asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a further statement on the progress made in implementing the recommendations of the IMEG report.

The Offshore Supplies Office has been established. It is pursuing a number of major initiatives and is currently dealing with about 200 inquiries a week from firms interested in the offshore market. It is taking effective and necessary action to ensure that British contractors receive a full and fair opportunity to secure off shore business.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that any controversy in Scotland about North Sea oil developments relates only to the siting of such developments? The people of Scotland are absolutely united on the need to maximise the number of North Sea oil jobs. Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that it is felt that the Government's response to the IMEG report is both tardy and inadequate? For example, will the hon. Gentleman take the initiative and enable Scottish industry to acquire a major stake in these developments and, in particular, to establish a new and indigenous technology for exploitation in deep waters?

I object to the words "tardy" and "inadequate ". On the whole, Scottish industry welcomes the steps that we are taking and believes that it can benefit greatly from them to achieve the results which the hon. Gentle man and the Government wish to achieve.

What are the Government doing to build up an offshore drilling capacity? That is mentioned in the IMEG report and is very important.

My hon. Friend will recall that last time I was at the Dispatch Box I mentioned that certain considerations and discussions were taking place on the matter. They are proceeding.

Has the attention of the Minister been drawn to the recent speech of the Chairman of the Scottish Tory Party, Sir William McEwan Younger, in which he strongly criticised the Government's current North Sea oil development policies? Will the Government take any notice of their own boss in Scotland?

I happened to be present in Glasgow when Sir William made his speech, and I believe that the interpretation of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) is entirely incorrect.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the Scottish Tory Party said that some Tory Members are unfamiliar with the industrial facts of life? Did not the hon. Gentle man hear him say that? Do the Government propose to ignore some of the main recommendations of the IMEG report? Is underwater technology to be left to the University Grants Committee? Must the University of Heriot-Watt, for example, suffer because the Department of Trade and Industry does not know the industrial facts of life in Scotland?

I do not accept the suggestion that the Department of Trade and Industry is not aware of the industrial position and the need for industrial expansion for offshore development in Scotland. I accept that there is a need for considerable thought on the develop- ment of long-term technology for deep-water drilling. Full consideration is being given to that matter.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on pending discussions between his Department and the British Petroleum Company regarding the price of North Sea crude oil and gas.

No such discussions are yet in progress.

Is it not time that such discussions took place, in view of the evidence given to the Public Accounts Committee by leading officials of the hon. Gentleman's Department? Will the Government take steps to ensure a firming-up of this company's oil refining capacity in Scotland, because it is urgently needed before the North Sea oil comes ashore in 1974?

We will ensure that discussions take place in good time before the oil begins to come ashore. The question of refining capacity in Scotland is under full and continual consideration.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that at this moment there is a proposal to build a refinery in Shetland which would have drastic effects on the life and economy of the islands, and that it is urgent that the terms and conditions on which such development may proceed should be laid down? The Shetland County Council Bill has been blocked, which means extra expenditure and delay. In the meantime, however, this type of development is in the air and there is grave need for an urgent decision about where the refinery should be put and on what terms and conditions.

The decision is a planning matter, which is not for me but for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

But if the hon. Gentleman should manage to get involved in the negotiations on the question of price, and so on, he may find that there is an attempt to ignore what one might describe as "energy potential ". Will he comment on the allegations that every thing seems to be cent red on oil exploration and that it is nearly a crime to find gas?

I do not think that that is correct. Obviously, there is bound to be associated gas in many of the oil discoveries, and the position more often than not is that oil companies are drilling for hydrocarbons in the hope of finding either gas or oil.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether in the GATT negotiations on liberalisation of international trade this autumn he will put forward proposals for freer trade in agricultural products and foodstuffs in particular.

We are at present considering with the other members of the EEC the Community's position on subjects to be covered in these GATT negotiations. The Community has already stated that these should cover agricultural as well as industrial products.

Is that not a quite inadequate answer to give the House of Commons at this stage, now that President Nixon has sent to Congress a Trade Bill which will give him power to move towards either freer trade or greater protection according to the response he gets from other countries? Is it not essential that there should be a British initiative for much freer trade in agricultural products, which both British and American interests require?

British initiatives in this matter are taken within the context of the EEC. The enlarged Community will speak with one voice for all member nations in the actual negotiations. Within that context, we are able to put forward our viewpoint and we of course accept the commitment to liberalisation of trade set out by the summit meeting.

Does that mean that the Commission will conduct the negotiations. or the Governments, or both?

The enlarged Community will speak with one voice for all member countries in the actual negotiations, but of course this country will be putting forward its own proposals in the context of the Community s performance on our behalf.

Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the dumping of agricultural produce is ruinous to international trade in agriculture? Does not he look upon the butter deal last week as an appalling example of dumping in the world food trade? In view of the reports over the weekend, will he tell us whether the butter will be resold to Chile?

I am not able to comment on the last point. The Community accepts, as much as other parties to the negotiations accept, that multilateral negotiations will include an agricultural content in which questions of that kind can no doubt be taken into account.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a further statement on preparations for the forthcoming GATT negotiations.

The EEC Commission has made a statement of position and the United States Trade Bill has been published. These are important steps to wards a negotiation.

Although one is forced to conclude from the answer to Question No. 2 that the Government appear to have lost their sovereign voice in these matters, can my right hon. and learned Friend be a little bold and tell us whether the Government agree to the abolition of export subsidies in agriculture, in terms of these negotiations?

I have already explained that Her Majesty's Government are put ting forward their view on the contents of the forthcoming negotiations within the context of the Community. The Commission's preliminary statement on the position has already made it clear that although it would resist any attack on the principles of the common agricultural policy it must equally be prepared to apply the instruments of that policy in such a way that its broad objective of expanding world trade is achieved.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that the answers he has given to this Question and to Question No. 2 constitute a total abdication of ministerial accountability to this House, in that unless Parliament knows what are the negotiating objectives of the British Government it will have no way of knowing whether they have been met by the Common Market when it enters into these negotiations? Is he telling us that from now on the Government will not give any indication of their view until a compromise has been reached with the other members of the Community?

I am telling the House no such thing. I have already referred to the statement made by Sir Christopher Soames on behalf of the Commission and have noted the liberal and constructive approach proposed. I believe that these proposals will provide a useful basis for the formulation of a common Community approach.

In what form will Her Majesty's Government's views on this subject be made known to the House of Commons?

Arrangements can be made for them to be canvassed by the House as they come to be put forward. The House is already familiar with the arrangements made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for in forming the House of matters as they come up on the agenda of the Council of Ministers.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he intends to make any changes in regional incentives, in the light of the recent OECD report.

No, Sir.

Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the OECD report specifically accused Her Majesty's Government of diluting investment control and said that, combined with the abandonment of the regional employment premium, it would mean a progressive drift to the South-East just at a time when we have an excellent chance in regional policy?

I have read the report and I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman has said as a fair summary of its findings. Our intention is to pro duce self-sustaining growth in the regions and not have a situation in which many industries have to be permanently subsidised.

Is it not the case that when officials of the right hon. Gentleman's Department gave evidence before the Select Committee on Expenditure recently, they said that they expected a job loss of between 20,000 and 50,000 as a consequence of the withdrawal of the regional employment premium? Does the right hon. Gentle man agree that, far from withdrawing it, the Government should be lending all possible aid to Dr. Hillary, who, speaking as an EEC Commissioner, has said that this is one of the incentives that ought to be retained for development areas?

No, Sir. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that when the regional employment premium was introduced in 1967 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), said that he thought it should run for seven years and then be phased out. That is the present Government's position, also.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with the Brewers' Society about the tenant-manager relationship in the licensed trade.

My Department is in touch with the Brewers' Society about the proposed code of practice on tenant security which the society is preparing.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that hundreds of tenants are being kicked out of the best houses and re placed by managers, by greedy brewers, simply because they want two lots of profit and that they have no protection in law and are looking to the hon. Gentle man to intervene? Does he think it in the public interest that brewers should have a total monopoly of the production, wholesaling and, through the managerial system, retailing of their own products?

The decision whether to install a manager or to lease a public house is a commercial one for the brewer concerned, but the House will recall that the Monopolies Commission found that in the last quarter of 1967 76·4 per cent. of brewer-owned public houses were tenanted and 23·6 per cent. managed. The latest available figures are 74·9 per cent. and 25·1 per cent., respectively.

Will my hon. Friend investigate the amount of soft drinks and other non-beer products which were sold before the acceptance of the Monopolies Commission's report and the amount sold now, to show the extent to which there is genuine competition in those products in the pubs and the extent to which the brewers have maintained their under taking to allow free competition in those products?

I do not have the figures on soft drinks. I was concentrating on beer. But I note what my hon. Friend says, which I find of considerable interest.

