NORTHERN IRELAND (SOCIAL SECURITY) (Hansard, 18 November 1974)

§ The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Roland Moyle)
I beg to move, That the Social Security (Consequences of Emergency) (Northern Ireland) Order 1974 (S.I., 1974, No. 1268), a copy of which was laid before this House on 31st July 1974 in the last Parliament be approved. The Ulster Workers' Council—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. Will hon. Members who wish to continue their conversations not do so in the Chamber but withdraw?

§ Mr. Moyle
The Ulster Workers' Council stoppage of last May had an effect on the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland which was quite noticeable. Some 200,000 persons made claims on the Department because of the circumstances of the stoppage. Hon. Members representing constituencies in Great Britain who want some indication of the magnitude of those claims ought to think of claims by about 8 million people in this island and at the same time the staff of the Department of Health and Social Services being affected by the general circumstances of the stoppage and therefore unable to get to work because of the withdrawal of public transport, various unofficial road blocks and, in some cases, intimidation.
The Northern Ireland Executive, which had the responsibility for transferred services such as those of the Department of Health and Social Services, found by the time the stoppage was entering its second week—about 21st May—that it was impossible to continue with the normal administrative machinery for paying unemployment, sickness and supplementary benefits.
Following this conclusion, the head of the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland made an urgent request to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to make regulations under the Emergency Powers Act (Northern Ireland) 1926, as amended by the Emergency Powers (Amendment) Act (Northern 1034 Ireland) 1964, to enable the Department to suspend at its discretion normal administrative procedures for those benefits and to introduce an emergency benefit scheme should it wish. The exercise of these powers is excepted by the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and can be activated only by my right hon. Friend.
My right hon. Friend supported the Executive's conclusion and made the emergency regulations. Later on the same day—21st May—the head of the Department of Health and Social Services made a statement to the Northern Ireland Assembly explaining why he had decided to activate the emergency benefit scheme. He referred also to his anxieties about a number of people receiving social security benefits who might not be able to obtain them in view of the prevailing circumstances, for example, pensioners who were not directly involved in the stoppage.
In the difficult circumstances then prevailing, it seemed to the Executive that there was no alternative but to abandon almost all the normal safeguards against abuse and to base the emergency scheme on a drastically simplified test of eligibility. Those who qualified under this test received a standard rate of benefit, which was the standard rate of unemployment benefit plus the appropriate additions for dependants. In the considered view of everybody concerned, in no other way could serious hardship have been prevented for many thousands of people who were not in any way actively involved in the troubles that caused the stoppage.
It was not, I think, a normal industrial dispute. That is the important thing to grasp, and that is why we tend to refer to it as a stoppage. It was not easy to differentiate between people who were actively engaged in ceasing work with a view to bringing pressure to bear and, for example, people who were not working because they were intimidated and those who were not working because they were unable to get to work.
At the time that the order was made, electrical supplies were restricted to hospitals and essential services, with only brief periods for domestic use; public transport had stopped; petrol supplies 1035 were extremely difficult to obtain; in many cases postal services were stretched; in most areas the telephone service was erratic; office staff of most employers were not at work; and the staff of the Department of Health and Social Services were in many cases unable to reach their own offices. Some people were unable to get to work, and some people who got to their place of work were unable to work because the power supplies upon which they were dependent were not flowing.
Because of the restricted nature of the powers conferred by the Emergency Powers Act (Northern Ireland) 1926, the regulations could not include provision to extinguish the right to normal benefits for periods for which emergency benefit was paid. This is an important fact. The head of the Department, with the approval of the Northern Ireland Executive, intended to introduce a measure subsequently in terms of the order before the House this evening to cover this aspect and certain other matters arising out of the emergency benefit scheme. The Executive fell before this could be done, and it has been left to the present Government to put this order before the House and to carry into operation the intention of the Executive.
Articles 1 and 2 do not need much comment. They cover the commencing date of the order and its interpretation.
The important article is Article 3. This is required because persons who became sick or unemployed during the stoppage and were paid emergency benefit made claims on forms which were actually claim forms for normal benefits. These claims are still outstanding and the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland is under a duty to submit them to the statutory adjudicating authorities. If it did so, the claims would very likely be admitted, and the people concerned would receive a second payment in respect of the one period, which we regard as inequitable. As a matter of equity this should not be allowed to take place. The article provides, in effect, therefore, that there is to be no title to normal benefits for any period for which emergency benefit was paid and no duty to submit claims to the statutory adjudicating authorities for decision.
1036 Article 4 provides for the recoupment to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund from the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund of the amount expended in paying emergency benefit instead of unemployment or sickness benefit. This is the estimated sum which would have been paid out of the insurance fund if emergency benefit had not been paid. In other words, the difference between what would have been paid if it had been possible to effect the normal payments under the national insurance scheme and the actual amounts paid out can be recovered from the Northern Ireland Insurance Fund and paid into the Consolidated Fund in Northern Ireland, which was the source of the emergency payments.
The total sum for the payments made to the 200,000 claimants during the course of the stoppage is about £5 million. We are fairly confident that the final figure will be of about that sum, but I should not like to be held to a precise figure in detail. The actual figure which will be paid over from the Department of Health and Social Services has to be agreed with the Department of Finance, and no figure has as yet been agreed. But, as I said, it is estimated that it will be about £5 million on which the calculation will be based.
Finally, Article 5 enables the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland to make supplementary and transitional provisions by subordinate orders. The main purposes of these orders will be to ensure that contribution credits should be awarded for periods for which emergency benefit was paid and, secondly, to ensure that any overpayments of emergency benefit which took place due to misrepresentation or non-disclosure can be recovered. Obviously, compared with the national insurance payments, some people received more than they should have done under the emergency payments scheme and some people received less. Those sort of figures will not be recouped unless it is shown that the overpayments were made due to misrepresentation or to nondisclosure, but if the person acted in good faith, there will be no recoupment.

