Commons Sitting of 8 December 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS

  TRADE
  Return ordered,
  of Statistics relating to Overseas Trade of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1978.—[Mr. Dell.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Speaker: May I remind the House, for the sake of those who have not been with us for Questions in the past 10 days or so, that briefer supplementary questions and much briefer ministerial replies have helped us to reach many more Questions?
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
    NATIONAL FINANCE

      Interest Rates
      Mr. Watkinsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the present level of interest rates.
      The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Denis Healey): Yes, Sir. Interest rates are now consistent with the maintenance of proper control over the money supply in the interests of counter-inflation policy. The large fall overall in both short and long-term rates over the past year has helped industry and many others in the economy. The further continuation of the downward trend depends critically on wage settlements being in accordance with the Government's guidelines.
      Mr. Watkinson: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that recent fears about money supply explosion are not grounded, in the light of the latest figures? Does he not agree also that industrial investment may well have been harmed by this increase? Does he intend that the rate
      1620
      should be maintained at its present level, or may it fall again?
      Mr. Healey: I think it is true that all recent indicators suggest that some of the concern expressed about the monetary aggregates was greatly exaggerated. I thought that my hon. Friend was referring to the reversal of the 2 per cent. fall in point out that short rates are still under to the previous level. I should, however, interest rates which took place at a time when we had exceptionally heavy inflows of money. It is natural that, once those inflows cease, the short rate should revert half what they were a year ago, well below the level I inherited from the previous Government and below the level in early September. There is now evidence that private manufacturing investment increased during this period of fall in interest rates by about 13 per cent. in the first nine months of this year compared with last year.
      Mr. McCrindle: Are not the building societies in some difficulty regarding interest trates, with funds continuing to flow in while minimum lending rate has risen by 2 per cent. in the past few weeks? Can the Chancellor of the Exchequer give them any general reassurance to assist them in their consideration of appropriate interest rates at their meeting tomorrow?
      Mr. Healey: I have already made clear that I believe that the current level of interest rate is appropriate and is likely to remain appropriate for some time. A further fall in interest rates could take place if wage settlements were in accordance with the Government's guidelines.
      Mr. Lawson: The Chancellor speaks of the Government's guidelines, but what is the Government's pay policy? Is he aware that he told the House of Commons in July that we were to have flexibility this year and a return to free collective bargaining next year? We now find that we have the most rigid and doctrinaire insistence on 10 per cent. precisely for every single pay settlement this year, and we are warned about stage 4 next year. What has happened to justify that U-turn?
      Mr. Healey: I doubt, Mr. Speaker, whether that intervention was in accordance with the advice which you offered the House. There are a large number of later Questions on counter-inflation policy,

      1621
      and it would be unfair to hon. Members who have put down those Questions to answer a supplementary question which is irrelevant on this occasion.

      Industrial Disputes (Pickets)
      Mr. Ridleyasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will seek to legislate to make trade union payments to pickets, not employees of the employer whose premises are being picketed, subject to income tax.
      The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Joel Barnett): No.
      Mr. Ridley: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with a tax system whereby those who go to work are eventually taxed out of existence while those who try to prevent other people from going to work get off scot-free?
      Mr. Barnett: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts.
      Mr. James Lamond: Will my right hon. Friend tell me why Questions like this come from Opposition Members when they tell us that they are dedicated both to the reduction of personal taxation and to wooing the trade union movement?
      Mr. Barnett: My hon. Friend is right. It is interesting to note the views of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). It would be even more interesting to know whether those views are shared by right hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Front Bench. If they are, it is a good job that the Opposition are not in command of industrial relations in this country.
      Mr. Peter Rees: Whatever the legal basis for the Chief Secretary's answer to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the Member for Circencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) does it possibly strike the right hon. Gentleman as unfair that, while the items of income to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention may or may not be subject to tax, other items, such as payments made to the Territorial Army perhaps for assistance in fighting fires, should be taxed?
      Mr. Barnett: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, there are many anomalies in our tax system, including
      1622
      the fact that very many highly paid people obtain benefits that are not taxed.

      Industrial Investment
      Mr. Radiceasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is satisfied with the level of industrial investment.
      Mr. Joel Barnett: No, Sir. But I am encouraged by the recently published figures for investment in the third quarter, which show a significant improvement over the earlier part of the year.
      Mr. Radice: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that for the first nine months of this year, if we exclude the British Steel Corporation, investment in manufacturing industry, was 13 per cent. up on the first nine months of last year, and that this is a fairly satisfactory figure?
      Mr. Barnett: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, the figure is slightly higher than he quoted, although one is bound to note that investment levels of manufacturing industry are still low. We want to see them improving rapidly in the years ahead.
      Mr. Budgen: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that the little NEDCs play a vital rôle in the Government's industrial strategy? Further, will he comment on the effect upon foreign investment in general in this country of the successful conspiracy in which two little NEDCs joined to keep Hitachi out of Britain?
      Mr. Barnett: That is an entirely different question, but the little NEDCs are doing a first-class job.
      Mr. Madden: Has my right hon. Friend seen an unpublished survey, prepared by the Manpower Services Commission, which indicates that over the next few years the top 90 companies in Britain expect their labour requirements to fall by one-third as a result of investment?
      Mr. Barnett: There is the problem, of course, that much new manufacturing investment does not create additional employment. On the other hand, my hon. Friend must recognise that without that new industrial investment existing employment would be difficult to maintain.

      Value Added Tax
      Mr. van Straubenzeeasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he

      1623
      is satisfied that VAT repaid on appeal against assessment is returned to those who paid it.
      The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): VAT repaid after a successful appeal against an assessment is normally sent to the registered person.
      Mr. van Straubenzee: Does the Minister feel himself to have any responsibility for seeing that the registered person passes on the benefit? In that connection, will he, perhaps, examine the question of the VAT repaid to British Rail in respect of student travel cards to see whether the money has been repaid to the people who originally paid it?
      Mr. Sheldon: That is a matter for British Rail, which has the duty to pass on the VAT, which it did, and, of course, a refund became payable. I understand that British Rail is now prepared to refund the tax paid by individual students on production of a rail card on which the tax was paid.
      Mr. Welsh: Much difficulty and loss is being caused to small traders and businesses by the VAT regulations concerning bad debts. Will the Government end the situation whereby small traders are liable for sums of VAT which they will never be able to retrieve?
      Mr. Sheldon: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to VAT on bad debts, he will be aware, I am sure, that we are examining this matter, and in due course the Government's final conclusions will be put before the House.
      Mr. Liptonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why invalid electric chairs purchased for hospitals by charitable subscriptions are subject to 8 per cent. VAT while similar chairs provided by the National Health Service are zero rated.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: Supplies to patients made through the National Health Service are not made in the course of business. Therefore, no VAT is chargeable to the patient and the question of zero-rating does not arise.
      Mr. Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the patrons of the "Priory Arms" public house in my constituency managed over a period of many months to scrape together £500 to buy an electrically-propelled chair for the local
      1624
      hospital? On this they had to pay £46 VAT. Can they have that VAT money back?
      Mr. Sheldon: The example to which my hon. Friend refers deals with an item that is not as readily identifiable as some of those where we have been able to make concessions. The difficulty with VAT is that it was introduced as a broad-based tax. We have made some changes, and I am always prepared to look at the possibility of others, but there are certain difficulties of control which make further progress in this direction difficult.
      Mr. Michael Marshall: Will the Financial Secretary look at this issue in the wider context and make a thorough review of the VAT issue? Will he, for example, look again at the question of a single rate to cover a range of anomalies about which he knows, such as in the boat-building industry?
      Mr. Sheldon: The question of a single rate of VAT must wait for the Budget judgment in due course. As for a review of the working of the value added tax system itself, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that this is being examined by Customs and Excise. I hope that some of the comments that arise from that review will be made available during the Budget debates.
      Mr. Lipton: Will my constituent get the £46 VAT back? May I have a definite answer to that request?
      Mr. Sheldon: We all admire my hon. Friend's persistence. He will be aware that the present regulations preclude that payment from being made. As I said before, we have introduced changes in the system of VAT introduced by the Conservatives. I do not think that it lies in their mouths, having introduced this very rigid tax, now to ask for changes which its working makes difficult to achieve.
      Mr. Lipton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
      The following Question stod upon the Order Paper:
      Mr. Brotherton: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the rate of VAT on lawn mowers.
      Mr. Speaker: Mr. Michael Brotherton.
      Sir S. McAdden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance as to how this Question managed to appear on the Order Paper? If my hon. Friend so desired, he could have walked into the Library and found out the information for himself.
      Mr. Speaker: That is very good advice, and I shall look into it. Mr. Michael Brotherton. He is not here anyway.

      British Wines (Duty)
      Mr. Hodgsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to reduce the duty payable on British wines.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: Our obligations under the Treaty of Rome require that any reduction in the duty on wine produced from grapes grown in the United Kingdom could only be made if the duty was reduced at the same time on imported wines. This raises questions of a budgetary nature.
      Mr. Hodgson: Is the Minister aware that wines produced in Germany, Italy and Luxembourg for domestic consumption carry no duty at all? Will he make that kind of concession available to British wine-growers for wine produced in this country for consumption here?
      Mr. Sheldon: The difficulty is, as I have said, that any advantage here would be largely to the benefit of imported wines. I note the recent comment of the English Vineyards Association that many growers sell all their wine within 12 months. I am delighted that that is so. I look forward to the industry's expansion, but any concession here is not possible at present.
      Mr. Shepherd: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the excessively high level of taxation imposed upon the cider industry has led to a tremendous degree of deferred investment—about £3 million? Will he consult the industry to establish a level of taxation which will restore confidence, to enable employment to be started up again and the investment programme to go ahead?
      Mr. Sheldon: I am aware that the cider industry had certain advantages through
      1626
      the absence of duty and that the imposition of the duty brought about certain changes of which it had to take account. I am delighted to consult the industry. I think that my relations with it are close. If there is any matter on which it wishes to make representations, I shall be happy to accommodate it.

      Widows (Taxation)
      Mr. Durantasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any immediate plans to meet widows' organisations concerning their tax treatment.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: I have no immediate plans to meet widows' organisations, but I am well aware of the problems facing widows, including those relating to tax, and I shall continue to bear these in mind.
      Mr. Durant: Is the Minister aware of the deep resentment felt by working widows because they take home less pay in their ray packets than do married women doing similar jobs? Will he look at this matter again before the next Budget and either give small income relief or take the widows' pension out of the tax bracket altogether?
      Mr. Sheldon: I am aware of the concern that has been expressed. Many widows fail to take account of the fact that the tax being deducted is deducted not only from their working wage but from their pension. Thus, a comparison between the tax paid by a widow and the tax paid by a colleague working in the same place does not take into account the tax being charged upon the pension itself, which is an important part of the tax being raised.
      Mrs. Bain: Over and above the injustice of the taxation system as it operates on widows' pensions, is the Financial Secretary aware that after the initial six months' period widows' pensions are treated as a maintenance benefit and that that disqualifies widows from maintenance allowances for training schemes such as TOPS? Does he not consider that to be an injustice which should be altered immediately?
      Mr. Sheldon: I think that most of the matters that the hon. Lady has raised are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. The

      1627
      hon. Lady must be aware that the problem of widows and their pensions—this has been made clear in the representations that I have received—is widely felt also among divorced and separated people who, unfortunately, have been unable to make a success of marriage. Representations have been made forcibly to me, and a comparison has to be made between the circumstances of widows and those of other people who are equally entitled to our consideration.

      Inflation
      Mr. Neubertasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many months since the inception of the Government's counter-inflation policy in August 1975 the annual rate of inflation has been as little as half what it was 12 months previously.
      Mr. Healey: Once, Sir.
      Mr. Neubert: Putting aside the doubtful accuracy of the Government's past claims to have halved inflation, does the Chancellor recognise that our annual rate of inflation is still double the rate in Japan and the United States and four times that of West Germany? When shall we get it down to the level of our major competitors?
      Mr. Healey: I hope that inflation will be down to the level of our major competitors in about a year's time. The hon. Member will have noticed that all the indicators that are now accepted by observers inside and outside the House show that we shall be at 12 per cent. by the end of the year and in single figures around Easter. How much progress we make after that will depend on the level of pay settlements for the rest of the round.
      Mr. Skinnerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he remains satisfied with the current rate of inflation; and if he will make a statement.
      Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will make a statement on the progress to date of the Government's policy for controlling inflation during the current pay round.
      Mr. McCrindleasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate
      1628
      at what period of 1978 inflation will have reached single figure percentage.
      Mr. Healey: Inflation is falling steadily, and is on course for single figures next spring. I shall not be satisfied until we get inflation down to the level of our international competitors and keep it there. This means that the level of earnings must be within the Government's guidelines.
      Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that we all want to get inflation down, but will he also turn his attention away a little from the wages aspect and accept that there are many other factors that cause inflation and cause prices to rise, such as multinational pricing policies, Common Market levies and payments, some of which we have had to submit to quite recently, the question of Civil Service blunders that cost a tremendous amount of money, and another escalating property boom? Will he concentrate his gaze upon those items too?
      Mr. Healey: I cannot concentrate my gaze on every aspect of policy to which my hon. Friend refers, but I am certainly very conscious of the contribution which they can make. I have never claimed, nor has any of my right hon. Friends, that pay is the only factor that determines prices. That, of course, is not the case. An irresponsible monetary policy, such as was followed by the previous Administration, can also have a major impact, although we have not followed an irresponsible monetary policy. Of course, international movements of prices, such as the dramatic increase in oil prices that took place in 1973, can also have a major effect. At the moment, however, world prices look like being stable for a time, short of some international catastrophe, our monetary policy is a responsible one and is recognised as such, and over the next 12 months the level of pay settlements is likely to be the major determinant of prices.
      Mr. Latham: Regarding pay settlements, if the Government intend to continue with their secret and discretionary sanctions policy, is it not about time they came to the House to get some legal basis for it?
      Mr. Healey: I think that the Government have not only a right but a duty,

      1629
      when they have been allowed by the House either to withhold or to grant certain types of discretionary aid, to take into account—as they were intended to do—the national interest. I do not think that it is in the national interest that the Government should use taxpayers' money to finance inflationary wage increases.
      Mr. McCrindle: With at least the possibility of a rise in commodity prices in the early part of 1978 and the possibility that when the winter round of wage settlements is over it will come out at about 15 per cent. rather than 10 per cent., over how many months of 1978 does the Chancellor confidently expect that he will be able to boast a single-figure rate of inflation?
      Mr. Healey: I have already said this afternoon that we expect inflation to reach single figures in the spring. How long it remains in single figures and how far it falls below the level it reaches in the spring will depend critically upon the level of pay settlements. The hon. Gentleman will, no doubt, have seen the forecast of the Henley Centre, for example, on this matter today. But of course, no Government can predict with any certainty the course of international prices over the period. It can be influenced not only by natural catastrophes but also by political ones.
      Mr. Hooley: Will my right hon. Friend explain what contribution is made in the battle against inflation by pushing up interest rates and encouraging the most massive flow of hot money that has ever occurred in the history of this country?
      Mr. Healey: My hon. Friend is well aware that the period when we had these massive inflows was the period when interest rates were falling very fast indeed. Even after the movement back to the normal rate of 7 per cent. which took place in MLR after we changed our intervention policy, interest rates are now a great deal lower than they were in February 1973 and bank base rates have not been as low as they are now for over five years. I believe that this has made a major contribution to reducing the rate of inflation.
      Sir G. Howe: Does the Chancellor accept that, of course, we underline the importance, if unemployment is to be
      1630
      kept down, of moderation in pay settlements? But does he not also agree that it is becoming increasingly necessary to restore flexibility to pay bargaining in the labour market, and has not that prospect been damaged by the extent to which the average 10 per cent. increase in earnings of which he spoke last summer has been allowed to become a rigid 10 per cent. guideline for settlements? In other words, will he now answer the question originally put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)?
      Mr. Healey: The Government made it clear in the summer—this is a mathematical point and not a point of policy—that we cannot guarantee to keep inflation rates under 10 per cent. through next year if the level of earnings increase nationwide is above 10 per cent. I do not think that anybody in the House need disagree about that. I certainly should have hoped that we would have had a greater variety of settlements than we have had. But, with respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, it is no good his asking for flexibility below 10 per cent. unless he is prepared to identify the bargaining groups which would make settlements well below that level.

      Governor of the Bank of England
      Mr. Crawfordasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he next intends to meet the Governor of the Bank of England.
      Mr. Healey: I maintain close contact with the Governor of the Bank of England, meeting him on a regular basis and also as and when circumstances require.
      Mr. Crawford: When will the Chancellor discuss with the Governor the implications of last night's House of Commons vote which removed from the forthcoming Scottish Assembly and the Scottish people the need to comply with Treasury laid-down pay policy guidelines? Has the right hon. Gentleman thought about last night's vote?
      Mr. Healey: I think about very little else, but I have not yet had the opportunity of discussing this matter with the Governor.
      Mr. Wrigglesworth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Bank of England plays a very important rôle in the determination of economic policy in this country, and does he agree also that it would be better if the rôle that it played and the advice it gave to the Government were more clearly available in public so that we could determine exactly what its views and its rôle are as against those of the Treasury and the Chancellor himself?
      Mr. Healey: The Bank does, indeed, play an important rôle in many aspects of the economy, but my relationship with the Governor is such that I prefer to keep his advice on some matters private, just as I do the advice tendered to me by my own officials and by representatives of Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue. I think that that is wholly consistent with the general tradition of government in this country. The Governor sometimes makes his views public, and I always read them with intense interest.
      Mr. Ian Stewart: How do the Chancellor and the Governor reconcile the huge sales of sterling to foreigners in the first nine months of this year with the Chancellor's stated intention in January to reduce the reserve currency rôle of sterling?
      Mr. Healey: The hon. Member knows as well as I do that these substantial sales took place at a time when we were giving priority to our obligation under the agreement that we reached with the IMF to maintain competitiveness without damaging other aspects of our undertakings to the IMF. But, as the hon. Member knows, when we changed our intervention policy in October these inflows ceased. On the other hand, our direct undertakings were primarily concerned with official sterling balances held in London, and those have not changed significantly over the year.

      European Community
      Mr. Biffenasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proposals he has tabled at the Council of Ministers with a view to promoting economic and monetary union within the European Community.
      Mr. Healey: None, Sir. But, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in-
      1632
      formed the House yesterday, the European Council on 5th and 6th December listened to proposals from the President of the Commission for a resumption of progress towards economic and monetary union. The European Council agreed to await the views of Finance Ministers before attempting to form a view.
      Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a common European exchange rate and a common European pattern of taxation would involve an intolerable degree of provocative harmonisation and would be unacceptable in the diminution it would imply in the authority of this House? Will he so inform that distinguished refugee from British politics who now serves as President of the Commission?
      Mr. Healey: I think that the President of the Commission is well aware of my view, which I have stated on many occasions, that the type of economic and monetary union which involved the characteristics to which the hon. Gentleman has referred would require a degree of convergence in the economic performance and policies of the various countries which it is difficult to foresee at this time.
      Mr. Jay: Can the Chancellor assure the House that, whatever Mr. Roy Jenkins may say about this, the Government will retain their sanity on this issue?
      Mr. Healey: Yes, Sir, I am glad to be able to give that assurance. The Government intend to maintain their sanity on all issues.
      Mr. Tapsell: Does the Chancellor accept that, if the Government do not accept their obligations under the Treaty of Rome to move step by step to the liberalisation of exchange control by 1st January 1978, one inevitable result will be that the £ sterling exchange rate will be forced up higher than would otherwise be the case, which would make our exports less competitive, reduce the incentive to invest at home and destroy the opportunity for creating more jobs? If the right hon. Gentleman does not accept that argument, will he say what steps the Government are taking to extend the derogation arrangements under Articles 108 and 109?
      Mr. Healey: I must protest that hon. Members on the Tory Front Bench are continually asking lengthy supplementary questions referring to Questions already put down by their colleagues for answer later in the afternoon. It is an intolerable offence against the procedure of the House to seek to do so.
      Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the problems that the Opposition are up against is that, since the Leader of the Opposition made a speech in Rome about being the European Party. the Opposition are having to bend over backwards and are now even more pro-European than Mr. Roy Jenkins? Has my right hon. Friend anything to say on this?
      Mr. Healey: All I can say to my hon. Friend is that the inconsistencies in the views and the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition on matters of European policy almost match her inconsistencies on matters of pay policy, which were illustrated again by her speech yesterday.
      Mr. Gow: Although the Chancellor cannot envisage circumstances in which it would be possible to have a convergence of European economic performance so as to lead to economic and monetary union, will he tell the House whether it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to move towards economic and monetary union?
      Mr. Healey: There is a certain convergence of the performance of the European countries at this time. For example, inflation rates are closer than they were a year ago and look like being closer still next year, and there are degrees of convergence in various other areas. But common exchange rates would imply a common policy in all the important aspects of the economy, and I do not foresee that in the near future.
      On the last question that the hon. Member asked, sometimes there is a case for travelling hopefully even if the date of arrival is uncertain.
      Mr. Ashley: As Opposition Members are always quoting special cases such as the police and the Army because the Opposition ride the law and order bandwagon, can my right hon. Friend tell us whether they have ever quoted special cases which should be placed below the norm?
      Mr. Healey: I invited the right hon. and learned Gentleman to give me such a special case. I agree with my hon. Friend that the Conservatives' tendency is to ask for low wage settlements and then continually, for opportunistic reasons, to pick on groups which, they say, should have a specially high settlement, although they retreat very fast from that commitment when they find those groups—such as the police—acting responsibly and accepting a settlement within the guidelines.
      Several Hon.
      Members rose—
      Mr. Speaker: There are three Questions being answered together. I shall call one more supplementary question.
      Mr. Anthony Grant: For the benefit of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), will the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain how multinational companies increase the rate of inflation? If they do, how he can reconcile this with the fact that by his policies he is directly encouraging multinational companies to locate in this country?
      Mr. Healey: My relations with my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) are so intimate that I would prefer to discuss this matter with him privately after the meeting rather than in full public gaze.

      Income Tax
      Mr. David Mitchellasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost to public funds of making the top marginal rate of income tax 50 per cent. for earned income and 65 per cent. for investment income.
      Mr. Joel Barnett: To make the top marginal rate of tax 50 per cent. whilst retaining the additional rates on investment income would cost about £480 million for 1977–78.
      Mr. Mitchell: Does the Minister agree that if the top earned income rate were reduced to the amount I suggest it would enable a large number of small businesses trading as sole traders or partnerships to retain sufficient funds for expansion and the creation of new jobs? All of that could be done for less than the losses on one nationalised industry in one year.
      Mr. Barnett: I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. Any successful small business will not be paying tax at 83 per cent. It will pay hardly any tax at all because of the policies introduced by this Government since 1974. The hon. Gentleman knows very well that, with the 100 per cent. first-year investment allowance and the stock relief, most successful expanding small companies pay no tax at all.
      Mr. Clemitson: Might it not be desirable to use whatever public funds are available to help the poor rather than the rich?
      Mr. Barnett: I agree with my hon. Friend, but one has to get this in proportion. What we would consider poor on this side of the House is not quite the same as Opposition Members would consider poor. They have in mind people with incomes in excess of £20,000 per year, the level at which the marginal rate of tax at 83 per cent. starts. I accept that there is a very high level of tax on those levels of income, but the matter must be kept in proportion.
      Mr. Peter Rees: Will the Chief Secretary take this opportunity of repudiating the proposal emanating from Transport House that mortgage interest relief should be limited to income tax at the basic rate?
      Mr. Barnett: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman read correctly what was said. He will agree that it is worth considering having building society interest allowable under a system other than the present one, because of the administrative problems, apart from anything else. I am not ready to dismiss anything quite as quickly or glibly as is the hon. and learned Gentleman.

      Exchange Control
      Mr. Newtonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he expects to make a further statement on exchange controls.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: When I have some further information to give to the House.
      Mr. Newton: Will the Minister accept that some aspects of the existing exchange controls are actively damaging to
      1636
      the efficient management of our existing overseas investment, and that in the long run this cannot be in the interests of the country? Does he agree that it is now time to look at the 25 per cent. surrender rule, which really belongs to a completely different balance of payments and reserves situation?
      Mr. Sheldon: There were some matters on which we were able to proceed along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer produced some relaxations in October. These matters are, of course, always open for constant review.
      Mr. Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that already a far larger proportion of United Kingdom manufacturing capacity is located outside our own country than is, for example, the case with Japan or our major European competitors? Is he further aware, therefore, that what we need is a bigger industrial manufacturing base here at home in order to create the jobs and the net exports that the economy requires?
      Mr. Sheldon: I must, of course, completely agree with my hon. Friend. It was the policy that was pursued over many decades which led to an extension of manufacturing capacity that was very largely in competition with our own and which, to a certain extent at any rate, was responsible for the failure to invest here in this country in some critical years before the war.
      Sir G. Howe: Does the Minister appreciate that the maintenance of a rigid exchange control framework does nothing in itself to increase investment in this country? On the contrary, maintaining the exchange rate of the pound at what may be an artificially high level damages the prospects of profitability, damages the prospects of investment and so helps to run the risk of destroying British jobs.
      Mr. Sheldon: I am sorry that I cannot be as dogmatic as the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The whole question of exchange control has been of advantage in maintaining a high level of investment in this country compared with what it might otherwise have been. Of course, there is room now and again for examining some of the areas in which certain relaxations may be made. But the general proposition that we have gained in

      1637
      the past as a result of these measures cannot be denied.

      Treasury Staff
      Mr. Bulmerasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many members of the Treasury staff of the rank of assistant secretary or above have had at least one year's experience in manufacturing industry; and what proportion this represents.
      Mr. Robert Sheldon: Seven members of the Treasury staff of the rank of assistant secretary or equivalent grade and above have had at least one year's experience in manufacturing industry. This represents 8 per cent. of the total.
      Mr. Bulmer: Does the Minister recognise that that represents a substantial improvement over his last answer, when the reply was "Nil"? Does he now accept that the lack of industrial experience among Treasury advisers has been a contributory factor in the Government's failure to create conditons in which British industry can thrive?
      Mr. Sheldon: One of the particular advantages we have in the Treasury is that of industrial expertise, which is increasing. It is the intention of the Government over the next three years to double the secondments of civil servants to industry and, if possible, achieve a level of 200 exchanges between Government and industry at any one time. This decision by the Government is to be welcomed and will go a long way to satisfy the hon. Gentleman in these important matters.

      Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
      Mr. Litterickasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his Department's current estimate of the public sector borrowing requirement for the current year; and how this compares with the estimate made when the White Paper public expenditure proposals for the current year were first published.
      Mr. Joel Barnett: I would refer my hon. Friend to the Industry Act forecast, published on 26th October, of a PSBR in 1977–78 of £7½ billion, £1 billion less than the Budget estimate.
      Mr. Litterick: I am grateful for that answer, but, in view of the massive undershooting or undercutting of the spending
      1638
      estimates for last year by £2¼ billion, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government have the spending levels under control to the extent that they can tell the House what the spending levels, and, therefore, the borrowing requirement, are likely to be?
      Mr. Barnett: My hon. Friend will recognise that there is a serious problem. Total public expenditure is in the region of £60,000 million, so that to be able to be precise within a very small amount of money is very difficult. We have public expenditure under better control now than it has ever been, certainly since the war. I have no wish, and neither have my colleagues in the Government, to see excessive underspending of public expenditure. We hope that this year we shall get very much nearer to the target than we did last year. I do not want to see underspending of the kind my hon. Friend talks about.
      Mr. Powell: Does the estimate of the borrowing requirement which the Chief Secretary just gave include the cost of increasing our reserves?
      Mr. Barnett: I am not quite sure what the right hon. Gentleman means by "the cost". Does he mean the interest rates? Perhaps he will explain a little further.
      Mr. Powell: I mean the sterling that we have to pay in order to be balanced by the increase in our reserves.
      Mr. Barnett: To be honest, I do not normally find the right hon. Gentleman as confused as that, but I am not at all clear what that has to do with the PSBR. The PSBR includes all the figures that impact on the PSBR itself.
      Mr. Noble: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why we have underspent in this way has been the refusal by Tory-controlled local authorities, particularly in Lancashire, to use to the full the rate support grant? Will he consider putting pressure on local authorities to make sure that facilities for people in these areas are not damaged further by determination to hold down the rates at the expense of services?
      Mr. Barnett: I am aware that some local authorities are carrying out policies which my hon. Friend and I would not particularly like, but, overall, local authority current expenditure outturn is

      1639
      broadly in line with the estimate. The actual underspend in public expenditure, as was seen in 1976–77 and from the figures that we published for the first half of this year, was in some ways in areas that we should be pleased about—for example, the substantial improvement in many of the nationalised industries, whose financial requirements are now very much lower.
      Mr. Lawson: Can the Chief Secretary be a little clearer about this underspending? Is he aware that Treasury officials gave evidence to the Expenditure Committee that underspending this year was running at around 4 per cent. of cash limits, yet they gave evidence also that of the £2 billion undershooting of the public sector borrowing requirement £1¾ billion was due to higher taxation and only £250 million—very much less—was through underspending. How does he reconcile these two statements?
      Mr. Barnett: In fact, they were reconciled by my officials who gave evidence.
      Mr. Lawson: No.
      Mr. Barnett: With respect, they have been reconciled. My officials gave the facts very clearly to the Committee.

      PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
      Ql. Mr. Ridleyasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 8th December 1977.
      The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
      Mr. Ridley: How much time has the Prime Minister been able to spend today on engineering his Watergate-type cover-up of the fact that the Poles, apparently, have not been asked to put any money at all on the table for the purchase of the merchant ships? If the Prime Minister must buy votes, will he use the profits of Labour Party Properties Limited rather than taxpayers' money?
      The Prime Minister: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on reducing the level
      1640
      of the problem as he has done. I understand that Monday is a Supply Day, and, if the Opposition wish, no doubt this would be a suitable matter for discussion on that day. In the meantime, all I would say is that the criticisms about this order come from two main sources, the Conservative Party and foreign shipyards. As far as I can see, the attitude of the Opposition is that they would prefer these orders to go to foreign shipyards, with our men standing unemployed in our own yards, the steel industry not able to provide the steel and the engines not provided from this country. All this they would prefer. If that is so, let them say so.
      Mr. Bagier: Will my right hon. Friend try to seek a meeting today with the Secretary of State for Industry to discuss the reasons why Hitachi, the Japanese company, has withdrawn its intention to invest on Wearside and provide 500 to 600 jobs? Will he discuss with his right hon. Friend the implications that this will have for possible future Japanese investment in this country?
      The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I would not propose to have such a meeting, because I understand that the Minister of State gave an explanation of that matter to the House yesterday. This is a decision by the company itself, following very strong representations from both sides of the British television industry.
      As regards general investment, it has been the policy of this country to welcome investment. That is still the case and will continue to be the case. That cannot prevent individual industries from time to time—both sides of them—making representations and therefore, I suppose, creating a climate of opinion in which a foreign company will not wish to invest.
      Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Prime Minister say precisely how much of British taxpayers' money is being spent on the Polish shipping deal?
      The Prime Minister: The answer to that can be given if a Question is put down. It does not arise on this Question, which requests a list of my official engagements for today. If the Opposition want to know the answer, I suggest once again that the matter be debated on Monday. Let us then have all the facts.
      Mrs. Thatcher: One of the Prime Minister's official engagements is to answer Questions in this House, particularly Questions by the representatives of the British taxpayer. Some time ago the Prime Minister said that the deal was in the bag. Did he not know then how much it would cost? If he did, why is he so anxious to withhold the sum?
      The Prime Minister: The simple answer is that I do not carry this complicated calculation in my head. But I repeat the offer. I hope that the Opposition will debate this on Monday, and they can then have all the figures that it is appropriate to produce. [Interruption.] Yes, appropriate, because this is a matter of commercial negotiation. If the Opposition were in a less irresponsible mood, they would recognise that. There is no reason why we should give a competitive advantage to foreign yards which are desperately anxious to snatch these orders.
      I repeat to the right hon. Lady that there need be no concealment about this within the limits of commercial prudence. I shall not ask her to do so, but I suggest that she can debate the matter on Monday. Let the facts be produced in a proper way and not by way of a supplementary question.
      Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister—
      Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Leader of the Opposition to stand up time after time when other Members are waiting to ask questions?
      Mr. Speaker: It is a very old-established convention in the House that extra latitude is given to the Leader of the Opposition.
      Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister saying that, on one of the main issues of the day, neither he nor his office took the trouble to ensure that he was properly briefed to answer Questions in the House? If he does not know the precise figure, will he at least give the proportion of the order which is being met by the taxpayer?
      The Prime Minister: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that the Opposition have already given notice that they will want
      1642
      to debate this matter on Monday. All the appropriate figures will then be produced. In view of the attitude of the Opposition on this order and on the question of subsidies for the textile industry, the clothing industry and the steel industry, I must say that if I were a worker in any of those industries I would be growing very worried about the policy of the Conservative Party.
      Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: As we understand that one of the Prime Minister's engagements today is to read the transcript of last night's party political broadcast, I hope that, at the end of it, he will send a message of congratulation to Transport House upon a long overdue forthright attack upon the National Front, which was marred only by the fact that the BBC insisted that the programme was not entitled to refer to the past convictions of the men in the broadcast. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Does my right hon. Friend recollect that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act, which I put through the House, does not, in fact, prohibit the dissemination of such information if it is true and is published without malice?
      The Prime Minister: In order to preserve the proprieties of Question Time, I must say that there is, of course, no ministerial responsibility for these matters. I should like to add that, as I told the Labour Party conference, there will be no carefully-weighed electoral considerations to be met by a suitably ambiguous phrase by the political parties in these matters. Our opposition to racialism must be total.

      ANIMALS (EXPERIMENTS)
      Miss Fookesasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with co-ordination between the Home Department, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the development of alternatives to the use of live animals in experiments.
      The Prime Minister: Yes.
      Miss Fookes: Is the Prime Minister aware that many of us are deeply concerned about the number of experiments carried out for routine purposes? Will he

      1643
      encourage Government Departments to stop dragging their feet on the issue of alternatives?
      The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am aware of the deep concern that is felt. Indeed, I share it, having reviewed—as a result of some of the hon. Lady's activities—what is going on in this field. I hope that the number of experiments can be cut down, and I shall certainly use what influence I have to ensure that Government Departments do so.
      Mr. Corbett: May I urge my right hon. Friend among his other duties to give better attention to doing away with the very questionable LD50 test for which animals are used, particularly in view of the new and very proper legislation concerning health and safety at work? Will he encourage his right hon. Friends with responsibility for the various Departments to use their best efforts to find an acceptable alternative to these tests, which are open to growing scientific and medical questioning?
      The Prime Minister: I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has asked the advisory committee on the administration of the 1876 Act to study the LD50 test and to make recommendations. A report is expected in the course of the next year. When that report is made, we shall ensure that it is published so that conclusions can be drawn. It will then be for the Home Secretary to consider what action should be taken on this matter.
      Mr. Burden: The public have been expressing greater concern year by year at the enormous growth in experiments. Will the Prime Minister give an undertaking that he is cognisant of the fact and that he will make every effort to ensure that the number of experiments is reduced rather than increased in the years ahead?
      The Prime Minister: I would certainly like to see the introduction of substitutes to restrict the use of living animals in this way. The development of cell cultures in the matter of foot and mouth vaccine, for example, is an important advance. We must certainly bend all the efforts of Departments to seeing how much further we can go in this matter.
      Mr. Hooky: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are very good scientific
      1644
      reasons for moving away from many of the animal experiments, since alternative techniques produce results which are scientifically more valid?
      The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I am. I hope that I have indicated that it would certainly be our policy and desire to move to alternatives to animal experiment as quickly as possible, and our efforts must be directed in that way.