Is the Minister aware that hundreds of licensees are now being driven out, and that the members of the Brewers' Society are not waiting for the code of conduct? Are not the brewers re placing the licensees with managers be cause they suspect that they will then escape the strictures of the Common Market Commission, which has already decreed that the tied house system in beer supply is contrary to its regulations? If the Minister refers to the Monopolies Commission's report at the end of 1969, and not 1967, he will find that the tied house and beer supply system was then condemned. The situation has worsened considerably since then. When will he act upon it?

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will look at the figures I quoted, which are not for 1969 but for 1971. The Brewers' Society is concerned about the matter and is producing a code of conduct to safeguard both the pension and employment position of tenants and the fair rents and arbitration procedures.

I hope that my hon. Friend also realises that, although the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. William Price) talked about the brewers' profits, both tenants and managers want profits because they then have a better living. May I emphasise particularly the question of security for tenants? It is my belief, and that of many other people, that there is a much happier pub atmosphere for drinkers when the pub is run by a tenant as opposed to a manager.

I do not disagree very much with my hon. Friend. I have particular sympathy with tenants who face redundancy. That is why I hope that the code of conduct dealing with fair compensation will be produced quickly.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's various answers, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he is satisfied with the present board of Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited.

Yes, Sir.

We appreciate that the recent management upheaval in Rolls-Royce was a matter of personalities as well as policies, but is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern in Derby over recent developments, not merely the removal of Mr. Fawn and the head of the Rolls-Royce Far East office after only five weeks in the job but also the possible transfer of work and management from Derby? Was the hon. Gentleman consulted in advance about the removal of Mr. Fawn? Will he now give the House an assurance that there will be no transfer of RB 211 work from Derby, and that if the company head quarters moves to North-West London those concerned will be properly consulted and not left to glean what they can from the trade Press?

I was in China at the time of Mr. Fawn's resignation. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has already told the House that my Department was informed as a matter of courtesy, but Mr. Fawn was not a member of the main board, and therefore I should not expect to be consulted. I realise that there have been rumours about the future of the Derby plant. The management of Rolls-Royce is entirely a question for the board of directors, and I can assure the House that there is no foundation for those rumours.

Why has the board of Rolls-Royce (1971) offered only £31 million for assets taken over two years ago which the liquidator of the old company values at £162 million? Why is the new company contesting the tax liabilities which should belong to the old company and its creditors?

My hon. Friend will appreciate that buyers and sellers often take different views about the price that assets are worth.

Does the Minister realise that the managerial changes taking place in Rolls-Royce are disturbing and are affecting the morale of the staff? Therefore, will he give a categorical assurance today that no work on the RB 211 engine now being performed in Derby will be transferred elsewhere?

That is a matter on which the board is responsible for fulfilling its contracts with the Government. I am not aware of any major changes that could imply that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to have the doubts that he has.

My hon. Friend should be more than satisfied with the board of Rolls-Royce Motors. I know of no other great company coming to the market for a bid which can charge £5 for its prospectus.

Regrettably, I cannot take credit for that.

What are the technical and industrial qualifications of the senior civil servant, lately retired, who has become, or is about to become deputy chairman of Rolls-Royce? Should not industrial patronage be exercised at least as fastidiously as political paitronage?

The qualifications of Sir William Nield are well known. He was a very distinguished civil servant, and is now Deputy Chairman of Rolls-Royce. His qualifications for helping in the strategic direction of that company, with its wide international ramifications, are self-evident.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to make it an offence in the United Kingdom for United Kingdom companies operating abroad, either directly or through sub-sidaries, to make political contributions in this country if they are paying wages in other countries below subsistence levels or below internationally agreed recommendations.

No, Sir. British companies operating abroad clearly ought to consider on their merits the need to pay their employees adequate wages and their own longer-term interest in earning a reputation as good employers.

Is not the Minister aware that many companies, such as Tate and Lyle, and Slater Walker, have been putting into the funds of the Conservative Party money they have been making as a result of paying Africans starvation wages? Will he reconsider his answer? Is he entirely satisfied with having his election expenses paid from such a source?

The questions cannot be linked in the way in which the hon. Gentleman seeks to link them. The Government have made their position perfectly clear. We wish to encourage British companies with subsidiaries or associates in South Africa to look urgently at the pay and conditions of their employees and to make any necessary improvements.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend recall giving me a very unsatisfactory reply a few days ago on the matter of political subscriptions to the Tory Party? Has not he thought again whether the law is truly being complied with? Will he tell the House how much money the Tory Party had from operating companies in Africa or elsewhere, and compare that with the amount of money the trade union movement gave the Labour Party?

My hon. Friend raises a number of different questions. It is well known that the trade union movement makes substantial contributions to the Labour Party. The statutory position on disclosure by companies in this country is laid down in Section 19 of the Companies Act, which makes specific provision for identifying the source of payments if they exceed £50. So far as I know, publication is taking place as required by the statute. If my hon. Friend has any evidence to suggest that it is not, I shall be glad to examine it.

As the Government now have the power, under the Counter-Inflation Act and other measures, to get the companies to declare information to them, will they use those powers to get the companies to reveal what wages they are paying in other countries?

The powers of the Counter-Inflation Act extend to ascertaining information on pay and conditions and prices in this country. They certainly do not extend to obtaining information about what is being paid in the Republic of South Africa. But I have made it very clear that the Government will continue to encourage—as they have done by documents already published— companies with subsidiaries or associates in South Africa to consider the pay and conditions they are providing there. There can be no doubt about the Government's position.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints he has received from members of the public alleging unjustified price rises since the introduction of value added tax.

Such complaints are handled by weights and measures inspectors. Returns in my Department up to 12th April indicate that during the week following the introduction of VAT the inspectors have received approximately 11,000 complaints about incorrect adjustments of prices and charges on non-food goods and services.

Does my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that with the introduction of such a complex and comprehensive new tax as VAT—despite the co-operation that has been received from the majority of traders and the magnificent job that has been done by inspectors of weights and measures throughout the country—in order to make sure that Section 12 of the Counter-Inflation Act is fully complied with and that housewives get the full benefit of the £120 million tax reduction in the food bill, extra staff for the inspectorate is highly desirable and essential?

I agree that effective supervision of the changeover is essential. The figures I have given show the extent to which the Weights and Measures Inspectorate is playing its part. If we remember that there are well over 600,000 retail and service outlets it will be seen that the number of complaints received is only an infinitesimal fraction of the number of transactions taking place. I have no reason to believe that additional staffing of the Weights and Measures Department is necessary, bearing in mind the extent to which it is giving priority to this particularly important problem.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that weights and measures inspectors received their instructions from the Government only about 24 hours before the changeover and as a result were quite unable to cope with the problems which confronted them?

That is not the position. For example, I know at least one case where weights and measures inspectors were having instruction courses. One county issued a Press release about the extent to which its weights and measures inspectors were being briefed and organised well ahead of the introduction of the tax. Admittedly, the final instructions went out only some days before the changeover took place, but there is no reason to believe from the reports I have received that the Weights and Measures Inspectorate feels that it is under-briefed. It has only to refer to my prices unit for further information, if it is needed.

Has my right hon. and learned Friend noticed that whereas purveyors of goods, and particularly of services, set out very accurately the increase in prices due to VAT, they are rather more coy about explaining the counterbalancing effect of the abolition of SET? Will he look into this question?

My hon. and learned Friend is right to draw attention to the balancing effect that ought to be secured from the abolition of SET. It is because of this that I wrote to the significant retailers and undertakings in the service industries—those with turnovers above £5 million—to draw their attention to that point and to invite them to let me know what arrangements they are making to take account of it. The replies I have so far received show that they are doing this.

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware, as the public certainly is, that the Government have bungled the utterly unnecessary changeover to this highly inflationary tax? Has he seen the Press reports that weights and measures inspectors have been so busy recording complaints that they have had not time to investigate them? Does he realise that the number of orders which he has made to reduce prices in the critical first two weeks of the tax have been so small as to be nothing but a derisory public display of the Government's impotence? How does he justify protecting firms which have cheated the public by concealing their names? Why does he not reveal the names of the cheats?

The hon. Member has a remarkable facility for spoiling even a bad case by overstatement. The measure of the inaccuracy of what he has said is to be found in the fact that more than 1,700 price reductions have been made by the Weights and Measures Inspectorate in the area for which my Department is responsible. That is wholly inconsistent with the proposition that the inspectorate has no time to investigate complaints made to it. The figures are a measure of the successful supervision which has taken place.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will take steps to enable the tourist boards to provide an efficient welcoming service to foreign nationals arriving in the United Kingdom before they pass through passport formalities.

The tourist boards and the authorities concerned have cooperated to provide information services at the major points of entry and the provision of services is planned at others.

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the function of immigration officers is to scrutinise people coming to this country and to keep some people out? Since we are advertising for tourists and since tourism is our second largest industry is it not a fact that such officers are unable to welcome tourists in the way that we would like? We need to make tourists feel that they are welcome when they arrive here, but that is not the case at the moment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the tourist boards ought to take this on their shoulders, since the immigration department is unable to do so?