§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, Central)
Has my hon. Friend any indication of the amount which may 1037 have been obtained through misrepresentation, that is, by people alleging that they were intimidated when they were not, and people who said that they were on strike when they were not on strike?

§ Mr. Moyle
I cannot give a precise figure, but we have the feeling that the amounts at stake were not large. Five million pounds were paid out to roughly 200,000 claimants, which worked out at about £25 per head, or about £12 per claimant per week. Given those figures, it is highly unlikely that there was substantial abuse, although I am quite prepared to concede that life was easier for the people so inclined at the time and I am sure that there were one or two unscrupulous people even in the Province of Northern Ireland who took advantage of the situation. But we do not think that the figures were particularly high in relation to the situation pertaining.
Briefly, the order is designed to prevent duplicate payments of social security benefits to persons who have already obtained emergency benefit to ensure that the costs of paying emergency benefit fall in their proper place, and to provide for certain consequential matters.

§ Mr. Ian Gilmour (Chesham and Amersham)
I do not wish to detain the House for more than a few moments because I am sure that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends would like to raise particular points. I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. I apologise if he has already answered these points, because I did not hear him in the hubbub.
Has he any idea how many unjustified claims were made? Can he give an estimate of the figure? Can he also clear up a matter that was raised in the summer? There was an allegation in the Sunday Telegraph that there had been a considerable racket going on. The headline was: £8 million aid racket in Ulster. That does not tally with the Minister's figure of £5 million. Can he assure the House—

§ Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it that we are discussing Order No. 1268? We thought that you had referred to Order No. 1267.

§ Mr. Speaker
This discussion is limited to Order No. 1267.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley
On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely it is Order No. 1268 that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking about?

§ Mr. Speaker
I must say that perhaps I was not paying attention to what the right hon. Gentleman was saying. I ought to have been, but I was engaged on another matter, but if the right hon. Gentleman was talking on Order No. 1268, he was out of order.

§ Mr. Ian Gilmour
Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Minister directed his remarks entirely to Order No. 1268, not Order No. 1267, and if I had been directing my remarks to Order No. 1267 I should have been at cross-purposes with the Minister.

§ Mr. J. Enoch Powell (Down, South)
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I think there has been a mistake about the numbering of the orders. The order relating to social security is, in fact, No. 1268. Was that the one that the Minister moved?

§ Mr. Moyle
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I moved Order No. 1268, which is the Social Security (Consequences of Emergency) (Northern Ireland) Order 1974.

§ Mr. Powell
Further to that point of order—

§ Mr. Speaker
This has been described to me as a case of wrong identification. It would surely be better to try to make progress and regard Order No. 1268 as having been moved, and come to the other order afterwards.

§ Mr. Ian Gilmour
Perhaps when the hon. Gentleman winds up the debate in relation to Order No. 1268 he would make some remarks about the allegations that I mentioned, and I hope that he will be able to refute them satisfactorily.

§ Mr. Speaker
To conclude on the misunderstanding which has arisen, if I may, I must point out that it is the responsibility of the Government to see that 1039 the numbers are right when orders are set down on the Order Paper.

