assembly's proceedings. I have already suggested to the Committee why each should be rejected on its individual merits. The Government's view is that the Assembly must be given the maximum flexibility and freedom for the conduct of its affairs. To sum up, clause 3 combines flexibility with the appropriate parliamentary control of the Assembly's proceedings.
      Mr. James Molyneaux: We have long recognised that the central weakness in the Assembly is that, for all practical purposes and for all time, it will have only the power to talk. That is a big enough weakness. We are now dealing with clause 3, which deals with the extended period when the Assembly will do nothing and will have no power to do anything other than talk. That is disastrous. Unlike other parties, we have not been impressed by the argument that the Members of the Assembly can earn their keep by talking, scrutinising and debating endlessly matters that it may or may not be within their powers to debate.
      The second weakness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, lies in the method by which the reports of the proceedings will be submitted. Was it a slip of the tongue when the Minister said that the body that is being set up under the legislation will, for all practical purposes, be independent? He said that it would be an insult to that body to hedge it with restrictions and tell it what to do. He concluded that section of his remarks by saying that the Secretary of State, in view of that possible insult, could not require the Assembly to lay its reports before him. However, the clause gives the Secretary of State the power to do so. He can ask for those powers. In fact, he can require them. That is laid down strongly in the wording of the clause. Therefore, was that a slip of the tongue?
      Mr. John Patten: On the issue of independence, I was speaking, as I have throughout the Committee, within the terms of the Bill as it is written. I was referring to the independence of the Assembly, for example, to decide how to have its verbatim reports transcribed, who is to take them and in what circumstances, but that is within the control of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and, more importantly, of the House of Commons.
      Mr. Molyneaux: With respect, that does not square with the words in clause 3(3), which states that the Assembly may report to the Secretary of State
      "and shall do so if the Secretary of State so requests".
      Records and the recording of discussions fall into two stages. There would be the Hansard style of record of the proceedings, which would be provided for the light reading of hon. Members, if they had the spare time to engage in that occupation. That record would give the views, as opposed to the decisions and conclusions, of the Assembly. If the 1973 Assembly is anything to go by, it would give a full verbatim account of everything that was said and done, including sedentary interruptions. It would all be recorded in the peculiar way of the old Stormont Hansard, which had the effect of making even the best speeches unintelligible.
      6 pm
      I said there would be two stages, but there is a third stage that deals with what happens after the Assembly has surmounted the 70 per cent. weighted majority hurdle and the cross-community hurdle. It will never do that, so we need not worry about it.
      The second stage relates to the resolutions and conclusions of the Assembly. That will be vital. The Minister stressed that the Secretary of State—having invited and obtained the Assembly's decision on some matter—will be bound by the Bill to lay that proposal before Parliament.
      This is not a hypothetical matter. If the Assembly, after discussing some of the matters that are within its legitimate
      330
      province, came to the conclusion that it had no confidence in the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State read that in the News Letter, would he hasten to require the Presiding Officer to furnish him with a copy of the resolution, knowing that he had to table that resolution in the House? The White Paper suggests that he should give his view on such a conclusion. Will the Secretary of State—after all, he is bringing the Assembly into being—come to the House and say that he agrees with that conclusion and that the Assembly is right in expressing no confidence in him and his team of Ministers? I am sure that he would be reluctant to do that.
      Mr. J. D. Concannon: That would be madness.
      Mr. Molyneaux: The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) says that would be akin to madness. I agree with him.
      The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) suggested that there was no great hurry for the conclusions of the Assembly to reach the House. He seemed to feel that they could be produced in a leisurely form and be made available to hon. Members later. A problem would arise if the Assembly came to a conclusion on some vital matter on the eve of a debate in the House of Commons. Will the Minister then say "This is the Government's view"? Will he give way to the intervention "Has the Minister not read the News Letter this morning giving the decision of the Assembly?" The Minister will have to reply "We have not yet received any account of what took place in the Assembly". If you were in the Chair, Mr. Dean, you would probably rule it out of order since the report would not have been received by the House of Commons. It is important that the decisions and resolutions of the Assembly should be made available immediately to the House, because the House has to carry the can for them.
      The Assembly may talk, but the House of Commons is responsible to the people of the United Kingdom for the good government of Northern Ireland. The House of Commons has to take decisions. Therefore, it must have adequate, speedy knowledge of what has taken place in that body of 78 or 85—whatever it will be—freshly elected Members representing the people of Northern Ireland. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) that the Presiding Officer and his staff—in the course of time he will collect a large staff—should not have the power to edit or summarise the views of the Assembly. Under the Bill the Presiding Officer has been given too much power of patronage. It would be regrettable if he were given the power to suggest that he was the best person to know the minds of the Members of the Assembly.
      The Under-Secretary of State was not clear about the form that the reports would take. He said that the Government believe that it is the job of the Assembly to determine the nature of the report and then, by implication, to decide what goes into such a report. You will remember, Mr. Dean, that the Northern Ireland Convention was denounced, and its report rejected, because the report reflected the majority views of the elected Members. If the Government are now saying that they will accept the majority view of the Assembly and the Assembly comes to the conclusion that the report represents accurately its decisions and feelings, that is

      331
      good news to us and we welcome it. That ought to be spelt out very clearly. For that reason, we cannot accept the Minister's explanation.
      Mr. Julian Amery: There is a difficulty here. If I understand the Bill correctly, the Secretary of State will remain responsible to the House of Commons for several aspects of the Assembly—for example, whether to devolve certain Departments or whether to refuse devolution. On what basis will the Secretary of State make up his mind? Will he have his own full transcript of the proceedings prepared by his officials? If he does, is there any reason why that report should not be made available to all hon. Members in the Library? We could be in danger of acting in the dark, as would the Minister, unless there was a full and accurate transcript of the proceedings.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 19, Noes 147.

      Division No. 233]

      [6.08 pm

      AYES

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Murphy, Christopher

      Budgen, Nick

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

      Cryer, Bob

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Dunlop, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Farr, John

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

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Gorst, John

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Mr. K. Harvey-Proctor and

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Mr. William Ross.

      Molyneaux, James

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Arnold, Tom

      Fry, Peter

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Greenway, Harry

      Beith, A. J.

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Blackburn, John

      Hawksley, Warren

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Hill, James

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Bradley, Tom

      Hordern, Peter

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Bright, Graham

      Howells, Geraint

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Butcher, John

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Jessel, Toby

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Cartwright, John

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Chapman, Sydney

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

      Cope, John

      Lee, John

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Crouch, David

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Loveridge, John

      Dover, Denshore

      Luce, Richard

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Dunn, James A.

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Eggar, Tim

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      MacGregor, John

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Major, John

      Fitt, Gerard

      Marlow, Antony

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      332

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Mather, Carol

      Sandelson, Neville

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Scott, Nicholas

      Mellor, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scar b')

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Silvester, Fred

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Sims, Roger

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Smith, Dudley

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Speed, Keith

      Moore, John

      Speller, Tony

      Mudd, David

      Stainton, Keith

      Myles, David

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Neale, Gerrard

      Stevens, Martin

      Needham, Richard

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Newton, Tony

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Onslow, Cranley

      Thompson, Donald

      Osborn, John

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Trippier, David

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Waller, Gary

      Pawsey, James

      Warren, Kenneth

      Penhaligon, David

      Watson, John

      Pitt, William Henry

      Wellbeloved, James

      Pollock, Alexander

      Wells, Bowen

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Wheeler, John

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Wickenden, Keith

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Wolfson, Mark

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Roper, John

      Mr. Ian Lang and

      Rossi, Hugh

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment made: No. 135, in page 3, line 35, at end insert
      'which relates to a transferred matter considered by the Assembly under subsection (1)(a) above or to a matter which has been referred to it under this section by the Secretary of State.'.—[Mr. John Patten.]
      Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 4

      ASSEMBLY COMMITTEES IN RELATION TO DEPARTMENTS UNDER CONTROL OF SECRETARY OF STATE
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 4, line 5, leave out from first 'chairman', to 'of' in line 6.
      I am sorry that I do not discern the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter) in the Chamber. The amendment and the reasoning upon it contain the answer to a question that he put during our debates yesterday afternoon—why, if such an Assembly as this came into existence, it would fall into the traps and would provide the basis which many of us believe that it is intended to provide for participation in all-Ireland institutions and thus pave the way for the transfer of Ulster from the United Kingdom to a United Ireland.
      This will be an Assembly of 78 or 85 Members. The clause with which the amendment is concerned provides for the appointment of a committee to shadow each Department of the Government of Northern Ireland. Moreover, it provides for the appointment in each case of a deputy chairman or two deputy chairmen. I am willing to leave it to you, Mr. Dean, to guess whether the decision would be in favour of two deputy chairmen rather than one. When your eye fell on subsection (3), and had you

      333
      had any initial hesitation, your mind would have been made up when you realised that special remuneration will attach not only to the chairmen but to the deputy chairmen.
      Let us suppose that there are eight Departments of Government. That makes eight chairmen and 16 deputy chairmen—24 salaried persons as a minimum, for it must be borne in mind—
      Mr. John Patten: As a result of the successful passing of the Departments (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) order two nights ago, there will be six Northern Ireland Departments.
      Mr. Powell: But the hon. Gentleman is as conscious as I am that during our earlier time spent on the Bill, which some people argue we wasted, we ascertained the fact that it might be possible, and even desirable, to split some of the Departments. Should it come to the attention of the Assembly that by splitting the Departments the number of chairmanships and deputy chairmanships could be increased, that is not a matter that it would readily pass over.
      I put the matter more generally by saying that between 20 and 25 Members of the Assembly, the membership of which is at present envisaged as 78—in other words, about one third of the Assembly—might be salaried. I am not referring to their salary as Members of the Assembly. They will get that in any case. I am referring to a special additional salary in consideration of their being chairmen, deputy chairmen or deputy deputy chairmen of the committees. The Bill also provides that there may be other committees than those which shadow the Departments of Government.
      There is, therefore, at the outset an array of patronage. We in this House well understand the working of office. We understand not merely the susceptibility of Members to the duties of office—to their duties as confidential servants of the Crown—but also the influence on their minds that by taking certain courses rather than others and speaking in one way rather than another, the possibility of lucrative and honorific appointments might be increased.
      I do not think that that would be absent from the minds of those persons of blameless reputation and integrity who might be elected to an Assembly such as this. At any rate there one has a start, at least on the business of securing a decision of the Assembly to send representation to an Anglo-Irish parliamentary tier. One has made a beginning upon constituting, if not a majority, at any rate a substantial showing in favour of participation in that federal-type institution.
      The clause refers to a time when the Assembly will not be exercising its devolved functions. As the shoulder title indicates, it relates to Departments still
      "under control of Secretary of State".
      Therefore, the committees will not be responsible for Departments, or even responsible for watching Departments, for which the Assembly has taken responsibility. They will be committees responsible to the talking shop for watching Departments for which the Secretary of State is responsible to this House.
      Mr. John Patten rose—
      Mr. Powell: I promise to give way to the hon. Gentleman if the exigencies of time permit.
      334
      In framing the amendment, my hon. Friends and I were in no ungenerous mood. We should consider the substantial salary that will be paid to Members of the Assembly, together with travelling allowances and other considerations in which we in this House have led the way. We have blazed a trail that others will no doubt follow. We might have come to the conclusion that it would be proper to expect not just the deputy or even the second deputy chairman to do whatever work there might be without extra remuneration, but that the chairman himself might regard the privilege of presiding over a committee examining the work of a Department of Government as something to be thrown in as part of the job. We did not take that restricted view and have been content to leave a special salary in the Bill.
      Had time permitted, the Committee might have considered whether there should be some limitations upon those special salaries, such as an indication of the maxima and so on. We have been willing in principle to concede for the chairman, but not for the deputy chairmen or the deputy deputy chairmen.
      I believe that the Minister wants to intervene. Perhaps he wants to wind up.
      Mr. John Patten: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want to wind up. I merely want to draw something to the Committee's attention. He spoke at great speed, and I shall attempt to speak just as quickly.
      The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that in addition to the departmentally related committees that would have chairmen and vice-chairmen, the Assembly could also create other committees. That is perfectly correct. But as they do not have statutory responsibilities, it is extremely important to realise that the chairmen, vice-chairmen and officers of those committees cannot be paid. The Assembly cannot indulge in some sort of job creation exercise. Its proper role will be to ensure that the departmentally related committees do the hard and serious work of shadowing the work of those Departments.
      Mr. Powell: It is a relief to know that although the committees and chairmanships can pullulate, there will not necessarily be a corresponding pullulation of salaries. I therefore restrict myself to the modest picture that I painted of about 20 or so Members out of an Assembly of 78 having an inducement greater than that of receiving the salary and other emoluments that their fellow Assembly Members will receive.
      This House is fairly jealous of the ratio between the payroll and the non-payroll. Estimates of the payroll vary, and the payroll is not entirely made up of people who are paid. When the payroll vote comes in at 1 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning, we are accustomed to seeing not only those in receipt of salaries but those who are in expectation. That should also be borne in mind.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the figure that was scored in the recent Divisions?
      Mr. Powell: About 130. I was proceeding to treat 130 as a fraction of 635. I was about to indicate that without any other considerations, inducements or pourboires that might be devised, the clause as it stands constitutes a payroll vote half as large again as the payroll vote that many of us consider to be dangerously excessive.
      Mr. John Patten: It will be for the convenience of the Committee if, in the short time remaining to me, I attempt to answer some of the questions that were put at such speed.
      I must make it clear at the outset that the Government are not able—
      It being half-past Six o'clock, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Order [22 June] to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.
      Question put, That the amendment be made: —
      The Committee divided: Ayes 21, Noes 146.

      Division No. 234]

      [6.30 pm

      AYES

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Murphy, Christopher

      Budgen, Nick

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

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Cryer, Bob

      Skinner, Dennis

      Dunlop, John

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

      Farr, John

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Walker, B. (Perth)

      Gorst, John

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Mr. K. Harvey Proctor and

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Mr. William Ross.

      Molyneaux, James

      NOES

      Alton, David

      Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

      Arnold, Tom

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

      Heddle, John

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Beith, A. J.

      Hill, James

      Benyon, Thomas (A'don)

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Hordern, Peter

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Howells, Geraint

      Blackburn, John

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Jessel, Toby

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Bright, Graham

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Lee, John

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Butcher, John

      Loveridge, John

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Luce, Richard

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Cartwright, John

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Chapman, Sydney

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Major, John

      Cope, John

      Marlow, Antony

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Crouch, David

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Mather, Carol

      Dover, Denshore

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Mellor, David

      Dunn, James A.

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Eggar, Tim

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Ellis Tom (Wrexham)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)

      Fitt, Gerard

      Moate, Roger

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Moore, John

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mudd, David

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Myles, David

      Grant, John (Islington C)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Needham, Richard

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Newton, Tony

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Onslow, Cranley

      336

      Osborn, John

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Speed, Keith

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Speller, Tony

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Stainton, Keith

      Pawsey, James

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Penhaligon, David

      Stevens, Martin

      Pitt, William Henry

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Pollock, Alexander

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Thompson, Donald

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Trippier, David

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Trotter, Neville

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Wainwright, R. (Colne V)

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Waller, Gary

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Watson, John

      Roper, John

      Wellbeloved, James

      Rossi, Hugh

      Wells, Bowen

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Wheeler, John

      Sandelson, Neville

      Wickenden, Keith

      Scott, Nicholas

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Shaw Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Wolfson, Mark

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Silvester, Fred

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sims, Roger

      Mr. David Hunt and

      Smith, Dudley

      Mr. Ian Lang.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at half-past Six o'clock.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 141, Noes 21.

      Division No. 235]

      [6.40 pm

      AYES

      Alton, David

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Arnold, Tom

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Beith, A.J.

      Heddle, John

      Benyon Thomas (A'don)

      Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Hill, James

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Hordern, Peter

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Blackburn, John

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Howells, Geraint

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Jessel, Toby

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

      Bright, Graham

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Brocklebank-Fowler, C.

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Lang, Ian

      Butcher, John

      Lee, John

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

      Loveridge, John

      Cartwright, John

      Luce, Richard

      Chapman, Sydney

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Cope, John

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'd W)

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson

      Crouch, David

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Dover, Denshore

      Major, John

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Dunn, James A.

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Mather, Carol

      Eggar, Tim

      Mawhinney, Dr Brian

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Mellor, David

      Fisher, Sir Nigel

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Fitt, Gerard

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Garel-Jones, Tristan

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Moate, Roger

      337

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Silvester, Fred

      Moore, John

      Sims, Roger

      Mudd, David

      Smith, Dudley

      Myles, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Speed, Keith

      Needham, Richard

      Speller, Tony

      Newton, Tony

      Stainton, Keith

      Onslow, Cranley

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Osborn, John

      Stevens, Martin

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, Donald

      Penhaligon, David

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Pitt, William Henry

      Trippier, David

      Pollock, Alexander

      Trotter, Neville

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Wainwright, R.(Colne V)

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Waller, Gary

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Watson, John

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Wellbeloved, James

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Wells, Bowen

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Wheeler, John

      Roper, John

      Wickenden, Keith

      Rossi, Hugh

      Wigley, Dafydd

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Wolfson, Mark

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Sandelson, Neville

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Scott, Nicholas

      Mr. David Hunt and

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Mr. Peter Brooke

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      NOES

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Murphy, Christopher

      Budgen, Nick

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

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Cryer, Bob

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Dunlop, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Farr, John

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

      Fraser, Rt Hon Sir Hugh

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Mr. K. Harvey Proctor and

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Mr. William Ross.

      Molyneaux, James

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5

      DISSOLUTION OF ASSEMBLY AND REVOCATION OF ORDERS
      Mr. James A. Dunn: I beg to move amendment No. 125, in page 4, line 24, after 'If', insert
      'within three years from the coming into force of this Act.'
      The First Deputy Chairman (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may take the following amendments: No. 105, in page 4, line 24, leave out from beginning to 'it' in line 31 and insert
      'If no proposals have been submitted by the Assembly that could, in Her Majesty's opinion, lead to the making of an Order under section 2 above or, if any such Order is or has been revoked, to the making of a further Order under that section within twelve months of the commencement of any relevant proceedings in the Assembly, and it appears that'.
      No. 104, in page 4, line 30, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
      Mr. Dunn: I admit at the outset that the drafting of the amendment may be defective and that it might not achieve what we seek.
      338
      I said in an earlier debate that there was a danger that the Assembly could become a talking shop. From the evidence of previous debates on the Bill, some hon. Members would do admirably in a talking shop. If they were in the Assembly, I would be full of fear. I say that in good humour.
      The hon. Members for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) expressed sharply their fear that if the Assembly had no useful work to do and there were structural difficulties it could end up as a body with no power or responsibility and as no more than a debating chamber. I do not share that view, because the Assembly would have considerable revision opportunities and wide scope for discussion and giving advice.
      However, I am worried that a small group may attempt to thwart the wishes of the Assembly or a majority of Members may act in a dilatory fashion and make no reports or recommendations to the House or the Secretary of State. Therefore, in order to avoid returning to the fail-safe procedures in clause 5, we need to include a specified time limit in the Bill.
      It may be said that a time limit is not necessary because the Secretary of State can revoke any order or a report or recommendation leading to an order, but even before an order is made the Assembly could act in such a dilatory fashion that, without a time limit, the Secretary of State would find it difficult to come to the House and say that the Assembly was not working as the Bill proposes that it should.
      The Secretary of State and other Ministers have made it clear that the Assembly will not be required to make recommendations—it can make its own decisions in its own way—but it is not necessarily wise to leave the Assembly in a position where it would not do its job as an advisory body, but preferred to criticise Government Ministers, while having no responsibility for the outcome of those criticisms.
      Whatever else may be the intention of those who support the Bill, I ask the House to agree that there should be some constraints. Those elected to the new Assembly should be told that they are not given carte blanche to do exactly as they wish. They have a responsibility to consider matters and to report to the House of Commons either through the Secretary of State or directly. They should be given a clear time scale indicating that, if they take too long, the patience of the House will run out.
      7 pm
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), with his experience as a former Northern Ireland Minister, has spoken in a most agreeable manner. There is great force in his amendment. I am persuaded that I should support it even to the Division Lobby. I hope that my saying that will not discourage my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State from accepting the amendment, which accords exactly with the call of Ministers for constructive contributions and attempts to improve the Bill even if hon. Members do not agree with its purposes.
      The hon. Member for Kirkdale may feel at ease over his remarks. I do not believe that, this time, the Social Democratic Party in this House will be pursuing a course at variance with that of the Social Democratic Forum in Northern Ireland. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Social Democratic Forum in Northern Ireland is, if one

      339
      cares to put it this way, another junta concerned to integrate the Province fully into the United Kingdom and to ensure that the Province, like other parts of the United Kingdom, is governed through appropriate institutions of local government. That is the position of the Social Democratic Forum. It is different from that of the Social Democratic Party in this House whose members should go over to Northern Ireland to acquaint themselves with what Social Democrats in Northern Ireland want.
      This time, however, the Social Democratic Forum will, I believe, support the amendment that the hon. Gentleman has proposed. The hon. Gentleman is right. We are creating what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has called a monstrous Assembly. It is not right that it should be left to its own devices year upon year without producing anything of value. If it does not come forward with responsible and sensible proposals, it should be sent about its business.
      There is always the danger that the Assembly would not be responsible. The fear is that it would be utterly irresponsible not only in law but also in fact. I was surprised that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), in an earlier debate, should have looked forward so blithely to the new Assembly when he had just treated the Committee to reminiscences of what the previous Northern Ireland Assembly had been like. The hon. Gentleman or, if it was not him, another hon. Gentleman, told hon. Members about Professor Kennedy Lindsay dancing upon the table. In fact, his whole party was dancing on the table because he was a one-man party.
      I recall also that there was a riot in the Assembly. After the riot, there was an inquiry into its causes. A friend of mine, a Unionist Assembly man called Peter McLoughlin, asked his impressions of what had happened, said that he was sorry that he could not say because Mrs. Paisley was sitting on his head. When the hon. Member for Belfast, West looks forward to a repeat performance of the Assembly, we should be warned. I believe that Ministers should also be warned about what may be coming upon them. This irresponsible body will feel absolutely free to belabour Ministers and to blame them for all the ills of Ulster. It is natural that this should happen. The Assembly will have the freedom but not the responsibility.
      It is the intention of the Bill that the Assembly should come forward with great proposals for the renewal of devolution in Northern Ireland. If it does not and if, through its own divisions, disagreements, tumults or even riots, it cannot do this, a fixed term should be put to its labours. Its service, if that is the word, should be ended. I am persuaded by the arguments put forward so agreeably by the hon. Member for Kirkdale. I shall, of course, listen to other arguments, but I am at present persuaded by the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. James Molyneaux: I am sure that it was not intended, but the hon. Gentleman unfortunately gave the impression that failure to form an Executive would arise from the inability of representatives in the Assembly to come to some agreement. The actual problem is that two road blocks have been placed in the way of any such progress by the Government in the Bill in the shape of the 70 per cent. weighted majority and the requirement for cross-community consent. I am sure that there will be no progress whatever regardless of how much good will and co-operation exists in the body itself.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. It is most unlikely, to put it no higher, that anything coherent can come out of this. I do not think, however, that this is a reason for wishing to crab the amendment moved by the hon. Gentleman.
      Mr. Farr: I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 104 and 105 standing in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and myself. I was interested in the reason given by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) for his amendment. The hon. Gentleman speaks as a former Minister with considerable knowledge of, and dedication to, Northern Ireland. I was impressed by what he had to say. The only difference between his reasoning and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and myself is a matter of time. We agree with the principle that some limit should be expressed. The amendment of the hon. Gentleman specifies three years while my hon. Friend and I propose one year. As the hon. Member for Kirkdale and, indeed, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) have remarked, the great fear is that the Assembly will simply become a talking shop. It is our hope that if a time limit is written into the Bill, it will concentrate the minds of Assembly members.
      We see nothing good in having no time limit written into the Bill. If my right hon. Friend is not prepared to accept the amendment standing in the names of my hon. Friend and myself, perhaps he will accept the amendment so ably moved by the hon. Member for Kirkdale. Let us have some time limit.
      Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 could be taken separately. Amendment No. 105 proposes that a passage from line 24 onwards on page 4 should be left out, and replaced by the words in the amendment. All that it does is to say what the Bill says, in perfectly sound English, in a different way. It was conjured up for me by one of the parliamentary draftsmen with great expertise. Of course, one has to be careful, because "Her Majesty's opinion" comes into the amendment. That is why it is rather a cumbersome amendment. It incorporates the 12 months time limit which my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East and I would prefer. We believe—as, probably, do some of our hon. Friends—that if the Assembly cannot produce something meaningful within 12 months, it had best not sit at all.
      One of the great disasters of the old Convention was that it became nothing more than a talking shop. When only talk takes place, and large differences in small communities are debated in a small Assembly, the differences become greatly magnified. The right place to hold discussions of national interest is the House of Commons in London. The Assembly in Northern Ireland should, quite properly, discuss local issues and similar matters. If the Assembly were to sit without a time limit on its activities, it would be rather like having a time bomb ticking away for the Secretary of State.
      We therefore feel that the Assembly should have a l2 months time limit.
      Mr. James A. Dunn: Three years.
      Mr. Farr: The hon. Member for Kirkdale suggests three years, but there must be some time limit. In that way, the differences that deeply divide people in Ulster will not

      341
      be magnified in an Assembly which sits on in a purposeless way, and devolves only into a form of talking shop.
      I come now to amendment No. 104. I want, first, to refer to some of the criticisms that have been made. It has been said by hon. Members on both sides that these amendments are destructive and were designed to waste time and spin out the proceedings on the Bill. This amendment, which would change one word—"and" to "or"—is designed to give my right hon. Friend greater flexibility in dealing with the events which might arise under clause 5(1)(a) and (b).
      As drafted, clause 5(1)(a) says
      "that no proposals are likely to be submitted under section 1 above"
      and so on—
      "and
      (b) that it is in the public interest that the Assembly should be dissolved."
      It might be helpful if the Secretary of State had the alternative between (a) and (b). We do not think that it is absolutely necessary to have the action described in paragraph (a) dependent on what is said in paragraph (b).
      We want the Secretary of State to have the power and the opportunity to act under either clause 5(1)(a) or (b). There might well be an occasion when the Secretary of State felt that it was in the public interest for the Assembly to be dissolved, regardless whether the proposals in paragraph (a) were likely to lead to the making of any order or futher orders. There could be occasions when the Secretary of State decided that, regardless of that, it was in the public interest to dissolve the Assembly.
      In our view, this is a helpful amendment to make life easier for the Secretary of State. It is no way destructive. We look forward with confidence to the time when my right hon. Friend—or, in his absence, my hon. Friend—will recognise that the Bill cannot be 100 per cent. perfect, that many carefully prepared amendments have been tabled to the Bill, and at least make the gesture of accepting this simple amendment.
      7.15 pm
      Mr. Soley: If the hon. Member and others are to convince us that a detailed argument can be made here, he will have to explain why members of his party and of the Official Unionist Party have been trying to dot all the i' s and cross all the t' s for the Assembly. It is unusual for the Conservative Party and the Official Unionist Party to argue that way. If they continue to argue for the amount of control that they seem to want, I suspect that they will soon tell Members of the Assembly how to clean their teeth every morning.
      Mr. Farr: The hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Soley) intervened in a speech that I made last week, but his intervention on that occasion was of more value than his intervention today. This is a meaningful amendment. It is not crossing the t' s and dotting the i' s. If we increase the Secretary of State's flexibility and give him additional powers to dissolve the Assembly, without having to depend on the first paragraph in the clause, life will be easier for him and the framework which he must establish will be better if it is amended as I have suggested.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), I appeal to the Government to accept amendments Nos. 104 and 105.
      The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) said that his amendment might be badly drafted, but he presented it extremely well. However, I am sure that the Minister knows exactly what is behind the amendments, and why they have been tabled.
      The Ministers may have been a little discouraged and depressed to find a number of their hon. Friends battling against the principle of the Bill, tabling amendments, making excellent speeches, and voting against them in the Lobbies. I hope that it will not further depress Ministers to realise that some of us who have supported the Bill have done so not with great enthusiasm, but because we believe—I hope rightly—that the Secretary of State has an extremely difficult job, that he is a man of real integrity, and that there is no great harm in what has been proposed. I say that because I do not believe that there is the slightest chance of the Bill producing a devolution scheme. If I thought that it would produce devolution, I would vote against it and campaign against it, as I did on the Scottish and Welsh devolution measures. My belief, rightly or wrongly, is that there is no possibility whatever of a devolution scheme coming from the Assembly. If such a scheme did present itself, I cannot see Parliament or the Government approving of it.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: Does my hon. Friend not see how damaging it could be if yet another political initiative proves to be the failure that he predicts?
      Mr. Taylor: No, I do not. I know Northern Ireland reasonably well because I have many relatives there. If I could find many people in Northern Ireland who thought that there was a possibility that the Bill could produce a devolution, I would agree that such a disappointment could create problems. On the basis of my contacts and relatives, and speaking to those who live in the Province, I find it difficult to meet people outside the narrow confines of the political arena who think that the Bill will lead to devolution.
      Mr. William Ross: Did the hon. Gentleman say a moment ago that he found it difficult to find anyone outside the narrow confines of the political spectrum? Surely the politicians in Northern Ireland have little time for the Bill either.
      Mr. Taylor: I accept that nobody has fought against the Bill with more force and professionalism than the hon. Gentleman. I certainly accept that there is no enthusiasm among politicians in Northern Ireland for the Bill.
      Mr. Nick Budgen: My hon. Friend said that the Bill will never get past the talking shop stage. Does he not think that in the talking shop stage there will be a great deal of frustration and ultimately resentment against Westminster expressed by the people of Northern Ireland through the Assembly?
      Mr. Taylor: I accept that that is a possible danger. However, I do not think that it will happen. My general view is that it will do no great damage and will not create any special problems, although I know that my hon. Friend, and many of those who oppose the Bill, take the view that it will cause a great deal of damage. Some hon. Members have suggested that it would go a great deal

      343
      further and cause a potential loss of life. I simply express my view that it will do nothing of the sort. It will do no great good and certainly no great harm.
      If the Assembly was to carry on for a long period, there could be real problems. We have seen the dangers of an Assembly without powers, which is unlikely to have powers, in the constitutional nonsense and white elephant of the European Assembly, which exists on a similar basis.
      There is no doubt at all that the Irish Assembly will be similar to the European Assembly. It will employ consultants to look at Irish problems, whether in relation to roads, the health service or education. It will engage in a great number of visits which will extend the knowledge and experience of the Members. It will take them around the world and add greatly to their experience and general knowledge. Indeed, its members might have the same problems with expenses that have occurred in the European Assembly. By and large, it will achieve for democracy what the European Assembly has; that is, to create an affront to democracy. On the other hand, it will undoubtedly cause a great deal of interest and involve its Members in some useful, entertaining and educative work.
      If the situation was to continue, we could have a very real problem. If people of real ability—as I am sure they will be—are elected to the Assembly and simply carry on with general discussions, with no authority and no power, problems could arise which those hon. Members who, like myself, have voted for the principle of the Bill would not like.
      The Government have said that they believe that the Bill will lead to democracy. The Government and the Secretary of State have said that they hope that it will lead to devolution. Whether I am right or they are right, I hope that it will be accepted that no good could come from such an Assembly sitting for more than one year, or certainly more than three years, going through many draft constitutions when it is quite apparent that nothing will emerge.
      I accept the enormous problems that the Government have. Although I rarely agree with the Ministers on other issues, I have a great deal of personal sympathy for them. I hope that they will at least accept that such an amendment would make the Bill a great deal more acceptable and would also underline the judgment of those Ministers who have argued that devolution will follow. Those who think that it will, and those who think that it will not, must surely agree that nothing at all would be gained for Northern Ireland if the Assembly sat for more than three years doing nothing but passing resolutions condemning the British Government, their policies, and the way in which we approach various problems, and at the same time calling for extra authority to be given to every item of expenditure under the sun.
      No great problem will arise if we have the Assembly for a year and if, perhaps, each member goes on two foreign visits. It could also add to the economy of Northern Ireland if various consulting firms, who are not terribly busy these days, have some extra contracts to study aspects of Northern Ireland life. Some useful knowledge could be gained. Such an exercise should continue for a limited period only.
      I hope that the Government will be able to accept, perhaps not the amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkdale, perhaps not the amendment so eloquently described by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, but the principle that there must be a real time limit.
      344
      I hope that the Government will accept that this argument comes in a helpful spirit from someone who has been persuaded by his admiration for the qualities of the Ministers, although not for their opinions, and for the difficulty of their task. In those circumstances, I hope that they will modify what I regard as a relatively harmless Bill and stop it from becoming a dangerous Bill by accepting the amendment.
      Mr. William Ross: I have listened with interest to the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). It is clear that he has some understanding of what it will be like inside the Assembly. Indeed, he has accurately described some of what will happen there.
      However, it is evident that the hon. Gentleman does not understand the effect of those happenings on the community outside. It is clear that he does not understand what the situation will be when the Bill becomes an Act. He does not understand what the effects will be on the run-up to the elections.
      If the hon. Gentleman understands all those things as clearly as he understands what will happen within the Assembly and the behaviour of the folk who are elected there, he will go much further down the road with those hon. Members who oppose this power-sharing Bill than he has so far. One lives in hope that, having begun on that path, the hon. Gentleman may well catch up with those who have long since traversed all of it.
      I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) when he moved the amendment. It was clear that he was concerned about the effect of the continued existence of the talking shop, long after its defeat is evident to all concerned, when it is seen that it cannot develop into the structure that the Government wish.
      The hon. Gentleman would no doubt prefer, as he has claimed on many occasions, that a Sunningdale power-sharing type of structure that has long since been rejected by the people of Northern Ireland, should develop.— [Interruption.] The majority of people in Northern Ireland. They have consistently done so through the ballot box. It has brought us all here. We were all pleased to accept it on that occasion, and perhaps we should be more willing to accept it on all occasions.
      The notes on the clauses make it clear what the Government envisage after the election. It might he wise for us to look at that. The beginning of clause 5 points out that the devolution order could be revoked by Order in Council if it is clear within the community that there is no longer widespread acceptance of devolution.
      That is a misleading statement. It calls into question the inferences that can be drawn from the word "devolution". To the Government, the Opposition Front Bench and the hon. Member for Kirkdale devolution means a power-sharing structure along the lines of the Sunningdale set-up. It means nothing more than that. The average Unionist in Northern Ireland understands devolution to mean the 1920 structure. The Committee has not yet absorbed or understood that fact. When we talk about devolution, we are not talking about the same thing as the Secretary of State. That is the crux of the matter and that is the basic difference in our approach.
      7.30 pm
      Until that is understood, until the Government understand that those of us in Northern Ireland who are in favour of devolution want our sort of devolution and until

      345
      they understand that we are not prepared to pay what is for us the unacceptable price of devolved government —Republicans in Government—no progress will be made. We seek a structure that can be used for the welfare of Northern Ireland. The Government are trying to introduce a structure that will prove detrimental to Northern Ireland's welfare and will lead to its ultimate removal from the United Kingdom. That is the difference between us.
      Mr. James A. Dunn: The hon. Gentleman has brought questions of principle to my attention. I know that he speaks with a sincere heart and voice. However, is he saying that if the devolution that he and his colleagues seek is not forthcoming, they will not accept anything else? If so, that implies that they do not want integration and that their party would not contest seats for the Assembly.
      Mr. Ross: The only devolution that is of any use to my party is devolution that can be used to the benefit of the people. That implies something along the lines of the 1920 Act. If we cannot have that, we shall be better off without the proposals in the Bill. We made our position clear in 1973 and 1974. My colleagues and I sit in the House because we opposed the 1973 Act. We are the victors within our party in the battle over that Act. That is why we are here. We see no reason to change the principle that brought us here.
      If the hon. Member for Kirkdale, who served as a Minister for Northern Ireland, did not understand that, I hope that he will understand it from now on. Indeed, I hope that the Government understand that.
      Mr. James A. Dunn: I understand that. However, I asked whether I was right to understand that, in those circumstances, the Official Unionist Party would not put up any candidates in the elections for the Assembly.
      Mr. Ross: All political parties in Northern Ireland must fear that, if they do not fight, the principles that they espouse will be submerged and that the position that they sought to defend will be overrun by their foes. In those circumstances, we must fight, but we shall do so on our principles, not on the basis of the Secretary of State's Bill. We shall set forth what we want, and, when our representatives have been elected, they will put our view in the Assembly. They will put our view as a majority grouping and, if necessary, in a coalition with those who agree with us on the fundamental principles.
      We shall not sell our souls or our principles for position or salaries. We seek majority rule. We are not interested in all the nonsense in the Bill. The sooner that the Committee understands that the better. Once the Committee understands the principles on which we stand and fight and on which we shall be elected, it is more likely to come to reasonable and sensible conclusions about the Bill.
      Mr. James A. Dunn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acquit me of any suggestion that I implied that. I would never do that. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman but that does not diminish the great respect and regard that I have for several of those who represent Northern Ireland constituencies.
      Mr. Ross: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: If the Assembly's proposals on devolution would be unacceptable to the Government and if the Government's concept of devolution is unacceptable to the people of Northern Ireland, what is the matter with the Bill, as long as we restrict the Assembly's life to a year?
      Mr. Ross: If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber yesterday, he would have heard it said that the Bill will not only fail, but will cost lives during its failure. Between its birth and its demise it will cause the deaths of people in Northern Ireland. In view of the terrorism in Ulster, that is as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow morning. There are those who will deny it, but those of us who live in the Province, who feel and understand the situation, who understand the fears of our people and the emotions that will be aroused in the political battles to come, know where it will lead. For many people it will lead straight to the nearest graveyard. We are unlikely to forgive lightly those who introduce and bring into being legislation which cannot be of use to us.
      According to the notes on clauses, section 27(5) of the Constitution Act will
      "enable the Assembly to be dissolved if it becomes impossible to make appointments under section 8 of the Constitution Act which will command widespread acceptance throughout the community."
      That is the power-sharing statement.
      From my brief remarks, hon. Members will have gathered that, if the Government are depending on our acquiescence in setting up such a structure, they should stop doing so. They will not get it. It is as simple as that. If the Government understand that, they are more likely to reach an accurate conclusion.
      The last sentence of the first paragraph states that at the end of the day the Government might seek the election of a new Assembly which might enable a fresh administration to be formed which would revive that confidence. All those who read that paragraph carefully and understand its implications will be forced to the conclusion, which is in keeping with what we were told during our talks with the Secretary of State,
      "If at first you don't succeed,
      Try, try again."
      That is the basis of the Government's policy and the principle upon which they introduced the Bill. It is nothing more or less than a quicksand for us and for their hopes. As long as the Government insist on the hurdles and conditions laid down, the Bill cannot succeed because we will not sell our principles.
      Mr. Peter Robinson: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross), because his comments are sincere. I have spoken with him on many platforms in the Province. He has made similar comments on those occasions and I have made the same kind of statement. We have both said that we want an Assembly or Parliament that gives us real and meaningful devolution rather than a talking shop or, worse, a power-sharing body which, as the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) reminded us, was said by a Member of the SDLP to be a vehicle that would trundle us into a united Ireland. The hon. Member for Londonderry and I have much in common in terms of the kind of devolution that Northern Ireland should have.
      We must examine the amendments to see what they can do. The amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) recommends a three-year

      347
      time scale. Whatever one thinks of the benefit of having a time scale, one must accept that three years gives the Assembly a fair chance.
      The hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) suggests 12 months. Whatever protestations he makes to the contrary, I believe that the motive behind his amendment is to ensure that devolution never takes place in any form, rather than to help bring the Assembly to a close if the agony persists.
      The two proposals are clear. One is aimed at scuttling the prospect of devolution after one year and the other provides a reasonable chance. We should ask whether there should be a time scale. One can decide that in three ways. First, one can leave the Secretary of State to exercise discretion about whether there is a prospect of achieving devolution by reference to proceedings in the Assembly. That is the Government's proposal. Secondly, one can exercise a time scale. The third option, which is covered in a later amendment, is to allow the Assembly to decide whether hope still exists.
      The time scale proposals show a lack of confidence in the people to be elected to the Assembly and their desire for devolution. If Members of the Assembly want devolution they will move towards it in the hope of achieving a devolution that will maintain itself and be to the benefit of the people.
      The hon. Member for Kirkdale suggests that the Assembly should come to a decision within three years. An agreement on devolution is not likely to be reached in a plenary session of the Assembly, but in a committee or behind the Chair. Moves afoot will not be known widely. How would the hon. Member for Kirkdale feel if after 2 years 11 months the Assembly is making real progress in such sessions, but the guillotine falls and the Assembly goes out of existence? Surely it would be better for Members of the Assembly to decide. They will not be irresponsible, although people in any chamber can be irresponsible. I am not worried that the Government might be criticised, because they are criticised by bodies throughout the country.
      Mr. James A. Dunn: I have taken that into account. Perhaps sub-committees will be established to examine specific recommendations and to report back to the Assembly. There are some complex problems, but I suggest that the hon. Gentleman goes a little further than the words that I propose. Clause 5(1) uses the phrase
      "If … no proposals are likely".
      If there are likely to be proposals, the hon. Gentleman's fears will be unfounded. However, the hon. Gentleman has put doubts in my mind, and if I have doubts it is up to the Government to clear them up as soon as possible.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Robinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. My proposal is contrary to both the time limit and the Government's proposition. I would leave the decision to the Assembly, because it will not want to meet without the prospect of agreement. If I were a Member of the Assembly, after three years, knowing that there was not the slightest prospect of devolution, I should not wish to continue there. The Assembly is the right body to take the decision.
      Let us not imagine that the Assembly's only business is to decide on constitutional proposals for devolution. It has other immediate pre-devolution functions. It has
      348
      scrutiny, consultative and deliberative roles. The talking shop image is intended to discredit the Assembly before elections take place. The Assembly has a useful role to play.
      Whether we say one year, three years or four years, the time will not be entirely wasted if the Assembly carries out useful functions. The Government should leave as much latitude and give as much hope and optimism as possible to allow Assembly Members to achieve devolution. Perhaps I am an optimist, though the game is stacked against us. The proposed 70 per cent. requirement linked to cross-community support makes it difficult, if not unlikely, for a proposition to emerge from the Assembly. Nevertheless, those of us who really want devolution in Northern Ireland are prepared to try. Unlike some hon. Members, I agree with the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that we have nothing to lose.
      It is said that death will result from the acceptance of these proposals. Does any hon. Member really believe that the IRA needs an excuse to kill, bomb and murder? The IRA has been doing that for years in Northern Ireland. Members of the IRA plan their campaigns, and they will continue to kill in Northern Ireland, because the present security policy is inadequate. Perhaps the Assembly, with the power to discuss security issues, will focus the Government's attention on that.
      Mr. Barry Porter: From what the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) said, the Official Unionist view on devolution is clear, but I am not clear about the Democratic Unionist Party's view. If the hon. Gentleman is talking about a majority Assembly in due course, which is not on offer. Is the DUP thinking about an element of power sharing?
      Mr. Robinson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to outline the DUP's view on devolution. I could do it more easily by referring him to the Vote Office, where he will find a copy of the Northern Ireland Convention report, which proposes majority rule devolution but gives minority parties in the Assembly a meaningful role. It also safeguards the rights of each individual, and a Bill of Rights was proposed.
      There is no difference between the Official Unionist Party's policy on devolution, as stated in its manifestos, and what we believe. However, many people in Northern Ireland are beginning to wonder whether Members of the Official Unionist Party believe what is in their election manifesto. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) told us that he did not wish to have legislative devolution in Northern Ireland. He is entitled to that view, and I respect him for stating it openly, but we had legislative devolution before 1972, and legislative devolution was proposed in the Convention report, which ostensibly is the policy of his party.
      The Democratic Unionist Party believes in legislative devolution, where the people of Northern Ireland decide through the ballot box who will be the Government, without a rigged system such as power sharing. We are against power sharing, for reasons that were outlined earlier. The right hon. Member for Down, South and his colleagues do not believe in legislative devolution. That is contrary to their election manifesto and the people of Northern Ireland will judge them on it.
      I trust that the people of Northern Ireland will elect Assembly Members who not only believe in devolution

      349
      but are prepared to go into the Assembly and, although the possibility of achieving meaningful devolution will be difficult, if not impossible, will have the courage to try.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: One need not prove, or argue, after this debate, the importance of the SDP amendment and the issues attached to it. Perhaps the narrowest of them is raised by the amendment of the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) which innocently but effectively substitutes "or" for "and" in line 30. If "and" remains, the subsection is a declaration that the indefinite continuance of an Assembly that will not arrive at acceptable devolution proposals is nevertheless in the public interest. The amendment alters it to say that the purpose of the Assembly is to arrive at devolution within the terms of the Bill, but, if it cannot, it is not in the public interest that it should continue to exist indefinitely.
      The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), despite the declaration with which he concluded his speech, said that he would have no interest in being a Member of an Assembly which, after three years, or some other period, failed to arrive at acceptable proposals. He would not be interested in an Assembly which found itself at a dead end on devolution.
      Mr. Robinson: What I said was that I would not be interested in being a Member of an Assembly after three years if it did not hold out the prospect of achieving devolution.
      Mr. Powell: That is good enough, because we are talking about a visible prospect. I do not say that the hon. Gentleman would not have the patience to carry on if he could see an acceptable solution six months after the initial three years. I am not dealing with the length of the period. The hon. Gentleman has confirmed that there would be little point in belonging to such an Assembly if it could do only what is set out in clauses 3 and 4.
      We invite the Government to accept, by substituting "or" for "and", what they have professed all along. This is a rolling devolution Bill. The Secretary of State did not say "I shall set up a scrutinising Assembly without responsibility". He said "I shall give an Assembly the opportunity to arrive at devolution, either in one leap or gradually". To substitute "or" for "and" is to accept that an Assembly that has no visible prospect of achieving the intentions of the Bill is not in the public interest. If it is in the public interest, we need a different approach, a different Assembly and a different concept. I hope that, if they can do no more, the Government can accept the amendment, because it appears to correspond to their intentions and view of the Bill.
      What period should we set which would provide a reasonable expectation of achieving the Government's objects? The hon. Member for Belfast, East says that we should leave it to the Assembly because the Assembly will not continue its existence if it sees no prospect of success. The hon. Gentleman is relatively young and of a generous disposition. He thinks the best of and imputes the purest and most noble motives, unsullied by personal or pecuniary interest, to his fellow men. However, the belief that an Assembly will terminate its existence, the emoluments that flow from its existence and the privileges and influence that might attach to its members, simply because it honestly declares that it will not get anywhere
      350
      with an acceptable form of power sharing that would persuade a Government to create a devolved Assembly, is not realistic. Neither of us can prove our conjecture. He has his view of human nature and I have mine.
      Mr. Robinson: It was said earlier that the right hon. Gentleman might stand for election to the Assembly. The right hon. Gentleman did not deny it, so some hon. Members may suspect that his silence was assent. If we forget about my generous disposition and the fact that I am not three score years and ten, if the right hon. Gentleman were elected to the Assembly and the three years elapsed, would he not take the proper and honourable course of pulling up stumps and saying "Let us go home"?
      Mr. Powell: I do not say that an individual Member might not fail to seek re-election, but he might decide to apply for the Assembly equivalent of the Chiltern Hundreds. No doubt some Member may be of a resigning disposition who, bored and frustrated after one year or three years, would say "I shall have no more of this." However, I doubt the likelihood of an Assembly of 78 or 85 Members terminating its existence by resolution. That is improbable and, in this House, we legislate on probabilities. I conclude that it is for the House, having brought the Assembly into existence, to provide that if it cannot perform its function within a reasonable period its existence should be terminated.
      The question then is what is the reasonable period? We have a choice in the two amendments between three years and one year. I am slightly inclined to think that one year might, in all circumstances, be cutting it too fine, but my view is that three years is unrealistically long. If the Government accept the principle that there should be a specific terminus in the clause, I for my part would not cavil if they arrived at an intermediate position between one year, which I would think is the minimum and three years, which seems irrationally long.
      8 pm
      It seems unrealistic to suppose that it could take as long as three years for an Assembly to become aware of whether it would agree upon anything that was likely to commend itself in the terms of the Bill to a Secretary of State or, as the terms of the Bill may eventually be, to the House of Commons. I believe that in principle the SDP's amendment is right, but I think that the figure written into it is too large rather than too small.
      I shall address myself to the question posed by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and posed yesterday by the hon. Member for Bebington and Ellesmere Port (Mr. Porter), whom I seem always to lose at the moment when I want him most. Both hon. Members have asked "What is the harm in a lame duck Assembly? What is the harm in the continued existence of an Assembly which knows, and which everyone else knows, will not achieve the purpose for which it was created by statute?"
      To understand why my hon. Friends and I are convinced that such a survival would be dangerous, it is necessary to understand the purpose behind the Bill on the part of those who were working away at it long before the Secretary of State had any notion that he would have the misfortune to find himself at the Northern Ireland Office.
      The intention is to have an Assembly for the sake of having an Assembly, but that was not always so. It is a refinement that was arrived at after certain experiences and