The tourist boards make widespread provision for welcoming and informing tourists at points of entry. The conduct of immigration officers is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will give a general direction to gas boards that, whenever the supply of gas to domestic consumers is cut off for whatever reasons, a compensating reduction in charge shall be made to those consumers

No, Sir. Gas is charged for as metered. Standing charges relate to the provision and maintenance of facilities required for the supply of gas. irrespective of consumption, and any question of their remission is entirely for the British Gas Corporation.

While thanking my hon. Friend for that answer, may I draw his attention to the situation which prevailed in the Midlands last month, when literally thousands of consumers were deprived of gas and caused hardship and made to incur extra costs through an industrial dispute? Does he not agree that in a situation of that kind there is a moral obligation on the corporation to make some kind of reduction in charges?

I sincerely recognise and regret the inconvenience suffered by the public in the constituency of my hon. Friend and other Midlands constituencies. It would not, however, be right to impose a new wide and general obligation on the corporation as a result of events arising out of an industrial dispute. This is a matter for the corporation to deal with. It might be helpful if I asked the chairman of the corporation to write direct to my hon. Friend.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions he has had with the board of BSA; and whether he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a further statement about BSA.

As I informed the House on 19th March, proposals for the acquisition of BSA by Manganese Bronze Holdings Ltd. are subject to the agreement of the boards and shareholders of the two companies.—[Vol. 853, c. 33–4.]

Any support by my Department for the new motor cycle company will be subject to our being satisfied about the arrangements for the acquisition and about the proposed management and operation of the new company. Negotiations between the two companies have not yet be concluded. I will in due course inform the House of the outcome.

Will my right hon. Friend say what confidence he has that the £4·8 million worth of aid already announced will be sufficient to make the new company into a viable entity? Does he intend subsequently to make extra sums available, which may be less than the £5 million for which the approval of the House is required but would nevertheless bring the total amount of aid to a sum above that figure? In such an event, will that action be subject to the approval of the House?

We have no proposals for giving any aid above the sum I have already mentioned. If, however, sums were to be made available which brought the total above £5 million, an affirmative order would be required. I believe that there is a good chance of the emergence of a company which will be of considerable benefit to Britain's balance of payments.

It the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is now nearly a month since, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), I brought two deputations of shop stewards from the Triumph works at Meriden to see him? Is he aware that those workers are still being told nothing about the future of their industry or their factory? Will he arrange for Mr. Dennis Poore or someone to tell us something as soon as possible?

I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing the deputations to see me, and I hope that some information was able to be exchanged on that occasion. I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that a takeover of this kind, involving such financial arrangements, inevitably takes time. I naturally accept the force of the general point he is making.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the introduction and operation of value added tax, with particular reference to the actual movement of prices and service charges compared with what was anticipated.

Reports received so far in my Department indicate that the changeover to VAT is in general going reasonably well. I am confident that over the country as a whole the great majority of price adjustments, up and down, are being made fairly. There have been fewer problems than we might have expected in view of the scope of the operation. In general, the movements of prices and charges are very close to the estimates made when our publicity campaign was launched in March.

I agree with my right hon. and learned Friend generally, but will he comment on two specific complaints which have been made following the introduction of VAT? The first relates to alleged excessive additions made to bills, particularly in cafeterias and restaurants. Secondly, following the point made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), is it not true that a flat 10 per cent. has been added to other service charges without regard to the abolition of selective employment tax?

I agree that there has been a substantial number of complaints relating to cafes and restaurants, about which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture would answer detailed questions. However, any complaints of that kind are being followed up by the Weights and Measures Inspectorate. Alongside the introduction of VAT there are inevitably seasonal fluctuations in the price of foodstuffs which must be put into the account. Complaints about flat 10 per cent. additions made in the service industries are being investigated, and it is generally found possible to arrive at agreed changes which, although sometimes representing a 10 per cent. increase on one product, do not represent any net addition to the income of the trader when account is taken of the fact that prices for other products are held at a lower level.

Does the Minister agree that the consumer is being severely milked on small items costing l0p and less? Will he inform retailers that in spite of the tremendously heavy price increases made in the last couple of years the new halfpenny piece is still a legitimate coin of the realm, and should be used?

If consumers generally were, as the hon. Member says, being severely milked on small purchases, that would be a matter to be considered very seriously. But, so far from small traders and shopkeepers being dishonest and out to gull the consumer, as the Opposition seem to think, the overwhelming majority are complying effectively with the obligations of the changeover.

On the question of small items, I underline what the hon. Gentleman has said. The halfpenny coin remains an active and effective coin of the realm and should be used in making price adjustments, up and down, in relation to the introduction of VAT.

As my right hon. and learned Friend agrees that anxiety and difficulties have arisen in relation to cafés and restaurants, would it not be a good idea to have a conference on the matter with whoever represents cafes and restaurants in total so that we would have a proper statement on the problem and see whether we could deal with the situation?

There has already been consultation of the kind to which my hon. Friend refers between both my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and myself and the leading trade association, covering almost all the aspects affected by the tax change. Problems arising in small hotels and restaurants concern detailed variations in detailed cases which can be followed up only by investigation on the spot, and they are being followed up in that way. I shall consider my hon. Friend's point that there should be further consultation with the representatives of that trade to see whether further guidance is necessary.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will investigate and report on the extent to which national Governments in the Common Market require their industries to collaborate with a United Kingdom company before giving new industrial projects official support.

I am not persuaded that a general investigation of the kind suggested would be worth while.

I am sorry that my right hon. Friend makes that reply, bearing in mind that it is the policy of many parts of his Department to require such collaboration in British industry and British companies. Would it not be a good idea if he were to go into this matter more deeply to find out what the other Common Market countries are doing—which, I suggest, is nothing? If British industry is to bear this burden on its competitive capability it would be useful for my right hon. Friend to consider harmonising his views with those of other Common Market countries which allow their industries full competitive rein.

We favour cross-frontier collaboration, especially in highly technological industries, which, as my hon. Friend will know, is also the view of a number of other European countries. But it would not make sense to launch an investigation of the kind suggested by my hon. Friend across the board because the situation plainly differs from industry to industry and project to project.

Is not the Minister aware that there is a serious dearth of aircraft projects in this country? One of the reasons for that is that the Government have changed their policy and are not prepared to give research and development money to any aircraft industry in Britain to produce its own project unless it agrees to collaborate with a European country. Is that true?

My hon. Friend the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping is at present studying Hawker Siddeley's request for launching aid for the HS146, and the European implications of that are among the factors which he will be taking into account. I believe that he hopes to make a statement on the matter fairly shortly.

Will a determining factor be that there should be collaboration in not only aircraft projects but other industrial projects?

No. That is simply one among a number of factors which must be taken into account when making decisions such as this.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what power of veto he exercises in connection with the disposal of shares, at home or overseas, by the new design and construction company for the nuclear industry.

My right hon. Friend is discussing these matters with the interested parties.

It is very important that there should be some veto in cases in which shares in this vitally important industry may be transferred overseas. Is it not the case that the predominant and favoured position of GEC in this and other hybrid firms seems to threaten the principle of an open purchasing policy? What action is the hon. Gentleman taking to prevent abuses in this area?

I accept the need for the Government to be certain about the restrictions which will be placed on the transfer of any shares. I repeat that this matter is now under close consideration. The Government reserve the right to have all the necessary information to ensure that an open purchasing policy can and will be carried out by the new company.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will now make a further statement on Concorde.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he will make a statement on the present state of the Concorde programme.

We and the French Government are giving the manufacturers our full support in their sales negotiations. I hope to discuss shortly the position with my colleague in the new French Government.

Is it not clear that to an increasing extent we are producing many parts of this aircraft in excess of the firm orders which have been given for it? If that is so, we shall soon be producing Concordes for stock. Is not that very wrong? What is the Minister's latest estimate for development costs, and what proportion of those costs does he expect to recover?

We have always been in the position of producing Concordes in advance of firm orders. As I announced to the House in May 1972, the latest estimated cost of development is £970 million. That is the subject of a review, and as soon as I am able to make a further statement to the House I shall do so.

Has my hon. Friend had further discussions with the American aviation agencies about the noise limitations which may be imposed on Concorde's landing at American airports?

Not since my return from the United States. My hon. Friend will remember that it is our view that the noise of Concorde, when it enters service, will be of the same level as that of existing conventional jets, and it should therefore pose no new problems when it arrives at American airports.

There is plainly much in what my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has said, but when Concorde is operating for Air France and BOAC is there not a likelihood that competitive pressure will bring an increase in orders from other air companies?

I am sure that the competitive pressure of this remarkably attractive form of transportation will bring about the situation to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

Will my hon. Friend say how near we are to the day when it will be desirable to authorise a start on the parts for a few more Concordes so as to ensure continuity of production by BAC and its subcontractors?

There is no immediate pressure to take that decision.

While welcoming the Minister's reaffirmation that he is supporting the sales campaign for this aircraft, may I ask whether he can give the House the assurance that the assembly line will be retained at Bristol?