§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, Central)
I absolve you entirely of any iniquity, Mr. Speaker. I regard it as the responsibility of the English, in trying to perpetrate an Irish situation in numbering correct orders wrongly.
I turn then to the Social Security (Consequences of Emergency) (Northern Ireland) Order 1974. I believe that the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) did not hear amid the hubbub—I can only assume that I missed the hubbub—the reply which my hon. Friend the Minister gave on the question of the number of faulty claims or misrepresentations which may have been made. But, as I understand the situation, there are people in Northern Ireland who have stated that they will not go on strike again unless Paddy Devlin is Minister of Health.

§ Mr. Ian Gilmour
The hon. Gentleman asked how much, and I asked how many.

§ Mr. McNamara
If we divide by 12 into how much, we can, I think, work out how many from the figure which my hon. Friend gave.
There are some important points to be raised in relation to this dispute. Nobody objects to people receiving social security benefit when they are prevented from going to work or when they become unemployed as a result of others withdrawing their labour. Certainly none of us on this side would object to that. But we are concerned about tales and rumours, which my hon. Friend has gone some way to knock down, about a number of people who were spuriously intimidated from going to work but who in fact were not so intimidated but took advantage of Mr. Paddy Devlin's hospitality and generosity to try to obtain both their regular wages and social security benefit. It would be interesting to know what sort of inquiry my hon. Friend's Department is making through the PAYE system to determine how many people are involved.
On the other hand, there were a good many people who were considerably embarrassed financially and put to ex- 1040 pense as a result of the stoppage, namely, those self-employed who wished to take no part in the stoppage, who supported the Executive and Her Majesty's Government in their actions, but who were prevented, for example, from getting their produce to market because of road blocks or other intimidation, which resulted in perishable crops and other items being lost or ruined, and who received no compensation at all because they were not in the directly employed category. I feel that my hon. Friend should pay attention to those who suffered loss as a consequence in that way.
There are, however, other questions concerning social security and, indeed, the security of the whole Province which follow from the consequences of the emergency created by the UWC strike. The whole situation in the Province has deteriorated considerably since that event, and it will not be settled by the calling of the Convention elections and a date being given for them.
Many people in the minority community feel more insecure now than ever before as a consequence of what appears to many to be the drift in Her Majesty's Government policy away from the principles which were outlined both when the Conservative Party was in power and at the time of the White Paper on Convention elections. There seems now to be an appeal not to what is right but to what the majority in Northern Ireland at the moment seem to be demanding.
It is significant that it is from these benches rather than from the Opposition benches that demands are coming for a debate on the Northern Ireland situation, save on particular circumstances or events, and it is to be regretted that only in a debate of this kind are we able to raise matters which follow from the consequences of the emergency of the UWC strike, with which, in part, this order deals.
One is concerned, in particular, about the vacuum in politics at this time in Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. Powell
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it possible within the order on this motion to discuss the present political situation in Northern Ireland?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)
No, it is not.

§ Mr. McNamara
With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I realise that your position here is far more elevated than that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but my right hon. Friend said that we should be able to have a short debate on the Northern Ireland situation arising from these orders. In addition, I am discussing and am concerned with the consequences of the emergency and I suggest that social security policy deals with the consequences of various events which are likely to flow from that emergency. It is relevant surely to consider the precedents which the order is likely to set. For example, what is to happen if the widely mooted stoppage of work, which may still take place, over the conditions of the Loyalist prisoners in Long Kesh were to occur? Would the same provisions arise then as are arising now?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I should make it clear that the scope of the debate is fairly narrowly confined. It should be limited to whether there should be payment of double benefit for the relevant period. It would seem to be beyond the scope of the instrument to discuss the workers' strike in general. That would make it rather difficult for the hon. Gentleman to stray very far from the order itself.

§ Mr. McNamara
Of course I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a great deal of respect for you and I understand the wariness and chariness of the 10 United Ulster Unionists who object to the widening of the debate in spite of what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said.
I think that I would be in order to express concern about the precedent that is set in this case. Say, for example, that the sectarian murders reached such a pitch that people were not prepared to go to work outside what they regarded as safe areas, that people were not prepared to cross Belfast from a Loyalist or allegedly Republican area to another area because they were afraid for their lives. In those circumstances would another similar order be brought before the House? Would it be in order to raise that matter? Would it be in order to ask, in view of the 1042 drift of events in Northern Ireland, the vacuum that seems to exist, and the threats of future stoppages, whether we are likely to see a similar order to this?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member may pose a question, but he must not develop the argument on a hypothetical situation.