      SECURITY SERVICE (ALLEGATIONS)
      Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister if he will now make a statement on the result of his investigation of the allegations made against the Security Services by the right hon. Member for Huy-ton (Sir H. Wilson).
      The Prime Minister: I issued a statement on 23rd August last.
      Mr. Blaker: Will the Prime Minister put that statement in the Official Report? Is he aware that I welcome his confidence in the Security Services but that there has been no denial from the right hon. Member for Huyton—I am sorry he is not in his place, although I drew his attention to this Question—that he made very serious allegations to journalists against the Security Services? Will the Prime Minister refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions so that he may consider whether there is prima facie evidence of a breach of the Official Secrets Act?
      The Prime Minister: I shall certainly include the statement in my reply in Hansard. It is quite short. My right hon. Friend associated himself with the statement that I made and, therefore, there is no reason to carry the matter any further. I think that the hon. Gentleman might consider the normal convention of this House that, when a statement on this kind of subject has been made and both sides of the House have expressed satisfaction with it, we ought to leave matters there.
      Mr. Wyn Roberts: On 28th July, in the House, the Prime Minister invited those who had information on these matters to submit the evidence to the Home Secretary. Did the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) do so, or did he

      1645
      explain to the Prime Minister his failure to do so?
      The Prime Minister: I have nothing to add to the answer I have given.
      Mr. Ogden: Does not my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister think that, rather than answering so many questions from Conservative Members who are trying to find all the bad news in the world, he might be more usefully employed in finding time to comment on the good news that came out of the headquarters of the National Union of Mineworkers this morning?
      The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The National Union of Mineworkers' decision was one for itself. I do not believe that the Security Services were particularly concerned in it.
      Mr. Blaker: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of those replies, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity to raise the matter on the Adjournment.
      Following is the statement:
      The Prime Minister has conducted detailed inquiries into the recent allegations about the Security Service and is satisfied that they do not constitute grounds for lack of confidence in the competence and impartiality of the Security Service or for instituting a special inquiry.
      In particular, the Prime Minister is satisfied that at no time has the Security Service or any other British intelligence or security agency, either of its own accord or at someone else's request, undertaken electronic surveillance in 10 Downing Street or in the Prime Minister's room in the House of Commons.

    PERTH
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Perth.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
    Mr. Crawford: If the Prime Minister does visit Perth, will he explain to my bemused constituents—indeed, to all the people of Scotland—why Members from the Conservative and Unionist Party, bastions of the Union, last night voted to delete from the Scotland Bill the clause which seeks to give override powers to Westminster over the Scottish Assembly? Does he not agree that the Tories are either knaves or fools in this matter?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should not invite me in this way. The Conservatives having moved a number of amendments to strengthen particularly Clause 40, it seemed a typical example of opportunism and lack of principle that they should then have voted to destroy the whole clause.

CROWN AGENTS
The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Crown Agents.
The Government have taken due note of the general feeling expressed by the House on Monday last that there should be a public inquiry in the light of the facts disclosed by the Fay Report on the Crown Agents. The Government have decided to respond to this view and will place proposals for a public inquiry before hon. Members as soon as possible.
The Government have carefully considered the form of the inquiry and have taken into account the various proposals contained in the Report of the Royal Commission on Tribunals under Lord Justice Salmon in 1966. The Government's conclusion is that the most appropriate form of inquiry in this case would be a tribunal set up under the 1921 Act. The tribunal must identify those responsible for these deplorable events. It should, however, also seek to find a way to safeguard the legitimate rights of innocent people to have their reputations protected from public allegations which may well prove to be unfounded.
The House will be aware that the appointment of a tribunal will effectively prevent criminal proceedings from being taken in the future against any witness and civil proceedings might be affected. The tribunal will have the necessary statutory powers to compel witnesses to attend and give evidence and it would ensure a judicial hearing for those who are subject to criticism. Its terms of reference will need careful consideration not only to achieve its main purpose but if possible to avoid it having to start afresh and duplicate all the work of the Fay Committee.
The Government will make a further statement about this, and the necessary resolutions embodying the proposed terms

1647
of reference will be tabled, for the approval of both Houses, as soon as possible.
Mrs. Thatcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that we welcome his decision to set up a tribunal under the 1921 Act? He referred in the statement to the procedural proposals of Lord Justice Salmon about the kind of inquiry that should be held. Is it his intention to apply in detail those protective parts of the Salmon Report designed to protect witnesses before they appear at the tribunal—for example, that they shall know the allegations against them, that they will be able to be represented professionally, and that legal costs shall be met out of the public purse? The Attorney-General will know that many procedural recommendations were made by Salmon and, in so far as they can be applied without statute, we hope that they will be applied in this case.
Finally, is it the Prime Minister's intention to follow the other Salmon recommendation, that the inquiry—now that he has altered the form—should be under a High Court judge?
The Prime Minister: The protection of individuals is a matter that concerns us and is probably the major reason that led the Government to make their original recommendation, which the House disregarded. As for the six cardinal principles laid down in paragraph 32 of the Report by Lord Justice Salmon, we shall certainly draw these to the attention of the tribunal. They cannot, of course, be binding on the tribunal, but I hope that the tribunal will take note of those protective principles that are designed to safeguard individuals and apply them wherever possible.
Regarding the person of the chairman, that is a matter to which we must give consideration. I have no answer to give about that this afternoon.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether, as a result of this collapse and the secondary banks' collapse that occurred at and around that time, part of the investigation will include the Bank of England's involvement or failure to become too involved in the matter, whether it will include the fact that the Exchequer and Audit Department did a thoroughly bad job in this respect, and whether the Treasury,
1648
too, will be made to answer questions on this and other matters? Can we be assured that we can learn by our mistakes to the extent that the Bank of England will institute an inquiry into the whole lifeboat scheme as well, so that we do not fall into that trap in a few years' time?
The Prime Minister: The tribunal will be empowered to call any witness that it wishes, whether from the Bank of England, the Treasury or any other Department, including the Department of Overseas Development. It must consider, too, whether it calls private individuals who are concerned with particular companies. The inquiry would not be complete unless it did so.
I hope that my hon. Friend will wait to see the terms of reference, which will need to be drawn up very carefully. I cannot say whether we can produce them in two or three days. They need careful consideration. I think my hon. Friend will find that they will satisfy what he has in mind.
Mr. David Steel: On behalf of my colleagues, I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has decided to set up the 1921-style of tribunal. In view of his earlier answer to the Leader of the Opposition, I hope that the Prime Minister will accept that it is very healthy for the House of Commons occasionally to exert its collective will over the Government and to kick them into actions which they might not otherwise have taken. [Interruption.] I was in the Division Lobby.
Secondly, when the Prime Minister talks about the lack of criminal proceedings which flow from the setting up of a tribunal, does he accept that the public at large will probably take the view that it is far more important for us to get to the bottom of how all this happened, rather than that one or two individuals should spend some time in gaol?
The Prime Minister: I do not think that the House kicked the Government into action on this matter. The Government took very full action. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development has been most pertinacious, both in office and out of office. There is a difference of view between the original view of the Government as to

1649
the best form of this inquiry and the view of the House. The Government have acceded to the view of this House. Some people may still hold to their own original opinion as to which was the best way to proceed. But it is my responsibility to accede to the will of the House in this matter, and I hope that it will prove to be right in due course. We shall certainly do our best to make it work.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall call the three hon. Gentlemen who are standing.
Mr. Spearing: Is the Prime Minister aware that comments have been made on the meetings of the Select Committee on Overseas Development in 1973, when it started to investigate the Crown Agents? Is he aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), who was a member of that Committee, subsequently, when she became Minister of State for Overseas Development, established the Fay Committee to investigate? Will the Prime Minister draw to the attention of the Leader of the House the fact that the evidence taken in 1973, although reported to the House, has not been printed? Will the Government consider whether any motion should be brought to the House in that regard?
The Prime Minister: I understand that the House would have to pass a resolution to deal with that matter. It is a matter which I shall consider when the resolutions are placed before the House in due course.
It is quite clear that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Overseas Development has been most assiduous in the way these matters have been dealt with. The Fay Committee Report—which I hope hon. Member have read—gives a clear picture of what went wrong. I think that my right hon. Friend has satisfied the House in her statements that the structural weaknesses have been put right. I hope that what has now been put right by administrative action will in due course be sanctified by legislation.
Mr. Edward Gardner: While bearing in mind the importance of the protective principles to which the Prime Minister has just referred, may I ask him to take steps to see whether there is any way in
1650
which it is possible to make sure whether a mere refusal to answer a question, or, indeed, the acceptance of a question, would provide a means of removing the fear of future prosecution? Will the right hon. Gentleman see whether there is any means of making sure that, in proper cases, a refusal to answer an incriminating question shall not in all instances be followed automatically by a promise of immunity from all future proceedings?
The Prime Minister: I shall consider that matter, but, having read Salmon carefully, it is clear that he was of the opinion that in these cases a general immunity should be granted to witnesses. That was another reason, I may add, why the Government were not keen to recommend to the House a tribunal of inquiry. The House has so decreed, however, and so we follow that line.
There would be no question of this issue arising if there were a private inquiry, but we are not to have that. Now we must try to give the maximum protection possible, and I shall ask my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General to consider what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said. But, generally speaking, we must accept that immunity will be granted in cases which would otherwise have gone to prosecution. Indeed, in one case I believe that prosecution proceedings have already been set in motion.
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: May I press my right hon. Friend a little on this issue? Is it not possible to draft the terms of reference so that where criminal proceedings have either been launched or are about to be instituted the conduct of those persons is not the subject of the inquiry?
May I ask, too, whether the immunity principle in Salmon extends to civil servants who might be dismissed as a result of neglect of duty if so found by the tribunal? I ask that because surely it would be absurd if after this Commission has been appointed to consider what ought to be done to those who neglected their duty, it is found that nothing can be done to them because they all have immunity?
The Prime Minister: The purpose of a tribunal is to deal with lapses in accepted standards of public administration, and these individual problems arise

1651
That was the case for the private inquiry. Certainly I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General to consider all these matters. I do not think that civil servants would be granted immunity in this way, but nor should private individuals if they have to appear before the tribunal.
Regarding the first part of my hon. Friend's question, I should have thought that it would be difficult for somebody who gave evidence afterwards to secure a fair trial because of the facts that would have become known and the conclusions that would have been reached. That is the major reason why Salmon reached the conclusion that immunity should generally be granted in these cases.

FIRE SERVICE (PAY)
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Merlyn Rees): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the Fire Service pay dispute.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister held a meeting with the Executive Council of the Fire Brigades Union on 29th November. At that meeting he explained the reasons for the Government's pay policy which made it impossible to meet the union's claim for a very large pay increase in the current year. He indicated that the Government would be ready to encourage the employers and the union to work out together a formula for determining Fire Service pay in the future. He said that if agreement could be reached the Government would consider how they might underwrite the settlement.
The establishment of a formula is a matter for negotiation by the two sides in the National Joint Council for Local Authorities Fire Brigades; but the Government have been considering what guidance might be offered on the framework within which an agreement might be reached which could be underwritten by the Government. I have today given guidance to the National Joint Council in the following terms:
"The Government accepts that a formula for the proper remuneration of the Fire Service should be established to determine for the future appropriate rates of pay. The establishment of such a formula is a matter for negotiation in the NJC; but the Government for its part would be prepared to see a defined
1652
relationship between the pay of the qualified fireman and that of other workers. Because of the need to reduce inflation the Government cannot agree to an increase in the year beginning 7th November 1977 beyond the 10 per cent. already offered; but it would be prepared to agree to the full implementation of the formula agreed by two approximately equal stages in November 1978 and November 1979. The Government would be prepared to contribute through the rate support grant its share of the cost of a settlement on this basis and would, exceptionally, guarantee that the phasing-in would not be thwarted by some unforeseen adverse change in economic circumstances.
The Government hopes that negotiations will also continue in the NJC on the reduction of the 48-hour week. If a shorter working week is to be introduced without loss of pay, this would have to be on the basis of more productive working routines which permitted a more cost effective use of the time not spent on fire fighting."
Agreement withn this framework, underwritten by the Government, will provide a sound means of settling the proper remuneration of the Fire Service for many years to come. It will not give the firemen all they want immediately, but the overriding need is to reduce inflation and it is not possible in the present round to go beyond the 10 per cent. increase which the employers have already offered. On the other hand, it will give the firemen an agreed and assured basis for their pay in the longer term.
It is the view of the Government that the 10 per cent. increase already on offer, coupled with agreement on a future pay formula guaranteed by the Government, and the prospect of a shorter working week to be introduced without loss of pay, provide an honourable basis for settling the present damaging dispute.
I have emphasised to both sides of the NJC the importance which the Government attach to pressing ahead with negotiations with the utmost urgency, and discussions are already in progress.
Mr. Whitelaw: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that there will be widespread agreement with the objective of settling in a more orderly way the pay for groups which have a key role in the protection of our society? Would he not agree that any such very exceptional and special long-term treatment as is proposed should be accompanied by a no-strike undertaking, as in the case of the police and the Armed Services? Who is to define the relationship between the

1653
pay of firemen and that of other workers, and to decide who are the other workers?
Mr. Rees: The latter point is a matter for the NJC. It has been discussing this matter for some time. I understand that an agreement could be found very quickly. I believe it is right that it should be a matter for the NJC so that it can remain in the negotiating arena with the people who are involved in the customs and practice of the Fire Service.
The question of the longer term raises wider issues. It is not my view that the question of the right to strike of firemen is appropriate for discussion at this moment.
Mr. English: The rate support grant has a complex formula, no element of which, as I recollect, relates to the pay of firemen. I take it that the Secretary of State's statement implies that the formula will be altered in the eventualities he outlined, so that the Government would, under the rate support grant, bear their share of any increase in the pay of firemen, as distinct from merely increasing the rate support grant and thereby lowering the amount contributed to other services.
Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is right. Moneys for the Fire Service come not from a specific grant but from the rate support grant. There will be no problem in dealing with this matter in the appropriate way.
Mr. Hooson: Is not the Government's guarantee that the negotiated formula and its follow-up will not be thwarted by economic circumstances a major concession which has no rival, so far as I am aware, in negotiations? It is to be hoped that the firemen will accept this proposal, and that, as a matter of urgency, their present discussions will turn to negotiations.
Mr. Rees: I am grateful for the hon. and learned Gentleman's last remark. This is a matter of urgency. It is a matter of judgment as to when it is appropriate for the proposal to be developed further, but there is urgency, and I think that the local authorities, the NJC and the firemen are aware of it. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman is also right in saying that, given the firemen's problem
1654
over the past seven years, during which they have been caught out on a number of occasions by pay policy, this is a major concession.
Mr. Atkinson: Will the Home Secretary confirm that he is not ruling out all retrospective elements when an agreement is ultimately reached in November 1978? Will he also confirm that he is not now creating a special exemption case for when the Chancellor of the Exchequer perhaps gets his way and introduces phase 4 of the permanent incomes policy?
Mr. Rees: The agreement on the formula, I understand, can be achieved very quickly. Its implementation is in a year's time and there will be no retrospection. What we have said, with the guarantee that we have given, is that, whatever the situation is in a year's time, we believe that the firemen's bench-mark—or formula—can be phased in by the way that I have outlined.
Mr. David Price: Is the Home Secretary aware of Early-Day Motion No. 96, in my name and that of 24 of my colleagues? Will he bear in mind that his statement today has been an important move towards the ideas in that motion? Will he recognise that, in order to relate firemen to the police and to the Armed Forces, there must be a common body looking at them all, and that, although the NJC may be appropriate for the immediate step, in the long run we must have some permanent commission that will relate the people in these important security services whose jobs put them at risk and who come under a rather special discipline?
Mr. Rees: That is another matter. But I must say to the hon. Gentleman, who is interested in these matters, that I have been most concerned, during my discussions with the firemen and with local authorities, to keep the negotiations within the NJC. That is what both sides want, and to talk of other ways of dealing with the matter would, at present, do more harm than good.
Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that, whilst most hon. Members on this side of the House will recognise that there has been some movement by the Government towards the firemen, what is required is an immediate increase

1655
beyond the 10 per cent? Does he not realise that the sympathy of the country is still with the firemen and will remain with them, and that it is time that the Government went a stage further and put more money on the table immediately? If that is done, we may get a quick settlement before Christmas.
Mr. Rees: I must tell my hon. Friend that 10 per cent. has been put on the table. This is a matter for negotiation. I am aware of my hon. Friend's great knowledge of these matters, but I have spoken with both sides this morning and I think that wage negotiation is proper for the negotiating table.
Mr. Atkinson: But the Government are intervening and laying down the terms.
Mr. Rees: I suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), who also has great knowledge of the matter, should also leave it to the firemen's negotiators and not discuss it across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Tehbit: Does the Home Secretary accept that he has guaranteed, regardless of events to come of which none of us has any knowledge, that an award will be made to the firemen, the size of which he does not yet know? Will he accept that this is to leave ticking a time bomb of the kind that perhaps we did not notice when we set off the one called inflation-proofed pensions for one particular group in society?
Mr. Rees: I think that, if the hon. Gentleman considers the discussions that have taken place on the formula, he will see that I do not regard it as a time bomb or as being in the same context as that in which he has put it. From the days of the Cunningham Report at the beginning of the century, the firemen have had many inquiries. They have been in a different position from others, and that is what worries them, along with the original offer, which in my view, for the long term, was a good one. It is not a time bomb. It is a generous way of dealing with their concern.
Mr. Henderson: Has the Home Secretary's attention been drawn to a proposal put forward by the SNP group on Strathclyde Regional Council for the settlement of this dispute? If a local authority decided to supplement the Government's
1656
national offer by a local productivity deal, or a rent allowance, or some similar measure, what action would he take?
Mr. Rees: We are tending again towards negotiations across the Floor of the House. The firemen want to stick to a national agreement, because, while there might be a generous local authority, there are also local authorities that are not so generous. The SNP, in making this proposal, is not helping the firemen in their very real quest for a formula that is acceptable to the Government.
Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the point he has just made is very valid—that there are different attitudes by different local authorities. His statement seems to indicate that there might be some elements of a special case for the firemen, but there are other people who consider that they have a special case, too. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider involving the TUC in any future discussions with regard to having some guidelines for what might be called "special cases"?
Mr. Rees: I am deeply concerned about the firemen's dispute—I have thought of little else recently. I do not want to get it involved in other directions, and I would rather leave the matter there.
Sir P. Bryan: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this concession is not only exceptional but unique, and one certainly not enjoyed by the police or our Armed Services, who forgo the right to strike? Is it, therefore, not unreasonable to request from the Fire Service the forgoing of the right to strike in return for this quite exceptional concession?
Mr. Rees: This is the first time that the firemen have been on strike. The image that unions are on strike all the time is wrong. If the hon. Gentleman wants to prevent the discussions which have started from getting anywhere, his proposal is one way of ensuring that.
Mr. Newens: As many workers in the private sector have already made productivity deals which have resulted in pay increases above 10 per cent., will my right hon. Friend assure the House that if the firemen can make a genuine productivity deal which provides for more than 10 per cent. forthwith, he will take no action that will preclude the achievement of a settlement on such a basis?
Mr. Rees: In recent weeks I have said repeatedly that if there are productivity schemes available within the 10 per cent. and the guidelines, I should be prepared to look at them. The fact that they have not come forward will perhaps make my hon. Friend realise that this is not an area in which productivity deals in the normal sense are appropriate. I think that the matter is best left there.
Mr. David Howell: Can the Home Secretary tell us about the position of the chief fire officers and their pay? Is it correct that, although the NJC has agreed a deal for the chief fire officers, and although that is within the 10 per cent. overall increase in payroll, it has been vetoed by the Home Office?
Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the deal being within the 10 per cent., but I think that it would be better to leave this alone for the moment and to concentrate on the firemen.
Mr. Kinnock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, because of his personal characteristics and the association between the FBU and the Labour movement, there will be a readiness among the union leadership and many of the rank and file to accept, on trust, an arrangement based on the McCarthy recommendations, but that there are unforeseeable circumstances, including the unlikely but conceivable possibility of a Conservative Government before the implementation of the operative date, and therefore on the basis clearly the offer is speculative? Also, such is the nature of the struggle, and such is the nature of the feeling in the fire stations as it has developed over the past three weeks, that there must be some conceivable concession of an interim award above 10 per cent. before the firemen can, in any natural assessment of the situation, be expected to go back to work.
Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is not negotiating for the FBU, and it should be left to the union to express its views. Fear of a return of a Conservative Government is the least of my worries.
Sir J. Eden: In view of the substantial guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman is offering the firemen, why did he not seek any guarantee from them? Why did he not at least ask that, for the
1658
period during which their own new pay structure would be phased in, they would guarantee not to repeat a damaging strike?
Mr. Rees: If the right hon. Gentleman looks carefully at the last paragraph of my guidance, which I am sure he has done, he will see an element there, in which the local authorities will be interested, about rosters and things of that kind. The statement considers all aspects of the firemen's problem.
Mr. John Mendelson: There will be general support in the country for the fact that the negotiations which my right hon. Friend says have now started must, of course, primarily be in the hands of those involved. I am sure that there will also be a recognition that he has made a genuine attempt to realise the particular attitudes that are adopted at present. But will my right hon. Friend accept that the House should also have an assurance from him that he himself will be prepared to adopt an attitude of negotiation that might lead him somewhere beyond that which he has announced this afternoon?
Mr. Rees: The negotiations are now a matter for the negotiation table. I think that they are best left there. I should like to get these words absolutely correct. Discussions have started this morning. To get the negotiations under way will take slightly longer. That is not in my hands, but I have made clear my view of the urgency of the matter.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: If questions are brief I shall call three more hon. Members from each side of the House.
Mr. Mayhew: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his rejection of my right hon. Friend's suggestion about the right to strike? Have not the events of the past five weeks generally demonstrated that Aneurin Bevan was right when he referred to the right to strike as an anachronism? Surely it has been exercised by the firemen with the greatest pain and reluctance. Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider this great opportunity to tie the reform that my right hon. Friend suggests to the unique settlement that he is offering?
Mr. Rees: Again I say that I do not believe that this is appropriate at present. I believe that it is not the way to go forward. But, in any case, it would have to arise from within the negotiating machinery itself, which is the best way for these matters to be discussed.
Mr. Frank Allaun: As one who wants to see a satisfactory settlement, and as a former fireman myself, may I ask my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to tell the House a little more clearly what he means by the key section of the proposal? I refer to the equal instalment this year and next year. If the firemen are offered 10 per cent. this year and, presumably, only 10 per cent. next year, does he think that that will be acceptable to the Fire Brigades Union?
Mr. Rees: I hope that my hon. Friend, who was once a fireman and therefore will understand the ways of the Fire Service and its customs and practice, will forgive me for saying that he has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. If there is a formula which is to be applied next year and the year after, the circumstances for comparison will have changed by then. It is not possible to put the matter in percentage terms. All I will tell my hon. Friend is that the Fire Brigades Union understands it. That is what matters.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Can the Home Secretary explain to us what his unique experiment means? Is it not a fact that the Armed Services surrendered their normal negotiating machinery for a military salary which his colleagues have repudiated on two successive occasions? How is it possible for the Fire Service now to be given a guarantee that it can accept, when the Armed Services see that they have been ditched twice?
Mr. Rees: These are different circumstances. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to get the strike ended he is going a very funny way about it.
Mr. Ron Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend accept that while we have a statutory pay policy in the public sector there are bound to be negotiations across the Floor of the House? Secondly, as he is aware of the difficulties that the Fire Brigades Union faces in taking the initiative, may I urge him once again to take
1660
the initiative on the basis of a deal which includes a shorter working week, pay for the unsocial hours that firemen work, changing time and the increased responsibilities of firemen?
Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend talks about unsocial hours. They were brought into the pay negotiations some years ago and rent allowances were consolidated about 20 years ago. Clearly, the overall aspects of the Fire Service pay problem need to be discussed in the House. But my hon. Friend has revealed that he does not know the nuances, customs and practices, which are best discussed round the negotiating table.
Mr. Neubert: What confidence can the firemen have that they will be safeguarded against adverse economic circumstances in the future? Will they not recall that this Government have shown themselves capable, through the Remuneration, Charges and Grants Act, of indemnifying employers in law against the consequences of breach of legal contract in pay settlements already reached?
Mr. Rees: If the hon. Gentleman will look at the attempt to achieve a formula over the past seven years he will see that the firemen have been caught by pay policies under both Governments. We are saying that we are giving them a unique guarantee, and we stick by that. It will be interesting to hear what the Opposition say on this matter.
Mr. Rooker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the guarantee is made effective after negotiations it should be under-pinned by a resolution of the House in the same way as the House of Commons Fair Wages Resolution?
Mr. Rees: In these matters we shall see what the negotiating body comes up with. That is the best way to proceed on this and other matters.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:

1661
MONDAY 12TH DECEMBER—Supply [2nd Allotted Day] [First Part]: the House will be asked to agree the Civil and Defence Votes on Account and the Winter Supplementary Estimates.
Until 7 o'clock, a debate on the Polish shipbuilding contract.
Afterwards, progress in Committee on the European Assembly Elections Bill.
Motion on the European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (No. 6) Order and the related EEC Documents S/799/77 and S/1151/77.
Motion on the Local Loans (Increase of Limit) (No. 2) Order.
TUESDAY 13TH DECEMBER—Further
progress in Committee on the European Assembly Elections Bill.
Motion on the EEC Document R/48/77 on Equal Treatment in Social Security.
WEDNESDAY 14TH DECEMBER—Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
THURSDAY 15TH DECEMBER—Motions on the rate support grant orders.
Motions on the Social Security (Contributions, Re-Rating) Orders and on the Dioceses (Church of England) Measure.
FRIDAY 16TH DECEMBER—The House will rise for the Christmas Adjournment until Monday 9th January 1978.
Mrs. Thatcher: Will the Lord President say a little more about the procedure that he proposes to follow during the second half of Monday and on Tuesday? It was our understanding when we agreed to have only a half Supply Day that the Lord President would put down a motion to bring forward the consideration of Clause 3 of the direct elections Bill. It was also our understanding that the Lord President proposes to complete on Monday—as I understand we have to—the debate on the Question, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill, after which he proposes to debate the motion to bring forward Clause 3, about the system of election, on Monday evening, and to take the debate and the vote on Tuesday. Is that correct?
Mr. Foot: The right hon. Lady has got it absolutely word perfect. We propose that after we have continued and concluded the debate on Clause 1, a
1662
motion be put down which would bring forward the debate on Clause 3, as the right hon. Lady suggested a week or two ago. We hope that that arrangement will enable us to continue the debate on Clause 3 on Tuesday.
Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend consider a date for a debate on the happenings in Bermuda, especially on the question of the Creech Jones formula, which seems to have tied the Foreign Secretary to a chain of events which resulted in the hangings in Bermuda?
Mr. Foot: I have seen the motion on the Order Paper which has been signed swiftly and understandably by a large number of Members of the House. At some stage the House will have to give attention to it. What my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary suggested—no doubt the House will agree—is that the whole of this question should be considered in its general context and not as it applies to only one place. That is the way in which it should be looked at. On our return after the recess we shall have to look at it in that light.
That this House, viewing with deep concern the racial disorders which has followed the execution of two Bermuda citizens on 2nd December and deeply regretting the limitations imposed upon the Foreign Secretary in cases of this sort by the Creech Jones formula, which does not permit intervention to prevent the use of capital punishment in a dependent territory unless some legal or constitutional irregularity has occurred, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take urgent steps to abrogate this formula in so far as it applies to territories in which the ultimate responsibility for the maintenance of law and order continues to lie with the Crown.
Mr. Molyneaux: When may we expect to debate the motion for the Adjournment for the Christmas Recess?
Mr. Foot: I hope that we shall have that debate on the Wednesday, before we continue with the proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
Mr. Ioan Evans: Shall we during this week get the Green Paper on revenues from North Sea oil? If not, shall we have it early after the recess? In view of the support that the Leader of the Opposition has given to workers' control in

1663
industry during her discussions with President Tito, will my right hon. Friend look at the proposals for workers' co-operatives that are in the Government's legislation?
Mr. Foot: As regards publication of the Green Paper, we expect a Paper of that nature to be published—I do not know exactly when—after the recess. As for the education of the right hon. Lady, we are all fascinated by it.
Sir Frederic Bennett: The Leader of the House will not need to be reminded that a little earlier one of his hon. Friends made a serious allegation about a secret deal between the former Prime Minister and the USSR affecting trade with China, and there is a motion on the Order Paper relevant to that.
I am aware that we have had a statement by the former Prime Minister, and I hope that he will not think me unduly critical if I say that, on balance, we should prefer a statement on this matter by one of Her Majesty's present Ministers during the course of next week.
[That this House calls on the Prime Minister immediately to inquire into the allegations by the hon. Members for Belper and Farnworth, that the right hon. Member for Huyton, when Prime Minister, promised the Russian Government, secretly, that Her Majesty's Government would not sell Harriers to China.]
Mr. Foot: My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) has already issued a statement on that subject, and I should have thought the House would accept that statement. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman notified my right hon. Friend before he raised the matter now.
Mrs. Joyce Butler: Now that the appropriate Government Department has indicated that it will present its views on the Select Committee Report on Violence in the Family and make them available in the new year, will my right hon. Friend try to find a day as soon as possible after Christmas when we can debate the whole subject, including both non-accidental injury to children and battered wives?
Mr. Foot: The House knows my hon. Friend's special interest in that matter.
1664
I am grateful that she has reserved the question until the time when we are awaiting the comments of the Government Department. I am not quite sure when we shall receive them, but as soon as we do we shall consider what form or possibilities there may be for a debate. That is not an absolute guarantee, but we shall certainly look at it.
Mr. Montgomery: Is there any prospect of having a debate on immigration before Christmas? There is on the Order Paper Early-Day Motion No. 37 which draws attention to the fact that the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration took no evidence at all on its recent visit to the Indian subcontinent.
[That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration that they do report to the House the minutes of the evidence taken before them during the visits to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh in the last session of Parliament.]
May I also draw to the right hon. Gentleman's attention the anger that was felt by the statement made by his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary giving an amnesty to illegal immigrants in this country, which was given by way of a Written Answer to a Question and gave the House no chance to discuss the matter? In fairness, are we not entitled to discuss it in the House of Commons?
Mr. Foot: I repudiate all the criticisms of my right hon. Friend that the hon. Gentleman has made. There are plenty of facilities, including facilities during the next three or four days, when all those matters can be raised in the House.
Mr. Stoddart: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 104 dealing with early retirement?
Will he draw it to the particular attention of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services? This matter is now urgent and cannot wait long for a debate, since we shall not be able to deal with unemployment from an industrial point of view only but shall have to deal with it socially and this is one of the best ways of dealing with the present unacceptable level of unemployment.
[That this House, as a contribution towards reducing unemployment and progress towards a common retirement age for men and women, urges Her Majesty's

1665
Government immediately to reduce the age at which men become entitled to state retirement pension to 64 years.]
Mr. Foot: This extremely important question has been referred to in the debates we have had and has been referred to especially by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. In future debates on the subject it will figure prominently.
Mr. Cormack: Has the Lord President seen the motions on the Order Paper which oppose the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order? Does he realise that there is considerable disquiet in all parts of the House, and will he assure us that there will be a debate in the very near future?
[That this House calls upon the Government to withdraw the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1781), laid before Parliament on 15th November 1977, in view of the serious detrimental effects that it could have by allowing the conversion of small single family dwellings into even smaller housing units without the local planning authority having the right to control size, design, planning, appearance and materials used, and endangering adequate protection of buildings in conservation areas and similar areas of special architectural and amenity concern.]
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1781), dated 2nd November 1977, a copy of which was laid before this House on 14th November, be annulled.]
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties about giving guarantees of immediate debates, especially when the House is going into recess at the end of next week. I shall take into account the feeling that there is in the House on this subject.
Mr. Crawford: As the Lord President is aware of the serious concern felt for the steel industry in Scotland, when will there be a debate on steel?
Mr. Foot: There will not be a debate on steel next week although, of course, no one underrates the importance of the subject. When the House returns there will no doubt be a statement on the matter, and an opportunity for discussion.
Mr. Bidwell: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Early-Day Motion No. 119 concerning a possible free pardon for Mrs. Lystra Downs, which is headed by a distinguished gathering? It has collected 101 signatures so far from both sides of the House. Can my right hon. Friend help me in any way to reunite this woman with her husband and children in the United States for Christmas?
[That this House requests the Secretary of State for the Home Department to recommend to Her Majesty the Queen the granting of a free pardon in the case of Mrs. Lystra Downs.]
Mr. Foot: I appreciate the strength of feeling in the House on the matter, and it no doubt accounts for the large number of Members who have signed my hon. Friend's motion. The Home Secretary will hope to answer a Question on the subject in the House next week.
Mr. Channon: May I ask the Lord President to give us a little more information about the European Assembly Elections Bill? When will he table the procedural motion to which he has been referring in order to bring forward Clause 3, and can he confirm that it will be his intention, if the House should agree to the motion, that we should then rise so that the debate on the system of elections will be the first business on the Tuesday?
Mr. Foot: The motion will be put on the Order Paper today. It will be published tomorrow, and the House will be able to see it. It will take the normal form of such motions. It will be debated after we have concluded the debate on the Question, That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill, and if the motion is carried the discussion on Clause 3 on the different systems of election will become the first business on Tuesday and will, we hope, be completed on that day.
Mr. Powell: What are the reasons that have led the Government to conclude that it is convenient to take Clauses 2

1667
and 3 of the European Assembly Elections Bill in the reverse order? Is it not logical to decide, first, upon the size of the Assembly and then on how it is to be elected?
Mr. Foot: I think that the right hon. Gentleman, along with many others, will appreciate the reasons why there is a good case for bringing that debate forward. It is partly because of representations. I see the right hon. Gentleman pointing to the Opposition Front Bench. That is one reason, because we certainly take account of representations from the Opposition.
There is also the fact that there has been a lot of discussion in the House and in the country about whether the Bill can be carried through in time for the system of elections to be brought into operation by the required date. I think that it is for the convenience of the House generally that we should decide this matter and that it should not hang on for a long time. The House can decide it next week, and I believe that whichever view people take they will see that that is a sensible approach.
Mr. Jay: Does my right hon. Friend think that that is a justification for the Government's sudden decision to monkey about with normal legislative procedure in this way in pursuit, apparently, of some shadowy, if not shady, political deal?
Mr. Foot: I must ask my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) to reconsider his language. I am sure that, on reflection, he would like to use more delicate phrases than "shady" and "monkeying about" with procedures. There have been many occasions in the history of the House when a motion has been moved to bring forward a particular clause of a Bill for discussion and there have been a number of occasions in the history of the House when the Government have taken into account the representations that they have received on these matters. That is what we have done. There is nothing abnormal in that, and I believe that we can proceed to our debate perfectly well next week.
Mr. Budgen: May I remind the Lord President that the last time we had a general debate on the subject of immigration was in July 1976? Is not this very
1668
long delay a disgraceful attempt to prevent public discussion of a most important subject?
Mr. Foot: I think that it is most unwise and inapposite for the hon. Gentleman to use language of that nature. There are plenty of opportunities in the House when this question can be raised.
Mr. Budgen: How?
Mr. Foot: There are Supply Days. There are plenty of opportunities when different sections of the House can raise these matters. Indeed, some aspects of the matter can be raised in the coming week's business. It is monstrous that the hon. Gentleman should try to spread the story throughout the country that we are seeking to evade or suppress debate on the subject. There is no suppression whatsoever.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before we go any further, I should warn the House that I shall be making a statement about the Consolidated Fund Bill. I am only anxious in case Members were to leave, and it would then be too late for them to put their names in. They had better wait for the statement.
Mr. David Young: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to Early-Day Motion No. 127 on textiles and the Multi-Fibre Arrangement? In view of the importance of the matter to certain sections of the United Kingdom, can he promise us an early debate?
[That this House calls on Her Majesty's Government to reaffirm its unequivocal support for the mandate initially accepted by the EEC on the Multi-Fibre Arrangement renegotiations; reminds Her Majesty's Government of its declaration to take unilateral action should renegotiation be unsuccessful; and calls on the Secretary of State for Trade to make an early statement on progress made in the current round of negotiations.]
Mr. Foot: I know the interest that my hon. Friend and many of my other hon. Friends have expressed on this subject. There will be, of course, opportunities to raise this question, too, in our debates next week. I cannot promise a more general debate at the moment but I know that my