No proposals have been put to me to change the present disposition of the two assembly lines. Obviously, if the manufacturers put any proposals to me I must consider them, but no such proposals have been put.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the consideration that is being given to improving standards of safety in the coalmining industry.

Improved safety standards in the coalmining industry are the subject of continuing joint consultation and action by the Department, the National Coal Board and the mining trades unions and professional institutions, both in this country and through the Mines Safety and Health Commission of the European Communities.

The House will also wish to know that a public statement will be made today that the inquiry into the tragic accident at the Lofthouse Colliery will open at Wakefield on Wednesday 30th May at 10 a.m.

I appreciate that over the last few years there has been a considerable improvement in coalmining safety, but does not the recent Lofthouse disaster show that there is much to be done to improve the standards of safety? Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that he will give this matter rigorous consideration, and, bearing also in mind the recent evidence of the dangerous and arduous nature of the miners' work, does he not agree that the least this country owes them is a third week's holiday with pay?

Of course, the work of the miner is dangerous and arduous, but the previous accident resulting from an inrush of water from old workings took place 44 years ago. I think the hon. Member did the miners and their institutions less credit than they should have, because in the last 10 years ending in 1971 the fatal accident rate fell from 0·45 to 0·24 and the serious injury rate from 2·7 to 2·2 per 1,000 men employed. This is a record second to none in any mining country in the world.

Does the Minister recall that when the statement about the Lofthouse colliery disaster was made I asked the Secretary of State if he would ask the National Coal Board to undertake an urgent survey of old, uncharted mine workings? Can the Minister now tell us whether anything has been done about that, and if so, what progress has been made?

Yes, the situation was carried further forward from the question raised by the hon. Gentleman. As he will know, from 1872 onwards it became compulsory to deposit with the Secretary of State plans of abandoned mines. Many, however, are deficient and in many ways misleading. Many of the old shafts which have been filled in are now hidden and quite difficult to locate. Although tracing old works is difficult, the safety record in this area is very good, as the figures I gave show, but the bodies looking into this matter are concerned to try to ensure that that matter is kept up to the degree of efficiency which the whole nation would want.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the extent to which the current projections of the number of aircraft movements at London's airports and the noise which they will be expected to cause in 1990 differ from those on which he based his conclusion that Maplin Airport should be constructed.

The Civil Aviation Authority has projections of aircraft movements under study and I await its report. Any revised noise projections for existing London airports must follow on that study. I would point out, however, that Maplin is needed not only to cope with the growth of air traffic but to bring relief to those already suffering from the noise disturbance of existing London airports.

May I take it that my hon. Friend is aware of, even if he chooses to ignore, the fact that the progress towards quieter aircraft is much faster than he ever dreamt of at the time of the Roskill Commission, for example? May I also take it that he is aware that British Airways has announced that over the next five years its fleet of aircraft will expand by only seven? Has he noted that British Airways has now ordered a relatively noisy replacement for its Viscount fleet, which it would not have done but for the fact that he is building Maplin, which will enable still noisier aeroplanes to be operated? Will my hon. Friend publish the figures which the CAA is going to give him?

I have not received the figures from the CAA and therefore I am not in a position to give dates on which they might be published, but I imagine that the publication is more likely to be a matter for the CAA than for me. When we had the Second Reading debate about Maplin Airport we went very carefully into the question of the rate at which quieter engines were coming into service. The fact of the matter is that these calculations have been built into our calculations. That does not invalidate the fact that we are faced with a massive growth of traffic around built-up areas of London, and we see methods of alleviating this is by way of Maplin Airport.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, following that debate, practically every authority concerned with this matter has questioned the rate of growth to which the hon. Gentleman referred on that occasion? Will he give an undertaking that when the figures are available they will be published and presented to the House, because we are the people who make the decision, for better or for worse, in favour of the Government's Bill? Since he has just said that the other factor to be taken into account is that the building of Maplin will result in a reduction of traffic to the existing airports around London, will he please tell us to what figures he expects that airport to reduce the present traffic at London Airport?

I cannot accept the hon. Member's suggestion that every authority has commented adversely on the figures produced. The authority to which I draw his attention and that of the House is the British Airports Authority, which made it absolutely clear that it believes that there is need for a third London airport, and that there is need to get it built as soon as possible. The second authority is the CAA, whose figures are not published because they are not ready and it has not commented in any way on the debate we had in the House. The fact of the matter is that we do not anticipate a reduction in existing levels because we are now faced with massive growth from not only British Airways but overseas airlines.

The objective is to contain this growth as much as we can and to divert a great part of it to the third London airport after 1980.

Bearing in mind the existing level of noise around airports—a level which many people find intolerable—will my hon. Friend stand absolutely firm by the Government's decision about the airport on the Essex coast?

Yes.

Does the Minister deny that the number of movements estimated by 1980 at Heathrow, judged by Roskill —which determined Maplin on movements alone—has already proved inaccurate and, therefore, the need for Maplin within the suggested time scale also?

I do not think that this is in any way the case. The figures continue to expand. The argument is not simply the question of which year we actually reach a given set of figures. We are bound to reach these figures soon after 1980, and we have to do everything in our power to build the third airport as quickly as possible so that the environmental benefits can be made available to the people living around London.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he now expects to complete his Department's detailed examination of the drained weight problem in relation to foods canned in liquid.

As I have previously informed the hon. Gentleman on more than one occasion, I am going ahead with this examination as a matter of urgency.

May I inform the Minister of some further evidence for his detailed examination that I have recently had drawn to my attention—evidence of a tin of Woolworth-brand strawberries of 7½ oz. weight, of which no less than 5½ oz. was liquid? Almost 77 per cent. of the total weight was in liquid. Since all the evidence is that the situation continues to get worse rather than better, will the Minister see that speedy action is taken?

I cannot believe that the single instance which the hon. Gentleman gives is general. I think he will realise that, and the complexity of this problem. We want to be able to come to a specific conclusion as quickly as possible, and that is what I am trying to bring about.

Does it not seem strange to my hon. Friend that both South Africa and Russia appear to have solved this problem, which is so baffling to the boffins in his Department?

I am certain that I have only to remind my hon. Friend that neither of those solutions is accepted as meeting the problem to any sufficient degree of efficiency.

asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what further action he is taking to find a tenant for the advance factory at Denaby Main.

We are making every effort to find a suitable tenant and will continue to do so.

Does the Minister recollect that three weeks ago a Minister in another Department said that there was a bright future for Yorkshire and Humberside, including the Dearne Valley? We do not mind Ministers misleading the House—we can combat them—but when Ministers mislead the people it is diabolical. That is what is happening. When will the Department find a tenant for this factory? If a tenant cannot be found, will the Minister offer further inducements to tenants, or build a new factory to provide jobs for a few people?

The improvement in Yorkshire and Humberside is there for all to see. In the Dearne Valley constituency unemployment has fallen by nearly 500—a reduction of almost 20 per cent. We are anxious as soon as possible to provide the further 60 jobs involved in the letting of this factory, and we shall continue to follow up the large number of inquiries which have been made in the last six months.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the widespread and reliable Press reports that within 24 hours the British Steel Corporation will announce price increases generally of 10 per cent., which, taken in the context of a switch to the basing point system, could mean an increase for steel users in certain parts of the country of up to 20 per cent., has any Minister of the Department of Trade and Industry intimated his anxiety—

Order. The hon. Member has been a Member of this House long enough to know that that is not a point of order.

Last Thursday the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton) raised as a point of order the question whether the expression "a pack of lies", as applied to what an hon. or right hon. Member has said, is a parliamentary expression.

As the hon. Member pointed out, and as the House will no doubt recollect, the expression is recorded in HANSARD as having been used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 7th and 8th November 1972, and by the Leader of the Opposition on 10th April of this year.

In Erskine May, unparliamentary expressions are classified as follows:

(1)The imputation of false or unavowed motives.

(2)The misrepresentation of the language of another and the accusation of misrepresentation.

(3)Charges of deliberate falsehood.

(4)Abusive and insulting language of a nature likely to create disorder.

In the light of that classification, I have examined some of the precedents, and considered the expression "a pack of lies".

Since 1921, the Chair has ordered the following words to be withdrawn: "a lie", "that's a lie", "he is lying", "liar", "deceiving", "lied to the House", "deliberately misleading", "deliberately misled", "a damn lie".

As to whether the Chair should intervene without a request for a ruling is a matter of judgment. In none of the three cases of the use of the words "a pack of lies" was I asked for a ruling. Indeed, in the first instance, I do not think that I heard the remark. Nevertheless, I have come to the conclusion that I was at fault on the second and third occasions, and should have intervened to rule the expression as unparliamentary, and I certainly intend to do so in the future if I hear it repeated. This will also apply to similar allegations of deliberate untruthfulness.

Finally, may I remind the House that Erskine May prefaces the passage on the rules governing the content of speeches with the sentence:

"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language."

I can only hope that that sentiment will be more consistently remembered by hon. and right hon. Members in all quarters of the House.