§ Mr. McNamara
I would never dream of developing an argument on a hypothetical situation, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There have been reports of another such strike. It is the duty of the Government to try to prevent a similar situation arising. It is their duty also to ensure that these paramilitary forces, which intimidated people and prevented them from going to work, and which led to the leader of the TUC, Mr. Len Murray, trying to lead a march back to work in difficult circumstances, should not succeed. In that case we should not need another such order.
We must accept the order, but we should not permit a recurrence of the last situation. We must ensure that the drift in Government policy ceases. Before the Convention elections my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should have talks with the various groups in Northern Ireland to see whether a dialogue can begin. I realise that there are various bodies, mostly represented on the Opposition benches, that would object and would not perhaps like to show their hand until after any Convention elections are held. But there is still need for us to have a proper move by the Government.
We should pay particular attention to self-employed people, such as farmers, who have not benefited from the magnanimity of Mr. Paddy Devlin's original decision—

§ Mr. Michael Brotherton (Louth)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree with me that we on this side of the House believe in the ballot box and not the bomb, and that that is the way in which to conduct one's affairs, in Ulster or anywhere else?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Mr. McNamara
I, too, believe in the ballot box and not in the bomb, but I believe that the responsibilities of a 1043 majority are perhaps even greater than the responsibilities of a minority, and that if there had not been an abuse of majority power we should not have the present situation. If hon. Members on the Opposition benches had listened to the arguments advanced from the Labour benches before the terrible troubles broke out, the troubles would not be as they are today. The hon. Gentleman, who has not been in the House long, would do well to read reports of the debates long before the troubles started, and he would realise the seriousness with which we regarded the situation then and—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I now have the benefit of the statement the Lord President made on 14th November, when he said: There will of course, be a short debate next week. This confines the matter very much to a short debate. The right hon. Gentleman also said: That is why we are discussing the possibility of establishing a number of Northern Ireland committees, including a Northern Ireland Grand Committee, where Northern Ireland matters can be discussed much more frequently than we could find time for in the House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 592–6.] The hon. Gentleman should be aware of that, because it has a bearing on the argument he is developing.

§ Mr. McNamara
I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that it was to be a short debate, not that it was not to be a wide debate.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The very thing that we cannot do is to have a wide debate, within the terms of the order. The debate must be narrowly confined.

§ Mr. McNamara
If you rule that the word "narrow" also means "short", I must bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is not how I understood what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said on Thursday. Both I and my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) were concerned that we were not to have any full-scale debates on Northern Ireland. We were under the impression that what my right hon. Friend said then meant that this debate would be short in time 1044 —limited to one and a half hours on each order—but not in scope.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The ruling on the scope of the debate rests with the Chair, and I rule that it is very narrow on this order.

§ Mr. McNamara
I am most grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As you first answered the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Down, South, I was under the impression that all my argument had been related to the terms of the order—the circumstances that had caused the order to arise, and how we are to prevent a similar order from having to come before the House. I was trying to suggest that if we are to prevent similar orders, there is a need for more determined action by the Government to try to deal with the situation in Northern Ireland, and perhaps some Government initiatives before the Convention elections. I think in particular of the calling together of the various parties to see whether a dialogue can be established. Otherwise, the initiatives are being left not with elected representatives but with gunmen, which, after what the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) said, I am sure no hon. Member would want to see.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman is right, it would be possible to develop a general debate on any order. This is not so. The order is very narrow and must be narrowly confined. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would observe my ruling.

§ Mr. McNamara
I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not trying to argue that one should seek to widen the debate, following your ruling that "short" means "narrow".

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me, I am sure with the best intentions in the world. The statement by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House was not specifically concerned with the matter which we are discussing tonight. There are two entirely different matters to be dealt with. The Chair has ruled tonight that this particular order is very narrowly confined and we must stick to that ruling.