1669
hon. Friends and others have made representations to the Minister concerned.
Mr. Sims: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack)? Is he aware that there are Early-Day Motions on the Order Paper from both sides of the House concerning the Town and Country Plannitng General Development (Amendment) Order, which expresses a deep concern amongst local authorities, amenity societies and residents' associations throughout the country? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that the order becomes effective on 1st January? If it is quite impossible to reorganise the business to arrange for a debate on the topic next week, could he arrange to defer the implementation of the order until the House has had an opportunity to debate it?
Mr. Foot: I acknowledge to the hon. Gentleman that there is considerable interest in the matter in the House, but I cannot undertake that we can deal with it in the way that he has suggested. I will see whether there are any possibilities next week, and although I cannot give him a guarantee, I acknowledge the concern that he and others have expressed.
Mr. Atkinson: Does my right hon. Friend recollect the debate on wages that took place in the Parliamentary Labour Party last Tuesday morning? Would he link that with the statement made today by the Home Secretary about the firemen, together with other statements being made by members of the Cabinet—particularly the Chancellor of the Exchequer? It would now seem that within the Labour Party there is a sympathetic drift towards the introduction of a statutory incomes policy on a permanent basis, or, alternatively, some form of compulsory wage arbitration. Does not my right hon. Friend think it of sufficient importance not to be left to the Consolidated Fund debate but to be the subject, on the basis of a Government statement, of a serious debate in the House as to where this drift towards this sort of new wages policy is taking us?
Mr. Foot: There is no proposal by the Government for introducing or proposing statutory wages policy. If there were,
1670
of course it would be a matter to be brought forward and amply discussed in the House before there was any movement in that direction. I think that my hon. Friend has completely misunderstood what was said at the meeting to which he referred. There is no suggestion on the part of the Government to bring forward any such proposal.
Mr. Ronald Bell: In addition to the two Early-Day Motions about the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order, is there not a Prayer to annul on the Order Paper, and is it not, therefore, a duty upon the Leader of the House to find time for a debate on that Prayer before the Instrument comes into force?
Mr. Foot: I shall certainly have a look at that, as I promised to previous questioners who put the matter to me. One reason why I must look into it is to consider the aspect raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. I cannot give a guarantee that we shall have the Prayer next week, but I will consider the possibilities.
Mr. Spearing: Will the motion to be taken on Monday be in the House or in Committee? Does not the fact of this motion being announced, in effect, by the Leader of the Opposition fully confirm the adjectives used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)—that it is a shady matter?
Mr. Foot: I repudiate entirely any such suggestion. The proposal for having such a motion has been discussed openly in the House, and representations have been made upon it. When it was made on the first occasion, I made a response to it which indicated that we were considering it seriously. I therefore repudiate entirely any suggestion that there has been a deal of any sort, and even more so that there has been any shady deal. I have merely indicated to the House how I think that we can proceed next week.
Mr. Kershaw: Did the Lord President hear the Home Secretary say just now that the reason the Government have not been able to keep their obligations to the Armed Forces in regard to pay—whereas they have now given a guarantee to the firemen—is that the circumstances

1671
are different? In view of the misgivings which those last words may arouse, may we have an early opportunity for debate?
Mr. Foot: There is to be a debate on this subject on Friday this week. But, in the meantime, I certainly would not accept the hon. Gentleman's reflections on the subject. I believe that the matter cannot be dealt with by question and answer but has to be dealt with in a full discussion.
Mr. Heffer: As my right hon. Friend says that he takes note of representations made in the House on the matter of bringing forward Clause 3, would he take note of the representation being made to him now by hon. Members on this side of the House who do not want Clause 3 brought forward in this way? Can we not go through the Bill according to the normal procedure? In any case, is my right hon. Friend aware that if he does this it will not help the Bill in any way?
Mr. Foot: I perhaps overrate my hon. Friend's eagerness to ensure that the Bill shall proceed. But the decision will rest not with me but with the House of Commons. The Government will make the proposal. The House of Commons will then be able to decide whether it wishes to proceed in this manner. Far from being abnormal, that has happened on a number of occasions. If the House does not think that the proposal is convenient, it can defeat it and we can then proceed with the Bill in the other way. That is up to the House of Commons.
Mr. Rifkind: The Leader of the House has not been present at most of the debates on the Scotland Bill, but is he aware that 25 of the 41 clauses so far considered have been forced through without any opportunity whatsoever for either discussion or amendment? As Leader of the House, does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that this makes a mockery of the whole idea of parliamentary scrutiny of this legislation?
Mr. Foot: I repudiate entirely what the hon. Gentleman says. A large part of the time was occupied because, for their own reasons, the Opposition, who are entitled to choose what they wish to debate at greater length, discussed some matters so that discussion on other matters was
1672
prevented. It seemed that Conservative Members were so eager to rush into the Lobby with the Scottish nationalists that they hardly had any great national constitutional issues in their minds. They must sort out in their minds what they want to do on this Bill.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: I shall call the three hon. Members who have been getting up. I hope that they will be brief.
Mr. Noble: May I refer my right hon. Friend back to the reply he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. Young) about the Multi-Fibre Arrangement? In view of the fact that the Government have made repeated statements to the effect that if the negotiations were not successful they would take unilateral action, is it not important that the House should have a proper debate on this matter before the recess as the MFA is to be ratified, or otherwise, on 19th or 20th December, and those with textile interests should express a view?
Mr. Foot: I acknowledge the importance of the subject, as I have done on previous occasions, but I cannot agree with the proposition that debates on, for example, the Consolidated Fund are not proper debates. The House of Commons makes special provision to ensure that a large part of its time should be available to Back Benchers. It is no good Back Benchers saying that it is not proper time.
Mr. Neubert: On reflection, will not the Leader of the House agree that, this close to the Christmas Recess, his answers in relation to the Town and Country Planning General Development (Amendment) Order are less than satisfactory? Would not many people outside this House regard it as scandalous if an order which seeks to give greater freedom of action to individuals—very often at the expense of a lowering of their neighbours' standard of amenities—should come into effect at the beginning of next year even though this House has had no chance to debate the issue? Are there any recent examples of orders being rescinded after they have come into effect?
Mr. Foot: I have already given an answer to many hon. Members on the

1673
matter and I have nothing to add to what I have already said.
Mr. Kinnock: There is a time in the history of man, Mr. Speaker—usually about 20 minutes past four—when one keeps on getting up even though you cannot remember what you were going to ask.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must speak for himself.
Mr. Kinnock: You were not thinking about getting up in any case, Mr. Speaker. Does my right hon. Friend, with his elephantine and well-known memory of things parliamentary, recall that by a great mistake this House gave a Second Reading to the Wales Bill? Consequently, can he give any indication whether and when that Bill is likely to be debated? Will he also give an undertaking that even though the Wales Bill will be some considerable time behind the Scotland Bill there will be no dislocation of the date on which referendums are held?
Mr. Foot: I am not quite sure whether that is the question my hon. Friend had forgotten or the one he remembered. Assuming that he put that one on purpose, we shall try to gratify him as much as we can by getting the Wales Bill as close as possible after the passage of the Scotland Bill. We shall have plenty of time during the passage of the Bill to discuss the referendum in all its aspects.
Mr. Kinnock: I knew I would not get an answer.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Mr. Speaker: For the debate on Wednesday 14th December on the Second Reading of the Consolidated Fund Bill, hon. Members may hand in to my office by noon on Monday 12th December their names and the topics they wish to raise. The Ballot will be carried out as on the last occasion. An hon. Member may hand in only his own name and one topic.
The Consolidated Fund Bill includes the Defence and Civil Votes on Account for 1978–79 presented in House of Commons Papers Nos. 30 and 31 and the Supplementary Estimates for 1977–78 presented in House of Commons Papers Nos.
1674
32 and 33. It will be in order on Second Reading of the Bill to raise topics falling within the ambit of the expenditure proposed in these papers.
I shall put out the results of the Ballot later on 12th December.

ASSOCIATED TELEVISION (FILM)
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should be given urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for the Independent Broadcasting Authority to require the withdrawal of ATV's film 'The South African Experience'."
It is specific and important business because the film has clearly been shown to be rigged. Tate and Lyle has comprehensive documentary evidence that black workers were paid to make false statements. There is documentary evidence of acts of impersonation. ATV's voluntary agreement to withdraw some sequences of the film clearly indicates that the film has been rigged. There is also evidence held by the South African Embassy.
This whole matter amounts to grossly unprofessional conduct. It has been tacitly acknowledged so to be by ATV. The film should not be shown at all. If the IBA did its job properly it would intervene to have it withdrawn.
The matter is urgent because the film is to be shown on Wednesday next, 14th December. It will do untold damage to an important and substantial British company with considerable investments in many other parts of Africa by spreading false information and false impressions. We cannot rely on purely legal action after the programme has been shown, as the damage caused by the programme cannot then be rectified. Not only the reputation of a major British company but the fine reputation of British television, renowned throughout the world hitherto as objective and accurate, is at stake.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman gave me notice before 12 o'clock today that he proposed to make his application under Standing Order No. 9 to discuss a

1675
specific and important matter which should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the need for the Independent Broadcasting Authority to require the withdrawal of ATV's film 'The South African Experience'."
As I have often told the House, it is not for me to decide the importance of an issue—well, partly its importance; it is for me to decide not whether an issue is to be debated in the House but solely whether it is to have precedence over the business of the day today or on Monday next.
I am afraid that I cannot rule in favour of the hon. Member and give his request the precedence he requires.

EGYPT (ARMS SUPPLIES)
Mr. Frank Allaun: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should be given urgent consideration, namely,
"The £40 million arms supply from Britain to Egypt, revealed today, even bigger arms supplies in the near future, and their danger to peace in the Middle East and the world."
You may remember, Mr. Speaker, that yesterday I put a question to the Foreign Secretary asking
"Is it correct that a vast new supply of arms to Egypt from Britain is under consideration?"
The Foreign Secretary replied, in a somewhat less than frank answer:
"I know of no massive shipment of arms, but we have traditionally, for many years, been arms suppliers to Egypt."—[Official Report, 7th December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 1375.]
Today, it is reported in several reputable papers that a huge deal has been signed in Cairo. The matter is certainly definite and important. David Fairhall, the defence correspondent of The Guardian, writes of
"A £40 millions deal, the first in what British arms manufacturers hope will be a long term programme to refurbish the Egyptian armed forces."
The Swingfire missile is to be produced in a factory near Cairo. But this is only part of a much larger package. The next supply, unless the British Government prohibit it, will be of military helicopters.
From inquiries I have made, these are but the first two of a series of arrangements which will mean virtually the complete rearming of Egypt and the estab-
1676
lishment of indigenous arms factories throughout the Arab countries.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but he knows that he must not make the speech that he would make if the application were granted. He must give his reasons for urgency and importance.
Mr. Allaun: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am endeavouring to stay strictly within the rules. I am showing the urgency, importance and immediacy of this matter.
This transaction is not a minor export but is part of a major strategic operation. Therefore, it is important. I also understand that, thanks to British aid, Egypt is likely to obtain shell fuses, tank gunsights, aircraft navigation aids and other weapons.
The matter is urgent for two reasons: first, because I learn that the contract for the military helicopters may be signed before Christmas and still bigger deals not long afterwards; secondly, and most important, because these supplies at this moment, when all of us hope that peace may come to the Middle East, when President Sadat has been to Israel and Prime Minister Begin was in London yesterday, may be the precise way to wreck a settlement.
A Middle East agreement is now just possible. It must not be sabotaged. Any thing more likely to exacerbate tension at this moment and create suspicion is difficult to imagine. If war starts in the Middle East, it could end next time on our doorstep in Britain.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I make this request not in any way as an antiEgyptian—I am not. I make it as one who respects both sides but who believes that Britain should help to secure peace between the two sides. That cannot be done by arming both against each other, as we have done. This arms trade is a dirty, dangerous and disgraceful business. Peace must come before money.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"The £40 million arms supply from Britain to Egypt, revealed today, even bigger arms

1677
Supplies in the near future, and their danger to peace in the Middle Ease and the world."
Again, I listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but I am afraid that I cannot accede to his request.

EGYPT (ARMS SUPPLIES)

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business), the Motion relating to the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 may be proceeded with, though opposed, after Ten o'clock but that Mr. Speaker shall put any question necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion not later than three and half hours after it has been entered upon.—[Mr. Jim Marshall.)

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS)
4.40 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): I beg to move,
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Amendment) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1265), a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd August, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that our debate should cover also the next following two motions. They are:
That the draft Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.
That the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1249), a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd August, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
I shall speak, in particular, to the motion which seeks to renew the emergency provisions of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974 and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) (Amendment) Act 1975 for a further period of six months from 25th January. As the House will remember, the first and third motions relate to two orders which we introduced in the summer under the urgency procedure designed to strengthen the criminal law. We shall be inviting the House to affirm those orders following this debate.
In the context of our security effort in Northern Ireland I avoid the terms "winning" or "losing". The roots of violence in the Province are much too widely spread and the reasons for its continuance are too varied to regard the security effort as a particular battle existing on its own. Social and economic factors have been too much a part of the violence of the past years to be disregarded, and I have therefore seen it as my duty to introduce many measures designed to improve the economic climate, to increase the standards of living in many parts of the Province, and at the same time to bring the maximum pressure on those who, by the use of violence, seek to hold the community in Northern Ireland in the grip of terror. In all of this I seek to talk of progress and since last

1679
I addressed the House on security matters at the end of June very considerable progress has been made.
In striving to improve the security situation we have rested upon one fundamental and essential base—that is, to act within the accepted rule of law. The law, and the actions of the security forces within the law, must in the final analysis command the respect and co-operation of the community at large, and I believe that the manner in which we have dealt with our security problems has been a major factor in the advances which have been made.
I am sure that I shall have the support of all hon. Members when I say how conscious we are of the debt we owe to the men and women of the Regular Army, the Ulster Defence Regiment, the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary Reserve. They have carried out their dangerous tasks with fortitude and courage. Forty of them have already given their lives this year.
Nevertheless, the effectiveness of the work of the security forces is clearly established by the facts. So far this year the number of shooting attacks has been over 40 per cent. lower than in the corresponding period last year, while the number of bombing attacks has dropped even more drastically, by nearly 60 per cent. During the period from 1st August the reduction is more marked. The number of shooting attacks has been over 60 per cent. fewer than in the same period last year, while the number of bombing attacks has dropped by 70 per cent. If one looks at the weight of explosives used in bomb attacks one sees that the contrast is very marked. Last year over 29,000 lbs. of explosives were used, while this year the total was less than 5,000 lbs.
Regrettably, both shooting and bombing have claimed civilian deaths and caused injuries. But here, too, there has been a considerable reduction. So far this year 67 civilians have lost their lives while in the same period last year there were no fewer than 238. The number of civilian injuries is running at about half of those for the same period in 1976. It is of the utmost importance that the pressure which is reflected by these statistics is relentlessly maintained.
As the terrorists, notably the Provisional IRA, are squeezed out of society
1680
by the pressure of security forces' activity and, equally importantly, by their increasing rejection by the community as a whole, the need to deny them any safe havens becomes more and more important. In our relationships with the Government of the Irish Republic we have continued the close and fruitful association we enjoyed with their predecessors. In security terms our common interest is to deal effectively with the criminals who threaten both our countries.
Because of the sustained pressure, the Provisional IRA increasingly relies on active service units operating from rural areas near the border. But although for this reason the closest surveillance and co-operation are essential in those border areas, cross-border terrorism is not just a matter of activities in a particular place.
Wherever violence takes place in the North or in the South, whether in Antrim or in Dublin, the chances are that it is connected in some way with the movement of men or supplies, or both, across the border. But, as recent events have shown, terrorists and criminals, North or South, are the enemy of us both. Both of us have a public duty to do everything possible to restrict their movements, to cut off their supplies, and to bring them before the courts. The mass of the violence today is the work of Provisionals, and they exploit the border to keep out of the hands of the security forces on both sides of it.
Additionally, we now have the extraterritorial legislation in effect on both sides of the border. Some of those charged in connection with the murder of Captain Nairac are being prosecuted under the provisions of this legislation. However, its provisions apply only to crimes committed on or after 1st June 1976. It will remain a more cumbersome way of producing the desired result and we can only regard it as second best.
Co-operation between the RUC and the Garda is developing in a number of specific operational areas, particularly during the past year, and joint action continues to hinder the movement of munitions and funds into the hands of para-militaries. But there will always be room for improvement until terrorism has been completely defeated. We shall continue to seek even closer co-operation

1681
between the forces on both sides of the border.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary, a highly efficient and professional police force, by its thorough, painstaking investigations, and its skilful use of forensic resources, has made severe inroads into the ranks of criminals.
The Chief Constable has made it quite clear to me that when the police have sufficient evidence to lay a charge, they do not hesitate to seek out the suspected person and to arrest him, to whatever camp he may belong. Murderers, bombers and gunmen who committed their crimes perhaps five years ago have found their complacency suddenly shattered as they have been arrested and faced with serious charges. The hand on their shoulder has proved that the arm of the law in Northern Ireland is now very long indeed.
Those who are believed to have planted bombs in busy bus stations or shops in 1972 are being charged. Those who are believed to have fired the guns which murdered policemen, soldiers or civilians in the gangster heyday of some years ago have found that the past has caught up with them. So far this year 265 people have been charged with murder or attempted murder compared with 188 in the whole of 1976. So far this year 316 people have been sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment or more on conviction for scheduled offences on indictment, compared with 214 in the whole of last year.
But the police cannot operate independently of the community which they serve, and it is encouraging that in recent times their successes have reflected the increasing help of that community. To build regard and respect is no easy task in a community which has been for so long so bitterly divided. But it is happening, and it is being helped by the parallel rejection of the gangsters, the intimidators and the bully-boys by the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.
A short time ago a young woman member of the Ulster Defence Regiment was shot on the County Armagh border. Ten days later two men and two youths were charged with the crime. At about the same time a bus driver in County Tyrone was killed. Five days later a
1682
man was charged with the crime. These are only two of many examples which could be quoted of quick arrests following serious crimes, and I have no doubt that public revulsion coupled with skilled investigative police work has had much to do with the achievement of such rapid results.
But it would be wrong to think that police work consists only of dealing with serious criminal activities. As I said earlier, the police must be a part of the community they serve, and the RUC serves its community in many ways. The neighbourhood bobby is not just a theory in Northern Ireland. Many children, and indeed, their parents, have reason to be grateful to the dedicated policemen and women who run youth clubs, Blue Lamp discos, and other activities within the community. Great efforts are made by the RUC in the work of helping to bring people together in areas where serious disintegration took place some years ago.
There are other aspects of the RUC's work. In parallel with their violence, terrorists have involved themselves in a whole range of protection rackets and of illegal or scarcely legal activities designed to strengthen their grip on local communities. Drinking clubs and so-called taxi services are cases in point, and as the RUC has grown in strength and experience, it has devoted greater resources to the investigation of such areas —and with some recent success. It is a field that requires patience, but results are already being shown.
I am very pleased to say that recruiting for the RUC this year has been a record. Overall the strength of the force now stands at 5,625—a net increase this year of 372. The increase for the whole of 1976 was 351, in itself a record, so that with a further intake to the RUC Training Centre planned before the end of the year, recruitment is already well ahead of last year's best ever figure.
Mr. John Farr: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House how that corresponds to the planned establishment of the RUC?
Mr. Mason: We are well below the planned and recently announced establishment, which I decided upon in the intensification drive earlier this year, when we established that there ought to

1683
be 6,500 in the RUC. But recruitment is coming along very well. The strength of the full-time Reserve has also grown appreciably so far this year from 870 to 1,004.
In addition to the improvements in RUC organisation, of which the House was informed during an earlier debate, the needs of the RUC are being closely monitored and high priority given to the provision of necessary arms and equipment. The number of vehicles available to the police is growing steadily, and in particular more Land Rovers fitted with improved protection have been brought into service. Delivery has been taken of the M1 carbine, which is being distributed to members of the force as they are trained in its use. Even though recruitment is growing steadily, it is essential that the police continue to have support from the Regular Army where necessary.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the RUC, will he say whether the increased recruitment has been reflected in improved recruitment from the minority community in the past few months, particularly since the success of the RUC during the industrial troubles?
Mr. Mason: I am sorry to say that I cannot inform the House that there has been a notable increase within the RUC ranks from the minority community. It is true that during the Action Council strike the credibility of the RUC rose very considerably. We expected that there would be an increase in the ranks from the minority community. I hoped that political and Church leaders within the minority community would encourage that, and I still hope that they will.
As I was saying, although recruitment is growing steadily, it is essential that the police continue to have support from the Regular Army where necessary. That is a situation that will remain for the foreseeable future, but the partnership forged among all branches of the security forces over the past year or more has clearly proved its effectiveness and flexibility.
In a situation such as we have in Northern Ireland flexibility is of maxi-
1684
mum importance. I am very conscious of the necessity continually to review the rôle and tactics of the security forces as a whole. I have always taken the view that the strength of the regular forces deployed in Northern Ireland will be related to the level of violence.
I still hold to that view. The success of the RUC in dealing with crime, the change in the nature of the violence, the absence of large-scale confrontation on the streets, and the clear wish of the whole community to return to normality and stability are all factors that I take into account in assessing the level of forces required. Equally important are the new tactics which have been developed in the light of experience—the use of highly specialised troops, expert in covert surveillance, and the new level of capability in this field.
Against this background we have recently made a thorough study of the current level of forces in conjunction with the General Officer Commanding and the Chief Constable. We have concluded that over the course of the next year we shalle into account in assessing the level of forces required. Equally important are the new tactics which have been developed in the light of experience—the use of highly specialised troops, expert in covert surveillance, and the new level of capability13. Subject to the requirements of the firemen's dispute, this will take place by the end of the year. The provision for immediate reinforcement in case of operational or other needs will, of course, be maintained.
At the same time we are looking towards an increase in the size of the regular military garrison in the Province. A resident unit staying for a longer period reflects the supporting continuing rôle of the Army in peace-time conditions. Such a unit also provides greater continuity and thus greater understanding of local circumstances. It would naturally replace units on short tours and this would be a great advantage to the Army in its wider rôle.
I hope, therefore, that it will be possible in this context to introduce one additional resident unit in the course of next year, and the second as soon as possible thereafter, once accommodation can be provided.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: There was one point on which I was not quite clear. The right hon. Gentleman referred to a reduction from 14,000 to 13,000 in the total Regular Army in Northern Ireland—
Mr. Mason: I said from 14 to 13 operational units.
Mr. Powell: But that was, am I to understand, in the course of the current year, and not the current year plus 1978?
Mr. Mason: The intention is that, provided the troops are not required to be held because of the firemen's dispute, we shall be in a position to lower the force levels by one unit by the end of this year. In other words, the unit that is due to leave the Province by the end of the year will not be replaced. The reason that I have not mentioned numbers, to be quite honest, is that units vary in size from 350 to 600 or 700.
I should like to mention here the very effective rôle being fulfilled by the Ulster Defence Regiment, which, as the House is aware, is an integral part of the Army. Last summer an increase was authorised to bring the full-time professionals in the regiment to a total of 2,500. I am glad to say that this element already stands at around 2,000, with five full-time platoons fully operational, and recruitment is continuing.
This increase enables the UDR to make an increasing contribution in the Army's support of the RUC—for example, by taking over vehicle checkpoints by day as well as by night, thereby releasing the Regular Army for operations which exploit its full capability. Both the professional and the part-time UDR are doing a first-class job in the Province.
I must now refer to one development which does give cause for concern—the increasing use of incendiary devices. These are a typically nasty aspect of terrorist activity and are relatively easy to plant, difficult to detect and can cause damage to commercial premises as well as to life itself.
The general public and owners and occupiers of business premises have done much to assist in dealing with this particular threat. I have felt it right to support the business community by increasing financial assistance to it under the
1686
security staff grants scheme. The increase will be operative for a limited period of three months and will assist in the direct employment of fire-watchers outside normal business hours. For owners of small premises employing 10 or more people there will be a grant of up to £37·50 per person employed as a fire-watcher per week, while for larger premises the grant will go up to £45 per person per week. The scheme will be operative for retail shops, stores, hotels, cinemas and theatres, and there will be special provision for larger premises.
The House, will of course be aware that the Army in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom, has had to take on a fire-fighting responsibility during the Fire Brigades Union's dispute. The Army has had the additional problem of being subject to cowardly attack when attempting to save life and property. Despite these hazards, the security forces have done a first-class job in dealing with nearly 200 fires in Northern Ireland during the past two weeks.
None of this should be allowed to obscure the fact that the trend of violence over the past year has been unquestionably downwards. Inevitably there will be occasional shows of strength but the general and accepted view in Northern Ireland is that this cannot be sustained. I believe that the situation will get better. The partnership among the different arms of the security forces has now created a highly efficient team that is operating with great effectiveness against terrorism and general crime.
I have referred to the Provisional IRA as being the principal enemy, but I want to make it quite clear that there are other enemies of society in Northern Ireland. The so-called Loyalist para-militaries have within their rank gangsters and murderers of the same calibre. The law bears as heavily and will continue to bear as heavily on them as it does on any other bunch of gangsters in the Province.
None of them now commands any significant support in the community, none of them any longer claims to be pursuing a cause, none of them has political backing, and none of them is prepared to risk his reputation at the ballot box. They are being cast aside by the people of

1687
Northern Ireland, and they will be pursued relentlessly by the forces of law and order.
There is one further point I wish to make and I wish to make it as emphatically as I can. There are those, some of them young people, who can be persuaded to embark upon acts of serious criminality in the specious belief that, if caught and sentenced, at some time there will be an amnesty. I should like to kill that recruiting theme here and now. If people believe that they can murder, burn and bomb the people of Northern Ireland, kill and maim members of the security forces, and then expect, if convicted and sentenced, that at some stage they will be patted on the head, told to go home, and we shall forget about it, they are very wrong indeed. There will be no amnesty in Northern Ireland. I hope what I have said has served to indicate to the House exactly how Her Majesty's Government see the present security situation in the Province.
Our policy remains one of determination to eradicate terrorism by the relentless pressure of dedicated and effective security forces, to prosecute terrorists for the criminals they are through the normal processes of the law, using all the resources of a modern professional police force, and to restore to the people of Northern Ireland, who have for so long borne the burden, the right to live without fear of the bomb or the bullet, and the right to be free of intimidation.
We are not complacent, but we are confident. Slowly, but unquestionably surely—and despite the inevitable bursts of terrorist activity—the policy as I have indicated is paying off. I know that the terrorists retain the capability to kill and maim, but the downward trend of their violence is clearly discernible.
I am resolved that I shall use all means within the law to maintain that trend. I share the growing belief of the people of Northern Ireland that there is now hope of an end to violence. For the terrorist there can be no hope. I commend these orders to the House.
5.4 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: The Opposition agree to these three orders, which are very important for the future of security in Northern Ireland. Those of us who have taken part in these debates
1688
on security in the past few years welcome the words of the Secretary of State that there is now hope at least of an end to violence. We also welcome his words to the effect that the trend of violence is downwards.
It was right for the right hon. Gentleman to say that he condemned and would pursue relentlessly gangsters and murderers from any quarter of the community, and it is very important that this is well understood in the Province as a whole. Together with some of my colleagues. I have just returned from a visit to the security forces in Northern Ireland, and I can confirm what the light hon. Gentleman said about these gangsters and murderers having been rejected by the people of Northern Ireland. We must keep it that way.
I am very glad to know that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues insist that there will be no amnesty in Northern Ireland. Everywhere one goes one hears of those who have spoken to men who still believe that in some way or other they will, to use the right hon. Gentleman's expression, be patted on the head and told to go home. We should l ill this recruiting theme, and the Opposition support the right hon. Gentleman fully in what he says. There will be no amnesty under a Conservative Government, either, and this should be understood.
Nor, I hope, will there be any cease-fire granted at Christmas or any other time to those who ask for it. I believe that, from whatever quarter it might come, this should also be widely understood.
To those of us who have visited the Army and the Royal Air Force in Northern Ireland it is a vivid inspiration to find how high is their morale and how splendid their example. Though they have been treated shabbily in terms of pay for a long time, their bearing remains extraordinary. Those in the United Kingdom who feel that they are hardly done by and that they are suffering in terms of pay or in any other way should be taken on a tour of Army bases in Northern Ireland. That would inspire them and show them how men can he loyal in the service of their country.
I visited Forkill, Crossmaglen, Bess Brook and Newry recently. As Ministers and hon. Members representing Northern

1689
Ireland constituencies will know, it is a pleasure to meet these fine soldiers. Although we are to have a debate on Army pay and conditions on a motion tomorrow, it ought to be stressed that the friendly military discipline that we see in Army bases in Northern Ireland requires exceptionally good professional soldiers, especially senior NCOs and officers.
As a former Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Gentleman will recognise the danger of their leaving the Army at present. There is a real crisis in the Army and in other parts of the Armed Forces about pay. I hope that, with all his experience and knowledge of them and of the men who serve in them the right hon. Gentleman will use his influence with his colleagues about this. We found many instances of some of the best people leaving the Army, and we were much distressed to hear about it.
We also met the new GOC, Northern Ireland, General Creasey, who has excellent experience in counter-terrorist work and who is clearly the man for Northern Ireland at present. We were very pleased with our talks with him.
The credit for the progress which has been made, especially during the last few months, must go to the Army, the UDR and the RUC. The men who serve in them are the people largely responsible, as well as the ordinary people of Northern Ireland, who have rejected violence.
I wish to comment on the RUC especially. The Secretary of State referred to the RUC men as "skilled professional policemen," and he said that they were dedicated men. I think that they should receive some special recognition after eight years of violence. Members of the Ulster Defence Regiment are eligible for the General Service Medal. Members of the RUC are not. At the moment, they do not have any special service medal for what they are doing unless they are awarded decorations for gallantry.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give some thought to the possibility of a special police medal for the RUC and for the RUC Reserve, who are not eligible for the Long Service Medal. In view of the skilful use of their resources in the past few years, I think that there
1690
will be a great deal of pleasure in Northern Ireland and elsewhere if that can be done.
I recognise that there are others who have served the cause of freedom and liberation from violence in Northern Ireland and who might also be considered. But, after all, members of the RUC are engaged in actively fighting terrorism. I do not ask for a direct answer today. I do not expect an immediate answer. But perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say whether he will consider this possibility, because it will be widely welcomed.
Another reason for the successes which the Secretary of State was able to record and which the House very much welcomed is the change in security strategy in Northern Ireland. Here I want to say from this Box and from this side of the House that for some years we pressed the use of covert training, for example, the use of Special Air Service and Special Air Service type training, for selected soldiers and an increase in full-time members of the UDR.
We were very glad to hear what the Secretary of State said. I need hardly remind him that for two years these suggestions were politely ignored until the right hon. Gentleman took over in Northern Ireland. That is a fact of history. But we are delighted at the success of those measures for we fully supported them. It took some time for them to come through, but we are very glad that he is carrying them out.
As to the reduction in troop levels, we welcome the proposal to replace units on short tours by resident units. I think that this will be widely welcomed. But some of the places that one has visited recently —for instance, in South Armagh—do not permit of any reduction at all. We ought to be very careful in the announcements that are made about reduction in troop levels not to give a wrong or a premature impression that the emergency has come to an end. I quite understand what the Secretary of State said, but I hope that he will not encourage people to think that a reduction in numbers and operational units can proceed very fast. He said that the number would be reduced from 14 to 13 units by the end of this year. That would seem reasonable at the moment, but I hope that he will be

1691
careful about this, because there are still many areas which can be considered dangerous.
I feel that the policy of the primacy of the police—as we call it—putting the police in the front line, as it were, is working out very well. There are more and more signs of this every day. This is all the more reason why I feel that greater recognition should be given to the police and the work that they are doing.
I think the House will agree that we in Northern Ireland are not engaged in a struggle against a bona fide political movement. This is why I want to talk about the activities of some of the media in this connection. I believe that they have a very great bearing on the prolongation of terrorism in Northern Ireland. These terrorists have made hatred their symbol. They are not glorious republicans but bloody murderers. I have been very shocked, as I always am, by the photographs of wanted men when I have seen them in operations rooms and in police stations, and the fixed look of malevolence on their faces, and even more by the terrible expressions of the young girls who are responsible fror the explosions and the incendiary devices to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. We still have, none the less, to hunt down the godfathers of these young people, who pay them, and bring them before the courts.
Men such as Martin McGuinness are still around. I know that there is no charge against him, but I should very much like to know what he does on his weekly journeys from Derry to Belfast. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman knows what I am referring to. I do not ask him to comment. We know that these people are around, and it would be useful to hear from the Minister of State whether any further progress has been made in that difficult respect.
It is perfectly true that no military operation by itself will alter the existence of those hardened young monsters. Terrorist killing, in my personal view, should be redefined. As I think the House knows, I believe that it should be a capital offence. I do not speak for any other hon. Member at present. I shall develop my own views on a different occasion, but I should like to restate my personal opinion.
1692
This is not the occasion on which to discuss political progress in Northern Ireland except to say that the future stability of the Province is linked to what is being done at the moment in the way of talks on constitutional matters. Therefore, I urge the right hon. Gentleman—I think that he knows my feelings on this —to make a statement upon the aims and powers of any proposed elected body that he sets up some time in the New Year.
What does he mean by "local government", for example? Why did he say that an upper tier of local government was not required? What is meant by "real powers"? All those are matters that might come into the open. The Government must explain to the political parties as soon as possible. It is not easy for the political parties to persuade their own supporters until the Government give a lead on what their real intentions are.
The danger is that disillusionment about political matters could deliver the Northern Ireland people, or some of them, back into the hands of paramilitary forces one of these days if the political vacuum is to carry on. I feel very strongly about that.
Mr. Mason: This matter is not directly linked, but I might as well try to clear it up if I can. I have made it perfectly clear that I want the authority to have real powers. The talks that we are having with the political parties indicate that clearly. As far as I am concerned, this could include all the executive powers in what are constitutionally the transferred subjects. The hon. Member knows as well as I do that the arrangements have to be acceptable to both sides of the community if they are to work. Therefore, the talks are concerned with finding the acceptable method. But there is no doubt about the real powers that I want to see devolved.
Mr. Neave: I think that the proposals that the right hon. Gentleman has put forward, through his officials, would be more clearly acceptable if they were defined so that supporters of political parties could understand them as well. I hope that there will be some publicity for all this in the New Year. It may not be clear to people what is meant by