May I express qualified thanks for that ruling? I hope you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that anything which further restricts the right of hon. Members to say what they really think in language of their own choosing must be deprecated and guarded against. As far as we can, we want to conduct ourselves with dignity in this House but, speaking for myself, I like to say what I think. I like to call a spade a spade with occasional suitable adjectival embellishments.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the increasing number of adjectives which are being ruled out of order—

Does this matter arise out of what I have just said?

Yes. In view of the increasing number of adjectives which are being ruled out of order, would it not help the House if you were to place in the Library a list of words which are acceptable?

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House will recall that in the course of the debate on the Government's White Paper on constitutional proposals for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that Her Majesty's Government could consider hiving off from the constitutional Bill those parts of it which concerned the election, and so make it possible to hold elections in June. My right hon. Friend said that this would be on the understanding that the House would consider a Bill which dealt with the election, and then as soon as possible thereafter a further Bill dealing with the constitutional proposals.

The Bill now before the House is the result of my right hon. Friend's undertaking. Its purpose is to establish a Northern Ireland Assembly and to provide for one election to it. It goes no further than the minimum provision for this one election.

The Bill provides, first that the Assembly shall consist of 78 Members, and that they shall be returned for the Westminster constituencies in Northern Ireland. The revised Westminster boundaries will be used, as they were for the border poll, and Clause 2(3) provides that the election will be on the basis of the single transferable vote. There will consequently be several Members for each constituency, and the number in each case is set out in the schedule.

I appreciate that there may be different views about the size of the Assembly, or the allocation of seats to constituencies, and it might assist the House if I touched on some of the issues which led us to our present proposals.

One of these issues is that it is obviously desirable to have an acceptably narrow spread in the average number of electors per seat in the various constituencies. This is always a hazard in any constituency system. Even on the revised boundaries there is a spread in the single seat Westminster constituencies for Northern Ireland of between 70,000 and 115,000. For the election under this Bill, the spread is by comparison very much less—between about 11,900 for West Belfast and about 14,400 for South Antrim.

Moreover, to get the best results from the single transferable vote, the number of seats in any constituency ought to be at least four, to get the benefits of the multiple seat principle, and not more than eight, because a larger number would produce an unmanageable number of candidates on the ballot paper which is before the elector. It is these limits of four to eight which will operate in the local government elections by single transferable vote which are to be held on 30th May.

As hon. Members will see from the schedule, we have provided a range from five seats in the case of Fermanagh and South Tyrone to eight seats in the case of Antrim, South. All other constituencies will be returning six or seven members.

Taking everything into consideration, the best result worked out at 78 seats, on the basis shown in the schedule. The numbers in the new Assembly will also equal the total number of seats in the Northern Ireland Parliament and Senate.

I come now to the proposals for the franchise and for membership of the Assembly. Hon. Members will find that these are dealt with in Clause 2(2) and Clause 3 respectively.

The Bill provides that the franchise shall be the same as for a general election to the Northern Ireland Parliament—that is, the Stormont franchise, which was used for the border poll. As to qualification for membership, the Bill applies generally the Westminster practice, with the necessary modifications, as, for example, in the list of disqualifying offices or positions, which governed membership of the Northern Ireland Parliament. A change from Westminster practice, which is provided under this Bill, is that a person will not be disqualified simply because he is a peer of Parliament. Most hon. Members will be aware that this follows Northern Ireland practice: a peer can sit in Stormont, and vote on the Stormont franchise.

Before the Secretary of State leaves that matter, may I ask a question? I thought that he was about to enlarge on an important point. He said that the electoral list used for the referendum will be the electoral list used for the election of the Assembly. Is he aware that at least 10,000 eligible voters have been dropped from that list? Has he in mind any procedure under which a supplementary register might be published so that those who have been taken off the list because of a fault in the computer system—as has been admitted by his Department—and who should have a vote will in fact obtain the vote to which they are entitled?

The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) raises an important point but I will not go into it in great detail. I discovered after discussion that, as far as it is possible to judge, there was not a significant difference in the number of people who were left off the register when compared with those who were on the register in the previous election or indeed those on the registers for the Westminster elections in this country. That being so, it did not seem right to have a supplementary register on this occasion. If we were to have the election in June, it would be difficult to have a supplementary register. I accept the hon. Gentleman's anxieties, but I am taking this on the basis that, as we judge the position, the register is not significantly different from the register which was in operation in other elections.

On the question of postal votes, will the rules be the same as those which have applied heretofore, or will postal votes be available, for example, to people on holiday?

I shall come in my own time to that point in my speech, and I wish to deal with it because it is very important.

I was dealing with the point about peers being able to sit in Stormont and to vote on the Stormont franchise. Hon. Members will also be aware that the whole question of qualification for mem- bership is a most complicated branch of the law. That is one very good reason for not making any changes in arrangements which are already working satisfactorily.

The Bill empowers me to make orders governing a number of important matters. It is important that the purpose of these orders should be clear. First, there is the date of the election, which is to be determined by order contained in a statutory instrument. This provision was included since I could not—and should not—presume how long Parliament would take to consider the Bill. But I now understand, from representations which I have received from all parts of the House, that Parliament is likely to approve this Bill by 11th May and, on this understanding, I can announce the date of the election as 28th June.

Having said this, I should make it clear to the House that the main constitutional Bill will certainly be before the House well in advance of the Assembly elections, and I know that my right hon. Friend, the Leader of the House, hopes that it will have substantially advanced its passage through this House by that date, 28th June.

May I impress on the Secretary of State the great importance of going slightly further than that since, in my opinion, it is necessary for the Bill to be through the House before the election campaign gets too far advanced.

I note what my hon. Friend says and I personally agree with him and would very much like that to happen. However, I should fall into great trouble with this House if I were to presume how the House will deal with the Bill and if I were to interfere with the prerogative of the Leader of the House. For this reason I think that the words which I used were the correct words.

Another matter which is to be determined by order under this Bill, if it is approved, is the date of the first meeting of the Assembly. Hon. Members will find the reference in Clause 1(3). As to this date, the position is that the Northern Ireland Parliament is still in existence, although it stands prorogued, and it would seem wrong that the Assembly should meet whilst the Northern Ireland Parliament still exists. The first meeting of the Assembly will therefore take place after the Northern Ireland Parliament has been dissolved, and this, in time, will be consequential upon the passing into law of the main constitutional Bill. The exact date would be determined after consultation with the leaders of parties in the new Assembly.

The House will note that Clause 1(6) of the Bill provides that a Member of the Northern Ireland Parliament who is elected to the Assembly will have his salary as a Member of that Parliament— namely £1,450 per annum plus £300 per annum expenses, plus up to £500 per annum secretarial allowance—credited towards his salary as a member of the Assembly—£2,500 per annum plus up to £600 per annum to defray secretarial expenses.

The House will wish to know that a major effort is being made in Northern Ireland to explain the single transferable vote system which is to be used both in district council and the Assembly elections. Every household will receive a copy of a very simple booklet explaining proportional representation. These will be distributed by the Post Office and copies will be made available in the Library of this House tomorrow.

A more detailed booklet is being prepared and 200,000 will be available on request. We shall be advertising in newspapers and on television and hope to enlist the aid of television and radio for further explanatory effort.

Instead of indicating one name with a cross, the voter states a choice in order of preference among the candidates— one, two, three, and so on—for as many candidates, or as few, as the voter wishes. Basically, all the voter has to do is to remember that he or she uses numbers instead of a cross when receiving a ballot paper. The count is more complicated. [Laughter.]

In terms of the ballot paper the constituencies will be very large and will involve a considerable number of people and there will no doubt be large numbers of candidates. Is it possible to have the names of the parties put on the ballot paper?

The answer to that is "yes".

There was a certain degree of hilarity on both Front Benches a moment ago. Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that a system which is complicated but fair is better than one which is less complicated but unfair?

Since I find some difficulty in working out the arrangements for the count, I have a certain amount of difficulty in working out the implications of the hon. Gentleman's question. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, in the good-humoured way in which he puts the point, is right.

May I deal with the number of candidates? If there were a five-seat division, will the Secretary of State make absolutely clear that five crosses against the parties would make an invalid electoral form?

I should like to look into that question and have it answered carefully afterwards. I should not like to mislead the House on this matter.

The count is more complicated. A good deal of training for those whose task it is to carry out the count has already taken place and will be completed in good time for the elections.

But the right hon. Gentleman must know the answer to the question which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) put to him. It is fundamental to the system being proposed. If a ballot paper bears crosses, it must be invalid since, under the system proposed, voting is to be done by means of numbers. The right hon. Gentleman must answer the question if he expects the House to give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.

I am sorry. I did not understand the question properly. As usual, I apologise for my complete stupidity. As I have said before, the ballot papers will have to bear numbers instead of crosses. If a ballot paper has crosses on it and not numbers, of course it is invalid. I apologise to the House.

I am grateful for that reply. However the important point, which perhaps I did not put very clearly, was that members of the public in Northern Ireland should appreciate that just putting one cross on a ballot paper and appearing to plump for one candidate will make that vote completely invalid.