§ Mr. McNamara
Again I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I 1045 was seeking to argue, purely and simply on the basis of your ruling, that we have before the House an order dealing with the consequences of the emergency in Northern Ireland, namely the payment in certain circumstances of social security benefits. But the order creates a somewhat difficult precedent, and I believe that in the interests of good order and good government, both in Northern Ireland and in Her Majesty's other dominions, we should seek to avoid this type of order in future. I regard the order as a bad precedent. We must see how we can avoid this drain on public funds in the future.
I wish to refer to the possibility of a double payment involved in the convolutions of having to go through the National Insurance Fund (Northern Ireland) and of that fund having to repay the money to the Consolidated Fund (Northern Ireland). If we are to avoid similar stoppages, if we are to prevent a drift into anarchy in Northern Ireland before the Convention elections and the possibility of similar orders having to be passed again, there will have to be some sort of political action.
I realise that the power of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and his Ministers is limited in this respect, but in that limited situation they should try to seize the initiative and seek to call together the various parties to see what common ground exists before a similar situation is allowed to arise. If we were to take such action, then we could pass the order in the hope that it would pass into limbo and be lost for ever. But if some action is not taken by my right hon. Friend, although we may pass the order tonight to honour the words of Mr. Paddy Devlin, I am afraid that we may find ourselves in a situation where the Minister of State at the Northern Ireland Office may find himself in the same difficult situation in the future. I am sure that nobody in the House would wish to see him placed in such a position. Therefore, I hope that the initiative will be taken from the gunmen by the politicians and that positive action will be put in hand before the Convention elections.

§ Mr. John Carson (Belfast, North)
When we realise that this is a wide order—

§ Mr. McNamara
Narrow order.

§ Mr. Carson
Order.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) must leave it to the Chair to keep order.

§ Mr. Carson
While agreeing that this is a wide order, we must remember that it is being debated against a background of sectarian murder. I suggest that the House is prepared to sit all night if the matter is to be properly debated.
Although one realises that there is a need for some sort of order, we are not convinced that this type of emergency order is what is required. We certainly do not require the ill-informed panic measures taken by the former Head of Health and Social Services which landed us in an administrative bog. We have not yet recovered from these measures. There are wide-ranging powers already available. The National Insurance Measures (Northern Ireland) 1966 to 1974 have unlimited powers. Article 5(1) of the order reads: An order under paragraph (1) may be made so as to take effect from a date before the making thereof, whether before or after the commencement of this Order. There are some questions that I wish to hear answered. What is the total number of measures under the National Insurance Measures (Northern Ireland) 1966 to 1974 that could possibly be affected under Article 5(1) of the order? What is the total number of provisions under the Supplementary Benefits Acts (Northern Ireland) 1966 to 1973 which could possibly be modified under Article 5(1)? Could supplementary benefits be reduced to a mere token payment under the order? Could the emergency payment be less than that due to the person concerned under the normal law? Could the emergency payment be more than that due to the person concerned under the normal law? How do industrial injury benefits stand under the order?
This order is not for the past but for the future. I am not convinced that it meets the needs of the people of Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. Gerard Fitt (Belfast, West)
It is clear from what has been said so far that there is a need for a full-dress debate on Northern Ireland. In discussing Northern Ireland we cannot discuss these orders 1047 in isolation. In view of the unsure political situation, the first opportunity should be taken to let the House know the full effects of what has transpired in Northern Ireland since the Ulster Workers' Council strike which led to the orders coming before the House. I recognise that there may be hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies on the Conservative benches who do not want a full debate on Northern Ireland now.

§ Mr. Norman Miscampbell (Blackpool, North)
Rubbish.

§ Mr. Fitt
I hope that my last remark is not true. I believe that we should have a full debate on Northern Ireland as soon as possible. Hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland constituencies and who sit on the Opposition benches have made it clear that they do not want a political discussion at this stage. They hope that they will be able to bring about a political discussion to their own advantage after the Convention elections have taken place.
I was a member of the Northern Ireland Executive at the time of the strike and I know very well the circumstances in which the order was promulgated. The Minister has indicated the serious situation in which people were refraining from going to their employment. People were being intimidated from going to work and many people who were not involved in the strike decision suffered grievously because of the effect of the Ulster Workers' Council strike.
The then Minister of Health in the Northern Ireland Executive, my colleague Mr. Paddy Devlin, after representations had been made to him by many of his constituents, and from many other defenceless people in Northern Ireland who were finding it difficult to obtain their ordinary benefits under the National Insurance Scheme, took action. Many civil servants employed by the Ministry of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland were not able to come to work—although I query whether they were prevented from coming to work or did not want to. It became obvious, however, that great hardship would be inflicted on a defenceless community in Northern Ireland unless some emergency measures were taken.

§ Mr. Brotherton
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Are we talking about what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is talking about or are we talking about the order?

§ Mr. Fitt
I am not sure where this fellow represents but he obviously—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member is talking about the order.

§ Mr. Fitt
I am not sure where this fellow has arrived from but he certainly does not understand what we are talking about this evening.
In the circumstances I have described, it was evident that hardship would be inflicted on a defenceless population in Northern Ireland. The then Minister of Health took these emergency measures. He understood at the time, as did every member of the Executive, that there would be unscruplous people in Northern Ireland who would take advantage of this order. We had to weigh that in the balance. Were we not to introduce the order, many people would have been gravely affected. If we did introduce it, some would abuse it.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley
Which order?