1693
"transferred powers". For example, it may be well known to those in political life in Northern Ireland but not to their supporters, and they will have to persuade their supporters about the need for these measures.
I shall not proceed further along those lines now, but I think that we should have the opportunity of discussing this subject in the New Year. I think it is very important.
The Government and the Security Forces have one further problem to which I have already made allusion. That is the attitude of television towards violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland. We have discussed this in the House more than once. My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) questioned the Government last week about it. Certain television programmes have over the years, in my opinion, done much to exacerbate distress and fear in Northern Ireland. We ought to say this quote fearlessly. I refer in particular to the BBC programme in March and the Thames Television programme this autumn, both of which accused the RUC while investigations were pending. I fully support the very strong words that the Secretary of State used last Thursday about this matter. When I got to Northern Ireland on Monday, I found 100 per cent. support for what he had said from every quarter in which I spoke.
People in Northern Ireland are really disgusted by the conduct of these television organisations, because it is believed that they made these programmes with full knowledge of the danger to human life. They must have done that. Their record is a thoroughly undesirable one in Northern Ireland. Most sensible people believe that they will bear a share of the blame if terrorism, especially among young people, continues.
Both governing bodies were approached by the right hon. Gentleman and by myself. They shrugged off the responsibility, as Pilate did. Members of those governing bodies do not attend the funerals of policemen and soldiers murdered in Northern Ireland—or, if they do, they disregard the ever-present fear and grief of ordinary people.
It is time that television companies based in this country took account of
1694
what will be the effect of their programmes on the people of Northern Ireland. I could not even persuade them to accept the moral responsibility. They are concerned merely with the freedom to report.
Freedom to report in these matters must surely involve a moral responsibility for the safety of other human beings. I was disgusted by their self-satisfied attitude. It is worthy of massive condemnation by this House when broadcasting comes to be debated, possibly some time in the future. The Secretary of State can certainly count on my colleagues and me to support him in this matter. With friends like these, neither the Government nor the Opposition can be absolutely sure of the future in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State was quite right to say that there are still many hard men around—perhaps as many as 200 active gunmen. I do not know. There are certainly 30 or 40 of the godfathers still around.
I was pleased to hear what the right hon. Gentleman said about relations with the Republic. I think that cross-border operations are important and will continue to be so. The talks that recently took place with the Taoiseach, Mr. Jack Lynch, were satisfactory from that point of view, and I hope that that co-operation will continue.
If my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest has an opportunity to speak later, he will ask about the Criminal Law Jurisdiction Bill and the men who have been reported in the Press to be in hiding in the Republic. There have been reports that as many as 20 men who are wanted in this country for trial have been seen in Dublin. I do not know whether the story is true, but my hon. Friend will be raising that matter later. It is important that we should know whether the stories that have appeared in the Daily Mail and other newspapers are true.
In conclusion I wish to mention the Royal visit to Northern Ireland, which was a landmark in its history. It created conditions in which law and order and peace can be restored with the good will of the people. We agree with these orders and endorse the Secretary of State's account of them.
5.22 p.m.
Mr. James Molyneaux: We have always taken the view that the preservation of law and order in Northern Ireland should be mainly the responsibility of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, with the assistance of its Reserve and the co-operation of the Ulster Defence Regiment. That has been the policy not only of my party, but of those who from time to time have been associated with us. It is the policy on which we and others stood in the 1974 General Election. The majority of the electorate endorsed our objective of working towards a situation in which the Army would revert to its garrison rôle. Therefore, it is not open to any of us to disavow that pledge given and accepted as far back as 1974.
We note with interest the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the possible reductions in Army strengths, and particularly in wasteful short-stay units. We have made it clear that the time taken to disengage those units from other tasks which they may be performing, the transport of those units to Northern Ireland, the stay therein and the phasing back into their NATO rôle, delays by seven months their availability as an effective Army unit.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that he hoped to reduce certain operational units, but I join the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) in hoping that any reduction will not take place in areas of the Province where there is a continuing need for an Army presence. I am sure that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, with his earlier Ministry of Defence experience, will realise, as those of us who have had limited staff experience realise, that there is always an administrative tail which can be reduced with safety. I hope that the initial reductions will be of that order.
We are not complacent. Unfortunately, we must face the fact that a limited number of determined gangsters can still inflict damage and cause grievous loss of life. But as the effectiveness, to use the term in the Gracious Speech, of indigenous security forces increases in Northern Ireland, we believe that that will permit a reduction in the scale of the Army. We recognise that the effectiveness of the RUC will be made
1696
even greater if its efficiency is not impaired by cumbersome and exacting complaint procedures which absorb the attention and energy of senior officers from their primary task of eliminating gangsters and terrorists. Judging by our experience, we can expect the volume of complaints to increase as the effectiveness of the RUC increases.
I have on other occasions expressed anxiety about the procedures for selecting and procuring the most suitable weapons and equipment for the RUC. Can the Secretary of State assure us that if in all respects the discretionary purchasing powers of the Chief Constable of the RUC are at least equivalent to those available to chief officers in forces in Great Britain?
On previous occasions we have also urged that a climate of normality could be created by the removal of unnecessary defensive measures, some of which were quite unnecessary even when they were enforced, such as the blocking of entire sections of towns and villages throughout Ulster. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State in words and actions seemed to support the view that the policy should not be one simply of containing the situation and going to the defensive. It should be a policy of moving to the offensive and sorting out and rooting out terrorists. His policy and his directive have paid off. We feel that we should support him in the measures he can take to relieve unnecessary hardship caused to law-abiding citizens by these unnecessary restrictions.
In the interval since our last renewal debate there has been a steady improvement in the condition and appearance of many of our towns and villages. I hope that the Secretary of State will note our wish that this process should be continued. I also hope encouragement and perhaps assistance can be given to make possible a face lift—not just an application of cosmetics but a real attempt to restore our towns in Ulster to a much more businesslike atmosphere and condition.
Mr. Powell: Including Belfast.
Mr. Molyneaux: I include Belfast because I see in his place my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson).

1697
I wish to deal with one issue the importance of which has been previously acknowledged by Members of both sides of the House but which has attracted little attention in recent months. I refer to the special category status which continues to be afforded to many of those convicted of terrorist offences by the courts in Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State can be in no doubt about the degree of support given by the Ulster Unionist Party in the past. That support will be available in future in his determined efforts to defeat terrorism and lawlessness in all its forms and from whatever quarter. We have made our views clear on this matter and they are on record.
The right hon. Gentleman is well aware that when his predecessor took the decision to discontinue special category status I assured him that we had never accepted the practice of classifying some convicted prisoners as special category, which entitled them to special treatment by reason of the supposedly political motives which prompted the offence. It was and remains our view that the practice has no basis either in common law or in statute law. Indeed, there was considerable doubt whether it had any basis in any of the emergency regulations. Perhaps the greatest danger of special category status lies in its tendency to glamorise the offenders and raise hopes of an early amnesty, thus reducing the deterrent effect of sentences.
I unreservedly welcome the repeated assurances that the Secretary of State has given that there will be no amnesty for murderers and those who have been convicted of terrorist offences in Northern Ireland and elsewhere. My hon. Friends and I are anxious to ensure that the Government's commitment to end such special category status should be sustained. We wish to be assured that as the security forces achieve increasing success, their efforts and the results of those efforts will be matched by the will and capacity of the authorities to adhere to the policy and practice of reducing the special category element in the prison population.
Many hon. Members—and we have just heard the hon. Member for Abingdon reiterate this point—find themselves
1698
fundamentally at variance with certain sections of the media, particularly when the media become the propaganda arm of the terrorists. A recent television programme, probably by sheer accident, served a useful purpose in highlighting the reality of life in Northern Ireland prisons.
Long Kesh as the Provos' Sandhurst is no laughing matter. There clearly exists in that prison a school—or schools—for terrorism. A large number of criminals as they congregate and move freely are put in a position of being able to make and enforce their own set of rules. Inevitably, decisions affecting a substantial number of prisoners have to be taken by the prison officers in consultation with leaders of para-military groups. Lectures are given on certain political or, perhaps, para-military political activity and even, on occasions, imitation weapons are available for the deverison a school—or schools—We cannot expect normal conditions to return to Northern Ireland as long as that situation obtains. Such a prison atmosphere is certainly not conducive to rehabilitation and, in the long term, it will make far more difficult the task of those organisations and bodies prepared to engage in the operation of moral rescue, the success of which is vital to the whole future stability and happiness of Ulster.
Although political status has been regarded by many as a form of approbation for those involved in para-military activities it is pertinent to remind the House that the arrangement was initiated purely for convenience and expediency. I doubt that it was ever the intention to imply any concession or suggestion that those who continue to enjoy the privilege of special status will continue to do so, and have done so, as a right. That being so, we should like to be assured that there will be, or that there already is, a tapering off in the number of those convicted of crimes committed prior to March 1976 and granted special status. I understand that there were some 348 such prisoners in the period between March 1976 and 6th November this year.
We should like to know what happens to a special category prisoner who is convicted of an offence committed during the period of his sentence. As a general

1699
principle he should then forfeit his special status. We should welcome an assurance that any so-called political prisoner wishing to withdraw from special category status can have his request granted without delay. That is particularly important for young prisoners who should be freed from all forms of intimidation and evil influence and who should be given a chance to rethink their decision in the light of the knowedge that they can have a much more useful life ahead of them if they so decide. But they will not be free to make such a decision if left under the thumb—or perhaps the heel—of many of those who have played a part in landing them in their present predicament.
The problems of crime and treatment of offenders affect many more than those directly involved. The contempt for authority demonstrated by law-breakers contaminates many in this larger group and it will continue to do so as long as offenders are encouraged to use political motive as an excuse for offences committed. Indeed, we all have a duty to demonstrate that the law must be respected, and no one has the right to pick and choose.
Once law-breaking is engaged in, there can be no dividing line; it can only be a matter of degree. Relatives, friends and society must combine to encourage prisoners generally to reject the negative outlook of which special category is a symbol, and all of us must seek to contribute to the rehabilitation of those in the community who have misguidedly drifted into the world of lawlessness and crime.
5.37 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: The first emergency legislation that we passed referring to security in Northern Ireland went on the statute book in 1922. Now, 55 years later, we are still discussing emergency legislation and how it affects individuals in Northern Ireland.
It is indicative of a deep and profound disagreement over the state of Northern Ireland that we have to have emergency legislation such as this to keep the borders of that State in existence.
Mr. McCusker: What about the Republic?
Mr. Fitt: The hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) can make his own speech
1700
and I shall listen with great attention it he has the temerity to do so. In legislation such as this, which can have such an effect on the individual, it is not good enough to come to the House every six months, to hold our hands up to high heavens and to say that we support the RUC, the UDR and the Army, without casting a critical eye on the other developments that can be brought about by the existence of the legislation.
While this legislation is in many ways effective and has perhaps led to a decrease in violence, it has other facets that have deeply offended those who believe in the liberty of the individual. We should not accept stories put round by branches of the security forces saying that anyone who criticises them is a supporter of the IRA or some other violent organisation. I have not, do not and will not say one word in defence of the Provisional IRA. I detest and despise its every action. However there are facets of this legislation that worry me deeply.
In my constituency I hold a surgery and advice centre. I was there the other day and encountered a problem that is happening now and will happen tomorrow and every day that I can foresee thereafter. I refer to the number of arrests made by both the Army and the RUC under this legislation. I was on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill and I expressed fears at that time that provisions such as Section 10, which allows a person to be arrested on suspicion of being a terrorist, could be abused in certain circumstances and could lead to harassment of individuals in Northern Ireland.
I should like the Secretary of State to tell the House the number of men and women taken to interrogation centres throughout Northern Ireland in the six months since we last debated the legislation. Can he tell us how long they were held? Was it a matter of hours, one or two days, or the full seven days for which they can be held under the Prevention of Terrorism Act? What has happened to them? I know of many young men who have lost their jobs or had to leave their jobs because they were kept in Castlereagh for 72 hours—the maximum period.
Their employers often did not hold the same political views as the workers and

1701
when they were told where the young men had been for the previous three days, even though nothing had been proven and no charges laid against them, the suspicion remained in the employer's mind that the employee had not been taken to an interrogation centre for no reason. When a man is taken to such a centre, that creates an aura of suspicion and I have known men to be sacked by their employers afterwards.
In some instances, men are not taken to the interrogation centres just once. Within weeks or months of their first interrogation they are taken back for another 72 hours and, within weeks of their release, taken back for a third time. This naturally causes employers to suspect that their employee has a connection—even though it is unproven—with a terrorist organisation, and this often leads to dismissal. I ask the Secretary of State to give the figures for the number of people taken to interrogation centres and the length of time that they have been held.
There is an attitude that implies that no word of criticism may be levelled against the security forces and that they are incapable of using brutal and ruthless methods in their interrogations. This is patently not so. There are certain members of the RUC, the UDR and the British Regular forces in Northern Ireland, albeit a small minority, who are capable of using brutal methods during interrogations, and it is dishonest for anyone to say that this is not possible.
If I were the commander-in-chief of the Provisional IRA, the first order that I would give to the people under me would be that if they were arrested by the security forces they should immediately allege that they had been ill-treated. But I could do that only if I knew that there had been some cases of brutality. I would exaggerate them and multiply them a million times over. These cases have happened, and even if there is only one case of brutality or ill-treatment in every 100 interrogations, that is far too many. Indeed, one in 1,000 or even one in 1 million is too many.
In no circumstances should there be ill-treatment of people who are being interrogated. Only recently we had the four Church leaders adding their voices
1702
to the concern that has been expressed over the allegations of ill-treatment. In an editorial this week, the Belfast Telegraph has raised the subject of the allegations.
It would be in the interests of the RUC and all the security forces and certainly in the interests of the whole population of Northern Ireland if, when allegations are made, an inquiry took place. If that happened and the allegations were proved to be false, it would engender nothing but good will for the security forces.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in his annual report the Chief Constable goes into the question of complaints and how they are investigated exhaustively? He shows that great trouble is taken by the RUC when complaints are made. They are looked at as impartially and in as minute detail as possible.
Mr. Fitt: I have had many discussions with the Chief Constable and his predecessor on this subject. I believe that there must be an independent element in inquiries into allegations against members of the RUC. People believe that if the force carries out investigations against its own members, there will inevitably be a certain bias in favour of them. It would be in the interests of all the security forces if there were an independent element in the inquiries.
Mr. Mason: We have had the independent Police Complaints Board in Northern Ireland since 1st September this year and a member of the minority community is chairing the board.
Mr. Fitt: I know that we have the Parliamentary Commissioner.
Mr. Mason: No, there is now an independent Police Complaints Board comprising lay people and not policemen. It so happens that a member of the minority community is the chairman of that board.
Mr. Fitt: I fully accept that there has been progress in the complaints procedure, taking into account what has been happening, but serious allegations are being made day in and day out and there is some substance in them.

1703
I do not believe that every person interrogated by the RUC is beaten up. I have never believed that, but there have been occasions when doctors and other professional people, who have reputations at stake, have examined people after their release from interrogation and have said that, in their professional capacity, with all their experience and training as medical men, they are convinced that those people were ill treated. I do not believe that members of the medical profession would take such an attitude lightly. As the Belfast Telegraph said, if there is nothing to hide, why give the impression that there is something to hide? I want to see as much confidence as possible generated in the RUC.
I turn now to an event that may have come as a big surprise to the hon. Member for Armagh, who regards my colleague in Armagh, Mr. Seamus Malon, as an arch-Republican, etcetera, and has said so on many occasions. The Provisional IRA said that five young people who had been arrested in Armagh had been ill treated while in police custody. Seamus Mallon went to see the young people and their parents and was convinced that they had not been ill treated. He came outside and courageously and publicly said so. He charged the IRA godfathers over the border in the Republic with trying to use the young people. Any criticism that I make is made in the interests of all concerned.
Interrogations are permitted under this legislation and it also gives the security forces power to search homes. We hear that an Englishmen's home is his castle and there is no doubt that home is a very private and personal place for most people. They believe that they can shut their front doors and be cut off from the rest of the world. Families are built up within the four walls and any encroachment into their privacy must be taken seriously.
I know of homes in my constituency, and in North Belfast in the New Lodge Road area that I represented at local government level, that are searched four times and five times a month at three o'clock or four o'clock in the morning. The occupants are dragged out of bed and their homes are searched. It can be an intimidating experience.
1704
Only last Friday night the position of a family called Magee was brought to my attention. I am not quite sure of the address, but the family lives at the top of the New Lodge Road. I was not in Belfast at the time. I did not return home until the Saturday. However, the Magees went to my house. I live not very far away from them. They took my wife to see their house.
The house had recently been searched and was a shambles. It had been wrecked. It was no longer a place where anyone could live. The young woman was in a bad state of nerves. She was talking about taking an overdose of tablets. The Army had wrecked the house. My wife told me of this incident and from Westminster I contacted the major. I telephoned him again when I returned to Belfast. He said "Yes, I am afraid that we did wreck that house". He did not say that he did not do it. He said "I have made arrangements with the Housing Executive to have the people rehoused."
The house was a write-off. It was a small home at the top of the New Lodge Road. The young mother was expecting a baby. The family had been painting and wall-papering in preparation for Christmas. I asked the major why the Army had wrecked the house. He replied "We had a dog with us. The dog began to sniff. We knew that it was a positive reaction to his training and that there was some form of arms or explosives in the house. Once the dog reacted in that way, we had to go to town and wreck the house."
I appreciate that we are in a state of emergency, but it seems that when a dog happens to go berserk, those who are handling it also go berserk, wrecking homes and furniture. The Magees home is no longer in existence. They had to go into another house. That is the sort of thing that takes place under this legislation.
When we are asked to renew these measures it is right that we should cast a critical eye on the procedures that affect the liberty of the subject. I recognise that there has to be legislation to cope with terrorist activity, but it should be used in a limited way.
Individuals should not be taken repeatedly to interrogation centres.

1705
Homes should not be searched unless there is information that arms will be found in them. As for the Magees' home, the major said "We did not find anything. Because the dog was acting in such a way, it was imperative for us to break down walls, rip settees, wreck furniture and wreck the whole house." Surely no legislation should permit such activities.
I recognise the necessity for legislation to curb the activities of the terrorists. I shall do everything I can to contribute to the defeat of the men of violence. However, as a protest against the harassment and searching of houses that is taking place, I intend to vote against this measure.
5.55 p.m.
Mr. Philip Goodhart: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has said that a home is an extremely private place. I agree with him. I recall that not so many months ago the hon. Gentleman's home was not a very private place. A group of terrorist supporters—some of them were his constituents—broke into his house. The hon. Gentleman would have suffered injury and possible death if the security forces had not arrived to protect him.
Mr. Fitt: I do not know what papers the hon. Gentleman has been reading, but the police did not arrive at my home. I had to get rid of the crowd myself. I had to send for an ambulance for my wife, who had an asthmatic attack. A coloured doctor came into the house. I asked him where he was from and he told me that he came from Jamaica. I said "My God, you are here before the RUC". The members of the RUC did not come to my house.
Mr. Goodhart: I recall that the security forces did arrive. Certainly my recollection is not so clear—
Mr. John Carson: Is the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) aware that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) refused to have police protection on that night?
Mr. Goodhart: I was not present on the night in question, and no doubt the recollection of the hon. Member for Bel-
1706
fast, West is clearer than mine. However, I recall that he made a complaint, namely, that protection had not come sufficiently quickly.
I am sorry that some houses suffer from the excessive zeal of those who search them as a result of information that they have received. However, when we talk of civil liberties we must remember that the most important liberty for anyone in Northern Ireland, or the rest of the country, is one that ensures that his legs are not blown off, that his arms are not blown off and that he does not face the threat of death. That is the fundamental civil liberty that it is the Government's duty to protect.
I welcome the good news that the Secretary of State was able to give about the progress that has been made in tackling terrorism. I welcome the robust nature of his speech. I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues have been prepared to accept the advice that they have received from time to time from my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) on the conduct of security matters.
I also welcome the success that the Ulster Defence Regiment has had in recent months. It is perhaps inevitable that the media should pay more attention to the Regular forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary than to the work of the UDR, but since we last debated the continuation of these measures the work of the UDR has been exceptional.
Those who serve in the UDR have to work long hours. They have been called out on permanent duty for four weeks or five weeks. That has put some strain on the employers of members of the regiment. I regret that the situation for some rank-and-file members of the regiment seems to be getting harder rather than easier. For example, Courtauld gives a regiment man who has done a full night's duty some hours off in the morning. As I understand it, ICI does not do that. I regret that it does not follow the good practice that Courtauld has set.
I regret that the Government do not always set a good example. I understand that the electricity authority used to give some members of the regiment time off in the mornings when they had done a

1707
night's duty. It appears that it no longer does that. It is regrettable that the Government should not set a good example. At the same time I regret that the Government, by some curious interpretation of the unemployment rules, should be limiting the availability of certain UDR men when there is an industrial dispute.
Recently a fairly lengthy dispute at Courtauld led to a substantial number of members of the UDR being laid off. Under the unemployment regulations, any member of the regiment who did his normal duty, for which he was paid, had that payment removed from the benefit that he received. In fact he lost money by doing his regular duty. At a time when, through no fault of his own, he was more available to serve the community, he suffered considerable financial loss. Surely something can be done to put that matter right without too much difficulty.
I turn now to a somewhat more serious allegation that has twice been made to me by responsible memebers of the security forces regarding non-co-operation by elements of the Government. I have been told, both in Londonderry and outside Belfast, that the Housing Executive has refused to disclose to the security forces the names of those who have moved from addresses in the city centre to new housing estates. It seems ludicrous that all elements of the Government in Northern Ireland should not co-operate in trying to suppress terrorism by giving the information that the security forces require.
I hope that is not so. I hope that before the debate is concluded the Minister will give a categorical assurance that on no account will the Housing Executive withhold information from the security forces if and when it is asked for.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Has my hon. Friend also heard what I have heard, namely, that information about terrorism which comes into the possession of Her Majesty's customs—I am speaking of the border areas—is not made available to the security forces? I hope that is not true just as he hopes that the allegation that he has put to the House is not true. Perhaps the Minister will also reply to that point.
Mr. Goodhart: I hope that the Minister will reply to that point at the end of the debate.
Mr. Powell: It is a fact that the Housing Executive gives information about the movements of its tenants to the electoral registration officer. Therefore, it is evidently information that the Housing Executive does not regard as extremely confidential.
Mr. Goodhart: There may be some people who do not wish to have their names on the electoral register.
I welcome the statement by the Secretary of State that there is to be some additional grant for fire-watchers at business premises, which are increasingly being threatened by fire. Some small businesses find it very difficult to maintain an adequate guard. However, that is not the position with all businesses. The right hon. Gentleman has offered a carrot. Should he not also consider using a stick as well, because compensation in some cases is given too quickly and, indeed, too generously?
I have heard of legitimate business men who, when the firemen, or now the Service fire-fighters, have struggled manfully to bring a blaze under control and reported "It looks as though we shall be able to save this building or that pile of wood. "have said" Please do not try too hard." That is because people welcome the compensation payment coming quickly.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): Before the hon. Gentleman does too much damage, because these matters are very carefully noted in Northern Ireland, I remind him that the legislation that we put through earlier this year covers all the points that he is making. Compensation is considered very carefully and kept on a very tight rein.
Mr. Goodhart: I am aware that the rules for compensation for personal injury are very tight. Indeed, I welcome the tightening up of those rules. However, I am not satisfied that the balance is yet right regarding compensation for property.
Mr. Concannon: Two compensation measures one related to personal in—juries and the other to property—were put through the House last year.
Mr. Goodhart: I agree that the balance is right regarding compensation for personal injuries. I question whether in practice the balance is right regarding compensation for property.
We all know that some people in Northern Ireland are making a great deal of money out of violence. I have referred to them before as the Goldfingers of terrorism. I have also asked that there should be an increase in the numbers in the Fraud Squad to look into the illegal aspects of business in Northern Ireland.
Again, one comes back to the question of the godfathers of terrorism. The hon. Member for Belfast, West talked about harassment. Is not a little more harassment of some of these godfathers called for? There are not many of them—perhaps 30 or 40—and we know who they are. Many members of the security forces are disgusted that such people can run free at the moment.
The main difficulty of operating within the rules is converting intelligence into evidence which will stand up in a court of law. Could not some of these 30 or 40 godfathers, who organise the violence and recruit young men and women to do their dirty work for them, be arrested on a charge of belonging to an illegal organisation and brought to court? The evidence might not be completely satisfactory, but such people would then have to deny to the court that they were members of an illegal organisation—the IRA. They would have to try and produce evidence to show that they were not members of such an organisation. Even if one could not prove that someone such as Martin Meehan was a member of an illegal organisation, because he would deny it on the defence stand, damage would be caused to the morale of the mebers of that organisation.
The Secretary of State talked of the debt that we owe to the security forces in Northern Ireland. He spoke of the fortitude with which they carry out their task. Tomorrow we shall have an opportunity of going into greater detail of the debt that we owe to all members of the Armed Forces. A substantial number of young soldiers in Northern Ireland are working up to 100 hours a week and receiving less in take-home pay than the Grunwick workers. That is a crying shame. When we talk of a debt of grati-
1710
tude, we should put our money where our words are.
6.11 p.m.
Mr. Tom Litterick: I hesitate, as always, to speak in Ulster debates, because I view with trepidation the prospect of discussing the internal affairs of a foreign country. Ulster is a foreign country. I have been there and it is, in every sense, unmistakably a foreign country
It has been said and written that the history of Ireland is the past repeating itself over and over again. When I listened to the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) praising the courage, loyalty and dedication to duty of our troops and members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary I reflected that Englishmen have been standing up in places such as this for the last 700 years—since the twelfth century—and talking about our brave lads who are dying, sacrificing and being loyal over there in Ireland. It is, to say the least, boring, if only because there can be nothing new to say about our sending armed men into that country to do what armed men have always done in that country. It is repetitive.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said that we had been passing Ulster measures such as the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act for the last 50 years. He could have said that we had been passing such measures for Ireland for many more years than that. It must have got home to someone somewhere in the official world that guns, emergency provisions, Draconian laws and the abridgement of people's liberties in Northern Ireland are not the answer to the Ireland problem, which is still with us today.
It does not help when the Secretary of State or his Shadow say "Things are getting better". We must look at the problem in the perspective of past centuries. No doubt people have always been saying that things are getting better in Ireland and that they are not as bad as they were. But things do not get better; they remain lousy. Yet Britain's answer is still to send our brave, loyal lads over there to kill someone in order to preserve law and order.
Some people forget that that law and order are law and order as defined by

1711
by the London Government. Therefore, the law and order being fought and died for by ordinary men are a law and order in British interests, conceived in British interests and not in the interests of the people who live in Ireland.
I am prepared to believe in the Secretary of State's protestations of sincerity when he says that he wishes to solve the problem. I am sure that he does, as has every person who has gone from here to Northern Ireland. However, the Secretary of State wishes to solve the problem in his terms. Britain has always wished to solve the problem in English terms. Bluntly, they are alien, because Ireland is a foreign country.
Mr. McCusker: Can the hon. Member clarify his definition of "foreign country"? Does he consider Scotland to be a foreign country as well?
Mr. Litterick: No.
Mr. McCusker: Why?
Mr. Litterick: I have answered the hon. Member's question succinctly and without ambiguity. If he wishes to stage a debate on the philosophy of Scottish nationalism, let him take the appropriate measures. I can promise him a thrashing. My answer is "No".
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): It is not in order to discuss Scotland. We are concerned with the first three motions on the Order Paper.
Mr. Litterick: The hon. Member for Abingdon made a curious error, if error it was. He referred to the "glorious republicans". He said that the people who are now active with the gun and the bomb are not the "glorious republicans" of history. This is a peculiar habit of thought which is common to Englishmen. By some myserious process and at some ill-defined point in time, those men of 50 to 100 years ago who fought against English power and who were then called bloody murderers and arsonists posthumously became the "glorious republicans".
It is interesting that the newspapers of 50 years ago described these "glorious republicans" in exactly the same terms that the hon. Member used to describe the bombers and gunmen of today. Maybe he should rethink his ideas. Who is
1712
principled and who is not? Who is glorious and who is not? At what point in time did the men of history become principled and glorious?
The same trend of thought happens in this House. It is said that there used to be principled Socialists on the Left. The Tories today quote from Nye Bevan who apparently is now right posthumously in everything but wrong when he was alive. It is a trick which the House should recognise.
Comments have been made about the behaviour of television companies which are alleged to be subverting the efforts of the State. The hon. Member for Abingdon said that they would not accept moral responsibility for their actions. I wonder what kind of evidence he has for that and what contact he has had with those who run our television organisations, which are widely admired. It was noticeable that his hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) cited the Press as his reason for saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West was glad to have the assistance of the police when he had his little local difficulties. It was not true, but the hon. Member was encouraged to believe this as a result of the media while his hon. Friend is concerned about the media being morally irresponsible.
Mr. Goodhart: The story was in The Times, the Daily Telegraph, The Guardian, the Sun, the Daily Mail and the Express.
Mr. Litterick: The hon. Member is treading on dangerous ground. What he really means is that the people who are responsible for making those television programmes about which he complains do not see reality as he sees it. They work within their constraints as they see them, within the terms of their responsibilities as they see them. In other contexts hon. Members, particularly those on the Front Benches, are for ever standing up and extolling the virtues of freedom of expression in the media. We are supposed to have more such freedom than anywhere else in the world. We cannot have our cake and eat it.
The hon. Member for Abingdon said in his later remarks that he would support any action the Home Secretary proposed to take to deal with this matter.

1713
That is going into dangerous waters. I do not know what he thought the Home Secretary had in mind, but I can imagine that it is nothing good, either for the media in Britain or the British people. Clearly, what the hon. Member has in mind is some form of State-imposed constraint on the media when there should be a freedom to examine reality. I can assure the hon. Member that what he suggests is unacceptable to the British people.
Mr. Neave: I said nothing of the kind. I said that when the House came to debate broadcasting I hoped that the matter would be fully debated and I also said that I would support the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in the remarks he has made in the past.
Mr. Litterick: I am glad that I have persuaded the hon. Member to shift his ground, if only a little.
One of the other peculiarities of this situation is that the attitude that some display towards the question of political dissent is remarkably similar to the attitude found in authoritarian countries. I have had heated conversations with people who are designated as the chairmen or presidents of Orange Lodges. It is difficult, rather like trying to have a conversation with a firing squad. But one or two ideas get through. These people regard any form of dissent from their views as treason. These are powerful people. This is one of the principal reasons why we have to discuss this legislation.
Mr. McCusker: Name them.
Mr. Litterick: Every grand master? Every one? These are the people to whom I am referring. Their attitude to Catholics is literally the same as that of the white South African to the Bantu. I am not talking about 10 years, 20 years or 50 years ago. I am talking about now. It is a hideous political fact of life, but it enables these people to treat dissent in the same way as the KGB—as a form of treason, irrespective of the source from which it comes and the reason for which it is articulated.
This attitude has resulted in the political intolerances of Ulster spreading to the mainland of the United Kingdom. We
1714
now have such things as the so-called Prevention of Terrorism Act, which has very much abridged the liberties of every British citizen on the mainland. Our constituents in mainland Britain are having to pay for the hideous intolerance and ferocity of the attitudes of the people to whom I have referred. We are all paying.
Once again the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has to ask for ridiculous, repressive legislation because, he says, he hopes that it will solve the problem. The facts of seven centuries argue against him more than anything that can be said here.
I ask the House to bear in mind this last thought. If Russian troops were patrolling the streets of Derry and Belfast, what would their attitudes be? There would be no difficulty in judging the morality of the situation then. The House would be unanimous. No one would accept the explanation of the KGB that its handling of prisoners was proper and wholly defensible. I ask the House to consider that. It may be that there are many people who reasonably take the same attitude towards British troops patrolling their streets and towards British para-military policemen imposing their form of justice upon people who regard such a presence as an alien force.
6.27 p.m.
Mr. John Carson: I will not attempt to follow up the remarks of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick). One had only to listen to his speech to realise how far he is removed from the situation. He has completely convinced those who know the facts that he does not know anything about Northern Ireland and what happens there.
I am deeply concerned about the security situation in Northern Ireland, but I feel that we must be encouraged by what the Secretary of State has said today about the progress that has been made. I join with my colleagues and other hon. Members—I am sorry that there are so few hon. Members present—in paying tribute to the Secretary of State for the progress he and his ministerial colleagues have made in the past few months in Northern Ireland. I do not refer only to the security situation. Much has been done to attract fresh industry.

