PARLIMENTARY COMMISSIONER (Hansard, 29 March 1972)

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

§ The Chairman
With this new Clause we can discuss new Clause No. 3—Commissioner for complaints— During the period of prorogation, reports by the Commissioner of Complaints shall be laid before Parliament.

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
I am content and feel sure that it will be for the convenience of the Committee that new Clauses Nos. 2 and 3 should be discussed together. I hope very much that they will find favour with the Committee and also with Her Majesty's Government, although it may be that the purpose I have in mind would be better served by some other form of drafting.
These two new Clauses are concerned with the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of Northern Ireland and the Commissioner for Complaints. These officers of State have their connection 637 with the Northern Ireland Parliament which stands prorogued for a period of one year. I hope that out of this debate may come some clarification of their position under the new régime. As the Committee knows, the office of Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration was established before the Downing Street declaration, but that declaration welcomed the appointment of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration as demonstrating the determination of the Northern Ireland Government that there should be full equality of treatment for all citizens. That, of course, is the determination of my right hon. Friend who, one presumes, will soon be assuming the office of Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is surely important that in this period of interregnum or benevolent dictatorship, whatever we call it, the parliamentary commissionership should be continued.
The present holder of the office, Mr. J. M. Benn, succeeded Sir Edmund Compton, who served us here at Westminster to the satisfaction of all hon. Members who had occasion to take constituents' grievances to him. Hon. Members may have studied the 1971 Report of Sir Edmund Compton in which he stated that of 21 cases investigated during the year 16 complaints were found to be unjustified and four were justified and action was taken to put matters right. In one case the complaint was held to be justified but was not remedied. It is also of interest that in his Report for 1970 Sir Edmund commented that the quality of administrative performance in Northern Ireland compared well with corresponding Departments in the United Kingdom. Of the 21 cases completed, there were five in which some element of maladministration was found". In four of those five cases there were errors of judgment on the part of Departments in not disclosing the full facts when decisions were communicated to the public. The Commissioner went on to state that in none was the maladministration serious or the action by the Department of a culpable nature.
The Commissioner's powers were extended to cover matters of the personnel of the Northern Ireland Civil Service and particularly to allegations of discrimination on sectarian grounds. In one 638 case which he investigated the complainant said that religion had entered into an assessment by the selection board. It was found that eight of the 15 candidates assessed by the board as suitable for appointment were of the same religion as the complainant. The Commissioner said: My first year of office in Northern Ireland has not produced a single instance of culpable action in the organisation of the central government.… Does an hon. Member wish to intervene?

§ Sir H. Legge-Bourke
It is the noise which is going on on the Opposition benches.

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
I am quite used to that. I beg my hon. Friends not to be diverted by hon. Members opposite; it does not worry me at all. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

§ Mr. Fitt
Not now—later perhaps.

§ Mr. Biggs-Davison
I shall look forward to hearing the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) which he has promised will follow mine, if he succeeds in catching your eye, Sir Robert.
Complaints to the Parliamentary Commissioner are supposed to come through a Stormont Member of Parliament. The Stormont Members of Parliament remain. The Parliamentary Commissioner is also required to lay an annual report before each House of the Northern Ireland Parliament, and he has the option of also laying special reports before the two Houses of the Northern Ireland Parliament. Those Houses have been prorogued, and so for a year it will not be possible, one presumes, for such reports to be laid by the Parliamentary Commissioner.
I turn now to new Clause No. 3 which concerns the Commissioner for Complaints. That office is also held by Mr. Benn. Perhaps his work in that capacity is even more important than his work as Parliamentary Commissioner, because it is at local level that the shoe often pinches the most. All hon. Members know that many of the grievances of their constituents relate much more to local authorities than to central departments. This is one respect in which our fellow subjects in Northern Ireland 639 are more fortunate; they can have recourse to the Commissioner for Complaints, whereas we have not yet found it possible to set up an officer of this kind in Great Britain.
Here again the Commissioner for Complaints is supposed to make his reports to the Northern Ireland Parliament. In only 6 per cent. of the total number of complaints that the Commissioner for Complaints accepted for investigation was he satisfied that the action complained of was motivated by discrimination. Nevertheless, that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and the Commissioner for Complaints find that on the whole the administration works well and that there are not many grounds for complaint is no reason for the Westminster House of Commons not ensuring that this work will continue. There is no reason to suppose that all grievances in Northern Ireland will suddenly cease because the Northern Ireland Parliament has been prorogued and my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council has assumed these vast powers, exceeding those of all the lord deputies, viceroys and chief secretaries of the past, including the Earl of Essex and Thomas Wentworth, Earl of Strafford.
I with my hon. Friends have tabled these two new Clauses suggesting that the reports which these two officers are required to lay before the Northern Ireland Parliament should in the interregnum come to this Parliament. I seek to ensure that the people of Northern Ireland continue to have the services of the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Commissioner of Complaints.
I look forward eagerly to hearing from my hon. Friend the future Minister of State what the Government have in mind. I compliment and congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment and wish him success.