      351
      failed attempts. We had an earlier version of the plan. I am sorry that it is necessary for this purpose again to refer briefly to the immortal passage in the daily notes for candidates. I must confess that as a recipient in years gone by of daily notes for candidates during elections I never treasured them on the assumption that hidden inside them there might be, if not a time bomb, an immortal jewel or a torch which in two or three years' time would illuminate the dark corners of politics. However, it has happened and it is a reality.
      The document exists, and it can be verified. It referred to the new Government coming
      "under considerable pressure to launch a new, high-powered political initiative on Northern Ireland with the object of establishing another 'power-sharing' government in the province, which could pave the way for a federal constitution linking Ulster to the Irish Republic."
      That was Mk. I, and we have Mk. II. I expect that Mk. II was introduced at some time in 1980. It is really the crude Mk. II. The crude Mk. I is the unimproved version which did not learn from 1974, the version which intended to rush the Sunningdale fence. After contemplating for some time the unlikelihood of obtaining a power-sharing Executive which could do the dirty work, which was the idea behind Sunningdale, and which was why the Sunningdale Executive perished, someone asked—I do not know quite who he or she may have been—"Why do we need an Executive to do the job? Surely we can do it with an Assembly. Nothing can prevent us from getting an Assembly elected. If we have elections for an Assembly, everybody must take part. Therefore, we can always get an Assembly elected."
      The true purpose behind the Bill, as illuminated by the notes for candidates of 25 April 1979, is the creation of an Assembly. In the immortal words of the right hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Rees) in October 1979 "I can tell you, Enoch, there will be an Assembly and you know how I know that there will be an Assembly." It is the Assembly which is now the working piece for paving the way for a federal constitution linking Ulster to the Irish Republic. Between Mk. I and Mk. II the development which facilitated the transition from Mk. Ito Mk. II was the Anglo-Irish Council and its parliamentary tier, which is the new version or expression of what was crudely expressed three years ago as the federal constitution linking Ulster to the Irish Republic.
      That has been elaborated in the three successive meetings which the Prime Minister has had with successive Irish Prime Ministers. That has now become the Anglo-Irish Council with its parliamentary tier in which Ulster, via an Ulster Assembly, is to be represented as a third finger. That is the mischief of an idle Assembly. It will do the work that Satan has intended for it. It will
      "pave the way for a federal constitution"
      by entering into a federal institution. The Anglo-Irish Council, with the parliamentary tier, is a federal institution. It is because that is understood by people on both sides in Northern Ireland that my hon. Friends and I, alas, are all too sure that we are right when we say that moves in that direction, with legislation which could have that effect, will be the cause of additional and avoidable bloodshed.
      It is not, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East suggests, that the IRA requires an excuse for murder, but it needs encouragement. It needs the encouragement of faith that it will get its way. It needs the encouragement of being able to tell itself colourably that that is what Her
      352
      Majestry's Government want too. It needs to think that the Government of the United Kingdom, the hated English, are themselves about the business of paving the way for the entry of Ulster into a federal constitution linking it with the Irish Republic.
      All terrorism thrives on hope. All terrorism dies where hope is removed. The damage of the Bill and the damage of an Assembly without an overt purpose—I am answering directly the question of the hon. Member for Southend, East—is that it inspires all too justified hope on the part of those who, if this is to happen, mean to be on the bandwagon in circumstances which will give them and terror the upper hand when the bandwagon is rolling.
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: I cannot recall an earlier occasion when I have disagreed with the right hon. Gentleman, but is he honestly saying that an Assembly packed with Members of the sort that we have in the House of Commons, of great quality and conviction, would be used as a vehicle to bring about Republicanism? Bearing in mind the convictions that Northern Ireland Members have expressed and the personal bravery that they have shown, does he think that they could be foxed, misled or used to become vehicles for Republicanism?
      Mr. Powell: That is exactly what I am saying. That is exactly what is being said by those who, for the purpose stated, intend that there shall be an Assembly, whatever else there is. "Power-sharing Executive or not," they say, "let us have an Assembly."
      Let me put one simple proposition to the hon. Gentleman. Let us suppose that there is an invitation to such an Assembly to participate. Why not? There will be one-third of that Assembly who will go off like larks. There will be one-third or one-quarter who will say, "Yes, of course, let us book our tickets". What will the remainder do? Will they remain sitting there and say, "Good riddance to them", or will they say, "We shall not allow those people to speak for Ulster. We shall be in on the act. We shall go along and see what happens. If Ulster is to be discussed in this Anglo-Irish Assembly, as the Prime Minister arranged, which is a fair implication, in her conference with FitzGerald last November, we ought to be there as well." That is how it will happen. That is one of the ways in which it will happen. It is not difficult to envisage.
      Therefore, the answer to the question by the hon. Member for Southend, East, "What is the hope and what is the harm in an Assembly in vacuo?", is that an Assembly in vacuo is what Satan wants. It might be thought that even for one who sometimes mistakes the Foreign Office for a nest of vipers, the reference to His Satanic Majesty is inappropriate. If so, I should like to leave a thought for the Committee to ponder.
      Whoever wrote—it must have been written before 25 April—what was published on that day in the notes for candidates was aware already of what was said to the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Atkins) when he entered upon the office that the present Secretary of State now occupies. He was told, "You ought to understand that you cannot carry out your election manifesto, because there is an agreement in existence already with which it is incompatible."
      Whoever wrote those words and sent them to be printed during the election knew that that would happen. But how did he know that it would happen? It was because he knew

      353
      that it had already happened. The Civil Service has a habit, when it suspects that there might be a change of Administration—some of us who observed the political scene during the early months of 1979 had a vague notion that there might be a political change of Administration—of getting in touch in advance with those who might be their new political masters to prepare to carry out their wishes in accordance with their election manifesto. Great students of election manifestos are the civil servants.
      Therefore, it is not beyond probability that the late Airey Neave, who was murdered at the end of May, had already been told what the right hon. Member for Spelthorne was told early in May. It is for us to decide what reply the late Airey Neave made when he was briefed. All that we know is that he was murdered before May was out. All that we know is that whoever was assisting and working with him in the Conservative Party organisation, whether he did it in piam memoriam or for other purposes, wrote those words into a place where in due course they would be found.
      Perhaps those who think that there is no harm in the Bill—no good, but perhaps no harm—might reflect on those matters.
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I support the amendments in the belief that the Government could accept, if not the details set out on the Order Paper, at least the intention and purpose that underlie them. The Government could accept them without doing violence to their ideas or the internal consistency of clause 5 and without modifying, except a little for the better, their admission in the clause that the Assembly may be unworkable. For there is no point in any part of the clause unless it is to provide for circumstances in which the Assembly will be unlikely to achieve the purposes of devolution, move away from direct government, covered by clauses 1 and 2, and operate in a way that is contrary to the public interest.
      Moreover, the intention behind the amendments should be acceptable to a wide range of opinion in the Committee. It is acceptable to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). The amendments are acceptable to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) who, broadly speaking, perhaps a little reluctantly, supports the Bill. They are acceptable to me and to the Social Democratic Party. Even among those who are seeking different forms of devolution, the general intention of the amendments should be acceptable.
      The amendments alter the clause only in altering the timing of the Secretary of State's consideration of the success or otherwise of the new Assembly. The criteria for dissolving the Assembly are left entirely to the Secretary of State. There is no attempt to constrain him in any way. It is still his judgment, as it is in the clause unaltered by the amendments.
      The only constraint on the Secretary of State is to force him to consider the proposition of dissolving the Assembly within a certain time limit. The right hon. Member for Down, South suggested two years as a happy mean between the one year suggested in one amendment and the three years suggested in another. I am prepared to leave the period to the Government. Whatever the period
      354
      chosen, it is not stated that the Secretary of State must act within that period. It is stated only that the Secretary of State must consider the situation within that period. The Assembly is put under some pressure to seek the objectives in clauses 1 and 2 coherently and not to dilly-dally and waste time in seeking to fulfil the objectives of the Bill.
      The wording of the amendment at present also constrains the Secretary of State slightly in the opposite direction. It seems to imply that he would not be able to consider dissolving the Assembly under the terms of the amendments before the period stated in the amended clause. If it forces him to consider the viability or otherwise of the Assembly within a given period—thereby putting pressure on the Assembly itself—it also prevents him from prejudging the Assembly in advance of the period stated—whichever one may be chosen—should the Government accept the amendments.
      The only other point that I wish to make is about the wording suggested by amendment No. 104. That would change from "and" to "or" the preposition linking clause 5(1)(a) and (b). As it stands now it seems possible to argue that if the Assembly is not moving at all to the position provided for under clauses 1 and 2 it is necessary at the same time for it to be contrary to the public interest that it should continue. It is almost impossible for it to be in the public interest for a failing Assembly to continue. Equally, as it links the ability of the Assembly to move towards devolution with it being within the public interest, it is possible that leaving "and" would place an undue restraint upon the Secretary of State at a marginal period when the other roles given to the Assembly were being adequately and successfully carried out within the period but had not yet arrived at the point where one could say that a private agreement had almost been reached on the devolved role.
      Giving a date would place a limited restraint on the Secretary of State. Changing "and" for "or" would give him greater freedom of action than the present clause does. I ask the Government to consider seriously the arguments that have been put forward. I can see no way in which the amendments damage the Government's intention, much as I may disapprove of it. The amendments remove some of the hazards that the Assembly could bring to the national interest of the Province and the United Kingdom, and give slightly greater freedom of action to the Secretary of State in his appallingly difficult task.
      Mr. Budgen: I shall be brief because I recognise the reality of the debate that we are having. We have been brutally and effectively crushed by a cynical guillotine, and it is plain from the lack of passion that the Government know that they can disregard what we say and need not bother any further to persuade us or anyone else. They know perfectly well that the bulk of the amendments that were tabled will go undebated.
      None of us can prove what the consequences of setting up the Assembly will be. The most optimistic of us are those who support the Secretary of State. For him the setting up of the Assembly will lead not merely to constitutional stability but to a period of unparalleled personal happiness for each of the citizens of Northern Ireland and unparalleled prosperity for Northern Ireland. He unfolds before us a vastly euphoric scene. On the other hand, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr.

      355
      Powell) takes an extremely pessimistic view. None of us knows what the ultimate result of setting up an Assembly will be. It is a subjective judgment.
      I suggest, albeit from the crushed position from which I speak, that it might be useful if the Secretary of State would be good enough—I say this humbly, knowing that we now have no lever to apply—to explain what principles he believes should be applied in deciding whether the Assembly has failed. In the days when he was trying to persuade us, he was fair enough to say that there was a possibility that his scheme might fail. He has devoted great energy to getting it through the House, crushing the opposition and curtailing debate. I hope that he will be good enough to give us objective guidelines so that in certain circumstances we shall know that the Government will say that they have failed and the initiative will be ended.
      One of our contentions is that the initiative will cause great uncertainty in Northern Ireland. One way in which my right hon. Friend can end the uncertainty is to lay down clear criteria for the circumstances in which the initiative will be said by the Government of the day to have failed.
      Viscount Cranborne: I support the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn). I do not feel that three years is necessarily the ideal time, but the spirit that animates the amendment is one with which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may find himself in sympathy.
      In clause 5 we come to the part of the Bill that the pessimistic among us fear may have to be brought into operation sooner rather than later. For that reason I asked my right hon. Friend in an intervention on schedule 1 in the early hours of the morning last week or the week before—it is difficult to tell which in the miasma of sleeplessness that has surrounded us—whether during our discussion on schedule 1 or clause 5 he could let the Committee know what exactly constituted failure for the Assembly and his initiative.
      In certain circumstances no one could doubt that failure had occurred—for instance, a general strike similar to that of 1974. Equally, under others it could be clear that the Assembly was getting nowhere and that the initiative had failed. But there are other circumstances where the judgment of failure or success would be more difficult. For instance, my right hon. Friend devoted considerable time and patience to explaining to the Committee on clause 2 that he would be prepared to accept the proposals by committees of the Assembly for devolved government in certain sectors, if he judged that they had attracted cross-community support, and that that support would not necessarily be evidenced by 70 per cent. of the elected members of the Assembly supporting the proposals. If my right hon. Friend is to exercise that judgment, the obverse of the coin must be that the Assembly has failed if he judges that cross-community support has been lost.
      Perhaps my right hon. Friend will define the circumstances that mean that failure has occurred. It will be difficult to define that. Indeed, it could be a source of argument for those in the Province who are not necessarily men and women of good will. They could drag out the Assembly in such a way that it might encourage the men of violence.
      356
      8.30 pm
      This is relevant to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Kirkdale. If we do not put a term on the deliberations of the Assembly or have an opportunity to draw the whole thing to a close, one of the two disadvantages of the Bill that have prompted me to take such an interest in it will be magnified to an unnecessary extent.
      The Bill is an honest attempt to do something to rectify the sad story of Northern Ireland and to put matters right. But, in effect, it does exactly the opposite. It sets in a sort of plaster of Paris the opposing views of the two communities in Ulster. By setting up an Assembly, the Bill institutionalises the very conflict that has led to the violence and economic decline that we all deplore. So long as that is institutionalised within the Province, we lose any chance there may be of bringing that argument to a close. It cannot happen. The only way in which we can hope to achieve something is by submerging the more parochial concerns of Northern Ireland into the greater concerns of the United Kingdom at Westminster.
      If no term is put on the deliberations of the Assembly, we shall merely encourage that plaster cast to set hard and we shall make that mould even more unbreakable.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) suggested with understandable doubt that the Bill can do no harm. The right hon. Member for Down, South will correct me if I am wrong, but I should like to relate a story that I heard about Lord Hartington, who served in Cabinet for many years during the latter part of the 19th century. It is reputed that he uttered only one sentence during his Cabinet career, which was
      "If in doubt, much better not."
      Mr. Teddy Taylor: Perhaps I can save myself from undue harassment. Does my hon. Friend agree that what I said was that no great harm would come from this so long as there was a time limit?
      Viscount Cranborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting me right. However, he suggested that the Bill, accompanied by a time limit, would not do great harm to Northern Ireland. There are those of us on the Conservative Benches who dispute that view because we feel that it is virtually impossible for any political initiative, once it has been taken, to be negated, and for the political scene upon which it erupted to remain the same as it was before that intitiative was taken. It is like saying that a match, once it has been struck, is still a match, but the fire has consumed it and the constitution of the match has changed considerably. To a certain degree that is what I fear the Bill will do.
      I beg my right hon. Friend to give consideration to the spirit of the amendment of the hon. Member for Kirkdale in order that we may have some chance of curtailing what some of us feel could be a most damaging initiative in the Province.
      Mr. Concannon: In the amendments we have a choice between a 12-months and a three-months guillotine of the Assembly, or at least of its scrutinising, consultative and deliberative functions. I believe that if we were to push the Assembly into going into devolution too quickly, that would be a tragic mistake.
      Once the Assembly is elected, it will be wise not to consider any devolution propositions for at least a year. What is necessary at the beginning is for people to find out

      357
      whether they can work with one another, so that some of the distrust between the various sections in the Province may be overcome.
      I agree with the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), in that I do not think that any devolution proposals will come in the first instance from the floor of the Assembly. They are likely to arise from discussions between the various parties and sections within the Assembly and from those other areas in which, as hon. Members know, arrangements tend to be made. It is from those areas that package deals might arise.
      Having stressed the need for caution on the part of the Assembly, I still believe that the Minister should give the view of the Government on the timetable for devolution proposals. In saying that, I bear in mind the flexibility that the Government wish to put in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will explain to the House the circumstances in which he would use the relevant clauses in the Bill to wind up the Assembly. I do not think that we should put the Assembly in a straitjacket. We should give it a reasonable time in which to set about its business. I am not impressed with the period of one year; indeed, I think that even three years would be too short a period, if anyone were thinking of a timetable. The Government should explain what they intend to do with the clauses and when they will bring them into action.
      The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Nicholas Scott): I have listened with great care to the arguments in favour of a time limit under the provisions of clause 5(1) and noted the reasonable way in which they were advanced
      I can understand the wish expressed by many hon. Members to concentrate the minds of those who are elected to the Assembly on bringing forward proposals for devolution. Therefore, I can see the argument which underlies the amendments in favour of a time limit. I shall explain to the Committee why, having listened carefully, I am unconvinced by the arguments.
      If my reply is brief it is no discourtesy to the Committee. It is due partly to the constraints of the timetable motion and because, in essence, the point that underlies the amendments is simple. I remind the Committee that we are talking about something that the Government profoundly wish will never happen. We hope that the Assembly, when elected, will do useful work, that it will lead to devolved government in Northern Ireland and that it will not be necessary for it to be dissolved.
      The twin pillars of clause 5(1) are that no proposals are likely to emerge and that it is in the public interest that the Assembly should be dissolved. While the aim of the Government at the end of the day is devolution and the restoration of devolved government to the Province, it is at least possible that that may not happen but that the Assembly could for a prolonged period do useful work on behalf of the people. In any case, I agree with the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that devolution is not likely to be rushed. As a Tory, I tend to believe in evolutionary rather than revolutionary solutions to political problems. I hope to see the Assembly beginning to work together and its committees developing a system of working together and tackling departmental problems and forming a sound basis for eventual devolved government.
      358
      Several hon. Members have asked for more clarity and certainty about the future of the Assembly and the way it will work than I can give. Sometimes, when I listen to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), I remember that fellow, whose name escapes me, who said:
      "I wish I was as cocksure of anything as Tom Macaulay is of everything".
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Perhaps it may add to my credentials that when the 1973 Act, with its catastrophic end, was going through the House, I predicted exactly what would happen to it and the reasons why it would happen.
      Mr. Scott: I envy the right hon. Gentleman his certainty. I have no magic way of foretelling how the work of and relationships within the Assembly will develop. Certainly neither the Government nor the House of Commons would be at this stage of the Committee proceedings unless we, the Government, and it, the House, had been convinced on Second Reading that this was the best chance of restoring devolved Government to the Province.
      There are hypothetical advantages in a time limit, but they are outweighed by the practical difficulties and constraints that this could place in certain circumstances on the movement to devolved government. The basic principle which underlies the whole approach of the Bill is flexibility and the freedom of the Assembly to come up with its own proposals. That flexibility and that freedom apply as much to the time taken over these matters as to other aspects of the process.
      In any case, I reiterate that stage one is important. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) laid great stress on the consultative and scrutinising powers that the Assembly will have in stage one. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I look forward to working closely with the committees which will be set up under stage one and to co-operating with them in solving the problems that confront the Province.
      Of course, I recognise that, in the absence of any proposals for devolution in what has been called a lame duck Assembly, such an Assembly, with little responsibility, could degenerate into a source of instability and discontent throughout the Province. If that unhappy state of affairs should arise—I hope it will not—the remedy is already to hand.
      What matters is not the period of time, but the conduct of the Assembly. If, as some hon. Members forecast, its conduct is unruly, divisive or damaging, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has power to dissolve it at any time. If, as we hope, its effect in the first stage is constructive and helpful, it would be foolish to do away with it, even if it is not moving towards devolution by a predetermined time when, if I may use the phrase, a guillotine comes down.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Budgen: Will my hon. Friend please respond to the reasonable request by his ally the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) that there should be a clear statement of the circumstances in which the Government would regard it as appropriate to dissolve the Assembly?
      Mr. Scott: I congratulate my hon. Friend. I believe that he may just have reached a century of interventions. I am sure that we all congratulate him on the way in which he has wielded the willow in Committee.

      359
      If my hon. Friend has been listening to my comments, he will be able to draw from them the circumstances in which my right hon. Friend might wish to dissolve the Assembly. If it were behaving in an unruly, divisive or damaging way and it was clear that no proposals were likely to be forthcoming, those would be clear grounds for the Assembly to be dissolved, but if it were doing useful work, even if there were no immediate prospect of its moving towards bringing forward proposals for devolution, it would be foolish to dissolve it.
      If we were working constructively with an Assembly and Committees so that it was possible to achieve what is currently not being achieved for the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives were able regularly to scrutinise, criticise and work constructively with Ministers in Northern Ireland, that would be useful work on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland and for the future of the Province.
      Mr. Grimond: Surely the danger is not only that the Assembly may be divisive, but that it may turn into a forum in which people demand more and more expenditure because they have no responsibility for implementing what is done or for raising the taxes.
      The hope must be that the Assembly's mind will be concentrated on taking over responsibility. Surely it would concentrate the Assembly's mind better if there were a time limit within which it had to make proposals for taking over responsibility.
      Mr. Scott: The right hon. Gentleman underestimates the extent to which the present arrangements make it possible for pressure groups and elected representatives in Northern Ireland to demand extra expenditure from the Treasury, even though they have no responsibility for raising the money.
      A system of committees working on a departmental basis ought to be able to find a constructive way to overcome the problems facing Northern Ireland and to make constructive suggestions. In the light of the power that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has if the Assembly is unruly, divisive or damaging and is unlikely to come forward with proposals for devolution, I see no reason to cavil, crib or confine it by timetables.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:
      The Committee proceeded to a Division—
      Mr. Proctor(Seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Dean.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The Tellers have returned. I shall take the hon. Gentleman's point of order after the Division.
      The Committee having divided: Ayes 33, Noes 108.

      Division No. 236]

      [8.50 pm

      AYES

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Budgen, Nick

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Cryer, Bob

      Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

      Dunlop, John

      Molyneaux, James

      Dunn, James A.

      Morris, M. (N'hampton S)

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Farr, John

      Penhaligon, David

      Freud, Clement

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

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Proctor, K. Harvey

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Howells, Geraint

      Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Sandelson, Neville

      360

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

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Mr. John Roper and

      Taylor, Teddy (S' end E)

      Mr. A. J. Beith.

      NOES

      Arnold, Tom

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Moate, Roger

      Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

      Moore, John

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Myles, David

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Needham, Richard

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Newton, Tony

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Onslow, Cranley

      Blackburn, John

      Osborn, John

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Bright, Graham

      Pawsey, James

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Pollock, Alexander

      Butcher, John

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Cope, John

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Rossi, Hugh

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Scott, Nicholas

      Greenway, Harry

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Silvester, Fred

      Hawksley, Warren

      Sims, Roger

      Heddle, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Hill, James

      Smith, Dudley

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Hordern, Peter

      Speed, Keith

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Speller, Tony

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Stainton, Keith

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Stevens, Martin

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      Thompson, Donald

      Lang, Ian

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Latham, Michael

      Trippier, David

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Trotter, Neville

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Wakeham, John

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Waller, Gary

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Watson, John

      MacGregor, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Major, John

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Marlow, Antony

      Wheeler, John

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Wickenden, Keith

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Wolfson, Mark

      Mather, Carol

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Mellor, David

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Mr. Selwyn Gummer and

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      THE SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at Nine o'clock.
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill. The Committee divided: Ayes 121, Noes 20.

      Division No. 237]

      [9.00 pm

      AYES

      Arnold, Tom

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S'thorne)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

      Blackburn, John

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Beith, A. J.

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Benyon, W. (Buckingham)

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      361

      Bright, Graham

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Bruce-Gardyne, John

      Moore, John

      Butcher, John

      Myles, David

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Neale, Gerrard

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

      Needham, Richard

      Colvin, Michael

      Newton, Tony

      Cope, John

      Onslow, Cranley

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Crawshaw, Richard

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Pawsey, James

      Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

      Penhaligon, David

      Fookes, Miss Janet

      Pollock, Alexander

      Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

      Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

      Freud, Clement

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Greenway, Harry

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Grimond, Rt Hon J.

      Rifkind, Malcolm

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Rodgers, Rt Hon William

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Roper, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Rossi, Hugh

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Hawksley, Warren

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Heddle, John

      Sandelson, Neville

      Hill, James

      Scott, Nicholas

      Holland, Philip (Carlton)

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Hordern, Peter

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Silvester, Fred

      Howells, Geraint

      Sims, Roger

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Smith, Dudley

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Speed, Keith

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Speller, Tony

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      Stainton, Keith

      Lang, Ian

      Stevens, Martin

      Latham, Michael

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Thornton, Malcolm

      Lyons, Edward (Bradf'dW)

      Trotter, Neville

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Wakeham, John

      MacGregor, John

      Waller, Gary

      Major, John

      Watson, John

      Marlow, Antony

      Wells, Bowen

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Wheeler, John

      Mather, Carol

      Wickenden, Keith

      Mellor, David

      Wolfson, Mark

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Mr. David Hunt and

      Mitchell, R.C. (Soton Itchen)

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Moate, Roger

      NOES

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Molyneaux, James

      Budgen, Nick

      Murphy, Christopher

      Cranborne, Viscount

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

      Cryer, Bob

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Dunlop, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Farr, John

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

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Knight, MrsJill

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Mr. William Ross and

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Mr. K. Harvey Proctor

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 2

      AMENDMENTS OF CONSTITUTION AND ASSEMBLY ACTS
      Mr. Proctor: On a point of order, Mr. Dean. It will not have escaped your notice that the Division before last took 14 minutes from beginning to end. Just over 100 Members voted in the Government Lobby, but that should not have affected the time that the count took. Because the Division took as long as 14 minutes, did you, Mr. Dean, notice that that prevented my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) from pressing his amendment No. 105 to a Division, as I am sure he would have wished to do had time permitted?
      I am aware of the difficulty caused by the guillotine motion, but would you rule, Mr. Dean, that just because the Government have their draconian guillotine motion they should not be unfair by delaying the counting of the votes?
      The Second Deputy Chairman: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point and I realise his difficulty. It is my job to ensure that the rules are observed. In my view, the Division was not unduly long; therefore, the process was in order.
      9.15 pm
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I beg to move amendment No. 70, in
      page 8, line 25, leave out from 'departments' to end of line 27.
      The amendment will delete paragraph (b) of what would be subsection (1) of the Constitution Act. Schedule 2 is almost a re-enactment of a large part of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. It will have effect only under full devolution. Recent debates have disclosed that, of those who have taken a direct interest in the Bill, only a small minority believe that clause 6 will attract schedule 2 or that we are debating a proposal that is likely to have practical effect or significance.
      However, it was valuable that schedule 2 was included in the Bill, with the possibility that it created, within the rules of order and the discretion of the Chair, for the Constitution Act 1973 and the power-sharing Executive embodied in it to be reviewed after nine years by way of amendments to the amendment to schedule 2 of the Constitution Act 1973, which comprises schedule 2 of this Bill. It is unfortunate that we cannot devote the attention that we should otherwise have been able to devote to a post mortem on the 1973 Act. As long as that Act remains on the statute book, there will always be a danger that someone will attempt to bring it into effect. No time spent in dedicating oneself to examining undesirable features of the 1973 Act can be time wasted.
      As the schedule stands at present and, with modifications, as section 8 of the 1973 Act stood, the Secretary of State can appoint not only the heads of Northern Ireland Departments—what in our terminology would be Ministers or even Cabinet Ministers—but persons to discharge such other functions as he may determine. My amendment seeks to shine a searchlight upon those words by deleting them.
      The words are injudiciously and undesirably wide in conferring powers on a Secretary of State to appoint persons to the government of part of the United Kingdom. He may appoint them to discharge such other functions as he may determine. The indeterminacy of the functions for

      363
      which the Secretary of State can appoint Ministers is undesirable. However, it carries with it the intention—the paragraph paves the way—to enable the Secretary of State to concoct an Administration with a view not so much towards efficiency of administration and the control of Departments as to awarding sufficient jobs, or inventing and awarding sufficient jobs, so as to set up a power-sharing Executive where the competing interests will be stilled by reciprocal or mutual rewards.
      This is the way in which in the first essay in 1973–74 the power was used to create functions which were not necessary for the effective discharge of the government of Northern Ireland and to appoint particular persons because they were drawn from certain parties, or even because they were of certain religious persuasions. It is part of the armoury of power sharing, and no doubt it enables the Secretary of State to participate in the wheeling and dealing which he anticipates will precede the making of proposals to him under clause 1.
      This is log-rolling institutionalised in the formation of a Northern Ireland Administration in the hope of managing to cobble together an Administration which will be supported by the Assembly. That renders it objectionable to my hon. Friends and myself and it should render it objectionable to anyone who is used to and accepts the logic and function of our own parliamentary institutions and the responsibility of Government to the House of Commons.
      This is an opportunity for us to examine some of the implications of a power-sharing Executive and the countervailing inducements which might be necessary to bring such an Executive into existence, and to obtain from the Government a statement as detailed as they can make it of what they have in mind, together with specific examples, if the Secretary of State proposes to act under paragraph (b). If no satisfactory explanation can be given and no sufficient definition is offered to the House of Commons, the Committee would be justified in doing what the amendment proposes and deleting paragraph (b).
      Mr. Farr: I support the amendment. It is a pity that it has not attracted more attention. It is vital that the patronage of the Secretary of State is properly curtailed and dovetailed. He cannot be allowed to get away with a Bill that is so loosely worded as, for example, in this paragraph of schedule 2.
      I support the intention of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) to omit paragraph 1(1)(b). The right hon. Gentleman is seeking to limit the appointments within the discretion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If my right hon. Friend does not say "Yes" to this, it is in the national interest that he should give the Committee an indication of how he will limit his budget. It would be deplorable if the number of persons to be employed by him was virtually without limit. It would be even more deplorable if he were to have a budget without limit to remunerate those so employed.
      The right hon. Member for Down, South referred to the words "cobbled together", and that is rather typical of the attitude of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the Bill. The Bill has been cobbled together. If one takes the trouble to look up "cobbled together" in the Oxford English Dictionary, or even in the Oxford Illustrated Dictionary, in the House of Commons Library, one sees that it means "Patching or joining together in a
      364
      cumbersome or clumsy manner". That is typical of the attitude of my right hon. Friend and some of his Ministers and advisers.
      The Bill has been cobbled together. It has been sent on its way with the best wishes of some hon. Members. It is hoped that, as it goes along, it will stagger from one eventuality to another by the patching up in a cumbersome way of the necessary parts of the Bill which are loosely worded at the moment. I agree that paragraph (b) should be deleted. There must be a strict limit on my right hon. Friend's budget or, for that matter, his successor's budget. If such a curtailment is not written into the Bill, we shall be doing a disservice to Northern Ireland, both now and for the future.
      Mr. William Ross: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who has set out the objections that any reasonable man must have to this part of the Bill.
      In schedule 1, under paragraph 5 the Secretary of State can appoint people to assist the head of a department. It appears that that is half of the Government's stick and carrot. We have the carrot of salaries and cars, which have been mentioned, and the stick of the power of the Government to refuse to allow devolution to come into operation unless it is power sharing. We now have the carrot of jobs for the boys.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend so early in his remarks. I wonder whether he is right in associating schedule 2, paragraph l, with schedule 1, paragraph 5(1)(b), which refers to
      "a person to assist the person appointed as mentioned in paragraph (a)".
      That is the head of a Department. If all that paragraph 1(1) (b) in the amendment were about was appointing parliamentary secretaries, so to speak, at least we should know where we stood. My hon. Friend has detected something that I failed to find if he can identify what is set out in paragraph (b) of the new subsection (1) of the Constitution Act with the appointment of a parliamentary secretary. If the Minister says that that is all there is to it, we shall have been helped on our way, but I wonder whether my hon. Friend is justified in that assumption.
      Mr. Ross: I hate to disagree with my right hon. Friend. Schedule 1, paragraph 5(1)(b), refers to
      "a person to assist the person appointed as mentioned in paragraph (a)".
      I do not believe that that is simply a parliamentary secretary. I should have thought that that was the equivalent of a vice-chairman at that stage of the game, before the Assembly evolved into a power-sharing Executive, which the Government desire. It is in that light that I make my remarks. No doubt the Minister will guide us and tell us which of us is correct in his assumption. It is clear that that is in paragraph (b):
      "persons to discharge such other functions as he may determine."
      It may be that I am incorrect, and that the persons to be appointed are not to be vice-chairmen to the heads of Departments. Perhaps it goes further than that. If it does, I should be very worried. I am worried about the ice cream being offered to those appointed to secondary posts.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Proctor: I should like to add my comments about amendment No. 70. At an earlier stage we discussed some of the matters mentioned in schedule 2. The purpose of

      365
      schedule 2 is to amend the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and to revise section 8 of that Act. It does that in a number of ways that the Minister will no doubt explain. The amendment relates to one aspect of the changes—paragraph (b) of the new subsection (1) of the Constitution Act, which deals with the ability of the Secretary of State to appoint
      "persons to discharge such other functions as he may determine."
      What are such other functions to be? What work does the Minister visualise that those persons will do? It is important. Are they to be of assistance to those persons who are appointed by paragraph (a)—
      "persons to be heads of the Northern Ireland departments"?
      Are they to be in some way Ministers without special responsibilities?
      We are setting up an Assembly that in its early days will have few responsibilities or duties, so I suppose that it is consistent with that that we should appoint persons to have no responsibilities. I should like to know what functions those persons will perform and what type of person will be appointed. How many appointments will the Secretary of State make? The notes on clauses are helpful to the Committee in advising us on that matter. The new subsection (3) states:
      "The total number of persons at any time holding appointments under this section shall not exceed thirteen but the Secretary of State may by an order made by statutory instrument increase or further increase that number".
      Why has the number 13 been chosen? It limits paragraph (b).
      The notes on clauses state:
      "if required, there could be a chief executive member, Heads of the Northern Ireland Departments (which are expected to number 6 shortly)"—
      after the order earlier this week that is now the position—
      "and deputies to those Heads; but there would be no need to proceed in this way. Under the Constitution Act, as amended by Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution (Amendment) Act 1973, the maximum size of the Executive is 11, although the maximum size of the administration as a whole (which includes the Executive) is 15. The figure of 13 is considered a sensible maximum bearing in mind the size of the Assembly, but that figure can be increased by statutory instrument subject to negative resolution."
      Why was the number 13 chosen? Why was it decided to allow the Secretary of State initially to appoint six
      "persons to discharge such … functions as he may determine",
      always on the assumption that there will be devolution of all the Departments in one go? Is there anything to stop the Secretary of State appointing
      "persons to discharge such other functions as he may determine."
      without any Departments being devolved? Could 13 people be appointed under paragraph (b) without a Department being devolved?
      What expense will public funds be put to in the appointments under paragraph (b)? What sum is in mind?
      Why does the Minister feel that there should be greater flexibility in the Bill compared with that in the Convention legislation? According to the notes on clauses the Government feel that they need to make the amendments because of the need for greater flexibility.
      The schedule sets up a crazy cocktail of Ministers of various sorts, sizes, colour and degree. It is a power-sharing exercise that I believe will come to naught, but I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure me on the detail if not on the principle.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: The amendment is designed to limit the size of the gravy train—the power of patronage in the hands of the Secretary of State who is bent on a policy with which a number of us on Government Benches profoundly disagree.
      I put one question to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary who is eager to reply to the points that have been made. It involves the manner in which the members of the Executive are to be appointed. Paragraph 51 of the White Paper describes the manner in which the Secretary of State will make appointments to the Executive. It is not clear whether the Secretary of State, in taking account of recommendations from and the views of parties in the Assembly, will be able to adopt a Cabinet system and permit the Chief Executive to make the appointments, even though the Secretary of State in name makes the appointments.
      At the time of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 1973, I moved an amendment to the 1973 legislation, with the support of the Unionist Party, to provide that, instead of the Secretary of State making all the appointments to the Executive, the Chief Executive should be able to appoint his colleagues in the power-sharing Executive. That amendment was not accepted by the then Government. However, it was a substantial point. Had the amendment been accepted, the power-sharing Executive might perhaps have worked less badly than it did. What is the position under the new arrangements?
      If I have trespassed slightly outside the compass of the new subsection (1)(b), I apologise to you, Mr. Dean, and to the Committee.
      Mr. John Patten: Let me first direct the Committee's attention to the matters of principle that have been raised. I shall then try to address myself to the important matters of detail, even if I am unable to satisfy hon. Members on the principles.
      As the Committee knows, the purpose of paragraph 1 of schedule 2 is in keeping with the spirit of the Bill—to continue to provide flexibility. That is one of the motifs that runs through the Government's thinking in the Bill, the White Paper that preceded it and the scheme that we think is necessary to reach the levels of accommodation that will be required to make cross-community support a possibility.
      The intention behind new section 8(1)(b) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, which the amendment seeks to delete, is to empower the Secretary of State, as does the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, to appoint individuals to discharge functions other than those of the head of a Northern Ireland Department.
      The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) asked us to turn the searchlight on these powers. I shall now attempt to do that to the best of my ability. I hope that I can demonstrate what is intended. For example, the power given to the Secretary of State would enable my right hon. Friend to appoint deputies to the heads of Northern Ireland Departments in a future devolved Administration—exactly as some hon. Members have suspected and hypothesised. There are good reasons for retaining this freedom. It is not simply that it may be sensible to appoint deputy heads of Departments. That would be possible, but it would not be necessary to proceed in that way. In other words, what I have said is the most practical example of what might happen under full devolution.

      367
      9.45 pm
      The provision that the amendment seeks to delete recognises, as does the Bill as a whole, that any devolution package will, without any doubt, require accommodation—not a very popular word with some members of the Committee—among different groups of the Assembly. Those who were members of the last Assembly will know how difficult it was to achieve that level of accommodation. We have heard in earlier debates of the difficulties that there were then in achieving accommodations.
      Therefore, it has been the aim of the Government, in framing the Bill and in designing the schedule, to give maximum flexibility within which the Assembly can come to such accommodations. The Government believe that accommodations will be facilitated by the flexible arrangements that the provision offers. It is worth while spelling it out again, even if it means using dreaded terms such as power sharing. There is nothing in the Bill that requires power sharing. That is absolutely clear on the face of the Bill. Equally, it is not ruled out. It is up to the Assembly to decide.
      Several Opposition Members have made great play during the long nights—it has not always been unamusing to hear them—of the word "cobble". We have been told that things are to be cobbled together or patched up. Is that not part and parcel of politics in the Province now?
      I read the papers in the Province, and I read with some pleasure and interest that in early June, as a result of a deal between the Official Unionists and the SDLP, an SDLP member was elected to be chairman of the Strabane district council, with the support of a member of the Official Unionist Party as vice-chairman. That was an accommodation made within Strabane district council, which is one of the 26 district councils within the Province.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: I am glad that the Minister has brought to the attention of the Committee the situation in the Strabane district council, because it makes the case that we have been arguing throughout the debate—that local government is the place where accommodations can be reached between people of Republican tradition and people of a Unionist allegiance. It surely bears out the view that there are not great obstacles to the enlargement of the functions of local government. The argument that local government cannot be trusted with enlarged powers does not hold water.
      Mr. Patten: I do not think that it necessarily proves or disproves my hon. Friend's case. What it proves is that in the political landscape of Northern Ireland there are forces which, when there is the will, can find the way to come to accommodations. If it can be done in Strabane district council, I see no reason why it cannot be done in the new Assembly when that Assembly sits, as I hope and believe it will, in the autumn.
      Mr. Molyneaux: I do not know anything of the background of the Strabane arrangement and it may be that that will exist on a stable basis. The phrase used by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) may not mean quite the same thing. The dictionary that I consulted on the meaning of cobbling something together referred to someone who is not a shoemaker mending footwear in a coarse fashion. I do not think that that would inspire confidence in any of the electors in Northern Ireland.
      Mr. Patten: Whatever the hon. Gentleman may say about definitions, he is the leader of the Official Unionist Party in Northern Ireland and I have not seen from him any signs of dissent about the arrangement in Strabane district council. I repeat that if an accommodation can be reached in Strabane, it can be reached in the Assembly.
      Turning from matters of principle to matters of detail, I shall try to answer the important points made by the right hon. Member for Down, South and my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor), with his characteristic list of questions, to which I have grown accustomed in the last 70 hours.
      It is worth while spelling out that, under partial devolution, all the members of the Northern Ireland Administration must be Members of the Assembly. It is important to get that straight.
      I must bring in the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) on the arrangements under full devolution. It is clear on the face of the Bill, and indeed it is spelt out, that there is no possibility of the infinite extension, without parliamentary supervision, of the number of members of an Executive whom my right hon. Friend could appoint. The number—13—is specified. That number could be increased by an order at a later stage, but it could not be increased in a creeping way without full parliamentary approval.
      Under full devolution there can be up to 13 members of the Executive as opposed to 11 under the last arrangement. All but two of them have to be Assembly Members. No hon. Member has picked on that point, but it is important. Only one of the heads of Departments, of which there will be six, or seven if there has been fission among the Departments, can be a non-Assembly Member. There is absolutely no requirement as such for there to be a 13-man Executive. It is not all or nothing under full devolution. It is not nothing or 13. It is simply a maximum figure.
      There could be a smaller Executive with other posts in the Administration outside the Executive. For example, there could be three members in the Executive with other posts outside the Executive, but involving the headships of Departments. That is just one possibility in the whole range of possibilities under the flexible provisions in the Bill so as to give Members in the Assembly the chance to make the accommodations that are necessary. I see the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who has long experience of these matters, assenting to what I say. I welcome that. All that we have sought to do is to give the Assembly maximum flexibility to assist it in drawing up devolution proposals—nothing more, nothing less.
      One of the questions put by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon did not perhaps take into account the fact that the maximum of 13 relates only to full devolution. Why 13? Under full devolution there could be a Chief Executive and because of the passage of the Departments (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 two nights ago, there will be six devolved Departments at least when the Assembly commences. The Assembly may wish to recommend that each head of Department should have an assistant. If the Assembly so recommends, and if that has the cross-community assent of the Assembly, the powers conferred on my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in this schedule allow him to make those appointments. It is as straightforward as that. But it only makes it possible for it to happen. It does not require it to happen.

      369
      I come now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) about appointments being made by the Secretary of State. All appointments will be made by the Secretary of State. I believe that to be clear on the face of the Bill. If, however, the Assembly were to agree to a scheme reached after an accommodation which gave the Chief Executive a special role in choosing members of the Executive, he could do so at that stage. It is the same story again. It will depend upon the nature of the agreement reached by the Assembly, making maximum use of the flexible provisions in the Bill.
      Lest any hon. Member fear that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will make the appointments under this subsection in an arbitrary fashion, I remind the Committee that before making any appointments under section 8 of the Constitution Act he is under a statutory requirement to consult. Once again flexibility is married to consultation. My right hon. Friend must consult as far as practicable with the parties represented in the Assembly and take into account any proposals for devolution submitted to him.
      The amendment should be resisted. Schemes that need to be brought forward to make devolution work will depend on a range of accommodations and the options presented to my right hon. Friend in making such accommodations are another example of the flexibility that may be necessary.
      Mr. Molyneaux: In tabling the amendment, we did not mean to imply that the Secretary of State had invented a provision for additional posts in Government where they were felt to be necessary and expedient and perhaps in furtherance of his plans.
      As my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, similar powers existed in the 1973 Act and they were put to good use. I remember the great day when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—the present Home Secretary—announced to the House the composition of the power-sharing Executive. I have no doubt that he had carried out the fullest consultations with the parties that showed a willingness to participate in the power-sharing experiment or to nibble at the bait.
      We had an odd example of Cabinet formation, because the then Secretary of State mentioned no names and used only party labels. He said that the Chief Executive would be an Ulster Unionist and the Deputy Chief Executive would be a member of the SDLP. He went on down the list only to find at the end that he had one man too many. As a result, the right hon. Gentleman created a new post—the Office of Law Reform—and the occupant for whom it was invented was elected without reaching the electoral quota.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) reminded me earlier that another obscure individual was appointed to the Office of Co-ordination and Planning. Such were his talents for co-ordination and planning that he never succeeded in finding a vacant office from which to carry out his mysterious duties.
      Those were front-line Ministers and Members of the Executive. Our amendment deals with a lesser breed—Ministers without portfolio. There are precedents for the appointment of such Ministers. A former Northern Ireland Prime Minister who found himself in difficulty
      370
      with his party in Parliament hit on the bright idea of putting half the Members in Government. His troubles were at an end, at least for the time being.
      I do not suggest that the Secretary of State will face such temptations. He will not be answerable to the Assembly and will not require votes. He will not even lower himself to attending the Assembly if he can possibly help it.
      The six Ministers who represent the six Departments in Northern Ireland can rightly claim to be overworked, but that is a result not of the burden of their ministerial duties, but of the fact that, by their own choice, they are bogged down with duties that could and should be discharged by district councillors and local government officers.
      10 pm
      As the Minister reminded us, the fact that people would co-operate in administering the law and carrying out local government functions, even at a high level, as they have always done in local government, is illustrated by his example of Strabane. I hope that the Secretary of State will think seriously in the coming days about all that has been said in this debate and, whatever the fate of the Bill, turn his attention to the essential job that has to be done, Stormont or no Stormont, and give the present district councils, almost by a stroke of the pen, the functions that they will have to discharge whatever system of government is designed to reign over them.
      The Minister, in his winding-up speech, reminded the Committee of the flexible nature of, and the structure that is expected to result from, the Bill. We would not disagree. The Bill is flexible in the sense that it can be pushed and pulled in all directions. It can be blown about in all directions. In that sense, it resembles a tethered balloon—sometimes not a very well tethered balloon.
      It is true, as the Minister said, that nothing in the Bill refers to power sharing. However, all hon. Members know that the Bill, even as it stands, without the mysterious Government amendment on power sharing that is being kept well under wraps until we reach the end of our debates, will not go anywhere without power sharing. We delude ourselves if we imagine otherwise. Despite what the Minister said, we still feel that the scope provided by the new subsection (1)(b) goes far too wide. I recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends and all hon. Members to support the amendment.
      Mr. Proctor: I am sorry to have to press my hon. Friend the Minister because he has been very courteous, as always, and very thorough in replying to points put to him. I had thought that my hon. Friend would not be able to satisfy me on the principle. It is entirely due to my own lack of comprehension. I should like to try to discover whether I understand the position correctly in regard to the maximum number of 13 set out in the new subsection (3). I think that the Minister was telling me that the maximum number of 13 would come into play only when the Assembly had the full panoply of its devolvped powers covering all six Departments. My hon. Friend said that the Bill would allow the maximum of 13 only with the full six Northern Ireland Departments devolved to the Assembly. Can my hon. Friend say where this is set out in the Bill? Can he tell me where to find that connection between the maximum number of 13 and full devolved powers for the Assembly?
      Is it possible for, say, three Departments to be devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly and for there to be three

      371
      deputy heads of Department as well as three heads of Department, making a total of six? Could the remaining seven positions be persons who would
      "discharge such other functions as he may determine"?
      Is there any limit on the number of
      "persons to discharge such other functions as he may determine"
      where full devolved powers have not come about? I hope that my hon. Friend understands the example that I have given.
      My hon. Friend the Minister also drew my attention to new subsection (5), about the two persons at any time
      "holding appointments under this section"
      who may not be Members of the Assembly. Although it limits it by saying that
      "not more than one of them shall be the head of a Northern Ireland department",
      the reverse of that is that two of them can be
      "persons to discharge such other functions as he may determine".
      Is it wise that the Secretary of State should take powers to appoint two people who are not Members of the Assembly to exercise those other functions? Is that a wise use of flexibility in this context? May I put a hypothetical question to the Minister? Presumably it would be possible for the Secretary of State to appoint two Members under the new subsection (1)(b) who were defeated candidates in the election for the Assembly. Am I wrong in that assumption, or is the flexibility in the Bill so stupid as to allow defeated candidates for the Assembly not only to be transformed into the Assembly but somehow to become persons under paragraph (b)? I shall welcome the Minister's comments on that matter.
      My hon. Friend drew my attention to the new subsection (6), which says:
      "If at any time it appears to the Secretary of State that it is not possible to make an appointment which complies with the requirements of subsection (4) above he may make an appointment which does not comply with those requirements but any person so appointed shall not hold office for more than six months."
      Again, that is a wide flexibility. I wonder how that subsection would affect the persons in subsection (1)(b).
      I am sorry to press the Minister on these points of detail, but it is important to get them right before the gravy train sets out, and to know whether the gravy train will set out with a full complement of coaches or whether we add to it bit by bit as each station comes along on the way to its destination.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I remind the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) that
      "the Caravan starts for the Dawn of Nothing—oh, make haste!"
      In yesterday's debate the Secretary of State averred that debates under the guillotine procedure were commonly better than debates without a guillotine. It can hardly be said that today's experience has borne out his assertion. Nevertheless, we have one advantage today, and it is that we can hear the Government's case at an intermediate stage in the debate and have the benefit, at any rate before the debate comes to a close, of an opportunity to comment on their case and ask further questions.
      I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for having set himself—even if he did not discharge it—the task of discharging the function—I must have been influenced by the language of paragraph (b)—of giving examples to illustrate the purpose of that paragraph. He started by saying that it could be used to appoint deputies. But then he stopped and simply went on to say that it could be used in other ways. That is somewhat curious, because when
      372
      we were discussing clause 1(2), which deals with proposals from the Assembly, on which these arrangements may eventually be erected, we found that they are to include
      "proposals as to the appointment under that section of a person to assist any person appointed as head of any such department."
      The Secretary of State confirmed that he would expect the proposals in some cases to designate persons to be heads of Departments and assistants to those heads. Therefore, one would have expected the corresponding provision for appointments to occur here. However, instead of appointments being made for the assistance of persons appointed as heads—which is what my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) seemed to be expecting—we have the far wider and completely undefined expression,
      "such other functions as he may determine".
      Therefore, we are still left asking the Government what, besides the appointment of assistants to heads of Departments, they envisage that the Secretary of State may do under this power.
      Was my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) right to suggest that the power might be used to create imaginary functions—Ministers without portfolios? Is that envisaged, in order to build up the so-called "cross-community Executive"? Colour seemed to be lent to that assumption by the Minister's use of the words "package" and "accommodation". If we are enabling the Secretary of State openly to create a number—up to seven without the use of his power of Order in Council—of bogus appointments in addition to heads of Departments, the Committee should be told that more candidly than it has hitherto.
      The Minister's reference to the custom, which is quite normal on this side of the water and which prevails generally in Northern Ireland, where there is a more or less permanent majority and minority of a party character on a local government body, for the occupation of the ceremonial position of chairman or mayor to circulate or alternate between the parties was unacceptable. In the administration of those arrangements, it is not unusual for disagreements to arise. Nevertheless, the general desirability of such a sharing of the ceremonial aspects of local government life is just as much accepted in the Province as it is in Great Britain; and a very good thing too.
      For the Minister to come along and say that it was done in Strabane, which shows that a power-sharing Executive can be constructed by a mix of members of different parties, returned upon different manifestos and for different fundamental objects, is a non sequitur of which he, above all others, must have been conscious even before: it was pointed out to him by the hon. Member for Epping, Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison).
      Mr. William Ross: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the position of chairman or mayor in Northern Ireland is not just ceremonial? In certain circumstances that individual has a casting vote, and in such a council, especially where there is, as in my local council, an eight to seven split on general Unionist/Republican lines, there is no possibility of such a post being given to the minor party.
      Mr. Powell: Yes, I am well aware of that. The former hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West needs no reminding that exactly the same situation obtains on this