1715
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) has given his thoughts on the existing security arrangements in town centres in his constituency. I wish to adopt some of his thoughts and apply them to the arrangements pertaining to Belfast city centre. I am in no way complacent, and nor are my Ulster Unionist colleagues, about the security situation in Northern Ireland. We would be the first to attack any suggestion aimed at lessening the security effort. I say that in case anyone should misunderstand the purpose of the proposal that I wish to make.
The present security arrangements in Belfast city centre present no deterrent to the IRA. I take the view that the atmosphere they generate causes the greatest harm to the morale of the law-abiding population. Let me give a few examples, as one closely connected with the area, an area which has, perhaps, the largest number of interface areas in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) can substantiate that.
There is among the people in the area a ground swell in which they are seeking to come together. Over the past few months they have come together to discuss housing and community programmes. This can be borne out by the Ministers who deal with Northern Ireland affairs. The people concerned—those who are saying to the Government "Enough is enough. For heaven's sake get off our back. Let us get together and bring some normality back and some peace."—are frustrated when they come to Belfast city centre and see the large iron barriers surrounding certain parts. I myself think that these barriers now serve no purpose. They are a waste of public money both in maintenance and in staffing, and they waste the time of members of the security forces who could be better employed elsewhere.
I hope that we have seen the end of the proxy bomb. The Secretary of State said today that one of the greatest enemies we have in Northern Ireland is the incendiary device. Despite almost 300 searchers in the centre of Belfast, at the cost of a lot of public money, these incendiary devices are getting into city centre shops.
People who, in their own areas, enjoy a community life and are trying to come
1716
together, are frustrated when they reach the barriers and have to queue for 10 or 15 minutes in order to go into certain parts of the city. Sometimes the searching is not a very good job. In the past few weeks I have made some observations of searchers in Belfast, and I must be critical and say that they are not as effective as they should be. After being searched, people proceed to large stores like Marks and Spencer's or Boots, and again have to queue for 10 or 15 minutes in order to be searched before they go in.
The concern of Ministers and of elected representatives is to keep alive at least part of the centre of Belfast, and I should like to see the barriers removed completely, at least for the Christmas period, and a drastic reduction in the number of searches. About one-third of those presently involved in searches at the barriers should be moving about the centre doing spot checks on people. They may need a little training in how to carry out spot checks, but I believe that, moving around the centre of Belfast carrying out spot checks, they could, with the security barriers completely removed, be far more effective than the present system.
The people have made known in the past that they are frustrated and tired. They long to shop in the centre of Belfast, but the situation there forbids their doing so. In their own areas they enjoy a certain amount of freedom, but in the centre of Belfast they find themselves restricted in their freedom. I ask the Secretary of State to look closely at the question of the security barriers, for I am sure that he will see that they are serving no purpose and should be removed, and that a number of searchers should be deployed as I have suggested.
The right hon. Gentleman has given his backing to suggestions we have made, because he has generously granted assistance to shopkeepers who employ 10 or more people by way of grant to finance fire-watching. Thus, fire-watching is being financed by public money. Fire watchers are quite capable of dealing with incendiary devices, and are more effective than having searchers doing a half-hearted job at the security barriers.
I am not altogether satisfied that the grant should be made only to large stores and people employing 10 or more

1717
persons. We have many small shopkeepers who employ fewer than 10 people. They are on the outskirts of the security area. They have been paying the same rates as people in the centre of Belfast; they have been paying the same overheads and the same wages. Yet there has been no provision for the small shopkeepers, who have carried on through the difficult years of terrorism, of burnings, bombings and shootings. No concession has been made to them to help with fire-watching. I ask the Secretary of State to look at this matter again, to see what provision can be made for the small shopkeepers who are determined, in spite of the bombs of the IRA terrorists, to carry on business and to try to make Belfast and their businesses as viable as possible.
I give a depressing example of what happens at the security barriers. One day I spent half an hour on observation in Donegall Place. On both sides of the barrier there is an exit for those leaving the security area. The people leaving the security area are supposed to go through iron gates to be searched inside the compound. Three weeks ago, I saw two women and a boy aged about 16 openly walk in through what is supposed to be an exit only, and which has on the outside "No Entry", into Donegall Place and into the centre of Belfast. That way through is supposed to be the exit for those leaving the area, yet these three people were unnoticed by the searchers or troops on duty as they reversed the process.
I am delighted that the Secretary of State expressed his confidence in and paid tribute to the RUC, the UDR, the police reserves and the Army for the magnificent job that they are doing in extreme difficulties. At Question Time recently the right hon. Gentleman said that he was satisfied that the Army and the police have now sufficient weapons and vehicles to deal with terrorist organisations. Like other hon. Members, I had a lot of telephone calls from policemen or their wives, and all said that they did not yet have sufficient vehicles or weapons to combat the terrorists, although they had been promised them many months ago.
Just four nights ago, moving around a rather violent area of Belfast, I was appalled to see a transit van with about
1718
10 policemen on board. What sort of vehicle is that supposed to be for fighting terrorist organisations which have been attacking the police, killing, wounding and maiming them as they move around trying to save people from death or injury? Vehciles like transit vans are not suitable for transporting policemen around such areas. The Secretary of State should step up the supply of suitable vehicles and weapons to these men who, day after day, month after month and year after year are working to combat the terrorism in Northern Ireland.
I turn now to the subject of prisons. When does the Minister hope to be in a position to put prisoners into Meghaberry Prison? When will it be ready? There is a great need for prisons that will take remand prisoners. I believe that we could convert for this purpose.
Sometimes I feel sorry for some of the young men who have been caught up by the violence that has existed in Northern Ireland for the past nine years. I have visited the prisoners and their homes and have talked to young men who have left prison. There is certainly a need to provide better facilities for them. These men may be in prison for five to 10 years, but we have to accept that one day they will leave prison and take their place back in society. It is up to us to provide facilities to give them proper training so that they can come back into society, seek employment and take their place in society once again.
The Crumlin Road Prison is overcrowded with remand prisoners. I have been told that the centre block in the Maze Prison is also overcrowded. Many men in these blocks are denied recreation facilities because there is insufficient room, and some prisoners in Crumlin Road Prison have been locked up for 23 hours a day, with only one hour's exercise a day, because of fears for their lives. I appeal to the Minister to look closely at this and give us some information on what progress is being made.
Mr. Fitt: Has the hon. Gentleman heard of a very disquieting rumour circulating in Northern Ireland that loyalist para-military prisoners in Long Kesh, led by Gusty Spence, are actually taking courses in the Irish language? Does not he consider that this is far more dangerous than the facilities provided for them in Long Kesh?
Mr. Carson: I am not as well acquainted with that rumour as the hon. Gentleman, but I have read about it in the Press. I cannot elaborate any further on it.
I am concerned about the young men and teenagers who the Secretary of State said had been caught up in the wicked violence in Northern Ireland, who have never been in trouble before and have been brought up in good homes. I believe that if those young boys are treated properly when they leave prison there is hope for them. We have to provide better facilities and try to give them a better future and set an example if we are to fit them back into society.
I appeal to the Minister to look closely at prison conditions and state when Meghaberry Prison will be ready for occupation, and when he hopes to lift the burden at present placed on prison officers in the Crumlin Road and Maze Prisons.
6.44 p.m.
Mr. John Farr: I hope that the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) will forgive me if I do not take up the detailed matters which he raised. Obviously, he speaks with great knowledge of his part of the world. I wish to direct my attention more particularly to what the Secretary of State told us and to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave).
Before I come to that, however, I wish to refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). He, at least, has had the decency to stay here through the debate so far. He puts contentious points, but he is good enough to remain and listen to the response, which is always the sign of a good democrat. I felt that the hon. Gentleman was not his usual careful self when he spoke of people being unable to put a complaint about the police to an impartial body or tribunal. As I understand it—I think that this was made at least partly clear from the Government Front Bench—Northern Ireland today has an unparalleled service, certainly in Europe, for the impartial hearing of complaints against the police. This is a new situation, quite unparalleled, and I believe it to be good.
Next, I did not think that the hon. Member for Belfast, West was in his usual good form when he spoke of the
1720
difficulties encountered by people who are taken in for short periods, perhaps 72 hours, for questioning. I quite appreciate that it is disconcerting for people to be taken off a job, and there may be the risk of unemployment if it happens repeatedly. But the hon. Gentleman should remember, as a good democrat, that an employer who has had an employee taken off his bench or other important work on three or four occasions in a short time will think "Will he be here tomorrow? When will he come back?" If the employee is doing a critical job, it is not necessarily the stigma attached to being apprehended for questioning which causes difficulty. It is the fact that he is not a reliable attender at work. That is a sad affair, and there is this other aspect of the matter to be borne in mind.
I congratulate the Secretary of State in the splendid improvement in security shown by the figures which he gave the House today. It was said, I think, by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) that this year in Northern Ireland has been marked in a most significant way by the visit of Her Majesty the Queen. That visit went off in a splendid fashion, but it should not be forgotten that its great success was made possible by the improvement in the security situation.
It was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon—I think that this is how he put it—that some sort of recognition or award should be given to the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, that they should be considered, perhaps, for a General Service Medal. I wholeheartedly support that, and I believe that the entire House will do so too. The RUC has done a most tedious job in a very quiet and effective manner over many years, and I believe that such an award would be a great encouragement.
In this connection, I remind the Minister of State that there is on the Order Paper Early-Day Motion No. 26 referring to Captain Nairac. That motion has been signed by almost 200 Members of all three major parties, expressing the hope that he should be properly recognised, though posthumously, for the valiant man he was.
The Secretary of State spoke of his plans to reduce the standing number of troops in Northern Ireland from, I believe,

1721
14,000 by 1,000 at the end of the year. I was sorry, however, that he made only passing reference to the living accommodation of those troops. I know that this matter has been raised in the House several times in the past, and it has been the subject of discussion and questioning during defence debates. I hope that the Secretary of State will recognize—I am sure that he does, though he failed to make this absolutely clear today—that Service men in Northern Ireland today are probably in the most difficult non-combat situation in the world. Doing a difficult and dangerous job as they are, they should have accommodation not just up to normal or up to average but, where possible, above average.
Although there is to be, we hope, a steady rundown of the military presence in the Province, as far as one can see the need will remain for a substantial presence there for some time, and it is essential that the Service men who maintain that presence be properly accommodated in conditions which are better than average. The risks and hazards which they undergo warrant no less than that.
The Secretary of State referred also to the welcome improvement in the safety of the security forces. He told us how the number of deaths among civilians, among Service personnel and among the security forces generally was down on the previous year's figure. He went on to refer to the assistance which he proposes to give to firms and others for the employment of fire-watchers. The hon. Member for Belfast, North has just referred to that. I was not quite clear from the right hon. Gentleman's reference to shops and offices how far that assistance would go, and I hope that warehouse premises also will qualify, since at this time, as always, they need particular attention and scrutiny by fire-watchers.
There was one matter which I was sorry not to hear the right hon. Gentleman mention, and I put an inquiry about it now. What has happened to the joint Republic of Ireland-British endeavour to get some common ground regarding a pattern of identification for detonators? The Minister of State will recall that this subject was discussed in the last Session, and a Bill was introduced which did not
1722
make much progress. I believe that a Bill was introduced in the other place also.
There has been and is definite evidence showing that some form of standardisation in the production and content of detonators in Britain and the Republic of Ireland would help the security forces on both sides of the border in detecting the origin of explosive material. I shall be grateful if the Minister of State will tell us how matters stand and give an assurance that that endeavour has not been forgotten.
We all agree—certainly we on this side agree—with my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon when he says that there must be no long-term or short-term amnesty for political prisoners, and there must be no Christmas amnesty either, at this time. These people are criminals. They are in prison. From my limited experience, I know that what keeps the fuel of terrorism burning is the belief among ignorant people that, if the pressure is kept up long enough, sooner or later some relation or friend in detention will be released when a general amnesty comes along. That can never happen. They must always remain as criminals and must serve their sentences in the normal way. I was glad to hear the Secretary of State spell that out as he did today.
I turn next to the question of cross-border co-operation. I was glad to hear from the Secretary of State that the progress which had been made in this respect with the previous Irish Government has apparently continued apace, despite the change of Government in the summer. It is essential that cross-border co-operation in the apprehension of terrorists and the prevention of terrorism be encouraged and undertaken on a continuing basis.
Next, I ask the Minister of State to tell us what has happened about the convention on the suppression of terrorism which Her Majesty's Government signed in January this year at Strasbourg. By their signature, the Government gave an implicit undertaking that the principles and purposes of that convention would be included in our domestic legislation at the earliest possible date. However, there was nothing in this year's Gracious Speech about it.

1723
The Prime Minister mentioned many other measures that might come along that were not mentioned in the Gracious Speech, but no legislation to enact the convention on the suppression of terrorism was foreshadowed. Many of us on this side of the House believe that that convention would help in the battle against terrorism. We signed it in January of this year at Strasbourg without reservation. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, when he was Secretary of State for Defence, welcomed it in the House and said what a useful convention it was.
What has been done about that convention? Why cannot we get it on to the statute book so that some of the innumerable benefits in the convention, which has been signed by all the countries in Europe except the Republic of Ireland and, I think, one other, can be gained? It would be advantageous for extradition proceedings and other matters relating to terrorist offences.
I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will say what has happened. I hope he will tell us that this important convention has not been forgotten and that it is one of the things that he personally will seek to put on the statute book in this Session of Parliament.
6.56 p.m.
Mr. Martin Flannery: It is a melancholy fact that once again in 1977 we are having to discuss the emergency provisions. I am always conscious of the fact that most of the hon. Members who speak in these debates have to live in Northern Ireland and go through all that they do. Although many of the things that I say are in opposition to them, I am dreadfully aware of that and, therefore, I should like them to know it.
The security situation is better. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. Everybody agrees about it, whatever his political stance. I was in Northern Ireland about a fortnight ago with a small party of Labour Members, and we had discussions with every political grouping.I want to say one or two things about those discussions, having underlined the fact of the good security situation compared with what it has been. I want the burden of what I have to say to make it clear that we should not be lulled into a
1724
false sense of security. The only thing that will make the situation really better in the long term in Northern Ireland is a political solution, and that must inevitably mean a democratic solution to the problems that we face.
I am bound to say, based on the discussions that we had—and I am giving a purely personal opinion of them—that I do not see that on the agenda anywhere at all. I must also say that if we were to think that because the security situation is better the political situation is equally better, we should be living in dreamland. It is just not true, and that point must be made.
As I said, we met all the various groupings, and in the process of meeting them there was a clear line of demarcation between the gentlemen who represented the Unionist side and the other groupings, in particular the SDLP and the Alliance Party. I think that they were all trying to think through to a solution, but I coud not detect any movement politically at all in the official Unionist or the Democratic Unionist Party. It seemed to me that they were wishing that the situation—the security situation as well—would somehow solve itself without their making any political movement towards the minority community. I say that as one who does not live in the Province and, therefore, sees the situation only from a distance, but who is making an honourable effort to try to help.
I felt that there was an intransigence among the official Unionists, and more particularly among the Democratic Unionists, of a kind that means that regulations such as these will be discussed year after year if something does not move, if something does not give, because the real weapon against terrorism is democracy. Terrorism will have disappear without democracy, and I believe that there is not democracy in Northern Ireland. I believe that it is the easiest thing in the world to say "In any election we shall win and we shall be the majority, and, therefore, that is democracy."
An election is only part of democracy. Democracy means the attitude of the majority to the minority and that of the minority to the majority. It means a

1725
living together, and integration and an understanding of the position that each occupies. [Interruption.] I sincerely hope that it is happening. I am merely saying that on my brief visit I could not detect it in certain areas.
Let me give an example of what I mean. I am almost telling a tale out of school, but it indicates a frame of mind. I am glad to see the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) back in his seat, because he has not been in this place for quite a long time. I want to underline a frame of mind which, in my opinion, is alien to what most of us want and will have us here a year hence as sure as anything unless it changes.
On the wall of the room in which we had our discussions, there was a disgraceful montage of a newspaper cutting showing the Pope kissing the foot of the hon. Member for Antrim, North. I am not a Catholic. I am a politician trying to do a job of work. I am on neither side of the sectarian divide. But if that intransigent frame of mind, which also described the Common Market, to which I am opposed, as a Papist plot using the Treaty of Rome as somehow meaning that that is where it all emanated, does not change in the face of the terrible happenings that have gone on, it will blow up in our faces all over again.
If a political solution is not forthcoming which would betoken a change of mind from the intransigence, the terrorists will be empowered again to start the melancholy list of killings which results in gaolings, and round and round it all goes. Therefore, if there is one message that I am trying to bring to this small debate—we are the same people debating, and I have an understanding of what it means to hon. Gentlemen opposite and to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) who live there—it is that if we do not ensure that the hand of democracy is extended from the majority community in a much greater form than it is at present, we shall go on for ever discussing these security regulations.
Mr. McCusker: We have listened to the hon. Gentleman on other occasions. He has been fair in what he has said. I accept that in the political scene there has been no movement in Northern
1726
Ireland. Is he suggesting, however, that because of that the British Government at Westminster cannot guarantee equality of opportunity and democracy to all the citizens of Northern Ireland, and that if we cannot come to an agreeable solution on Northern Ireland perhaps we have to accept that this place holds the ling and does provide equality of opportunity?
Mr. Flannery: No. I understand the hon. Gentleman's points, and they are pungent. My right hon. and hon. Friends on my Front Bench know my point of view. It differs slightly from theirs, but I know that they are grappling with the situation as best they can. I have had long talks with them. No matter what we do here, in the last analysis democracy in Northern Ireland rests with hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches and with the representatives of the minority community. They will have to decide on the democratic measures. We shall do our best to be helpful, but in the last analysis frames of mind must change, in particular in the majority community.
I want peace in Northern Ireland. I think that there can be peace there. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Secretary of State on everything, and he knows that, but he has won great respect in the Province. Everybody seemed to think that, although there were differences of opinion. I believe that a solution to the problem rests with hon. Gentlemen opposite in particular, and I do not detect any movement, in general terms, in the frame of mind of the official Unionist and Democratic Unionist Parties.
I should like to hear in any debate we have here of where there is a real unbending towards the minority, otherwise once again we shall be lulled into a sense of false security by the easing of the security situation and it could all go wrong. Heaven forbid, but that is what could happen.
7.5 p.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I was interested in the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) and in particular his comment about the political impasse in Northern Ireland. On the other hand, he was a little less than fair to his own Government in not referring to the Speaker's Conference which is now

1727
examining the question of Northern Ireland representation here at Westminster, which must mean that more representatives from the minority community will come to the House of Commons. By the same token, the hon. Gentleman failed to mention the remarks recently made by the Secretary of State about a devolved Administration.
Mr. Flannery: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but I sought strictly to confine my remarks. If my remarks are interpreted in the way that the hon. Gentleman is interpreting them—I think mistakenly—it is true that it could then be said that I was being unfair, but I tried not to be unfair. I am aware of the various events that are taking place.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for saying that, because I agree with him about the deep prejudices and divisions that apply in the Province.
I want to start the main part of my speech by congratulating the Secretary of State, and, indeed, all the Northern Ireland Ministers, on the remarkable catalogue of success that we have heard this afternoon. All of us must take great heart from the obvious successes which have been won against the men of violence. We read of the continuing number of arrests. We hear of the court cases. We know that following those court cases have come the convictions, which are so long overdue but so richly deserved on those who have brought death and destruction to the Province, which has surely suffered more than any other part of the United Kingdom in the past 50 years.
Having said that, however, I must strike one sour note. I am sure that the Minister of State saw the front cover of the Sun this morning and will have read the blazing headline:
"£100 fines for the tired out troops. Fury of 18 hours a day lads."
It continues:
"Work weary British troops are being fined staggering sums of money in Ulster for turning up late on parade."
The report states that no less than £108,000 is owed by troops in Northern Ireland in unpaid fines. It uses the description of one young soldier who says:
"They work us like cart horses and we live in billets fit for pigs."
In its editorial comment, the Sun says:
1728
"Too many men are working too many hours and getting too little sleep for too many weeks at a time."
I do not know whether that story is as accurate as it would appear to be. I am worried when I hear the Secretary of State say that the number of troops in Northern Ireland is to be reduced by one unit, at a time when such a story appears in a national newspaper. If it be true that men are overworked how can we justifiably reduce the numbers? If it he not true that they are overworked, clearly the Sun story does not stand up. I should be grateful if the Minister of State would find time to say something, about this matter because it is causing concern, particularly at a time when the pay of our soldiers in Northern Ireland is also a matter of concern.
I want now to take up one other matter in the Secretary of State's Speech about the deployment of our Forces. He talked about the possibility of a second unit being kept on garrison duties in the Province. I ask the Government to consider again the possibility of that second unit being a Northern Irish regiment. This is an old and long-standing issue. As one who served in a Northern Irish regiment, I am aware that some Northern Irish regiments at least would like occasionally to do a tour of duty in the country from which they recruit.
Although I appreciate that this has been a sensitive problem at the height of the troubles, as we now have a semi-professional Ulster Defence Regiment I wonder whether we could not consider that a professional UDR man with his family in Northern Ireland is little different from a Royal Irish Ranger with his family in Northern Ireland. I throw the thought out to the Minister of State. If he chooses to say something about it, I shall be grateful.
Unlike some of those who have spoken today, not only do I take heart from what the Government say but I even wonder whether we shall be having our six-monthly ritual of debating the emergency provisions. I wonder whether there is not now a hope that peace will break out in Northern Ireland and that the terrorist scourge will be reduced to such small proportions that we shall be thinking not only about the present but with optimism about the future. Whether that happens

1729
will continue to depend upon the effectiveness of our security forces, but the attrition being suffered by the terrorists, the fact that they so often now seem to have to depend upon very young men and women to do their dirty work and the fact that their money supply from North America is drying up are surely signs that their organisation is in deep trouble—as we would wish it to be—and is not able to sustain the level of violence that only a few years ago seemed to be so natural to it.
Of course, complacency would be dangerous. It would be terribly dangerous to drop our guard, to imagine that the problem is now diminished to such an extent that risks can be taken. That is the danger of congratulating the Government too much. People may say "At long last the Government are on top of the troubles."
Just the same, that optimism, that hope, is in my breast tonight and I feel that I must lend a little flesh to my thoughts by saying that the success of the security forces will depend upon the Government's ability to seize the initiative. I see that initiative in a number of lights. I see it in terms of political institutions, and in this regard I follow the hon. Member for Hillsborough.
I have already referred to the Speaker's Conference. I was surprised to hear the Leader of the House say in evidence to that Conference that the new representation now under discussion was overdue by 50 years. I agree. I also noted what the Secretary of State said about administrative devolution. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) described it as "waffle" when he was in Belfast yesterday, and I am a little inclined to agree with him, particularly after having read Sir Patrick Macrory's letter in The Times on Monday, in which Sir Patrick made it clear that anybody who imagined that his proposals added up to the sort of administrative devolution that the Secretary of State talked about would miss the point. If, as Sir Patrick said, Stormont had not existed, he would have been talking about a top layer of local government.
If we are talking about democracy and fair representation for Northern Ireland, we cannot monkey about with the struc-
1730
ture of government there simply because it fits somebody's preconceived idea. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and it deserves to have the same structure, the right representation of its peoples and the right local government.
I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that if he does not give Northern Ireland that sort of structure he will be open to the accusation of not wanting democratic institutions on the United Kingdom style in the Province. The question of whether we can make something of the new-found possibility will also depend upon the industrial base of the Province and whether we can expand the industries there and bring in new factories.
I want to pay my tribute to the Minister of State. I know how hard he has worked to bring new work to Northern Ireland. People in Northern Ireland to whom I have spoken have nothing but praise for him.
Much will also depend upon education and whether some of the children in the Province can attend integrated schools. It is strange that we should find that such a difficult concept. It will also depend on whether the special category status prisoners go on training as if they were waiting for the day when as prisoners of war they are released to join their terrorist organisations. It will depend on the young offenders and whether they are treated properly—whether we recognise that they can be saved from a life of prejudice and hate. Perhaps the Minister of State, in his reply, will say whether the Hyde Bankwood Young Offenders Centre is ready and operational. I gather from his nod that he is saying that it is.
Mr. Concannon: I shall comment on the whole of this subject in my winding-up speech.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: In that case, I turn now to the media and, above all, to whether the community in Northern Ireland can see itself as a unity, and whether it will accept that the police are its police and not just the majority's police who have nothing to do with the minority. All this will depend on the public relations aspects of building up a new confidence that everyone will be treated fairly and impartially

1731
—that the police are on nobody's side and on everybody's side. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has expressed his concern about this. That concern will be eliminated, I suggest, when it is clear beyond peradventure that the suggestion that the police are somehow biased cannot be sustained.
I believe that the Royal Ulster Constabulary has done a marvellous job in fulfilling the role of the primacy of the police. The Chief Constable's annual report refers to redeployment and to re-equipment. But I was worried by the comments of the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) that the police may not have had all the equipment that we have been told they have received. The annual report also refers to the antiterrorist squads and to the fresh approach by the police to the problem of terrorism. It seemed to me that the Chief Constable summed up the new approach when he wrote that:
"Crimes of terrorism can most effectively be dealt with by highly professional and sophisticated police methods."
That does not simply mean men on patrol. It must mean the interrogation of those whom the police suspect of being involved in acts of terrorism.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West told us about the house that was pulled to pieces because one of the sniffer dogs had apparently misled the Army. But suppose that arms had been found in that house. Would not that search have been justified? In the light of the new figures showing the success of the operations against the terrorists, can we honestly turn our back on any possibility that may help to reduce the amount of armaments in the country and the danger that exists to the population of the Province?
Mr. Fitt: I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that a dog is not a human being and that we do not even know what makes dogs sniff or smell things out or how accurate they can be in these operations. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that some precaution should be taken in case a dog is mistaken? In the case in question, the Army went berserk and put a whole house out of use, with the consequence that the poor woman who had lived in it had to move to another part of
1732
Belfast. I cannot see any justification for the Army being so ruthless and brutal in the wrecking of that home.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: I do not know the precise conditions or circumstances in which the search was ordered. Therefore, I shall not pursue the point further but will let it take me on to another quotation from the Chief Constable's annual report, in which he speaks about the problem of complaints. He states:
"Police conduct and the system of investigating complaints should be capable of withstanding close scrutiny."
I think that this is the point about which the hon. Member for Belfast, West was so concerned. To some extent it turns itself into an argument about whether the media have the right, if they believe that a matter is of public concern, to broadcast programmes on television or to write articles in newspapers. Of course, it is perfectly fair and reasonable for the police to feel, as my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon has pointed out, that such programmes give credence to accusations made against them which are unfounded and unjustified.
It is also perfectly fair to say that such programmes tend to lend support to the accusations made by those who are seeking to make capital out of their allegations, and that in turn will sour the relationship of the community—particularly the minority community—with the police. I was also involved in correspondence with Sir Michael Swann concerning the interviews to which reference has been made. The media will naturally claim that they were reporting what they believed to be matters of public concern and that it is their duty to report them, whether it is in Northern Ireland, Wales, Scotland or England.
I do not think that the media can get out on the simple argument that Northern Ireland is the same as any other part of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon brought this point out very forcefully. It is a sensitive situation. People are killed in Northern Ireland in ways in which they are not killed in the rest of the United Kingdom. The destruction in Northern Ireland has only to be seen in order to be recognised for what it is. Yet, having said that, I believe that we have to be

1733
extremely careful before imposing limitations on the media in carrying out the job which they believe is their responsibility.
I recognise that there is a grey area between what the media may reasonably feel is their responsibility and what the security forces may consider to be areas which are so dangerous, if badly handled, as to lead to the loss of life. It was the present Home Secretary who, when Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, said during the Second Reading of the Emergency Provisions (Northern Ireland) Bill in 1973 that
"Democracy must defend itself, but it must do so through the rule of law."—[Official Report, 17th April 1973; Vol. 855, c. 300.]
I should like to add to that quotation the words "and in the public gaze". This is really what we are talking about. Any attempt to muzzle that criticism, which should be heard will in the end be more harmful to the security forces and to the police than if it is allowed to be heard.
Mr. Fitt: That is quite right.
Mr. McNair-Wilson: But that does not exempt the media from a greater responsibility when dealing with the affairs of sensitive areas.
I ask the Minister of State to say what thought the Government have given to setting up a round-table conference with the Independent Broadcasting Authority, the British Broadcasting Corporation and the newspapers. What thought have the Government given to setting up a voluntary code of practice which would at least lay down guidelines which the media should follow before they put out their programmes, and which would give the particular authority—be it the police, the Army, the Prison Service or the Department itself—the opportunity to put forward all the arguments which should be in the minds of those creating the programmes but which may not be there.
Despite the way the media may write to my hon. Friend, the Member for Abingdon, I think that they are more concerned than they may care to admit about this matter. With that in mind, I conclude by quoting from an admirable article written by Miss Angela Lambert, who is herself a television reporter,
1734
entitled "Truth and the Camera", in which she makes some very important statements. She says:
"Time and again I have marvelled at the way in which many people evidently believe that the television camera's….presence is proof of the importance, the urgency, the newsworthiness of what's going on....This problem is most acute on occasions like marches or demonstrations where the 'ordinary' spectators along the streets can only be a fraction of those who will be reached through the medium of television. A march from, say, Hyde Park Corner to Downing Street that is witnessed by ten thousand people has attracted a respectable amount of kerbside attention: yet the same march, shown that evening on television news, will most likely be seen by nearer ten million. So inevitably, once the marchers become aware of the camera's position, their banners and slogans will be directed towards it and the huge audience it offers, and the....scattering of passers-by will be ignored. The police know this too; and it sometimes seemed to me that they tensed themselves ready for trouble when the camera team arrived; for any scuffles, any provocative behaviour, any shouting of insults were more likely to occur in front of the camera."
Miss Lambert ends her article with these two observations:
"Those of us who are professionally associated with television are probably aware of these metamorphoses of reality that I've described, and we make allowances for them; but the vast majority of viewers are not. Perhaps this is another instance of the ways in which people need to be educated into a greater understanding of the uses and consequences of media technology…Perhaps in time viewers will become sophisticated enough to realise that the very fact that a television camera was there to record the news will mean that it has probably been heightened, or distorted, or maybe glamorised, or maybe exaggerated but always in some mysterious way rendered more unreal."
I think that her words should be in front of Sir Michael Swann, Lady Plowden and the Controller of Broadcasting in Northern Ireland. I believe that they have not given due weight to the credibility that television enjoys, and I think, therefore, that they have to think again about their policy. That is why I put forward my proposal for a code of practice. If the Minister of State would care to make any comment on it, I should welcome it.
7.30 p.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: When I first came to this House and there was a debate on Northern Ireland, the Benches were packed. Stormont was still in existence. Everyone opposed to

1735
Ulster at that time made Stormont the objective of his attack, and many venomous, false and evil statements were made about the Parliament of Northern Ireland. In those days the bulwark of defence for the people of Northern Ireland against the IRA was the Ulster Special Constabulary and the Royal Ulster Constabulary, and these two security forces came in for the same type of criticism as that which we have heard in this House today.
The security forces in Northern Ireland, no matter who controls them, no matter how they operate and no matter under what laws they operate, will always come in for attack, will always be criticised and will always be the butt of Republican attack, because they are looked upon as the representatives for the upholding of the Union. That is the truth, and the sooner that this House realises it, the better it will be for all concerned.
Earlier today, we heard the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) say that Englishmen had to go and die in Ulster in order to defend Ulster. But Ulster people never invited the British Army to fight this battle. This House decided that it would abolish the Parliament that it had given to Northern Ireland, that it would disarm the Royal Ulster Constabulary, that it would destroy the Ulster Special Constabulary and that it would make itself responsible for the defence and security of Northern Ireland.
In taking that decision this House took the responsibility of looking after the people of Northern Ireland, and it ill becomes any hon. Member to tell us today that Englishmen are dying in the defence of Ulster. The Stormont Parliament was done away with, the RUC was disarmed and the Ulster Special Constabulary was disbanded and this House took the responsibility. This House said that it would defend the people of Northern Ireland, look after their security, and give them what they wanted.
I was in the House when Stormont was prorogued, which was the beginning of its final destruction. There was euphoria in the House. I remember speaking to the then Prime Minister. His attitude was "Well, it is all over now. Stormont has gone. The situation will rectify itself, and the Republicans who are opposed to Stormont no longer have Stormont to attack." I said "What you have
1736
seen is a Sunday school picnic. Now you will see the real result of the folly of that decision." This House has seen the real result of the folly of that decision. Even the Home Secretary admitted the other day that perhaps the decision was taken with too much haste. Other hon. Members who at the time were carried away with the euphoria now admit that perhaps this House did not act rightly.
But the situation is as it is today because of that decision, and this House cannot piously wash its hands of the situation.
Mr. Litterick: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to suggest that the events of the last few years in Ireland are unique in Irish history and, if so, in what way?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am trying to suggest that for 50 years there was comparative peace in Northern Ireland. I am stating as a fact that there were fewer people killed in the past 50 years than there have been in the past three years, even in the past year, or perhaps even in the past five months. I am trying to say that this House needs to realise that for those 50 years, which we are told were 50 years of misrule, there were not the killings, the bombings and the destruction that we have had even in the past year.
One Republican spokesman said that the "B" Specials were angels compared with the devils of the British Army. So when we hear that from a Republican, we can realise exactly what the situation is. These are facts, and they have to be faced.
I was in the House when these emergency provisions were introduced, and I was opposed to certain of them. I am not for courts without juries. That was a wrong decision, and legal bodies in Northern Ireland made certain strictures on courts without juries. There were other emergency provisions in respect of which I voiced my objections and my fears.
But it would be wrong for this House to assume that the incident referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is an isolated one and that it has anything to do with religion. The person concerned is a Roman Catholic and was living in a Roman Catholic district. The house was searched and,

1737
in the course of that search, it was destroyed. I do not doubt that. I could take the hon. Gentleman to Protestant homes in Protestant districts where the Army has done the very same thing. There is no doubt about this. It is a fact. But when there is a terrorist situation in any country, the rights of the individual in the community have to be surrendered to a degree in order that his real rights may be defended and eventually maintained. We must keep that principle before us.
We have to surrender certain rights in Northern Ireland for the greater welfare of the whole community, so that the rights of the individual may be defended. What right has the man who is taken out and knee-capped? He has no right whatsoever. What right has the person who is stopped on the road and told "There is a bomb going in your car and you will drive it to the police station. If you do not, you and your wife and family will be murdered."? What right has he? We all have to surrender rights.
I want to make it clear that no hon. Member who brings an accusation against a particular member of the security forces is reckoned to be criticising the security forces as a whole. Every Member has a responsibility to his constituents for the various happenings concerning the security forces. But every Member is expected to defend the security forces as a whole, and to back them and support them, in public and private.
That support has not been forthcoming from the party represented by the hon. Member for Belfast, West, as he very well knows. I know that he has his reasons. He thinks that they are good reasons, but to the rest of the community they are not good reasons. There is no doubt that in a terrorist situation the rights of individuals have to be surrendered for the greater defence of the whole.
It is all right for Amnesty to tell us that in Belfast there are things happening in Castlereagh police station. But there are things happening all over Northern Ireland, and the rights of individuals are being sacrificed daily by the Irish Republican Army and other terrorist organisations, which are carrying out a
1738
campaign of murder, robbery and arson right across the Province. The victims have rights. It is time that we heard a voice raised in this House for the rights of victims of violence.
There has been euphoria in the House about the improvement of the situation. I want to pay tribute to every success of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the RUC Reserve, the UDR and the security forces of the British Army. No one wants to see a continuance of violence. We want to see it ended. But it would be wrong for the House to think that we are near the end of the road or are coming to the end of the road. The media in this country do not give very much publicity to what is happening in Northern Ireland at present. There are burnings and there are still killings and, unfortunately, because of the firemen's strike, the IRA is attempting to have a field-day with incendiary devices.
I ask the Secretary of State whether he can give us any figures for the amount of damage done by incendiary devices compared with the amount of damage done by high explosives. If a can of spirit or petrol is near an incendiary device, sometimes that device can do more damage than a mere explosion. Many businesses are certainly being put out of existence today because of these incendiary devices.
The hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) mentioned the barricades in the city centre. I would not agree with him that they should be instantly removed, but I ask whether they are really effective. Perhaps we may have some figures today from which it can be said "Yes, at the barricades in Belfast so many people were stopped and so many incendiary devices were found. Therefore, we have prevented from being burned places that could have been burned."
What the hon. Gentleman has said I can confirm, because I have stood at those barricades and have seen people going through them with very little scrutiny at all. I am sure that these devices can be concealed about the person in a very secretive mariner. I should like to know whether the amount of money—it must be a vast amount—spent on these barricades is paying off in the detection of these incendiary devices.
Mr. Carson: Would the hon. Member agree that what he has already said proves my case that there is no detection, and when no cases of detection by the searchers are brought before the court it is time that the barricades were brought down?
Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not have that information. That is the information that I want the Minister to give us. I want him to tell us whether these devices have been detected. Are bombers being found and arrested at these barricades? Until we have these figures, we cannot tell whether the barricades are effective.
I come to the matter of the reduction of Army strength in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), the Leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, said that this was always the policy of those associated with him and others. I should like to make it clear that the Portrush document to which he referred, which became the basis of the UUUC manifesto, dealt with the Ulsterisation of the battle. With the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the UDR, the document proposed a third force, a force that could be used in para-military operations against the terrorists and in closer co-operation with the RUC than perhaps the UDR could manage, because the UDR is part of the British Army.
Evidence has been presented to the House today by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) that Army men are stretched to the limit in Belfast. Some of these lads are working hours that are so tremendously long that their physical stamina is stretched to the utmost, so that they cannot report in time for duty and fines are imposed upon them for that. One sergeant said that he was fined £100, according to a Press report. If that is so, that surely is proof that we need more Army personnel and not fewer.
It is all right for the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) to dissent, but senior officers of the RUC have told me that they are not in a fit position to do the job that they are called upon to do in their fight against terrorism and that they need the Army present because it is only the Army that can help them to get certain people out of the districts into which they are not permitted to go.
Mr. McCusker: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me whether he thinks that there should be more Army personnel in Northern Ireland, or would he not accept that there are vast tracts of Northern Ireland where the number of Army personnel could be reduced and that perhaps these personnel could be concentrated in other areas where they are necessary?
Rev. Ian Paisley: All I can say is that the senior officers of the RUC to whom I have talked tell me that they are under establishment strength. They have not enough men to do the jobs that they are called on to do. The complaints system has taken vast numbers of officers out of the ranks of the RUC to follow up frivolous complaints.
I was in the office of a senior police officer the other day investigating a complaint. We all receive complaints. Every constituency Member in Northern Ireland knows that one has to bring complaints. People complain about the RUC and one has to follow up those complaints. Whether or not one agrees that they are proper complaints, one has to investigate them and give one's constituent the answer. I was shown files reaching to the roof containing complaints by RUC officers who had to follow up those complaints. RUC officers are under strength.
However, it is a fact that the UDR is not permitted to operate in certain districts, as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) knows. If there are areas where Army presence is not needed, those troops should be put into places where they are needed. If we are beating the IRA, let us not withdraw troops, but let us bring in more to finish the job. This is not the time to withdraw those troops. Let us strengthen the RUC to carry out its job.
Let me turn to the subject of weaponry. If the RUC is to carry out its job effectively, it needs weapons. However, the constabulary has been at a disadvantage because the terrorists have had the benefit of better weapons than the policemen have had in their possession. There is an area in my constituency where it is impossible for police officers to deal with the situation because the IRA have Armalite rifles as they travel the roads in that area. The RUC have not the weaponry to deal with the situation.