As I have said already, the answer is that ballot papers will have to bear numbers and not crosses. I think that I have made that clear now. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) for stressing it again.

When the hon. Gentleman intervened I was speaking about the count and saying that it is, of course, more complicated. A good deal of training for those whose task it is to carry out the count has taken place already and further training will be completed in good time for the election.

The Bill itself provides in Clause 2(4) that each candidate shall make a deposit of £150. This deposit would be forfeited under provisions which are comparable with the position in the case of an election to the United Kingdom Parliament, where a deposit is forfeited if the total number of votes polled by the candidate does not exceed one-eighth of the total number of votes polled.

Under the order which will govern the rules for the election the House will wish to know that the Chief Electoral Officer will be the person responsible for its conduct. The order will be designed to make the minimum number of adaptations to the existing rules for parliamentary elections. There will be extensive postal voting facilities in line with arrangements planned for the local government elections and each candidate will be allowed free postage for one election address in accordance with normal practice. The hours of polling will be from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. as in the border poll and the local government elections.

The fourth matter to be determined by order, which under Clause 3(4) is subject to the negative resolution procedure, is the making of the usual provisions which have to be made for any election to deal with the consequences of disqualification. Clearly it is essential to specify just what these consequences are. The guidelines for the order are already laid down in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957.

I said earlier in my speech that the Bill goes no further than the minimum provision for the first election to the new Assembly. It does not deal with the term of the Assembly, although hon. Members will be aware from the White Paper that its initial term will be for the period from its first meeting up to 30th March 1974 but that if an Order in Council has been made between those dates for the devolution of legislative powers, it will serve for a period of four years from the date on which the order takes effect. Moreover the Bill does not deal with casual vacancies in the Assembly. This, together with a number of other issues relating to the running of the Assembly, will be dealt with in the main constitutional Bill.

This Bill is essentially a limited and urgent operation for one election only. During the debate on the White Paper there was a strong demand from all sides of the House for an election in Northern Ireland by the end of June. Indeed, the House could be said to have willed that end. Her Majesty's Government agree with this view and have sought in this Bill to provide the means. I commend it to the House.

The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged that the procedure which has been adopted, hiving this legislation off the main Bill in order to speed up the election, came as a result of a suggestion from this side of the House. The Opposition are grateful for it. I repeat what I said after the intervention by the Prime Minister on 28th March, that we will cooperate within the necessary full consideration of an important electoral measure. The principle of an early election is clearly accepted. I shall take that as read and turn straight away to the consideration which I mentioned to the Prime Minister and to which I have just referred.

It is worth raising a number of these points because it is likely that after the election of the new Assembly, when one is considering the steps to be taken for future elections, there may have to be changes in the number of seats and possibly slight variations in the method adopted for this election. We should use this occasion to raise a number of those issues so that we are aware of them on polling day and afterwards.

With regard to the 78 Members of the Assembly, in the schedule the Secretary of State has provided the breakdown for each Westminster constituency, and it would be interesting to know more precisely how this breakdown was arrived at. I notice that Mr. John Taylor has talked about "gerrymandering". That is not unusual. We have had the word bandied about in this House. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has been a little more prosaic. He has not used that word. But he has asked for additional Members for the Belfast area. Therefore, in my view we should be clearer about the way that it has been done.

In a Press statement the Alliance Party described Mr. John Taylor's attack on the Secretary of State for "anti-Loyalist gerrymandering" as one of the most absurd statements that he had ever made. But in that same handout an issue was raised which is rather more important, and I raise it again now. It said:

"It is however obvious that the present allocation of seats was done on the basis of 1972 figures rather than 1973 figures, when there has been a considerable movement of population."

That precise point ought to be considered during the course of the day. According to this Press statement there have been changes in population within the past year.

There are a number of considerations here for the future. The number of seats in a Parliament is a matter for the Legislature. It is decided normally by an Act of Parliament, and a Boundary Commission then looks at the split-up in the light of the Legislature, of the Government and Parliament as to the number of seats that there should be. As I have said, the allocation ought normally to be up to the Boundary Commission. That cannot be done for this election. However, on 31st July last year the then Minister of State said:

"Also in 1968 the British practice of having in operation a permanent Parliamentary Boundary Commission for the Northern Ireland parliamentary constituencies was introduced. Such a Commission, on similar lines to the Commissions operating for the Westminster parliamentary constituencies, has been established. Now that the local government boundaries in Northern Ireland have been determined and prescribed, this Commission will be in a position to carry out its review and give its consideration of any recommendations necessary for a revision of the existing Stormont parliamentary constituencies."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July 1972; Vol. 842, c. 45.]

I concede that there would not have been time for the Secretary of State to use this Boundary Commission. But if there are to be changes in the future it is as well to establish that there is still in existence in Northern Ireland—I presume—a Boundary Commission which could look at the number of seats to be arranged for the 12 Westminster constituencies.

Whatever the form of the Assembly in the future, as long as the election is based on the Westminster constituencies it will be based on redistribution here. The next redistribution for the Westminster Parliament cannot take place until after 1979 in accordance with the Act in the mid-1950s which said that there would have to be a 10 to 15 year delay between redistributions.

There cannot be an increase in the 12 constituencies without the Government coming to the House and putting forward a major case. Therefore, because there are 12 constituencies and because the Government also have to take into account the 26 local government district councils which the Secretary of State has set up, those two things, the 12 and the 26, have to be taken into account when the Government are looking with greater care at the allocation of seats after the election. The number of seats per constituency should be looked at again after the Assembly is elected.

Regarding proportional representation, I note that the words in the Bill are the same as in the Government of Ireland Act 1920 and the local government order last year. I first looked at this point many years ago and I recall the late Professor Laski telling us that there were about 900 forms of proportional representation. Although the single transferable vote is not technically a form of proportional representation, I believe that the Government are right to use it. In any event, it is the same system as is in use in the South and was in use in Northern Ireland in the early days.

I would personally have been happy with the proposed salary until recently. I notice that some of my friends who were elected to the metropolitan counties last Thursday, which are larger than the Northern Ireland will get nothing. Indeed, the members of the GLC, which is responsible for more than 8 million people, with 92 constituencies, will get nothing. Therefore, I point out to hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies that Northern Ireland has surely been marked as different. It is not just a county council.

The Government have said that the new Assembly is different. When I pointed this out to some of my friends on Thursday night, they said "Yes, it is very different from what we may expect." Many of them will be chairmen of committees working 48 to 50 hours a week for nothing. I point out, not in a deprecatory way, that it was worth indicating to the people of Northern Ireland that the Government have said, and this House has willed, that the Members of their Assembly will receive a substantial payment and, therefore, that the Assembly is not regarded as a county council or even as the GLC but is marked out as something different.

I notice that the pay that is to be given to Members of the new Assembly in Northern Ireland is exactly the same—1 hope there is no subtle difference—as to a Teachta Dala in the South. I understand that the pay in the South is to go up shortly. As much as I have just eulogised the large sum of money that is to be paid to Members of the new Assembly, when we see what the Assembly does and the sort of time that its Members give to it, it may be worth looking at it again and allowing the Top Salary Review Board to look at it.

The powers of the Secretary of State in Clause 2(5), on which the right hon. Gentleman spent a fair time, I think represent the core of the Bill. It was no doubt for that reason that the right hon. Gentleman spelt it out in greater detail than we would have known about. I presume that there will be an order similar to that on which the local government procedures were laid down last year. In our view, it ought to be by the affirmative resolution procedure, unless there is a good reason for its not being done in that way. The intervals between the stages of the election, the form of declaration, the method of voting, and so on, are extremely important. Therefore, they should come before the House. I do not put this point to the Secretary of State as if he were wearing his former hat, but I remind him that at our request, because the local government order would have provided only one and a half hours even on the affirmative resolution procedure, the Government gave us a day's debate on it. If we are to debate fully what is contained in Clause 2(5) we certainly could not do it in one and a half hours.

I hope that the Secretary of State agrees that the powers in Clause 2(6)(a),

"may include any supplemental or incidental provisions, including provisions creating criminal offences ",

are extraordinarily great. We shall take the opportunity of finding out this afternoon what that is all about. Unless the Secretary of State or his Ministers give us other information, we shall seek to remove that from the Bill.

May I ask the Minister to make clear, when he winds up, the role of the chief electoral officer regarding these new Assembly elections?

Regarding the death of a candidate, I seem to recall that when we dealt with local government there was a curious arrangement; namely, that, although people would have been elected by the single transferable vote, if anybody died or gave up his seat there would be a normal straightforward election for the whole constituency, not on the single transferable vote. I recall that we had an interesting discussion whether the man concerned should be allocated to a certain part of the constituency. It matters not whether that is precisely correct. What matters is that it struck us at the time as an odd way of electing people.

I should also like to know the Government's intentions regarding someone being elected who does not turn up. If people are voting one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, does it mean that the person next on the list moves up? What is the Government's thinking on this point? It will be interesting to know before the time comes.