      373
      side of the water. It is an arrangement that works better and is more honoured in the observance where there is not a narrow party difference between the two sides constituting a local government body.
      Whatever the circumstances in any council, it does nothing to support the Government's case for a power-sharing Executive. It simply shows that local government is ipso facto power sharing and that the framework for administrative devolution in Northern Ireland exists at the lowest level in the district councils. One needs only to create a similar framework at the higher level to deal with the other and major functions.
      10.15 pm
      The whole of a local authority is, ipso facto, the executive. It is the council itself that is the executive. Consequently, all the members of the council share power and participate in the executive. Of course, the different policies will be decided by majority voting. In so far as control of voting is at all consistent, there will be a consistency of policy on the different subjects that a local authority administers. However, that all rests on the ballot box. In local government, the result of the ballot box is faithfully represented in genuine power sharing in administration.
      The example at which the Under-Secretary of State clutched reinforced his opponents' case instead of buttressing the Bill. The essential difference between an Executive and a local authority is shown by what the hon. Gentleman had to say about the formation of the Executive. He pointed out that under subsection (2) the Secretary of State forms an Executive—as it were a Cabinet—out of those appointed as Ministers, or in some cases parliamentary secretaries—as it were—under subsection (1).
      The essence of such an Executive is its consistency and collective responsibility. A selection is made from among those who have been appointed as individuals to produce a given pattern of party representation. They are then told "It is expected of you that you shall act as an Executive and act upon the principle of collegiality and shared collective responsibility". Until it breaks down, the result will be exactly the same as the previous experiment in 1974. The Executive will do only things upon which there is no party disagreement. The Executive becomes lame because it cannot do anything which matters, which involves party differences or which brings into play the fundamental divergencies between those elected.
      Therefore, the power-sharing Executive discloses that it is a prescription for failure. It fails either because it is unable to agree and act as an Executive or because it cannot function as an Executive over the whole area of the subjects of administration. The sole result of the debate has been to show up, once again, the inherent impracticability of the principle upon which the Secretary of State has based his Bill. Before we divide on the measure, I hope that the Under-Secretary will be a little more candid about the way in which paragraph (b) is intended to be used to promote the power-sharing composition of an eventual power-sharing Executive. We should at least be plain about that.
      Mr. Fitt: I was reluctant to take part in the debate but I have been provoked into doing so by some of the remarks and inaccuracies of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
      The Minister was right to draw the attention of the Committee to an agreement made recently by opposing political forces in Strabane. In only three councils in Northern Ireland has that happened. It has happened in Londonderry—but not recently because of a disagreement—in Strabane, and in Newry with its overwhelmingly nationalist or Catholic majority which has decided to appoint a member of the DUP to the chair. The other 23 Unionist councils do not share power with the minority. They keep to themselves anything that is going. Where the Democratic Unionists have a majority, they hold the chairmanship and the deputy chairmanship.
      Let us follow the logic of the Minister's argument. We must remember that Strabane is a cockpit of dissension and close to the border. Atrocious murders have taken place there and and there are all the consequences of heightened tension, animosity and hostility between the communities. Despite that, accommodation was found in the council. Newry is another border town where murder after murder has taken place. The population of the town condemned the murders and found accommodation between extreme Republicans and the other extreme, the Democratic Unionist Party.
      I support what the Minister said. When the election took place in 1973 there was no guarantee that I, as leader of the SDLP, would find any accommodation with that brand of Unionism led by the late Brian Faulkner. There was no guarantee that the SDLP would find any accommodation with the Alliance Party, because a significant section of my party regarded the Alliance Party as an offshoot of the Ulster Unionist Party. On many issues the Alliance and Unionist Parties stood solidly against SDLP proposals.
      On many occasions the then Secretary of State, now the Home Secretary, was called in to chair discussions among the three political elements. It was not easy. Many compromises had to be made. Compromise is not easy in Northern Ireland politics, but after many hours of discussion and to-ing and fro-ing, we agreed. The Secretary of State did not have carrots or sticks. The people involved in the discussions were the elected representatives of the Northern Ireland people. They tried desperately to reach agreement, and finally they did.
      Those representatives did not bring the Executive to an end after five short months. The Executive was toppled because of what the paramilitary organisations did on the streets, because of the illegal organisations on the Protestant loyalist side and because of the bombing and killing by the IRA. That brought the Executive to an end.
      I accept the suspicion voiced by the right hon. Member for Down, South that the Secretary of State's power to make appointments may be used to make appointments on a power-sharing or cross-community basis.
      Mr. Powell: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the example of local government, does he think that the appointment of Councillor Graham of the DUP to the chairmanship of the Newry and Mourne council will make any difference to the political decisions taken by that council?
      Mr. Fitt: The newly elected chairman has already said that there may be times when the majority of council

      375
      members will wish to participate in cross-border economic discussions and that he must not attend those meetings. It may not have a specific effect, but the chairman's political allegiance will prevent him from acting wholeheartedly on every occasion with the majority of council members.
      The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) and the right hon. Member for Down, South have repeatedly said that all members of local authorities wish to have increased powers. That is a palpable untruth. They do not. SDLP members, who are in the majority on Londonderry council, and their supporters, who are in the majority in Newry and Strabane, do not want increased powers because they know what happened previously. They have not forgotten the strictures of the Cameron report, which clearly stated that the maladministration in local authorities was largely responsible for the beginning of the civil rights movement.
      Sir John Biggs-Davison: I did not put the point in those terms. The Association of Local Authorities has had its first conference. I have not yet seen the full report because it has not reached the Library. Did SDLP councillors at that conference dissent from the main view that was put forward by the vice-president calling for an enhancement of the role of local government in Northern Ireland?
      Mr. Fitt: I am no longer party to the counsels of the SDLP, but that party and all other nationalist political forces in Northern Ireland would bitterly oppose any attempt to restore powers to local authorities. Only three authorities can ever hope to be represented by the nationalist minority. The other 23 will continue to have Unionist majorities. The SDLP councils in Londonderry, Newry and Strabane may say that they wish to have increased powers because they are in the majority, but there are 23 other local authorities in Northern Ireland with permanent Unionist majorities.
      Mr. Dunlop: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman will have plenty of time. I have been provoked into telling the truth to try to clear up some of the things that should not have been said.
      Mr. William Ross: What about Omagh?
      Mr. Fitt: Omagh is a marginal case.
      Mr. Ross: What about Magherafelt?
      Mr. Fitt: There is no power sharing in Magherafelt.
      Amendment No. 70 wishes to kill any hope of cross-community or power-sharing government. It wishes to restrict the powers of the Secretary of State to make appointments that he believes will gain cross-community support and will be in the interests of the people. But the red herring that we do not need an Assembly because all members of local government are clamouring to co-operate is not true.
      10.30 pm
      Mr. John Patten: I rose in my innocence half an hour to three-quarters of an hour ago to reply to what is sometimes described as a short but useful debate. Once I had resumed my place, some additional and interesting issues were raised and I am glad to have this opportunity to respond to them.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Proctor) asked a number of questions with his usual clarity. Under
      376
      full devolution there can be up to 13 members of the Administration, all but two of whom have to be Assembly Members. Only one of the heads of Department can be a non-Assembly Member. I direct my hon. Friend's attention to section 8 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 as it will be amended, I trust, by paragraph 1 of schedule 2.
      Why will there be 13 members of the Administration? Under full devolution there could be a Chief Executive and there will be six devolved Departments. The Assembly may wish to recommend that each head of Department should have an assistant. The Bill enables that to happen but it does not require it.
      Secondly, I direct my hon. Friend's attention to paragraph 5 of schedule 1, which deals with appointments under partial devolution. I direct his attention especially to sub-paragraphs (1)(a) and (b). The critical word is "Notwithstanding". The 1974 act makes provision for direct rule and provides that there cannot be arty appointments to any Northern Ireland Administration at present but notwithstanding that Act remaining in force there can be up to two appointments per Department under partial devolution.
      My hon. Friend asked whether it was wise of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to have the power to appoint up to two people who are not Members of the Assembly. My answer is "Yes". That is because that power adds a certain dimension of flexibility into the arrangements and is another example of the flexibility about which I talked at considerable length earlier. I do pot propose to take up any more of the Committee's time on that. If I did so, I would only be repetitious.
      The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) proceeded to ask "What functions might there be other than those within the one example that has been given of giving assistance to the heads of Department, at present of six Departments but possibly more in future should there be fission or possibly fewer should there be amalgamation, as there has recently been?" I shall offer a few possibilities. There might be a Leader of the Assembly. There might be a Minister or Ministers with proper functions other than heading one of the six Departments. We have a Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, a Lord Privy Seal and a Lord President of the Council, for example, who all have Cabinet status and functions other than those of being a head of Department. There is a range of possibilities on which the right hon. Gentleman could doubtless speculate of Ministers being appointed to perform functions other than those of heading a Department.
      There might also be a deputy head of the Executive. That is another possibility. I am sure that the possibilities could be multiplied. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press me to multiply them, because I have exhausted my powers of imagination in giving a few examples.
      The right hon. Gentleman accused me—these accusations hurt sometimes—of introducing a non-sequitur into the debate when I referred to the excellent example of Strabane and the good, sound accommodation which seemed to have been brought about between the SDLP and the Official Unionist Party in dividing the chairmanship and vice-chairmanship of the council. We have had other examples in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).
      Mr. Dunlop: I tried to intervene in the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to remind him that there is another council, Omagh district council, in which Mr. Liam McDaid of the SDLP used his casting vote to vote himself back into the chair. The same happened in Magherafelt district council, in which Mr. Paddy Sweeney, also in the SDLP, used his casting vote to vote himself back to office. Therefore, there are examples where that high-souled action of the SDLP does not obtain, as it did in Strabane, which the Minister quoted.
      Mr. Patten: I do not have the same detailed knowledge as the hon. Gentleman about those two examples, although doubtless those actions were within the rules of order of those two councils.
      I was trying to rebut the cruel accusations from the right hon. Member for Down, South that there had been a non sequitur in my speech. I had not suggested that, simply because that accommodation had been reached in Strabane, one could extend from that a chain of a causality that would say, because that happens in Strabane, it will happen in the Assembly. All I was saying was that the example of Strabane, which fortunately was added to in the speech made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West, gives me hope that those accommodations that can be reached at local level might be reached at the Assembly when it sits for its first meeting, we hope, this autumn.
      Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will an Oxonian permit a mere Cantabrigian to observe in a matter of logic that his two cases are not in pan materia? The circumstances in local government are not comparable to the circumstances of the formation of an administrative Executive responsible to an Assembly. That is where the non sequitur arises.
      Mr. Patten: I do not accept that point. If I were unaware of the right hon. Gentleman's abstemious habits, I would suggest that we met at a later stage in another part of the building in order to carry the discussion further. Although I have spent 10 years in the university of Oxford, I, like the right hon. Gentleman, was educated at the university of Cambridge. I maintain that there is no non sequitur in my example. I used it as an illustration of the fact that walking around the political landscape of Northern Ireland were people of good will who could come to those accommodations across the community. It is that strand of good will that gives me great hope that the Assembly will make rapid progress.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 16, Noes 110.

      Division No. 238]

      [10.40 pm

      AYES

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Farr, John

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Budgen, Nick

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Dunlop, John

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Mr. James A. Dunn: I beg to move amendment No. 127, in page 9, line 30, at end add—

      AMENDMENTS OF CONSTITUTION AND ASSEMBLY ACTS

        'Presiding Officer of the Assembly'
        2A. In section 24 of the Constitution Act after "elect" in subsection (1) insert "in accordance with subsection (1A)", and after subsection (1) insert—
        "(1A) the election shall be by single transferable vote from a list of three or more persons submitted to the Assembly by the Secretary of State, having satisfied himself that each of them commands widespread acceptance throughout the community.'.
        The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): With this we may discuss the following:
        New clause 3—Presiding Officer—
        'The Secretary of State shall, at the beginning of each Assembly, appoint a Presiding Officer, who may or may not before appointment be a Member of the Assembly, and such Presiding Officer shall be a person who is, in the Secretary of State's opinion, likely to be acceptable to the Assembly and the community in general.'.
        Amendment No. 97, in schedule 3, page 13, line 8, column 3, at end insert 'Section 24(1) and (2)'.
        Mr. Dunn: The office of Presiding Officer will be one of the most influential, and perhaps powerful, offices in Northern Ireland, subordinate only to the Secretary of State and his Ministers. I appreciate that the Northern Ireland Constitution Act provides that such an officer shall be elected or appointed, but it is important that such a provision should be in the Bill so that we can be clear about how he is elected or appointed.
        My personal view is that there should be some guarantee that the person holding that office has widespread acceptance in the community, and a straight majority vote election does not always obtain that result. It is important to obtain the general consent of the community, because the Presiding Officer will be able to appoint the chairmen of the various committees and, indeed, their deputies if the Assembly so recommends and the Secretary of State accepts. He will also be responsible for the composition and balance of the committees. That is why the Bill should contain the means to ensure that the functions are performed well. It should also ensure that the person who performs those functions faces the test of acceptability.
        The Presiding Officer will have some power over how reports are gathered and in what order of priority they should be brought to the notice of the Secretary of State or this House. It is likely that in the initial stages the Presiding Officer will be responsible for recommending to Members of the Assembly how the specialist subcommittees are set up and how they should carry out the special tasks that may be allotted to them. For example, they may be asked to examine and report on various aspects of the structure of the Assembly, including its standing orders. They may even have a say in which proposals should be put to the Secretary of State or this House. We are talking of an office that will probably be responsible for so many things that, without the consent and general approval of the community, the task of the Presiding Officer will be almost impossible.
        I am aware that impartiality will be called for in great measure. I am also aware of instances in which people of different political persuasions have met and come to accommodations—to adopt the word used in the discussion of an earlier amendment. As a result of such
        380
        accommodations, as we have heard this evening, it has been possible for someone to serve as the chairman of a local authority and to discharge his functions to the satisfaction of other members of the authority and of the people in the area. But such accommodations are few in number. Unfortunately, the practice is not widespread.
        I do not wish to tread the path taken by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), but it is a known fact that in very few councils with an absolute Unionist majority have such accommodations ever been made. I understand the reasons for that, but we should bear them in mind when we are directing our attention to the office of Presiding Officer.
        The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concanrion) and his hon. Friends, in their amendments, have a similar idea to mine but suggest a different means of achieving it. They would prefer to take away from the majority vote of the Assembly the election of the Presiding Officer. They would prefer that responsibility to be placed in the hands of the Secretary of State. I understand the logic of that proposal, because the Secretary of State would be answerable to this House for that appointment. I do not go completely along that road, but I assure the right hon. Gentleman that in other circumstances I might have taken it.
        I understand the principles that the right hon. Gentleman wants to see embodied in the Bill, with the guarantee that the Secretary of State will be answerable to this House, but I should like to introduce a further element and that is that the Secretary of State should be enabled to produce a short list of people and the Assembly should then be allowed, on the basis of its knowledge and experience, to choose the person it would prefer, by majority vote. I should not go as far as to insist that it should be done by means of the single transferable vote, although most of my hon. Friends would prefer that system. If there is another means of doing it, with the general consent of this House, I should be prepared to forgo the single transferable vote system.
        Mr. Peter Robinson: I am not quite sure of the hon. Gentleman's point. Why would it be necessary to employ the single transferable vote system? Surely under such a system, when only one person is being elected, the quota will become half plus one, which is virtually the same as electing someone by a majority vote.
        11 pm
        Mr. Dunn: It is an alternative voting system. I tried to say that I should not go to the stake for it, but the majority of my colleagues feel that this would be a fairer system. If at the end of the day no candidate came out with a clear majority—which could happen—the single transferable vote system might resolve the dilemma. But I shall not tread that road, and I hope the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will not press me too far down it.
        The person chosen should have the general support of Members in the Assembly and those whom the Assembly is serving. We would not wish the nomination and election to be the sole prerogative of the Assembly. The Secretary of State should be involved because he will have to come back and answer to the House.
        I put the amendment to the Committee. I shall try to answer any points that are made, but I ought to give notice that I shall press the amendment to a Division at the end of the debate.
        Mr. Concannon: The very fact that I am speaking to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) means that I shall also be speaking about new clause 3. The official Opposition would like to register their vote on new clause 3 at the opportune time, but I doubt whether the opportune time will come this evening. When the Division is called, we shall probably for the first time on this unique Bill see all the Members on the Government side of the Committee in one Lobby.
        Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The right hon. Gentleman seemed to suggest that there might not be the opportunity tonight for a separate Division upon the new clause. Is that absolutely certain?
        Mr. Concannon: It is not absolutely certain. I think it will depend upon the passage of the amendment. As I understand it, we shall not be able to vote on new clause 3 until we have dispensed with amendment No. 93, which is 10 amendments away. The Opposition would like to reserve their vote for new clause 3. I am making the point that that is what we would do if we reach new clause 3.
        We should set out what the Committee has achieved so far. We have established that cross-community support is of paramount importance to political progress in Northern Ireland. We wish the Bill to be given the best start it can have.
        According to the Bill, the first thing the Assembly will have to do is to elect a Presiding Officer. The method of selection is laid down in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, section 24, which reads as follows:
        "(1) The Assembly elected under the Northern Ireland Assembly Act 1973, and every Assembly subsequently elected, shall as its first business elect one of its members to be the presiding officer of the Assembly.
        (2) The person so elected shall hold office until the dissolution of the Assembly unless he previously resigns or ceases to be a member of the Assembly or is removed from office by resolution of the Assembly; and if the presiding officer vacates his office before the expiration of his term of office the Assembly shall elect another person to fill his place for the remainder of that term."
        I recall that the status and functions of the Presiding Officer of the 1973 Assembly were similar to those of the Speaker of the House of Commons. He regulated debates, interpreted standing orders and officiated in other day-to-day proceedings of the Assembly. As far as can be ascertained, he was not formally involved in the selection and appointment of the Northern Ireland Executive. Under section 8 of the 1973 Act the power to appoint the Executive lay solely with the Secretary of State.
        The 1973 Presiding Officer did not have the absolute power to appoint the chairmen of the consultative committees. Consequently, he had limited discretion to appoint committees. It should be remembered that the Executive was appointed shortly after the 1973 Assembly was elected.
        The Assembly proposed in the Bill will have an existence, regardless of whether powers are devolved to Northern Ireland. In the first instance, and probably for some time, the Assembly will undertake its consultative, scrutinising and deliberative functions without any devolution of powers.
        Therefore, the position of the Presiding Officer is crucial. He will be seen as the symbolic head of the Assembly and of the Northern Ireland element of the Administration. Prior to devolution he will, of necessity,
        382
        exercise the functions of Speaker and Leader of the House and may undertake some of the work left to our Whips' Offices. In addition, he will have much wider discretion to appoint chairmen and deputy chairmen of consultative committees.
        It should be noted that, pending devolution, the committees will be much more important and influential than were the Assembly committees of 1973–74. During the recent debate on the White Paper "A Framework for Devolution", the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams) expressed reservations about the potential powers of the Presiding Officer. Reservations were also outlined by a number of hon. Members in debates on clause 4 of the Bill.
        The right hon. Member for Crosby said that the election of the Presiding Officer by the Assembly would provide a "thin basis" of consent for one who would be a combination of Speaker, Leader of the House and Chief Whip. He will also have the power to appoint chairmen of committees and two deputy chairmen. He must be seen to have the support of both communities and all the major parties in the Assembly. That is very important.
        The new clause stems from my experience as a Minister in Northern Ireland when the Labour Government established a Constitutional Convention in 1974. It had a limited life—six months and a possible extension—and a specific purpose, which was to submit to Parliament plans for the future government of Northern Ireland. Paragraph 53 of the White Paper on the Convention referred to the chairman:
        "The Government proposes that there should be an independent Chairman of the Convention, a person of high standing and impartiality from Northern Ireland. He will not be a member of the Convention. The appointment will be made by Her Majesty the Queen."
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who was Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, at the time of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, on Second Reading of the Bill stressed the importance of cross-community support for the chairman and said that his appointment would be made after consultation with all parties. A senior Northern Ireland judge, Sir Robert Lowry, was appointed to the position.
        We believe that the provisions for electing a Presiding Officer for the 1973 Assembly are inadequate for the new Assembly. He will be the most prominent individual in the Assembly. Not only will he have more powers and duties than his 1973 counterpart, but he will hold a symbolic and important position. Prior to any devolution, the Presiding Officer will be the leading member of the Assembly in any disputes that might arise. In the absence of an Executive, public attention will be keenly focused on the decisions and appointments of the Presiding Officer. It is therefore vital, in our view, that he is seen to be independent and impartial. The system of selection laid down in the 1973 Act is unlikely to achieve this. The Opposition propose that the provisions of the 1973 Act relating to the selection of the Presiding Officer be replaced by our new clause 3.
        The purpose is to introduce an impartial, independent and acceptable person into the most prominent position in the Assembly. It is essential that the Presiding Officer should be above the politics of the Assembly if petty quarrels over appointments and placemen are to be avoided. As matters stand, the Unionist block in the 78 or 85-member Assembly will be in the region of 66 per cent. Therefore, the Unionist block will decide the choice of

        383
        Presiding Officer. I am not alluding to any single individual, but I have advised my hon. Friends on many occasions that, whatever they see or read about certain individuals in Northern Ireland, there are others more greatly to be feared should they succeed in gaining such a position. I am thinking of some of the lieutenants down the line in some of the parties. What price cross-community support if this happens?
        If the first action of the Unionist block is to use its vote to place its own choice in that position of high trust, I do not see much chance of the minority within the Assembly accepting the placement. It was with this in mind that the Opposition tabled new clause 3 to try and give the Bill the best possible start.
        Mr. Peter Robinson: I am sure that the Opposition have studied the role of the Speaker in the old Stormont Parliament. I do not believe that Opposition Members in Northern Ireland at that time felt that the Speaker discriminated against them. Yet, he was elected by the Unionist majority. My party was the official Opposition at the close of Stormont. We had no complaints against the Speaker. Is it not true that the person who eventually takes on the Chair fills the role that is expected of him?
        Mr. Concannon: I would not be so worried if the Presiding Officer were to be the Speaker of the Assembly, but that is not so. He will be much more than the Speaker. He will have powers of patronage, of selection, of placing people in various committees. If he were acting only as Speaker, the hon. Gentleman would be right, but the Presiding Officer has a much greater role.
        Mr. Robinson: Perhaps I did not make myself clear. The person who eventually occupies the position takes himself out of his party role and puts himself into an independent or impartial position and acts accordingly.
        11.15 pm
        Mr. Concannon: That is not how I read it. If the hon. Gentleman could give me a guarantee from his party, and if the other part of the Unionist Party could give the same guarantee, that it wanted someone who was acceptable to the 78 or 85 Members of the Assembly, that would go a long way to assure me, but I know that part of the Unionist Party in this place could not give me that guarantee. The only guarantee would be something to be written into the Bill, as was in the Convention report. There would then be cross-community support for whoever became the Presiding Officer. The matter is too important to be left to a straight vote if we accept the Government's White Paper and their view that cross-community support in Northern Ireland politics is the only way forward.
        I have put much time and effort into studying the Bill, although I may not have made many speeches. I do not want it to fall apart at the first hurdle on the appointment of a Presiding Officer. If it does, it will be a disaster for us all.
        Of course, I am in some difficulty on amendment No. 127, because it contains some words which I do not like. If I advise my hon. Friends to vote for the amendment, I am voting for the principle contained therein and in new clause 3. Unless my persuasive tongue has induced the Secretary of State to accept the principle—
        Mr. James A. Dunn: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that that was in my mind. I kept a flexible
        384
        attitude towards a single transferable vote. I said that that concern motivated both of us. If our methods were different, it was not for the want of good intent.
        Mr. Concannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. We worked well together for a long time on matters concerning Northern Ireland, and we seem to be carrying on that relationship. I hope that he will not mind if we use his amendment as a vehicle for voting on the principle of the Bill, because it is obvious that we shall not now reach new clause 3.
        I hope that it will not be necessary to vote on the issue, because it will probably have the effect of driving all Government Members into one Lobby, which will be a new experience on this Bill. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the matter very carefully, because I am sure that he does not want the Bill, into which he has put so much work, to fall at the first hurdle when the Assembly is elected.
        Mrs. Jill Knight: I am overjoyed that, for the first time in the whole miserable course of this sad Bill, which has caused me many hours of mental anguish, there is a distinct possibility that I shall be in my normal place with my friends in the Lobby against these amendments.
        I shall direct my few remarks in particular to amendment No. 127. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) on his ingenuity. He has composed a paragraph which contains more controversy per line, suggestion and phrase than any other four lines that I have ever read. In the first line, we see the phrase that makes strong men quail and weaker men turn to drink, "single transferable vote".
        The hon. Gentleman has said that he will not go to the barricades on that. I do not know whether he can be influenced to withdraw it immediately. I have the strongest possible objection to a "single transferable vote". It is a clever means of producing confusion and is far from conducive to producing a clear-cut and straightforward decision.
        I was amazed to hear the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) say a moment or two ago that the matter was too important to be left to a straight vote. Do we not deal with matters of importance in the House? Is nothing that we discuss here of sufficient importance? Never do we have to resort to a "single transferable vote" in the House.
        Mr. Concannon: I qualified that by saying, as does the White Paper, that things are different in Northern Ireland. If the hon. Lady does not accept that, she does not accept the Bill or the views of the Government. That is fair enough. Those of us who have worked and lived in Northern Ireland for some considerable time know, as does the Secretary of State, that Northern Ireland is different and needs different solutions.
        Mrs. Knight: I certainly accept that things are different in Northern Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to think that I am against the Bill, but that is neither here nor there. One of my objections to the Bill is that throughout it we consistently put Northern Ireland in a inferior position to that of the House and the country. That I cannot accept.
        Let me return to the wording of this most extraordinary amendment. It says gaily that

        385
        "the election shall be by single transferable vote from a list of three or more persons".
        How many more? Ten, 15, 50? Why three? Is there something magic about the figure three? If there are to be more, why do we not say how many more? It does make a great deal of difference. I should not have thought that it was acceptable to have such an extraordinarily vague suggestion of anywhere between three and 300 persons whose names may be on the list.
        We come to the next star-studded line. Those persons' names shall be
        "submitted to the Assembly by the Secretary of State".
        What would the House feel if it was told that it was not entitled even to consider possible candidates for Speaker; that hon. Members were not competent to decide who should stand for that position? I cannot accept that.
        I accept that the powers of the Presiding Officer will be wide. If they cannot be fielded by persons within the Assembly, what calibre of person will we get as general Members? I could not accept that for the House, and I am blowed if I shall accept it for the Assembly.
        Who will submit the names to the Secretary of State? Will he pick them out of a hat? Are self-appointed people to come along? They may be, as in some of our elections, people seeking publicity. Even pop stars have put themselves up for election to the House. At £150, it is a cheap way of obtaining a large amount of publicity that would not be had otherwise. Will names be suggested by one person, more than one person, or a committee? Will there be a 70 per cent. majority from some mythical place to say whether those persons have some reason for having their names put forward? The whole thing is so extraordinarily woolly.
        When the names drop like manna from heaven on the Secretary of State, he must satisfy himself that each of them commands widespread acceptance. How does he do that? As far as I can see they will not have had to submit themselves—certainly not according to the amendment—to the electorate.
        Viscount Cranborne: Will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State might define or judge "widespread acceptance" in the same way as he would define cross-community support under clause 2?
        Mrs. Knight: That is an interesting point. My right hon. Friend may well decide to that. The amendment does not exactly tell him to do that, but the poor man will find it difficult to sort out how to meet the conditions of the amendment if—God forbid—it is passed.
        Mr. Sydney Chapman: If the person has widespread support, why have a single transferable vote system? If there is widespread support, there will also be widespread support from the Assembly.
        Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is another aspect to this extraordinary provision. I cannot imagine that it has been thought through properly by those who subscribe to it. The widespread acceptance must be throughout the community. We are not even sure which community we are talking about. Are we talking about the community in Belfast, the community in Ulster, the community of Unionists, or what? Why should that position have to have such a measure of
        386
        acceptance—again, I do not know how it will be judged—when the person involved has to be some sort of Speaker?
        It is vital that the Presiding Officer should have the widespread support of those in the Assembly. Anyone with the particular and special qualities that make a good Speaker will be best known for them by those over whom he will preside. The community will not know how firm he is the Chair. It has no knowledge of how good he will be when dealing with what may, from time to time, be a recalcitrant Assembly. It is not unknown in Northern Ireland for little fights to pop up from time to time. The Presiding Officer will have to have almost as much talent as you, Mr. Armstrong, so constantly display to fascinated Members.
        The amendment is nonsense and rubbish from start to finish. Hallelujah, I feel certain that the Secretary of State and his Ministers will be with us in the Lobby to vote against it.
        Mr. Fitt: The case put forward by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) is not as clear-cut as she would have us believe. I shall take a few minutes to draw her attention to the fact that the situation in Northern Ireland is difficult and quite unlike that found here. The Secretary of State should not underestimate the amendment's tremendous importance, whether or not he agrees with its wording.
        The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) said that he would not stick closely to the amendment's wording. He sought to establish the principle that the Presiding Officer of the newly elected Northern Ireland Assembly must have great support within the confines of the Assembly and of the Northern Ireland community. I have several years' experience of the House of Commons at Stormont. I was a member of it for 10 years. At that time the Speaker was the late Sir Norman Stronge, who was brutally assassinated. The House of Commons at Stormont had all the trappings of this House. Those elected were elected as Members of a Northern Ireland Parliament.
        11.30 pm
        It was a very different Northern Ireland before 1972 when Stormont was abolished. The Unionist Party had a vast majority in the House. It had 38 or 40 out of the 52 Members. The 12 Opposition Members came from four or five different parties. It was possible for the Speaker to be extra generous with such a small and divided Opposition. That Opposition would never be a danger to the governing party.
        Mr. Molyneaux: They were almost never there.
        Mr. Fitt: I accept that. Many were absent. One of the reasons was that it was such a frustration to be an Opposition Member. After the next election my right hon. and hon. Friends in this House could be in Government and right hon. and hon. Members at present in Government could be in Opposition. That is always possible here, but it was never a possibility in Northern Ireland. A Unionist Government took control in 1922 and won each election because of the in-built Protestant, Loyalist majority created in 1922. That majority was in power from 1922 until Stormont was abolished by the then Conservative Government in 1972. The small Opposition were never a danger to the Government party. They would

        387
        never sit on the Government side. It was a one-party State. Ministers did not even have to listen to Opposition arguments.
        I remember the Speaker, Norman Stronge, going out of his way to be generous to the small beleaguered Opposition. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said that the Opposition were almost never there. On many days Government Members were not there either. In debate after debate only four or five Members were present. The hon. Gentleman cannot condemn the Opposition alone.
        Hansard, newspaper reports and television clips prove that on the first day after we were elected to the Assembly, a combination of Members of the Alliance Party, the SDLP and then then Official Unionist Party voted for the Presiding Officer, Mr. Nat Minford. He was elected by a majority of votes. Pandemonium broke out. Members indulged in fisticuffs. People beat each other up in the corridors. The Presiding Officer—the Speaker—adjourned the House and a Member of the DUP, the Reverend William Beattie, proposed that he should be the Speaker. We had another election for a Speaker, so the House had two Speakers in one day. It was a shambles, and it continued in that way for several weeks.
        When the Assembly met the next day, Members not in the coalition sat on the Government side and had to be removed by the police. That was a bad start to the Assembly. Although the Speaker had the support of the House and of a combination of three parties, he did not have the support of those who were bitterly opposed to the Assembly.
        Mr. Molyneaux: Does that not confirm my repeated pleas to the Secretary of State to amend the Bill so that he can attend the Assembly to act as a moderating influence?
        Mr. Fitt: I did not believe that the hon. Member for Antrim, South would ever put forward such an argument. I waited for such an interjection from the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who always argues that Northern Ireland cannot govern itself. I do not accept that.
        My right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) referred to the Convention, the chairman of which was the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland. That was a difficult and controversial period, during which we were trying to reach a conclusion. Any one who saw the Lord Chief Justice in the Chair will realise the tremendous job that he did in trying to hold the Convention together.
        The hon. Member for Edgbaston seemed to be aghast at the proposal for a single transferable vote to elect Members of the Assembly. Whether she wishes it or not, successive Governments have sanctioned the single transferable vote for all elections in Northern Ireland, except elections to the House of Commons. The Assembly will be elected by that means. If the single transferable vote can be used to elect local authorities, the Assembly, the Convention and the newly created Assembly, it is nothing new to use that means for the election of a Speaker.
        Mrs. Knight: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman's remarks with care. However, I imagine that the first Speaker of the Assembly—whom the hon. Gentleman said was first-class—was not elected by the single transferable vote but was chosen from a list submitted by the Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman
        388
        gave us a colourful description of what must have beer a horrendous Assembly. Neither of the Speakers, who both seemed to be disasters, was elected by the single transferable vote, nor has the hon. Gentleman made it clear that had they been so elected they would have been more effective. What we are talking about now is not the system by which the Members will be elected, but how the Speaker will be elected.
        Mr. Fitt: I realise what the hon. Lady is trying to say. It is not new to have a single transferable vote in elections in Northern Ireland. The second Speaker in the Assembly was elected by the single transferable vote.
        I should advise the Secretary of State that Northern Ireland still has the Stormont building, which is regarded by the people, especially the Unionists, as the place where their Parliament was. Others in the minority community never regarded it as their Parliament. Many Loyalists did not regard it as their Parliament, just as they did not regard the RUC as their police force. That was a Unionist belief.
        We are jealous of the terms that we use about each other. The right hon. Member for Down, South bitterly resents Members of the European Assembly calling themselves Members of the European Parliament. There is some justification for that. However, Assembly Members will not wish to call themselves Assemblymen. There were many discussions about what they should be called. The Presiding Officer will wish to be called Mr. Speaker and the chairmen of the Departments will wish to be called Ministers, as they were in the previous Assembly.
        That is because Stormont has some of the trappings and atmosphere of Westminster, which is something that the Secretary of State will have to take on board. It was one of the greatest issues to face the Assembly's standing orders committee. It decided that the Presiding Officer should be referred to as Mr. Speaker and that the heads of Departments should be referred to as Ministers. The late Brian Faulkner was called the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland. It was understood that those titles had no value in law in the House of Commons.
        Against that background, it may be that no one from the ranks of the 85 who are elected to the Assembly will have the support of a sufficient majority to enable him to conduct the affairs of the Assembly with the support of that House. The effect of the amendment is to say "If that is so, the Secretary of State should have the right to appoint someone from outside to preside over the Assembly's deliberations." There are those in Northern Ireland, such as the Lord Chief Justice, who would have the support of the community outside but who would not taint their hands with politics as we know them in Northern Ireland. I am sure that someone could be found outside the ranks of the Assembly to be appointed to the Chair by the Secretary of State to enable the Assembly to find its feet.
        There will be difficulties—I have had experience of them—in the opening weeks of the Assembly. When the votes are declared and the deposits are returned euphoria will abound, but that euphoria will not be in Stormont. Individuals will want to assert their will or the will of their parties, in the newly created Assembly. It will be some days—it may be weeks or months—before a consensus can be found that will allow the Assembly to look to the future.
        I agree with the hon. Member for Edgbaston that I do not have all the answers, but nor has she. No one has all the answers. The amendment seeks to tell the Secretary of

        389
        State that at the outset of this political venture in Northern Ireland, which we all hope will have some success, a great deal of deliberation and consent should be built around the newly created President of the Assembly. I urge the Secretary of State to use whatever means he can to ensure that the right person gets the job, which will be one of the most important in the new Assembly's structure.
        11.45 pm
        Mr. Chapman: I listened with great care to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I hope that whoever is elected Presiding Officer, by whatever means, is a person who is willing to let the office make the man. I hope also that that man or woman will be able to act and to take decisions, inasmuch as it is in his or her power, in the interests of Ulster as a whole.
        The amendment was eloquently moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn). Although he said that he was not entirely committed to the single transferable vote system, that is part of the amendment and I must comment on it. My main argument is very much against having the STV system, as a general proposition, and certainly for electing the Presiding Officer of the Assembly.
        I know that there are various forms of proportional representation. For all I know, there may be various forms of STV. If one has an alternative vote to the traditional first-past-the-post vote, instead of a person being elected who is most liked by most people, whether or not most people are more or less than 50 per cent. of the total electorate, the person who is elected under STV is the person who is least disliked by most people. I do not believe that that is a fairer system, a more democratic system or, and perhaps more fundamentally, that it will solve the problem that Opposition Members seem to imagine. The STV system is more likely to cause disillusionment and disagreement among the elected Members.
        Mr. James A. Dunn: I say to the hon. Gentleman in all sincerity that the reason why that was part of the recommendation in the amendment is that the system is already operating in Northern Ireland. We took that as the basic guideline. I thought that I had made myself clear. The Secretary of State may say that there is another method, and that we can consider it on Report. I would accept that, but I wanted to argue the point.
        Mr. Chapman: I understand that point of view, but I must address myself to the terms of the amendment. Whether or not we think that it is good to have an STV system for electing Members to the Assembly—I have grave reservations about that—having elected people to the Assembly on that system, it does not follow that the best method of electing the Presiding Officer is by the STV system. I rest my case on that.
        I finish with one example because there is much misunderstanding. There seems to be an easy answer, that we can change the electoral system to solve the problem. In the 1945 general election in the United Kingdom, we had university seats. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will confirm this, for I do not know whether all the elections for the university seats were conducted by the STV system, but in one or two university seats that system was used. In one of those elections—I
        390
        think at Edinburgh university—the person who started bottom of the poll in the first round was elected in the end. That may have been an exception, but it happened. A great many people would feel that that was an undemocratic and unfair result, so they would be suspicious of the system of election.
        I ask my hon. Friends to resist amendment No. 127. It may have been born of sincerity—I am sure it was—but it will cause many problems that we could not begin to tackle, including some of the deeper problems that the hon. Member for Belfast, West and others mentioned.
        Rev. Martin Smyth: I ask the Secretary of State to follow the advice from my party not to accept the amendment. That is a forlorn hope because the advice that has come from these Benches has not been accepted by the Government. However, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will heed the voice of Ulster Unionists.
        If what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said is in any way correct, why try to get an Assembly going in Northern Ireland if we are such baddies? If the amendments have been put forward in the hope of making sure that Official Unionists do not act in a worse manner than they did before, it would seem to be a forlorn hope. The leader of my party, in an undertone, suggested that Santa Claus might be an acceptable candidate. I wonder whether Gabriel would be?
        Apart from the history, which has been related, of an abstentionist policy that set off on the wrong foot, we have missed the indirect tribute that the hon. Member for Belfast, West paid to two distinguished Speakers of the Northern Ireland House of Commons and Assembly who were strong Unionists who did not abuse their power. It would be wrong for the committee to think that they treated the Opposition benignly because there was not much of an Opposition. Sir Norman Stronge's character was such that he would have acted as a gentleman to all people. He would have defended the rights of Members and of the House of Commons.
        Sir John Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that private money has been raised to erect a monument to Sir Norman Stronge at Stormont?
        Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman drawing our attention to that fact. I was aware of it. I am delighted, because Sir Norman Stronge gave a lifetime of service to the community, not only in politics but in the British Legion and other organisations. We appreciate the tribute.
        I shall deal with the election of a Presiding Officer. It seems that there is a distinction between the role of Speaker and Presiding Officer. The Presiding Officer's duties are restricted and there are pressures upon him to conform to rules. I should not like the Secretary of State to follow any further the proposed new subsections to the Constitution Act, which would allow King Arthur Scargill to be appointed to the Government as a non-elected Member of the House. It seems that an elected Assembly, which is asked to advise the Secretary of State, is being circumscribed by the Secretary of State being asked to nominate those who should see that he gets the right advice. That eats at the facade of democracy that is being foisted upon Northern Ireland.
        Mrs. Jill Knight: Could the hon. Gentleman give an example of any similar Government or parliamentary

        391
        Assembly where the Speaker has not been an elected Member of that particular body? Does he share my feeling that it is a terrible indictment of the people who will be elected to the Assembly to suggest that none of them would be capable of holding the respect and support of the House over which he might rule?
        Rev. Martin Smyth: I do not claim to have an exhaustive knowledge, but I suspect that they do something like that in another place. There are Members of this place who are not sure that that other place should continue to exist.
        Sir John Biggs-Davison: I believe that there have been colonial legislatures in which the Presiding Officer has been appointed from outside the Assembly.
        Rev. Martin Smyth: Possibly. In banana colonies that might happen, but traditionally the Speaker has been appointed to safeguard the rights of the House against the monarchy. In Northern Ireland now the powers of the monarchy are virtually devolved on the Secretary of State. The proposal is for him to nominate the person who might be chosen by the House as the presiding officer. That is contrary to tradition and to British democracy.
        As we have gone further into the debate the House has begun belatedly to recognise that the road on which we have been launched is leading to casualties. Unionists rescued the 1922 Act which was designed to take us out of the kingdom. One would like to think that we shall do so again. But the House will be responsible for the mistakes made in the legislation and not the Ulster Unionists, who have guided matters in another direction.
        Mr. Michael Brown: I apologise to the Committee for not being present at the beginning of the proceedings this afternoon. I was in my constituency this morning attending the Lincolnshire Show, but I intended to be here for the first group of amendments, two of which are in my name. Unfortunately, the show was bogged down in mud and my car was stuck in a quagmire. As I tried to get it out, I realised that the Secretary of State might find himself in a quagmire if he proceeded with the Bill.
        Unfortunately, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) was not there to assist me, as he usually is. I have the privilege of representing his daughter, who has married into a prominent farming family, in my constituency, but she, too, was not there to help me.
        I do not disagree with the intent of the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). He wishes the Presiding Officer to be someone who can command the support and confidence of all Members of the Assembly. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was a Member of the Convention. He illustrated why he did not wish to see the situation that he talked of repeated, but I am not sure that new clause 3 is the answer.
        I am not sure that the Secretary of State making suggestions about the appointment of the Presiding Officer would ensure that all the Members of the Assembly had the protection of and confidence in the Presiding Officer, so that from day one the Assembly had a fair crack of the whip, as the hon. Member for Belfast, West would wish. How do we know that whatever is to be imposed—the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) put forward a suggestion purely for discussion—albeit with cross-community devices to ensure support, will provide the real
        392
        answer? I do not believe that it is possible for the Secretary of State or anyone else, without the wisdom of Solomon, to suggest for the position someone who may not even be in the Assembly.
        As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) said, it is inconceivable that the Presiding Officer should not be a Member of the Assembly. I should be happier with new clause 3 if it did not contain the words "may or may not". It would stand more chance of being seriously considered by my right hon. Friend had the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the person concerned should be a Member of the Assembly.
        12 midnight
        Mr. Concannon: That phrase was included in case a Member of the Assembly fitted the description and was acceptable to all. There is a recent precedent for this. That is exactly what happened during the Northern Ireland Convention. The then Secretary of State selected an outside person to run the 78-Member Convention. That person did the job very well and got it off to a good start. All I ask is that the Assembly gets off to a good start. In whichever way it is done, it must be acceptable to the Members.
        Mr. Brown: That is fair enough. The right hon. Gentleman says that someone was eventually found who commanded the support of all the Members of the Convention. I am not sure whether that can be done again.
        My right hon. Friend is setting much store on the fact that the people of Northern Ireland will have the opportunity to take their own decisions. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Presiding Officer will have duties other than that of Speaker. I therefore acknowledge the importance of the Presiding Officer.
        As the job of Presiding Officer is so politically important, surely the Assembly founders at the first fence. If the Assembly is to be denied the opportunity of taking this first important political decision, we are admitting here and now what some of us already believe, that it is not possible for it to govern Northern Ireland.
        Here is an opportunity to prove that people such as myself are wrong and that the Assembly is capable of taking real decisions and power. It should therefore be allowed to take the first important political decision over the Presiding Officer. However, according to the amendments, we shall circumscribe the Assembly's powers right from the word go. Those who support the Bill have said that we should give the people of Northern Ireland the right to elect their own Members and the right to take their decisions, yet we are not allowing those Members to elect their own Presiding Officer.
        If we cannot trust the elected Members to do that, I do not see how we can trust them to undertake any of the other obligations which the Bill, to a greater or lesser extent, will impose on them. The tabling of the new clause and the amendments shows that at the end of the day those who support the Bill do not trust the electorate in Northern Ireland.
        The right hon. Member for Mansfield let slip just now that he thought that about 66 per cent. of the Members of the Assembly would be Unionist, to one degree or another. He is almost telling us that we might as well do without the ballot box in electing the Members to the Assembly.
        The more that we debate the schedule and the Bill, and the extent to which the people of Northern Ireland, through

        393
        their elected representations, will be able to take their own decisions, and the more any element of election is reflected through the Assembly, with Members taking decisions on behalf of the Assembly, the more we find that those who support the Bill do not really trust the electorate. For that reason, I cannot support new clause 3.
        Mr. William Ross: A certain amount has already been said on new clause 3 and a great deal more could be said on it, but I want to deal in particular with amendment No. 127, which is unadulterated rubbish and could have been tabled only by people who do not really know the practical outworkings of proportional representation.
        Each political party in Northern Ireland has its own method of using the proportional representation system for the greatest benefit to itself. The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will confirm that in many cases his party picks an extremely strong candidate, and that candidate is expected to get a very large personal vote, which is then transferred to other weaker political assets of the same party. There are some outstanding examples of it in the local government elections. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman was himself the strong candidate for his party in his own area.
        The end result is that the strong candidate can carry in two and on some occasions three other members of his party who received a mere fraction of the votes that he received. There is an outstanding case in my own constituency, where the chairman of the hon. Gentleman's party received about 3,000 votes in the local government elections and carried in with him persons who received in some case 100 or fewer than 100 votes. That is one way of operating the single transferable vote system.
        A second method is the one that is generally used by the Unionist Party. It is to try to spread equally over the number of candidates selected the votes that they expect to receive. To a great extent it is the luck of the draw who loses if there are not three quotas and there are three people.
        The same can be true of the system used by the Democratic Unionist Party. But what is the effect of an STV election when there is but one position in contest? The end result of using the STV system in those circumstances is that the majority counts, and the person concerned is eventually elected by something akin to the simple majority system. If three people are put up, A, B and C, and everyone votes for the three, somebody has the lowest number of votes and so he goes out. His votes are then redistributed, and ultimately it is the person who has 51 per cent. of the votes who wins. Of course, if one of the three candidates gets 51 per cent. of the votes—or rather, one over the half—he is home and dry.
        Mrs. Knight: Did the hon. Gentleman not notice that it could be more than three?
        Mr. Ross: Yes; I appreciate that. But that is still immaterial. It just adds to the number of counts that have to be made before someone winds up with one over 50 per cent. of the votes. That is the only difference.
        There are two ways in which that conclusion can be reached. One is by the STV system and the other is by a series of elections, eliminating the person who has the lowest number of votes until a stage is reached where there are only two people for one position. There is a third
        394
        method of election, in which the person with the highest number of votes wins on the first count. The plain truth is that nine times out of ten, no matter what system is used, the individual who starts out with the highest number of votes winds up with 51 per cent. It is very rare, and it needs a certain set of political circumstances which will not exist in the Assembly, for an individual other than the person with the highest number of votes initially to win.
        That is one reason why the system set out in the amendment is rubbish. Another is that there is no meaning to STV or proportional representation where there is only one position. STV can make sense only where there is a minimum of three positions and preferably four or five. If there are more than that, it becomes so complex that it is utter nonsense. That is the nonsense of the STV system which so many hon. Members are prepared to see used in Ulster in an attempt to break the mould and to destroy the Unionist monolith. I hope that those who set off down that road are happy with the result. Very few in Ulster are.
        Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I agree that the amendment must be rejected, not so much because the Government's arrangements as proposed in the Bill are so meritorious but because what is proposed by the amendment and the new clause is so much worse.
        In Northern Ireland we will have on the one hand a system based upon devolution and on the other an attempt by the Government to obtain an Administration which has the support of the minority. That is an impossible target. No matter what the Government do, it will be impossible to attain it.
        It is in the nature of a democracy that there should always be some sort of Opposition. Many countries find that Oppositions are inconvenient, annoying and get in the way of efficiency, so they try to do without them. But we have found that the existence of a minority in Opposition is the guarantee of our freedom and democracy. To try to dissipate that minority in some way by providing bribes and by jiggling with the electoral system is antidemocratic. We are falling into that trap.
        Mr. J. Enoch Powell: We have fallen into it already.
        Mr. Stanbrook: We have fallen into it already, as the right hon. Gentleman says, certainly since 1972, if not before.
        One thing that could be said about the Stormont system is that it worked. No alternative system that has been devised or proposed by the central Government since has any chance of working, because of the basic objective of the central Government to try to get a local Administration in Northern Ireland which somehow crosses community barriers, has cross-community support, or complies with whatever phrase the Government use for the purpose of getting minority support for the majority, which must ultimately decide matters.
        Having insisted on cross-community support for any proposals that the Assembly may make, we are discussing how we can hamstring the Assembly to produce a Presiding Officer who will be the product of support from both the majority and the minority. It is not possible to legislate in such detail in the face of passions, opinions, prejudices and ordinary political warfare.
        12.15 am
        The Bill provides that the Presiding Officer must, in the Secretary of State's opinion, command widespread