1741
I appreciate that there has been some improvement in terms of weapons issued, but I wish to ask how many M1 carbines are in the possession of the RUC. Has every police station at least one weapon? Are there police stations with no weapons at all? Is it a fact that in some areas which are reckoned to be dangerous there are only two such weapons? If the RUC is to undertake its task, I emphasise that it must be given the weapons.
What is the situation with vehicles? My information is that in these areas if it is felt that vehicles are not needed, they are not provided. The RUC has gone out on duty in transit vans and ordinary cars with no protective screening. This is a fact and the hon. Member for Belfast, North will confirm that. If the RUC is to be the spearhead against terrorism, it must have not only weaponry but vehicles and other equipment. Until that is provided, I believe that it will be wrong for the Army to be in any way reduced.
There is another important matter to which I must draw attention. We all know that the Army has extremely good intelligence, and one cannot fight a war against terrorism without such a service. However, the intelligence of the RUC was destroyed, and with it the RUC morale was broken and it was disarmed. I have spoken to senior RUC officers and they have told me that their intelligence network was taken from them. I understand that the RUC's intelligence is now being rebuilt and is improving every day, but its intelligence is not as good as that possessed by the Army.
When one visits Aldergrove one is stopped and the number of one's car is fed into a computer. I know that the system operates, because on one occasion I was stopped because my registration number did not tally up with the figure already in the computer. Eventually I was told, "I am sorry, but you have a new car and it is not in the computer." However, that service is not available to the RUC or the UDR. It is important that the intelligence of both services is built up. One can be effective and lead the struggle only if one has proper intelligence.
Let me deal with the subject of liberty. Can the UDR operate in every district
1742
in which it wants to operate? The answer is in the negative because there are areas in which the regiment cannot operate. High-ranking officers in the RUC have said that there are areas that they cannot visit in order to make a house search or to lift a person who is required for questioning.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: There is a point of fact that I should make clear. I have stood at a checkpoint manned by the UDR and vehicle numbers have been fed into the computer. It is not the case that the UDR is not given the benefit of the computer, and that also, I understand, applies to the RUC.
Rev. Ian Paisley: My information is that those organisations do not have this service. They might possess the service in certain areas, but not in all. If they have the service in all areas, that is a very recent practice.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: It was a year ago that it happened.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am afraid that I do not accept that information.
Mr. Concannon: Perhaps I may act as the referee between the two hon. Members. I must inform the House that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is correct.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Other Ministers at the Northern Ireland Office have made drastic mistakes, and that would not convince anybody.
Let me deal with liberty. If the UDR as part of the British Army is not permitted to go into various parts of Northern Ireland, it is not possible for the UDR to back up the work of the RUC. We all know that the Parachute Regiment is coming back to Northern Ireland, but it has been said that it will not go to the city of Londonderry. I suppose that regiment will not be able to go into other parts of Northern Ireland, including South Armagh.
Mr. McCusker: We welcome it.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Surely there should be no part of Northern Ireland barred to the regiment. I repeat, the UDR and the RUC cannot go into certain areas. There will have to be liberty so that the security forces can work in all the areas of Northern Ireland.

1743
The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State has already said that there will be no let-up on those who kill, bomb and maim and who will be brought to justice. One of the most dastardly acts in Northern Ireland was the burning of the Kesh Prison. However, nobody has yet been charged with that crime. It caused £2½ million worth of damage. People could have been identified, but that did not happen. Surely there is something drastically wrong with a situation if such men can go scot-free when they have inflicted such damage on one of Her Majesty's prisons in Northern Ireland.
I wish to draw attention to the provision of personal weapons for members of the UDR. That regiment has lost many of its colleagues and comrades killed by terrorist organisations. Various representations have been made to me by members of the UDR, and I am told that personal weapons are available to members of the regiment provided that their commanding officer gives consent. Yet in recent years consent has been withheld and many members of the regiment feel that they are at grave risk. They believe that they should be given personal weapons.
I should like the Secretary of State to re-examine the situation. A man who has served in the security forces and who puts himself at risk should be given the protection that is due to him. There are men who have served in the UDR and who have not re-enlisted when their term is up. I know one such officer in the regiment who has served his term but who have not re-enlisted when their term That man has been refused permission to have a personal weapon although he is well known as a target for the assassins.
These matters need to be taken in hand. I have indicated the importance of the matter to the Northern Ireland Office and no doubt, in due course, it will reach the desk of the Secretary of State. However, this is not just one case. Many such cases have come to my attention.
I see that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) is back in the Chamber and I now want to refer to what he said. I was not at the meeting that he attended with the Democratic Unionists in Belfast, but the hon.
1744
Member obviously went into the general secretary's room. The general secretary of my party has a custom of cutting out cartoons that appear in the Press and pasting them on the walls. Evidently there was a cartoon there about the Pope and myself—together with a lot of other cartoons—and the hon. Gentleman took great exception to that. That particular cartoon appeared in a newspaper that has no sympathy for me or my religious and political feelings, but to use that in the House as an argument about the strength of feeling that resists what the hon. Gentleman calls democracy in Northern Ireland is extremely childish.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough also referred to an article in the Press about the campaign against the Common Market. The hon. Member does not like the Common Market and neither do I, so we are both of one mind on that and have at least one thing in common. The reference in the advertisement was to the Secretary of State for Education, who said that the Common Market would strengthen the Roman Catholic Church. That was taken directly from one of her speeches about moral theology. That was the point of the advertisement that appeared on the wall.
Mr. Flannery: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said that I was childish to refer to what he called a cartoon. It was not a cartoon. It was a photo montage, and when I spoke about the Common Market being called a Papist plot, that had nothing to do with any newspaper or cartoon. It was a contribution made by the Reverend William Beattie and that was the attitude that pervaded the discussion. It was borne out by those words. This had nothing to do with cartoons at all.
Rev. Ian Paisley: As far as I remember, the hon. Member for Hillsborough called the attention of the meeting to what the advertisement said. If the hon. Gentleman wants to deny that he can, but anyone can visit that office and see the cartoons. If the hon. Gentleman wants to come to Northern Ireland to nitpick about cartoons on office walls and then use that as a basis for arguing about the intransigence of the Democratic Unionist. Party or anybody else, he is entitled to do so and can continue. I do not mind.

1745
However, the hon. Member for Hillsborough also said that there was no democracy in Northern Ireland. It is his Government who are running Northern Ireland, not us. We are only Back Benchers with little influence. It is the hon. Gentleman's Government who have established that there should be no democracy in Northern Ireland, and that is an indictment of the Labour Party and the Treasury Bench. It is not an indictment of Ulstermen. The sooner we have democracy the better. We have been telling the Government how to achieve it but they will not listen.
We have been told that we are entitled to democracy in local government, but that has nothing to do with a devolved administration. In Northern Ireland we had our local government system completely rehashed and our urban, rural district, borough and city councils were destroyed. They were all taken away under the Macrory Report and we were given district councils with nominated boards as the second tier of local government. The majority of the nominees on these boards, which look after education, health and social services, and so on, are appointed by the Minister responsible. The elected representatives come from the district councils, but they are a minority on every one of the boards. That is so-called democracy.
I am not talking about whether those elected members are SDLP, Alliance, or whatever else. All elected members are in a minority. I agree with the hon. Member for Hillsborough that there is no democracy in the system and that it should be done away with. The boards should have a majority of elected representatives.
Who are the nominees? They are defeated candidates who could not make it to the district councils in an election. In Castlereagh there was an Alliance member who could not make the grade but the Minister said, "That is all right. You will be nominated and put on the board." Speaking for my party I can say that there is not a Democratic Unionist member on any one of these boards save those who have been elected. That is not the matter under debate, but it has been referred to and it merited comment.
We must deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland. Whether we like it or not,
1746
terrorism is there and will continue unless it is dealt with. However, there is also a political problem and the best thing that the Secretary of State could do to help would be to spell out the situation to us.
The right hon. Gentleman said something about a transfer of powers and I should be interested to learn about that. Was he referring to the powers that were given under the old Assembly? What will they be? We should know. The people of Northern Ireland now deserve to have a majority of elected representatives on the boards because that is a local government matter and has nothing to do with administrative devolution. I understand that the Secretary of State has said that he will not consider this. I regret that because it would take away a lot of the "aggro" in regard to democracy in Northern Ireland.
8.2 p.m.
Mr. Alastair Goodlad: As a representative of an English constituency who visited Northern Ireland only a few months ago, I share the feelings expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) in that I do not wish to tread on ground that is so much more familiar to others. However, I want briefly to echo the tributes that have been paid to the achievements of the Secretary of State and his colleagues. I pay tribute especially to members of the security forces who have worked in such uniquely difficult conditions for extremely low pay. Everyone agrees that their achievement over the last year has indeed been magnificent.
I hope that it is a high priority of the Government, in spite of the welcome improvement in recruitment to the RUC, to improve the pay and conditions of the security forces. The Government's present pay policy is an extremely blunt instrument and it must be made to give way to a more sensitive and flexible mechanism in ordaining these matters.
I was also encouraged to hear the latest reiteration of the determination of the Government and of the Opposition never to grant an amnesty to those who have been convicted. There could be no justification for leniency for the perpetrators of many of the cruelties that have taken place in Northern Ireland. I am quite

1747
sure that part of the success of the security forces in the past year in reducing the number of incidents has been due to the growing realisation that, in spite of the activities of the rumour-mongers, this commitment is completely unshakable and totally shared by all hon. Members.
I agree with the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) that attempts should be made to define in legislative form the offence of terrorism. Hitherto, I have always taken the view that the restoration of capital punishment would not assist the cause of law and order in this country. I thought that it might make it more difficult to get witnesses to come forward and to obtain unanimous verdicts from juries and thereby to lose convictions. However, in the serious circumstances with which terrorism presents us, there is an unarguable case for giving Parliament an opportunity to rehearse the arguments in a different context, and I hope the Government will take note of this.
I was particularly interested in the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) of a possible code of practice for the media. Most hon. Members at various times in our careers have become almost paranoid about the activities of the media. The instances which have been mentioned in the debate are very serious, as is the refusal of those in the media who have been involved to admit the extent of their responsibility and power.
When people in the media, whether motivated by careerism, frivolous negligence or a misguided desire for sensationalism, are let loose in Northern Ireland, the results can literally be fatal. If they can live with their own consciences, they must accept that they also have to live with the contempt of many hon. Members.
I very much sympathise with what the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said about over-zealousness which may come about on the part of the security forces, though in the instance that he mentioned one does not know all the facts. However, I do not agree that these matters constitute a reason for voting against the orders, even as a symbolic gesture. They constitute reasons for continuing to encourage the improvement in the magnificent efforts of the security
1748
forces, working within the rule of law, to gain the confidence of the community.
I also reject entirely the view of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick), who left the Chamber some time ago, that Ulster is a foreign country. He might think it is, but I suspect that he is in a minority of one. It is scarcely necessary to reiterate from these Benches that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. Its problems are the problems of all of us and we are equally committed to their solution wherever our constituencies may be.
The relative sparsity in the Chamber of hon. Members from this side of the Irish Sea should not be taken as a lack of concern for Northern Ireland—quite the reverse. It should be interpreted as indicating our approval of the orders as desirable and necessary for the restoration of law and order and the end of the political vacuum in the Province.
8.8 p.m.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: There is no doubt of our support of these orders. I am only sorry that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) wishes to divide the House. I must say to him that that is hardly likely to improve the standing of his party and its claim to take part in the future running of the Province.
The hon. Gentleman may have the support of, among others, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick), to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodland) gave a clear rejoinder. The hon. Member for Selly Oak, in speaking of Northern Ireland as though it were part of a foreign country, ignored the wishes of the great majority—by no means all of whom are Protestants—expressed at repeated polls, to keep the British link. It seems that he would wish to refuse to that majority the right to self-determination which was claimed by, and conceded to, Southern Ireland.
More important to most people than the right of self-determination is the right to stay alive—which is why we must accept the necessity, however regretfully, of these emergency powers, as did the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev.

1749
Ian Paisley) despite his reservations on the Diplock courts.
The hon. Member for Selly Oak invited us to think of British soldiers in Northern Ireland as though they were Soviet soldiers. If there were Soviet troops and tanks engaged in counter-insurgency, they would not act with the restrain, forbearance and, may I say, chivalry of British troops. If there were one single-shot sniper in a block of flats, the flats would be razed to the ground—as in Budapest. That is the difference.
The troops of the United Kingdom remain in the United Kingdom. It has been said on many sides that we are grateful for their sacrifice and success, while agreeing with the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) that complacency is always dangerous. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) pointed out that we may learn in tomorrow's debate how much the gratitude of the Government is worth in real terms. I hope that what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Northwich will also be conveyed to the Secretary of State for Defence.
I offer a particular tribute to the RUC, who are solving murders committed the other day and also murders committed years ago. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham in hoping that the Fraud Squad will be built up for the reasons that he gave. Some gangsters in pre-war United States were brought to book not for multiple murders but for defrauding the Revenue.
The Secretary of State spoke of the extra-territorial legislation. We agree with him that this is a second best to extradition, and people in this country who are unfamiliar with the peculiarities and niceties of Irish constitutional law wonder how it can be that Irish courts can refuse to hand over persons who claim political justification for atrocious crimes. After all, Republican terrorism is directed againt all constituted government in the island of Ireland, so the two sovereign Governments have a common enemy.
Of course, we warmly welcome the good co-operation which exists between the Garda Siochána and the RUC. We note that the murderer of Captain Nairac, to whose heroism reference has been
1750
made, was arrested in the Republic and has received a life sentence there. Of course, we consider the criminal jurisdiction legislation to be less satisfactory than extradition, but we should not be slothful in making use of it, however imperfect it may be. Surely we owe it to the other sovereign Power concerned in the conflict with Irish terrorism not to delay applications under this legislation.
It may be that reports that there are in the Republic 20 alleged terrorists, known to the Dublin authorities and the police on this side of the sea, for whom no application has been made, are not true. All I know is that there has been no denial of the reports which have been printed and repeated in the Press. I tabled a Question to the Secretary of State and received a Written Answer on 1st December which did not tell me very much. Perhaps that was intended, but I should be grateful for any more information that the Minister of State can give.
We were glad to hear the Secretary of State's reaffirmation that there would be no amnesty for terrorists. That was endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) on behalf of the official Opposition and by the leader of the official Unionists, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux).
It was, therefore, a little disturbing to read in the Sunday Express and the Belfast Sunday News—though this may be completely untrue—that a man who was held for several months on an arms charge and on a charge of belonging to a proscribed organisation, the Provisional IRA, was brought to court and told that the case against him had been dropped. According to the Press reports, the Provisional IRA claimed—and I do not say that what they claim is always true—that Her Majesty's Ambassador in Washington had intervened under pressure from two United States senators. My first reaction was to say "A likely story". I know that Ministers have no responsibility for what appears in the Press, but a simple statement of the facts in this case would be wholesome.
The Secretary of State rightly eschewed the phrase "winning and losing". However, we must be careful not to fall back in the propaganda battle, which is half the war. My hon. Friend the Member

1751
for Abingdon was quite right to devote a good deal of his speech to that aspect of the struggle.
On both sides of the House, we have been at one in deploring a series of programmes on both the BBC and independent television. I do not know whether this was so, but it seemed that they could have been planned to discredit the security forces at the very moment when they were scoring steady successes. It seemed as if they might have been calculated to destroy the growing confidence in the Royal Ulster Constabulary and other sections of the security forces among all parts of the population.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West might have prepared a somewhat different speech if he had known, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr), that there is now an independent element in the investigation of allegations against the police. The hon. Gentleman set up an Aunt Sally when he said chat those who make honest criticism of wrong-doing by members of the security forces are automatically dubbed accomplices of the terrorists—witness the cear statement of the Chief Constable. who said that where there are excesses they must be unished, because they are not only wrong in themselves but do harm to the credit of the force. Trial by television of those who cannot reply because a proper investigation is being carried out, which makes an allegation sub judice, is unfair and is quite another matter.
It was wrong for the suggestion to be made that my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon was calling for censorship. We must recall that the murder of Mr. Irvine occurred shortly after his television interview in a programme about the Maze Prison. It was a programme not so much of the IRA as of a Republican paramilitary inspiration. May we not at least call for compassion—it is a word that they rather like—among media men and a sense of moral responsibility among the broadcasting authorities? We listened with great interest to what my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson) had to say about a possible code of practice.
It appears that the treatment given to the RUC in Great Britain has been extended to the Ulster Defence Regiment. It is alleged that the RTE programme
1752
has smeared the regiment in its connections with the UDA. In the making of the programme the RTE received co-operation from the UDR. I do not ask for a statement today, but we should be glad to hear the result of the viewing of the videotape recording by Brigadier McCord and others and whether any representations are contemplated through the Dublin Embassy or otherwise.
The House has often expressed its admiration of the men and women who give up their sleep and leisure, and sometimes their lives, in serving with the UDR. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham spoke of the strain of years. He expressed the hope that all employers would give time off to UDR men and women. I hope that they will heed his would give time off to UDR men and accept what my hon. Friend and I have said before: that it is not right that men and women should be worse off financially because they serve in the UDR. It is a regiment that will surely become more important as other units of the Armed Forces return to garrison size and duties.
Does the Secretary of State think that a UDR full-time strength of 2,500 men will suffice? I think that at present there is a strength of about 2,000. Is 2,500 enough for its full-time strength in future? Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the time may be approaching for him to inform the House of the Government's long-term strategy for the various Crown forces in what may be a period of lawlessness and violence, albeit less intense and more spasmodic than in the long, wearisome and bloody years that are behind us?
In any event it will be necessary, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury indicated, to buttress our hopes with vigilance and to make progress towards a constitutional settlement. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) called with feeling for what he described as a democratic solution. When he said that, I heard "Hear, hear" from the Unionist Bench. Indeed, the Union for which we stand draws its sanction from the democratic will of Ulster people.
8.21 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I think that

1753
I have probably attended more of these debates in an official capacity than anyone else in the House. The speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in asking the House to renew the emergency legislation, was, I think, one of the most encouraging that we have ever had.
It is obvious that many of the questions that have been put to me are not for my Department but basically for the Ministry of Defence. I am sure that the Ministry will take them up. I give the assurance that I shall pass them on. Some of the questions relate to security. I do not think that it would be right and proper to give such answers from the Dispatch Box, given the situation in Northern Ireland. I shall take it upon myself to ensure that written answers are given to the questions that I do not answer from the Despatch Box. I shall give answers now wherever possible if security is not endangered.
One of the problems that has been mentioned in most speeches is that of the media. None of us in the Northern Ireland Office believes in censorship of the Press or of television. However, I wish that they would take a bit more responsibility and care in their actions. Mistakes in the Press, or bad television, might result in only a drop in circulation or viewing figures in the rest of the United Kingdom, but mistakes in Northern Ireland cost lives.
I have been working in Northern Ireland for four years. I worked closely with Mr. Irvine. On the day that he was shot I was cruising about three streets away from where the incident took place. I heard about it over the radio. I worked closely with him and became friendly with him, as did many other hon. Members in Northern Ireland. Without wishing to put any blame on anybody in the media, I think that they should pause and consider before they put on some programmes. They should do so before going into depth.
I am strictly against censorship as a whole, but my plea to the media regarding such programmes is to show more responsibility and care. Such programmes do a terrific amount of damage to the security forces in Northern Ireland and to their families in the rest of the United
1754
Kingdom. They certainly do not help the situation in Northern Ireland.
Mr. Max Madden: Although many people will have sympathy with the views expressed by the Minister I am sure that he would not wish to give the impression that in his view, or in the view of the Northern Ireland Office, the overwhelming majority of journalists who, on a day-to-day basis, cover events in Northern Ireland are irresponsible or are not aware of the seriousness of their work. I feel sure that my hon Friend would wish to pay tribute to their responsibility and objective standards.
At the same time, does he acknowledge that all members of the National Union of Journalists are subject to a very stiff code of practice, and that if it is felt that any journalist has acted in an unprofessional way, there is a clear course of redress under that code of conduct?
Mr. Concannon: I do not dissent from what my hon. Friend said on that subject. The vast majority of what I call seasoned campaigners in Northern Ireland report in and put the situation into some kind of perspective. However, a small minority fall short of those standards, and we see this in the Northern Ireland context. We are trying to deal with the subject in considerable depth. That is all I am saying. I do not think that anyone is talking of using censorship or anything else.
I thank the House for the general reception that it has given to the renewal of this emergency legislation. It is not easy to ask for the renewal of such legislation. It smacks against one's principles all the time. As I said at the end of the last emergency powers debate, I abhor having to ask for the renewal of this legislation, but the situation in Northern Ireland makes it absolutely necessary. I think that most hon. Members on both sides of the House who have taken part in the debate have said exactly that. How my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) can possibly reach the conclusion that he has, I do not know. I shall deal with the points that he made towards the end of my speech.
The possibility of a medal for the RUC and the RUC Reserve has been considered

1755
before. One of the difficulties is that a gallantry award is likely to lead to repercussions from other groups—I do not need to mention those other groups—who would no doubt regard themselves as having rendered equally gallant service. A general service medal is essentially military by tradition and would be inappropriate for a civilian service. However, having said that and ascertained the feeling of the House, we shall certainly take note of the suggestion. All I am pointing out is that there would be certain repercussions from other groups in Northern Ireland who have, in effect, been in the front line for a long time.
I turn now to troop reductions and deployment. Such matters have always been undertaken in the light of consultation between the GOC and the Chief Constable.
The RUC has already shown its capability and willingness to assume a primary rÔle. The support and protection of the community is fundamentally a task for the police. The excellent cooperation between the police and the Army will ensure that progress is maintained in that direction.
I turn to the deployment of the UDR and its 2,000 members. The hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) asked whether 2,500 would be enough. The security force level is always under continuous review, as also is the police establishment. We are not up to establishment in the police, because we increased the establishment and are now working towards it. We have not reached an establishment of 2,500 for the UDR yet because it was increased to that figure only six months ago and we are working towards it. The position will remain under constant review.
I know of no limitation on the redeployment of the UDR, except that it is not to be used in riot conditions.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) referred to personal weapons. Members of the UDR may apply for personal weapons. The granting of such applications depends to some extent on the views of commanding officers.
Mr. Carson: Does the Minister agree that there are certain areas in Belfast where the UDR is not acceptable?
Mr. Concannon: I accept that, but there are no no-go areas for the Army. The deployment of the UDR is a matter for the Army commanding officer. The only limitation is that it is not used in riot conditions. I have no doubt that if it is believed that it should not be used in certain areas, this will be considered and acted upon by the commanding officer.
Hon. Members have mentioned city area centres. The RUC is monitoring security threats throughout the Province and recommending changes in places where it seems safe to relax security precautions. This is a gradual process and it must be done with great care. It would be wrong to make a hasty decision to dismantle security operations in such areas.
The Belfast city centre secure area is still considered necessary. It is important not to lower the morale of decent citizens. The area is now regarded as being safe and an increasing number of shoppers are going there, despite having to suffer the inconvenience of being searched at the gate and in some of the shops. Hon. Members may complain about the search, but it does have a deterrent effect. Basically, that is what it is for.
Mr. Carson: Does the Minister agree that on many occasions over the past 12 months the IRA has penetrated the gates of the segment and has had to pass the security forces? Can he give figures for the detection of incendiary devices or bombs within the gates?
Mr. Concannon: The Secretary of State has already expressed his concern about incendiary devices. They are small and can be concealed. As techniques become better, the devices become smaller and it is more difficult to detect them. If everyone going into the precinct were searched, it might as well be closed down. One has to balance the situation. The searching has a deterrent effect.
The hon. Members for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) and Antrim, North referred to the police vehicle fleet. The fleet is growing steadily. There have been difficulties, but everything is being done to maintain an adequate flow of new and replacement vehicles. At the end of 1975 there were 783 vehicles and now there are 1,064.

1757
For security reasons I am not prepared to answer the question about arms for the police, nor am I prepared to give details of the various weapons that are in use. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that MI carbines have been issued and are in use.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I can quite understand the reason for not giving details. Can the Minister assure us that every police station has been given these weapons?
Mr. Concannon: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter for the Chief Constable of the RUC. Anything he brings to our attention receives sympathetic consideration. I assume that if he were not satisfied, he would come to us.
Some hon. Members have suggested that certain agencies, such as the Housing Executive and Her Majesty's Customs, are not willing to pass on valuable information to the security forces. I have no evidence of this. The staff of such bodies are often working under difficult conditions. They are loyal servants who support all the activities of the security forces. I will ensure that what has been said is passed on to the relevant authorities.
Another issue which has received attention has been the campaign against alleged police brutality. Neither the Chief Constable nor my right hon. Friend would condone any ill-treatment of persons in custody. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the Judges' Rules and the internal RUC orders for dealing with persons in custody who are being questioned are understood and that everyone in the RUC is aware that any treatment not in accord with these procedures would result in disciplinary and/or criminal proceedings being instituted against him. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the procedures laid down for investigating complaints against the police are adequate. They go beyond those prescribed for England and Wales.
I am also satisfied that all complaints are properly investigated by the complaints and disciplinary branch of the RUC. The reports of the branch on every complaint of ill-treatment are sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for
1758
a direction whether any charge shall be laid.
The Amnesty mission, which has been mentioned, will consist of three persons—a Dutch chairman, a Danish medical adviser, and a member of the Amnesty international secretariat. The mission expects to be in Northern Ireland for about 10 days. It advises me that it will see complainants and medical, legal or other persons who may wish to give evidence to it.
The Chief Constable of the RUC and my right hon. Friend have agreed to afford the mission all the co-operation that we can in the interests of all those involved. It would not be in accord with the principles of natural justice to go into the details of individual cases which have been or may be the subject of investigations through the statutory procedures. We shall ensure that the mission is fully briefed on the background to the present situation, the procedures and safeguards laid down for interviewing suspects, and the procedures for investigating complaints against the police. This is part of a concerted campaign against the police because of the success that they are having. I would not condone any ill-treatment of persons in custody, but until such treatment is proven, I shall back the RUC.
I turn now to the law, where our approach has been one of steady refinement wherever we judge it helpful. In the summer we introduced two orders under the urgency procedure designed to strengthen the criminal law. We shall be inviting the House to affirm these orders following this debate. The Criminal Law (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 created new offences relating to hoax bombing and death threats by telephone. The maximum penalty for the hoax bombing offence is five years' imprisonment on indictment and that for telephone death threats 10 years. In addition, the order provides for the penalty for the statutory offence of conspiracy to murder to be increased from 10 years to life imprisonment and that for offences under Section 3(1) of the Explosive Substances Act 1883 from 20 years' imprisonment to life.
Simultaneously, we introduced the related Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Amendment) Order 1977, which provides that the new

1759
offences that I have described should be scheduled offences. Provision has, however, been made for the Attorney-General to certify that they shall not be treated as scheduled in one particular case. The order also closed a small loophole in the law and ensures that the concealment of a scheduled offence shall itself always be a scheduled offence.
It is self-evident that these changes were required to be made as soon as possible, and this view was strongly urged to the House. I regret that it was not possible to arrange a debate in the ordinary way before the Summer Recess, and we therefore resorted to the urgency procedure. The Government felt fortified in doing so since the new offences and the increased penalties mirrored changes in England and Wales under the Criminal Law Act, which Parliament had fully considered.
None of these changes is dramatic, but they represent genuine improvements in our legal armoury against terrorism, and are a sign of our concern to keep the law under constant review. We shall not hesitate to seek further powers where-ever these will be helpful.
I welcome the hon. Member for Northwich (Mr. Goodlad) to our debates. He spoke of offences of terrorism. I have found that it is not offences that we are short of in Northern Ireland but evidence. We have a complete legal armoury of offences in Northern Ireland, and these are being refined all the time.
Mr. Farr: Will the hon. Gentleman mention the Council of Europe Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism and say whether it is to be taken into account?
Mr. Concannon: I am coming to that, but first I want to thank the hon. Member for Epping Forest for what he said. He will admit, however, that the case he brought is a matter for the public prosecutor and not for Ministers.
I turn now to the Council of Europe Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism. As the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said, the Government have already signed the convention without reservation and they fully intend to ratify it when parliamentary time permits. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who has it under
1760
review. The effectiveness of the convention will rest upon how widely it is accepted. We hope that all members of the Council of Europe will sign it.
I want to say something about the Prison Service and the special category status. I deal first with the achievements of the service and how it has managed to cope with a rapid and dramatic increase in the prison population. In 1969 the whole prison population in Northern Ireland was 721; today the figure is over 3,000. To house all these extra prisoners the functions of existing prisons have been revised, new institutions have been built, and others are planned.
A new cellular prison with eight cell-blocks of 100 places each has been constructed at the Maze. A closed borstal has been completed at Millisle. Next year, a young offenders centre will be opened at Hydebank, on the outskirts of Belfast. Tenders are now being invited for a 450-place permanent male prison at Maghaberry. This, together with a 56-place women's prison on the same site, should open in 1982. The situation is being kept under review, and additional cells blocks will be provided as necessary.
These developments have made it necessary to maintain staff recruitment on an unprecedented scale. In January 1969, governor, discipline, clerical and trades grades numbered 292: the current figure is 2,263. This is an increase in excess of 600 per cent. in an eight-year period.
The decision to phase out special category status in 1976 was generally welcomed, and this has led to a considerable improvement in the control and supervision of inmates. It has brought with it fresh challenges, including the need for more cellular accommodation and a requirement to provide meaningful work in the form of prison industries for newly-convicted prisoners who are now housed in cells and subjected to normal prison rules. Special category prisoners are being phased out. In February 1976 there were 1,500 special category prisoners in custody: the number is now fewer than 800 and will continue to fall.
Originally it took 30 compounds to house all special category prisoners. Today they are accommodated in 13 compounds. Further contraction will soon be possible. There are now more criminals housed in the new cell blocks

1761
at the Maze than in the compounds. The compounds are subject to frequent searches by permanent search teams of prison officers. Such searches are carried out without warning and are part of the overall plan for exercising control over that part of the prison. The fact is that the degree of freedom given to prisoners within the compounds is restricted.
The recent Thames Television programme focused on a wholly untypical incident in 1976. Since then increased staff have become available and permanent search teams of prison officers descend on compounds without warning to conduct searches on their own terms, thereby helping to eliminate stocks of mock weapons and prison uniforms, which figured prominently in that programme.
Every Member who has visited the Maze Prison knows that changes are coming over the prison.
I have been asked questions about special category status. For offences committed after 1st March 1976 a prisoner will go straight into the cell compound. The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) asked me about the catch-over offences. About 350 of those offences took place in the catch-up period just after March 1976. Anyone caught now for offences committed before March 1976 has also usually committed offences after March 1976, and, no matter what that later offence is, he will go straight into the cell, not into the compound. The effect of this is that in November no one was put into special category. In October only two people were put into special category and in the last eight months I understand that only about 20 people have gone into special category.
I have also been asked whether any prisoner can come out of special category. A prisoner can do so quite easily. All that he needs to do is to ask. This is sometimes done. He will then be moved into the prison cell accommodation as soon as we can put him there.
When I took over this role of ending special category I would have been quite happy to work towards the situation that we have now. We have done this without any street disorders and riots, and the people of Northern Ireland know that only about 200 people can be mustered
1762
to support a demonstration against this policy. The general public of Northern Ireland is with us as one on this
I am happy to see the number of special category prisoners going down as quickly as possible. We now have about 800 and the number is going down every week. This is proof of the Government's intentions. I wish to reiterate that anyone who thinks that there will be an amnesty in this respect should heed the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State today. I hope that his words will be echoed not only by my fellow Ministers but by the whole House.
The hon. Member for Belfast, West was talking about the emergency situation in Northern Ireland. It is an emergency situation, and his speech acknowledged this. He must take cognisance of the situation in Northern Ireland. He must know that the present situation cannot be compared with the situation six months ago, and there is just no comparison with the situation that existed four or five years ago. I do not like to ask for the renewal of the emergency procedures, but now is not the time even to think of ending the emergency regulations—not at a time when we can go forward with what the House was told in what I regard as the best opening speech we have had on the security situation in Northern Ireland. Now is not the time to end the emergency regulations when we can go forward in knowledge of the facts which we now have.
I ask my hon. Friend to take into account some of the other statistics. I recognise that there are exceptions, but there are far fewer than there were in the past. In an emergency situation such as this, when we are fighting terrorism, individual freedom has to give up something. I believe that the general population of Northern Ireland understands this.
My hon. Friend must acknowledge the figures for deaths, maimings and the rest now in Northern Ireland. The people live a better life today. All I can say to my hon. Friend is that he should not put himself in an invidious situation at this time, accepting the need for the emergency regulations and then going on to some point of principle or other—I must say that it escaped me—and saying that he would vote against them.
Mr. Fitt: I accept the need for emergency provisions, and I shall be prepared not to divide the House if the Minister will give me an undertaking that he will talk to the Army and get the Army to ease off in the number of arrests taking place, the number of detentions of the same person week after week, and the number of searches. The searches should take place only when there is a reasonable suspicion. But a dog barking or going beserk should not be a reason for the Army to wreck a humble home in my constituency. If my hon. Friend will give an undertaking that he will look into the charges which I have made today, I shall be prepared not to divide the House.
Mr. Concannon: I have already seen the report of the incident to which my hon. Friend refers. All I ask him to do is to balance the situation in Northern Ireland as it was six months ago and six years ago with what it is today and not to put himself into the invidious position of voting against the order tonight. If he does vote against it he will be voting against everything that has happened in the past year or 18 months, during which time right hon. and hon. Members have made speeches full of praise for the actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. Let my hon. Friend view in proper balance also the quality of life now in Northern Ireland.
I give my hon. Friend this promise. I shall bring his speech to the attention of
1764
the GOC. But I do not give him any guarantees about any of the other things which are taking place, because I cannot give him any such guarantee. If there are people—we have information to this effect—whose actions call for investigation, we should expect the Army and the RUC to go and collect information. As I say, I have already seen the report of the case to which my hon. Friend referred and in certain respects it has already been dealt with.
I wish now to draw the debate to a close. I hope that the House will unanimously accept the need for these provisions, although I very much wish that I were not here having to ask the House to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 (Amendment) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1265), a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd August, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
Resolved,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) (No. 2) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.—[Mr. Mason.]
Resolved,
That the Criminal Law (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (S.I., 1977, No. 1249), a copy of which was laid before this House on 3d August, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Mason.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (APPROPRIATION)
8.56 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I beg to move,
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 9th November, be approved.
The order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974.
The Main Estimates for 1977–78 totalled £1,144,234,000 and were appropriated by the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 and the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which were approved by the House on 10th March 1977 and 1st July 1977 respjectively. The order now before the House seeks the appropriation out of the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund of a further £109·6 million, this being the sum covered by the Autumn Supplementary Estimates. This would make a total provision for 1977–78 to date of £1,254 million, about £106 million more than the total Estimate for 1976–77.
The element of this total provision subject to cash limits is within the element of the total Northern Ireland cash limit allocation for 1977–78 applicable to voted expenditure. A brief cash limits statement is included at page iv of the Supplementary Estimates volume.
The services for which extra provision is needed are specified in the schedule to the order and are set out in greater detail in the Autumn Supplementary Estimates, which have been available to right hon. and hon. Members in the Library.
I now summarise why this extra money is needed. A sum of £109·6 million is being sought; about £15·3 million is for pay and price increases, about £64·2 million is accounted for by real changes, to be met from within our existing resources as set out in the public expenditure White Paper, and £30·1 million is accounted for by items which do not count as public expenditure.
Apart from pay awards, the most important elements of the Supplementary Estimates are as follows. Some £19·8 million is required to cover extension of
1766
the meat industry employment scheme until the end of December 1977. A provision of £4 million for capital grants for industrial development is made because of an anticipated increase in the number of claims during the financial year.
Despite substantial tariff increases in 1976–77, a payment of £26·3 million is needed to eliminate the revenue account deficit of the Northern Ireland electricity service at 31st March 1977, while to help the electricity service achieve parity of tariffs in the commercial and industrial sector and to remove an important disincentive to investment in the Province, a grant of £20 million is also provided for.
The extension as announced in the main Budget of 29th March of the temporary Employment Subsidy to 31st March 1978 requires the allocation of a further £9 million. Owing largely to the higher level of unemployment and the increased rates of benefit, the payment of such supplementary benefits is expected to increase by £10·5 million. The major reduction to be set against all these increases is that of £3·1 million in respect of the job release scheme, in which uptake has been lower than expected.
These are the main features of the order to which I wish to draw attention. I commend the order to the House.
Mr. James Molyneaux: The Minister will be aware that his noble Friend and I have been having discussions about the utilisation of existing facilities at Massereene Hospital and at Whiteabbey Hospital. I understand that his noble Friend's consultations have now been completed. Is it reasonable to expect an announcement of the noble Lord's conclusions perhaps before the end of this month?
Mr. Dunn: I am aware that those discussions have taken place and that my noble Friend has entered into discussions and consultations with all concerned. I appreciate the anxiety expressed by the hon. Gentleman. I cannot give him an assurance as to when the answer will be given, but I shall convey to my noble Friend the expectation expressed across the Floor of the House that the hon. Gentleman would like an answer at the earliest possible moment.
I shall, of course, try to answer any questions which right hon. and hon.