§ Mr. Fitt
The order moved by Mr. Paddy Devlin dealing with emergency payments.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley
We are not debating that.

§ Mr. Fitt
We are debating the payments made—

§ Mr. Brotherton
On a point of order—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I must make my ruling quite clear. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is in order in discussing the background to this order.

§ Mr. Fitt
I am not sure whether these people are deaf or blind, but it says: The Social Security (Consequences of Emergency) (Northern Ireland) Order". We are discussing what took place following the emergency in Northern Ireland in May of this year. There may be some people who are not aware that there was an emergency in Northern Ireland this year. It is because of that that some of them are here.
1049 We recognised that there would be abuse of the order. I do not fully accept the total figure of £5 million given to the House by the Minister tonight. I have heard from certain sources that the figure was approaching £9 million. I notice that the Minister did not say that it was £5 million. He went round the figure, saying that from the information he had received, given £4 million here and there, that was the figure.
Some hon. Members should not seek to condemn the order because many of their political supporters abused it. That led to the downfall of the Northern Ireland Executive. I am not sure whether, at this late stage, the Minister could initiate inquiries into the abuses which took place. It is freely recognised in Northern Ireland that many of those who drew benefits available under the order were also receiving pay from their employers. Many people recognise that employers also were intimidated at that time.
No one can condemn the action which was taken by the then Minister. He was trying to prevent great hardship. But by the same token many lessons can be learned from what happened at that time. The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) is not particularly anxious to condemn the legislation which made this emergency order possible. Perhaps he is now living with the harsh realities and facts of life in Northern Ireland. They are completely different from the conditions which he formerly dealt with in Wolverhampton. On the Budget he did not avail himself of the opportunity to vote against the £10 million refund to the trade unions. That would seem to be contrary to the position adopted by the right hon. Gentleman in the past. Perhaps he is now being influenced, to his benefit, by the Members from Northern Ireland who represent working-class constituencies.
Many of my hon. Friends will not want a lengthy discussion to take place on this order. They feel that any attempt to decrease or to stop the benefits of trade unionists or working-class people is an attack on the trade union and labour movement. But the strike which took place in Northern Ireland was not the type of strike which is known in this country. It was not about conditions of 1050 employment or about wages. It was a clear political strike which was designed to bring about the downfall of the Government in Northern Ireland. A clear distinction must be made between strikes which take place in this country and the strike which took place there.
It is interesting that only yesterday and the day before, the same class of workers in the power stations in Northern Ireland went on strike for higher wages and better conditions. From what we have read in the Press, it would seem that the Army used helicopters to ferry in materials and support in the power stations, which it failed to do in May this year. Therefore, it is clear that the Northern Ireland authorities—it was under a Labour administration—took action during the power workers' strike which has taken place in the past two or three days which they—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the debate. The scope of the debate is narrowly confined. I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would not refer to current activities. We are discussing an order and the purpose for which it has been introduced.

§ Mr. Fitt
I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I may have gone a little wide, but I wished to put on record the difference between the attitude which prevailed in May and the present attitude.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) has said that a precedent has been set. Will there again be a repeat of the order which was made which has been justified and consolidated by the Government? If there is to be another political strike, will the present Government take the same view as they are taking on this order? Will they again allow themselves to be intimidated into paying massive sums of taxpayers' money to enable people who are opposed to the Government to bring about the downfall of that Government? That is the most important question which must be asked on this order.
I ask the Minister, even at this late stage, to initiate further inquiries in Northern Ireland to find out the people who were in receipt of payment from their employers and also received the emergency benefits which were then payable.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley (Antrim, North)
I trust, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will give me the leniency you have accorded to other hon. Members to answer some of the charges that have been made about the Ulster Workers' Council strike and the matters relevant to the order.
As the Minister said, the order is the carrying forward of a measure that was to go before the Northern Ireland Assembly to provide machinery to deal with a future situation similar to that which occurred during the constitutional stoppage in Northern Ireland. I understand that during the constitutional stoppage payments were made under the Emergency (Payment of Benefit) Regulations (Northern Ireland) which were made through proclamation by the Secretary of State. What we are discussing tonight—

§ Mr. McNamara
rose—

§ Rev. Ian Paisley
—is this further order to set up machinery so that the measure proposed in the Northern Ireland Assembly should be put through this House as an order and become law.