§ The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. David Howell)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) for his kind comments and (he way in which he has put forward these two new Clauses. As he says, they refer to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration of Northern Ireland and the Commissioner of Complaints who operates in relation to local government.
640 The Government have no objection in principle to these provisions or to the ideas behind the proposed new Clauses, but there are two technical difficulties. The Clauses as drafted area little ambiguous about which reports are to be laid before Parliament. There are a number of reports emerging from the work of both the Parliamentary Commissioner and the Commissioner of Complaints—reports to the Member of Parliament who first raised the matters in question, and to the complainant, reports to the civil servants criticised, if such be the case, specific reports to the House and annual reports to the House. The clear intention here is for the annual reports and the specific reports to be brought to the House, and that is obviously what needs to be realised by the right kind of Amendment.
The other point not covered in the Clauses is the need to protect the two Commissioners against defamation actions. This would not be done by the new Clauses and something else is needed. The Government are extremely anxious to meet the aims of the Clauses and we will therefore seek leave to move a manuscript Amendment to the Schedule to the Bill at the appropriate moment, and I understand, Sir Robert, that you will be good enough to consider this.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley
Many statutory bodies in Northern Ireland lay reports before the Stormont Parliament, such as the police authority and the town and countryside committee and many others. Is it not right that all the authorities which by law have to lay their annual reports before Stormont must in the interim period lay their reports before the Westminster House of Commons so that they can be discussed? This applies particularly to the police authority, which is most important to law and order in Northern Ireland. Can we have an assurance from the Minister that all the reports that were laid before the House at Stormont will be laid before the House at Westminster and an opportunity given for their discussion and debate?

§ Mr. Howell
These are clearly extremely important matters which are not covered by the new Clauses and which it would be out of order to deal with. I can give an assurance that issues of this 641 kind will all be most carefully considered, but they are outside what we are debating here.

§ Mr. S. C. Silkin
Would it not be right that provision could be made in the Bill for matters of that kind when it becomes law by Order in Council or similar procedure?

§ Mr. Howell
Procedures of this kind could be considered.

§ Mr. Chichester-Clark
Can my hon. Friend make clear who is to instigate matters which are to be examined by the Commissioners in both of these cases? I much appreciate the manner in which he has received the two new Clauses. I was going to make a concession to the Liberal Party but, judging by the benches opposite, I assume that its Members have taken a taxi home. I openly confess that some years ago when that party was in favour of an ombudsman, I was in favour of reform in many fields but I said I did not see why an ombudsman was necessary because there were 52 Members of Parliament who were much closer to their constituents, by virtue of the size of their constituencies, than hon. Members of this House of Commons. Constituents also had clear access to civil servants, and so on, much closer to the centre of power.
It seemed to me, therefore, that an ombudsman was unnecessary. However, he came into existence. I an extremely glad that he did. When the Northern Ireland Ombudsman's reports are laid before this Parliament they will perform a great educational function. In one of his earliest reports the Northern Ireland Ombudsman said that in many respects Northern Ireland was better administered than the United Kingdom. It would be very profitable for hon. Members to study such a report and see what improvements can be made.
2.15 a.m.
It would be salutary for the Westminster House of Commons to see the reports of the Commissioner of Complaints. Northern Ireland is in advance of this country in having that office. That will clearly be useful.
From what I read of the reports of the two gentlemen we are discussing, I am certain that the reports will shorten debates in the House of Commons, be- 642 cause when they are laid it may well be that we shall be saved from all the routine patter we get on Northern Ireland from the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and other hon. Members opposite who show no doubt commendable diligence in the interests of their constituents, particularly those who come from the South of Ireland.
I very much welcome the new Clauses. I am so glad that what in a way has become Northern Ireland's answer to the Mark Press, as employed by the Irish Republic Government, will be available to the House of Commons here.

§ Mr. Fitt
I have listened to the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester-Clark). I seem to remember that Northern Ireland Unionist Members of the House of Commons took part in the debates on the race relations legislation on discrimination between the different races in the United Kingdom, between black and white. But at that time, in 1964–65, no voice brought to the attention of the House of Commons the race problem we had in Northern Ireland between Catholics and Protestants.
I was very interested when listening to the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison). He tried to give the impression that he was very well versed in what was happening in Northern Ireland. Without fear of contradiction, I can say that he has absolutely no idea of what is happening in the Six Counties of Northern Ireland. I remember that under the Labour Government I tried to get an ombudsman for Northern Ireland; not a particular ombudsman for the Six Counties, but I wanted the Ombudsman for the United Kingdom to have control over Northern Ireland. That idea was fiercely resisted by the then Opposition, of which the hon. Member for Chigwell was a member. Now we hear that 26 complaints were made to the Ombudsman and that he found some proved and others not proved.
The hon. Member for Chigwell is also unaware of all the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. Many people there did not take a complaint against the Northern Ireland Government to the Ombudsman or to the Commissioner of Complaints because they realised that within the political atmosphere they had no chance of winning, no chance of their 643 case against the authorities in Northern Ireland being proved. The hon. Member cannot claim with any degree of accuracy that he knows what is happening in either Belfast or within the Six Counties. Obviously he has acquired his information from some of the Unionist Members.
I believe that the new Clauses should be rejected out of hand.