1767
Members may raise in the debate, and if for any reason I am unable to do so I will note the points and write to the right hon. or hon. Member concerned.
9.2 p.m.
Mr. Airey Neave: Although we do not oppose the order, there are a number of points I wish to raise with regard to the Estimates. I begin with Class II, No. 5 in the schedule—manpower services—where there has been a reduction of £3·6 million in the appropriations in aid.
In respect of the manpower services, and particularly employment services, I should like to know what has happened to the recommendations of the Quigley Report. This is the starting point for any discussion on job creation. That report has frequently been debated outside Parliament but never inside Parliament. I do not quite know why this should be so and I have pointed it out on several occasions. It would be useful if we could have the time to consider the report.
The Quigley Report said that Northern Ireland needed 60,000 new jobs of a secure and lasting kind to bring unemployment in the Province down to 5 per cent. This must be in the Minister's mind. It may well be that at present it is being considered by the new Economic Council in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us whether that is so and whether he agrees on the importance of a very substantial job creation programme. If the Quigley figure is to be revised, a new target should be set as soon as possible. Only if there is a definite target in view can the task be pursued of creating fresh jobs systematically. We certainly want to avoid piecemeal action of the kind that we associate with the collapse of certain companies in the past.
Past performance does not create grounds for optimism as regards the question of job creation. I am informed that in 1972–73 7,650 new jobs were promoted by the Department of Commerce and the Local Enterprise Development Unit. In 1976–77, only 4,730 new jobs were created by these bodies. Therefore, there has been a reduction in the number of jobs, and I think that this requires examination. The Quigley Report maintained that really substantial
1768
numbers of jobs could not be created in Northern Ireland unless the tax holiday on exports which exists in the Republic also existed in Northern Ireland. Is that the view of the Government? We ought to know. It appears that the Government have no intention of doing that, but we have not heard anything about this for some time and I thought that it was worth raising the matter this evening.
One particularly important aspect of this question is the youth job opportunities programme, which is designed to increase by 50 per cent. the current number of jobs provided for young people. This scheme was announced by the Government in August. It is to be hoped that it will reduce unemployment among young people. The number of school leavers who have left school without jobs in Northern Ireland has been increasing steadily by between 30 per cent. and 50 per cent. annually since 1974. It would be useful if regular information could be supplied about the progress of the youth opportunities programme. It is a matter of great social and economic importance, but it is especially of social importance to Northern Ireland.
I turn now to Clause II, item 6 of the schedule, and emphasise that it is the smaller business, not the big international corporation, which is the backbone of the Northern Ireland economy. My information is that very severe pressure has been put upon smaller businesses by the present Government through some of their general economic legislation for the United Kingdom. In particular, the pre-sure of bureaucracy and the growth of controls under this Government have made life very much more difficult for the smaller business men in Northern Ireland, just as in the rest of the United Kingdom. I was talking to a few of them yesterday.
The present rates of capital transfer tax and capital gains tax impede the growth to smaller firms from the Local Enter-their very survival. The grants available to smaller firms from the Local Enterprise Development Unit and other bodies could play a larger part in stimulating economic progress if other obstacles placed in the way of small businesses were reduced. That particularly refers to the present rates of taxation.
As things stand, the Government give with one hand but take away with the

1769
other. I would be the first to acknowledge, from my reading of the reports, that good work has been done by the unit since 1971, and we understand that it is well on the way to meeting its target of 1,100 jobs for 1977–78. I think, however that more could have been done if the general incentives for the vigorous expansion of economic life had not been cut back so severely by the Government. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is considering these points and will either answer my questions when he replies or write to me.
I said last summer that we ought one of these days to have a special debate on education in Northern Ireland. I gave the Minister notice that I proposed to mention the subject briefly tonight. It comes under Class VIII, items 1 and 2, dealing with expenditure on schools and expenditure on higher and further education. The Cowan Report produced a widespread impression in Northern Ireland that the Government intended to impose a system of comprehensive education there. Those fears were calmed to a degree by the statement of Lord Melchett on 15th June that change would take place through devolution, not revolution. He added that it would be through a development growing out of the existing educational system, not its destruction.
That period of calm, which I welcomed in a similar debate on an Appropriation Order on 1st July, was rather short-lived. Since September, the reorganisation of secondary education has become one of the most controversial and sensitive issues in the Province and the argument is still going on, chiefly in the correspondence columns of the Press. It raises the most fundamental question of all—whether the people of Northern Ireland are really in favour of comprehensive education. It seems to me that all the old fears will be reawakened if a Government statement is not made, because reassurance is needed badly.
To my mind, the Government's attitude leaves a great deal to be desired. They tend to shrug off hostile comment by saying that they know nothing of any strong reaction to the plans for comprehensive reorganisation, and they therefore lay themselves open to the charge that they are sacrificing Ulster's 80 highly respected
1770
grammar schools. I hope that the Under-Secretary will make a serious reply to these criticisms, because there is a great outburst of feeling on the subject.
It was started by a paper on the provision of opportunities for 16-year-olds drawn up by an official study group, and it was circulated among education and library boards before the closing date for submissions from interested parties. It created suspicions that the Government were committed to sixth form colleges as an essential ingredient of comprehensive reorganisation. These suspicions were reinforced by the publicaion of a study by the inspectorate of the Department of Education in Northern Ireland which seemed to suggest this. It has led the Province's grammar schools to feel that they are now under direct attack. They are being accused of being bastions of privilege and outdated academic standards, although their pupils are drawn from all classes of society and financed mainly by scholarships.
The Department of Education is now regarded with considerable distrust by these schools, which are convinced that Lord Melchett's working parties and other consultative procedures are designed to produce the illusion of public support for his decisions which have already been taken. He must reassure the people of Northern Ireland about this matter, because there is considerable opposition to the whole principle of sixth form colleges.
I made the point at the beginning of July that there should be a full-scale debate in this House on education in Northern Ireland.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Hear, hear.
Mr. Neave: It is a matter of such importance that I hope that the Under-Secretary will give me a better reply than he did on 1st July, when he said
"perhaps it will be more convenient to have that debate on education when we return for the new Session."—[Official Report, 1st July 1977; Vol. 934, c. 829.]
Now that we are in the new Session, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will say when he thinks that time will be found for this highly important debate.
9.12 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: My hon. Friends and I intend to use the

1771
opportunity which this order gives us in the usual way—or, rather, in a development of the usual way—and to pursue two objects. One is to carry forward the scrutiny of public expenditure and the criticisms which have been levelled at various parts of the Northern Ireland services by those whose duty it is to examine public expenditure on our behalf. The other is to take certain aspects of the administration and examine them in more detail.
I say this especially for the benefit of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), who during the previous debate on 1st July this year, complained that my speech was concerned only with the control of public expenditure, overlooking the fact that this is one, but not the only one, of the purposes which this debate is intended to serve. I shall be followed, as I was on that occasion, by colleagues who will deal with aspects of the administration as they affect the ordinary lives of the people of Northern Ireland.
Notice of the two subjects which we have in mind—namely, education and the health services, with special reference to the services available for the physically handicapped—has been given to the Under—Secretary. Those are the two subjects which we have selected, and, although I suppose that the three and a half hours which we are permitted by the business motion may not rank as a full-scale debate, at any rate quite a bit about those subjects can be put on the record and elucidated.
I hope that the Under-Secretary will not take it amiss if I say that when subjects have been notified in advance in this way, it is not unreasonable for hon. Members to expect that the Minister who replies will in general be briefed upon those topics, though we appreciate that on other matters of detail which it is in order to raise he may have to rely on subsequent correspondence.
That reminds me to thank the Under-Secretary for the scrupulous care with which he followed up, in a series of letters addressed to me, the contents of which I communicated to my colleagues, the matters raised in the debate on 1st July. I hope he is in agreement with us that in these three Appropriation Orders debates in the course of the year we ought to develop a kind of continuing rhythmic survey both of financial control and of
1772
various aspects of administration in Northern Ireland.
This debate is the last time when we shall be under the disability, to which I drew attention in July, that the Estimates underlying the latest available report of the Comptroller and Auditor General were arranged under different headings and classes from the Accounts. Since the last financial year, the Estimates are presented in a new form, which is in harmony with that of the Accounts. Consequently, we shall no longer find ourselves in embarrassment when trying to locate in the Estimates some item in the Accounts to which attention has been drawn.
If we are to build up in these debates a cycle of scrutiny by the House, I hope I shall carry the Minister with me so far as to say that, since that scrutiny is bound to be based to a large extent upon the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General and upon the work of the Public Accounts Committee, we ought to secure the maximum possible co-ordination between their work and reports and the seasons at which we who represent Northern Ireland have the opportunity to debate these matters.
As a matter of curiosity, I jotted down the fate of the Estimates for the year 1975–76, which you might be surprised, Mr. Speaker, to know are the latest Estimates on which we have available for us the comments of the Comptroller and Auditor General and of the Public Accounts Committee. They are already pretty long in the tooth; but I need not, perhaps, stress the point that scrutiny of current expenditure is to a large extent dependent upon scrutiny of past expenditure, since current expenditure and current errors grow out of past expenditure and, unfortunately, out of past errors.
So I take my jottings on the financial year 1975–76. They run as follows. The Comptroller and Auditor General's report on the Accounts for that year was ordered to be printed by this House on 22nd December last. We then held a debate—the first Appropriation Order debate in which that report was available—on 1st July. But we missed by 25 days the Public Accounts Committee's report upon the Comptroller and Auditor General's findings, which was ordered

1773
by the House to be printed on 26th July. There followed in November the memorandum of the Department of Finance, Northern Ireland, replying in turn to the Public Accounts Committee; and now here we are, on 8th December, able to survey for the first time the outturn of the last financial year but one, after it has been fully considered and digested by the Public Accounts Committee and by the Department.
My hon. Friends and I believe that we ought to improve upon this. It is not good enough to have so long a time lag. In considering an order of this kind, we ought to be able to utilise the experience of the last previous financial period.
Yet the House will observe—from the pattern for the financial year 1975–76—that by having our debate tonight we are probably just missing the treat which we are daily expecting—the arrival of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General upon the accounts for 1976–77. One's mouth waters at the thought that we might have in our hands this evening the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General for the year ended as recently as March 1977. If we had it, how much better off we should be, how much more abundant ground for investigation, debate, questioning and criticism would be available to us.
So that is our second near-miss. We recorded one near-miss on the PAC in July. Now we have had another near-miss on the Comptroller and Auditor General.
This is not the first time I have raised the matter with the Minister. On 8th August he wrote to me one of those infinitely courteous, but sometimes rather saddening, letters of his. He said:
"There is a significant obstacle in acceding to your request, because there are no statutory or fixed dates for the publication of PAC Reports."
I know that; but it is not impossible for the PAC, aware as it must now be of the cycle of our Northern Ireland debates, to pay some regard, in the arrangement of its work within the financial year, to the times at which we can utilise that work. Not a Session goes by without the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) delivering a long tirade—I make no criticism of the right hon. Gentleman—an absolute jeremiad,
1774
on the fact that the PAC toils away month after month interviewing witnesses and reaching conclusions without those matters ever being debated in this House. Well, on this occasion in the case of Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for Taunton has what he wants. We are his best customers; indeed, his liveliest clients. We are eager to seize on his report and to debate it on the Floor of the House, and disappointed because it appears a week or two after the opportunity has arisen for us to debate it on one of our principal occasions.
The Ministers put forward what in his view was another "significant obstacle". His letter continued:
"under the Order in Council procedure very precise pre-planning of the preparation of departmental estimates is required to ensure that Appropriation Orders are presented and debated, and reach the Privy Council in adequate time to provide continuity of funds to departments. To try to co-ordinate this timetable with the issue of any PAC Report would add to the complexity. I therefore regret that I am unable to implement your suggested coordinated PAC-Appropriation Order procedure."
Let me make an offer to the Minister. If we promise to tackle the Chairman of the PAC, will the Minister promise to tackle the Privy Council? Let him not start back in alarm. I am not asking him to make a frontal attack on that august body; but I suggest that, although legislation by Orders in Council must to some extent follow the rhythm of the Privy Council, there is nothing which obliges the Government to pass this legislation in the form of Orders in Council at all.
If the Government find that it is inconvenient for them in Northern Ireland to proceed by Orders in Council when in the rest of the kingdom they can proceed by the Consolidated Fund Bill, there is nothing that prevents their having a Bill instead of an Order. I see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury on the Front Bench, and I understand the alarm that must be rippling through his breast at the mention of a Bill. However, I hasten to assure the right hon. Gentleman that if, as with United Kingdom Consolidated Fund Bills, an iron convention ensures that only one day per Bill is available, the effect would be the same with Northern Ireland if in this case—and the Minister knows that this is a matter near to our hearts—we were to supersede

1775
Order in Council procedure with procedure by Bill.
So that is the offer that I make to the Minister, who, I believe, agrees that it is only fair to the civil servants and others who work for us on the control of public expenditure that we should attempt to get a much more efficient cycle of debate. I leave it at this. The bargain is on the table. We will fix the right hon. Member for Taunton if the Minister will fix the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury. Nothing could be fairer than that.
I have one other semi-procedural matter to which I wish to refer. We are still not getting the full treatment of the reports of statutory bodies. Our statutory bodies play a great part—too great a pan—in our administrative life in Northern Ireland. The Minister will recall that the desirability of these bodies being subject to the full process of examination by the Comptroller and Auditor General and consideration of his reports by the PAC was brought to his attention in the debate of 1st July. I then asked the Minister when the PAC would have the Comptroller and Auditor-General's reports on Northern Ireland statutory bodies brought to its attention. He replied:
"I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that this was one of the matters to which I have turned my mind and the attention of my Department during the last six months."
The "last six months" must, therefore, have run from 1st January: for six whole months the prospect of the PAC considering reports upon the statutory bodies had been in the mind of the Minister and his Department. What is more, he had come to a conclusion. I should like to refresh the memories of hon. Members. It was this:
"We think that the time is now appropriate to deal with the accounts in the manner suggested by the PAC and according to other suggestions that have been put before the House".—[Official Report, 1st July 1977; Vol. 934, c. 831–2.]
There is, therefore, one thing—if nothing else—that we can look forward to tonight. That is to be told by the Under—Secretary that these reports on the statutory bodies—which are, after all, in charge of the main aspects of domestic and private life in Northern Ireland, health, education planning and so on—are now being fed through the normal machinery of accountability and control.
1776
Since this order embodies only Supplementary Estimates, it is much less extensive in its ambit than the order that we debated in July, which corresponded to the United Kingdom Appropriation Act. Thus only some of the Departments of administration come within the ambit of this order; but, subject to that, I should like to carry further some matters raised in the July debate.
The first comes under the head of education. There had been criticism of the fact that the education boards were neither maintaining satisfactory inventories—which are a necessity of financial control—nor had they carried out the survey of lands in their possession which the Comptroller and Auditor-General believed they needed. Sure enough, the Under-Secretary wrote to me following the debate and said that the subjects had been
"considered at a meeting in May between the Departments of Education and Finance and the Comptroller and Auditor-General"
and that
"the Department of Education is discussing with the Boards the remedial action needed in relation to inventories and records of land and buildings".
I therefore hope that tonight the Minister will be able to say that these discussions have been brought to a successful conclusion, and that these defects in educational administration are, henceforward, to be remedied.
I am confident that the Minister will not feel that in bringing up these matters in a second or even a third debate we are out to find fault. It is simply that, when such matters have been brought to the attention of hon. Members by the people who are our watchdogs, we owe it to them to pursue those matters until they are successfully settled. It is entirely in that spirit that I am asking the Minister to respond.
Another subject falling under a similar head, but on which we now have the benefit of a report by the Public Accounts Committee, is that of Lurgan Gas. I have the permission of my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) to put a toe over the border between our constituencies.
The House will recall that a guarantee was given by the old Development Corporation to the gas undertaking in the

1777
expectation that there would be a large consumption of gas generated by the new town. Events did not turn out in that way. The Housing Executive, which was the successor of the Development Corporation, repudiated all responsibility for the agreement, and the Department of the Environment was left holding the baby. When we last said goodbye—or, rather, au revoir—to this matter, there was a renegotiation in progress or foreshadowed between the Department and the gas undertaking.
Unfortunately, the Government do not have an absolutely impeccable record in the matter of renegotiation. I do not wish to stir any painful feelings in the breast of the Government's Deputy Chief Whip, but "renegotiation" is perhaps still an ominous word. Unfortunately, we have not got on very fast, because, so far as I can gather from the information obtainable from the Under-Secretary, the renegotiation is still only in contemplation. However, the PAC had some important and far-reaching observations to make upon this whole matter. I should like to quote one sentence from the Committee's Seventh Report. It says:
"we are not convinced of the wisdom of allowing the Executive to change over to oil, to the exclusion of gas, when it seems clear that gas is already being used and that further use of it would reduce the compensation payments or possibly eliminate them altogether, either when the new town is fully developed or"—
and these are interesting concluding words—
"on the advent of a different and cheaper source of gas."
This is an area where we ought to try to learn from recent experience. In the late 1960s there were exaggerated views of the expansion of the new town of Craigavon and mistaken assumptions as to the prospective relative price of gas from naphtha compared with other sources of heat and energy. These turned out to be wrong, and there was then a sharp reaction, and the PAC is wise to ask whether it was too sharp.
The Housing Executive has now switched away from gas and the Department of the Environment—that means the taxpayer—will have to pay an open-ended subsidy of£100,000 a year, year after year, to the gas company to expiate the fault of 1968. Meanwhile, in the past
1778
12 months a new prospect has opened up for the gas industry in Northern Ireland. What might have been thought a year ago to be only a chimeric prospect of a link between Great Britain and Ulster has suddenly come into sharp focus as a technical possibility—some of us think, a probability. It has come to be realised that in a measurable time gas could be as competitive in Northern Ireland as it is in the rest of Great Britain.
The Public Accounts Committee has done us a service, and the Department would be wise to bear in mind its advice as it approaches the whole matter. We do not want a renegotiation based upon another appreciation which is doomed to be falsified. Of course, we cannot face the open-ended commitment as it now exists. But we should not over-react in the opposite direction to the error that was committed in 1968.
I pass to a third matter that again arose in July and on which new light has been cast in the intervening months. I refer to the planning preparations for the new airport at Aldergrove. I raise this issue under Class XI, Vote 2, financial administration. The House will probably remember that for some reason—to us it was an unaccountable reason—a whole series of unrealistically ambitious projects for the new airport had been made with a consultant, who was involved in the first project, employed again in the second project, and again in the third. The less his work found favour, the more sure he was to be employed the next time round.
That was a matter that caused great unease among my hon. Friends and myself, as it clearly did to the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Public Accounts Committee. It is worth reading the questionnaire that the PAC obtained from the Department of Finance on that adventure. The Under-Secretary wrote to me on the subject on 26th July, and the contents of his letter were in line with what was stated in the reply to the Public Accounts Committee, namely, that it was the intention to offset against the fees due for the planning work already carried out such part of that work as it might be possible to utilize in future revised plans. I believe that that is the Department's present stance.
My hon. Friends and I believe that once again a new start must be made.

1779
We believe that we need to forget the assumptions and ambitions of nearly 10 years ago and make an entirely fresh and much more realistic approach to the improvement and reorganisation of Aldergrove Airport. It is often said that the best is the enemy of the good. In the case of Aldergrove Airport the unrealistic has become the enemy of the possible.
The airport presents a number of obstacles to air travel between the Province and Great Britain. However, we believe—after all, we Northern Ireland Members for Northern Ireland constituencies are steady commuters through Aldergrove Airport—that many of the problems can, given the good will of not only the operators but the airport authority and the Government, be either remedied altogether or greatly alleviated at relatively minor expense. We do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland are over-anxious to see a new, glittering airport rising on the cleared site of the old one at Aldergrove. It may be that in time they would like to have such an airport, but what they want now is as unimpeded, as frequent and as swift air travel as possible between the Province and Great Britain.
The layout of the existing airport is one of the factors which, we are given to understand, makes it difficult to reduce delays and congestion and the tiresomeness of the security checks which add so much to the length of the journey between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. In our opinion, we ought for the present to forget the prospect of a new airport and ask what can be done now, in the next 12 months or in the next two years, to make Aldergrove Airport as it is more habitable and efficient and the basis of a much swifter and more comfortable air service between the Province and Great Britain.
Instead of negotiating to decide what part of the abortive work that has already been done might be used again in yet a fourth plan—if my calculations are correct—for a new airport and might therefore be offset against the fees due to consultant A, we suggest that in one way or another that phase should be terminated and a new, much more realistic and cost-effective approach should be made to the airport at Aldergrove.
My last topic arises under Class II, item 3—aid to industry. Here I am look-
1780
ing forward to future reports and debates rather than backward to debates and investigations that have already been initiated. I do not think that anyone can feel happy about the control and scrutiny to which the subvention of industry in Northern Ireland has been subject in the past. It has too often been our experience that gross errors have been detected too late, have been brought to the attention of this House too late and, therefore, have been corrected too late.
No one will suppose that any hon. Member representing a constituency in Northern Ireland will wish to see anything not done which can legitimately be expected to increase the prospects of employment in the Province. But it is no service to that purpose for large sums of money to be invested in the form of grants to firms which, two, three or five years later, prove not to have been suitable recipients of those investments. No firm basis for future stable employment will be created in that way.
I shall mention two specific instances of current grants supplied to firms in Northern Ireland which I believe—I hope that my words will reach the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General as well as the ever-open ears of the Public Accounts Committee—should be watched now on our behalf not only by the Department but by our own parliamentary watchdogs.
The first concerns Strathearn Audio, about which the Minister of State supplied my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) with some particulars in a Written Answer on 28th November. That firm has so far received a total of £700,000 by way of financial assistance. I am told in fact that it has received 10 times as much per worker per annum as has been received by Harland and Wolff. That just puts the matter into a certain perspective.
Of that £700,000, no less than £460,000 was paid by the Department of Commerce alone between 14th July and 13th October this year. So this is something which is actually happening now, under our noses, and this is the stage at which full control, scrutiny, progressing and policing should be in operation.
The sum of £460,000 is not the total of what was paid in that period. It is only the total paid by the Department of

1781
Commerce. In addition, there is another £172,000 which was paid partly in that period by the Department of Manpower Services and £63,000 from the European Social Fund. Anyone who thinks that that sum should not bother the House because it comes from the EEC should recall that what we pay the EEC exceeds what it pays us. In the long run, that money is as much ours as all the rest.
This firm is thus the object of very heavy investments of public money month by month at the present time; and I say to the Minister that we do not want to be confronted in two, three or four years' time by a ex post facto or post-mortem report from the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Department of Commerce telling us, years too late, "Ah, well, on reflection and with hindsight, perhaps we were incautious to have committed these sums in the circumstances and on the terms that we did." It is our business, in the light of past experience—and names need not be used—to say that this is a case in which scrutiny should be applied now.
The other case which I want to mention is the grant to Ulster Crystal Limited for the establishment of a lead crystal factory at Kennedy Way, Belfast. Grant aid was made available to this firm in 1974 and further assistance was provided between 1975 and 1977. To that information in his Written Answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North, the Minister added:
"It is not the practice to disclose details of the amount of assistance provided to firms in the private sector."—[Official Report, 28th November 1977; Vol. 940, c. 95.]
I am very puzzled by this. I am very puzzled by putting these two written replies side by side. Is Strathearn Audio a nationalised industry, completely in the public sector?
Mr. Carson: Yes.
Mr. Powell: So that is the reason why we have the full information about Strathearn Audio while we are denied any information on the figures relating to Ulster Crystal. But that is not satisfactory. It is not satisfactory that only at the end of the day by way of postmortem should we be able to consider the size and effect of the subvention which is being made.
1782
My suggestion is that the Minister should find ways to ensure that even if, under current convention, these figures are not to be published to the House, the Comptroller and Auditor General and, consequently—they are perfectly capable of withholding sensitive details from publication—the Public Accounts Committee should have at the earliest opportunity the chance to examine the actual sums, the destination of the sums and the effectiveness with which they are used.
I am sorry if I have detained the House so long; but complaints are often made against this House that we do not pay enough attention to the scrutiny of public expenditure. So perhaps I have not erred in taking up time to carry forward what I hope will be a continuing cycle of debate on the Northern Ireland Appropriation Orders.
9.50 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) has indicated that he and his colleagues will be concentrating their remarks on this order on those aspects dealing with health and social services relating to the provision made for handicapped people in Northern Ireland. The Minister will find that there is complete unanimity on this subject, because every representative from Northern Ireland is deeply concerned about this problem. There is no political kudos to be gained from any party political attitude. We are all aware of the problem.
I believe that as yet the Government are not fully aware of the extent of the problems of disabled people in Northern Ireland. In August last year, during a debate on the Consolidated Fund, I advocated that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, which applies to other parts of the United Kingdom, should be made applicable to Northern Ireland. This move would be of tremendous significance and would provide the legal means whereby authorities in Northern Ireland could carry out further improvements by way of installations and telephone adaptations to private dwellings, schools and so on. At present they do not have these means.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said on that occasion that he had sufficient confidence in the area health boards in Northern Ireland to ensure that

1783
health and personal services were as adequate in that part of the United Kingdom as in any other part. I had doubts then and I still have them.
In recent weeks I have tabled a series of Questions to Ministers asking whether it is possible to ascertain the extent of the problem. It might have been thought that sufficient time would have elapsed since August 1976, when we debated this problem—and when I was supported by many hon. Members on both sides of the House—to have allowed the Department to carry out a survey to discover the extent of the problem. Sadly I find from some of the answers I have received that apparently nothing has been done.
On 30th November I tabled a Written Question asking the Secretary of State to:
"list the number of households containing disabled children and the rate per 1,000 child population in Northern Ireland and each area health board who received assistance with aids in the year ended 31st July 1977"
The answer I received was:
"This information is not readily available and could not be obtained without disproportionate use of resources."—[Official Report, 30th November 1977; Vol. 940, c. 262–3.]
If we do not know how many households have disabled children, how can we begin to tackle the problem.
I asked another Question on 9th November. I asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland:
"what action he is taking to ensure that all new schools and places of further education are provided with facilities for disabled people."—[Official Report, 9th November 1977; Vol. 938, c. 149.]
I would have thought that that would have been an issue of tremendous importance for young disabled people. The pursuant answer I received was:
"Discussions are to be arranged between the Department of Education for Northern Ireland and the Education and Library Boards in order to review current practices and to determine what needs exist."
After 15 months the Department should be aware of what the needs are. I asked another Question about the number of disabled people in the area health boards who were receiving assistance from the Department for the installation of telephones in their homes. I was told that in the area of the Southern Health and Social Services Board four people had received such assistance. There must be
1784
many more disabled people within that board's area who could have been receiving assistance.
I have not the figures with me, but I quoted them in August last year in relation to Manchester. Manchester must have a compassionate set of officials, for they are implementing every facet of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act. I believe that there are thousands of telephones in the Manchester area which have been financed by the local authority and the Department of Health and Social Security for the use of disabled people.
Again, I asked the Minister to list the number of households which had been adapted to take account of disablement. He gave the figures—they were very small—and added:
"These figures include adaptations to Housing Executive dwellings undertaken before March 1976. Since that date the Housing Executive has assumed full financial responsibility for adaptations to its dwellings, and information relating to adaptations made since then is a matter for it."—[Official Report, 6th December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 699.]
I can only say that if the Housing Executive of Northern Ireland is as good at making adaptations to its houses for the disabled as it is in carrying out repairs and maintenance to other property, the disabled should have a very good future indeed in Northern Ireland.
There will have to be a Minister responsible in this House for the misdeeds of the Housing Executive. I warn my hon. Friend that I will take the earliest opportunity to bring before the House some of the more glaring defects of the Executive, particularly in relation to repairs and maintenance. Housing Executive properties built in the last few years are now slums, because repairs have never been carried out by the Executive. But that is a topic for another occasion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that I would have the unanimous support of hon. Members opposite from Northern Ireland. There is great disquiet about the matter in Northern Ireland, and I warn my hon. Friend that the Housing Executive will be called into question very soon.
As I have said, I have previously advocated that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act should be made applicable to Northern Ireland, and I still insist that that should be done. In the

1785
Act there is a whole lot of "shalls"—"the authority shall" do this, that and the other. The obligation is firmly there. In Northern Ireland the authorities "may" do certain things—or they may not do them, and they do not do them. I want to see the Act extended to Northern Ireland so as to give protection and added assurance to our disabled that they are not the poor relations of other citizens of the United Kingdom.
One can readily understand that in Northern Ireland we have a greater proportion of disabled people per thousand population than any other part of the United Kingdom because of the campaign of violence over the past eight years. Every one of us from Northern Ireland must know at least one disabled person, and sometimes it is many more, including our friends who have lost arms or legs because of bombing and explosions. That problem has arisen because of the campaign of violence. Now, happily, there is a decrease in the violence.
Last year was the time and now is the time even more for the Act to be extended to Northern Ireland. I do not think it right that when a Member from Northern Ireland, on whichever side of the House he sits, asks for information about the disabled he should get the reply "We have not the information ourselves and it would cost too much money to get it." That is not good enough for the disabled in Northern Ireland.
I ask my hon. Friend not to tell us tonight that he is happy with the health and social services available in Northern Ireland. No one, even on this side of the Channel, can believe that we have even an optimum level in our care for the disabled. This is an ongoing process. We shall never be in a position where we can say that all our services are adequate. There will always be need for the extension of services
I hope that the Minister will indicate his intentions. I know that announcements were made recently that more money had been allocated for disabled people in Northern Ireland, but I do not yet believe that we have adequate legislation. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act should be made applicable to Northern Ireland so that we will
1786
be able to say that we are doing all we can for our disabled people. Until that happens, I assure the Minister, the matter will be raised time and time again in the House.
10.1 p.m.
Mr. McCusker: I intend to raise—under Class VIII dealing with expenditure by the Department of Education on schools—a topic touched upon by the hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave). I wish to discuss in more detail the questions that he raised, and I hope that the opportunity will be taken to debate Northern Ireland education as he suggested.
I wish to ask whether the reorganisation of secondary education is really necessary. People may well say that it is a bit late in the day to ask that question, because things have moved so far forward that the time to ask whether it is necessary is now past. In fact, when we see the scramble to try to find a solution to the problem of reorganising secondary education, that question becomes more and more appropriate. I seriously question whether the reorganisation is necessary.
I ask this not because I am interested in trying to preserve bastions of privilege. The small grammar schools of Northern Ireland were certainly not bastions of privilege when I was at school. In the 30 years since the Northern Ireland Education Act 1947, the grammar schools have probably acted as the greatest instrument of social change that the Province has ever seen. I espouse the objectives of those who support comprehensive education, but I object to what people are trying to force on us in Northern Ireland because I do not think that the proposals will achieve the objective. My own children are being educated in a comprehensive system of education. That system has evolved in our locality and seems to be the best system for the locality. It is therefore not from any vested interest that I am asking whether the reorganisation is really necessary.
We should start by asking how good the present system is. We are fortunate because we have it on the authority of no less a figure than the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the educational system of the Province is more

1787
successful than that of England and Wales, in that 65 per cent. more of Northern Ireland students go on to higher education and 36 per cent. more of Northern Ireland students achieve two or more A-levels. I have obtained these figures from a speech that the Secretary of State made on 28th October, when he said:
"On average a higher proportion of Northern Ireland school-leavers obtain GCE standard than is the case across the water. In 1974–75, the latest year for which comparative figures are available, some 15 per cent. of Northern Ireland school-leavers achieved two or more A-levels. In England and Wales the equivalent proportion is less than 11 per cent. Fully 38 per cent. of all school leavers in Northern Ireland now go on to some form of further education, about 15 per cent. of them to institutions of higher education such as universities, polytechnics and teacher training colleges. This compares very favourably with the equivalent figure for England and Wales, which is around 9 per cent."
The Secretary of State has told us that our present system of secondary education is excellent compared with the system in other parts of the United Kingdom. So why do we find ourselves in a position where we seem intent not merely on trying to improve our existing structures but on demolishing and completely restructuring our system?
I am glad that the question not only concerns those in the majority community. The concern is shared by representatives of the minority community. I read recently that a Roman Catholic member of the Down and Connor maintained schools committee, Rev. Thomas Toner, at a meeting of the Belfast Education and Library Board urged the board
"to outline the weaknesses of the present system in an attempt to improve the situation rather than to wind up a well tried set-up which would be substituted by something less certain."
I think it worth reviewing briefly the events which have led us to our present position. I suppose that it was in the late 1960s and early 1970s that questions began to be asked about our 11-plus selection procedure, and doubts were expressed about it. Those doubts were eventually formalised in the report of the Seventh Advisory Council for Education, commonly known as the Burges Report, published in February 1973.
In paragraph 30 of that report, the council said:
"We think "—
1788
I ask the House to note that word—
"that restructuring of the school system should be undertaken in the hope "—
again, I ask the House to note that word—
"of providing better educational opportunities for all children."
That was hardly a dogmatic statement or assertion in which the council itself had much faith. However, two paragraphs later, in the recommendations, it said that the Minister should
"make now a declaration of intent to eliminate selection at 11-plus as soon as possible through a restructuring of the educational system."
The assurance with which that recommendation was made was by no means consistent with the tentative nature of the opinion from which it had been derived. Consequently, no significant public activity by the Government followed the publication of that report. However, by February 1975 the new occupiers of Stormont Castle decided that they would have to take some action, and they gave a senior inspector of the Department of Education a brief to produce a consultative document which was to outline a system of reorganised secondary education in Northern Ireland.
When that document was eventually published in 1976, it was followed by what was known as a consultative period extending until April 1977. Repeatedly during that period the Minister stated in public that his mind was not made up and that he would take account of the expressions of public opinion. He did that, because on 15th June he published a statement saying:
"There is broad agreement that the feasibility study contained in the Consultative Document is not an acceptable basis on which to reorganise secondary education in Northern Ireland."
Thus, 18 months after the document had been prepared and published by the Department of Education, the Minister ended up by throwing it to one side and saying, in effect, "It is obvious that no one in Northern Ireland believes that this is the proper basis on which to proceed", and he went on to say:
"After the most careful consideration the Government have decided to eliminate selection at 11-plus through a restructuring of the educational system"
by introducing a universal system of comprehensive schools. The difference on this occasion was that he did not say what