§ Mr. McNamara
rose—

§ Rev. Ian Paisley
Time is very brief, and I must give the Minister time to reply.
In the election to this House the people of Northern Ireland stated through the ballot box their attitude both to the Sunningdale Agreement and to the Executive which brought in the original order. The ballot box spoke loud and votes were cast for the democratic system.

§ Mr. McNamara
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) raised with me the question of the ballot box majorities, you immediately ruled him out of order. I accepted your ruling and did not continue with that part of my argument. I did not even finish my sentence, which was a beautiful one—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that I can anticipate what the hon. Gentleman will say. He had a fairly good run for his money. I agree that we are getting very close to being out of order. I have been fairly indulgent. I hope that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) will not try me too far and will remember that the debate is fairly narrowly confined.

§ Mr. Brotherton
Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. When I raised the original point of order I did not mean to glory in the election of the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
That is not a point of order.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley
I will not try to utter beautiful sentences but will deal with the facts of life in Northern Ireland. The people of Northern Ireland expressed themselves in the democratic process—

§ Mr. Fitt
When?

§ Rev. Ian Paisley
In February last. They stated how they stood. What is more, a petition which dealt with the Executive was presented to this House. When the democratic process was rejected by the House, when hon. Members refused to listen to the voice of democracy expressed under the rules of the House, the stoppage took place. I know that it is unpalatable to hon. Members opposite to have the facts presented to them tonight.

§ Mr. Fitt
rose—

§ Mr. McNamara
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is not that what the hon. Gentleman is saying is unpalatable but that we were not allowed to debate these matters.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I warned the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). I gave him a certain amount of latitude, as I did to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), but I suggest that he now confines himself to the order.

§ Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)
On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. In view of the great interest aroused in the debate, can we now add to it the hour which has been allotted to the next order?

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
No. That is not a matter for the Chair.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley
It is totally untrue to suggest that hon. Members on this side of the House who are elected from Northern Irelnd do not wish to discuss Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. McNamara
We have not said that.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley
It has been said by hon. Members opposite that there seems to be a reluctance on our part to engage in a debate. The House should be reminded that representations have been made by the United Ulster Unionists for an immediate debate on the situation in Northern Ireland. It is a scandal to the people of Northern Ireland tonight that we are forced under this type of debate to deal with matters of urgent importance in Northern Ireland.

§ Mr. McNamara
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. This is not a matter for the Chair. We must confine ourselves to the order under discussion, whatever the hon. Member for Antrim, North may feel within his heart.

§ Rev. Ian Paisley
It is very difficult for me, speaking in this debate, not to trespass on territory which has already been trod by hon. Members opposite. All I am trying to do is simply to put the case from our point of view.
But I come now to the terms of the order. Can the Minister tell us the number of benefits that were paid to people living in areas which are Republican or Nationalist? How many people in that end of Belfast represented by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—I am talking about the Falls Road and Andersonstown area—claimed these benefits? The UWC was not in operation in that area. It is a fact that benefits were claimed generally all over the Province of Northern Ireland.
Will the hon. Gentleman also tell us whether the £5 million he mentioned is the exact or near-exact sum, or whether the sum is really the £9 million mentioned by the hon. Member for Belfast, West? Could he also tell us whether, in the future, the same procedure will take place under the terms of the order? Will the effect of this order come into being when a declaration of emergency is made under the Emergency Powers Act (Northern Ireland) 1926? If that Act is used and a declaration of emergency is made, will it be subject to discussion in this House? Has the Secretary of State absolute power to declare an emergency without any action from this House or any submission to this House? I understand that on this side of the water an emergency must be declared 1054 in this House and that hon. Members have an opportunity to comment upon it.
In the course of his opening remarks, some of which we found difficult to hear because of the commotion, the Minister said that it would be at the discretion of the Department. Will he elaborate on that and tell us the Department concerned? Is it the Northern Ireland Office, the Department of Finance in Northern Ireland or the Health and Social Services Department in Northern Ireland?
I believe that the time has come for the people of Northern Ireland to have an opportunity once again in the democratic process of electing their constitutional Convention which this House decided upon, and then the politicians of Ulster, elected with a mandate from the people, will be able to speak one to another.