§ Mr. David Howell
Perhaps I may seek to answer the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Chichester Clark). Instigation in terms of this Parliamentary Commissioner would be exactly the same at as present. There would be no change.

§ Mr. Buck
When my hon. Friend drafts his manuscript Amendment, I hope he will bear certain matters in mind. The Parliamentary Commissioner who serves the House of Commons has working with him a Select Committee. May we be told what rôle that Committee will take in relation to the rôle of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration for Northern Ireland? I imagine the Select Committee will have no rôle related to the Commissioner for Complaints, since there is no parallel in this country. I hope he will deal with that matter at a later stage. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's response to the new Clause which could be of considerable help.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley
I am sure the Committee will learn with amazement that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) does not want this new Clause—[Interruption.] Well, that was what he said. He said he wanted to see it rejected. I am amazed he should take that attitude after all the fuss to get these gentlemen appointed. The annual reports of both these gentlemen are available to all Members. It is amazing, alter all the furoreand accusations about discrimination, that so few cases have been proved by either of these gentlemen. They found when they went into individual cases that the extent of discrimination which had been alleged did not exist.
It should be said that discrimination exists not only between Roman Catholics and Protestants but among both sections of the community. Protestants have been 644 discriminated against. There are protestants who live in disgraceful housing conditions in Belfast. The hon. Member for Belfast, West well knows, because he represents the area, that houses in Sandy Road are the worst possible houses in the whole of Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. McManus
May I ask whether the Secretary of State designate will accept these two new Clauses in principle? I have no objection to Ombudsmen or Commissioners for Complaints, but will the right hon. Gentleman look again at their terms of reference? Could he give the House of Commons a guarantee that, if it is found that their hands are tied in any way by red tape which has cleverly been put round them by Stormont to enable them not to look into complaints that are put before them, such a situation will no longer be allowed to prevail?
There is so little confidence among the members of the minority in any organ set up by or emanating from Stormont that people will not bother to refer com plaints to it. I have complained in the past on behalf of hundreds of my constituents, all to no avail. Consequently they have lost all confidence—

§ Rev. Ian Paisley
Is it not a fact that there are some of the hon. Member's colleagues, some of his "own", on the police authority, closely associated with the I.R.A., such as Councillor Flanagan? Surely there were people on the police authority who thought the way the hon. Gentleman thought? When the hon. Member accuses the police authority he is accusing his own people. It should be said that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) wanted an ombudsman and it seems strange that, having got it, it is said that the community will not go to that person and explain their grievances. The Committee should know that I have found that by taking complaints to the Ombudsman, Mr. Benn. who looks after complaints, there are terms of reference binding these people. On this matter I would go along with the hon. Gentleman, but not on the other two matters, as he well knows.

§ Mr. McManus
It is encouraging to find that the hon. Gentleman would go along with me on anything. The fact that he says there are some of my "own" in the police authority is an extraordinary statement. Surely he does 645 not think I would refrain from criticising a body merely because there happened to be some Catholics on it. If a body is not doing its job then, no matter who is on it, it is worthy of criticism. If the hon. Gentleman means that the committee is infiltrated in some way by the I.R.A., as he says every body in Northern Ireland has been, the police have not been doing their job very well.
None of the hon. Member's points materially alters the matters I wish to bring to the attention of the Secretary of State designate. If the terms of reference are too narrow they have to be changed. It ought to be seen that it is worth while making complaints to these bodies.

§ Mr. Fitt
In the past three minutes there has been a remarkable degree of unanimity between the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus). The terms of reference of the Ombudsman and the Commissioner for Complaints were restricted by Stormont and all sections of the community are completely dissatisfied with them. There is a hell of a degree of unanimity in this Committee that these terms of reference ought to be extended to allow the Commissioner or the Ombudsman to operate within the same ambit as the Ombudsman for the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
This is one way of doing away with the divisions within the community in Northern Ireland and I hope that the Secretary of State designate will note this.

§ Mr. David Howell
This is not really the time and place to start handing out guarantees. All the points made in the debate will be carefully noted for the future. We are learning all the time.