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if a person stood on an abstentionist ticket, did not attend and ultimately won on that ticket he should be disqualified? In this House a person may never turn up, but he is not disqualified. It would be unfair to make the rules different.

That is why I raised it. The hon. Gentleman should get this point clear. There is a difference between somebody elected and not coming very often and somebody elected in order not to turn up. In Irish politics standing to abstain has an historical precedent. We should be clear about the Government's view on this matter.

I understand that a candidate would lose his £150 deposit if he got less than the one-quarter of the quota at any one stage. I note that in the South it is only one-third of the quota at the time of being eliminated, and there the candidate would lose £100. I suppose the difference is that it is easier to stay in the race in the North but the candidate pays more. The £150 deposit is the same as here. I have no strong views on it. Indeed, if people are seeking parity—this is an important aspect—the £150 deposit is the same amount as for our Parliament. There is not much of a grumble.

Regarding illegal practices, there is one point which I should like to mention that was brought to my notice by one of my hon. Friends. On the day of the Northern Ireland border poll hon. Members from both sides of the House saw more of the polling arrangements than the Secretary of State and myself as we had to stay here in the afternoon to deal with Questions. I had brought to my notice and highlighted what I have noted in the polling booths of Antrim.

At local and parliamentary elections in this country a candidate can have a polling agent. He gets a duly signed form and is allowed into the polling booths to make sure that all is well. I do not think there is a limit on the number, but I do not know. What surprised my hon. Friends and me was that the polling agent did not sit inside the door and keep a weather eye on what was happening, but sat between the paid staff. I remember on one occasion seeing three people sitting in the polling booth. The Secretary of State might recall that two of them smiled effusively, but I thought we received a bit of a frosty look from the one in the middle. It was not until we got outside that I realised that the one in the middle was a partisan politician who did not think much of either the Secretary of State or me. She was sitting between the two other people, and I think that that is something which we should not allow.

It would be interesting to know where that happened. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell the House, where he came across that situation.

I visited four polling stations, and that happened in them all. I shall tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman after the debate where I came across that procedure, and I think that my hon. Friend could give him a longer list of where that happened.

Would it help the House if I were to say that that procedure occurred at Augher Clogher and Five-miletown and all the other constituencies which I visited, bar two?

I accept what the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, but this is unusual. My experience of elections is that the party official sits on one side.

There is obviously a split view on this. I have told the House what I saw happen. My hon. Friend saw it, and so did the Secretary of State. It may be that we picked the exception to the rule, but the matter should be looked at carefully because, in my view, that approach should not be allowed.

I am amazed to hear that that happened, because when my polling agents went into the booth they were told that they were to sit not at the table but some way away from it. I have never, in all my electioneering experience, seen them all sitting together, and I should like to know whether this happened in my constituency.

Rather than alter the procedure so that what I have referred to happens in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, we should get the matter right so that it does not happen anywhere.

Are the disqualification rules for the new Assembly based on the legislation dealing with disqualification from the Westminster Parliament? Are the disqualifications in Clause 3 additional to those in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957? Apparently this has happened before in Stormont, but I am surprised at the arrangements in the Bill for dealing with Peers.

I recall sitting in this Chamber night after night as a junior Minister debating the White Paper dealing with the reform of the other place. One proposal put forward by the then Government was that both future Peers and existing Peers by succession who choose to renounce membership of the other place should, if elected, be enabled to sit in the House of Commons. The then Opposition saw fit not to support that proposal, and I was surprised to find that things were different in Northern Ireland. Presumably we can allow this provision to go through, but I must say that I was surprised when I saw it.

Clause 3(3) says:

"The Secretary of State shall have power by order to make provision—

(a) for the consequences of a disqualification imposed by this section, and

(b) for the circumstances in which such a disqualification may be disregarded, and

(c) for conferring jurisdiction to decide whether a disqualification has been imposed by this section."

Those are extremely wide powers. If the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 is the basis of that provision, may I ask whether these powers are used in other parts of the United Kingdom, or whether they are meant to apply only in Northern Ireland? In any event, they are so sweeping that this, too, should be a matter to be dealt with by the affirmative procedure.

During the debate on the White Paper the Opposition's view was that the Government ought to find some means whereby members of Sinn Fein were allowed to stand for election in the same way as they are in the Republic of Ireland. Judging from the correspondence which I have received from different parts of Northern Ireland, approval for that suggestion comes from not only one side of the community. As I understand it, under the Bill members of Sinn Fein and other prescribed organisations may stand for election as long as they are not disqualified under the 1957 Act or by the changes made in the Bill. The problem confronting Sinn Fein and other similar organisations arises not under this Bill but under the Bill to be debated tomorrow.

No.

Perhaps I may be allowed to put my case so that the Government will know what it is and be able to make the position clear.

If it were not for the Special Powers Act, or because of what is proposed in tomorrow's Bill, there would be nothing to prevent members of Sinn Fein from standing for election. A member of the organisation is not disqualified unless he is caught by one of the disqualification provisions in the Bill. Therefore, the best way in which the House could make it possible for Sinn Fein to stand would be to make alterations to tomorrow's Bill. If a member of Sinn Fein were to stand and be elected, that would be fine, but when he turned up with his nomination papers the security forces would arrest him, not under this Bill but under the Special Powers Act or the relevant schedules of tomorrow's Bill.

Perhaps my hon. Friend now sees the significance of the matter raised earlier about the designation of political parties on the ballot paper. If a person cannot complete a ballot paper because it means saying that he is a member of a proscribed organisation he is disqualified under the terms of the Bill. It is unlikely that tomorrow's Bill will be on the statute book before the election takes place, but even if it were to be passed it would be wrong to stress that.

Much of what my hon. Friend has said is correct. I am not altogether sure about the ballot paper issue, but I think it would be for the security forces to decide whether to arrest the man or woman concerned.

On the last point made by my hon. Friend, I think that it would be possible for the Secretary of State to remove a clause from tomorrow's Bill in advance of its becoming law. I ask the Government to make the position clear, because if they do they might save a great deal of time today. We shall want to go through the Bill with a fine-tooth comb, but we do not want to get involved in issues which may be better dealt with in some other way.

Entitlement to vote is based on rules for election to the Northern Ireland Parliament. There is a difference here between the Northern Ireland Parliament and the Parliament at Westminster.

The matter of postal votes has been raised. The Border Poll Bill allowed for postal votes on a large scale. I concede that there is a problem in Northern Ireland, otherwise we should not be discussing the whole issue, but I think we ought to look carefully at this question of postal votes and the timing and arrangements for them.

Clause 3 says that candidature is the same as for the United Kingdom Parliament. Would it be true to say, therefore, that a citizen of the Republic, man or woman, living either in the Republic or in this country could stand in the Northern Ireland election because the rules are the Westminster rules?

This leads me to the next question. I recall the Government telling us—I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West and some Unionist Members from the Province have talked about this; many of us were surprised a year or 18 months ago to find that this was the case—that a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies normally resident in this part of the United Kingdom who goes to Northern Ireland may vote. Would the wife of a soldier on a two-year tour, or the man himself if he put his name down on the electoral register, be able to vote? But the bull point is, what about the seven-year rule about foreigners and citizens of the Republic who do not enter Northern Ireland in the way that I have described? Does the existing law still apply in Northern Ireland?

We wish to expedite this Bill. We want elections in June, and the Secretary of State has given us a date, for which we are grateful. It will help that he has given the date today. It will concentrate people's minds even more. We want to test the opinion of the people of Northern Ireland. We think that all should be able to stand. These elections are the key to the future. They will determine how the Assembly will function, through the split between the various parties. Ultimately, the White Paper's success will stem from what we do today. We wish the Bill well and will do all we can to get it through the House today.

I too, like the hon. Member for Leeds South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), wish to expedite the Bill. I hope that my right hon Friend the Secretary of State will not be embarrassed if I say that I can commend him, and commend him very warmly, for having brought forward this section of the White Paper's proposals. As he said it was the general wish of the House that we should get on as soon as possible to elections in Northern Ireland. With that end in view, I commend the Bill.

There are, of course, a number of matters within the Bill which we shall seek to discuss in Committee, but we have no wish to prolong the affair, because we want to make it possible for the Secretary of State to hold the elections on the date that he has announced We are grateful to him for having announced the date. That will be a great help. It is a pity that he could not go further and announce the date on which the Assembly would meet. I understand the technical difficulty about the existence of the Parliament of Northern Ireland, but, before we finish with the Bill, he should give some idea of his intentions.

It would be a tragedy if the Assembly were elected and then did not meet, say, until the autumn—if, in other words, it were left in a vacuum all through the summer. All kinds of things might then happen.

I wonder whether I can help my hon. and gallant Friend, because I very much share his view. It will, of course, inevitably depend on the time at which the constitutional Bill gets through Parliament. I am bound by that, because, of course, the constitutional Bill is that which deals with the present Parliament of Northern Ireland. The Assembly could not meet until that Bill was through Parliament.