§ Mr. James Kilfedder (Down, North)
I do not know how many minutes are left before the debate must end, and I appreciate that the Minister must reply, but I want briefly to pay a tribute, which has not yet been paid, to the officials in the local offices who met this emergency situation and dealt with it admirably. The thanks of this House should go to them for carrying out an admirable job.
I agree with the purpose of the order, which is to debit the National Insurance Fund with the cost of the emergency benefits. When the payment has been made into the Consolidated Fund and the accounts are published, we shall see the true cost of the emergency benefits. Publication of these figures will give the lie to the scaremongers, including the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who started the rent and rate strike in Northern Ireland and other disorders on the streets and who have talked in terms of £9 million. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) quoted from the Sunday Telegraph. He spoke of "a considerable racket" and put the cost to the taxpayer at £8 million. The Minister referred to a figure of £5 million, and that figure is probably closer to the truth. It may be that it is too much.
I think the Minister will agree that there are about 30,000 persons who would have been getting unemployment or sickness benefits in any event during the 1055 strike, regardless of whether it had occurred. At the height of the strike those 30,000 people would have obtained benefit, so this figure must be deducted from the 200,000 unemployed, which means that the additional cost to the National Insurance Fund will be equivalent to the cost of benefits for only 170,000.

§ Mr. Moyle
I am afraid that a large area of this debate consists of rather shifting sands, and I had better stay clear of them in case I am ruled out of order. I shall confine my remarks to the hard substance which has been mentioned.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) asked how much had been paid in unjustified claims, and my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) asked how many faulty claims had been paid out. At this stage, I am afraid that we are unable to give precise figures of either amount or numbers. To try to assuage some of the concern which has been expressed, however, I might say that investigations are going on to ascertain the exact sums of money and the number of claims involved.
The amount of money paid out in emergency benefits is £5 million. Obviously it would be remarkable if it were precisely £5 million, but that is the figure upon which this House should work. I gather, for example, that the present assessment is £4.9 million, but some claims have still to be established. Therefore, references to £8 million, as contained in the Sunday Telegraph article, are misleading and ought not to be propagated.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) said that these matters will become clear when the accounts are published. I should like to make a favourable reference to the hon. Gentleman, because he was the only Member who took the trouble to praise the staff of the Department of Health and Social Services for the hard work they put in during the course of the Ulster workers' stoppage which resulted in the payment of these large sums of money and relieved a considerable number of people in Northern Ireland from great distress. I thank him very much for having done that.

§ Mr. McNamara
I am sure that my hon. Friend would also wish to praise Mr. Faulkner and his Ministers for their stand on this matter. It was a very difficult situation in which to give instructions to the Department.

§ Mr. Moyle
I would have made a strong point of that, but I did not want to embarrass my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I gather that he is not easily embarrassed. Therefore, I will endorse everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) asked a number of detailed questions which I will proceed to answer. In case the House is lost in admiration at my answers to these detailed questions, I should explain that the hon. Gentleman was courteous enough to give me notice before the debate that he would be putting them.
Questions 1 and 2 can be answered by saying that only one regulation has been made under this power and that no further regulations are likely to be made. The regulation provided for crediting contributions during the emergency and recovering money wrongly paid.
The answer to question 3 is "No". The Emergency Payment of Benefit Regulations provided for a specific scheme of emergency benefit at the time of the stoppage, and existing supplementary benefit claimants were not affected. They continued to receive their supplementary benefits.
The answer to question 4 is "Yes". For example, earnings-related supplementary benefit was not payable.
The answer to question 5 is again "Yes". Contribution conditions were not considered.
I should point out that the order relates entirely to the past and is in some respects retrospective legislation. It does not relate to anything that is likely to happen in future.
Although a great deal of the discussion was ruled out of order, I gathered from the contributions made by my hon. Friends the Members for Belfast, West and Kingston upon Hull, Central that there is a sense of unease and that they and probably the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) were in 1057 effect asking for a debate on Northern Ireland. Their points are on record and will no doubt be seen by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who is responsible for arranging the business of the House.
I must stress that what happened in May should not be regarded as a precedent. Some hon. Members referred to the order as a precedent. It is not. I am not suggesting that another emergency scheme such as the one promulgated by the head of the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland in May will never be promulgated again.
I think it would be wrong for hon. Members to assume that such an order and a consequential order like the one before the House would be promulgated again. Questions about what might happen in the future are to a large extent hypothetical and I do not intend to answer them, but the idea of calling the order a precedent should not necessarily be encouraged.
My reply to the hon. Member for Antrim, North is that the order does not authorise payments made under the emergency benefit scheme. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has got that point. The order is designed to prevent double payments for the period of the emergency. I gather that the hon. Gentleman understands me on that.
I think I have answered all the questions that were asked, and I commend the order to the House and hope that it will be approved.