        395
        acceptance. The new clause provides that he must be acceptable to the community in general, and the amendment refers to widespread acceptance throughout the community. On that basis, how will we find someone who is satisfactory?
        The amendments and the Government's proposals do not trust the normal democratic system to work in Northern Ireland. They do not trust the representatives of Northern Ireland people.
        Mr. Joseph Dean: The hon. Gentleman must recall that a previous Conservative Government eroded the responsibilities of locally elected representatives in the local government reorganisation which was opposed by every local government organisation.
        The NHS was also reorganised by that Government. They set up area health authorities with chairmen who were not answerable to anyone. Councillors were given only a small percentage of the seats on those authorities and the present Government have further reduced the places for councillors on the AHAs and on water authorities.
        Mr. Stanbrook: That is interesting, but it is not related to the problem of how the Government can arrange matters in Northern Ireland to secure acceptance by both the majority and the minority—in effect, how to get universal acceptance for any political proposition. The very idea is incompatible with freedom and democracy. It has nothing to do with what the House wishes to do in local government. I am speaking about the fundamental basis of democracy, which is that the majority should have its way after the minority has had its say.
        That is not how we legislate for Northern Ireland. We provide that the minority should have a veto over the decisions of the majority. We instantly bring to an end the normal healthy development of democracy.
        Mr. Amery: If we follow the principle of the minority veto, it is intolerable to introduce the guillotine.
        Mr. Stanbrook: My right hon. Friend is right. What is being applied in the Bill, and especially in the amendment, is the same sort of idea. Whoever is elected as Presiding Officer needs majority support in the Assembly and also has to command acceptance in the Assembly and in the community generally. That decision should be made, not in terms of legislation passed in this House, but by the individual electors themselves.
        Mr. Concannon: Why was that not done in the Convention?
        Mr. Stanbrook: That was just another example of the Government trying to get round the problem. There is a minority. The minority happens not to like the way in which the majority goes about its functions. How can we therefore make the policies of the majority acceptable to the minority? It is a conundrum that will never be solved in a free and democratic society like ours.
        Opposition Members, augmented by 50 per cent. since our original debates, will no doubt wish to put their propositions in greater detail. It is, however, a waste of hon. Members' time to have to consider the proposition that a candidate must be some one who already commands widespread acceptance. That is a negation of democracy. The matter should be left to the people. They should decide who among them has the greatest support. That person should be allowed to get on with the job.
        396
        Why should we assume that any such person will exercise his powers undemocratically? Why should the Opposition not assume, given the traditional experience of this country, that it would be possible for him to act within the normal rules, without the need for legislation?
        Mr. Soley: Does the hon. Gentleman recall the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who referred to the old system as a one-party State? Much has been heard in these debates about the causes of violence. One cause is the political despair of knowing that there is never a chance of winning by legitimate means. If we are serious about ending violence, we should examine the legitimacy of the political system that we set up.
        Mr. Stanbrook: The fundamental mistake was to put a Government in Northern Ireland separate from this Parliament. From the start there should have been a system of integration. The difficulty is that within Northern Ireland there have been political passions based on sectarianism. It is a phenomenon seen elsewhere in the world. One or other minority party constitutes the minority while one majority party constantly has the support of the majority of the electorate. That is normal democracy.
        If one wants to change that situation, one should perhaps examine the origins of the support. The problems of Northern Ireland may have arisen because there was doubt about the Union, which meant that there had to be a Unionist majority based on the overriding desire—overriding all other political issues—of people to stay in the United Kingdom. Without that problem to contend with, there might be neither sectarianism nor political parties based on sectarian differences. It might be possible to proceed in Northern Ireland as in Wales and Scotland.
        It is no use hon. Members saying, in the context of the amendment and the new clause, that by legislation one can make people fair and acceptable to everyone and that someone may not be appointed to this job unless he appears to the Secretary of State to be fair. That is not the way to make progress in Northern Ireland. If there is to be an Assembly, let us trust the people to operate the democratic principle in the normal way.
        Mr. Prior: Having just listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook), I am reminded of a remark that I made, either on the White Paper or on Second Reading—a long time ago—when I gave the somewhat simplistic reply to someone to whom I had given way during my speech that, if there was not a problem in Northern Ireland, there would not be a problem. My hon. Friend has amplified that remark only too well. There is a problem. It is all very well to suggest that, if we had tackled it differently 50 or 60 years ago, we would not have the problem now, but we do have the problem. That is why we have had a serious debate on the matter for the past one and a half hours.
        I start on a lighter and more reminiscent mood. One or two hon. Members asked whether there were other Assemblies or Parliaments which did not have an elected Speaker or a Speaker chosen from the elected Members of that Assembly. There are a number, but at short notice it has been somewhat hard to find out exactly which they are. I suppose that the best example is the Senate in the United States. There the Vice-President is the Chairman of the Senate, although he is not a Member for the Senate. That

        397
        goes for a number of legislatures in South America and, I suspect, elsewhere. However, I shall not get too involved in that subject.
        Mr. Amery: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
        Mr. Prior: As my right hon. Friend at an earlier stage of the Bill called me President Galtieri, or something like that, I do not know whether I should give way to him, but I will.
        Mr. Amery: My right hon. Friend mentioned the Vice-President of the United States. He is elected on a majority ticket. If that were to happen in the Province, who does my right hon. Friend think would be elected, and would that person be someone acceptable to the minority?
        I am sure that there are not many Latin-American countries that my right hon. Friend would like to cite as examples of the new Assembly that he is proposing.
        Mr. Prior: I shall not follow my right hon. Friend down that path. I want to make my speech in my own way.
        Mr. Amery: What about that point?
        Mr. Prior: I shall come to my right hon. Friend's point in my own way in my own speech.
        I think it is true to say that in the seventeenth century, when the Speaker of the House was appointed by the Monarch, Members began to get fed up with the attitude adopted by the Speaker. On those occasions, the House turned itself into a Committee of the whole House to avoid the Speaker behaving in a dictatorial manner. After the past few sittings, I have certain feelings about the manner in which the Committee of the whole House now operates, but, Mr. Dean, that is no reflection on your ability in the Chair.
        This has been an important debate. Under section 24(1) of the Constitution Act, the first business of the new Assembly is to choose a Presiding Officer. That arrangement is not affected by the Bill.
        12.30 am
        Several right hon. and hon. Members have expressed concern that the arrangements may lead to a Presiding Officer being chosen who might behave in an arbitrary fashion, perhaps when making appointments under clause 4(1) or (2) to the new committees of the Assembly.
        To prevent that, an amendment and a new clause have been tabled. New clause 3, in the name of the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), proposes that the Presiding Officer should be appointed by the Secretary of State, leaving him free to appoint an acceptable figure, if necessary, from outside the Assembly.
        Amendment No. 127, which is in the name of the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Williams), and which was moved by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn), proposes as an alternative solution that the Presiding Officer should be elected by a single transferable vote from a list of three or more persons submitted to the Assembly by the Secretary of State who must first have satisfied himself that each of them commands widespread acceptance throughout the community.
        Both those proposals would, in their different ways, give the Secretary of State a crucial role in the appointment of the Presiding Officer.
        The speeches made in Committee tonight, particularly that made by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr.
        398
        Fitt), drawing on his experience of what happened in the distant past and in the setting up of the Assembly in 1973, are important and should be taken carefully into account when deciding the issue of the Presiding Officer.
        Of course, there are considerable worries whether a Presiding Officer can carry the necessary confidence and conviction to make him acceptable to all parts of the Assembly. I recognise those worries and I have given them careful consideration.
        We have given much thought to this matter over a considerable period. However, the Government believe that the existing arrangement in the Constitution Act should not be disturbed and that the appointment of the Presiding Officer should fall to the Assembly, as happened in 1973.
        I want to give the Committee some of the main reasons why I believe that it would be wrong not to have the Presiding Officer elected by the Assembly.
        First, it would be wrong in principle for the Secretary of State to be involved so closely in the Assembly's business, especially when it is our intention to give the Assembly the maximum freedom to work out proposals for devolution and when the Assembly has the potential to develop into a legislative body.
        One function of the Assembly—in particular, of the departmental committees—is to monitor and criticise the activities of the Secretary of State. It would be odd, in those circumstances, for him to be seen to be making the key appointments. That point was brought out by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth). The Secretary of State would be open to the criticism of making appointments or of drawing up a short list for such appointments, so as to give himself the easiest possible ride. It would put the Presiding Officer in a difficult position right from the start if it were thought that he was appointed by and was therefore perhaps under the influence or had won the support at that stage of the Secretary of State.
        Secondly, as I explained on Second Reading, the requirements of clause 4(2) are such that there is no question of the Presiding Officer being able to behave in an arbitrary fashion, even if he were minded to do so, and given that the Secretary of State thought that the Presiding Officer would be an immensely powerful man. Of course, he will have a lot to do, but the freedom that he will have has been over-emphasised.
        The Committee will recall that, under clause 4(2), the Presiding Officer is already subject to the specific statutory duty to ensure that the balance of parties in the Assembly is reflected, so far as is practicable in the appointments of the chairman and deputy chairman, taken as a whole and in the membership of each committee exclusive of the chairman and deputy chairman. In practice, of course, he could not perform that duty properly without consulting the parties before making any appointments, and he would certainly have to consult them carefully. Although there were no such committees in 1973, when the standing orders were prepared and when it came to the appointment of Deputy Speakers, the Speaker was empowered to consult the various interests in the Assembly
        "to ensure as far as possible that the nominations are representative".
        Therefore, he would have to carry out the same procedures as he did then in talking to the leaders of the various parties and groups in the Assembly.

        399
        The right hon. Member for Mansfield drew attention to the fact that the Chairman of the Constitutional Convention was appointed by the Queen, and he was not a Convention Member. In the Government's view, the circumstances of the Assembly are different. As the hon. Member for Belfast, South said, the Convention had a limited role for a relatively short period during which it was required to draw up constitutional proposals. It had no legislative role and could not be turned into a legislative body. On the other hand, the Assembly, although initially without legislative powers, is essentially a legislative body like its predecessor in 1973 and 1974, to which a devolved Government will be answerable.
        It is a well-established tradition in the United Kingdom that the legislature should elect one of its number to preside over its proceedings. I have listened carefully to the arguments for departing from that precedent, but I remain of the view that it would be wrong to disturb the provisions of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. I agree with those who argue that it is essential for the Presiding Officer to enjoy the confidence of each Assembly Member. However, that will best be secured by keeping to established custom. I say to those who may take part in the Assembly that if the Presiding Officer is to carry out his very delicate job, he will need broad acceptance. if he does not have it, it will not work. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, South. However, I believe that the vast majority of Members of the Assembly—I hope all—will want the Assembly to work and will seek to ensure that the Presiding Officer is acceptable to all cross sections of the Assembly.
        Mr. Concannon: I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point about the difference between the Convention and the 1973 Assembly. However, we appointed the Chairman of the Convention in that way for the very reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). The hon. Member for Liverpool, Kirkdale (Mr. Dunn) and I were there in 1973 and we were there for the Convention. We saw what happened in 1973 and we do not want the same situation to arise. I accept that there is a difference between the Convention and what happened in the Assembly, but the reasons for the appointment were the same as those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West.
        Mr. Prior: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman says, save that, although he had the experience of 1973 and therefore judged it right not to allow the Convention to elect a Speaker from its midst, after all the shenanigans it was able to elect a Presiding Officer from its midst—Mr. Nat Minford. He was an example of a good Presiding Officer and all settled down.
        I should be worried about any appointment by the Secretary of State. We are seeking to place the responsibility upon the people of Northern Ireland. It is for the people of Northern Ireland to come to their own decisions. If they make a mess of it, that is up to them. I hope that they will not make a mess of it, but, if they do, that is their affair. I believe that the Assembly will prove itself, as it did with Mr. Minford and Sir Norman Stronge, to whom tributes have been paid. Most people who occupy that great Chair and draw their traditions from the House of Commons recognise that they have a duty to safeguard the interests of the Assembly as a whole and of individual Assembly Members, irrespective of their political views.
        400
        I recognise the anxieties which have given rise to the amendments and the new clause. I do not dismiss them lightly. One can argue about the construction of the amendments and STV, but I understand what is behind them. The past conduct of elected representatives in Northern Ireland does not justify the assumption that the impartiality of the occupant of the Chair will not be respected.
        The tradition stemming from the House of Commons, that once a Member takes the Chair he leaves his party behind and is responsible to the whole House, is very deep. On that basis, I ask the Committee not to accept the amendment, however well intentioned it is. I ask the Committee to give to the people who will form the new Assembly the right, opportunity and responsibility for making the decision about their own Presiding Officer.
        Mr. James A. Dunn: The Secretary of State has answered the debate persuasively. I intend no discourtesy, nor do I wish to demonstrate that I disagree fundamentally with some of what he said, but I hope that hon. Members will support the amendment in the Lobby.
        The arguments have not been answered to our satisfaction. I took it amiss that several hon. Members spoke emotively and attributed to me a knowledge and experience of rubbish. Hon. Members who alleged that were not here to listen to the opening speeches and they were absent when the Secretary of State replied.
        I hope that the House will take note of those who plead with an open heart and say that they will take nothing less than they require. If that is the behaviour that they wish to impose on Northern Ireland, it is not required. They have enough problems without that.
        There must be broad community support for the Speaker of the Assembly. If we were to follow the traditions of this House and the custom of recognition of and courtesy between Members who disagree fundamentally and politically, there would not be a problem. However, the post of Speaker will include the major responsibility of appointing chairmen and deputy chairmen of committees. He must take into account the balance of the political parties and the majority and minority communities. He must take into account all the influencing factors, perhaps even religion. If the post attracts such responsibilities, the Secretary of State should also become involved.
        I have great regard for the office of Secretary of State, as well as for the person who holds it. The Assembly will probably not respond in the way that he fears, although I can understand his reluctance to be committed. He wishes to see the matter evolve in a way that will not cause the conflict that he fears.
        The Secretary of State believes that the Assembly should take those decisions. He does not wish to be involved, because he has problems of his own, and he takes the view "Let the Assembly take the decisions and face the consequences." If he really meant that, he would not have fought so hard and for so long in Committee for this Bill. I chide him in generosity, and I go no further.
        If the Committee does not take account of the special needs of Northern Ireland and the special problems that will occur because of the duties to be imposed on the Presiding Officer, and if it does not bear in mind the political and other pressures that will be put on him, I fear

        401
        for the future. The Committee should come to a decision tonight. Perhaps the Secretary of State will take account of the Division and bear it in mind on Report.
        Question put, That the amendment be made:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 32, Noes 129.

        Division No. 238]

        [10.40 pm

        AYES

        Biggs-Davison, Sir John

        Farr, John

        Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

        Gardiner, George (Reigate)

        Budgen, Nick

        Kilfedder, James A.

        Dunlop, John

        Knight, Mrs Jill

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

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

        Macmillan, Rt Hon M.

        Molyneaux, James

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Murphy, Christopher

        Mr. William Ross and

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

        Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

        NOES

        Arnold, Tom

        Mellor, David

        Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

        Mills, Iain (Meriden)

        Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Beith, A.J.

        Mitchell, R. C. (Soton Itchen)

        Berry, Hon Anthony

        Moate, Roger

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Montgomery, Fergus

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Moore, John

        Blackburn, John

        Mudd, David

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Myles, David

        Boyson, Dr Rhodes

        Neale, Gerrard

        Braine, Sir Bernard

        Needham, Richard

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        Newton, Tony

        Bruce-Gardyne, John

        Onslow, Cranley

        Butcher, John

        Osborn, John

        Cadbury, Jocelyn

        Page, John (Harrow, West)

        Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)

        Page, Richard (SW Herts)

        Chapman, Sydney

        Patten John (Oxford)

        Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Pawsey, James

        Cope, John

        Pollock, Alexander

        Costain, Sir Albert

        Prior, Rt Hon James

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Dover, Denshore

        Rhodes James, Robert

        du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Dunn, James A.

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

        Roper, John

        Fitt, Gerard

        Rossi, Hugh

        Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

        Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

        Greenway, Harry

        Scott, Nicholas

        Hamilton, Hon A.

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Hawkins, Sir Paul

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Hawksley, Warren

        Silvester, Fred

        Heddle, John

        Skinner, Dennis

        Hill, James

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Hordern, Peter

        Speed, Keith

        Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Speller, Tony

        Howells, Geraint

        Stainton, Keith

        Hunt, David (Wirral)

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Stevens, Martin

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Stradling Thomas, J.

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

        Kershaw, Sir Anthony

        Thompson, Donald

        Kimball, Sir Marcus

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Lang, Ian

        Trotter, Neville

        Latham, Michael

        Waller, Gary

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Watson, John

        Lester, Jim (Beeston)

        Wells, John (Maidstone)

        Lyell, Nicholas

        Wheeler, John

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Wickenden, Keith

        MacGregor, John

        Wolfson, Mark

        Madel, David

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Major, John

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Marten, Rt Hon Neil

        Mr. Selwyn Gummer and

        Mather, Carol

        Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones

        Division No. 239]

        [12.50 am

        AYES

        Anderson, Donald

        Janner, Hon Greville

        Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

        McCartney, Hugh

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

        McDonald, Dr Oonagh

        Concannon, Rt Hon J. D.

        McKay, Allen (Penistone)

        Cryer, Bob

        McNamara, Kevin

        Cunliffe, Lawrence

        Morton, George

        Dalyell, Tam

        Palmer, Arthur

        Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

        Penhaligon, David

        Dewar, Donald

        Pitt, William Henry

        Dormand, Jack

        Silkin, Rt Hon J. (Deptford)

        Dubs, Alfred

        Skinner, Dennis

        Dunn, James A.

        Soley, Clive

        Evans, John (Newton)

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Fitch, Alan

        Welsh, Michael

        George, Bruce

        Hardy, Peter

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

        Mr. A. J. Beith and

        Haynes, Frank

        Mr. John Roper.

        NOES

        Arnold, Tom

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

        Kershaw, Sir Anthony

        Atkinson, David (B'm'th,E)

        Kilfedder, James A.

        Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

        Kimball, Sir Marcus

        Berry, Hon Anthony

        Kitson, Sir Timothy

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Knight, Mrs Jill

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Latham, Michael

        Biggs-Davison. Sir John

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Blackburn, John

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Lester, Jim (Beeston)

        Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Boyson, Dr Rhodes

        Lyell, Nicholas

        Braine, Sir Bernard

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Brooke, Hon Peter

        MacGregor, John

        Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

        Madel, David

        Bruce-Gardyne, John

        Major, John

        Budgen, Nick

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Butcher, John

        Marten, Rt Hon Neil

        Cadbury, Jocelyn

        Mather, Carol

        Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)

        Mellor, David

        Chapman, Sydney

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Mills, Iain (Meriden)

        Cope, John

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Costain, Sir Albert

        Moate, Roger

        Cranborne, Viscount

        Molyneaux, James

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Montgomery, Fergus

        Dover, Denshore

        Moore, John

        du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

        Mudd, David

        Dunlop, John

        Murphy, Christopher

        Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

        Myles, David

        Farr, John

        Neale, Gerrard

        Gardiner, George (Reigate)

        Needham, Richard

        Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

        Newton, Tony

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Onslow, Cranley

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Osborn, John

        Gorst, John

        Page, John (Harrow, West)

        Greenway, Harry

        Page, Richard (SW Herts)

        Gummer, John Selwyn

        Patten, John (Oxford)

        Hamilton, Hon A.

        Pawsey, James

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Pollock, Alexander

        Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

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

        Hawkins, Sir Paul

        Prior, Rt Hon James

        Hawksley, Warren

        Proctor, K. Harvey

        Heddle, John

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Hill, James

        Rhodes, James, Robert

        Hordern, Peter

        RhysWilliams, Sir Brandon

        Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Hunl, John (Ravensbourne)

        Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

        402

        Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

        Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

        Rossi, Hugh

        Thompson, Donald

        Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

        Thornton, Malcolm

        Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

        Trippier, David

        Scott, Nicholas

        Trotter, Neville

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Waller, Gary

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Watson, John

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Wells, Bowen

        Silvester, Fred

        Wells, John (Maidstone)

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Wheeler, John

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

        Wickenden, Keith

        Speed, Keith

        Wolfson, Mark

        Speller, Tony

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Stainton, Keith

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Stevens, Martin

        Mr. David Hunt and

        Stradling Thomas, J.

        Mr. Ian Lang.

        Taylor, Teddy (S' end E)

        Question accordingly negatived.
        THE SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions on Amendments, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given, to that part of the Bill to be concluded at One o' clock.
        Amendments made: No. 115, in page 10, line 6, leave out from 'Minister' to end of line 8.
        No. 87, in page 12, line 4, after '2', insert 'or 5(3)'.—[Mr. Prior.]
        THE SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at One o'clock.
        Question put, That this schedule, as amended, be the Second schedule to the Bill:—
        The Committee divided: Ayes 112, Noes 22.

        Division No. 240]

        [1.00 am

        AYES

        Arnold, Tom

        Hordern, Peter

        Aspinwall, Jack

        Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

        Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S'thorne)

        Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

        Atkinson, David (B' m' th, E)

        Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

        Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

        Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

        Beith, A.J.

        Kershaw, Sir Anthony

        Berry, Hon Anthony

        Kimball, Sir Marcus

        Bevan, David Gilroy

        Kitson, Sir Timothy

        Biffen, Rt Hon John

        Lang, Ian

        Blackburn, John

        Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

        Boscawen, Hon Robert

        Lester, Jim (Beeston)

        Bottomley, Peter (W' wich W)

        Lyell, Nicholas

        Boyson, Dr Rhodes

        Macfarlane, Neil

        Braine, Sir Bernard

        MacGregor, John

        Brown, Ronald W, (H'ckn'y S)

        Madel, David

        Bruce-Gardyne, John

        Major, John

        Butcher, John

        Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

        Cadbury, Jocelyn

        Marten, Rt Hon Neil

        Carlisle, Rt Hon M.(R'c'n)

        Mather, Carol

        Chapman, Sydney

        Mellor, David

        Clark, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

        Meyer, Sir Anthony

        Cope, John

        Mills, Iain (Meriden)

        Costain, Sir Albert

        Miscampbell, Norman

        Dorrell, Stephen

        Moate, Roger

        Dover, Denshore

        Montgomery, Fergus

        du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

        Moore, John

        Dunn, James A.

        Mudd, David

        Dunn, Robe (Dartford)

        Myles, David

        Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

        Neale, Gerrard

        Garel-Jones, Tristan

        Needham, Richard

        Goodlad, Alastair

        Newton, Tony

        Greenway, Harry

        Onslow, Cranley

        Gummer, John Selwyn

        Osborn, John

        Hamilton, Hon A.

        Page, John (Harrow, West)

        Hampson, Dr Keith

        Page, Richard (SW Herts)

        Hawkins, Sir Paul

        Patten, John (Oxford)

        Hawksley, Warren

        Pawsey, James

        Heddle, John

        Penhaligon, David

        Hill, James

        Pitt, William Henry

        403

        Pollock, Alexander

        Stevens, Martin

        Prior, Rt Hon James

        Stradling Thomas, J.

        Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

        Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

        Rhodes James, Robert

        Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

        Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

        Thompson, Donald

        Ridsdale, Sir Julian

        Trippier, David

        Roper, John

        Trotter, Neville

        Rossi, Hugh

        Waller, Gary

        Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

        Watson, John

        Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

        Wells, Bowen

        Scott, Nicholas

        Wells, John (Maidstone)

        Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

        Wheeler, John

        Shelton, William (Streatham)

        Wickenden, Keith

        Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

        Wolfson, Mark

        Silvester, Fred

        Younger, Rt Hon George

        Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

        Speed, Keith

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Speller, Tony

        Mr. Peter Brooke and

        Steel, Rt Hon David

        Mr. David Hunt.

        NOES

        Amery, Rt Hon Julian

        Lawrence, Ivan

        Biggs-Davison, Sir John

        Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

        Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

        Molyneaux, James

        Budgen, Nick

        Murphy, Christopher

        Cranborne, Viscount

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

        Cryer, Bob

        Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

        Dunlop, John

        Skinner, Dennis

        Farr, John

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

        Gardiner, George (Reigate)

        Stanbrook, Ivor

        Gorst, John

        Kilfedder, James A.

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Knight, Mrs. Jill

        Mr. William Ross and

        Latham, Michael

        Mr. K. Harvey Proctor

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Schedule 2, as amended agreed to.

    Clause 7

      SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETATION AND REPEALS
      Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
      The Committee divided:Ayes 112, Noes 20.

      Division No. 241]

      [1.15 am

      AYES

      Arnold, Tom

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Hamilton, Hon A.

      Atkins, Rt Hon H. (S' thorne)

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Atkinson, David (B'm'th, E)

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Beith, A.J.

      Heddle, John

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Hill, James

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Blackburn, John

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Lang, Ian

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

      Latham, Michael

      Butcher, John

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Chapman, Sydney

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      MacGregor, John

      Cope, John

      Madel, David

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Major, John

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Dover, Denshore

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Mather, Carol

      Dunn, James A.

      Mellor, David

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Goodlad, Alastair

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Greenway, Harry

      Moate, Roger

      404

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Moore, John

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Mudd, David

      Silvester, Fred

      Myles, David

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Neale, Gerrard

      Speed, Keith

      Needham, Richard

      Speller, Tony

      Newton, Tony

      Stainton, Keith

      Onslow, Cranley

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Osborn, John

      Stevens, Martin

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Pawsey, James

      Thompson, Donald

      Penhaligon, David

      Trippier, David

      Pitt, William Henry

      Trotter, Neville

      Pollock, Alexander

      Waller, Gary

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Watson, John

      Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

      Wells, Bowen

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      Wheeler, John

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Wickenden, Keith

      Roper, John

      Wolfso, Mark

      Rossi, Hugh

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Scott, Nicholas

      Mr. David Hunt and

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      NOES

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Molyneaux, James

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

      Murphy, Christopher

      Budgen, Nick

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

      Cryer, Bob

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Dunlop, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      Farr, John

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

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Gorst, John

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Mr. William Ross and

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Mr. K. Harvey-Proctor.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 3

      REPEALS
      Question put, That this schedule be the Third schedule to the Bill: —
      The Committee divided: Ayes 111, Noes 21.

      Division No. 242]

      [1.25 am

      AYES

      Arnold, Tom

      Dorrell, Stephen

      Aspinwall, Jack

      Dover, Denshore

      Atkins, Rt Hon H.(S' thorne)

      du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

      Atkinson, David (B' m' th, E)

      Dunn, James A.

      Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

      Dunn, Robert (Dartford)

      Beith, A. J.

      Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)

      Berry, Hon Anthony

      Good lad, Alastair

      Bevan, David Gilroy

      Greenway, Harry

      Biffen, Rt Hon John

      Gummer, John Selwyn

      Blackburn, John

      Hampson, Dr Keith

      Boscawen, Hon Robert

      Hawkins, Sir Paul

      Bottomley, Peter (W'wich W)

      Hawksley, Warren

      Boyson, Dr Rhodes

      Heddle, John

      Braine, Sir Bernard

      Hill, James

      Brooke, Hon Peter

      Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

      Brown, Ronald W. (H'ckn'y S)

      Hunt, David (Wirral)

      Butcher, John

      Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)

      Cadbury, Jocelyn

      Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

      Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (R'c'n)

      Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

      Chapman, Sydney

      Kershaw, Sir Anthony

      Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Kimball, Sir Marcus

      Cope, John

      Kitson, Sir Timothy

      Costain, Sir Albert

      Lang, Ian

      405

      Latham, Michael

      Ridsdale, Sir Julian

      Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

      Roper, John

      Lester, Jim (Beeston)

      Rossi, Hugh

      Lyell, Nicholas

      Rumbold, Mrs A. C. R.

      Macfarlane, Neil

      Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

      MacGregor, John

      Scott, Nicholas

      Madel, David

      Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

      Major, John

      Shelton, William (Streatham)

      Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

      Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

      Marten, Rt Hon Neil

      Silvester, Fred

      Mather, Carol

      Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

      Mellor, David

      Speed, Keith

      Meyer, Sir Anthony

      Speller, Tony

      Mills, Iain (Meriden)

      Stainton, Keith

      Miscampbell, Norman

      Steel, Rt Hon David

      Moate, Roger

      Stevens, Martin

      Montgomery, Fergus

      Stradling Thomas, J.

      Moore, John

      Taylor, Teddy (S' end E)

      Mudd, David

      Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

      Myles, David

      Thompson, Donald

      Neale, Gerrard

      Trippier, David

      Needham, Richard

      Trotter, Neville

      Newton, Tony

      Waller, Gary

      Onslow, Cranley

      Watson, John

      Osborn, John

      Wells, Bowen

      Page, John (Harrow, West)

      Wells, John (Maidstone)

      Page, Richard (SW Herts)

      Wheeler, John

      Patten, John (Oxford)

      Wickenden, Keith

      Pawsey, James

      Wolfson, Mark

      Penhallgon, David

      Younger, Rt Hon George

      Pitt, William Henry

      Pollock, Alexander

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Prior, Rt Hon James

      Mr. Archie Hamilton and

      Rhodes James, Robert

      Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.

      Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

      NOES

      Amery, Rt Hon Julian

      Budgen, Nick

      Biggs-Davison, Sir John

      Cranborne, Viscount

      Brown, Michael (Brigg & Sc'n)

      Cryer, Bob

      406

      Dunlop, John

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

      Farr, John

      Robinson, P. (Belfast E)

      Gardiner, George (Reigate)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Gorst, John

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

      Kilfedder, James A.

      Stanbrook, Ivor

      Knight, Mrs Jill

      Lawrence, Ivan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)

      Mr. William Ross and

      Molyneaux, James

      Mr. K. Harvey Proctor.

      Murphy, Christopher

      Question accordingly agreed to
      Schedule 3 agreed to
      Whereupon THE SECOND DEPUTY CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report the Bill, as amended, to the House, pursuant to Order [22 June]
      Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, to be considered this day; and to be printed.[Bill 150.]

    OIL AND GAS (ENTERPRISE) [MONEY] (No. 2)
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the British National Oil Corporation, to abolish the National Oil Account, to make further provision with respect to the British Gas Corporation and to make provision for and in connection with the supply of gas through pipes by persons other than the Corporation, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any sums required by the Secretary of State for making grants to the British National Oil Corporation or any of its wholly owned subsidiaries towards expenditure incurred by the Corporation or subsidiary in or in connection with the exercise of the power conferred on the Corporation by section 2(1)(e) of the Petroleum and Submarine Pipe-lines Act 1975 as amended by the said Act of the present Session. —[Mr.Goodlad.]

  Agriculture and Horticulture
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Goodlad.]
  1.37 am
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this debate, and I am grateful for the warm support which I gather comes from both sides of the House in these small hours of the morning. It shows the popularity of the subject that I propose to discuss. I thank those who are staying behind to listen to the debate. It shows a measure of solidarity.
  The Minister knows that I support British membership of the EEC, and I understand the reasons why it was thought necessary to include Spain and Portugal in the Community. I do not oppose their entry.
  To those who suggest that I take a protectionist line, I can only say that I am not a protectionist. I welcome freer trade in manufactures, commercial products and agriculture produce. Higher tariff walls and artificial restrictions on trade and the free movement of goods and services are inimical to the greater prosperity of nations, stultify initiative, raise prices and lead to loss of competitiveness, but there is bound to be a limit to what any country can and should tolerate.
  Agriculture is one of our basic industries, and it is highly competitive. We live in a country which is a net importer of food. Our agriculture industry has learnt to live with high imports, and no one is asking for a ban on them. However, we must be concerned with the level at which imports begin to weaken and ultimately destroy large sectors of our agriculture industry, which, for a mixture of economic and social reasons, is essential and therefore must be maintained.
  As it now stands, the strain of the CAP has created bad blood in the Community and has already led Britain into a crisis in its relationship with fellow Members. The enlargement of the EEC brings nations whose climatic conditions alone will make it even more difficult for northern nations of the Community to adjust.
  It is one thing to create a Common Market in industrial products and commercial services among nations in similar stages of development. Lord knows, that is proving difficult enough in all conscience. It is quite another thing to try to create a Common Market in agricultural products among nations which range from Cape Wrath to the Straits of Gibraltar. It would be more dramatic if one took it in lines of latitude. That could well bring into the Community a rock of a different kind, against which the Community could dash itself to pieces.
  One would be complacent to disregard the warnings contained in facts for all to see. Agriculture accounts for over 30 per cent. of total employment in Portugal and about 20 per cent. in Spain, compared with about 8 per cent. in the existing Community. It contributes about 13 per cent. and 8 per cent. respectively to the GDP, in contrast to 4·2 per cent. attributed to agriculture in the EEC.
  Portugal is likely to export poultrymeat by the mid-1980s. It is already self-sufficient in egg production and it is forecast that it will become a sheepmeat exporting country.
  Portugal's entry has serious implications for Britain's fruit growers. As a big producer of non-temperate climate
  408
  fruits, it must inevitably cut into the demand for homegrown fruit. Citrus production is increasing. The acreage of apples and pears doubled between 1970 and 1977.
  Spain poses an even greater threat to farmers and growers than Portugal. When it joins the Community, it will increase EEC early potato production by 39 per cent., barley production by 20 per cent., and tomato production by 45 per cent. Spain is destined, so I am told, to be a potential barley producer as acreage and yields increase.
  A myth has developed that Spain is desperately short of livestock. In fact, it is 90 per cent. self-sufficient in beef and is the second largest EEC sheep producing nation. There is a large pig population and it is likely to be a pigmeat exporter. Spanish poultry production is similar in size to that of the United Kingdom. More generally, Spain acts as an exporter in this sector.
  Hon. Members will not wish me to underline the situation with regard to Spanish fruit. It is really that set out in relation to Portugal. There have been enormous increases in the production of apples and pears.
  It may be said that the average farm in Portugal and Spain is small, that it is all rather peasant-like, that the holdings are fragmented and that the level of mechanisation in fertiliser usage is limited. That is all true, but of course entry into the EEC will bring access to Community funds.
  Even in the existing Community, agreement on resource transfers proves difficult to achieve. At a time when the Community is reaching its budget ceiling, a commitment to transfer resources to the new member States would require either the Community's own resources to be increased or a substantial cut to be made in expenditure on existing Community policies. That option would have serious repercussions for British agriculture, horticulture, and, indeed, other parts of the economy.
  There is a considerable potential for expansion in Spain, where yields, as we know, of many products are relatively low, but where irrigation and structural measures, perhaps aided by FEOGA funds, could dramatically raise output.
  It is put about by the Ministry that rain does not fall so much on the plains of Spain. However, there is far more to irrigation than that. The use of water has greater potential. Therefore, it is thought that the 3 million hectares presently irrigated could be increased by a further million by the year 2,000. That is a substantial increase. In recent years the area protected by glass and plastic has expanded rapidly.
  It is said by those who think that we should be more relaxed about the matter that Spain's lower production costs would be offset by higher transportation costs. I wonder if that is so. I doubt whether the transportation costs are sufficient to offset Spain's other cost advantages. Therefore, Spain must constitute a serious threat to United Kingdom growers.
  There are many other problems, but other hon. Members wish to speak and I shall not detain the House. I know that olive oil poses serious problems not only for us but for the Community. It is feared that the benefits that will accrue to both countries through the EEC farm modernisation directives coupled with their climatic advantages, could convert the existing threat into something far more serious. I refer to the eventual destruction of some sectors of British fanning and horticulture.

  409
  The Minister may say that my fears are exaggerated. Let us have proof of that. What detailed analysis has the Ministry made of the long-term impact of the entry of Spain and Portugal into the Community? Will the Minister undertake to publish such an analysis in the forseeable future? If one does not exist in the Ministry, is he prepared to finance, jointly with the National Farmers Union, an independent research programme? A study might be prepared by the Centre for European Studies at Wye college. I do not want the Minister to draw my attention to some Select Committee document or to some document published by the other place. That will not deal with the issue.
  In my part of the world, members of the NFU are rightly suspicious that Foreign Office pressure will lead Ministers to ignore the dangers that enlargement must pose. We understand the Foreign Office's fascination with Spain's inclusion. We understand how Foreign Office judgment has led us to make serious mistakes in many other areas. The industry needs to be reassured that my right hon. Friend the Minister will press for adequate safeguards before those two countries join the Community. For example, seasonal quotas might be discussed. Therefore, I expect my right hon. Friend the Minister of State to give us that assurance in principle this morning.
  1.47 am
  Mr. John Wells: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith) on his perspicacity in raising this important subject and on his luck in the ballot.
  Many of us—not only in Kent but in other horticulture areas—are concerned about this issue. Horticultural products represent about one-third by value and volume of all the food that we eat, to say nothing of the buttonholes that we wear and the flowers in our homes. The entire spectrum of those valuable and important products will be put at risk because of the knock-on effect. My hon. Friend dealt with apples and some general agricultural produce, but the entire spectrum of horticultural produce will be at risk. As the horticulturists of southern France find themselves in competition with Spain and Portugal, they will go into new crops. The horticulturists of northern France will also change crops. There will be more production of crops that we now consider to be exclusively produced in the United Kingdom or in northern Europe.
  I have had letters from people in the nursery trade. I declare an interest because I am in the nursery trade and know that sector's practical difficulties. I join my hon, Friend in seeking assurances, but I also wish to reassure the Minister that the horticulture industry is not so foolish or naive as to think that its small voice will prevent Spain and Portugal from joining the Community. We are not children. We live in the real world. We hope that the Minister and the Foreign Office also live in that world and will give us some comfort.
  The glasshouse industry has had an appalling winter with high fuel prices and assurances that the Dutch would be brought under control, but that does not seem to have happened. It is another sector of horticulture which is suffering. We want some assurances for the future.
  My hon. Friend, in passing, dealt with transport. I understand that many heavy lorries which bring in
  410
  horticultural produce are in breach of our road traffic regulations. That is not the Minister's responsibility, but I hope that he will urge police at Channel and other ports to cast a vigilant eye on incoming lorries to ensure that they are not in breach of our laws or the laws of other EEC countries.
  1.50 am
  Mr. Michael Marshall: I add my voice to discussions on competition within the Community as it relates to horticultural products, particularly tomatoes, the principal glasshouse product in my constituency.
  Two aspects are relevant in the light of what my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said. The first is that, according to the West Sussex growers, the March and April figures for tomato imports from the Canary Islands depressed the price of tomatoes to the 1980 level—a disastrous level. The Canary Islands presence in the market is a factor which must be borne in mind when considering future relationships with Spain.
  On the wider aspects of competition, I hope that the Minister will say that he sees in the accession of Spain and Portugal an opportunity to examine the market structure and the way in which the market will work on a broad basis. In time horticulture might be in a similar position to the European Coal and Steel Community. Market distortion has brought Governments together to discuss problems on a wide basis.
  The Dutch energy subsidy is not to be phased out until next spring. That represents even greater competition than that from Spain and Portugal. Our energy costs are likely to rise again, and the industry is facing difficulties on many fronts. I hope that the Minister will examine the problems and use the opportunity of the accession of Spain and Portugal for further and deep studies.
  1.52 am
  The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir G. Johnson Smith) and others of my hon. Friends for raising this subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend on being successful in the ballot and on his choice of subject. The matter is serious. There is no question of the Government disregarding, or being careless about the implications of Spanish and Portuguese entry into the Community.
  We are aware of the potential threats and the problems for which we must prepare. I should be disappointed if it were thought that we were not treating the matter seriously or showing proper foresight and preparation for what might happen in a few years. We treat the matter seriously and will continue to do so. I give my hon. Friends that absolute assurance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for East Grinstead rightly said that we should be worried about the implications and problems, but I must make it clear that the Government are firmly committed to Spanish and Portuguese entry to the Community. In the interests of democracy in Western Europe, those countries should join and thereby strengthen our political unity. However, we must also be aware of the advantages for British exporters from their accession. The Government are firmly committed to the enlargement of the Community, but that does not mean that we shall overlook the problems.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. Wells) spoke of the problems facing our horticulturists because of

  411
  the additional benefits enjoyed by the Dutch glasshouse industry. My hon. Friend is right, but I hope that he will acknowledge that my right hon. Friend has consistently been in the forefront when seeking fair play for our industry. By applying pressure on the Commission to take appropriate action and by co-ordinating with other European Ministers, whose industries face similar problems because of Dutch action, we have continually taken the initiative in trying to deal with the threat of the Dutch growers, who have the advantage of subsidised fuel prices. We must also give credit to my right hon. Friend for negotiating additional help for our industry. I know that the industry would have wished more help, given the severe competition that it faced. However, the financial help that we have given with adaptation aids and the lead that we have taken in Europe cannot show any lack of concern on our part.
  The Dutch growers must adapt by the spring of 1983, and it is possible that our adaptation aids will be continued during next winter. None of that shows a lack of concern. What my right hon. Friend has done about the marketing of apples shows that we have taken a firm and positive lead and done all that we can to assist this important section of agriculture and horticulture. I say that to show that we do not lack anxiety or preparation for future problems.
  I understand the sensitivities of those in agriculture and horticulture who are worried about Portuguese and Spanish accession to the Community. They point out the benefits of climate and the problems that higher prices for some commodities may bring in terms of increased production. We are aware of those matters. In the recent price-fixing round, I took the lead for the United Kingdom when we discussed Mediterranean produce, especially olive oil.
  We are always ready to remind our European colleagues of the immediate effects of some of the price increases of Mediterranean products and the implications that certain pricing decisions will have following enlargement. There have been occasions when the Commission and the Community have not shown the foresight that we wished. They are introducing policies and principles that may be appropriate for the Community at its present size, but we must look ahead to see what effect they will have when they are applied to an enlarged Community. I have reminded my Community colleagues of some of the immediate as well as long-term effects of Community policies.
  We must be concerned about the accession of Portugal and Spain because of the climate and geographical conditions that they enjoy, but we must not lose perspective. I have been urged not to shrug off Portuguese agriculture because it is backward and on a comparatively small scale. I do not shrug it off on those grounds and I hope that others will not. I accept that we shall have to face and be realistic about competition. In many respects, Portugal's agriculture is far behind ours. There may be scope for Portugal to increase its production, but the necessary changes in structure and organisation would have to be dramatic before it reached the standards of our industry and of the industry of other parts of the Community.
  We know from events in Europe before we joined the Community that the opportunities for change in the short
  412
  term are not especially great, but I am concerned about the competition that we shall face. Portugal is importing about 50 per cent. of her supplies of food and feeding stuffs. I am sure that my hon. Friends will have read the short article that appeared in yesterday's edition of the Financial Times about these matters. That article underlined the tremendous obstacles that our competitors will have to overcome before they reach our standards of efficiency.
  Competition in the egg and poultrymeat markets must be watched, but it must be put into perspective. In Portugal, we are talking about poultrymeat production of about 3 per cent. of the total production within the enlarged Community. It is a small percentage, but I accept that it is significant. It should also be remembered that total production of sheepmeat is about 18,000 tonnes. That must be set against total production within the United Kingdom of about 275,000 tonnes. Sheepmeat prices are not all that dissimilar from prices in the Community. We must not exaggerate the threat, but we must watch it and be ready for it.
  I acknowledge that Spain is a larger and more developed country with a high standard of efficiency in agriculture. However, Spain remains a considerable net importer of northern European products, such as cereals. As I said, the prices of many commodities in the countries that we are discussing are not so very different from Community prices. That is different from when Britain and Ireland joined the Community, with no transitional period. There were enormous boosts for production. The current price levels of some of the commodities in Spain are not very different from the European levels, but if there is a big difference, as we saw in Ireland, there can be a dramatic effect in a short time on production increases.
  It is true that Spain has irrigation problems, so there is a physical limitation on increases in production, but they can be overcome if it is physically possible to find the water. It is not always physically possible to find the water, and even if one does, as in this country, with our better rainfall, irrigation is not a cheap project in which to indulge. It requires heavy investment. I know from my contacts with my Spanish opposite numbers that there are certain physical and cost limitations on expansion.
  I agree that the real worry about Spain will be on the horticultural side, especially vegetables. Already we compete with Spain. Apples and pears have also been mentioned. We are alive to that worry and shall watch developments closely.
  My hon. Friend asked specifically whether we would carry out more research. I shall consider what my hon. Friend has said. However, an enormous amount of information is already available to us. It is not just from our own sources. My hon. Friend is right. We have shown what is available to us. I am not talking of what the House of Lords Committee published, but the evidence that we gave to that Committee demonstrates the information that we have, and we shall continue to update it.
  A considerable amount of work has also been done by other independent bodies. For example, information has been collected by the European Commission. Work has been done by the Meat and Livestock Commission, the result of which is available, and by bodies such as Agra Europe, the quality of work of which is normally high. We shall take into account all that work, from whatever

  413
  source. Much academic work has also been done. I shall make sure that the information that we have is updated. If more is needed I shall consider that carefully.
  I shall make two points about the negotiations.
  The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Justices of the Peace
  Justices of the Peace
PRIME MINISTER
  Lida Vashchenko
  Lida Vashchenko
  Nuclear Disarmament
  Nuclear Disarmament
ENERGY
  Offshore Gas Exploration
  Offshore Gas Exploration
  Electricity Showrooms
  Electricity Showrooms
  Petrol and Derv (Price Increases)
  Petrol and Derv (Price Increases)
  Power Stations (Closures)
  Power Stations (Closures)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Livestock (Exports)
  Livestock (Exports)
  New Zealand Butter (Imports)
  New Zealand Butter (Imports)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Grosvenor Square Demonstration (Police Manpower)
  Grosvenor Square Demonstration (Police Manpower)
  Highpoint Prison
  Highpoint Prison
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Polish Refugees (Austria)
  Polish Refugees (Austria)
  Prison Standing Orders
  Prison Standing Orders
  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Damages and Compensation)
  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Damages and Compensation)
INDUSTRY
  Small Engineering Firms Investment Scheme
  Small Engineering Firms Investment Scheme
  Assisted Areas (Downgrading)
  Assisted Areas (Downgrading)
  Manchester-Salford Partnership Area
  Manchester-Salford Partnership Area
  Steel Industry (Manpower)
  Steel Industry (Manpower)
  Average Earnings
  Average Earnings
  Community Enterprise Programme
  Community Enterprise Programme
EMPLOYMENT
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Cash Limits
  Cash Limits
TRADE
  Tax Arrears
  Tax Arrears
  Exports
  Exports
  Sea Rescues (Helicopter Cover)
  Sea Rescues (Helicopter Cover)
  Falkland Islands (Requisitioned Vessels)
  Falkland Islands (Requisitioned Vessels)
  Merchant Shipping Fleet
  Merchant Shipping Fleet
  Fan Heaters
  Fan Heaters
  Bibs (Safety Standards)
  Bibs (Safety Standards)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Teacher Training
  Teacher Training
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
WALES
  Welsh Development Agency
  Welsh Development Agency
  Opportunities for Volunteering Scheme
  Opportunities for Volunteering Scheme
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Charities (Tax Relief)
  Charities (Tax Relief)
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Profit-sharing Schemes
  Profit-sharing Schemes
  Value Added Tax (The Arts)
  Value Added Tax (The Arts)
  Free Travel
  Free Travel
  Invalidity Benefit
  Invalidity Benefit
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
  Public Bodies (Departmental Assistance)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Tropical Products Institute and Centre for Overseas Pest Research
  Tropical Products Institute and Centre for Overseas Pest Research
  Developing Countries (Aid)
  Developing Countries (Aid)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Arts Council
  Arts Council
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Artificial Insemination
  Artificial Insemination
  Patient Care (Voluntary Help)
  Patient Care (Voluntary Help)
  Child Care
  Child Care
  Appeals Tribunal, Stockport
  Appeals Tribunal, Stockport
  Unemployed Persons (Suicide)
  Unemployed Persons (Suicide)
  Incontinence (Aids and Treatment)
  Incontinence (Aids and Treatment)
  Schizophrenia (Treatment)
  Schizophrenia (Treatment)
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Hearing Aids (Nottinghamshire)
  Hearing Aids (Nottinghamshire)
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  Leek (Prescriptions)
  Leek (Prescriptions)
  Domiciliary Visits
  Domiciliary Visits
  Joint Consultative Councils
  Joint Consultative Councils
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Sub-normal Children
  Sub-normal Children
  Long-stay Hospitals (Patient Statistics)
  Long-stay Hospitals (Patient Statistics)
  Hospitals (Kilton, Bassetlaw and Worksop)
  Hospitals (Kilton, Bassetlaw and Worksop)
  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Trent Regional Health Authority
  Fraudulent Claims
  Fraudulent Claims
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Claims Control Investigators
  Claims Control Investigators
  Service Personnel (Deaths Overseas)
  Service Personnel (Deaths Overseas)
  Single Mothers
  Single Mothers
  Regional Health Authorities (Chairmen)
  Regional Health Authorities (Chairmen)
DEFENCE
  Uranium
  Uranium
  Trident
  Trident
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
SCOTLAND
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Teachers (Unemployment)
  Teachers (Unemployment)
  Medical Staff (Unemployment)
  Medical Staff (Unemployment)
  Job Creation (Perthshire)
  Job Creation (Perthshire)
  Consultants (Reports)
  Consultants (Reports)
  Departmental Reports
  Departmental Reports
  Engineering Investment
  Engineering Investment
  Legal Services
  Legal Services
ENVIRONMENT
  Derelict Land
  Derelict Land
  Rates
  Rates
  High-rise Properties (Demolition)
  High-rise Properties (Demolition)
  River Trent (Port Development)
  River Trent (Port Development)
  Council Houses (Maintenance Contracts)
  Council Houses (Maintenance Contracts)
  Council House (Subsidies)
  Council House (Subsidies)
  Rents
  Rents
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  World Cup
  World Cup
  Land Registers
  Land Registers
  Environmental Protection Societies
  Environmental Protection Societies
  Cumbria and Lake District
  Cumbria and Lake District
  Central Berkshire
  Central Berkshire
  Water Services Charges
  Water Services Charges
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing Investment Programme
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Housing (Homeless Persons) Act
  Structure Plans
  Structure Plans
  Council Houses (Demolition)
  Council Houses (Demolition)
  Bootle
  Bootle
  Netley Abbey, Hampshire
  Netley Abbey, Hampshire
  Tungsten and Tin (Plymouth)
  Tungsten and Tin (Plymouth)
  Litter
  Litter
  Hippies
  Hippies
  Direct Labour Departments
  Direct Labour Departments
  Private Schools (Rate Relief)
  Private Schools (Rate Relief)
  Buildings (Toughened Glass)
  Buildings (Toughened Glass)
  Mobile Homes
  Mobile Homes
  Asfordby (New Coal Mine)
  Asfordby (New Coal Mine)
  London Docklands
  London Docklands
  Private House Building Programme
  Private House Building Programme
  Urban Programme
  Urban Programme
TRANSPORT
  A27 (Church Hill Crossing)
  A27 (Church Hill Crossing)
  Driving Instructors
  Driving Instructors
  Severn Bridge
  Severn Bridge
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  European Community Map
  European Community Map
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  British Antarctic Territory (Argentine Nationals)
  British Antarctic Territory (Argentine Nationals)
  Festival of India (Exhibition)
  Festival of India (Exhibition)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Uganda
  Uganda
  Arms Control
  Arms Control
  Foreign Affairs Council
  Foreign Affairs Council
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Official Report (Publication Delays)
  Official Report (Publication Delays)

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

Youth Adventure Scheme
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the response to the Youth Adventure Scheme has been encouraging.
The Earl of Avon: Yes, my Lords. Courses have now begun at all five locations, and every place on every course is now allocated. The courses are going very well, and many of the young people have commented on how enjoyable and rewarding they have found the training.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. This is an extremely new experiment. I understand that it is to end in October of this year, and can my noble friend say whether it is possible that next year there will be a continuing process? Can he also say how many of the applicants who have applied have failed on medical grounds?—because I understand that it is quite a hard exercise over the two weeks.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, as regards next year, the scheme was set up this year because there was spare capacity in the training organisation, which may or may not occur to the same extent next year. The decision on whether to repeat the scheme will be taken in the light of such capacity as is available, and other relevant factors, including its success. So far as the medical situation is concerned, I understand that the young people are given a fairly full Army medical before they go on the course. I have no statistics on the failure rate; I do not believe that they are kept. Some of the boys on the course go back early because they are not fit enough.
Lord Kilmany: My Lords, arising from that reply, would it be true to assume that by and large the girls are proving themselves tougher than the boys?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I have no statistics on that, but I am sure that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will bear in mind the noble Lord's remarks.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House how many young people are actually taking part at this time?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I understand that the full numbers for the courses will be about 5,000
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, are Army medicals more thorough-going than they used to be in the days when, "You're warm, you're in"?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, at the moment I think that they probably are.