I understand that, and am grateful for what my right hon. Friend said. I gather that, broadly, he and I would have the same sort of view—

indicated assent.

about the timing, if that timing proved to be possible.

There is a greater opportunity now to undo some of the defects in the White Paper which I pointed out in our debate on it. We are now dealing with the Bill setting up the Assembly. Pretty soon, it is the Government's intention to produce the constitutional Bill, "tomorrow's Bill", as the hon. Member for Leeds, South described it. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should produce that Bill in two parts, what I might call tomorrow's Bill and the day-after tomorrow's Bill.

Constitutional Bill No. 1 would do certain simple things. It would, for example, embody the constitutional pledge based upon the result of the referendum, it would set down the local government functions of the new Assembly. In other words, it would be the keystone of the Macrory arch. It would go that far and no further, except perhaps to spell out the ultimate position with regard to control of the police. It would not deal with the construction of the executive, the legislative powers of the executive or the powers to be devolved upon the Assembly. It would not, for example, even go as far as the White Paper in specifying the matters which would be permanently reserved to this House.

Thus, the position in June is that there would be elected an Assembly which could give the Secretary of State a clear indication, as a result of that election and of any alliances in the new Assembly, of the wishes of the great majority of Ulster people over the future of their own constitution.

Constitutional Bill No. 2 should await the setting up of the Assembly and discussions with the parties in the Assembly, and would thus be clearly seen to rest upon the will of the broad majority of Ulster people. I believe that there is much more chance of a settlement agreeable to all if my right hon. Friend indicates that he will proceed in that way. It would rest, as it should, on consent.

It would be right for the Secretary of State to leave certain questions open for discussion with the Assembly. One would be its own franchise. There have been references to the constitutional boundaries and the number of Members per con- stituency, all the things laid out in the schedule. The Assembly, when elected, should have a say in these matters, even if it be not the final authority. It should have some say in its own franchise, its own size and ultimately the extent of the devolved powers. That would be a more sensible and hopeful way to proceed than the present proposal.

At present, the intention is to produce all the constitutional proposals in one Bill immediately, giving the impression that they are imposed, that the Assembly will meet within pretty narrow confines. I suggest that it would be better to leave it much more open, so that, ultimately, the system will be seen to rest upon the consent of reasonable people. I happen to believe that the Assembly will be an assembly of pretty reasonable people.

Surely, the case that my hon. and gallant Friend is making is not for an election of an Assembly but for an election of a conference table.

No. With respect, my hon. Friend has not been listening with his usual close attention. What I said was that there would be certain powers immediately. That is why I am dividing it into two stages. Otherwise, I should have rested my case upon saying, "Let us elect the Assembly"—just that—"and let us hold up the constitutional Bill until after the Assembly has met". I am not saying that.

It should be done in two stages. Certain powers have to be developed straight away upon the Assembly, but all the other things should be left open for discussion with the Assembly. In other words, it should be part local government authority and part constituent Assembly.

The advice that I have had from the Table is that, if the Bill were given a Second Reading, it would be out of order to move that the Assembly should be turned into a constituent Assembly. I understand that. But I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should treat it in that kind of hybrid way.

With respect, my hon. and gallant Friend has entirely confirmed my original diagnosis, that, admittedly, while the local government matters would be dealt with in the first Bill, in practice, it would be a mobile conference table that he is suggesting.

No. With great respect to my hon. Friend, who is usually acute in these matters—although his acuity seems to have deserted him at present— it would not be a mobile conference table. It would be a method of determining the broad will of the Ulster people with regard to their future constitution.

Does not my hon. and gallant Friend agree with me that in the proposals as put forward there is the suggestion that there should be a conference between this Assembly and the Secretary of State on how power should be devolved on the Assembly? In the character of the Assembly there is the very thing that my hon. and gallant Friend is suggesting, that is, the power to confer.

Yes, indeed. I am most most grateful to my hon. Friend, who is perfectly right. In the suggestions in the White Paper there is already a good deal of what one might call conference table stuff, but left out of the subject matter for conference are a great many things which have been permanently reserved to this House of Commons. I am suggesting that they should not be so. There were certain matters which were within the power of the old Parliament of Stormont —power over its own franchise and over the method of election. There would have been power to decide whether it wanted the election by proportional representation with the single transferable vote. At present, this is something imposed upon the Ulster people without their consent, that is, consent through any kind of representative assembly. These questions should still be left open, and left open until after the Assembly is elected.

I concede that everything could not be left open. That is why I suggest to my right hon. Friend that this should be done in two stages. If one can produce constitutional proposals at the end of the day—however one does it—which do not appear to have been imposed in the way proposed by the White Paper, without consultation, one has a better chance of a peaceful settlement ultimately in Ulster, because in the end one must rest it upon the broad consent of the majority of people in Ulster.

Ulster people are not—although the Press might suggest that they are—unusually bloody-minded. The majority of Ulster people are reasonable people. I believe that the Assembly will be an assembly of reasonable people. But they will not arrive in the Assembly in a wholly reasonable mood unless there is some indication that to a considerable extent they have a reasonable say in their future destiny

My right hon. Friend is unlikely to agree with that view. I discussed it with him a long time ago—last July, I think Since then, he has come to the conclusions which he set out in the White Paper. But I should still like it on record, if nothing else, that this would have been the wiser way to proceed.

There is a great number of other matters, raised by the hon. Member for Leeds, South. I profoundly hope that there will be a possibility of dealing with those in Committee I shall leave what I have to say about those matters until the Committee stage.

I shall touch briefly on what the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said. It may be that, like his hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills), I did not catch precisely what the hon. and gallant Gentleman was saying. But it appeared to me at the end that he was suggesting that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland had produced a White Paper which he was imposing without adequate consultation. As far as I can see, the Secretary of State has been doing nothing but consult since he became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. If ever there was a man who consulted more, I cannot remember who he was.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. I was not complaining that there was a lack of consultation. What I was saying was that there was no Parliament, no consultative body. Would not it be better to wait until we had an Assembly elected under the rules laid down by this House? One would then know with whom one was consulting, and one would know who represented whom.

That may be. But surely it is generally recognised in this House that the situation in Northern Ireland is such as to require quite extraordinary measures to be undertaken, extrordinary in terms of any other part of the United Kingdom, under the bipartisan procedure adopted so far by the Government I do not see the validity of the kind of criticism made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

I say that by way of introduction. I do not intend to speak at great length. As the Secretary of State would expect, I welcome the Bill and the fact that free elections are to take place. I congratulate him on the considerable efforts he has made personally, which have led ultimately to this moment.

I should like to make three basic points about the Bill. There was some reference earlier to proportional representation, as the Secretary of State will recollect. A certain amount of joviality permeated the scene when it was explained that complicated instruction programmes were to be embarked upon, and many leaflets and pamphlets, et al, were to be distributed to one and all, so that there should be no difficulty about understanding the whole business.

I should like, first, to do something which has possibly been done previously, that is, to quote from paragraph 39 of the White Paper, which deals with the way in which the election is to be undertaken. This paragraph in the White Paper is the genesis of the proposals in the Bill. It reads:

"Under the simple majority vote system using single-member constituencies, the drawing of demonstrably fair electoral boundaries is of such crucial importance that it could only be done by an impartial Boundary Commission procedure, with provision for representations, hearings, etc. This would rule out any elections this year."

That is a straightforward and practical matter. The White Paper continues:

"These are technical difficulties. But there are arguments against this system at present even if it could be introduced in time. If the Assembly is to play a significant part in working out new structures and procedures, it is of particular importance that its membership should reflect …".

This is a point which bears on what the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South said. He was talking about a procedure which reflected what people said. Paragraph 39 continues:

"… the wishes of the community as accurately as possible. It has been decided that there shall be an Assembly of about 80 members … "—

in fact, we have 78—

"… and that the system of election best suited to this occasion is the single transferable vote (STV) method of proportional representations … ".

That is of considerable significance in general, quite apart from the particular of Northern Ireland. The Unionists got rid of proportional representation in the 1920's basically because of fear. The border was then, as it has continued to be, the basic issue. I suppose that in a way it has been maintained as the basic issue by the form of electoral procedure which existed. The removal in the past by the Unionists of proportional representation meant that other issues were not allowed to intrude upon the political scene. With single-member constituencies the only issue which in the end was fairly being put to the electors at General Elections was the border issue.

The Bill accepts the differences between the two parts of the United Kingdom and legislates for those differences. We must remember that proportional representation was put into the Northern Ireland Act by Lloyd George to protect minorities. It is easy to see that the wheel is going full circle. We have come back again to the same position and the same way of trying to do things.

It makes no difference.

It makes a profound difference. I shall allow myself to be deflected by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South. The sad thing is that the lack of difference is not in the lack of opportunity that is now being presented but in the lack of any new attitude permeating people like the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South. He is not prepared to try to work to seek a more sensitive means of reflecting opinion. I find that very sad.

rose…

I also find it sad that there should be such a lack of attitude in people like Mr. Craig.

As I understand it, Australia is trying to get rid of proportional representation.

Alternative votes.