The Closed Shop: Publication of Report
2.39 p.m.
Lord Underhill: 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, as stated in the Observer of 16th May 1982, the report of the work on the closed shop commissioned by the Department of Employment, referred to in the Written Answer in the Official Report of 20th May (col. 871) has been in the department since December 1981, and whether it will be published before the last stage of the Employment Bill.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, a draft report from Professor Gennard was received by the Department of Employment in February of this year. In Professor Gennard's view his report is not yet complete, nor is it in a publishable form. When it is completed, it will be published by Professor Gennard and his fellow authors.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. Can he give some assurance that the report might be available before discussion of the Employment Bill is concluded? Is it not a fact that the work was commissioned by the Department of Employment, at some cost to the taxpayer, and therefore is it not of vital importance to have the information in the report available for the discussions on the Employment Bill?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the undertaking which he requires because it entirely depends on when Professor Gennard completes his report. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, would be the first to agree that it would be inappropriate for an incomplete report to be published.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Question and. Answer give the impression that parliamentary Questions are being asked as a result of a leak? Are leaks to newspapers on an unpublished, uncompleted report to form the basis of Question and Answer in either House of Parliament?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I understand that the Question resulted from an article which appeared. From where the author of the article received his information, it is not for me to say; nor do I know.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is the noble Earl also aware that, in addition to this noble Lord raising the

1033
matter as a result of a press report, it was raised also as a result of a Written Answer given by the noble Earl in the Official Report on, I think, 20th May?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I do not think that there is any disparity or difference between the Answer that I then gave and the Answer that I have now given.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Question is quite specific? It states:
… as stated in the Observer of 16th May ".
The parliamentary Answer was brought in purely as ancillary to the statement which was put out in the press, obviously without any official connivance and without the report being properly approved or completed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, of course I always try to be as helpful as I can to the House, and if the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asks a perfectly reasonable Question, he receives what I hope he will think is a perfectly reasonable Answer.

The Falkland Islands
2.42 p.m.
The Earl of Dudley: 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 have any plans to consult other Commonwealth Governments with a view to securing their participation in the defence of the Falkland Islands and in discussions with the islanders about their future.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we have much appreciated the strong support given by the overwhelming majority of Commonwealth Governments and the Secretary-General throughout the Falklands crisis. Mr. Ramphal has offered help in any way possible, and we remain in close touch with him. However the important responsibility for defence and for the restoration of normal conditions must be primarily our own, though we shall naturally be very willing to consider any further offers of support from our Commonwealth partners.
The Earl of Dudley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that informative reply. I should like further to ask him whether, in the absence of United States' participation, Her Majesty's Government would regard as acceptable involvement by Commonwealth countries in the defence and future administration of the Falkland Islands, perhaps by some form of Commonwealth trusteeship'?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we are certainly willing for other friendly Governments to be associated in some way with the security arrangements for the Falkland Islands. If my noble friend has some particular arrangement in mind, we shall of course be
1034
ready to give it due consideration. However, we shall naturally need to consult the wishes of the Falkland islanders for their own future.

NHS Pay Negotiations
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy had given Notice of his intention to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the dispute over National Health Service nurses' pay.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that a Statement on this matter is to be repeated in this House later today. In the circumstances, and with the leave of the House, I do not propose to ask my Question.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Trefgarne will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement to be made in another place on the pay negotiations in the National Health Service.
I should like, in the normal way and with the leave of the House, to say a brief word about the timing of the two Short Debates this afternoon. Following the accepted principle that the mover should be entitled to approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply no later than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of each debate, may I suggest that other speakers should endeavour to limit their speeches to about 10 or 101 minutes in the case of the debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Vaizey and to about 12 minutes in the case of the debate in the name of my noble friend Lord Mottistone. If noble Lords speak for any longer they run the serious risk of depriving later speakers of their full opportunity.

Housing Policy
2.45 p.m.
Lord Vaizey Lord Vaizey rose to call attention to the problems of housing with particular reference to the difficulties created by current legislation affecting the relationship of landlord and tenant, and to the importance of helping people to acquire ownership of their homes, including houses at present in the ownership of local authorities; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. My noble friend has taken the words out of my mouth: I was going to say that it was 10½ minutes by my calculations. I particularly look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, this afternoon and also to the speeches of my noble friend Lord Bellwin. the Minister, and Lady Birk, the Opposition spokesman.
May I begin by saying that, so far as I can discover, the British are among the best housed people in Europe, which is a rather surprising statistic. Most of the housing stock is in fairly good "nick"; about 4 per cent. of it is seriously substandard; and about

1035
20 per cent., including the 4 per cent., is below standard. Or, to put it in another and perhaps more optimistic way, about 80 per cent., or about four-fifths of the housing stock, is above standard. Opinion polls show a surprisingly large proportion of the population pleased with their homes: 37 per cent. are recorded as being very satisfied, 45 per cent. as satisfied, only 6 per cent. are dissatisfied, and 2.7 per cent. very dissatisfied. There is, of course, much room for improvement, but one does not need, I would submit, to be too gloomy in the light of these figures, both about the facts and about people's opinions of the facts.
Much of the satisfaction that people express with housing obviously arises from the facts of home ownership. My Lords, 55 per cent. of the people who have housing tenure now own their own houses; and all parties in this House agree that the proportion should rise above 55 per cent. A house represents for most people, apart from their pension rights, their biggest single capital asset; and the British people have £300 billion invested in their houses, which they own themselves. The mortgage debt is only £50 billion, so they have a net holding of £250 billion. Tim Congdon, who works for Messels, the stockbrokers, has shown how the typical person enters the housing market at or about the time of marriage, trades up and then, after a period, begins to trade down, and in this way realises his or her capital. The savings that the couple make through housing are a principal source of consumption finance in later life.
This method of saving, through housing, is helped by the exemption up to £25,000 of mortgage interest from tax, and by other devices. Of course, the real value of owner-occupied houses varies with the state of the market. At the present time, the average house is worth about three times personal income; but it has reached, quite frequently in the past, four times personal income, and it will probably rise in the next few years. So if people want a tip from Messels, it is probably a good idea at the moment to get into the housing market because the prices are likely to rise over the near future.
In the light of these facts, I want to present the following argument. It is that so far as possible public policy should be directed towards encouraging people to own their own houses; to enable them to do what they want to do—namely, to become homeowners. The advantage of this is, above all, that it gives them a capital asset and all the freedom that possession of a capital asset gives them. It enables them to choose in a very fundamental way the way they want to live. In this, I differ from the argument which has just been provided by the notable housing charity Shelter. They argue that mortgage interest tax relief should be phased out, and, although I see the strength of the argument that all subsidies in this field should be brought to an end wherever possible, in this particular case I disagree with them.
I support the case for home-ownership, because it is the commonest form of housing tenure and it is the common aim of all parties, and of most families, to wish to own their own homes. But there are two categories of housing tenure which are not benefiting from home-ownership. First, there are council tenants.
1036
There are 6½ million council tenants. Some 30 per cent. of the number of dwellings are in the council sector. On this matter the policy of the people on this side of the House is clear. It is to dispose of the greater part of the council estates by selling the houses to the tenants. As Mr. Heath's research assistants argued in an interesting article in The Times, this is desirable both on the grounds that it gives assets to people and because it gives them a vested interest in improving and running their own houses and blocks of flats. The incidence of vandalism on some council estates is relatively high not because of the type of people but because stopping vandalism is the task of the council and not of the tenants. The cost of the maintenance and administration by the council is bound to be high and almost bound in many cases to be inefficient.
The question arises—this is one of the things that I should like to put to my noble friend—as to whether or not the rate of disposals of council property is fast enough. Although already 300,000 houses have been disposed of so far and another half million are being processed, one wonders whether this rate could be accelerated. I believe, as, I think, do many of my noble friends, that the time is coming when all council tenants in ordinary council property—not those with sheltered housing—will have their weekly rent turned into a weekly mortgage, as was suggested by Mr. Heath's assistants in The Times. I, myself, hope that we may see between 2 million and 3 million disposals of council property over the next four years. That would dissolve the council estate fiefdoms and the inevitable petty bureaucrat superstructures that seem to go with them.
For the last part of my speech, I want to refer to the one remaining form of tenure, having already spoken about home ownership and council tenants: the ever-diminishing band of private landlords. Not everybody wants or needs to own their own place—people in highly mobile jobs do not want to, Peers and MPs do not necessarily want to own their own London flats if they live in the country. If the housing market worked properly much of the housing shortage would, I submit, end; but almost 70 years of rent control has meant that this rental market has been divided into two; the expensive and often furnished end and the crumbling working-class end. It proves that if you want to make a market inefficient, it does become inefficient.
The Government have tried to remedy this situation by the 1980 Housing Act. In that Act, the Government ended the system of controlled tenancies under which rent was pegged at 1956 levels. These tenancies have now been brought into the fair rent system. The Government reduced the period between the fair rent reviews from three years to two years in order to give more protection against inflation. The Housing Act extended the rights of temporarily absent owner-occupiers, servicemen and the owners of retirement homes to regain possession of their homes from tenants by the procedure of assured tenancies.
The snag with the 1980 Act is that it is widely thought—I do not know whether it is thought rightly or wrongly—that if the Labour Party came back into office they would inevitably tighten up rent controls again. I would submit that a great responsibility

1037
therefore falls upon the Alliance—and I am pleased to see that no fewer than three SDP Members are to take part in this debate this afternoon—which is, after all, the alternative Opposition and (who knows?) may become the Official Opposition after the next election. One hopes-1 shall listen with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Roberthall, has to say—that they will adopt a sensible policy towards the rented sector. That would help the benefits of the 1980 Act to be fully felt.
The 1980 Act is good as far as it goes but perhaps the time is coming when we need to ask a much more radical question, a question that, in a different context, my noble friend Lady Trumpington asked in the context of the Shops Act: Do we need these Acts at all? Admittedly, they give a great deal of work to the lawyers—never a group under-protected by either House of Parliament. But lawyers will always find work to do while there is legislation. Admittedly, the Rent Acts diminished the supply of rented housing, since, if you keep prices down, the supply dwindles. They make landlords bad landlords because they think that they cannot get a proper return on their capital and therefore they want to get rid of the tenants that they have. That produces—and the evidence is overwhelming—dissatisfied tenants.
The question of repealing the Rent Acts is now, I suggest, becoming practical politics. In Germany, for instance, since the end of the last war, over 2 million privately rented houses and flats have been constructed without any of the paraphernalia of the Rent Acts. Of course, people will inquire: What about the poor and the disadvantaged? Housing subsidies have little to do with the elimination of poverty. Housing subsidies are distributed, like rain, randomly on the just and the unjust, on those who badly need subsidy and on those who do not. The proper remedy for poverty is an efficiently working system of social security and assistance, above all, of cash allowances in which payment of housing costs is one important part, but only a part, and in which people are given cash to spend as they please. And a capital asset which comes from home ownership that can be mortgaged is itself a protection against indigence in later life.
In short, home ownership has become a fundamental asset of the modern British way of living. In my submission, the number of home owners should be increased, and the sale of council houses is already beginning to increase the number. But an efficient housing market needs a free rented market sector and I regard that as of great importance. The question of the alleviation of poverty must he sharply distinguished from housing policy. The way to help the poor is to give them more cash. The way to improve housing is to free the housing market. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
2.59 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for raising this very important question in this short debate today. I think he did play us all around a bit in some aspects of what he said, but he touched on some important points. How we must look at this is in the context of the major housing crisis in which we find ourselves
1038
today. There is no time in this short debate for sheets of housing statistics, which are another way of expressing numerically the human misery, family breakdown and basic deprivation due to a bad housing system. To give some indication of the gravity of the problem, I merely mention that the combined public and private housing starts last year were 153,000 compared with 265,000 in 1978—that is, 100,000 fewer; and I would not even say that at that earlier date the number was high enough. If we also look at the state of improvements to existing houses, these are an extremely important factor both in providing homes and in catching dilapidated property before it falls into dismal decay and is really fit only for demolition. The number of properties that were improved with the aid of grants last year was 20 per cent. down on the previous year, and as a society we really cannot afford this.
But the Government's own White Paper shows a dramatic planned reduction in public expenditure on housing, and this, as we well know, is reflected in the reduced allocations to local authorities. We now have homelessness higher than ever recorded, and this is according to the official figures. I am not talking about those very often in excess where the housing waiting lists are very difficult to fathom. We have a situation where people are put into bed and breakfast accommodation. It is almost an Alice-in-Wonderland situation. It is highly expensive; it is socially wrong; and it is completely unsuitable for families. Yet these are the lengths to which many local authorities have to go.
The effect of the Government's financial and monetary policy has been the biggest-ever slump in the construction industry. Due to the high unemployment that we unfortunately now suffer in this country, nearly one in eight of the 3 million unemployed are in the building industry.
When the present Government were elected three years ago, they placed great emphasis on reviving the private sector, and the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, referred to this. Unfortunately that has not worked out. To hold or reverse the decline in rented property, shorthold and assured tenancies were introduced in the 1980 Housing Act. The noble Lord said that Act was good as far as it went. 1 would say it was bad as far as it went, and it went too far. But what happened to these new introductions which were to deal with the decline in the rented sector? We have seen up to now only four assured tenancies and 5,128 shortholds in England. Of those, only 377 were in London, and the private rental market has been declining at the rate of 60,000 a year nationally and of something like 16,000 a year in London. Of course it has been declining, as I think we are all aware, almost since the beginning of this century. It had declined before the more recent Rent Acts and it has gone on declining through shortholds, and I fear it will go on declining.
The Minister will no doubt say when he comes to reply that the landlords are not taking up shortholds because the last Labour Government said they would repeal them. During the passage of that Act, I remember making it quite clear myself from these Benches that we would not repeal shortholds if the basic safeguards we were asking for were incor-

1039
porated. In fact when we voted on these amendments we got support from all sides of the House, but unfortunately the safeguards were not included and so shortholds became unacceptable.
However, it is quite untrue to place all the blame on a future promise—or threat, however one likes to look at it—to repeal this provision, because, if landlords found it would serve them for the moment—and they are shortholds, after all, and not longholdsthey would enter into them and use them. It is also interesting that everyone who was consulted, including the landlord bodies, were not very impressed by the Government's view about it. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has said, I would argue that the decline of the private rented market is not due to security of the tenant but to economic factors. As a distinguished economist himself, I am sure he is well aware of this.
The return a landlord can receive from the average letting is quite incompatible with the investment which has to be put into property for renting. He does much better by selling the property and investing elsewhere. Why does he do better in this way? Because the bulk of those who rent cannot afford an economic rent. Here we are not talking about the comparatively small amount of expensive property for letting—incidentally, the service charges involved in these have now resulted in more and more people selling the flats they had rented and also getting out of the rented market themselves as tenants—and not as controlled tenants either. Whereas generous subsidies are available through mortgage tax relief to people buying and there are also subsidies for council housing, though the level of those subsidies has been halved between 1979–80 and 1981–82, there are no general subsidies available to private landlords. So, unless the charge is in excess of the means of most tenants and also in excess of what is necessary to service a mortgage, it just is not "on" for the landlord or the tenant.
If I may say so, it is all very well for the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, to say he is quite against subsidies and wants to see a revival of a flourishing private rented market, but he does not really explain how that is to be brought about when one is faced with the historic fact of the decline of the market and the economic facts of what the Government are doing at the present time. There are problems with legislation, as the noble Lord has mentioned in his Motion, but the problems are the loopholes in the Rent Acts which have been exploited by unscrupulous landlords.
During the passage of the Housing Act, we moved amendments on this very difficult problem, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who was the Minister in charge of the Bill at the time, did say in reply to an amendment that I moved in order to try to get rid of the loopholes:
" As regards the loopholes in the Rent Acts—and noble Lords opposite know more about them than I do—we accept that there are, of course, problems. What I have said in answer to the amendment is that I just do not believe that this is the way to deal with the problems, for the reasons that I have given. That does not mean to say that I do not think that there should be attempts to find solutions to them."—(Official Report, 22/7/80; col. 231.)
Further on, he said this at col. 232:
1040
" I would only say—and I am not sure what other amendments there may be as regards filling the loopholes in the Rent Acts—that this is an area on which at present, within the Bill, we cannot go any further. Time does not allow it. But no one is turning away from the problems. It will be for another time—not necessarily a long time in the future—when we have got through what we are doing at present when we shall probably want to sit down and talk about the matter."
Up to now—and this is June 1982—none of us has sat down and talked about the matter, and these loopholes still go on and cause a great deal of hardship to many people, including students and others.
When we turn to home ownership, the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, said that there was a public policy to encourage people to own their own property. I entirely agree and, with the Labour Party, I believe that home ownership should be encouraged. But we do not believe it is right for councils to give ownership advantage to people at the expense of the poor, the homeless and the badly housed. I would remind your Lordships that the House of Commons Environment Committee in its second report clearly demonstrated the effect of compulsory council house sales, which had seriously reduced the number of lettings becoming available for those who have no option but to rent.
That is what we are concerned about. It is not dogma about owning houses; it is a question of the plight of those people who have no option but to rent. What they did in this Act about sales of council houses meant that the Government were once again destroying local autonomy in housing, as, unfortunately, they have done in so many other local authority areas. We saw this in the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill, which we have just finished.
Finally, what is needed is very much more public expenditure going into housing, which will not only give homes—and very badly needed homes—to more people, but will also revive the building industry and thus enable many of those who are now unemployed to obtain work.
3.11 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is not speaking, it falls to me to say a word or two. But, first, I and my fellow Prelates must declare a personal and private interest in this matter, because, when one becomes a bishop, after 10 years one man's bishop's palace becomes another man's tied cottage, when one moves towards retirement. So we have an interest in this whole matter, because we belong to that band of clergy of the Church of England who live in tied cottages. In the Church today, we are working very hard to find ways and means of helping our clergy, at the end of long and honourable years' ministry, to find modest accommodation for themselves. Therefore, this subject is one in which we have a personal interest.
The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, reminded us that a house is the biggest single capital asset of any married couple and, therefore, this is a matter of major importance to the Church as well as to the state. I would plead for flexibility in this matter from successive Governments. I think of my own family and two of our daughters. One is married to a curate and she lives on the 14th floor of a block of corporation flats in a great northern city. I shall not mention the

1041
city, because, as the rats keep coming up the refuse chute from the 7th to the 8th floor, and they are on the 14th floor, there are anxieties about the future and, in a sense, helplessness, which people in accommodation of that kind feel. That can be dramatically pictured in many different ways by people who would love to find a way of having a little more control over the roof above their heads.
With flexibility, I hope that Governments, with their power and position, can allow young people to be exciting in their opportunities of housing. Another daughter and her husband, with another couple who are good at building, bought an old derelict manor house in Suffolk. For two and a half years they lived in a derelict bus in the grounds of the derelict manor, but they have now got out of the derelict bus and into the no longer derelict manor. So they are there in a glorious house which they have virtually built themselves. I ask for flexibility and for encouragement to young couples to show initiative in forms of housing.
Having heard the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, who are well able to face each other across the Table, I shall not enter into anything concerning party politics, seeking, as always, to speak in the national interest. I say that, because your Lordships may not have noticed that we have had a certain little local difficulty in Norwich, in relation to the sale of council houses. As my brother the right reverend Prelate from Southwark knows all about corporation and council houses, I am leaving the general issue of council houses in his safe hands, rather than in my own.
I would say only that, in talking to one of my own Christian ordinands, who is moving towards non-stipendiary ministry and who works in local housing, he made this point. He said that it gives a feeling of responsibility and a much easier means of family continuity in the family home if it can be owned and occupied, and this is more desirable than rented property. One cannot emphasise too strongly the importance of belonging—and that in country districts, as well as in town districts.
I notice that the selling of council houses is above party politics, because since 1952 it has been possible; it is simply that the 1980 Housing Act—whatever view we have of that Act, and I leave it to others to say what view they have—makes it possible to buy more. We have noticed an interesting point from the point of view of the Church. I do not believe that we should consider that if you are a Christian family, you therefore become a more prosperous family in this world's goods. But it is true to state that, statistically, fewer of our Church families are in prison as a result of grievous bodily harm cases, of extreme company fraud cases or of other things which break up home life. Therefore, statistically, our Church families seem a little better off.
I say that only because I believe that flexibility through the Housing Act 1980 is a good thing, as a measure of council houses bought on council estates saves those who have purchased, by thrift and hard work, or by being better paid, from having a tendency or a temptation to move out into what are, perhaps, more salubrious areas. In fact, they like to stay where they belong and near their local church. There-
1042
fore, where there is a sale of tenancies on council estates you get more of a mix, which is socially helpful in that situation.
I want to say one word, coming from the open countryside and the wide skies of Norfolk, about rural housing which can so easily be forgotten. The country's rural population is on the increase and a rise of 9½ per cent. has been recorded in the census between 1971 and 1979. At the same time, there is an alarming drop in rural building, whether private or council. Therefore, I put in a plea to Government to take particular care over the matter of rural housing today. In some areas, key villages tend to be designated, where everything is going for those villages—the school, the pub, the shop and the Church. This is a good idea in one way, but it can cause distress in the smaller villages. I believe that if Government could find their way to increase the allocation of money to council house building in rural areas, this would lead to a better quality of life there.
It is true that many of our agricultural workers live in tied cottages and that, under the legislation, they are able to stay in those cottages until other people need to follow them, and then there are ways in which provision is made for them. But I simply ask that we should not forget the need for tural housing, because the centres of cities and of urban areas can sometimes win the ear of Government, local government or pressure groups more easily than those who are less organised, who are more scattered and who live in the areas of rural Herefordshire or Norfolk, as the case may be. I ask that they be considered. I now gladly give way to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, which we are looking forward to hearing.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, my interest in the subject matter of this debate is that I have a legal practice and that I am very much aware at second hand of the many frustrations felt by private landlords and private tenants in flats and converted houses in the inner areas of London.
I must apologise to my noble friend that I was not here for the start of his speech this afternoon, owing to traffic jams and the various problems which they cause. But I was here to hear what he said about the private sector. Although I shall not entirely agree with all he says, I do concur when he says that the ultimate beneficiaries of so much of this legislation are the lawyers. From the trend of my speech, your Lordships will see that I also believe that the Rent Act legislation results in a great deal of wasted expenditure on builders, managing agents, accountants and all kinds of other people who get involved in between the landlord and the tenant.
I hope that I am not being in the least controversial when I say that in my opinion the complex structure of statute which has arisen in this century has not, on balance, proved man enough to meet the varied needs of landlords and tenants, and that again and again measures intended to alleviate problems have persistently tended to create new ones. In my intervention from these Benches this afternoon I shall try to touch on some of the symptoms of the bad effects of too much legislation by reference to the tendency of legislation which interferes with market forces

1043
and frustrates human initiatives to be ultimately counter-productive, rather than by reference to any innate intractability of the landlord-tenant problem in an aggressive, disturbed society—which is also a factor.
I want to speak mainly about some unfortunate side effects of the Rent Acts and similar legislation. I would identify two main limbs of Rent Act legislation. The first is the control of rents at levels below the levels which would be reached in an unfettered market. The second is security of tenure which restricts the freedom of a landlord to recover possession of his property at the date agreed with his tenant in the tenancy document or lease.
In each case the freedom of a party to contract to bind himself to honour obligations is interfered with. We know that this is a factor in much of our law. I would suggest that whereas the rent control itself is in principle thoroughly undesirable, being simply a subsidy for some citizens, provided in a rather random fashion by other citizens, security of tenure is of a different nature altogether. I am sorry that time does not permit me to develop my argument. However, my opinion is that the justification for security of tenure as a general principle—although I fully support shorthold tenure—is that the power which can be wielded by a landlord, by the threat of depriving a tenant of his home, is so great as to make this a proper field for Government concern: the protection of the weak against the strong.
The particular consequence of years of rent control which concerns me today is, on the one hand, the drying up of the stock of private housing to let and, on the other side of the coin, the extent to which flats which were formerly let on tenancies and short leases, whether in mansion blocks or converted houses, have been, and are still being, sold on long leases at low rents, so as to escape the main provisions of the Rent Acts altogether. This generally means: sold at the highest achievable premium and for the lowest rent.
I refer to the low rents often paid under long leases, because a rent of £25 a year over the term of a 99-year lease may seem a good bargain to a flat purchaser. But it may seem less good value in five or 10 years' time when the last lease in the mansion block concerned has been sold, the landlord is a £100 company, perhaps incorporated abroad, and there is no rent to be paid worth withholding against the landlord's complete lack of interest in managing the building or carrying out repairs. Or perhaps the landlord will be prepared to do some repair work, but only if the estimate which its associated managing agent has obtained from its good friend the builder is accepted and paid for in advance. Or, in another case, it may be that the landlord's interest in a block has passed, during the late 1960s or the early 1970s, through the hands of property speculators who have each sold a few flats as and when a statutory tenant died, or a short lease came to an end and the tenant decided to take some compensation and go. Later in the 1970s a landlord may have been liquidated, and there may have been more changes of landlord since then, with no consistent management over the period—and perhaps the provisions for repairs in one lease differing from those in
1044
other leases and the building having become by now near enough unmanageable.
It is common where blocks of flats are sold on long leases for the landlord to retain responsibility for repairs and management of the block, at least until the block has been sold—and possibly indefinitely thereafter—the leases providing for the sharing of expenses among the lessees. My experience is that in just too many cases this system has really broken down and has no chance of working. One has only to consider the case of a mansion block half sold on long leases and half let to statutory tenants or protected tenants. What landlord will willingly keep the block in repair when he can effectively only recover his full costs of doing so from the long lessees? For a number of reasons, including high fuel costs and wages, the cost of providing services has escalated over the past decade and the standard of services provided has deteriorated.
Parliament, it is true, has legislated in the field of repairs and management in the light of the problems I have outlined above and of abuses on the part of some landlords who found their service charge accounts a new source of profit. In 1972, lessees acquired the right to receive a summary of expenditure certified by the landlord's accountant. The Housing Act 1974 gave the right, in a somewhat unsatisfactory manner, for lessees to challenge the charges for shoddy or overpriced work. This has been replaced by Schedule 19 to the Housing Act 1980. But there are two big problems. First, there is the need for lessees to have some effective way of compelling their landlords to carry out the repairs for which they are liable and, secondly—I put them very much in that order of importance—the need to ensure that the repairs, when carried out, are properly charged for and that all due and necessary accounting practices are followed. Most recent legislation has concentrated on tackling the accountability problem, including the extensive provisions of the 19th Schedule to the Housing Act 1980. The effect of this, in some cases, is to make landlords less prepared to carry out repairs than before, when they come to consider the paper work to be done before repairs can be carried out: the estimates to be obtained, the timetables to be observed, the notices to be given, the observations to be called for and considered—and so on.
Lessees cannot step in and carry out repairs for which their landlord is responsible. The remedy of specific performance is expensive and slow and often amounts only to an order to a stone to give forth blood. The local environmental health officer's services are often available. And if the landlord does ultimately carry out the repairs, it is seldom an easy matter for the lessees to prove that the repairs which cost £8,000 when carried out would have cost £1,000 a year or two earlier, before the rot had spread, and that only the landlord's unreasonable delay inflated the ultimate cost of what was done.
The law as to service charges and the enforcement of landlords' repairing covenants is, in my opinion, a very ripe field for further consideration to lead to law reform. I should like to make one suggestion: that consideration should be given to the provision of a means, perhaps by legislation, of providing for the court appointment of a receiver, by which lessees are

1045
themselves enabled to carry out repairs and provide services where landlords have failed to do so.
The Rent Acts have greatly contributed to the breaking up and selling on long leases of flats which in the past would have been available to rent on short leases or periodic tenancies. But it is true that other factors have contributed to what is now the fashion of owning your own long lease of your flat as the preferred alternative to being just a tenant. Benevolent Government, apparently setting out to create a dwellinghouse-owning rather then a property-owning democracy, have performed fiscal contortions and distortions: Gains tax relief on principal dwelling-houses and mortgage interest relief on qualifying expenditure on principal dwelling-houses are two reliefs which manipulate people, in my opinion. It may be an heretical comment to make, but I would say that a man with £20,000 in his pocket living in a rented house may be in a position to be a great deal more use to himself, to his family and to all of us than the same man with the same £20,000 tied up in bricks and mortar. However, we have to live with the fashion for long leases, and the only other point I would make on the subject is, that we should consider the case for long lessees to be given powers by statute to buy out their landlord's interest in appropriate cases where the repairing and service provisions and the like provisions of their leases have manifestly broken down.
Going back to the distortions imposed by the Rent Acts, which lie behind so many of the problems and abuses that we see, I would like to make the point that, disregarding the political fringes, it has seemed to me that in recent years there has been a greater readiness to recognise defects in a system by all parties and a greater preparedness to abandon strictly adversarial attitudes and postures. In landlord and tenant legislations, as much as in any other field of controversy, more damage is done by parties legislating their own particular hard lines when they achieve power than can be imagined. I believe there is tendency to recognise this fact now more than there was before; I do hope so. I conclude by hoping that the problems of landlord and tenant in the Rent Act field can be tackled consensually—in particular by acceptance of the fact that market rents throughout the housing sphere are a desirable end for which to work—but that in what is not the best of all possible worlds, security of tenure must as a general rule be respected by Governments for the foreseeable future.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Robbins: My Lords, it always is a great pleasure to follow a maiden speech. On this occasion, it is a peculiar pleasure for me to follow this speech because I served under the noble Lord's father during the apex of his fame at the time of the Second World War. In that capacity, I grew to respect and to love him. Our friendship persisted until his recent death. I would infer from the quality of the speech which the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has just delivered that something of the forcefulness, something of the technical insight and something of the acute moral discrimination has penetrated to his son. I assure the noble Lord that we look forward to hearing him many times in future in this House.
1046
I want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for drawing our attention to the whole sphere of issues which his Motion implies. I agree wholeheartedly with the positive part of the noble Lord's speech and his eulogy of the social benefits of house ownership. I propose to concentrate, however, on the latter part of the noble Lord's speech—not by way of disagreement but by way of providing a very simple historical and theoretical analysis of rents and rents regulation.
Rent control and regulation have been tried at different times and in different places this century. Broadly speaking, I would say that there is more agreement among members of my profession of different schools of thought than on a good many other issues. No less personalities than Professor Myrdal and Professor Hayek think poorly of the results of attempts at rent control and rent regulation. At the same time, one must realise that this is a subject which arouses deep emotions one way or another amongst the general public. The electorate is very sensitive on matters of this kind and I therefore hold that it is incumbent upon us who are not dependent upon the electorate to be quite candid about the truth of these matters as we see them.
Rent control is essentially the fixing of maximum rents below the level which would prevail in a free market. Thus it affords an incentive to an excess of demand and a disincentive to spontaneous response of supply. This has occurred whenever and wherever it has been introduced. The excessive demand shows itself pretty quickly. The disincentive to supply takes longer to become acute; after all, the stock of houses is there and although some owners may at once be disinclined to offer the services of their property, the effects on maintenance—not to be under-estimatedand the effects on new additions to the stock are bound to show themselves in the long term.
Crude rent control as it prevailed in this country from 1915 until 1965 resulted in the most astonishing anomalies. According to the date of the original contract, rents might differ in the same street. As my colleague Professor Paish pointed out in a famous article, there was no inherent guarantee in that system that the poorest tenant would own the cheapest house or that the poorest landlord would own the dearest one. But, for some time at any rate, the introduction of the regulation of fair rents introduced in 1965 did little to rectify the general tendency to shortage.
The criteria of fairness were defined as a reference to what the market rent would be if supply and demand in an area were roughly in balance. So you would have the paradox that regulation would be superfluous if that condition prevailed, while, if it did not, the one means of getting rid of the imbalance—namely, a higher rent, with the effect of choking off demand and increasing supply—would be absent. The normal tendencies to shortage would persist.
I am quite willing to agree that some attempt was made to remedy these tendencies in the 1980 Act, but I agree with Lord Vaizey that the question will still arise whether the whole body of statute law relating to the rent contract will need reconsideration, and eventually, according to my hope, be swept away. A housing shortage of the kind induced by control or regulation has as its main effect discrimination between those who have and those who have not the occupancy

1047
of houses. Those who have have a bonus which they would not enjoy were the price determined by the market. Those who have not have a negative bonus, in the sense that there are fewer houses to let than otherwise would be the case. The trouble does not stop here. The inhabitants of controlled or regulated houses, being assured of their tenancy, have a disincentive to move from the house inhabited to the areas where there is no such guarantee. And in a period of rapid economic change, such as ours has been in the greater part of my lifetime, the operation of this uncertainty has a restrictive effect on mobility, which surely is the reverse of what the contemporary situation demands.

NHS Pay Negotiations
3.43 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will now intervene to repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in another place. The Statement is as follows:
" On 10th June I told the House that the Government were considering the points made by the Royal College of Nursing following the ballot on the pay offer of 6·4 per cent. I reported also the initiative I had taken in asking Mr. Lowry to undertake consultations with the health service unions affiliated to the TUC to establish if there was any common ground between us. My objective has been to secure agreement so that negotiations can be resumed in the respective Whitley Councils.
" Following careful consideration of the position and after consultation with some of the chairmen of the Management Sides of the Whitley Councils I entered discussions with the representatives of the health service unions and professional bodies. I was able to tell them that the Government had decided that a further £90 million would be available for Great Britain in negotiating a new pay offer—partly from the Government and partly from the existing health service budget. Together with the additional resources made available in March this year this would increase the average pay of nurses and midwives and the professions supplementary to medicine by Vs per cent., ambulancemen and hospital pharmacists by 61 per cent. and other groups of staff by 6 per cent. The increases for particular grades would be for negotiation within the Whitley Councils. These improved offers both maintain the special position of nurses and other staff providing direct patient care and bring offers to all groups of staff on a par with other recent awards in the public sector.
" My honourable friend the Minister for Health and I have been in discussions over the last two days with the Royal College of Nursing and the Health service unions affiliated to the TUC. I am glad to report to the House that the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, the Health Visitors
1048
Association and the Association of Nurse Administrators have agreed to recommend to their responsible bodies that their negotiators be authorised to return to the negotiating table. I hope their Whitley Council will resume discussions very shortly.
" Regrettably the representatives of the health service unions rejected the improved offers out of hand and were unwilling to resume any negotiations. They intend to report this back to the full TUC health services committee with the proposal that industrial action should continue.
" Mr. Speaker, the Government have moved substantially to improve the offers to the health service. The average increases in pay offered for health service staff range between 6 per cent. and 7.5 per cent. This compares with 5.9 per cent. for civil servants, 6.0 per cent. for teachers and 6-1 per cent for the armed services.
" I do not believe that the health service unions are justified in rejecting this offer and I deplore their decision to continue a campaign of industrial action which can only harm patient care. I hope that they, and in particular their members, will reconsider the position very carefully and I urge them to return to negotiations in the Whitley Councils."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for repeating the Statement, which he has done so clearly, to indicate to the House the Government's position. The Government's move to increase their offer is an indication of the justice of the health workers' claim. They are indeed among the lowest paid workers in the country, performing a vital service to the community. The National Health Service means teamwork, and ancillary workers are an essential part of that team. It is regrettable that strike action has again to be taken, but morale is low in the health service. The workers feel that they are being made to bear the brunt of the Government's pay policy. When one is on low pay, increases to better paid sections of public services only irritate.
So far as nurses pay is concerned, has agreement to accept been given not only by the Royal College but by other unions covering nurses? I rather gather from the Statement that the nurses affiliated to TUC unions have not yet accepted. It must be borne in mind that nurses and other health workers face increases in their accommodation charges, as the Secretary of State has recently instructed health authorities to increase rents in line with the £2.50 guideline increase in council rents. In addition, there are increases in cost of meals taken on duty.
It might help the House to relate percentages to actual facts. We should bear in mind that the revised offer really means an increase for nurses of £1.18 per week, on average, and for ancillary workers £1.34. There has been a regrettable situation in the negotiations in the last two days, which is not on the best lines of establishing good relations. On Monday, the department offered nurses 7 per cent. and ancillary workers 5.5 per cent. On Tuesday, 22nd June, the Secretary of State agreed to meet the TUC Health Services Committee at 12 noon. He then delayed the

1049
meeting until 2.30 p.m. He then delayed it again.
Meanwhile, at 3.50 p.m. the Royal College of Nursing held a press conference at which it announced that the Secretary of State had offered nurses 7.5 per cent. and the ancillary workers 6 per cent; and 20 minutes later the Secretary of State came to tell the TUC Health Committee the same news. That is not the way to establish good relations with the TUC Health Committee and, as one very much involved voluntarily over the years with the health service, I very much regret the continuing dispute and the industrial action.
As it is continuing, regrettably so, will the Government refer the matter to ACAS? Will they consider arbitration? At present—this is not new—industrial relations in the National Health Service are in a poor state, which is acting against the public and the patients' interests. It is all very well for some people to say that people in the public services, especially in the NHS, should not strike. That is no solution. The situation will not improve until the Government supplement collective bargaining with proper arbitration to ensure a fair rate for the job. And will the Government cease taking advantage of the specalised position of health workers, and, first, set up an inquiry into the whole position, and, secondly, establish adequate and fair negotiating machinery?
3.52 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. We, too, must of course deplore the initiation of strike action and its continuation on the part of the health service workers. We recognise the difficulty in which the Government find themselves, in that they have an incomes policy for the public sector but no incomes policy throughout the country as a whole. I know that the noble Lord will tell me the Government have not an incomes policy for the public sector—but a rose by any other name, and this looks more like an incomes policy than most incomes policies that we have had in the past.
The Government have been singularly unfortunate in their handling of negotiations in the public sector, both last year and this year. If they mean business by negotiation, if they really want the Whitley machinery to work—and I believe they probably do want it to work, and we on these Benches certainly want it to work—I would suggest that there really must be adequate scope for genuine negotiation; but to be told that there is a fixed amount, as the National Health Service workers were told in the first place, and then in face of resistance to give a bit, the £90 million with which the Government have came back, is no way to continue negotiations. Either the Government have to recognise that there must be sufficient flexibility in their offer to enable negotiations really to take place or they must accept that it is a hidden diktat which the health service workers are unlikely to accept. The Government need to consider their whole practice of negotiations in relation to the public sector.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, was not able more
1050
warmly to welcome the Statement. The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was perhaps not quite as anxious as the noble Lord, but I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, that arbitration is really no solution to this problem. Arbitration is not an extension of free collective bargaining, because arbitration will result in imposing upon one side or another a settlement which they do not wish to accept and would not have accepted in the first instance.
It is for the Government to decide how much money is available and for the Whitley Councils to conduct detailed negotiations and make the detailed offers to the individual and varying grades in their varying councils and within different skills, and that is what we have done. We made a certain sum of money available, additional Government money, and as I have warned your Lordships on many occasions we have had to make a further inroad into this other fund available to the health service from within its existing budget. As I said, I believe in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, a week or so ago, there was no possibility of a significant new offer without some erosion of the health service's existing budget; and I fear that that is what has had to happen.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that in 1974 the party now in Opposition had got itself into exactly the same mess as the present Government, then in Opposition, have got themselves into now? Does he remember that, being then Chairman of the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body I was asked to Chair the equivalent of a review body for the nurses, midwives and paramedical professions and that for a period of about six months my two review bodies had linked, through me, the entire structure of the National Health Service, upper echelon and salaries, under their control and we brought a rational structure of differentials into being, and that this rational structure gave universal satisfaction to everybody concerned? Does the noble Lord also recall that when I laid down my task I warned the then Minister at the Elephant and Castle—it was Mrs. Castle—that the system would simply slip back into the mess from which my colleagues and I had rescued it so long as there was no continuing review body? I wanted to see the Whitley Council schemes dissolved for the purposes of the nurses, midwives and paramedical professions and a standing review body set up instead.
The unrealistic factor in the present system of going about it is that the hands are the voice of Esau but the voice is the voice of Jacob. Behind it all always is not the employer, the National Health Service, but the Treasury. It is the Treasury who cooks up what is to be given away, not the employers. The whole of this negotiating machinery is largely bogus as it stands at the moment. That is why there is this slippage.
Why did the particular scheme of differentials which my committee and myself agreed upon give satisfaction? It was because we took an enormous amount of trouble to try to ascertain the right point at which to level peg the centre of gravity of the nursing professions, and we chose the station sergeant in the police force.
Baroness Young: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl, but after a Statement it is proper to ask a question rather than make a speech. If the noble Earl could put his point in the form of a question then others would have an opportunity to raise questions on the Statement.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, my question to the Government spokesman was: does he remember that? I then asked what it was. However, if I have not the ear of the House or the Front Bench and they want me to wind up quickly, I will certainly do so. The secret of it was to level peg one thing with another. Does the noble Lord remember that that was what I did?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Earl had a distinguished role to play in these affairs in years past, but whatever negotiating machinery is devised somebody has to find the money to meet these wage settlements. If we were to give teeth to the Whitley Councils and, for example, were to give them a total say over how much money they have to dispose of, that would be, in effect, an open-ended commitment; and the Government cannot enter into an open-ended commitment. We have a clear and binding duty to control public expenditure one way or another, and to give, particularly, health service pay negotiators an open-ended ability to conduct their negotiations would be a wholly unacceptable imposition on the public purse.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, if the Government wish to remove inconsistencies and a sense of injustice on this question of arbitration in the public sector, why is it that arbitration under pressure was conceded to the Civil Service? Why is it that arbitration under pressure was conceded to the teachers? Now the noble Lord is saying that the Government must decide on the pay of the health service workers. Why cannot arbitration given to one section of the public sector be applied to others, and what alternative is there for resolving differences between the Government's workers and the Government themselves if arbitration is not available?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the distinction between the award to the teachers and the civil servants on the one hand, and to the health service workers on the other hand, is that in the first two cases the awards were contained within existing cash limits of around 4 per cent. It has not been possible to do that with regard to the health service award. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the health service altogether employs something like a million people. Your Lordships will appreciate, therefore, that a very tiny percentage increase can mean a very substantial sum altogether in public expenditure.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what irritates and annoys the TUC negotiators is that their highest level is the lowest level in public service? The Government are not fair at all. It is absolutely unfair for the police, for the armed services and, for example, the firemen, to have a certain high level, while, when the nurses want to negotiate on that basis, the Government forbid it. Is the noble Lord further aware that the activities yesterday of the
1052
Secretary of State, who, having made a firm appointment and called the TUC leaders to meet him, kept them waiting for four hours while he did a secret deal with the Royal College of Nursing, will mean that student nurses—the most hard-pressed of all—will get an extra 69p a week? Is the noble Lord aware that the Secretary of State may have succeeded in splitting the solidarity of Britain's health service workers, but the annoyance and the bitterness is so great that it may well turn into a pyrrhic victory for the Secretary of State?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is, of course, the case that the health service unions are already taking industrial action, and have been for some considerable time, while the nurses are not doing so, have not done so, and, so far as we know, will not do so. It is, thus, hardly surprising that, if there is any difficulty, my right honourable friend is anxious about the health service unions who have already taken industrial action. Indeed, as I said in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, the other day, even emergency cover has in some places been withdrawn. However, it is the intention of my right honourable friend to get a settlement in this matter and that is why he has made the additional funds available to which I have referred today.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, have the Government considered the possibility of permitting disputes in the health service such as this to be submitted to some form of independent arbitration because, as he rightly says, the Government in the last resort are the pay master, the Government, as it were, being permitted to refrain from accepting the outcome of the independent arbitration subject to an affirmative resolution by both Houses of Parliament?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not think that the Government can abandon responsibility for determining the sums of money available for these matters. We have long said that it is necessary to contain the growth in public expenditure and we have, therefore, to contain the growth in funds available to the health service. That is why my right honourable friend has to set the total sums available to the Whitley Councils for the negotiations in respect of their different grades. Within those total sums, it is, of course, open to the Whitley Councils to allocate the money as best they can and as they think fit after discussion between the management and staff sides.

Housing Policy
Debate resumed.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Roberthall: My Lords, perhaps we can now return to another, much longer-term problem. The House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for being given the opportunity to discuss this important matter. Let me begin by adding my congratulations to those of the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, to the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, He will hardly believe me when I say that I hung on every word that he said. I am afraid that this may sound very fulsome, but the

1053
fact is that, for the reasons he gave, I was forced a few years ago to become the owner of a very long lease and I suffered all the disadvantages which he has so eloquently and with so much experience explained to us. On a slightly personal note—but I am sure that the noble Lord will be interested—I was so much irritated by the situation that I found the ground landlord and managed to buy the ground lease from him, because a lease is worth very little indeed to the ground landlord, whereas tenants are personally interested in such matters. I managed to persuade the other tenants to form a tenants' association and since then we have overcome all of our troubles.
I return to the wider issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. I do not want to say very much on the question of the sale of council houses. My own view is that, subject to a small limit which the council ought to sell and to another small limit which the council must retain because of its obligations in certain cases to find accomodation, this is a matter that might be left to the local authority; that is, the decision about which way its policy should go. If the constituents want a great many sales, then they can have them. However, that is just a passing comment.
I want to speak mainly about the question of the Rent Acts. As my noble friend Lord Robbins has already informed the House, this is a question about which a very large number of economists—who, especially at the moment, are disagreeing like mad on many matters— are very much agreed. The Rent Acts are a real anomaly. There is nothing in the whole economic system which corresponds in the least to the market for rented houses. It was orignally introduced in the First World War. In a war everyone has to make sacrifices, and often the best way to do that is by rationing. It is very difficult to ration houses except where they are to be used as billets. The Government felt that they had to do something about it; the owners were in a monopoly situation and they were prevented from exploiting the monopoly. That was the foundation which left this extraordinary legacy from which we are now suffering. They did not get rid of them in the inter-war period—I suppose that they could have been introduced again for the same reasons. However, it is now approximately 37 years since the end of the last war and the matter has become increasingly complex.
In trying to prepare myself for this debate, I went to the Westminster Council Housing Department and obtained some of the literature that they provide. I was absolutely appalled at the large amount of it. There was a large table which was simply covered with pamphlets. I had intended to take one of each, but I felt that I could not face doing so and, therefore, I took only about seven. They are admirable pamphlets. They are very well drafted and, as your Lordships will hardly be surprised to know—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, will not be surprised—a great many of them conclude by saying that the position is not altogether clear and that it is hoped, therefore, that people in doubt will get legal advice and that they will probably be able to get legal aid to assist them.
To summerise what has been said so much better by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, the present Rent Acts
1054
aggravate the situation. They diminish the supply and they frustrate the demand. The result is completely unclear. The community is divided into those who have what used to be called, until a short time ago, a protected tenancy, and those who want rented accommodation and who find it extremely difficult to obtain. In some towns where there is not a bad housing situation—for example, in the university towns—people go out of their way to let rooms to non-residents because non-residents cannot get protection under the Act; they are rather nervous anyway and they do not like to go round and get an assessment for a fair rent. So the people who are there because they have had to change their jobs and would like rented accommodation are frustrated.
The result is that the situation is now very complex indeed. I do not think that it would be possible to get rid of the Acts and the present situation in one blow. I think that it will have to be phased out very carefully, with particular attention being paid to the question of security, which I notice the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, mentioned.
But more important than the care with which the situation is phased out, is that I do not believe it would be acceptable to a great majority of the community if the Rent Acts were dropped at a time when there is still a very severe housing shortage. I think that the Government can take a certain amount of credit for the Housing Act 1980 in this respect. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, rather than the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on this. The Government moved in the right direction by easing the position for people who wanted to let rooms in housing which they occupy and by the shorthold tenancy. But although the Government have moved in one direction with which I would agree, they have moved much further back in an opposite direction, because they have cut the allocation for house building by between 40 and 50 per cent. since 1979. If we are to have a satisfactory end to the Rent Acts, it is essential that the supply of houses should be increased. We are going back on the whole housing situation because of the severe restrictions on new council house building.
At the same time, the problem of the deterioration of existing stock is getting worse. So the value of a protected tenancy will become greater again and the difficulty of finding rented accommodation will also become greater. From this point of view, the programme of the SDP and the Alliance should certainly commend itself much more than that of the Government, because in its first modest stimulus to the economy —-and to start with it has to be a modest one it intends to do a substantial amount in the construction trades and will pay particular attention to the question of rehabilitation and modernisation of the large existing stock. I hope that it will also do something about councils owning a great many houses and doing nothing about them—not modernising them or letting people live in them in districts where there is a bad housing shortage and thus giving an invitation to squatters. No one likes to do anything about squatters in that situation. It is altogether a most unfortunate affair.
To sum up, in the long term we ought to have a plan for phasing out the Rent Acts, and in the immediate future we should pay much more attention to improving and modernising the stock of houses.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, as one who is involved actually in selling off Government-owned houses, I want to say a few words and to give the House some of the facts and figures and the opportunities that this creates for tenants. I would introduce what I have to say in this way. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, hinted at the revolution which is happening under our feet. The average salary and wage-earner has only two ways of getting Government help in accumulating capital. The first is that he pays into a pension fund, if he is one of those exempt from the state scheme, or into life insurance. Those two kinds of ownership are now transforming our ownership of capital assets in society—a revolution of which, in my view, we are taking no heed. For example, we do not realise that pension funds buy four-fifths of Government stock, and that the Post Office pension fund has £½ million a day coming in and is almost finding it hard to know where to invest. A similar revolution is happening through sales of houses and the Government subsidy that goes to them in tax relief. This is spreading home ownership and capital, and I very much welcome it. Just as over half the ownership of shares quoted on the Stock Exchange is in the hands of pension funds and life insurance companies, so more than half of our housing stock is now in individual ownership.
I want to talk about my experience of this in Telford. People perhaps do not realise that Telford New Town is a huge undertaking. We are building there a city the acreage of Coventry. This is no pocket handkerchief size operation. When it comes to this issue of selling houses, we are lucky in that we have plenty of public sector houses. I am, luckily, excused the party warfare over the issue of when it is right to sell. Indeed, I may say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that we are not selling old persons' bungalows because they are in short supply, and we have taken what I think is a proper decision to hold those back and simply to sell the houses. I am sure that she will approve of that, just as the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite will approve of it.
What, then, is our experience? We have 11,000 houses and we have already sold 1,000. We are selling at the rate of two a day, completing two every day. I might say to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, who raised this issue, that that is a technical reason why we cannot go much faster, and I should like to explain it to him another time. I think that perhaps the basic system is not understood in the House. Tenants receive a 30 per cent. deduction from the valuation if they wish to buy. That deduction can rise to 50 per cent. if they have been tenants for a very long time. But there is a floor price—the original cost of the house in the first place—below which they cannot go in buying their house.
What does this mean? The opportunities for tenants are really quite extraordinary. On our earlier estates, built 10 or more years ago, the average selling price, with a 30 per cent. discount, is between £5,900 and £6,500. Many, of course, have more than a 30 per cent. discount. Of course, some houses are selling at more than £6,500—say, at £7,500. Let us look at the advantage of this to tenants today on those earlier estates. If we take their mortgage payment on these figures—and, as I say, they are buying
1056
at £5,000, £6,000 or £7,000—less the tax relief that they receive (the 30 per cent. tax relief that I started talking about; the subsidy to home ownership that we give through the taxation system) on these earlier estates it is incredible that their mortgage payments are no more than between £45 to £60 a month. But, if they stayed in the public sector, the rents of those houses would be now between £60 to £70 a month. That is by any measure quite a bargain in present-day society. With rents due to be increased a good deal further in July, the disparity on these earlier estates between what it costs to go on renting and what it costs to move over to home ownership will become even greater. The bargain will look even better.
On later estates, built within the last 10 years, of course, the houses are much higher in price. We now have houses built at considerably greater cost, double and treble the cost compared to those earlier figures. But I have done some calculations on our average houses and, again, the comparison bears out. If some of our later tenants, buying more expensive houses from us, take out a 100 per cent. mortgage, their mortgage payments are now between £100 and £110 a month. But if they kept on renting, their rent would be something over £80 a month, and it will go up even more with the recently announced rent increases due to Government withdrawal of subsidy. So even on the later houses the bargain is worth having. For something like the same price as the rent, you get into home ownership. I believe in this passionately and am pressing it as hard as I can, because we are lucky to have a surplus of houses and can introduce people to this form of ownership.
What effect is all this having? On our earlier estates, where we had got to a point where it was difficult to let some of the houses, the transformation is quite extraordinary. On our first estate, which was beginning to become a bit run down, we have already, on what one might call the worst houses in some respects—they are all absolutely first-class houses inside, but they had as an estate become slightly frowned upon—sold one-third and we shall soon be up to selling half of them.
Now people spend their weekends painting, clearing the garden, putting up fences and all the rest of it, and you see the bright smiles on their faces. You have to put up with the fact that they go to immense lengths to express their own personality on some of the outside decorations. But why not? It is a free country, and I am delighted to see it. I put up with the plastic stone and the gnomes, and all the other things, because it is a price worth paying to introduce people to this form of capital accumulation.
I come to one other point before I wind up. We also are now starting in my town the system of equity sharing. I should like again to tell Members of this Chamber our experience. Equity sharing is new in Britain to some extent. It works by our selling half the equity, or the builder in this case selling half the equity of the house. We, the new town development corporation, buy the other half, and we rent the other half of the house to the purchaser. He is buying half his house and renting half his house, and he can trade up. He can begin to buy another 10 per cent., or 20 per cent., until he finally owns 100 per cent. of his equity.

1057
This is a system which my new town is pressing hard. We finally agreed, on behalf of the new towns, the system of legal agreement which the building societies would accept in order to advance mortgages on the 50 per cent. that the purchaser is buying. This is helping developers to sell their houses. We have 79 applications already. If I may say one thing to the noble Lord without breaking the Addison Rules, if we need some more money to press on with equity sharing, I hope the noble Lord will be helping me along, because we have to buy half the houses to get the system going.
To take the small starter homes which today are selling in my town at about £18,000, if a man buys one with a 100 per cent. mortgage from the builder, in this case his mortgage payments a month are about £150. But if he does it on this new system of buying half of it and renting half, his rent and the mortgage together—half on mortgage, half rent—is about £100, or £102, something like that. So for a tenner a week he is getting his foot into home ownership and he can gradually build on his 50 per cent. up to 100 per cent. It is a price worth paying and it is a marvellous way to get people accustomed to the idea of owning their own homes.
What do we learn from all this? I see I have only one or two minutes left. It has one disadvantage which I must not disguise. If you sell too many in the circumstances and have too many empty ones on the market, it can reduce the general price and value of these houses. As a result, some people who perhaps have bought their houses and who have moved to a job in another town have difficulty in selling, because the price is not holding up due to flooding of the market. We must not go too fast. We must be left to judge carefully about the pace at which we go, otherwise we begin to have a bad effect on the mobility of labour, and a bad name with the people we got into buying houses in this way in the first place.
The good effects outweigh those bad effects. First, we are getting a proper social balance in the town, a marvellous difference on particular estates, and in the pride that people take. Secondly, we are getting, as the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and other noble Lords have said, the great advantage of the spread of capital ownership. It helps the saving habit because people can see the bricks and mortar, the asset into which their personal saving is going, and so the whole habit of saving is reinforced and is a good one.
Thirdly, we get the pride in ownership. This shows as you go around, and not only in what you see. I remember when the Minister of State, Mr. Stanley, came we called on one of our tenants who was buying. Mr. Stanley actually helped the tenants to start painting the stairs. They were there with the paint pot. I swear I had not arranged all this, but the point was that the Minister came along and took a hand in helping to paint the stairs. This sort of thing is going on all round now, and how wonderful it is to see.
I come to my final point, and I must not overstretch my welcome. It is important for one final matter that has not been touched on in this debate. People today want identity. This was drilled into me by Eric Lyons, who recently died. He was one
1058
of the best of the 20th century architects. He said to me that architecture is about sense of place. What people are doing more than anything in buying their own houses, apart from saving, pride, and all that, is that they are searching for identity in an anonymous society. They can express themselves in this house which they own, which they can arrange as they want. The biggest battle today is to give people that chance of expressing themselves and seeking particular identity in this anonymous society that is so full of estates, bus queues, and all the rest of it.
This is a battle which I have to take on with the developers in my own town. I have fought them over the years—friendly fighting; we do not fall out because I want them to build more and more in my new town—and I try to tell them all the time that they must create housing with identity. Let us stop the serried ranks, and the estates without character. I have proved in my town anyway that (a) if we can let people buy their own houses, and (b) encourage developers to build houses with particular identities, the sales improve, and even the developers come back to me and thank me for pushing them further up the market than they ever really intended to go. Those are just a few words of experience in a short time about one new town. I am sure it can be mirrored all over the country, but I must say that I have immense fun in doing it and I am very satisfied at the social effects that the experiment is having.
4.27 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, for his knowledgeable and helpful maiden speech. I began by thinking that I would share some sympathy with him because I made a maiden speech on this same subject of housing almost exactly two years ago, but I quickly realised that there was no need for sympathy but only for admiration. He knows a great deal more about the relationships of private landlords and tenants than the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich says I know about council housing. I wish I did know a lot about it, although I suspect that if I knew a lot about the finance involved I should be rather a boring person at times. It is a winsome characteristic of his, if I may just say this, to pay his friends generous compliments which often have rather little relationship to reality.
I have recently returned from my first visit to New York. I suppose I am a good deal later in going there than most Members of this House. I was driven in a taxi from Kennedy Airport to the Upper West Side, which meant that we went through parts of the Bronx and Harlem. The shock of seeing so much urban devastation is still with me. I saw street after street with decaying tenement blocks, many of them half burnt out; boarded up shops; pot-holed roads, and so on. All this is in a major city in the nation which many of us regard as probably the most wealthy in the world. Having gone through that experience, I suppose it was slightly less of a shock to then travel, as I did quite frequently, on the subway, sometimes coming back in the evening, and finding myself looking at armed policemen on the platforms and sometimes travelling in the very coach in which I was riding.

1059
I start with that brief personal experience, which I realise is striking a rather different note from any that we have heard so far this afternoon, because it underlines what happens when a nation, or a city, seems at least unwilling to pay the cost of adequate housing for all its people—something which is surely fundamental to a good society. Like a predecessor of mine, Bishop Garbett, later Archbishop of York, I believe it is a matter of deep Christian concern to try to ensure that everyone who truly needs it has access to suitable housing. This is a subject on which it is right from that point of view, to have some moral passion, if you like, and I am sure that is shared by noble Lords in all parts of the House; it is not—I hope it is not—a party matter in any way.
As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and others, in this century we have seen a massive switch from rented accommodation, which was roughly 90 per cent. of all housing in 1914, to owned accommodation, which is now between 55 and 60 per cent. I am as clear as anyone in believing that there have been many very good effects of that shift, and the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, made that clear in his lively way, looking at Telford in particular. But there are some cautionary notes that must be struck about how far the balance should go, and there have been hints about that this afternoon. The point has not been spelt out as clearly as it needs to be, however, and I shall suggest some points in relation to it.
First, there remains massive need which is never likely to be met by ownership. I use the word "never" advisedly; it may diminish a little more, but I ask your Lordships to think about the substantial number of low paid people, single people, particularly the elderly, single parents and others. I believe that the resources which the state, local authorities, housing associations or perhaps housing co-operatives—there are many variants involved—can bring to bear are the only ones that are likely to meet, and continue to meet effectively, that sort of need, and I am sure nobody would deny that. However, I think we in a way fasten on to the problems that are connected with the private sector and the Rent Acts and all we have heard about this afternoon to the point where we forget that there are other ways of meeting those needs.
I often question to myself whether we need grieve too much about the rapid shrinkage of the private sector, since I question whether housing is a sphere in which we should be thinking about what has been called today "a proper return on capital". In an age of high interest rates, people will be looking for a return which seems to me to be inapposite in relation to the housing need out of which so often it is being met. My first point, therefore, in this connection is this massive need which we must keep in our sights, and I am very conscious of that as I go around South London and look, in particular, at the inner city areas there.
Some control of council house sales is surely needed by local authorities for the very reasons that were given by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, in relation to a new town which, if I understood him correctly, is exempt from some of those considerations. I argued about that two years ago in relation to rural areas and
1060
places like Northumberland; I think it is still also relevant in the big cities, for slightly different reasons, particularly where they have huge numbers of flats which nobody is likely ever to want to buy, and the balance is therefore altered.
Secondly, ownership does not solve all the problems, as we have heard this afternoon. There are many owners of property, elderly owners particularly, who are unable to look after their property. Bad maintenance or lack of maintenance and decay is not limited to over-pressed local authorities. Immobility is a very real problem; when you cannot sell your house, that can be just as difficult as being unable to acquire rented accommodation. There are problems of that kind and I believe that if we get the balance too far the other way, we may find that those problems become very acute indeed.
The third is a more general point: one which I find rather difficult to express, but I believe it to be very important. There is a sense in which what we are observing at the present time is an increasing polarisation of society, and there is a real danger that we shall begin to regard those who can live only in rented accommodation as somehow in a very low grade sub-group of their own. You can see something of the shift when you hear people talking about "welfare housing" and making the suggestion, which I have heard more than once, that owning is good and renting is bad, that everybody who makes an effort can own but that some people cannot be bothered; just as everybody who wants a job can get one, but some people do not try. I appreciate that I am exaggerating and making a parallel of it, but there is a slippage in that direction and we need to watch it carefully because there is no question of "better" or "worse" about it: there are appropriate categories of accommodation for different needs. In all this, we are not looking at a straight conflict between council housing and owner occupation. There are some in betweens, and they are very important; tenants co-operatives, housing association and so on may yet prove the way into the gap we are looking at this afternoon.
For all those reasons, I urge that local authorities and other bodies, especially those in hard-pressed inner areas, should have the opportunity to preserve a balance between houses for sale and houses for rent in order to prevent an excessive swing in either direction—we are certainly remedying the previous one—and that they should have the financial strength to preserve the existing housing stock in good condition (failure to do so is a most alarming feature at the present time) and should be able to do something to meet the considerable need which still exists in those areas in terms of people who are simply without housing at all. I am sure we all share the deep concern of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, about seeing people properly housed in the way they want to be housed. I simply want to make sure that we keep our vision whole at this time.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, I knew the area in New York about which the right reverend Prelate talked because I used to go to America a lot and—
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, I would remind my noble friend that this is a short debate and that, if he has not put his name down to speak, it is very unfair to those who have done so for him to intervene.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I was simply going to point out that in that area a great number of the occupants wreck the houses—it is a violent area—but otherwise I agreed with the remainder of the right reverend Prelate's speech.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, thanks to the remarkable self-discipline of earlier speakers, the pressure of time is not now so acute that I must refrain from pursuing the normal courtesies. Therefore, I wish first to thank the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, for putting down the Motion and giving us an opportunity to review this important subject. I wish also to add my congratulations to the maiden speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I too had the great privilege over a period of 15 to 20 years of knowing his father very well. I recall his father as a Conservative with marked classical liberal leanings, which brought us into much agreement on contentious issues, and I have no doubt that his father would have been proud to hear the eloquent and thoughtful speech which we enjoyed this afternoon.
I am sure an apology is called for because I am the fourth, luckily the last, economist to address the House out of a list of no more than a dozen. I would want to add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Robbins and say that I can think of no issue in political economy on which professional economists of widely differing tendencies are in more substantial agreement than on the unholy mess which successive Governments have made of the housing market. It is surely worth pondering that, despite the spending of mounting billions of pounds over half a century by Governments of both parties, housing has become a growing cause of human misery. I would go so far from the Cross-Benches as to argue that the so-called "housing shortage" is largely the creation of politicians in their destruction and demolition of the market for rented accommodation.
It becomes a little easier almost week by week to assert the economist's basic proposition that prices do affect supply and demand. As we see with the common agricultural policy, an artificially high price will increase supply and reduce demand and thereby create an embarrassing surplus of farm products. In precisely the same way rent control, by holding the price below the market level, will increase demand for accommodation, reduce the supply, and create the famous housing shortage. I am afraid that the real handicap which the occupants of the Labour Benches suffer is that this kind of logic is simultaneously irresistible and unacceptable.
Noble Lords have said that rent control was introduced in 1915 as an emergency wartime measure. As a self-confessed market economist I have no difficulty in defending that kind of intervention. My noble friend Lord Robbins has taught in his writings over many years that price control, and indeed rationing, are appropriate to a condition of siege, and for one simple reason. Whereas a rise in price can generally
1062
be relied upon in an open market to call forth an increased supply that helps to redress the shortage, no such corrective is possible in the abnormal circumstances of war.
The trouble was that instead of ending rent control with the end of the emergency that was its justification, successive Governments have, frankly, found it electorally profitable in the short run—which is the only run they know—to extend control and even to grant life tenancy into the second generation. As my noble friend Lord Robbins has said, the ill-effects of drying-up the supply were not immediately visible, simply because houses last a long time before they need replacing. But under rent control they just do not get replaced.
It is no wonder that politicians really thought that at last they had stumbled on a free lunch. They could indulge their favourite passion for doing good, or at least for feeling good, and at the same time serve their own electoral interest by collecting millions of grateful votes for keeping rents down. The cost was obligingly paid for by the landlords, who had conveniently little political weight. We have heard about the injustices between prosperous tenants and often poorer landlords, and also between favoured tenants in controlled property and their unlucky neighbours, forced on to lengthening queues for council houses or into uncontrolled houses at inflated rents.
The lesson of every country that has resorted to rent control has been that market forces are not so easily cheated. As the Francis Report conceded back in 1971, the combination of low rents and security of tenure ensured that no new family houses were built for letting. Even worse, by holding rents below the rising cost of maintenance and repair, especially in an age of inflation, political expediency has caused the decay and rapid decline in the number of houses under control. The statistics are remarkable. From a peak of 8½ million after the recent war, the number of private tenancies fell to 4½ million in 1960, and today is 2¾ million.
I followed the right reverend Prelate in his observations about the sorry and sad sight of decay in New York. New York is a classic case of the devastation created by rent control. It was indeed the universal phenomenon of devastation by rent control that produced a verdict from a Swedish professor, Assar Linbeck—of sufficiently good Social Democratic credentials to appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Robert-hall. In his book, The Political Economy of the New Left, he wrote as follows:
" In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city—except for bombing ".
It is a by-product of this destructive policy that has caused Governments to mount the treadmill of building houses to let at subsidised rents in a vain effort to make good the shortage contrived by their own past follies. Others have spoken of the ill-effects on the mobility of labour, and I would underline an observation by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey—that the effect of rent control has often been to force many people into the market for buying a home when they would much prefer the convenience and flexibility of renting in a free market.

1063
The pretext for all of this costly and damaging policy has always been that poor families cannot afford market rents. But this is no new discovery. Poor families cannot afford sufficient food or sufficient clothing. It has been increasingly accepted, over a very long period, that the appropriate solution to this social problem of poverty is to top up their incomes in some way, not to fake the price system, with all the consequent distortions of supply, demand, and consumer choice.
There is not much time to go into alternative policies. My preference would be that of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey—along the lines of straightforward repeal. We should sweep away the damaging rent controls as well as the wasteful, indiscriminate subsidies. We should address ourselves to those in need by introducing some coherent system of personal and portable housing allowances that would not be tied to staying put in the same home. In my view we should also phase out mortgage relief in return for progressive cuts in the rates of income tax.
In the past the partial and piecemeal efforts of Conservative Governments to tackle these problems have been frustrated by what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, acknowledged was the threat that the next Labour Government would repeal any sensible measure in this field. I hope that the noble Lords remaining on the dwindling Labour Benches will forgive me for speaking frankly, but the emotional muddle of the last Labour Cabinet was revealed by a chastened Joel Barnett in his remarkable recent memoir, Inside the Treasury, which I commend to present occupants of the Labour Front Bench. He wrote as follows:
" Talk of increasing council house rents and it was as if you were planning to snatch children from their mothers or put them to work down a mine."
I sympathise with Mr. Barnett, and know what it is to be made to feel that kind of guilt.
But I want to conclude on this more positive note. We should not allow that kind of mentality to obscure the merits of radical reform to remedy a housing problem that has been caused by an unholy mixture of misplaced benevolence, intellectual confusion and electoral opportunism.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, on his maiden speech. Once again it has emerged in this House that we have a great fund of knowledge and expertise in the various subjects that are discussed. I hope we shall hear more from the noble Lord. I should like to apologise, too, to the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. I am sure he will understand that the difficulty of getting from an airport to this House is considerable these days. Indeed, it was much quicker to fiy from Scotland to London than it was to get from Victoria into the City today.
I have an abiding interest in the housing problem, and it derives from an early experience which I am sure was shared by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who I am glad to see in his place. Both of us were members of the Glasgow City Council, and Glasgow had the unfortunate and unenviable distinction of being at that time the worst-housed city in Europe. It was not
1064
uncommon in my constituency to find six, seven, and eight people sharing a single apartment dwelling. I can recall frequently visiting houses that were damp-infested and I could see babies in their prams whose faces were scarred by the bites of vermin and insects. That was the situation in the City of Glasgow.
I believe the majority of houses had no bathroom and one-third of the houses had outside toilets. It was in that environment that we tried to develop our rational housing policy. It was a city of dull grey tenements; a city in which the name "Gorbals" was synonymous with slums and squalor. So we took power, and we decided that this was the major social evil in the city. We sent in the bulldozers and knocked down the slums. We embarked on a housing programme of 6,000 houses a year, because we had a waiting list of 60,000 at that time. We created new housing estates. We were building the new Jerusalem, and so intent were we on this that we decided we would have no licensed premises in these new housing estates. That was a major disaster, for a very simple social reason, and that was that in the process of building houses we forgot about all the other aspects of human activity and community life.
We destroyed the city centres, because the city centres were largely made up of the old tenements, and we built the new cities outside of town. As a result of that policy, of the total number of houses in the City of Glasgow—300,000 houses in the entire city—185,000 houses are local authority houses. That means that there was a large vested interest in local authority politics in Glasgow and in other areas at that time. I read the interesting statistic the other day, when someone was surveying the Coatbridge and Airdrie prospects, that 80 per cent. of the people in Coatbridge live in local authority housing.
I think it is time, having seen that interesting experiment, to take stock of its advantages and its weaknesses. First, it has many advantages. We gave some people the opportunity of greater comfort and an ability to raise children in a happier social environment. We cut dramatically the rates of infantile mortality which were a consequence of neglect and slum living in the east end of Glasgow. We built new schools which were exciting and interesting, and which provided better opportunities for raising educational standards.
But, on the other side, it is important to review the weaknesses of our achievement. First, all the tenants were taken off the register of greatest need, and therefore we tended to create a one-class community. There was no diversity in that community at all; they all came from the same social strata. That in itself does not create the diversity which makes community life interesting and exciting. Secondly, we destroyed communities. These people had enjoyed a very intimate personal relationship, even in the Gorbals, and they now found themselves in a new environment, and we did not pay enough attention to creating community interests.
Thirdly, we created very large housing estates, many of them bigger than many cities in this country, and we controlled and directed these estates from a central bureaucratic control. There was little personal or tenant involvement. Of course, tenants' associations grew up, largely as complaints bureaux, largely to knock at the doors of the local councillors to get

1065
the water fixed or the damp-proofing attended to. Involvement in running that area was never given to the tenants. So, as I say, you almost alienated people in the new environment which you created.
Recently, in anticipation of a debate in this House, I had a look at the poverty problem in the City of Glasgow. I discovered that the poverty was no longer in the slum areas but that there was greater poverty out in the new housing estates because, first, people had to travel to their work, and travel is expensive. Secondly, many of them had taken on hire-purchase commitments for new carpets or for electrical devices which they had never formerly enjoyed, and unemployment was hitting these areas hard. So you had created new communities but you had not solved the poverty problem.
Finally, we had created a situation in which there was a lack of attention to amenity—sports and other recreation activities. If I may say so in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, the new towns have planned community living far better than the local authority housing estates, with their obsession to get so many houses built as the measure of their achievement. The local authorities had a new dilemma. First, they found that the housing revenue account was running into deficit, but in the light of the poverty situation in many of these areas they were reluctant to increase the rents to economic levels—and this was understandable. If I may say so, too, in a community or a city where 60 per cent. of the people lived in council houses the electors were reluctant to elect councillors who would take a realistic view of council house rents.
So, in the light of this interesting stocktaking in housing, I think we must look at new directions for housing. As so often is the case in the political debate, the Social Democratic Party tries to strike some kind of middle way between the doctrinaire views of the local authority enthusiast and the private enterprise enthusiast on the other side. As the right reverend Prelate has said, there are many possibilities for diversity in house-building and management. I was interested in the fact that he observed the squalor of Harlem, and was upset. If he had taken his taxi just a little further out of town he would have come across two large housing estates. One is called Rochdale, in memory of the Rochdale pioneers of Lancashire, because it is a co-operative housing development in which several thousand people are living together in co-operative housing. Then, further up the road there is Co-op City, once again a co-op housing development in which the people own their houses and run that enterprise as a co-operative development.
There are three forms of co-operative housing which might be pursued: management co-operatives in which people share the management; non-equity co-operatives in which they do not have an equity stake in the development, and co-partnership associations in which the people own the houses and work as co-partners in the community. There is a great variety of forms of management of community housing which ought to be explored and we ought to be looking at new directions. Similarly, I was delighted to hear in the debate so many references to the improvement of the existing stock of houses. That is so much
1066
encouraged now by the creation of housing associations. They are doing a tremendous job in rehabilitating desert areas such as those to be found in the City of Glasgow.
So, my Lords, the Social Democratic Party is committed to decentralisation in the running of housing estates. It believes in handing back power to the people. We want neighbourhood management staff to relate to district committees and made up of tenants. Within the housing budgets, although some councils will wish to build more council houses, there must be a much higher priority for rehabilitation and maintenance. In all housing policy, as emphasised by the right reverend Prelate, there must be care. We must not be so market orientated and so profit orientated that we forget to care for those people who are not able to enjoy home ownership and who are not able to pay an economic rent. People who are single-parent families, the aged and the sick must be cared for in any reasonable social housing policy. That is the view of our party and these Benches.
5.2 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Vaizey for introducing this debate. I confess, listening to it, that looking over perhaps some part of a lifetime in this field of housing I find it so frustrating to know before I begin that the time I have available to me to talk on this massive subject is so short that I can only help a little by speaking a little quicker and perhaps hoping that your Lordships will bear with me if I take perhaps a little longer in presenting the Government's position than I think perhaps is permissible. I hope my noble friend Lord Vaizey will bear with me. That is what I would like to do. I will read very carefully all that has been said in the debate, because there have been some excellent speeches and I shall want to study very carefully and discuss their contents with my colleagues. May I add my own congratulations to my noble friend Lord Coleraine for a splendid speech. As the the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, said, it was certainly of a kind to make one want to listen to him much more—and this I look forward to doing in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, really got into the nuts and bolts of the whole field of housing. How dearly I would like to have a whole debate for some hours so that we could talk of that !— because, frankly, that really is what housing is about, about people, about the needs, about the economics, certainly; for if we ignore that we get nowhere. But at the end of the day it is also about what have we achieved, what were the mistakes, what was the slum clearance as opposed to the rebuild of the housing scene.
It is so vast a subject that my heart sinks slightly as I embark upon trying to respond to the comments made so far and at the same time to give some indication of how the Government feel about these matters. It has been the aim of this Government to make all parts of the housing market more responsive to the genuine needs of people and to break down the barriers between the different providers and users of housing. There are two key elements in this. The first is the clear, unequivocal acceptance of the fact that the

1067
great majority of people do want to own their own homes and that meeting this need must be our top priority.
In saying that, I am absolutely agreed that there are categories of people who do not want to do so. There are those who do not need to; and their position also is part of the whole debate. But we delude ourselves if we do not acknowledge that the majority want to own their own homes. All the main political parties talk about the importance of owner-occupation. Indeed, frankly, they have no option; for 90 per cent. of households whose head is under 45 years, according to the general housing survey, prefer to own their own homes. But the present Government have been working actively to make it possible for people to achieve this goal.
The second element is that we must make the best use of the limited resources of houses, land and money available. That means there must be a sensible balance, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, has said, between rehabilitation and new build; and the resources of the public and private sectors must be used effectively together in a way which they have not always been so used in the past.
The Motion we are debating today rightly stresses the importance of home ownership. There is in the country, as every speaker has said, a deep-rooted desire for it. It is also close to the hearts of millions of council tenants as well as of other aspiring owners. Home ownership gives people a stronger stake in society; it encourages them, as the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said, in what 1 thought was a splendid speech. We shall have to have him as a salesman on this side of the House—except that for council house selling, frankly, we do not need a salesman. The case is self made.
What else does ownership do? It encourages an attitude of self-reliance and independence. That is why this Government took office with a pledge to give many more low-income households—and this is the point—the chance to realise their dream of home ownership. But the cornerstone of that policy is the right to buy, and I should like to tell your Lordships the response there has been to this. Without going into a great deal of detail, I sum it up simply by saying that it is estimated that by the end of March 1983 over 400,000 council tenants in England will have bought their property under the present Administration.
Well, you can talk of the 6i million council tenants and I think, to answer the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, who said that we should maintain a balance, that he is right. We should maintain a balance. But what is a balance? Is a balance 3 million? Is it 2 million? Is it 5 million? What is a balance? Everyone will have their own view as to that. But I would suggest that there is little fear for the right reverend Prelate that there will ever be so great an imbalance in the total number of sales as to prevent local authorities from providing rented accommodation for those who need it and indeed, for those who would want it.
The figure that I have mentioned is, I submit respectfully, a huge response and a vindication of the Government's policy. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, was so right when he said that while some theorisea
1068
about the quality and the redistribution of wealth, the fact is that this, a Conservative Government, are doing something about it. They are doing, I submit, more than has ever been done before about further equalisation of wealth through this policy. And is it not ironical that this is a policy that really was fought so much by the party opposite!
There are wider benefits, too, to the industrial purchaser. For example, there is normally greater ease of mobility in the owner-occupied sector, although we are taking steps to improve it in the public sector. too. There are social advantages in mixing forms of tenure, rather than having whole areas of cities consisting of nothing but council housing. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said; "Go round the council estates and see what is happening there! See what happens when the council homes have been purchased and are being looked after and the gardens looked after!" I remember when I first introduced myself to the selling of council houses in Leeds in 1968 that one of the fiercest opponents of it said; "Do you realise that the tenants will paint their houses in different colours?" I said that I sincerely hoped that they would. But I tell you that was done by very responsible politicians. They thought that would be dreadful. It is true they paint them different colours and do their gardens different ways—and thank goodness for it—because that really uplifts the whole of housing. If the right reverend Prelate is so rightly concerned that we should not have polariastion, I would ask: What is polarisation but massive council estates which clearly set up not individual tenants or owners but whole areas of polarisation? I will not say more about this subject. I think the case is made: it is game, set and match, if I may use that expression at this particular time.
1 should therefore now like to turn to other aspects of the Government's policy of promoting home ownership. Many local authorities own land which is unlikely to be developed for many years; yet builders and developers badly need land now so as to meet the demand for low-cost starter homes for many people who at present will appear on council waiting lists. The merits of forging a partnership between local authorities and developers to ensure that houses acceptable to all concerned are actually built may appear self-evident, but it does represent a radical change in the way of doing business both for authorities and builders. This Government have done more than any other to promote this new approach. We have been urging local authorities to recognise that a great many of the housing needs in their areas do not require the traditional solution of building homes for rent. Making land available to builders for starter homes is one direct form of help, and authorities can sell on terms which ensure that a low land price is fully reflected in the price of the homes. Again, there is scope here for a whole new debate so that we could speak at length on this topic. At this time, however, I would only say that we warmly welcome the efforts of the Housebuilders' Federation in telling local authorities of the help their members can offer. They are doing this now in a very active way and we are very pleased to see it.
Perhaps I should refer to one point made by my noble friend Lord Vaizey and assure him, in case

1069
there should be those who have any doubts, that the Government remain committed to the continuation of the principle of mortgage interest relief. The limit on relief, currently £25,000, is carefully reviewed every year. In the Budget we also reduced the cost of buying a house by increasing the threshold above which stamp duty is payable from £20,000 to £25,000. I welcome, also, the movement within the private building sector towards building the kind of accommodation they always said they would not build; namely, accommodation for the single person and similar types of accommodation. They are building that today and they are building in the inner cities. They will build more in the inner cities if local authorities would make more land available to them. In my opinion, that is a very great contribution towards the whole problem of housing stock.
The Government are very concerned about the adequate supply of land and therefore, among a lot of other measures, we have introduced registers of used and under-used land in public ownership. Three hundred and fifty-eight have now been published, covering some 9,600 sites totalling 87,000 acres. The experience of the first 35 registers—I think this is very interesting—published last year suggests that half of this land may be suitable for development. I am concerned that there are still a few local authorities whose planning policies place excessive restrictions on density and make it difficult to get low-cost home ownership schemes off the ground. I would urge them to look again at their planning policies in this respect.
Is it not good to know that activity is now picking up in the public sector as well as in the private sector? I am hoping that local authorities will now make use of these hundreds of millions of pounds of capital receipts now in their hands so that they can do with them what they claim they have been unable to do in the past. In other words, if they want to rehabilitate their homes, that is fine; if they want to build some more, that is up to them. They can increase their housing capital allocations so to do, and they now have the kind of manoeuvrability and flexibility which has not pertained for quite some time. I hope that they will make the most of that.
I am not going to rise to the bait by talking about the politics of the numbers of homes built. Circumstances have changed. The postwar shortfall in numbers of dwellings compared to the numbers of households has created a new situation, and we should be quite wrong to be diverted from the mainstream of this subject—certainly of today's debate—by going into that, but I hope time may be made available on another occasion so that we can do so.
The final theme I want to refer to is the private rented sector, about which so many of your Lordships have spoken today. My goodness!—those speeches will repay some careful reading. In a short and very sharp contribution, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, made a rather devastating speech. As to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, my complaint is that he does not speak often enough, because his comments are always worthy of the greatest consideration, and I do assure him that they will get it.
What can one say about the situation which now prevails? I served on the Francis Committee, which studied the working of the Acts, and every Friday for
1070
15 months we sat down and talked about this. We took oral evidence and we visited and we looked into the working of those Acts. Among other things, what we said at the end of the day was: "If you give security of tenure to furnished tenancies, it will inevitably have a dramatic impact on the availability of accommodation to rent".
Nobody took the slightest notice. I sometimes wonder why the committee was appointed. What happened was exactly what we had said would happen, and I personally feel it is catastrophic that the number of homes available to rent in the private sector continues to decline as it does. With great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, when she says that it is only a financial matter, she is wrong. The fact is that if I had spare room in my house to rent and I knew that by renting them I would be giving somebody complete security of tenure for who knows how many generations, I should need my head examining if I did so rent those rooms. That is the biggest deterrent of all, and we delude ourselves if we think otherwise. I am not going further into the private rented accommodation question, but one day we shall certainly have to come back to it. It is a problem which will go on. It will not go away, and we must come back to it.
My Lords, time is pressing, as we know, so I shall conclude by summing up quickly just some of the major initiatives the Government have taken in the last three years, which I hope will encourage my noble friend Lord Vaizey, who proposed this Motion. We have introduced, as I said, the right to buy. We have done more than any previous Government to encourage local authorities, made land available for starter homes. Then there are all the various other things. There are the low cost—I stress low cost—home ownership schemes, improvements and buildings for sale, homesteading and shared ownership. We have given local authorities powers to guarantee building society loans on the cheapest and most run-down dwellings. Surely we have to be concerned about the 100,000 or so council dwellings plus the more than that private sector houses that are lying empty today—just totally empty. What a massive waste of resources!
We have raised the exemption ceiling for stamp duty and increased the ceiling for local authority mortgage advances. It is now easier than at almost any other time for first-time buyers to enter the housing market, and more are now doing so. I have said what we are doing for the private rented sector by way of shorthold —at least, I have not said too much because of the time factor, but we could have a debate just about shorthold and shorthold tenancies. May I just say that I am still amazed that a leading spokesman in another place could say that he would rather see houses standing empty than being occupied under shorthold tenancies? How any politician of any party can ever justify a statement like that I shall never know: yet we have it there and they stand on it even today.
In the public sector, we have introduced a tenants' charter, giving tenants the right, among other things, to decorate, to improve, to take in lodgers and to sub-let, as well as the right of security of tenure and one succession and the right to information and consultation. It is a Conservative Government who have introduced all those rights for council tenants. Is that not ironical?

1071
To help tackle the serious problem of "difficult to let" council estates, we have launched the Priority Estates Project, which the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, only last week commended so much to us. We have encouraged mobility; besides developing the first ever National Mobility Scheme, we have launched the Tenants' Exchange Scheme, providing a national computer-based information service for tenants who want to exchange their homes. We have launched the first major expansion in hostels provision for many years; and we have taken special measures to help, among others, servicemen, the elderly and the disabled.
I finish by saying that, after many years of personal involvement in the whole field that is housing, I am proud to be a member of a Government which has people like our Secretary of State, and my honourable friend the Minister for Housing, who are producing so many imaginative, innovative and progressive housing projects. I again thank my noble friend Lord Vaizey for giving me the opportunity to say so, and I again say that I shall read very carefully all that has been said in this most excellent debate.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Vaizey: My Lords, I should like to reply briefly to the debate. Your Lordships have been commendably brief. We have not reached the end of the allotted time, even although we have had a Statement made by my noble friend about the Royal College of Nursing. I should first like to thank my noble friend Lord Coleraine for what was truly a remarkably impressive and very helpful maiden speech. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Bellwin for his knowledge, his enthusiasm and his warmth. The affection in which he is held in the House is clear to everybody. He has made a very helpful contribution, as has everybody who has spoken.
I should just like, very briefly, to make three points, First, I think that almost everybody stressed the importance for human dignity, and for a sense of citizenship, of the ownership of equity and the pride of ownership—what the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, called the search for identity. It is something of tremendous importance that people speaking from every side of the House should have emphasised this as a central and commendable feature of much of our modern life.
Secondly, it takes some doing to get unity among four economists. When you have four economists speaking out, you usually have eight opinions. But we are against the Rent Acts. The only people who are for the Rent Acts, so far as I know, are not economists, and even those who ventured to say a word in favour of the Rent Acts said that they should be abolished, but abolished slowly—if I fully took on board the message which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, brought down from Glasgow, helped by British Caledonian and hindered by London Transport.
We had a brilliant exposition by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, of the way in which the Rent Acts actually work. This is a rather central point, and I should like to take the third stream in the debate, which I might call the problem of the Church of England. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark is an extremely distinguished pastoral Bishop and a distinguished theologian. But one of
1072
the perplexities of those, like myself, who are loyal, dedicated sons of the Church of England, is how the Church of England has repealed the Book of Common Prayer and adopted collectivism as the new theology.
The devastation of the City of New York, through which the right reverend Prelate drove, is directly and unambiguously attributable, as the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, said, to rent control, which has been imposed by the City of New York, under the pressure of a series of incredibly corrupt city governments over many years. Similarly, the devastation of the inner part of the right reverend Prelate's diocese, Southwark, which I happen to know well, because I was born and brought up there—and there are very few streets in the inner part that I could not take him down—is entirely attributable to the actions of rent restriction and the local borough council, as was rightly said by one of your Lordships this afternoon. Apart from the bombing of the city, which the Luftwaffe did, you would find that most of the vacant spaces are entirely due to the late lamented London County Council—an excellent education authority, but a very misguided local planning authority.
In fact, I remember taking a friend of mine from Dublin through Belfast and saying "It looks awfully bad, doesn't it?" He was a rather eccentric Irishman, who always went up to Belfast every three months to go to the dentist, and he said, "It doesn't look as bad as what the planners have done to Greater London". That is true, and the devastation has been brought about by a combination of the Rent Acts and town and country planning. If the Church of England persistently believes that the only way of relieving the poverty of the poor is through collectivist measures, then I despair, because it is not true, and it is a very thin theological gruel to give to the starving millions. With that, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it might be helpful if, with the leave of the House, I were to repeat shortly what I said earlier in the day. It has become the accepted practice in these short debates that the mover should be entitled to approximately 15 minutes and that the Minister should rise to reply no later than 20 minutes before the scheduled end of the debate. May I suggest that other speakers should limit their speeches on the Motion of my noble friend Lord Mottistone to about 12 minutes, because, if any noble Lord should speak longer, he may well be doing so at the expense of others later in the debate.

Civil Defence
5.27 p.m.
Lord Mottistonerose to call attention to the problems of civil defence and in particular to the duties in this respect of local authorities and to the value of encouraging the recruitment of volunteers to this and other related forms of public service; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with regard to what my noble friend the Chief Whip has just said, I am

1073
delighted that he repeated his statement that we have 12 minutes per person, which is what I calculated, because in his earlier speech he gave only 1W., minutes to the previous lot, and as there are exactly the same number of speakers I could not quite understand the difference. However, we can take full advantage I did not say so at the time, for fear that he cut down. our timing. I welcome all the speakers who have kindly put down their names to speak, particularly the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletsoe, who will be giving us his maiden speech. I welcome him very much and greatly look forward to hearing what he has to tell us.
It is some time since a debate on this subject was held in your Lordships' House, and I can touch on only some aspects of what can be quite a wide subject. I hope that others of your Lordships who are taking part in the debate will be able to fill any gaps that I may leave. Though the Government have taken welcome initiatives—financially, in giving advice about civil defence and in raising a volunteer force-1 believe that it is necessary at the outset to examine, once again, the basic needs. Why do we need civil defence? I suggest that the fundamental reason is that we need to have an organised body of trained volunteers, led by a relatively small, full-time specialist team who are able at any time to support local authorities in the event of any natural or man-made disaster. Floods. extensive subsidence, major air crashes, major train accidents, major snowfalls, landslides and chemical disasters in sophistocated plants or in vehicles, are all features of modern life, and a great many of them are features of recent modern life. Secondly, I think there is a need for such a force of specialists and trained volunteers also to be available to back up the regular armed forces and their reserves in the event of any attack by an outside aggressor on these islands. I should have thought that this was absolutely obvious common sense.
I turn now to why, in the main, it should be a volunteer force. I suggest that there is a limit to the number of full-time local authority employees whom it is reasonable or economical to have available for unforseen major disasters. There is a similar limit to the size of fully trained armed services, and their reserves, available for back-up purposes. There is, on the other hand, a great number of men and women who are ready to come forward and assist this great country to surmount any major disaster which may strike it in peace or war. Good, well-established examples of such voluntary services are the many nursing organisations, the lifeboats, the volunteer fire brigades and bodies of that nature. But I suggest to your Lordships that they do not of themselves provide precisely what I am saying we need for unforeseen disasters.
With that background, it seems to me to be singularly shortsighted not to tap this great volunteer reserve and give it the necessary training to tackle the tasks which may occur at any time, and without warning, and to tackle them in an organised way. The broad mass of the people would surely not forgive either central or local government if an emergency arose and the thousands, maybe more, of able bodied people who are willing and able to do so had been given no chance to be prepared to help. Their effectiveness in doing so
1074
will of course be immeasurably increased if they are trained and organised in advance. As well as giving such people a chance to help if they are needed, the fact that the arrangements have been made at all will be yet another indication to any potential aggressor that we would resist attack, and will help—but only help—to deter him from doing so.
Your Lordships may have noted that so far I have made no mention of the relevance of civil defence to nuclear attack. That most unlikely form of attack is only one of the emergencies for which an organised civil defence force could be of assistance. I suggest to your Lordships that nuclear aggression is most unlikely, because those who are capable of implementing it are fully aware of the disastrous and long-term effect of such resultant explosions, and are also deterred by the possibility of retaliation. Furthermore, the main purpose of war for an aggressor—I would mention that according to my reckoning this country, under major war conditions, has not been an aggressor for over two centuries, so we do not know what it is like to be an aggressor and cannot therefore judge these things —is to impose his will on the community under attack. What is the point of totally destroying those whom you wish to subjugate? However, I have some sympathy for the Government of the day which wound up the civil defence force in the 1960s when the Soviet threat appeared to be only nuclear.
Since then, things—as they tend to do—have moved on. There have been, fortunately, few natural disasters and man-made chemical catastrophes. In those few cases, unsung ordinary people have sprung to the assistance of the authorities. In many cases there has been a hard core of people with experience of war, accustomed to organising behaviour for emergencies. But we are running out of these people. The other, and vitally important, new factor has been that in the past 20 years the Soviet Union have developed their so-called conventional forces to a size far in excess of that necessary for their stated aim of self-defence. If, as they are currently trying to do, they can persuade the countries of Western Europe to drop their nuclear guard, then, if the situation looks right, they will be able to threaten to impose their will by so-called conventional means. Thus, we need civil defence for peacetime emergencies. We also need it desperately both to deter and, if necessary, to help to tackle a conventional Soviet attack.
Much of what I have said is included in the Government pamphlet Civil Defence: Why We Need It, and in the excellent Home Office circulars to local authorities —ES1/81 and ES2/81. Thus I find it incomprehensible that so many local authorities do not realise the grave disservice which they are doing to their electors in failing to implement coherent plans for civil defence. They also mislead those electors into thinking that, somehow, an efficient civil defence force has some sort of link with a nuclear threat—which they, and anybody else who is sensible, does not like the thought of. In some cases they mislead their electors even further into thinking that the declaration of a nuclear-free zone provides any defence whatsoever against anything. It is absolute nonsense. Those local authorities would do their electors a much better service by preparing for all types of emergencies and by joining up with the various peace movements to ask the

1075
Russians when they are going to reduce their conventional arms to a level that is necessary solely for self defence.
I must also say that, good though their recent circulars are and welcome though the financial support which they offer is, the Government themselves seem to have been surprisingly backward—at least since the excellent speech of my honourable friend Mr. Mayhew in another place on 27th November 1981, at col. 1156—in giving positive impetus towards the implementation of their excellent intentions, especially concerning the ignorant and incomprehensibe behaviour of so many local authorities. I believe that the Government have also been backward in correcting the general public regarding the misleading nonsense about linking civil defence with nuclear warfare and establishing nuclear-free zones, to which I have already referred. I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister, to whom I have given notice of those two latter points, will be able to tell us of positive action to correct them, or about the contemplation of such action.
In conclusion, I commend to your Lordships the National Council for Civil Defence, of which I, together with the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and my noble friend Lady Vickers, have the privilege of being vice-presidents—and of which my noble friend Lord Renton is the illustrous president. I commend it to your Lordships of all parties, and indeed it is sad that there are so few people on the Benches opposite who are joining in this debate. It is a body of parliamentarians and other members from many parts of the country, formed independently to help persuade people—the country at large—that civil defence is truly needed by the country for tackling the emergencies which I have described, and for deterring aggression. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
5.41 p.m.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, the House is deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for this opportunity to discuss matters which are of prime interest and of profound public concern. May I join with the noble Lord who opened the debate in saying how much I, too, look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso.
I am sure that the House and the opening speaker will forgive me if I seek to confine my remarks to the question of civil defence in the context of an attack upon the civilian population. The field of civil defence holds vital issues involving some of the greatest considerations any community has had to face throughout history. Civil defence in its broadest aspects has the widest scope possible. It has a multiplicity of roles, ranging from one extreme of seeking to neutralise any physical threat to the public at large, to the other extreme of attempting to create some semblance of order out of cataclysmic chaos and of salvaging the very structure of Government from the mangled remains of a community. If I may, it is against that background that I ask the question: has civil defence in that respect any meaningful role in Britain today?
In so far as the capacity of civil defence to counter the horrendous effects of nuclear attack is concerned, then quite clearly such a capacity does not exist. There is overwhelming evidence on that score from
1076
every quarter. The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, as the House is well aware, had an equivalent explosive force of some 12,500 tonnes of TNT. It achieved in an instant the deaths of 60,000 people, and some 60,000 more died within a few months, followed by the deaths of many, many thousands more over the years. A Government exercise carried out in 1980—Operation Square Leg—seeking to simulate in realistic terms a nuclear attack upon Britain, was based upon the probability that such an attack would involve Britain suffering 125 nuclear missiles, amounting in total to some 200 megatons—that is, the eqivalent of 13,000 Hiroshimas.
The Government are on record as having calculated that the number of deaths in an all-out attack on Britain would be in the order of 35 million. How the Government can calculate that the figure would be 35 million rather than 40 million, 45 million or 55 million is something which no doubt the Minister will wish to comment upon in due course. The late Lord Louis Mountbatten, in a speech at Strasbourg on 11th May 1979, spoke of a nuclear attack upon Britain in these terms:
" In the event of nuclear war, there will be no chances and there will be no survivors. All will be obliterated."
He went on to say:
" I am not asserting this without having deeply thought about the matter. When I was Chief of Defence Staff, I made my views known. I have heard arguments against this view, but I have never found them convincing."
The noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, chief scientific adviser to the Government for many years, made a speech in the United States of America in November 1979, when he put it this way:
" As our own White Paper on Defence put it as long ago as 1957, there was then no means of protecting the nation against the consequences of a nuclear war. There is none today, when the scale of attack may he 100 times greater than it was in the 1950s."
One could continue finding quotation upon quotation, all by people of distinction and experience in this field, and all pointing to an almost inevitable apocalyptic disaster in the event of a nuclear attack One thing, in my submission, is clear: the effect of a nuclear attack on Britain would be to leave these islands a smoking and radiation-contaminated ruin. There is no precedent even in the most terrifying chapters of human history to turn to for a realistic parallel Indeed, one would have to descend into Dante's Inferno.
Civil defence as a shield to protect the mass of the people of Britain against nuclear destruction is a physical impossibility and a myth. I am sure that this House will accept that to propagate such a myth would be to blur the sharp edges of reality and to delude the mass of our people. To do this would be an act of wicked irresponsibility on the part of any government. But sometimes those who take a particular stance in relation to civil defence say, "But you must never presume that the attack upon Britain will be a nuclear one." Let us think of that for a moment. Let us assume that a conventional weapons attack was made by a nuclear power. Why should that ever be so? Surely any such power, in deciding to attack Britain, would have to come to the conclusion that it had a fair chance of knocking out the

1077
British community completely and depriving it of its power of retaliation. If by using conventional rather than nuclear weapons it took any risk, it would be an imbecilic risk for such a country to take. It is almost as if one had argued in 1939 that the Germans would not use their vast armada of bombers to attack Britain but would send only a few antiquated Zeppelin airships instead. So far as the possibility of an attack from a non-nuclear country is concerned, that is a prospect too ludicrous to justify any examination.
Although the destruction that Britain would suffer from a nuclear attack would be truly massive, it must follow—must it not?—that no-one could possibly calculate within 1 million, 5 million or tens of millions just how many people would be killed and how many would have a chance of survival. It must follow that, in relation to nuclear attack, there must be a real case for civil defence. If civil defence was not able genuinely to deflect or neutralise the prospect of nuclear destruction, nevertheless it has a role if it offers the possibility of saving millions upon millions of lives. The question of saving millions of lives must be a real possibility so far as people who live on the edges of a nuclear blast are concerned. It is impossible to say in what circumstances there would be such a patchy or partial attack on the British community, but one can imagine a dozen different situations in which that would happen. The possibility of the saving from jeopardy of millions or tens of millions of lives must indeed be central to the very duties of a state. In fact, I would argue that there is no higher duty that a state has in the material world.
The question, however, that one must ask is whether civil defence as we know it at the moment in Britain is geared to such a role. The scale of the enterprise from a financial point of view is extremely modest. In 1980, the Government spent £27 million on civil defence. By 1983–84 that will have risen to a sum of the order of £45 million. That will be one-third of what was spent upon civil defence in 1968 when the Civil Defence Corps was stood down and placed upon a care and maintenance basis. The £45 million is a fraction of what Britain spends, for example, every year upon military bands. Certainly I do not attack military bands—on the contrary—but I think it gives us some idea of the priorities in this context.
Government publications in this field have not given any real clue at all as to Government commitments. The latest pamphlet, Civil Defence: Why We Need It, is confined to arguing the case for civil defence. There was an earlier publication in 1976, which was issued to the general public only in 1979–80, that exhorted people in the event of thermo-nuclear war to hide under tables, to white-wash windows, to horde tinned food and toothbrushes. Among these clouds of good advice there was no commitment by the Government for the most direct methods of defence. The Government, it seems, have no plans for seeing to it that a substantial proportion of the people of Britain are provided, either communally or privately, with deep shelters. If the Government say that the risk of nuclear war is negligible, then, of course, I accept that it would be folly to commit ourselves to the vast expenditure that such a project entails. But if the risk of nuclear war is negligible, why should Her Majesty's Government commit Britain to the expenditure of £8,000 million
1078
upon the Trident scheme? If the risk, however, is real, then there is a real duty upon the Government to protect their people.
There is a great deal that I would wish to say, but I am afraid that time has completely forestalled me. I end by asking that question. If the Government consider that there is this real risk, small but nevertheless real, by failing to provide the British people with a chance, which in the case of millions of people would give them a real prospect of survival, the Government inevitably must be abdicating one of their basic responsibilities.
5.53 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, a number of points about the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, puzzled me very greatly. He began by reminding us of the tragedies of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in nuclear-free zones. This morning I received a document called The Londoner, a newspaper published at the ratepayers' expense, which informed me that London had been declared a nuclear-free zone by the GLC; put on a par, that is so far as its status goes, with Hiroshima and Nagasaki—they were in nuclear-free zones. It can be argued that if the Japanese had had nuclear weapons, the tragedies that overcame Hiroshima and Nagasaki might never have taken place.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, left us in some doubt as to whether he wished the Government to build deep shelters, or whether he wished the Government to do nothing. It is perfectly possible from the speech of the noble Lord to deduce either that he wishes the Government to do nothing or that he wishes them to build deep shelters.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to intervene—and I am most grateful—certainly what I say is that if, according to the Government's own argument there is a real danger of nuclear war, and if they really want to protect millions of lives then shelters certainly should be built.
Lord Mayhew: The noble Lord, with great respect, is avoiding his moral duty to this House. He really must say whether he wishes the Government to do nothing or to build deep shelters.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, unreservedly I do, unless it can be shown that the risk is a negligible one, and at the moment the risk is not a negligible one. I do not think I could be clearer than that.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, now I am clear that the noble Lord wishes a very vast sum of money to be spent, millions of pounds, on providing this country with deep shelters. Where the money is coming from no doubt other Members of those Benches will explain.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: Trident.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I wish to suggest, on the contrary, that the Government are at fault for a different reason. I take very much the line of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who opened the debate, in this sense: I think it is lamentable that local authori-

1079
ties, including the GLC, are not co-operating in the civil defence venture of the Government. They argue, as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, has argued, that nuclear war is so destructive that it is futile to make any provision against it. They argue that in preparing for civil defence in some way brings nuclear war nearer, or even involves preparing for fighting a nuclear war. In my view, all these arguments are preposterous. But they are exploited quite effectively in order to dissuade local authorities from doing their duty in the field of civil defence.
My complaint with the Government is this: that their civil defence effort has been planned and presented not as a response to natural disasters or the possibility of conventional warfare, or even as a response to a single nuclear explosion, possibly accidental, possibly the dropping of a demonstration bomb. The Government's civil defence plans have been prepared and presented to the nation solely in terms of the nuclear holocaust to which the last speaker was referring. What nonsense this is!
Why are the Government taking this line? Do they really think that a nuclear holocaust is more likely than conventional war? It does not correspond with the views of the Secretary of State for Defence. Or do they think that conventional war will not also cause appalling destruction and terrible casualties? Or do they feel that the public will respond more readily if the case for civil defence is put in terms of a nuclear holocaust? If they think these things they are wrong on all these counts, and must carry considerable responsibility for the failure to mobilise the country; the failure to get the co-operation of local authorities throughout the country.
My own view is that while we have a deterrent the possibility of conventional war with the Soviet Union in Europe is very small indeed, and the possibility of nuclear war with Russia in Europe hardly exists at all. If we are to have skeleton civil defence plans, as I think we should, I think they should be geared more to conventional war than to nuclear war. And to the extent that they are geared to nuclear war they should be geared to a single nuclear explosion, possibly an accident, possibly a demonstration bomb, more than to a nuclear holocaust. In planning and preparing their scheme, the Government have done exactly the opposite and have given a great opportunity to extreme Left-Wing views to exploit the situation against the NATO defence policy which is supported so widely in this country. The Government have got their priorities wrong and have helped nobody except Left-Wing extremists and unilateralists.
I would also say, however, as the last point 1 wish to make, that no matter whether one is a unilateralist, a multilateralist or a pacifist, whatever one's political views, it does not affect the case for civil defence at all. The case for civil defence is a humanitarian case and that is all it is. It simply asserts that no matter what may have caused suffering it is everyone's obligation to try to limit it. That is all it says, and this applies in all circumstances in all countries, no matter how wicked or how stupid the Government may be; it is a humanitarian case and it gives me the greatest pain to see my old party rejecting the case for humanity in this very casuistic way, this very unconvincing
1080
manner. This argument of humanity also applies in neutral countries. If war comes in Europe, whether it is conventional or nuclear, it is unlikely to have been brought about by the governments of Sweden or Switzerland. Nor are they likely to be participants or to be deliberate targets in such a war; but these two countries are foremost in the protection they provide for their citizens in civil defence. If Britain followed their example, if we became neutral, if we became non-nuclear, we should have exactly the same obligation to defend our citizens, to provide civil defence. In my view, therefore, the present attitude of some local authorities in refusing to co-operate in civil defence is not only extremely illogical but essentially inhumane.
6.2 p.m.
Lord St. John of Bletso: My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to speak in your Lordships' House for the first time, and particularly in this important debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, for his kind introduction. I am conscious of the traditions of this House and of the vast experienc and depth of knowledge of all aspects of life represented here. Although I have spent most of my life in South Africa and thus to some degree have been remote from the public debates on defence matters which are of such immediate concern to the countries of the northern hemisphere, nevertheless I have no doubt of the importance of the subject we are debating.
Parallels are not easy to draw between one part of the world and another, but I am sure that all observers would agree that the most tragic aspect of the various guerrilla wars which have occurred, and are still occurring, in Southern Africa is the loss of life among innocent civilians caught between the fires of opposing parties. In Europe, too, it is perhaps easy to forget that in a major war the greatest burden in deaths, casualties and distress is inevitably likely to fall upon the civilian population; but although in considering the question of civil defence one's mind naturally turns to the possibility of a military attack on this country, none the less the severe social disruption which would inevitably be caused by such an attack could be brought about by other circumstances.
I refer particularly to natural disasters, or what may be called technological disasters, such as the power failure which gripped New York a few years ago—I believe in I977—which caused such disruptive consequences. Whatever causes these disruptions, the same kind of consequences are likely to follow; for example, breakdowns in communication, transport failures, the collapse of vital services like the supply of water and of electricity. Furthermore, the possibility of looting and other civil disorders such as occurred during the New York power failure which I have mentioned cannot be ruled out.
In considering the powers and functions of this country's civil defence authorities we should not forget to take into account these non-military factors. In the circumstances of serious social disruption the maintenance of law and order will of course remain the proper responsibility of the police force. It may also be necessary to call upon the armed forces to ensure that at least minimal vital services can be

1081
maintained; but I would suggest that there are many people in the community who would be keen and willing to offer any assistance they could to help those not in a position to help themselves.
I am not suggesting that what is needed is some form of vigilante force. The main burden for the maintenance of law and order should fall upon the police and existing authorities; but would there not be great value in encouraging volunteers to come forward for instruction, so that in the event of any form of disaster, on however localised a scale, there would be those in each locality aware of the actions they can take to help those in schools and hospitals, as well as the elderly? A call for such volunteers would not be intended to stir up a bellicose mentality among the population nor, I am sure, would it have that effect. It is surely a natural expression of a community's vitality that there are those in it who are prepared to do their bit to help others in distress.
It is only right, therefore, that great attention should be given to civil defence in this country, not because we anticipate a war, but because, should a war be forced upon us, or should a serious natural disaster occur, it is right that every effort should be made to ensure that the innocent and the weak do not suffer more than is absolutely unavoidable.
My Lords, you have listened to me with great indulgence. I hope that our debate today will help to stir the thinking of the authorities responsible for our civil defence in all its aspects, since the more thought we give to it now, the more future generations will thank us.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will wish to join with me in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, on his maiden speech, which was penetratingly thoughtful, fluent and convincing. Naturally, I welcome his support for civil defence and for the need to maintain vital services in case of all emergencies in peace and war, and the encouragement that he gave to the use of volunteers. He was good enough in his speech to refer to the experience and expertise in your Lordships' House, but we in turn should welcome the fact that his presence means that we have youth on our side. For that we are grateful and we hope that we shall often have him speaking in our debates when he is free to attend from his professional duties elsewhere. There, as he has explained to me, he will have to make his living and his life; but his presence with us is most welcome.
I would like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Mottistone on initiating this important debate and on the way in which he did so. He was surely right to point out that we need to prepare for the immense peacetime disasters which can hit us as well as the possibility of conventional or nuclear war. He too referred, so rightly, to the part which trained volunteers should be given a chance to play. I listened eagerly and anxiously to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan. I believe I can at least say about it that it showed a degree of responsibility which we do not always get in these matters from members of his party, who so often in a deceptive kind of way try to tell people, especially the young people of this country,
1082
that there is only one kind of emergency, that that is an all-out civil war, that civil defence exists only for that, that it is a waste of time and therefore we do not want civil defence. That false simplification of the argument does no service to the people of this or any other country. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, avoided that argument.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, will my noble friend give way? He said "civil war"; I think he meant "nuclear war".
Lord Renton: Yes, my Lords; I am sorry, I meant nuclear war. 1 am most grateful for that correction and interruption which is so typical of the type of diligent service which we in civil defence receive from my noble friend Lord Mottistone.
However, in analysing the risks which the Government and local authorities have to face, I feel bound to say that the noble Lord's picture was incomplete. Besides those risks that he mentioned, there is the additional risk, so rightly mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that a nuclear accident might happen anywhere and the people, for example, in Scotland could suffer from a nuclear accident on the continent of Europe, by fallout drifting over. To say that civil defence would be a waste of time in such circumstances is again to deceive the people. That is one of the reasons why we need civil defence. I happened to mention another one at, I think, Question Time last week. We know now that several dictators, including, we believe, the Argentina junta, have or will soon have the nuclear bomb. We are told that Colonel Gaddafi has practically got it. I think that one of the possible risks, not a probable one, but one that should be borne in mind, is that a bomb-happy irresponsible dictator could drop a bomb somewhere and the fallout could drift over a continent.
I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Elystan Morgan, in saying that we do not have to face the prospect of a conventional war between the great powers. I trust that there will never be a war between the great powers. However, if there is a war, then a conventional war is much more likely and the real risk in such a war is that the losing side, in order to try to bring the conflict to a conclusion, might drop not 100 nuclear bombs, but one nuclear bomb. That is a serious possibility, and one of the risks against which we should provide and in respect of which we should be prepared to pay the premium which is a modest one.
Without being too rhetorical, I should like to echo the sentiment of Alfred Lord Tennyson and say that I wish that we could:
" Ring out the thousand wars of old, Ring in the thousand years of peace".
That is what we would all like. It is not only the wish of those in the peace movement—they do not have a monopoly of that desire. But we live in a dangerous world. We shall not get peace by unilateral disarmament, by declaring nuclear-free zones or by letting local authorities neglect the statutory duty imposed upon them by Parliament when there have been both Labour and Conservative Governments. It is a very meagre responsibility. It is merely a responsibility to plan for emergencies in peace and war. It is not onerous. At the lowest it is a mere paper exercise

1083
although it could—and in my opinion should—amount to much more than that and should include the training of local authority staffs, as mentioned by my noble friend. It could and should include the involvement and training of volunteers whether in existing organisations or not; it should include preparations for industrial civil defence on which I know at least one of my noble friends is to say something; and it should include adequate take-up of the warning systems. Luckily we have the Royal Observer Corps and their early warning system. Indeed, that is possibly one of the strongest parts of our civil defence organisation. But it means that it should be carried down to the local level, to parish and ward level.
It would be interesting to know what the Government include in the concept of emergency planning. As have said, it can be merely a paper exercise. The tragedy is that many local authorities are not even doing the minimum. This is disgraceful, for it means that not only are they failing to do what Parliament has required them to do but, as has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, it also means that they are failing in their humanitarian duty towards their own ratepayers. That failure seems to me, from what one can glean from the newspapers and one's knowledge of what goes on in local government in the country, to be largely due to ideological prejudice based partly on ignorance and partly on wilful deception. But it has the effect of weakening our country against the possibility of attack.
It is rather interesting to note in passing that the other day 11 young Russians tried to start a peace movement outside the Kremlin, and they were immediately arrested and put inside. The money which the peace movement is spending in this country would be much better spent in sending as many people as possible to Russia to protest there, where the real source of possible war exists.
Although it is obvious that there is no defence against a direct hit by a bomb, whether nuclear or conventional, those of us who are old enough can remember feeling very lucky at not being hit by a bomb or by a shell which might have taken us directly and which did take our friends. However, there is a good chance of survival for all those people who are on the perimeter or who are outside the perimeter. Protection against fallout can be given—scientists are agreed upon this, whatever Lord Mountbatten said—if advanced preparations have been made, but it is not so easy to improvise at the last minute. Fortunately, no nuclear bombs have been dropped anywhere since 1945 and it is unlikely, I trust, that any will be dropped. But vast numbers of high explosives and incendiary bombs have been used, some very effectively in the Falklands for example. Therefore, it is right that we should concentrate our minds mainly on the possibility of conventional attack.
We are entitled to ask the Government what they propose to do about the present unsatisfactory situation of local authorities failing in their responsibilities for emergency planning. If it is a question of money, it is surely worth changing the present financial arrangements whereby 75 per cent. of the cost of emergency planning is assumed to be included in the negotiations for the rate support grant, but it can be spent by local
1084
authorities on other things or not spent at all. I suggest that it might be very much better if we convert that element of the rate support grant into a specific grant, require local authorities to spend it on emergency planning and require them to spend the remaining 15 per cent. which would come from the rates.
In my opinion, and in the opinion of my friends on the National Council for Civil Defence, one of the problems of our present situation is that the Government lack the staff and the resources for monitoring the lack of performance by local authorities, for ensuring that the best standards are maintained, for advising local authorities on what needs to be done in the national interest and for co-ordination with public services and with the Armed Forces. Surely we need a director-general of civil defence with adequate powers and adequate staff.
Of course, we used to have very well-organised regional headquarters. My noble friend Lord Bathurst, who, with me, used to be responsible for civil defence in the Home Office under the Home Secretary, will remember that we used to have a very well-organised system of regional headquarters. They do not exist now; the underground places and equipment are still there but in mothballs. I should have thought that it would not be over-reacting if we had at least a skeleton staff dealing with that.
I have already exceeded my time. I must conclude by saying that it would make war less likely if we had better civil defence, because it would make our country less vulnerable both to conventional attack and nuclear fallout.
6.22 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord St. John of Bletso on his maiden speech. A propos his remark about experience, to which reference has just been made by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, both he and the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, have experience on the political side. How do I know that?—because, when the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, visited the Civil Defence Staff College, as it then was, at Sunningdale, I happened then to be a student there and, I suppose, because I had a handle to my name, I was dragged out from the multitude to have my lunch beside him.
We had a perfectly good system of civil defence—home defence—until the late 1960s when, in turn, both the Territorial Army was truncated and civil defence abolished. The Conservatives mentioned in their last manifesto that they would do something about it. We became rather anxious; things were going slowly. Some of your Lordships will remember that I initiated a debate on 5th March 1980 on the need for home civil defence. That was followed on 7th August 1980 by the Home Secretary's Statement, which was followed at the end of the year by the appointment of Sir Leslie Mayor as a co-ordinator of voluntary effort in civil defence. That was followed by the Home Office Circular ES2/81 in August 1981—note the date—a year after the previous Statement. There was a whole year's delay before the Home Office got around to giving the necessary instructions. ES1/1 was purely a civil defence review. The whole emphasis has rightly been on the responsibility of local authorities and the use of local volunteers.

1085
As several noble Lords know, I have an interest to declare here, in that we in Devon have raised what we call the Devon Emergency Volunteers. As of this date we have about 2,000 volunteers, and we had them long before the Government started doing anything. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will remember that 1 asked him and the co-ordinator to visit us, as soon as possible after the appointment of Sir Leslie Mayor, to see what we had done. But the trouble is that, despite efforts on the part of individuals, on a national level co-operation has been fragmented and at times non-existent. We have had references to this already today, when noble Lords have mentioned that officials in various counties or at equivalent levels have said, "No, we shall not do anything to defend our people". Instead of everyone working together under an agreed plan, as used to be the case in the old civil defence organisation, we have various bodies that should be co-operating but are not.
They are not doing so because of jealousies between various organisations. I mention just three, with great respect to my noble friend—the WRVS, the Red Cross and the St. John Ambulance Brigade. We need a co-ordinator with sufficient powers to get the voluntary bodies to pull together for the proper good of the nation, not to indulge in internecine strife. I must say that I am extremely irritated, to say the least, at the behaviour of the army cadets in not giving full support to civil defence, which we feel they should. In my part of the world we have excellent relations with the air force cadets. Why must the army cadets hum and haw about what they can do. The Boy Scouts are of more help to us at the moment. It is not the fault of individuals; it is the fault of the blokes up top.
If there is a war—conventional or nuclear—assistance to the less fortunate has, for obvious reasons, to be local. My main criticism of the Home Office is that it seems to want no particular involvement in the production of national training material. Let us just look into that. I asked the noble Lord's predecessor one or two questions about that in his time. But I have an even greater criticism of our politicians as a whole, because they do not appreciate that civil defence is a part of home defence, which is a part of national defence. Santayana wrote to the effect that those who did not learn from history were condemned to repeat its mistakes. We need go no further back than the early 1930s.
Perhaps I might quote my own experience; there are several noble Lords present who will, of course, remember the same circumstances. When I first went up to Oxford I was a "I will not fight for King and country bloke; I am a Peace Pledge Union bloke ". Fortunately, on my first vacation I went to Germany and the idealism was naturally muted. What happened then? We had a Peace Pledge Union—it was rampant, with thousands of signatures. What did it do? Baldwin admitted afterwards that he dare not re-arm because he might lose the election. What happened was far more damaging to the country. It convinced Hitler, through Ribbentrop, that under no circumstances would we fight, and so were a contributory influence to the starting of the last war. I would like the CND to see whether the cap is not fitting at this moment. Are they not persuading the hawks in the
1086
Kremlin that we are a pushover?
I will tell you what the CND are doing now. We had a meeting of volunteers in my neck of the woods. The meeting was after the floods in Newton Abbot. We called the meeting to discuss how, when various emergencies came again, we could do more to help. What did our local CND do? They came to bust the meeting up: just as the Peace Pledge Union came and bust up the meeting when Duff Cooper was addressing the cadets of the senior division of the OTC at Oxford University in my last term there. History is repeating itself.
May I add one thing to that. Did your Lordships read—of course you did—Galtieri's interview with the Italian lady journalist?" Oh, no. We never believed that Britain would do anything. All the information we had was that they would not fight. They would not send anyone." History repeats itself. I would like to commend our politicians of all parties to read a bit more history. I would like to repeat the truism that civil defence is a part of national defence. It certainly is in the way that it can dissuade would-be aggressors.
What the Government have to do now is to make arrangements whereby the co-ordinator has more power to co-ordinate. I am far from satisfied that those vital elements that we had in the civil defence in the days when I was active in that line, are co-operating now as they should. What about the special constables? What about the WRVS? What about the army cadet corps? They all have a role to play in an emergency. They all had a role to play in the earlier emergency, but now they are of little or no help because they are so fragmented.
I should like to end by saying that this is supposed to be a Christian country. I was brought up to believe that three of the main Christian virtues were faith, hope and charity. Having an adequate civil defence fulfils each of these three things. Faith in one's own people, hope for the future, and charity to those who are in an unfortunate position.
6.34 p.m.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow that great fighter for defence, the untiring patriot from Devon, my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. It is an even greater pleasure to add my congratulations to those of my noble friend Lord Renton to the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, who has come among us for the first time and has given great pleasure in a most admirable speech. We indeed welcome him among us and hope to hear him often in the future.
Before I say anything else, I simply cannot resist the temptation, usurping the office of my noble friend the Minister here, to reply to a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, of the Government. He asked: if the risk of nuclear war is negligible, why should the Government spend £8,000 million on Trident? I suggest turning the question round, when you would discover that if the Government spend £8,000 million on Trident, they therefore regard the risk of nuclear war as negligible.
However, what I chiefly wish to do is to make a rather uncivil attack upon a certain class of person.

1087
I will initiate this by quoting a piece of history from last October, when there took place a meeting in Manchester which was aimed at promoting a common approach towards the creation of so-called nuclear-free zones. These were local authorities to the number of 75 who took part in this meeting. Various resolutions were passed. A typical one came from Avon. It was worded in this way:
" The spending of public money for the purpose of civil defence in preparation for a nuclear attack is futile and gives people a false sense of security."
This is an equivocal statement, and it is possible to take it, to give the authority the benefit of the doubt, as saying that they were not in fact condemning civil defence entirely as useless because it was useless against nuclear attack.
However, we cannot do this in fact, because there exists a paper called Sanity, which is the magazine of the CND. Writing about that conference a gentleman called Dan Plesch wrote about the Avon performance:
" A hundred and twenty councils have rejected nuclear weapons and the civil defencecon'".
A little later on he writes;
" The stock of local civil defence handbooks has been put through the pulping machine. Work on the CD has been frozen."
I submit that there are two kinds of person who can write that: the stupid, and the dishonest. There is no other possibility, I believe.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Earl give way? It happens that I know Mr. Plesch personally, and I can assure the noble Earl that he is neither stupid nor dishonest.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I do not know how the noble Lord is able to do that. I say that this kind of statement can be made only by a person who is either stupid or dishonest. I say that with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. How can it be anything but stupid to say that civil defence is useless and must be abolished, simply because it is useless against a nuclear attack?
The point has been made by my noble friend Lord Renton and before him by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, that nuclear explosions do not necessarily amount to the fearful number of 125 nuclear missiles postulated by the Government, according to the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and resulting in some 35 million deaths. As my noble friend Lord Renton pointed out, you can have an accidental explosion. You can have a shortfall coming from who knows which side, which will land and explode possibly somewhere in the Western Approaches.
I will reveal to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, that there are three results of a nuclear explosion. There is the blast, which kills; there is the radiation, which kills, and there is a whole flock or cloud of radioactive particles which is known as fallout. This travels on the wind. We have in England a prevailing wind coming from the South-West. The cloud of fallout initiating in the Western Approaches will travel with the wind up the Bristol Channel. It will arrive pretty soon at Bristol, which is in Avon. I suppose the defence put up against it there will consist of members
1088
of the county council waving placards saying, "No radiation here; this is a nuclear free zone ", while the millions of people who live in Bristol and around it die like ninepins and the cloud passes on to devastate the rest of the country.
This can happen. Does the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, not know that this can happen? Does Mr. Plesch not know that this can happen? If he says that it cannot happen and that the only possibility is total destruction by blast, then that gentleman is deliberately misleading his readers. There can be no other interpretation of this. Furthermore, we have here public authorities deliberately linking, according to Mr. Plesch, civil defence with what he calls the "CD con". What is the con? Presumably it is the con that it is possible to survive an attack by means of civil defence. Of course it is, as I have pointed out; there are defences against fallout.
But civil defence is not about nuclear war. Indeed, why must we have nuclear war brought into it at all? Why need we have an enormous organisation called the CND, filled with people who are campaigning against civil defence as though it were civil defence against nuclear war? It is not. My noble friend Lord Mottistone, in initiating the debate, made perfectly plain that that is not the basic requirement of civil defence.
Civil defence is about chemical factory explosions, air crashes and floods, things the defence against which is to be forbidden by the people of the CND, including presumably the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney. Civil defence is about tanker spills of corrosive acids on motorways, explosions of any kind in peace or war, train crashes, landslides and excesses of snow. All of those are emergencies which the civil defence organisation and plans are designed to combat, none of which is to be allowed by those people. What sort of people are they? Civil defence is a humanitarian cause, and I echo the excellent words spoken by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and underlined heavily by my noble friend Lord Renton.
It is customary in debates for each succeeding speaker to congratulate the mover of the debate, a custom which, I confess, I have sometimes found tedious. I have not done so, preferring to keep my congratulations to the end and thereby, I hope, to give them somewhat greater emphasis. If this debate has the effect of stimulating the Government into further activity in the cause of civil defence, as my noble friends and as the noble Lords, Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Mayhew, have hoped it will, then indeed my noble friend Lord Mottistone will have performed a signal service for his country in attacking—or I hope I may support him by attacking—thoes strange people, those enemies of the country (because they are nothing less) who lurk and masquerade among the genuine and sincere, but none the less muddle-headed, patriots, altruists and pacifists of the CND.
6.43 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am glad we have been given the chance this evening to return to the question of civil defence. It was about a year ago that we debated it at some length and it is time to do it again, and I am glad that my noble friend has given us this chance. I want to leave the more general questions

1089
of policy and comment briefly on organisation because, even if our policy is right, it is necessary that our organisation should be right too, and in this field it is all too easy to build an organisation which is a compromise between the interests of different groups—to which reference has been made an organisation which would probably fail when called upon to act quickly.
At the present time, I believe that the main responsibility rests with county councils and that the chief executive of the county council is the head man. It is interesting how different counties have achieved very different results to date. They have had a long time to do something; we should take note of that. There has been reference to the statutory minimum duties which county councils should carry out. They are described in the Act, I believe, in very general terms. I have spoken to different people closely connected with civil defence in the counties, and they all say that it is impossible to define exactly what the statutory minimum really is.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the precise terms—to the extent that they are precise, and they are not very much so—are in the civil defence regulations made under the Civil Defence Act 1948, which, it is true, is in very general terms.
Lord Inglewood: I thank my noble friend. At last, my Lords, 1 have found someone who thinks he knows what the statutory minimum is. When answering at Question Time not long ago, a Minister led me, and no doubt others, to believe that there were no clear defaulters among the county councils, although some had done more than others. I should like him to confirm this sometime, because there is a feeling in the country that some county councils have done virtually nothing.
Returning to the question of organisation, if a county has to put its emergency plans into operation, whether to meet a severe natural disaster or military action against this country, it must be able to act with clear authority, and its relations with the different services which are vital to it must also be clear. In those circumstances, there is no time for long consultation and seeking approval from higher authority. Somebody must be able to act, and act quickly. The co-operation of the various organisations may be promised during the training periods, but is such co-operation really enough? It is easy to see different views on priorities developing between the chief executive of the county council, the local military commander and the chief constable, the organisations of the latter two being absolutely vital to the county's plans.
It is obvious that they cannot all be put "under command"—to use the military phrase—of the county council. I speak under correction with the noble and gallent Earl to follow, and perhaps he could say whether it was the Duke of Wellington who distinguished between "under command" and "in support" and which formula he would have adopted here. We should address ourselves to this point, for it is all too easy under strain for any such organisation to fall apart. There are at present, I understand, a series of separate chains of command which really do not come together until we get to the regional commissioner, who might be a Minister of the Crown. Again, that
1090
is not the sort of organisation which will stand the strain of military-type pressure, or something like it, in a disaster situation.
There is another big question which has rarely been mentioned in these debates, and that is refugees. I am told that there will be no planned large-scale evacuation from the main centres of popluation, which is not the same, however, as ensuring that no large-scale evacuation happens as a result of private enterprise. There will be rural counties which could be flooded by refugees at short notice, and if that were to happen without sane organisation, it could be disastrous. I shall never forget seeing the Belgians in 1940 under the pressure exerted by the German Army drifting in tens of thousands in all directions, blocking the roads so that army vehicles had the greatest difficulty moving. The misery I saw was awful and I remember at the time thinking what a difference it would have made if they had had a larger number of trained volunteers dealing with the humanitarian and other problems. I should hate to see anything like that happen in this country.
I use the word "volunteers" because volunteers are the key to the whole debate. It was said earlier that we shall never see enough professionals. It is not possible and I do not think it would be right. What we want are intelligent, well-trained, well-led, enthusiastic volunteers, their enthusiasm stimulated by the professionals. In this country we have often had a genius which has made professionals and amateurs work well together in any number of fields. But we must remember too that professionals can be jealous of volunteers in certain spheres.
Finally, I hope that the Home Office will do all it can to give a lead to ensure that we see volunteers coming forward in big numbers, and to ensure that they stay in once they have joined, because they realise that they arc doing a good job and have their enthusiasm awakened. They must not he treated merely as so many numbers on a sheet of paper. Volunteers are the answer to our problem. and time is not on our side.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I, too, should like to join in the congratulations which have been extended to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, on introducing the debate. I also wish to congratulate the noble Lord who made his maiden speech. I am not sure whether he belongs to the St. John school or the "Sinjin" school, but whichever it is, I congratulate him and hope to hear more from him in future. I should also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan, who spoke so trenchantly from the Front Bench. His speech did not receive the reception that it deserved—notably not from the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, who scarcely treated the matter seriously at all.
Noble Lords who have spoken in the debate will forgive me if I do not extend general congratulations to all of them. Frankly, I found some of their remarks unrealistic. I should like to say to the noble Earl, Lord Cork and Orrery, that I think he would agree that the noble Lords, Lord Brockway and Lord Soper—as was Lord Ritchie-Calder—are genuine and sincere people. I do not think that the noble Earl would address them, because he knows them, in the manner that he addressed a young man whom he does not know. I

1091
rather suspect that if he did know that young man, he would have used different words. I feel that this evening he did himself and this Chamber no good service.
The Earl of Cork and Orrery: My Lords, I referred to what I regard in my personal opinion as the genuine and sincere altruists and pacifists in the CND. They would unquestionably include the noble Lords to whom the noble Lord has referred—and indeed, why not himself, too?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, we can perhaps leave the matter there.
It will be generally agreed that to house nuclear weapons on a small island is to make it a target. Soviet nuclear missiles have been targeted on Britain for many years, and the situation has been getting worse—getting worse every year, rather than better—because as more and more missles are housed here, consequently the number of missiles trained upon us increases proportionately. This must be the case, and if noble Lords pause to examine the situation, they will recognise that it is inevitably so.
Professor Michael Howard, of All Souls, scarcely a nuclear disarmer, even thinks that if we once actually get cruise missiles on our soil, we shall precipitate pre-emptive strikes by Soviet missiles. He said that in The Times. How he reconciles that with his other view, that we should nevertheless increase our vulnerability in this way, is his problem, rather than mine. But it is a problem. It is a problem for everyone—for everyone who believes that we should continue to prepare to take part in a nuclear war.
For those of us who are nuclear disarmers there is no difficulty. Having got rid of our own "nukes" and the American ones as well, we could simply do our best to provide as much protection as possible against the possibility of nuclear fallout drifting from a suicidal war taking place in some less enlightened part of the world, as the Swiss and the Swedes do. They have no nuclear weapons, and of course their substantial provision on civil defence is the corollary of that. If you do not have nuclear weapons, you can afford to spend money on civil defence because you are very unlikely to be the subject of a direct hit. But if you insist upon being a target, you increase your vulnerability, and far from nuclear weapons giving you any protection, they merely make it certain that the consequences of a nuclear war so far as you are concerned will be utterly disastrous.
That is the situation in which we find ourselves. If we had no nuclear weapons, we should no longer have to pretend to be able to succour a tolerable number of survivors from the holocaust of a direct nuclear strike. But, as we have nuclear weapons, the Government must do something. They cannot tell the people, "There is nothing we can do to save you", because it is part of their policy to have the weapon which creates the situation. So the Government must say something, and consequently they put out their documents, in which in one sentence there is an honest admission of reality, which they then run away from in the next sentence.
One reason for the great growth of CND has been
1092
the failure of the Government to sustain the pretence of survival in a sufficiently convincing way. I think that the nuclear warriors have been rather dull in failing to see that this pretence is a necessary part of the policy. The trouble is that the Government really do not believe it themselves, and if they want successfully to deceive the people, they must first deceive themselves. Some noble Lords on the Back-Benches may have succeeded in doing that, but the Government have not. I think that it is to the Government's credit that they have failed to convince themselves of the reality of reasonable, proper and worthwhile survival after a full-scale nuclear war. There are not enough dim-witted or wicked people in Government to sustain such a policy, and that is the truth of the matter. They are neither so daft as to believe in survival after a nuclear war, nor are they so Machiavellian as to try to pretend to the ordinary people of the country that what they know does not exist does in fact exist. That is the problem.
There may be a few at high level and one or two lower down, but that is not enough against the whole and growing body of world scientific opinion that nuclear war is not survivable. That opinion is held not only in this country; it is held all over the world. If noble Lords doubt it, I recommend them to read some of the latest American scientific literature, to read some of the literature which is now emerging from American medical opinion, and from our own medical opinion. All along the line the possibility of survival of a full-scale nuclear war is now reckoned to be practically nil.
This is dreadful, because for the first time mankind has within his power the ability to destroy his own species. That is the situation we are in, and it is totally unprecedented. It faces the human mind with a problem with which it has never before been faced. It is hardly surprising that sometimes noble Lords bring to this new problem traditional responses, emanating from their own background, which are not perhaps as relevant as they think they are.
I have played some part in exposing the unreality of civil defence as I see it. Back in the 'sixties I successfully moved a Motion in the old London County Council to abolish the Civil Defence Corps, on the grounds that the corps was being asked to perform an impossibility. At that time I suggested—and I am sorry that the suggestion was not followed up—substitution by a civil emergency force. This is precisely what one or two noble Lords have suggested—a force that would be there to deal with the kind of natural disasters which several noble Lords have mentioned. It would also be there to do anything which might conceivably be done in the event of a nuclear war. But it would not be a force which was geared, as the old civil defence force was geared, to the idea of trying to survive a nuclear war. Effectively to provide a defence against nuclear war was not possible then, and it is even less possible now.
When I became Member of Parliament I pursued the same argument with equal success, and in 1968 the Labour Government of the time accepted part of my argument nationally. But what they did not do was to accept the second part of my argument. They abolished the Civil Defence Corps, but they retained nuclear weapons. They abandoned the pretence of

1093
survival, but they continued to commit the nation to national nuclear suicide. The amazing thing is that ever since our people have tolerated the slow march to extinction and are only now beginning to say, "No" to national self-extermination.
The Government claim to believe that between 15 and 30 million people might survive a nuclear attack on these islands. Their main concern is the preservation of law and order among the survivors, and Home Office circulars to local authorities concentrate on this point, including the round-up of subversives before the actual strike. If some noble Lords had their way that would include every member of CND, for a start. Operation Square Leg, which is the operation which last year included civil defence—there is to be another one this year, which is to be called Hard Rock; I do not know what that means—seemed to include as subversive anyone opposed to nuclear war; but what the Home Office circulars have not done is to give any details of how the last hours of the majority might be eased. They go straight from strike to burial, and they say nothing about the period which must concern most people—what happens before you die. Are there any plans for suicide pills for the intolerably injured and sick? We do not know; and if we are committed by the Government to be the subject of nuclear death, we ought at least to know if there is to be any way of departing without terrible indignity.
Her Majesty's Opposition believes (and perhaps your Lordships will allow me a minute or two because I possibly am one of the few speaking in this sense)—and I quote from the official Labour Party document:
" For a densely populated country like Britain there can be no effective civil defence against a direct nuclear attack. The only effective civil defence is to ensure that Britain is not involved in a nuclear war, and to oppose all nuclear weapons and nuclear war preparations by Britain or any other country. We recommend local authorities to reject attempts to use so called civil defence to condition people to accept that a nuclear war is somehow survivable '."
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt him, when was that produced?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, that is a Labour Party document entitled Advice Note—Civil Defence, Home Defence and Emergency Planning dated June 1981 and circulated to local authorities. The real question is not: can we survive a nuclear war? Everyone really knows that we cannot. The real question is: are we going to maintain the pretence of survival until the day of our extinction, or are we going to stand up for the human race and demand the universal abolition of nuclear weapons and their prohibition from these islands?
7.3 p.m.
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, I, too, want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletsoe, on his excellent maiden speech, and to join with all the others who have congratulated him in hoping that we shall hear from him again many times when he is able to address us. Your Lordships will well remember —or some of your Lordships will well remember, others perhaps not quite so well—the nerves that take hold of one on making a maiden speech in your Lordships' House, and that is the first trouble to get
1094
over. The noble Lord could not have been more composed or more self-assured. The second problem is to say something which the expert noble Lords who have already spoken have not already said. In this case, my Lords, it is completely the reverse: it is our difficulty to find something to say which the noble Lord himself, in his maiden speech, has not already said. We must congratulate him on his expertise and his feeling for this important topic of civil defence.
My Lords, I join in this debate because as my noble friend Lord Renton has said (and I am rather embarrassed) I used to be his dogsbody in the Home Office, and I was given the task of looking after civil defence. The Home Office had never seen a Lord-in-Waiting, let alone a Member of your Lordships' House who was, I think, Under-Secretary of State. They did not quite know what to do, but my noble friend put me on to civil defence and I did indeed find these amazing places to which he has referred. You opened a trapdoor and there was a world which existed only in science fiction films. I hope that there is something of the organisation of those places remaining—and it is disturbing to hear what the noble Lord said.
I also went once to a place, luckily not far from my home, where there was a huge shed full of civil defence equipment, most of which comprised dosimeters; and I spent a complete afternoon with the technician in charge of that place, who was also an expert on brewing home-made wine. I learned a great deal about civil defence in the course of that afternoon, and luckily was able to make a report on what dosimeters were, which report I presented to my noble friend Lord Renton. I also sent a copy to our right honourable friend at the time, the late Lord Butler, together with a sample of home-made dandelion wine. I do not know what the result was, but it certainly was not referred to in the diaries of the late noble Lord, Lord Butler. But something did happen with regard to dosimeters, and I think the noble Lord was entirely responsible for that.
My noble friend the Minister who will be replying will, I hope, welcome in a moment what I am going to say, because no noble Lord has referred to an Answer which he gave not long ago to my noble friend Lord Renton. In that Answer he said that his right honourable friend and the Government are going to spend 60 per cent. more annually on civil defence, and this will bring it in 1983, I think the reply said, to £45 million. I suppose that is quite a lot of money—certainly a great deal more than had been spent. Whether it should be more, and very much more, I am afraid I do not know; but at least more is being spent, and I am quite certain that all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will wish to thank and congratluate him for that.
In the same reply my noble friend said that the capacity of the Home Defence College, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, is to be increased from 50 to 70, and that will mean that more experts can go there to learn what can be done in a nuclear attack. I am afraid I did not write to my noble friend to give him notice of this question, but I wonder whether he knows to what extent those places have been taken up.

1095
My Lords, there is some extra cash, but what else must it be spent on? There are the expert people mentioned by my noble friend Lord Inglewood; or equipment, communications. They must have advanced enormously since the days that my noble friend Lord Renton was talking about. There is also the organisation of civil defence set-up, and the people who are concerned with it. I believe —I always have done—that civil defence needs a new image. It is not quite right. Once upon a time there was an argument about it all, and the result was Home Defence ". Again, that was not quite right, because even then it was considered a type of what might now perhaps be called "Dad's Army". It did not seem to be quite right. But we called it "Home Defence College ", and we have it in pamphlets, "Home Defence"; so there is something there.
But whatever else it should be, I believe it should be a national organisation of some sort—and many of your Lordships have already said this. The word "emergency" would surely fire the public mind; and rescue"; and probably "defence" should be in there somewhere as well. I believe that it should be funded nationally, on the lines of the Territorial Army. Obviously, local councils will have to organise at council level—at least, I imagine so. But I do not believe it is right to allow rate support grant to be spent on such a national defence organisation.
My noble friend Lord Renton has suggested that it should qualify for a 100 per cent. rate support grant. It may be that that is so; but, in any case, I believe it should be national expenditure, because whatever else is going to happen in a nuclear war I am quite certain that where a nuclear weapon strikes it will not be the civil defence effort in that place that will come to the aid, it will be the civil defence effort of somewhere else—and, unfortunately, at the present time it would seem that those "somewhere elses" are the least civil defence-minded authorities.
I believe that a national status for civil defence would bring in that immense number of people who have already been mentioned by your Lordships. They would also deal with emergencies. My noble friend Lord Mottistone and all on this side of the House, and the noble Lord, Lord St. John, have suggested that they should be available and ready for national and local emergencies—and that is a very new view, I believe, in this House. Unfortunately, I could not be at the last debate. There is the National Council for Civil Defence. My noble friend Lord Renton is its president and all speakers, except for me, are members of that council. There are other experts in the field and they are conspicuous by their absence. I cannot see how any debate on civil defence in this House can be complete without the noble Lord, Lord Soper, making a brilliant speech on how morally incorrect was civil defence and without the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, giving a beautifully explicit, scientific reason why civil defence was no good at all —and he was, many noble Lords will remember, a member of an organisation called Pugwash. I could never work out exactly what that meant. It was some very scientific organisation. In any case, noble Lords will know that it is almost impossible to wash
1096
a pug anyhow, and even if you did, you should not do it; it is harmful. However, he used to put that view forward.
All I can say is that my noble friend Lord Elton has an easy ride tonight to answer in this debate. I am sure that he will be able to more than do justice to the points which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, nobly put forward in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
There is another organisation of which I had never heard previously. It is the Industrial Emergency Services Officers. They have a pamphlet which gives a review of their deliberations. Perpaps I can quote some of page 2 of that pamphlet to your Lordships because of the interest. Ordinary national and local disasters have entered into the debate. On the Flixborough disaster, there were 28 people killed, 105 injured, 200 homes rendered uninhabitable and some 5,000 people (about 100 coach loads) had to be removed. 1 am sure that some noble Lords will know something about that terrible disaster. I watched it humbly and in awe on the television. Mr. G. Jolliffe, the National Coal Board Yorkshire district reserve emergency stations manager would, I guess, know more about emergencies, disasters and accidents than anyone in the country. He reported to this organisation. I will quote:
" It was felt by many people that it was a job for the civil defence organisation."
Then he goes on and I do not think that this is him speaking, but it is all in the same report:
" It was also felt by many people that the civil defence organisation as it existed would have coped with the Flixborough situation with a degree of competence and its availability was sorely missed".
It was not there—that is what it means. Had it been there (and a man like Mr. Jolliffe said it should have been there) I believe that what everyone is saying is even more important. There was a terrible disaster in the early 1960s involving a Harrow tube train. I have it from first-hand evidence what a magnificent job an industrial civil defence unit did to save lives at that time.
I believe that if we could make a national corps, unit, or whatever, available for local and national disasters and defence, we will have thousands of men and women who are experts in their field coming to join, to sign up, to show where they are available, and ready for the real experts to guide them in times of any national or local emergency. Nobody can say that civil defence can take the place of the professional rescue and defence units. Nobody can say that. They will be very sorely stretched in times of emergency. Those who know something about radiation, who know how to turn off the gas and to fix electric light and power cables are the men and women who will be wanted at such a time. I believe, like my noble friend Lord Mottistone, the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletsoe, and all noble Lords who have taken part, that these people will come forward—which alas! they have not yet done with our present civil defence organisation.
7.16 p.m.
Earl Cathcart: My Lords, I should like to add my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Mottistone for giving us the opportunity this afternoon to discuss this

1097
subject, a subject which we have not debated for too long in my opinion, and a subject which all too often is swept under the carpet. To talk and discuss the possibility of an all-out attack on this country, perhaps even a nuclear attack, is highly unpalatable. But the unexpected often happens, as many of us have recently come to realise. As far as the defence of these islands is concerned we should be ready for any eventuality. In his speech my noble friend Lord Mottistone outlined clearly some of these eventualities. Civil defence is far too often put in doubt and disparaged by some people in this country, but we must not run away from our responsibilities and we must acknowledge the humanitarianism and non-aggressive qualities of civil defence.
Much of the opposition to any form of organised attempts to establish any form of effective civil defence is based, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, pointed out, on the single scenario that an attack on these islands will be an all-out nuclear attack and that in such conditions there is no point in surviving, so why bother to organise any arrangements to mitigate the effects of that or of any other form of attack or attempt to organise any recovery? I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, over-emphasised the nuclear aspect in his speech and this was shown up by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in his speech.
An attack on this country might take many forms, ranging from extensive sabotage of essential public services right through to a nuclear demonstration strike or a series of nuclear strikes against essentially military and industrial targets. I must mention the highly unpalatable subject of chemical warfare. There arc certain nations who are not our allies, and not in NATO, who do not regard the use of chemical warfare as anything but conventional. There is no doubt that a civil defence organisation could mitigate to a great degree a chemical strike against this country.
Successive defence White Papers have stressed the high priority given to the defence of the United Kingdom, and civil defence is an essential and integral part of our military effort to satisfy this important priority. Yet civil defence is the Cinderella between the two sister departments of defence and home affairs. To expect our armed forces to conduct effective defence of the United Kingdom against hostile attack in whatever form it might occur, without proper arrangements to protect and sustain the civil population, is unthinkable. If this is not done (and my noble friend Lord Inglewood stressed this) it may actually impede the armed forces in their prime task. One can imagine the extent to which a large-scale, disorganised band of refugees moving in an uncontrolled way in this country in the event of any form of attack, would gravely disrupt the mobility of our armed forces attempting to defend the country and carry out their tasks.
Furthermore, in such a situation our conventional public services—the police, the ambulance service, the fire service and others—will have their hands full in performing their normal tasks, and they will be totally overwhelmed unless within each community there is some organisation within the civilian population to enable them to cope and to sustain themselves. There are so many tasks civilians can do to sustain themselves and to maintain administration within their own communities when communications perhaps have been
1098
destroyed or disrupted; yet these capabilities need organisation and preparation, and cannot be achieved at short notice when an emergency has actually occurred.
There is no doubt that the Home Office agrees with this. Indeed, it has acknowledged the need for civil defence as part of our defence posture; but I do not think it has approached the subject with a proper degree of urgency, and neither do I think it has imparted urgency in a satisfactory manner to local authorities. Certainly civil defence is best organised on a local scale based on county and local authorities; but, of course, local authorities are harassed, busy people in peacetime. If they are to organise a satisfactory civil defence they need considerable encouragement and guidance as well as financial support from central Government. I think central Government need to be far more forthcoming than they have been so far.
One of the main problems is the integration of a large number of independent peacetime organisations to satisfy the particular problems which each community might have to contend with in the event of an attack. That was referred to very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. Civil defence planning does not consist solely of the provision of shelters. That, in my opinion, is a red herring which has led us off target in our discussion of this overall problem. It requires a degree and variety of skills throughout the civilian population, and the need for the organisation to he made effective also requires proper co-ordination and a proper chain of command. That was referred to by my noble friend Lord Inglewood. I very much doubt whether the phrase "under command" would find favour in a largely civilian organisation, but "in support" I think would. But there must be a chain of command, with clearly recognised links between the various levels of command so that they may understand how they are to support the overall plan which they may be required to put into effect.
I think there are so many skills within the framework of civil defence that almost any natural ability of individual civilians can be satisfied and their training could be interesting and worthwhile. A by-product of organising civil defence in peacetime with a wide range of civilian population trained in this great variety of duties, would of course be the provision of a better degree of protection against disasters of a non-warlike nature which can so easily occur. Therefore, I very strongly support the Motion put forward by my noble friend.
7.24 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I should like first to thank and congratulate my noble friend Lord Mottistone not only on providing us with a most admirable debate but also for providing the occasion for the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, to launch his first voyage upon the waters of this House, upon which we wish to see him sail with equal success—and that will be considerable success—for many years ahead.
Those of your Lordships who lived in this country during the last world war—particularly whose who lived in London or Coventry or Liverpool, or any of the other cities that were subject to aerial attack—will know very well what a vital part civil defence played both in saving the lives of countless individuals and

1099
in securing the survival of our people as a whole. They will also clearly recall something of which it may perhaps be necessary to remind some of our younger fellow countrymen and women: that civil defence is an entirely peaceable activity designed solely to save lives and make those lives livable under extremely difficult conditions. It is conducted without weapons and without malice, and by many it is conducted without any reward save that of knowing that they have contributed to the unwarlike victory of life over death. It is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, so eloquently argued, something to which pacifists can object. Yet it does have its own part, I believe, in staving off the actual threat of war itself.
Your Lordships will know that the Government's Defensive Strategy rests upon the principle of deterrence. The price of aggression must be seen, by any aggressor, to be not worth the paying. The effectiveness of that principle depends upon its credibility. The aggressor must be convinced not only of our ability to respond in kind, but also of our readiness to do so. No one will treat as real an advertised response to an attack when our own demeanour shows that we do not believe in the possibility of the attack itself.
In modern war the civilian population itself becomes all too often the target, whether intended or not, of weapons of huge destructive power. London, Dresden, Hiroshima, Beirut—to winners and losers alike the lesson is inescapable, and it is inescapable whether or not nuclear weapons are used. No country can be said seriously to believe in the reality of that sort of threat which does not take steps to mitigate its effects—and a country that does not believe in the threat is a country that is most acutely exposed to the reality.
There are those who argue that this very slender link between the deterrent method of securing peace (which rests upon the possession of weapons of a power and number sufficient to deter those who possess such weapons themselves) and any coherent system of civil defence (which rests upon the pre-arranged organisation of unarmed non-combatant civilians to rescue, succour and protect their unarmed noncombatant civilian compatriots) itself renders it immoral. I cannot follow the logic of that, my Lords; I really cannot. I cannot see that it is wrong to render a hideous war marginally less likely by trying to protect those who take no part in it and are principally at risk. Indeed, were the calamity to befall us and were thousands of our men, women and children to perish for lack of simple precautions and elementary assistance, I think that the people who had actively opposed or prevented those simple provisions would be revealed as clearly and inescapably responsible for a large number of unnecessary deaths.
But even if you accept the lemming logic behind that position, the opponent of civil defence is himself still in an indefensible position, for a very simple reason which, on other platforms, he himself is constantly advancing. I am not pointing the finger at anybody, but I am looking at a generality of people. No one, my Lords, positively no one, can guarantee the future. Even a 100 per cent. pacifist, unilateralist government could not guarantee the peace and it really does puzzle and sadden me to hear good and earnest men saying in one breath that nuclear weapons must
1100
be dismantled as otherwise they will eventually be unleashed by mistake, and in the next that our wives and children and we ourselves must not be accorded any protection by central government or civil defence in the event of an attack or an accident. And the words of my noble friend Lord Renton have done much to show how the risk of nuclear war being precipitated almost or entirely by mistake is likely to grow in the years ahead. If those who argue against us cannot agree with us in wisdom, my Lords, at least let them do so in mercy.
The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, argued against the possibility of conventional attack and took as an analogy the fact that the Germans did not hesitate to use their aerial fleet to bombard this country in 1940. In those years they had a very large and potent bombing air force and we had not. I would not seek to argue that analogy, but I would argue an analogy in the same year: then the Germans had large stocks of poisonous gas and so did this Government and we equipped our civilian population with protection against it. The weapon was there, and neither side used it. I do not accept the argument that having the weapon creates the risk. I believe that the risk is created by unpreparedness, both to respond and to protect oneself from attack. That being so, it is, indeed, logical that our civil defence arrangements should be concerned with conventional, as well as with nuclear, warfare, particularly against air attacks against targets of military significance.
One of my noble friends referred to the example posed in the South Atlantic. He has used that example, and let me refer your Lordships to the terrible plight of the civilian population of large parts of the Lebanon. Much central government activity in civil defence is taken up with planning against this form of attack, and the same should be true of local authority planning. This planning is, of course, closely related to planning against peacetime emergencies and disasters as well. I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Bathurst referred to the Flixborough disaster as an illustration of the admirable way in which co-operation can come together effectively at short notice in local districts. I often think that the fire service is not given sufficient credit not only for its role on that occasion, but for its very considerable role in preparing against, and trying to avoid, civil disasters up and the down the country. So let us remember that emergency planning is something that must offer protection to the people of an area against any emergency which may occur, whether it is a flood, a bombing raid or, in the worst case, a nuclear attack.
I now turn to those simple preparations which this Government have so far put in hand. Very soon after coming into office, the Government decided to take a fresh look at the state of planning measures. The result of that review was announced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on 7th August 1980, and it was conveyed to local authorities by Home Office circular ES.1 of 1981. It marked substantial improvements, involving increasing annual expenditure progressively over a three-year period to exceed its former level, as my noble friend has generously reminded your Lordships, by 60 per cent. in real terms. Of course, we shall never please all of the people all of the time. Some think that we do too

1101
little civil defence planning; some too much.
The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, would have us have either a kitchen table or a mine shaft. In a most interesting postscript to his speech, elicited by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, he put forward a policy which I find slightly at variance with the National Executive Committee's Advice Note No. 6, published in June, 1981, which has already been referred to twice in this debate, and to which I shall doubtless have recourse again.
May I at this point reassure my noble friend Lord Renton, when we are on the subject of grants to local authorities, that the 75 per cent. grant is a specific grant and is not available for expenditure on other purposes. The job of the Government in peacetime is to access the extent of the risk, and to weigh that against what the country can reasonably afford, having regard to all its other commitments—
Lord Renton: My Lords, would my noble friend allow me to intervene on a rather important point? Has he any means of ensuring that local authorities spend the specific grant and spend it within the compass of emergency planning?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I always proceed upon the thin ice of local government expenditure with great caution. I should like, if I may, to be more specific by writing to my noble friend, but it is a 75 per cent. grant on work undertaken. I think that my noble friend believes it is subsumed in the RSG. My understanding on the advice I have before me at the moment, is that it is a grant against a specific expenditure. If I am wrong, I shall have to inform your Lordships at a later stage. But, in any case, I will write to my noble friend —
Earl Bathurst: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend here, because so many of your Lordships think that the expenditure is a vital point? Is it not right that the 75 per cent. specific grant, if it is spent, is also considered as a part of over-expenditure? I do not believe that it is separate from county councils' budgets that are allowable for grants and expenditure. Am I not right that it is not over and above what they must budget for?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should like to give a technical reply to my noble friend's technical question, and I think that 1 will just allow a little time for it to gestate, if I may so phrase it.
A primary requirement in the arrangements for the protection of a nation in modern war is effective provision for warning the civilian population of imminent air attack and, if—God forbid !—the enemy should use nuclear weapons, for monitoring the subsequent spread of radioactive fall-out. Your Lordships will know, as my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery has very clearly explained, the different sorts of damage, and the fact that the Swiss are digging deep shelters suggests that they are preparing for direct attack as well as for fall-out. But the fall-out needs to be monitored, because it is invisible, and lethal.
Those two capabilities, in a small and crowded nation such as ours, could save literally millions of lives. They rest on a typically British framework: a partnership between central government, the emer-
1102
gency services and volunteers from the general public. More than 11,000 volunteers of the Royal Observer Corps—many of them young people—train regularly for their vital role, and in recognition of this receive the improved allowances which were introduced by this Government two years ago. The full-time staff of the organisation now have a new administrative headquarters at Oxford. There are over 9,000 power-operated sirens in urban areas and nearly 20,000 warning points in suburban and rural areas. The communication chain and the equipment are steadily being modernised. All in all, the United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation is an extremely cost-effective casualty prevention measure, of which the nation should be justly proud; and it does not threaten a single life.
In the aftermath of a widespread nuclear attack upon the United Kingdom, government of the country from London or any other single location would be impracticable for a time. A system of regional, or decentralised, government has been planned against this eventuality, and we are rapidly completing the network of protected administrative headquarters—both regional and sub-regional headquarters—which the system requires. These headquarters need to be matched at county and district levels, and in Greater London at group and borough levels, by protected accommodation for those whose duty it would be to marshal resources and co-ordinate relief operations. There is no general need at these levels for purpose-built headquarters, and the established practice is to make central government grants available to local authorities for essential adaptations in suitable premises which are already at their disposal.
I have now to reassure my noble friend Lord Renton that the 75 per cent. grant is available only on approved estimates of agreed expenditure. I hope that that answers his question. Over £1 million has been approved for such schemes over the past 12 months, and more money is available. The full effectiveness of the headquarters would depend upon reliable communications, and we have undertaken to spend more than for several years past on improvements to the emergency communications network across the country, which my noble friend Lord Bathurst said was so eminently desirable and which could save many lives.
I think that the convention of the debate would allow me to go on until about two minutes to eight. I shall not take the whole of that time, but I shall trespass beyond 12 minutes. Headquarters and communications are only as good as the people who use them. For this reason, we arc pressing on with the designation of the staff of central government departments—for example, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Department of Health and Security, the Department of Energy and my own department, the Home Office—with civil defence responsibilities in war. Such designation will permit their training and exercising in peace time. Local authorities have, by and large, designated their war duty staffs, and they—together with the volunteer members of the scientific advisory service—receive training, both locally and nationally.
Here I would pay tribute to the excellent contributions which the Home Defence College at Easingwold,

1103
which my noble friend mentioned, makes to the nation's civil preparedness. We have built another 20 study bedrooms and thereby extended the tutorial accommodation at the college by 40 per cent. They opened only last month. They are being taken up, but I could not tell my noble friend to what level their use will eventually rise.
The emergency services, particularly the police, approach civil defence with great seriousness. Much is done. More remains to be done. The public, as my right honourable friend said in August 1980, have a right to know. Noble Lords will be aware of the extensive facilities which the Home Office has made available to the media in recent years. Radio and television teams have been welcome at sub-regional headquarters, at United Kingdom warning and monitoring organisation installations and, for a week at a time, at the Home Defence College itself. Ministers and officials have been interviewed freely. In addition, the Government put the war crisis booklet Protect and Survive on the bookstalls, together with two new booklets on domestic nuclear shelters for those who wish to know about such things.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone refers particularly in his Motion to the civil defence duties of the local authorities. They have an obligation under the Civil Defence Act 1948—I can confirm to my noble friend Lord Inglewood the words of my noble friend Lord Renton—to discharge certain civil defence functions. Many of these are detailed in the Civil Defence (Planning) Regulations 1974. It is here that my noble friend sees difficulty, because it is an unfortunate fact that some local authorities—guided in some cases, I believe, by the mistaken philosophies which I have already mentioned—are less than enthusiastic about carrying out these functions.
Some authorities have gone so far as to declare themselves nuclear-free zones. I find that to be a singularly meaningless term. It is rather like a bald man writing "rain-free zone" on the top of his head and expecting to remain dry throughout the summer—which of course he could not, unless he had a special arrangement with the Almighty. I suppose that the local authorities concerned may feel that they have some special and reliable arrangement with the Warsaw Pact countries, but if so it will be an arrangement that they will not only not drop a bomb on them but that they will not drop one anywhere upwind of them, in whatever direction the wind may be. That seems to me to be an admirable defence but one upon which we cannot rely.
This fallacy was devastatingly exposed, along with much else, by my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery. I regret to say that it seems to have been undertaken with the guidance of the Labour Party National Executive in the document distributed by them last June, to which I have already referred. That seems to me to be the height of irresponsibility. I can say, none the less, to my noble friend Lord Inglewood, that all local authorities are complying at least with their minimum statutory obligations. In the event of default, of course, the Government do possess powers of enforcement under the Civil Defence (General) Regulations 1949 and the Civil Defence (Grant) Regulations 1953. However, where there is apparent
1104
failure or refusal by a local authority, the Government have, so far, preferred to proceed by encouragement and persuasion as well as by pointing to the very considerable financial assistance available by way of specific grants, to which I have already referred.
I turn now to the matter which lies at the heart of the debate, to which the noble Lord, Lord St. John of Bletso, first drew our attention—after my noble friend; namely, the role of the volunteer in civil defence. Perhaps we should see this against the background of the Home Office Circular ES.2 of 1981 which set out in some detail Government guidelines on the organisation of the community in war. In his Statement in another place on 7th August 1980, the Home Secretary made clear that the role of volunteers is vital to the success of civil defence planning as a whole, and in particular to effective planning for community involvement below district level. He went on to say that the Government are ready to make more money available to meet this need and that "the harnessing of volunteer effort will be an important feature of our plans".
Herein lies, in part, an answer to the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, whose arithmetic about the expenditure of the British Government on military bands has gone a little astray. No, we do not spend £45 million a year on military bands, which is what I think the noble Lord led the House to believe. I will let the noble Lord know in writing the exact figure, if he wishes, but its order of magnitude is half that, at most—and maybe even less.
The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, wants there to be more standard training material throughout the country. We understand this wish and at present we are looking into the possibility. Your Lordships will know that this Government appointed Air Marshal Sir Leslie Mayor to co-ordinate volunteer effort in England and Wales. He was one of the two signatories at the foot of Circular ES.2 to which I referred earlier. Subsequently, Mr. F. G. Armstrong was appointed to fulfil a similar office of co-ordination in Scotland.
It would be misleading to say that local authorities have responded with uniform enthusiasm, even to the enrolment and training of volunteers. As in other areas of civil defence planning, progress has been variable and there are disappointments. Substantial progress has been made and continues to be made. The Government are firmly committed to a belief in the importance of voluntary effort in our society and a conviction that there are many people eager to help others and to lend a hand in performing some public duty without financial reward. Civil defence is an activity which has a strong humanitarian appeal.
It follows that we owe it to these prospective helpers, and to those who wish to be helped by them, to see that this reservoir of voluntary help is not only used but used in the most effective way. The Government will continue to mobilise this resource to the best of their ability. In the meantime, I should like to pay tribute to the valuable work of these dedicated men and women, whether as individual volunteers, or scientific advisers, or members of one of the organisations assisting civil defence, such as the Royal Observer Corps, the warning officers of the United Kingdom Warning and Monitoring Organisation, the British

1105
Red Cross Society, the St. John Ambulance Association and Brigade, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, Civil Aid and many local groups of volunteers.
No Government can afford to be complacent in all this. While, as I have said, encouragement and persuasion have been our watchwords, we shall not shrink from the consideration of other, more direct steps if the civil defence responsibilities properly placed by Parliament on local authorities many years ago are seen to be gravely neglected or deliberately flouted. Ours is a tolerant society but, as recent events elsewhere have amply demonstrated, the British people, in the fullness of time, brook no abuse of their sense of fair play. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it would be less than fair to people dependent upon the soundness of their planning if some local authorities were to pay little more than lip service to their statutory obligations and were seen to get away with it. Lip service might, or might not, amount in law to outright neglect or failure, but I am confident that the country as a whole looks to the Government to take positive steps to ensure that, however low the risk of war in Europe may be, the lives of people are not put at additional risk by irresponsible local authorities.
Many points must be unanswered in a speech which is already three minutes over the convention, but they will be taken into consideration at the Home Office by myself and more particularly by my honourable and learned friend and my right honourable friend. I think I have said enough to show that the Government's recognition of the profound importance to our people of effective civil defence is real. I believe that the great majority of noble Lords will agree with this view. I believe that the great majority of the people of this country will also agree with this view. I am sure that this debate will send to those public authorities who are sceptical about the value of civil defence a clear message that the country supports the lead which this Government are giving to improve the state of civil preparedness throughout the United Kingdom.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister very much for not going on as long as he threatened to do, for it gives me a little time in which to wind up. May I thank him for his reply. It contained excellent arguments against the nonsense that was coming from the Benches opposite—which I shall talk about in a minute—but it was terribly disappointing when it came to the "nitty gritty" of what real leadership is to be given by the Government, first in persuading people that they are mistaken in not going on with developing their civil defence and, secondly, in not undertaking to provide some sort of an argument against the misleading nonsense which is being put forward to the general public of the kind which the noble Lords opposite advanced earlier this evening.
Really, the Government should give something more positive. I was terribly disappointed that the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton, that there should be leadership in the form of a director-general with commitments and powers, was not taken up at all. That was a positive and useful suggestion as to how the Government could use someone to give the right
1106
leadership. There was a gap in respect of what was said by my noble friend; the sentiment is splendid but the action was non-existent.
It is my turn, at last, to add my congratulations to our maiden speaker. We would genuinely like to hear him again, when he can find the time. His maiden speech was remarkably well balanced; it was splendidly delivered and yet it lasted for only five minutes and told us all we needed to know. It was an example to the rest of us. I expect that I might even be able to emulate it, although I have a little more to say.
I was terribly disappointed also by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, speaking from the Opposition Front Bench from a position of authority in this Chamber. He was "rabbiting on" about "nuclear". It was so disappointing and so unimaginative. I am almost ashamed of the Opposition if that is all they think. It was so disappointing that there was nothing positive there at all. Luckily, I do not need to go on about it because the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, in a splendid speech tore it to pieces within seconds. But perhaps we will not have them as the main Opposition much longer, so that will be all right.
On the other hand, in respect of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, I came to the conclusion, after having thought for a long time that he was in the pay of the enemy, that he is really tragically and naively misguided. It is fascinating that anyone who is obviously so intelligent should be so misguided and naive. In that respect I will give him anything he likes to say but, by heaven! his arguments were tortuous. I am going to have fun reading them. It may be that another time I will be able more actively to untangle his knots, to help him see the truth. We shall see.
I cannot finish this speech without reminding your Lordships that my noble friend Lord Renton, in his position as president of the National Council for Civil Defence, has been tireless and energetically valiant in helping that organisation to get off the ground. I cannot tell him how grateful and thankful I am, and all the other members of that organisation are, for providing such splendid leadership. If only the Government would provide the same sort of leadership in controlling, encouraging and developing local authorities, and in putting some sense into them, then we would be getting somewhere. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Multiple Sclerosis: Partial Disability Benefits
7.53 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox Baroness Lane-Fox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the report of the Multiple Sclerosis Society on Benefits for Partial Disability, and if so whether they are prepared to institute within social security a system of partial incapacity for work.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, generally when one submits a scheme to improve the lot of disabled people it involves passing around the begging bowl. The scheme explained in the report mentioned in my

1107
Question is very different since it contains elements which could be a saving to the economy. Prepared for the Multiple Sclerosis Society by the Economist Intelligence Unit to look at the cost implications of partially incapacitated provisions, the report suggests that its recommendations could save the social security budget several million pounds per annum. Most important of all is that its recommendations are not just economic but are also humane.
Let me stress to your Lordships that, partly because of the progress of medical science, many people now could live a long life span. While incapable of full-time employment, they are able and eager to work part-time. There are for example, young stroke victims, those with various mental handicaps, people with multiple sclerosis and other afflictions of the central nervous system, the bronchitics, old polios, some sclerosis people, the congenitally handicapped, heart cases and others that I have not mentioned—all of whom should have the chance to work if they can. They should be encouraged to accept the best career opportunity available to them.
Your Lordships may think that I sound bossy, if not a slave-driver, but to justify my stance let me declare what a thrilling moment it was for me when, at the age of 21, I got my first paid job at 30 shillings a week. From that time I realised that not only was this a release from the fetters of disablement (for it offered a chance to participate more fully in life) but that it also reduced the sense of being such a burden on the family. It became quite obvious to me that in work lay the best way for any disabled person to live an interesting, useful and fulfilled life.
What later seemed incomprehensible was that my right to draw invalidity pension would be jeopardised if I earned more than a certain set limit. At first that limit was only £4.50 per week. My noble friend Lord Crawshaw spoke scathingly of the demoralising effects of this in a witty and excellent speech during a debate on the Social Security Benefits Bill in February 1975. The case against the rule has been made repeatedly by the Disablement Income Group and other groups. Indeed, the limit has been raised several times in recent years. Admittedly, during my last two years as an employee, to avoid the hassle of having to notify the social security office every time my earnings were boosted unexpectedly—perhaps by writing an article or by the odd broadcast—I even sacrificed my untaxed invalidity pension in return for the taxable retirement pension. Now, in November this year, this earning limit is to be raised to £20—the steepest rise yet made and, as such, very welcome.
Nevertheless, the situation remains that there are those who cannot do a full week's work yet cannot afford to live on part-time pay. In order to hang on to their invalidity pension they have to give up their healthy urge to work. This is ludicrous. I need not remind your Lordships of the therapy provided by work; the earnings rule applied in these cases itself is called the "therapeutic earnings rule". It was called "therapeutic" as the intention was that it should be reward for work prescribed by a doctor, although in effect I am told that at the moment therapeutic earnings are not automatically payable. What can be said is that the name of this earnings rule, for those of us
1108
desperately trying to become self-supporting, far from being "therapeutic" is likely to threaten the onset of hypertension and high blood pressure. In the more kindly climate in which disabled people find themselves at present, such harsh rulings seem strangely out of tune.
From a number of figures and statistics quoted in the report it would appear that about 100,000 people fall within the provisions of these schemes. The numbers are not great. From researches made into the subjects by expert market researchers Nicole Davoud, Judith Buckle and Melvyn Kettle, and economist Jean Shrimpton, it appears that the large percentage of those who wish to become working disabled—provided there was no financial disincentive against doing so—could now be given the go-ahead to make the very most of their working abilities if the last of the schemes recommended in the report is adopted.
It seems more than coincidence that this report has been published now. The Chancellor has spoken fairly recently of a desire to do everything possible to assist the working disabled. There is now a new emphasis on job sharing and on part-time work. There is new technology and new working practices which are on the side of disabled people—both in helping to simplify our lives and in offering us jobs within our capacity.
Let me make it clear that I do not aspire to being any sort of trained economist or accountant. But I have been led through this report by the experts and am impressed that the people about whom we are talking are those who tire more easily than normal, through muscular and other conditions and malfunctions, so that they cannot sustain continuous effort for a full working week; or those who vary with their good and their bad days et cetera. Up to date, this provision through invalidity pension has been based not on sickness or disability as such but on their resulting inability to work.
The report gives these three options for correcting the present hardships, but of those it favours a system of a partial incapacity benefit on the basis of modification to invalidity benefit. Such a two-tier benefit already exists as attendance allowance, payable as it is at a high or a low rate. Such a partial incapacity benefit would remove the obstacle of the earnings rule to those it discouraged from making the most of their working talents. It is very encouraging that the Minister for Social Security and the Disabled, Mr. Hugh Rossi, said last week in another place:
" We recognise the force of the DIG argument for a partial incapacity allowance ".
Extensive calls are made on the DHSS for benefits to meet the extra expenses of disability, but it seems not very likely that all these can be met just yet. The scheme I am mentioning, if adopted, could prove to be quickly possible to implement. It would be assessed on an economic as well as on a medical basis, giving a realistic impression of the effect of disablement on a working life. It is thought by the authors that by using the assessment of this relatively small section of the total population of people with disabilities there could evolve a mechanism for assessing disability more realistically, which has so far been sadly lacking, helping towards the wider benefit scheme long sought by pressure groups. It should be said that such a partial benefit would not presumably amount to more

1109
than two-thirds of that for total disability, and for those enabled to work it might be a good deal less than this once their earnings are established.
In my humble view, this main proposal in the report deserves to be quickly incorporated within social security. I repeat that it is both economic and humane, and with due respect I commend it to my noble friend the Minister, hoping that he may find it possible to give a favourable reply.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Baroness on the clear and very positive way she has put her case. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has raised an important and human issue which is deserving of a wider ranging debate. The report itself I found to be well prepared and comprehensively presented. The prospect of employment, mainly part-time, for those suffering from partial incapacity has a beneficial effect to the individual. It gives a degree of independence and widens life's horizon for those so affected. I agree with the very obvious conclusion of the report that earnings from part-time work do not provide a living wage. The effect to the individual, however, with a degree of independence and feeling of use to the community, cannot be ignored.
I would like to quote from Section 9.2 of the report, part of which was referred to by the noble Baroness. The Chancellor, in his Budget speech, spoke of a desire to do all possible to assist the working disabled. The report goes on to say:
" New technology and new working practices are on the side of the partially disabled. Work sharing and part-time working are increasing, making this a particularly timely point at which to give further consideration to the potential, at present wasted, of this group of people who have significant disability but who none the less could be among the working disabled if they were permitted to do so."
I would not disagree with this, but to assume, as the report does, that 100,000 people would be affected and involved in employment, mainly part-time, is, I fear, a degree optimistic in view of the critical unemployment figure of over 3 million at the present time. Of course, we are not necessarily talking only about the present time but also about the future. But I am bound to put that point.
In any case, opportunities for part-time working vary considerably from area to area, and this, of course, must be taken into account. For instance, if one lives, as I do, in a residential suburban area, there is not the same opportunity as in other areas. However, even taking a somewhat pessimistic view, the case remains that the present limitation to certain cases allowed "therapeutic" earnings, subject to limited level of earnings, should be widened; in other words, to extend the opportunity not only to those suffering from multiple sclerosis but others with permanent disabilities and many other conditions reducing full or part-time employment potential. The report points out the problem of providing suitable legislation, and would appear to come down in favour of a partial incapacity benefit on the basis of modifications to invalidity benefit. But, of course, with this and other ideas some system of tapering is involved, with the added complication of the danger of bureaucratic administration.
1110
Here I would give the House an instance of what I mean. This comes from the Guardian diary of yesterday. This is the reply sent by the DHSS office at Richmond-on-Thames to a mentally ill 19 year old living on invalidity benefit who managed to get a job for two days washing dishes at Olympia and wrote to the DHSS asking them to reduce his benefit accordingly. The reply is:
" The claimant is disqualified for receiving non-contributory invalidity benefit for 17.5.82 because he failed without good cause to observe the rule that he should do no work other than work which he had good cause for doing and from which his earnings were ordinarily not more than £16.50 a week. S.S. (Unemployment, Sickness and Invalidity Benefit) Regulations, reg. 12(I)(a)(iii).
As a result an overpayment of non-contributory invalidity benefit has been made amounting to £2.95 as detailed below. Repayment of this sum is required because it has not been shown that the claimant has throughout used due care and diligence in the obtaining and receipt of benefit to avoid overpayment."
Yet this poor individual had previously written and asked them to adjust his benefit.
My Lords, a partial incapacity benefit could work, but in view of what I have indicated, it has to be administered with sensitivity, because you are dealing with people not fully able to deal with their own affairs. The report hints at financial savings and at one point mentions a figure of £5 million. I would say that financial savings are not unimportant, but certainly should not be the prime factor leading to possible change. The main issue is that we can do our utmost to ensure that the disabled and partially disabled shall be helped and encouraged to play as much a part as possible in the life of the community by productive work and effort and in so doing enhance their own dignity, self-reliance and independence. My Lords, this, I believe is the main objective behind the report, and may I say that it is one that has my wholehearted support.
8.10 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I would like to begin by making an apology to the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for the fact that it is I and not my noble friend Lord Banks who is intervening in this short debate. He would have done it a great deal better than I, but he has asked to be associated with what I am going to say. He is absent simply owing to a longstanding engagement.
This document raises two important questions. The first is the question to which it specifically addresses itself, the other is the whole matter of the limitation on earnings in relation to social security benefits. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, mentioned the Guardian yesterday, but there is an article in the Guardian today which trenchantly points out that the interaction of tax and social security in Great Britain is an incoherent mess.
First, to the substance of the Unstarred Question. The present arrangements limit disabled part-time earners to £16.50 per week—I believe the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said that it was to rise to £20 in November—after which they forfeit entitlement to invalidity benefit. These permissible earnings are entitled "therapeutic earnings", a term which I myself feel is rather unfortunate if not offensive. The

1111
report proposes a new category for which it suggests the name "concessionary earnings" and I believe that this would be a great improvement. I understand that on medical grounds these new concessionary earnings would be particularly appropriate in the case of multiple sclerosis which not infrequently afflicts people in their twenties and thirties who would otherwise have the expectation of almost a whole working life ahead. I am also led to understand that the condition is remissible in the sense of receding for periods, during which an increase in the sufferer's working capacity may well take place.
On page 30 the report tells us what I am sure we would all accept:
" Most younger disabled people and many of those in their middle years want to be as independent as possible. It is evident that this would encourage and help to create an atmosphere in which people are expected to contribute as far as possible to their own income, instead of feeling defeated by a system which concentrates on their incapacity."
That seems to me to be very well expressed.
A further point is that I am given to understand that we arc almost alone in the European Community in not having provision for partial incapacity outside our war and industrial pension schemes. All these things reinforce the desirability of enabling those who are able and anxious to take part-time work to do so. At present, the rule is that if a person can do some work, that person is not "incapable of work" so sickness and invalidity benefits cannot be payable. This is quite unduly rigid and indeed is an unrealistic approach to the real world of partial disablement. This report looks at ways of recognising and encouraging the residual capacity for work, which may be very considerable in some cases.
It is not only a question of creating the framework for a more interesting and satisfying life for the partially disabled, desirable though this is. There are also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, has pointed out, and the report points out on page 29, potential savings to the economy:
" For those recipients who re-established adequate earnings there would be a gradual increase in tax and National Insurance contributions. Even in cases where recipients' earnings would not be at a sufficient level to extinguish or partly extinguish benefit, the addition to their purchasing power would mean greater contribution to indirect taxes. They would also be able to pay for services and purchases which would help to provide employment for others".
That is a very important consideration.
So we have not only a socially desirable end but one that looks as if it would be at the very least self-financing. The noble Baroness had slightly greater hopes for it, but at the very least it would be self-financing. The report sets out three options: modifications to the present law governing invalidity benefit; a scheme modelled on the present industrial disablement benefits; and an assessment of partial incapacity benefit on an economic as well as a medical basis—that is, taking account of loss of earnings. If I heard the noble Baroness aright, she expressed a preference for the third of these options. I am open to guidance and we must listen to the Government's point of view here. I look forward with great interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, is going to say.
I confess that I am marginally drawn to the first
1112
option; that is, modification of invalidity benefit involving a graduated withdrawal of the benefit on a tapering scale as earnings rise. We are warned on page 18 that tapers are more expensive to administer than a flat rate cut-off and that there is a danger of producing yet another technical "trap" unless the stepped withdrawal is properly designed. I do not believe, however, that that is beyond the wit of man. It is certainly not beyond the wit of the DHSS. The anticipated administrative costs are still very considerably less than in the other two options and the adaption of the existing benefit would probably be the speediest and most efficient way of achieving the desired object. Furthermore, it would not be out of step with the Government's approach to certain other benefits, such as unemployment benefit, on which they have raised the earnings disregard on bringing the benefits into tax.
Here I cannot refrain from widening the debate for a moment just to draw the logical conclusion from the various problems of designing tapers, avoiding traps and taxing benefits, that sooner of later we shall simply have to move towards a tax credit scheme on the lines which have long been promoted by the Liberals and are under very active consideration by my party. In fact, it was once a Conservative proposal, too, with which the noble Lord, Lord Cockfield, was not unconnected, so that it has very respectable credentials all round.
The total integration of the tax and benefit systems is the only way we will iron out the anomalies and difficulties to which I have referred. I should say here that I told the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, that I was going to mention this. She did not object, because it turns out that she, too, shares my belief that that is the way we shall have to go in the long run. I will not pursue it any further here and now, because the noble Baroness very properly has a specific object in view from which I do not wish to distract the Government's attention. It would be quite wrong if nothing was done now, because we are setting our sights on a beautiful new scheme which may still lie many years ahead. Limited improvements can and must be made and this is one of them. I therefore want to end by asking the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he comes to reply, to tell us in which way the Government themselves propose to give effect to the undertaking of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his budget speech to "do all possible to assist the working disabled".
8.18 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I must join other noble Lords who have thanked the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, for introducing this short debate this evening, because it gives me the chance to welcome the report prepared by the Multiple Sclerosis Society on benefits for partial disability. The report has understandably generated much interest in the continuing debate on the need for provision for those who are unable to work full-time because of disability or chronic illness. It has also made some useful suggestions on how such help could be given.
As my noble friend has told your Lordships, the present system of benefit was not designed for people who, although ill or disabled, have some capacity to

1113
earn. Partial incapacity, also known as partial disability, is disability which leaves an individual with some capacity to earn. People in this position are not incapable of work in the traditional sense, and accordingly are generally barred from receipt of the normal incapacity benefit for which incapacity for work is a condition of entitlement.
The main contributory benefits in this area of social security—sickness and invalidity benefit—are payable only to those who are incapable of any work. The only exception to this is the so-called therapeutic earnings provision. This enables a person to be treated as incapable of work and to receive benefit if he is doing a job which may be regarded as of therapeutic value and for which his earnings are under a ceiling of £16.50 at present, and £20 from November. I will say more on that matter in a moment; it was raised by all the speakers this evening.
In addition to the difficulties which partially incapacitated people have in qualifying for incapacity benefits, they may also, of course, face considerable problems in attempting to support themselves by working. They may be restricted in the hours that they can work, the range of jobs they can do or the responsibilities that they can accept; or they may be able to work intermittently or in special conditions. Even when a disabled person's earnings are at a reasonable level, the demands of a job may well put an abnormal financial burden upon him in respect of travel, attendance or special clothing which will leave him significantly less well off than others.
If we turn to other parts of the social security system, a disabled part-time worker may, if his total income is low, be eligible for supplementary benefit which, of course, has some special rules for disabled people. If he has children and is in low-paid work for at least 30 hours a week-24 hours for a one-parent family— he may get family income supplement. There are preferences for disabled people in the rent and rate rebate schemes, and there is a range of means-tested benefits, such as free prescriptions and free school meals, for people with low incomes in general.
This does not, however, add up to a coherent system of help for disabled workers which would encourage them to make full use of whatever capacity for work they may have. It has been argued that there is thus some room for improvement in this as in other areas of social security, and the main question directed at me tonight is what our intentions are in respect of partial incapacity, Let me say straight away that I acknowledge the force of this case. If there is a disincentive to disabled people to obtain part-time work, then we clearly need to study ways around this. And we have confirmed that we are looking at the possibilities. Whether improvement can be achieved by amending the social security schemes or by other means is something that we shall need to consider very carefully.
However, as I am sure that your Lordships will recognise, this is a complex problem and there are no simple solutions. Indeed, the report recognises that there needs to be more work on the details of the approaches suggested in it. We are at present looking at these and other possibilities. The Social Security Advisory Committee are themselves considering this, and their advice, when it is available, will, I am certain, be of great assistance, But at the moment we are not
1114
able to say which is the best approach to adapt or when it would be possible to put it into effect.
The cost of any new provision for partial incapacity is certainly an important factor in considering the, relative merits of different possibilities, and also, of course, in determining when the Government could afford to introduce such a measure. The point has been made that there would be offsets against any cost, and this was one of the points made by my noble friend. Not only might some people take up work who would otherwise he totally reliant on benefit, but there would of course, also be increased tax revenue. That may well be so, but we need to do a lot more work on costs, taking into account such factors as the effect on people in full-time work who, because of disability, may find a combination of earnings and other financial support preferable to earnings alone. More work is needed before it is unequivocably clear that a worthwhile provision could he made at virtually no cost, as has been suggested. The report claims that the overwhelming majority of the potential client group for a partial incapacity benefit are already receiving one or more benefits, primarily invalidity benefits. As I say, we accept that some offsetting savings could be gained from taking such people off sole dependence on benefits. But it is necessary to look at the whole picture, and I think that your Lordships will appreciate that there might be costs as well as savings. We shall have to look at the whole equation.
There are other factors which need careful consideration also. One of these is the question of whom we should be trying to help. I think from what has been said that there is a consensus that provision on the lines we are discussing should be aimed at the disabled person capable of part-time work, and I imagine that in the definition of "disabled" your Lordships would wish to include those suffering from mental disability. But translating the concept of capability of part-time work into a legal framework will not be easy. Those of your Lordships with experience in social security will know the problem of drawing dividing lines so as to target provision at those for whom it is intended. I mention that difficulty not in any defeatist sense but to underline the complexity of the issues we are discussing.
The cost and scope of any scheme as well as its effectiveness will, of course, be determined by the nature of the scheme itself. That means that I cannot give figures this evening. What I can do, is suggest some of the ways in which it might be possible to take better account of partial incapacity.
The report itself suggests three approaches. The first is adjustment of the existing rules for social security benefits in order that people may work part-time without losing all their benefit. That is certainly worth looking at, since, on the face of it, it would result in a simple scheme. But I should perhaps alert your Lordships to the problem of drawing up rules so that the help goes only to those for whom it is intended. I am sure that no one would wish for the introduction of a scheme which, at the end of the day, provided benefit for people in part-time work even if they were in fact capable of doing full-time work.
The other two approaches suggested in the report relate to what I might describe as a full-blown, separate benefit for partial incapacity. The first option suggested is to use the criterion of loss of faculty. The

1115
second is to carry out both a medical and an occupational assessment of the individual. Both these approaches have much to be said for them. But I think —and the report recognises this—that both suffer from requiring a fairly high level of administrative effort.
There may be other ways in which to approach the problem of partial incapacity—for example, we should need to consider the possibility of support more directly related to employment. And in all our considerations we shall have to bear in mind the tax position of the people concerned. It would not be sensible to introduce a scheme in which the marginal tax on earnings was approaching 100 per cent., because, of course, of reduction of benefit, though, in saying that, I recognise what has been said about the high level of motivation of the people we are discussing. For many of them—and my noble friend referred to this when she talked about the very first job that she had—the status of having a job is at least as important as the earnings deriving from it.
As I have made clear, we have not reached any decisions on this matter. When we see what the Social Security Advisory Committee have to say, it may be that the picture will be clearer and the options available will be capable of analysis as to cost and numbers involved. But, even then, we shall have to look at the resources available and weigh up what priority to give such a provision compared with other objectives, including those in the social security field. But, nevertheless, the important point to take from this debate is that we have been persuaded that there is a problem and that we must look carefully at all possible solutions to it. We are now setting about that task.
Let me turn now to one or two points that have been made during the course of the debate. First, let me correct one matter raised by both my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, about the therapeutic earnings provision. The therapeutic earnings provision is not an earnings rule: it is a measure of the work that can be done by someone without being incompatible with incapacity for work. It is a guideline to the insurance officer who makes decisions about such incapacity. The noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, in fact, specifically questioned the terminology. I should explain that these earnings are permitted only if the work undertaken is approved by the claimant's doctor and is thus therapeutic. Perhaps the phrase "concessionary" would be better, but I fear that that would still be only a semantic difference for so long as we retain the present system of benefits for sick and disabled people. The important point is that the therapeutic earnings limit is just that; it applies only to work that the doctor certifies as being of therapeutic value. Thus, I was careful to say that it is not just a question of being only £16.50, or £20 later in the year when it is raised.
I think that the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, referred to some foreign schemes. It is true that other countries make provision for partial incapacity, and naturally my department has studied these. But I would just make the point that such schemes have to be set in context. There are invariably important differences in the general structure and administration of other systems of social security, health care and social services. This means that their arrangements
1116
cannot readily be translated into our own context, though there is perhaps always something to be learned from the way other people deal with problems similar to our own. As I say, their schemes will certainly be studied and, indeed, have been already.
The noble Baroness and, I think, both other noble Lords who spoke argued that provision can be made at nil cost. I referred to that a moment ago. I cannot dispute that, in terms of figures that we have been discussing tonight, that may appear to be so. But there could be a cost if people move from earnings to earnings plus other provision. What I think is needed is a long, cool study of these costs. Your Lordships may be interested to know that my officials have already met with the author of this report to discuss the point, and we are beginning to work towards a clarification of what is, frankly, a rather unclear or, if you like, muddy area. The statistics are not readily available at present and we are seeing what we can do to get a closer appreciation of the facts in the matter. But I must say that I am not wholly convinced at this stage that such a scheme could be introduced at nil cost or even at some saving, as has been suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, referred to a specific issue which he had read about in the Guardian today or yesterday.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, yesterday.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I, too, have seen the report of that matter and I and my colleagues have asked for some advice and information about that particular case. I must agree that it appears to be something that needs to be looked into.
I hope I have made clear that we are sympathetic to the arguments put to us in the debate tonight. I say that not simply because the Government's long-term aim is to rationalise and improve provision for disabled people. It is because what has been argued tonight strikes a chord with this Government's philosophy of creating the right environment to encourage people to work. To the extent that there is a disincentive to some disabled people who want to work, we cannot condone that. But correcting the situation may not be straightforward and may have a cost. Thus we must explore carefully the implications of the various possibilities and determine how and when to make changes.
I hope that the generally sympathetic approach that I have been able to enunciate in response to the Question of the noble Baroness tonight will convince your Lordships that we have this matter very seriously in hand, and I hope that before long we shall be able to take a further step forward.

Insurance Companies Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
Industrial Development Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee with amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; Bill to be printed as amended.
Aviation Security Bill [H.L.]
Reported from the Joint Committee without amendment, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

Written Answers
MEDICAL TRAINING FOR OVERSEAS SERVICE
Lord Kennet Lord Kennet asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether medical and nursing people who are trained in this country and likely to serve in countries where the customs of female circumcision, excision and infibulation exist, receive any teaching on the subject, and if so what.
Lord Trefgarne: Doctors and nurses are trained in this country primarily to meet the needs of patients in this country where the practices referred to by the noble Lord are deprecated unless performed for purely medical reasons. For doctors and nurses going overseas who require training specifically related to these practices, it would have to be arranged specially.

THE FALKLAND ISLANDS: REQUISITIONED SHIPS
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone asked Her Majesty's Government:
What arrangements are being made to meet claims for loss or damage arising from hostile action against merchant ships requisitioned or chartered in support of the task force for the Falkland Islands.
The Secretary of State for Trade (Lord Cockfield): Claims will be met from the Marine and Aviation Insurance (War Risks) Fund which was established under Section 5 of the Marine and Aviation Insurance (War Risks) Act 1952. The balance of the fund is currently £5.25 million. Claims for the loss of the "Atlantic Conveyer" exceed that amount and Parliament's approval will be sought in a Supplementary Estimate to make good the deficit in the fund. In the meantime repayable advances of up to £4.5 million will be made from the Contingencies Fund so that settlement of these claims may be made in the next few days. The Department of Trade's cash limit will be increased by £2,800,000 from £160,750,000 to £163,550,000. This increase will be met from the Contingency Reserve and will not therefore add to total public expenditure.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter Lord Boyd-Carpenter asked Her Majesty's Government:
What compensation will be payable by it in respect of the requisitioning of ships for use in the South Atlantic.
Lord Cockfield: Compensation will be payable to shipowners as provided for under Section 4 of the Compensation (Defence) Act 1939 in respect of:

(1) the loss of use of the vessel during the period of requisition. This will be a bare boat charter rate which will include a profit element for the ship owner;

(2) expenses in connection with the running of the vessel in cases where it has been agreed that this service will be provided;

(3) the cost of making good any damage to the vessel;

(4) in a case of a total loss of the vessel, a sum equal to its value immediately before occurence of the damage causing its loss;

(5) expenses reasonably incurred for the purpose of complying with the Requisition Order.

In addition the Government are willing to enter into agreements with shipowners as envisaged in Section 15 of the 1939 Act which will provide for payments to be made in respect of:

(6) any profit which might reasonably have been expected to be earned by the ship during the period of requisition in so far as that profit is not covered by Section 4;

(7) payments in respect of the period of requisition due to third parties, arising from contractual obligations entered into prior to the requisition, directly connected with the operation of the ship, and not covered by Section 4;

(8) other expenses reasonably incurred during the the period of and attributable to the requisition;

(9) loss of profit for a period not exceeding six months after the period of requisition being profit which might, but for the requisition, have reasonably been expected to be earned by the ship;

(10) any other loss suffered by the claimant during a period of not more than six months after the period of requisition if that loss was reasonably foreseeable as a result of the requisition.

The provisions covered in (6)—(10) above are subject to the proviso that no account will be taken of any loss if the claimant has not taken all reasonable steps to avoid or minimise that loss. The period of six months in (9) and (10) above has been chosen as one in which any loss directly resulting from the requisition could be expected to arise. In exceptional circumstances and where loss which is clearly a result of the requisition arises after this perod of six months, the Government will give special consideration to the claim. The Lord Chancellor is taking steps to reconstitute the Shipping Claims Tribunal provided for under the 1939 Act which will be asked to determine disputes.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes before nine o'clock.