1789
he thought was the system which would achieve that. Once again, as in 1973, there was no logical connection between premise and conclusion—this time between Lord Melchett's rejection of the consultative document and his insistence upon a universal system of comprehensive schools.
Further, in his statement of 15th June the Minister announced his intention to appoint three working parties to consider what would be involved in the introduction of comprehensive schools. However, on 24th August, before these working parties had even met, the Department of Education wrote to the education and library boards requiring them to undertake planning of a system of comprehensive schools for Northern Ireland.
As, perhaps, a further indication of the bias in the Minister's thinking, there is the fact that in another committee, set up in July 1977 to study the education services now provided for 16-to-19-year-olds, not a single representative of grammar schools was included, although the grammar schools teach more than 80 per cent. of pupils of that age.
Throughout that 18-month period from July 1976, despite an avalanche of statements and assurances that the Government were open-minded, that they wanted full discussion and that they would respond to the wishes of the people, the overriding impression has been one of bulldozing ever onwards towards the Government's objective. Is it surprising, therefore, that one sees constantly in the headlines of the newspapers in Northern Ireland assertions such as
" 'Melchett Madness' on the schools must be stopped"
and
"School Plan 'being imposed without thought for pupils' "
and eventually a serious allegation by one of the most senior headmasters of a grammar school in Northern Ireland? He alleged that pro-grammar school officials at the Department of Education were being moved aside because, I suppose, it was thought that they were impeding progress towards the objective of the Minister.
1790
I do not think that we can simply reject those as the assertions and statements of people who should be written off because they have a vested interest. These are the people who have achieved the levels of educational excellence to which I have referred by quoting from the Secretary of State. I hope it surprises the Minister to realise that when my hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) and Belfast, North (Mr. Carson) and I met a group of these grammar school headmasters last Friday we discovered amongst them a feeling that they were being totally rejected, that their views were not being sought and that an assumption seemed to be made that they had nothing to contribute to this ongoing discussion. That was disturbing, because they are the people who are reaching the achievements to which I have referred.
Despite that, the Minister responsible for education in Northern Ireland reassures us in all sorts of publications, including the Ulster Commentary, that changing over to a comprehensive system of education will not be done in a mad rush. I do not know what he considers a mad rush, but if what I described five or six minutes ago is not a mad rush, I do not know what is.
The fact that the Minister has asked the Educational Library Boards to prepare their schemes for comprehensive schools in their areas long before his own working parties have reported is indicative of this. Therefore, inside a period of two years we have had produced at the Government's insistence a detailed scheme for the introduction of a comprehensive school system. This has been discussed and rejected because, in the Minister's own words, the idea of having a system of secondary education consisting of 11-to-18 schools alongside 11-to-16 schools was almost universally condemned by those in favour of keeping selection at 11 as well as by those in favour of abolishing it.
In a frantic effort to maintain momentum towards comprehensive schools, the Minister resurrects the idea of separate sixth form provision which had been dismissed 12 months previously in this first report. The provision of sixth form education was dismissed in that report in

1791
two sentences, but when he has decided that the other system outlined there is not the right one he pulls that old chestnut out of the bag and says how we shall proceed from now on. He justified that decision by saying that what the Government did was to change their mind in the light of the views expressed to them. He said "I see nothing wrong with that". We would all say "Hear, hear" to that. We are glad to see the Government change their mind when representations are made to them, but we do not want them to change their mind and then pick on something like this out of expediency to keep progress in their own direction.
I want to comment briefly on the inspectorate's feasibility study of sixth form colleges. This was alluded to by the hon. Member for Abingdon. Without going into detail, I suggest that the paper is built on a number of false premises. The implication of the report is that the Northern Ireland sixth form system is radically defective and needs radical restructuring. A more correct point of departure would have been that in its sixth forms and further education provision Northern Ireland has an excellent system which ought, in the interests of the young people, and in the interests of our community's prosperity, to be cherished and potected but that certain periperal improvements might be suggested.
I also doubt the validity in the statement that:
"the increased maturity and sophistication of young people today add to the difficulties of providing in a single school for the needs of younger children of secondary school age and those of the senior pupils who rightly see themselves as young adults."
They say that without providing any evidence. Certainly when one looks at what are considered to be the best schools in the kingdom, which would almost invariably be 11-to-18 all-through schools, there is no evidence there to back that assertion.
There is also an alarming lack of logic in the leap from the statement that
"The age of 16…is a time when many young people look increasingly to educational
1792
provision to respond to their particular needs and attitudes"
to the statement that
"there is growing support for the concept of separate provision at 16-plus."
If there is growing support for the concept of separate provision of education at 16-plus, why was it not in the document produced only 12 months previously? That, unfortunately, is typical of the superficial case which was presented by the inspectors to justify this swing towards sixth form colleges.
We would all accept that throughout Northern Ireland there was grave concern and growing disquiet about the 11-plus selection procedures, the weaknesses and dangers of which are now well known. I believe it was necessary, and I welcomed the decision when it was announced, to scrap that system. However, there was and is no burning desire to destroy our education system simply in order to end the old 11-plus examination.
I believe that the majority would prefer to give the new system of alternative transfer a fair trial. It appears to be capable of evolution, growth and development in response to the experience of parents, children and teachers and will eliminate many of the old evils.
I leave the Minister tonight with one final thought. It harks back to the speech of his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. If he forces a system of comprehensive schools throughout Northern Ireland, will there be any consolation for any of us in 10 years' time or less if the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland or the Minister of Education in a Northern Ireland Government has to inform us that instead of 15 per cent. of Northern Ireland school leavers having achieved two or more A-levels, we are then on a par with England and Wales with less than 11 per cent. and that instead of 15 per cent. of our school leavers going to institutions of further education we have finally, after a lot of effort, achieved parity with England and Wales at less than 10 per cent.? Is that what the Minister wants, and does he believe that that is what the people of Northern Ireland want?
10.18 p.m.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: In directing my comments to Class IX of this appropriation order. I find myself, strangely enough, in agreement with the honourable Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), and that does not happen very often. I am delighted to say that I also touch on a subject which is dear to the heart of the Under-Secretary of State.
I want to pay tribute to the voluntary bodies which are grant-aided by the Department of Health and Social Services and whose work among and for the disabled is of inestimable value. I refer particularly to the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services and the Northern Ireland Council for Orthopaedic Development. It is estimated that there are many more disabled people in Northern Ireland than are currently registered. There are just under 20,000 people on the register, 13,250 of whom are physically handicapped and 6,500 of whom are mentally handicapped.
Faced with this number of disabled people—that is the number of whom we are aware; there is, of course, a number who for one reason or another are not registered—we are surely left in no doubt that a comprehensive rehabilitation service is immediately required in Northern Ireland. We deduce this not just on the basis of the figures I have quoted but also from the definition of the word "rehabilitation"—that is, rehabilitation of the disabled. What does "rehabilitation" mean? The term covers medical care, educational measures, vocational and industrial opportunities and readjustments, and social and housing considerations. On top of all that there is the different approach which is required when one is attempting to meet the needs of the young people who are disabled over against those of the older people in the Province who are disabled.
One appreciates that the Government have done quite a lot in respect of the disabled, but there are two defects in the Government's basic strategy. I believe that the second defect is perhaps a consequence of the first. The first defect is the lack of adequate information at the Government's disposal. The second is the lack of co-ordination in the Province
1794
On a provincial basis ad not just a district or regional basis.
The Tunbridge Report stated that the Department of Health and Social Services should be charged with the primary responsibility for developing and coordinating the establishment and subsequent organisation of the rehabilitation services. Co-ordination and primary responsibility for development cannot take place until there is prior adequate information.
It is a tragedy that no comprehensive rehabilitation service exists in Northern Ireland. That is not to say that there are not those who are very deeply and fully committed to the rehabilitation of the disabled. Of course there are doctors and nurses, and of course there are social workers and therapists of all kinds. But the fact remains that there is no concerted effort on a provincial basis and no adequate co-ordination of a provincial service, which I believe is required to meet the needs of a vast number of disabled who are registered and of those of whom we know nothing because there is not the facility at present in Northern Ireland to draw up a proper register. I shall be returning to that in a moment or two.
I said earlier that the Government were to be congratulated on some of the work which they have undertaken. There is a fine workshop run by the Northern Ireland Council for Orthopaedic Development in Belfast, my own constituency. There is an Employment Rehabilitation Unit at Felden, and there is a training centre at Parkanaur. There is now, thank God, at last the proposal for the comprehensive appliance and aid service. This has been undertaken by the Eastern Board. But, while all this work, energy and industry must be applauded, there are two great defects—the lack of adequate information at the Government's disposal and the lack of a co-ordinated effort in the Province by both voluntary and statutory bodies.
A survey of activity in Northern Ireland has been done by Duncan Guthrie, who is Director of the Disabilities Study Unit. This very informative piece of research states that it is a disgrace that the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act, introduced in Westminster in 1970, has not been applied in Northern

1795
Ireland, except for three of its 28 sections. It is true that some measures which are in that Act are met by other legislation in Northern Ireland, but it is equally true that the Province is deprived of the fundamental elements of that very vital Act in relation to the disabled. Mr. Guthrie points out that it is particularly regrettable that this is the case, because Northern Ireland presents an ideal area for comprehensive co-ordinated rehabilitation services. The area of our Province is about 5,000 square miles, and the population of 1½ million provides neither too many disabled people to be handled efficiently nor too few to make it reasonable to provide all the appropriate services. It has industrial and rural populations with consequent possibilities of employment in either industry or agriculture. He goes on to say that it has its own Department of Health and Social Services, and that it is as good as anything in the United Kingdom. What is more, its head office is within two hours' driving time of virtually anywhere in the Province.
On the basis of this kind of information and research, it is an exaggeration to say that Northern Ireland could have the most modern and the most successful rehabilitation service, if not in the world, certainly within the United Kingdom? But it is sad that we have to admit in this debate that there is a meagre smattering of good people and good institutions trying to grapple with these multitudinous problems and that, somehow, these efforts are out of the reach of many thousands of disabled people who require these services.
The most important section of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act is the first one, which deals with the all-important requirements imposed upon local authorities in England and Wales to amass information about the disabled. There are really three parts to the section. It is obligatory on a local authority, first, to inform itself about the number of disabled persons in its area; secondly, to cause to be published general information about the services provided for the disabled; and, finally, to ensure that every disabled person is informed of the services which are relevant to his or her needs.
1796
The fundamental prerequisite to offering help—an awareness of the size, nature and scope of the problem—is denied the Province of Northern Ireland, and I find it inexcusable that that is the case. If the whole of the 1970 Act cannot be applied in the Province, steps should be taken immediately to apply that first section. If we can identify the nature scope and size of the problem, we are in an advantageous position to go about solving some the the glaring difficulties and defects.
It is encouraging that the Government have financed a survey to be carried out by the organisation known as Outset. This has been done at a cost of about £500,000. It is commendable. It means that at last we are grappling with the difficulty of amassing the required information. But I am prompted to ask whether this is a one-off operation. The number of disabled people in the Province is bound to fluctuate. They will grow in number and not diminish. If this is just a one-off operation, its value is rather limited.
What is so difficult about applying at least this first section of the 1970 Act which makes it mandatory for a local authority to amass the information to which I have referred? It may be said that the peculiar constitutional position of Northern Ireland does not enable us to apply a complete Act of Parliament. However, I shall not be satisfied with that answer because, although it is true that many of the provisions of the 1970 Act are in operation in other ways without even perhaps being on the statute book, there is no question in my mind but that some of the fundamental provisions contained in Section 2 of the Act require to be implemented in Northern Ireland. If we examine, for instance, all 28 sections of that Act, we discover that, while some are met by existing legislation and some by convention, there are many—not the least of which are some of the housing requirements—that are not being met at all. That needs to be remedied right away.
I return to the point about co-ordination on a provincial basis. One would have to be thoroughly malignant not to compliment the Government on the fact that 17 workshops for physically handicapped persons have been established in

1797
the Province, together with 19 day centres and 26 special care centres for the mentally handicapped and 36 adult training centres for the mentally handicapped. That is a commendable effort. However, we must hold this achievement in tension with the experience of Dr. W. V. James, who, whilst complimenting the industry and dedication shown in these centres, refers to the centres as showpieces between which there are vast spaces of inactivity and non-facility.
I move to the area of specialised services. In mentioning some of the specific problems that arise in this area, problems that will recur again and again, I believe that we have now touched an area of problems that can be remedied immediately. The Under-Secretary may be very worried about trying to implement the 1970 Act and may believe that further delay is required. However, in this area immediacy is the essence of the problem.
I refer to some aspects of what may be termed the specialised services for the physically handicapped. Representations have been made to me and to most of my colleagues, and I am satisfied that the feelings I now express are shared by those professional people whose job it is to try to remedy these problems. Deficiency experienced in respect of one such specialised service relates to the provision of surgical footwear and callipers, and what I believe are known as Forrester Browns. I am advised that people measured for these have often waited for up to six months for delivery and that footwear and callipers have often been returned because a child has grown in the meantime and these implements are of no value. I have also heard of a physically handicapped boy who had to spend the first month of his holidays in his back garden simply because he had no boots to wear. There are numerous other cases in which children have waited for six or seven months for callipers to be repaired only for their parents to discover that the repairs carried out were not those stipulated on the order form.
This may not seem to be a very big matter in the House of Commons. However, I assure the House—I know that I have the Under-Secretary's sympathy in this—that for a family who have accepted
1798
a minor tragedy from the beginning and have devoted all their care, concern and love to a child, to discover that the statutory bodies are so abysmally failing is no small matter. I commend this kind of problem to the attention of the Under-Secretary. Obviously, there are many many parents who are prepared to complain, but I believe that very many do not complain, for one reason or another. Therefore, the problem may be even greater than we imagine.
It was to be hoped that some of these problems would be alleviated by the opening of the Rehabilitation Engineering Unit at Musgrave Park Hospital in Belfast next spring, but my information is that the building has not even been started. No work has been done on the erection of that building, let alone acquiring the staff. The hopes of the parents of disabled children in Northern Ireland have been raised, but the spring and perhaps even the autumn of 1978 may come and go before there is any service or engineering unit at the hospital. I hope the Minister will be able to tell me that I am wrong and that my worst fears are unfounded, but I doubt it. I pass the site nearly every day that I am in Northern Ireland and I can see no sign of building.
Will the Minister look carefully not only at the timing of the building but at staffing? I understand that specialists are training at the University of Strathclyde. One hopes that they will come to Northern Ireland, but I understand that the remuneration is such that recruitment will be very difficult. I hope that salaries will be offered to orthoptists and prosthetists engaged in this vital work that will make recruitment easy.
A working party was set up by the old Northern Ireland hospital authorities to look into this matter. Its product, the Whitlock Report, was submitted to the Department, but its recommendations have not been implemented. I hope that fresh consideration can be given to the proposals on equipment and rehabilitative services generally.
Before turning briefly and in conclusion to a telephone advice service for the disabled, may I ask the Minister if he will respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), who inquired when the plans for the Massereene and Whiteabbey hospitals will be

1799
produced. Would it be possible perhaps before the end of this month, to announce the plans for the future of these hospitals?
Rev. Ian Paisley: And the Moyle Hospital.
Mr. Bradford: Indeed, the Moyle Hospital as well.
May I take a moment to inform the House how the telephone advice service for the disabled was brought to my attention? The hon. Member for Belfast, West has mentioned the great help that has been given to the disabled in Manchester. That city was the pioneer of the telephone advice service. It was the brainchild of a young man who was an epileptic and received compassionate assistance from the DHSS in Manchester to get this tremendous scheme under way. Unfortunately, he died just a month ago, but he has left a system which will be of tremendous benefit to the disabled in Manchester.
After visiting Manchester, meeting the young man, looking at the scheme and talking to officials of the Department, I returned very excited indeed. I submitted to the Under-Secretary of State's noble Friend a brochure containing some of the information that I had brought back with me, and he promised to consider the matter sympathetically. I was thrilled to discover that, alongside my efforts, the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services had produced a job specification. It had gone further and acquired two grants from certain trusts. It, too, had asked the Minister to consider supplying this vital telephone information service for the disabled. Both plans or one of them—I do not care which—can be adopted. Alternatively, there could be a new plan taken from both.
Such a service for the disabled in Northern Ireland is vital. I should be thrilled if tonight the hon. Gentleman felt that he could commit the Government to meet the small sum that would be required to augment the money provided by the Northern Ireland Council of Social Services. I should be delighted if he could underwrite the Government's confidence in such a system for future years even if the grants from the two private bodies run out. I should be thrilled if a telephone service for the
1800
disabled in Northern Ireland was on the cards after tonight's debate.
10.42 p.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: From the point of view of the ordinary citizen there are two especially important Departments in Northern Ireland—the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Social Services. It is strange that there is no Minister answerable to the House for either Department. I know that there is an Under-Secretary on the Treasury Bench, but the Minister with responsibilities for both Departments is a Member of another place. He is making drastic decisions of far-reaching consequence, and the public representatives from Northern Ireland elected to the House have not the opportunity to cross-examine him or directly ask him any questions.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State has a big job on his hands to try to answer for the two Departments, but I must put before him two great problems. The first is that if a person in Northern Ireland is chronically sick and disabled he will be discriminated against compared to the person who is chronically sick and disabled in the United Kingdom. Better provision is made for the person in the United Kingdom who happens to be chronically sick and disabled than for the person in Northern Ireland. That should not be. We are continually told by the Government that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, or will continue to be part of the United Kingdom, yet when it comes to the basic rights of the individual who finds himself chronically sick and disabled we find that he does not have the same rights as a person in a similar position in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Northern Ireland has its system of education, but it seems that the House has decided that certain things in Northern Ireland should be dismantled or torn down. That has been decided in respect of systems that have worked well for years. That has been decided although there is nothing better to put in their place. An attempt has been made to demolish them, and we have the sad effect of the demolishing. We have seen demolished the Parliament of Northern Ireland. We have seen demolished

1801
democracy in local government in Northern Ireland. We have seen demolished the security that we had for 50 years in Northern Ireland. It has now been decided to dismantle the education system, although it is admitted that it is better than the system that operates in the rest of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it has been decided that the system should be demolished.
Controversy has raged in Northern Ireland, and these matters have been put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker). My hon. Friend has put forward a case that is supported by the people of Northern Ireland. The Government should take this matter seriously to heart, because an attempt is being made, at great speed, to destroy something that is good, profitable and, by their own standards, effective. Now the noble Lord in another place, who is neither elected nor answerable to elected representatives in this House, has decided to destroy this system.
Mr. Dunn: In case people outside this place should be minded to believe what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has just said, I should point out that the Secretary of State, who is elected, has residual powers vested in him for all matters relating to Northern Ireland.
Rev. Ian Paisley: With respect, the Secretary of State is not making the decisions or the announcements. The right hon. Gentleman is not appointing to the education boards the puppets who are making these decisions. The authority does not rest in the Secretary of State to make the nominations to the boards.
I led a deputation to the Secretary of State about the nominations to the boards. The right hon. Gentleman said that the nominations lay in the hands of the noble Lord. It is the noble Lord who makes the nominations. Therefore, it is not right for the Under-Secretary to tell me that the Secretary of State is responsible when the right hon. Gentleman has declared that he is not responsible for the nominations to these boards.
Let us examine these boards and what has happened. A prominent man in education, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh, has pointed out—this is a serious charge—that those who
1802
are pro-grammar school are being removed from places of decision-making so that the noble Lord's policy may go ahead. I do not know whether that is true. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on that matter tonight.
However, I do know the truth about another matter. Appointees to the education boards are in favour of the Minister's scheme. What is the Minister doing? Before his working party has even decided to give him its report, he is pushing the boards to make decisions according to his thinking. That cannot be tolerated. No wonder a new parents' union has been formed. No wonder people in Northern Ireland are preparing for a confrontation with the Department of Education.
It is all very well for the noble Lord to say that he will listen to people. The Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland has the largest Potestant denomination in the Province. Has the Minister read its two reports on the education system? Has he read the serious charge that it made in its two reports about the disadvantage to grammar schools with Protestant religious foundations? That is not my charge. That is the charge made by the Presbyterian Church in Northern Ireland in its two reports. Is the Minister aware that many grammar schools in Northern Ireland have Protestant religious foundations—for example, the Methodist College and the Friends School in Lisburn?
It is proposed that Roman Catholic grammar schools in Northern Ireland should have the advantage that similar schools have in the Scottish system of education. The Protestant religious foundation grammar schools are not to have that advantage.
I say as strongly as possible—it needs to be said in this House—that this matter requires urgent consideration because it will affect the people of Northern Ire-as never before. Their education system, which has stood the test of time and proved itself to be good, is about to be destroyed. The people of Northern Ireland will not wear it. The Minister must face this problem.
It is strange that we cannot have a full-day's debate on the future of education in Northern Ireland. Surely this House should give of its time to debate this matter. If there were a proposal to change

1803
the education systems in Scotland, Wales or England, time would be made available to debate such a serious matter. Why cannot time be made available to debate education in Northern Ireland and enable the Minister to give us the answers that he may get from his noble Friend?
Someone should be appointed to be directly answerable to the House for education. This is far too big a matter to be pushed off with the many other details of departmental labours. I know that the Minister has a lot on his plate but education is too important to be pushed together with agriculture, commerce, manpower services and health and social services. It is a matter which goes to the heart of Ulster and is of great importance to its future. The boys and girls of today are the men and women of tomorrow. Our school system has proved itself.
I do not agree with the 11-plus examination. Changes could be made but they should not be made in such a way as to destroy that which is so good. We must face up to the fact that there will be selection in all education systems. Whether we like it or not, selection will take place, whether it is at school or at university. Can the Minister assure us that he is prepared to meet the grammar school principals? They have a reasonable case to put to him.
Even the North Down District Council has passed a resolution calling on the Minister to put the brakes on the proposals. If a council such as that says that the brakes should be put on, there must be something seriously wrong.
Throughout Northern Ireland there is great concern and anger about what the noble Lord is up to. One does not see headlines as "Melchett Madness" without something being behind them. The Minister is running into a confrontation the like of which has never been experienced in Northern Ireland. He might find that the people are stronger than some of the politicians. He should beware of what is happening.
Why were not the grammar school representatives consulted? Why did Lord Melchett say that he would not consult them and go ahead? Could he not meet these people and talk to them? Were their arguments so strong that the Government could not face up to them? Why
1804
did the Government decide to ignore them and then continue down this road?
I do not wish to labour this point but the Minister had better consult Lord Melchett, and tell him about the deep feelings of the parents of children attending the grammar schools, and the governors, the principals and the teachers. Some of these grammar schools have turned out pupils who are a credit to Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom, and are exercising a good influence in the industrial and other centres of the Province.
I turn to the Department of Health and Social Services. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) made a plea on behalf of Whiteabbey and Massereene hospitals. Why should we have to make such a plea? Is it not true that the noble Lord is doing the same with hospitals as he is with education?
I went to a meeting in the Department of Health and Social Services with my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross). A hospital in his area was involved. At that meeting a firm promise was made concerning a medical instrument that should have been available to the doctors at Coleraine Hospital. Then we discovered that at the board meeting an executive member of the board had said "You are not getting this instrument." Yet the Permanent Secretary had made us a promise, in the name of the Minister, that the instrument would be made available—an instrument which could be used to help save the lives of many people.
The nominated board in my district does not have the support of the ordinary people. A meeting was held to decide where an acute hospital should be sited. The history is that a promise was made that the Waveney Hospital would be the acute hospital for the district. All the young doctors appointed to that hospital were told "This will become the acute hospital and you will have a career mapped out for you. You will be able to proceed in your profession and reach the top." That was the bribe held out. The Minister was told of this at a meeting I attended at Waveney Hospital at which the Minister condescendingly told us that we should be happy that he could come to Ballymena and give us a couple of hours. The Minister said to the doctors

1805
present "You should be grateful that I have come for a couple of hours to listen to you." It is the Minister's duty to listen to those in the hospital service who are carrying out their duties.
It was decided that the Waveney Hospital would be the acute hospital and that there would be acute services in various other hospitals. At the next meeting the board changed its mind—completely somersaulted. In the meantime, one of the board members who was so keen to have the Waveney Hospital as the acute hospital in the district had wrung from the Minister a decision that the Cushendall Hospital would not be closed but would be used for some acute services, but that the main acute service provision would be at Coleraine. Cushendall Hospital is in my constituency, and I do not want it to close. I believe that all of these hospitals should remain open, offering limited acute services, but with the main acute hospital in the centre of the district at Ballymena.
The person who had wrung that decision from the Minister came back to the board—the bribe having been given to him—and changed his mind. Who was the last man to make the promise about the Waveney Hospital? It was the man who sat in Lord Melchett's seat. the former Minister of Health for Northern Ireland. Then the board, behind closed doors, changed its mind. We are now told that we shall have a hospital. How much will the hospital at Antrim cost? When will a start be made on it? When is it likely that there will be acute services in this new hospital? Has the Government cutback on expenditure been taken into consideration? Are we being offered a hospital in Antrim that may never be built or perhaps may he finished a quarter of a century from now?
What is happening in other hospitals: Massereene, Whiteabbey and Moyle? They are all slowly feeling the dark hand, the shadow of closure, upon them. There is great resentment in Larne about Moyle, and also about Massereene and White-abbey. I do not understand why the decisions about Whiteabbey, which is so near Belfast, has been taken without consideration of what is to happen at the Mater Hospital. These things do not measure up, and I do not know what the position will be. People in those areas
1806
cannot get hospitalisation in their own towns.
The doctors in Ballymena are expected to take the whole load. They had been told "You should get a job here because there is a future here" and now they are told that there has been a change of mind. What was said by the previous Minister of Education in Northern Ireland, when he issued a statement to the Press, made a statement from his office and made it clear to the House, that Waveney would be an acute hospital, has all been changed by Lord Melchett.
There is a long line of hospital services in these communities. The hospital services in Northern Ireland are in a very serious state, and no doubt one of my hon. Friends will have something to say about the hospital in Mid-Ulster which is in a dilemma.
I do not think anybody is happy about the position. This all comes about through the ministry of Lord Melchett. This is his legacy to the people of Northern Ireland. That is what he has bequeathed to us. It is something which the Government had better take on the table tonight. It is serious and cannot go on.
I wish also to raise a matter in the order arising on Class II about the Department of Manpower Services. There will be a cutback of £3 million from March, and included in that is the industrial training programme. I should like the Minister to tell us whether there will be a cut in that training programme. I am sure that he is aware of the loss of jobs in Northern Ireland. The training programme is essential. Northern Ireland has a good training programme. It has been commended by Ministers on this side of the water. If anything, the expenditure on training should have been held. How can people get jobs if they are not to be trained for the jobs?
Under the Department of Manpower Services, can the Minister tell us about the Fair Employment Agency and whether, for the money paid out, it is doing its job? We have had all sorts of bodies set up in Northern Ireland to deal with so-called discrimination. There is an Ombudsman. He did not have enough work, so he has been put on the Police Complaints Board.
I understand that only six district councils out of the 26 would have anything to

1807
do with the Fair Employment Agency. Is it doing any good? How many cases has it solved, and how many people have been satisfied with the results? I should also like to know how many people it employs. One wonders whether it keeps to its own charter when looking at how many it employs.
Another matter under the Department of Health and Social Security has been dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South. One part of the legislation worries me, as one who goes to many tribunals and fights for the ordinary man in the street to ensure that, at least in the circumstances of his home, he can have a fair share of what is going. I am worried about the way the attendance allowed is allocated. This is causing my friends and colleagues heart-searching and heart-burning. We see that attendance allowance is easily granted in one case, and yet where the case is far stronger and it seems that an allowance should be granted immediately, we find resistance to granting it.
Is it not time that the Minister reviewed the Attendance Allowance Board? Is it not time the board was put under strict scrutiny? How many applications for attendance allowance has the Minister received in the past year? How many have been refused? What percentage has been accepted? How many people are getting the full attendance allowance? How many are getting only night attendance allowance? These are important matters. The attendance allowance situation is very serious.
There is another point I wish to raise on the question of supplementary benefit. There are many farm cottages where farm labourers are living—in part, they are tied into their jobs. Some of these cotttages are in a bad state of repair. The farmer would like to put such a cottage in a good state of repair but in order to do so, and to get the grant he has to move those occupants out while the work is done. When it is done, of course, the labourer moves back from his temporary accommodation. But because the labourer is moving back into the same house he is not eligible for disturbance money nor for a resettlement grant.
Something must be done so that a person moving out of a huse in order that the farmer can renovate it gets a rehabili-
1808
tation grant. I had a case recently in Ballymena where the tribunal was prepared to make a special needs grant for furniture to a home in this category but the Ministry stopped payment for the time being. The case is still under review. I ask the Minister to look at the problem, because farm labourers are entitled to the same consideration as is given to a tenant of any other house out of which he has moved so that it can be renovated and made fit for human habitation.
11.7 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: The hour is late, and I will be as brief as possible. There are one or two matters I wish to raise which have come into my experience as a result of constituency work. The first refers to the payment of the non-contributory invalidity pension to a married woman. I believe that this payment is very welcome, but there are certain anomalies which cause some degree of hardship and inequity. The gap I bring to the Minister's attention is one that I believe could be closed and should be closed.
If a man of 65-plus is getting his normal State pension, his wife will get the State pension of £10.50 regardless of her age or health. A woman under 60 who qualifies on health grounds gets the £10.50 non-contributory invalidity pension for married women—the HNCIP. Anyone who has been getting the HNCIP or the non-contributory invalidity pension—NCIP—continues to qualify for it.
In a letter to me on 22nd September, Lord Melchett said:
"once a person has been in receipt of NCIP it would be intolerable to take it away from him/her just because he/she has reached a certain age".
So there is no limit on that payment. Although the two payments may come out of different drawers, there is no real difference between them, because Lord Melchett went on:
"It has therefore always been the intention to pay NCIP to people over pensionable age only where they have been in receipt of it immediately before that age and there are no proposals to extend NCIP to people over pensionable age at the date of claim."
The difficulty therefore arises in the case of the unfortunate woman over the age of 60 who would otherwise qualify for a payment of some description but, because her husband is under the age of

1809
65, does not get anything. I believe that there are a relatively small number of women who find themselves so placed. I believe also that there are a number of women whose condition is deteriorating because of age. This very small number of people should be covered by an extension of the scheme, because, once the husband reaches the retirement age, such a woman will get a pension of £10·50 on her husband's contributions.
Is there no way by which the case I am making can be met? This is a difficult problem, and it has started to come to light only now when the initial payments are being made. We all have constituents who find themselves falling outside the net. I want the Minister to take this matter on board and see whether something can be done to close the gap in benefit for these unfortunate women.
Next, I come to a matter which was covered by the Secretary of State for Social Services in his statement on the mobility allowance. I am concerned, and I am sure that hon. Members throughout the United Kingdom are concerned, about the varying standards which seem to be applied to the payment of that benefit. This matter was first brought to my attention by a visit from a constituent who has suffered from congenital dislocation of both hips from birth. She can walk for only 50 yards, and she is in constant pain, yet she has continually been turned down for the mobility allowance. This lady has a job. Her employers very kindly pick her up every morning at her door and take her to work. She has a sedentary job, and once she gets into the factory she can continue her work. She is a citizen who has earned her keep very well indeed, and her family are proud of her.
Even recently, however, this lady has had her claim for mobility allowance turned down on appeal. She has been turned down because of the implication in the words "virtually unable to walk". The regulation is that the person must be
"unable or virtually unable to walk; or the exertion required to walk would constitute a danger to his life or would be likely to lead to serious deterioration in his health."
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) recently tabled a Question on this very point, and it was answered on 2nd December. He asked for an interpretation of the criterion
1810
"virtually unable to walk", and the answer was:
"the phrase "virtually unable to walk' means unable to walk to any appreciable extent or practically unable to walk'."
But the Minister added that the National Insurance Commissioner commented that
" 'in determining whether a person is virtually unable to walk, one should take into account such matters as whether the person can only walk very slowly, or with pain"—
my constituent falls into both those categories—
"or difficulty"—
which is the third category into which she falls—
"or instability, or grotesqueness of gait, and so on'." — [Official Report, 2nd December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 435.]
If those standards were applied in Northern Ireland, I should be inclined to believe that my constituent would win her case. But so far she has not done so.
What assurances can we have, especially in the light of the debate on the Adjournment last night when this question was raised on a different issue, that of inability to walk due to a mental disability? What can I tell my constituent when she comes back to me? Can I tell her that there will now be a serious effort made to apply the same standards throughout the United Kingdom in such cases? It seems to me —I am sure that other hon. Members, if they have not yet met such cases, will soon do so—that my constituent ought to receive exactly the same standard of treatment as others are receiving.
I come next to a matter arising out of the mobility allowance for young people. It arises, in particular, as a result of the changes which have been made in recent months and years, and it is especially in the forefront of our minds because of the recent statement on mobility, where we read:
"Any help which can be given to assist disabled people to make the best use of the resources is clearly very much to be welcomed "
and also that
"both drivers and passengers who want to use their mobility allowance to obtain a vehicle will get maximum value for their money in doing so ".—[Official Report, 6th December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 1126–7.]
Within the past 12 months or so I have come across a constituent—a young man, a spina bifida case, confined to a wheelchair since he was born, and living with

1811
his grandparents—who was given gifts of money periodically by his parents and grandparents to save up to buy himself a vehicle. He discovered, and his parents to their horror discovered, that whenever he reached a certain point his supplementary benefit was cut. The matter is still under consideration by the commissioners.
I do not say that it is a simple matter to resolve, but I believe that it is one that must be resolved, especially in the light of the statement that was made, because there are young people who get gifts of money, who try to save money and who are given help by their families—sometimes as a result of great sacrifices—so that they can get a vehicle which it is not possible for them to get without such help. Surely it is overdue for some way to be found to get round this difficult problem. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of man to find a way round it, and I wish that the Department would use its wits a little more quickly than it seems to be doing at present.
I turn now to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). He and I attended a meeting, and I confirm what he said about the piece of equipment that was promised on 17th August in relation to the difficulties of procuring a radiologist for the Coleraine Hospital. The radiologist has not, I believe, been procured. All sorts of points were raised about how the constituents of both the hon. Gentleman and myself could be covered, and a quite horrifying story was told then.
I believe that it is now intended to make this a two-man post. That is all very well, but when one looks at the number of radiologists available in Northern Ireland, or likely to be available there over the next seven to eight years one gets the impression that the Creator will have to start work again, because that is the only way in which we shall get them. There are not two men available. There is a possibility that there is one man who is available, and I hope that he will be appointed because the constituents need his services, and have needed them urgently for many months. But this does not get over the difficulty of why the hon. Member for Antrim, North and I were given a promise that was later rescinded and has not been put into effect.
1812
There is London weighting for many jobs. Is there no possibility of a weighting to try to attract highly qualified staff into the many remote areas in Northern Ireland? We have a severe, continuing shortage of many specialties and disciplines that will not easily be solved. We arc all most concerned about the problem. We cannot see the hospital service in the western half of the Province being maintained unless there is more money on the table to attract people there. Perhaps I am crying for the moon, but we need the moon, and, therefore, I make no excuse for crying for it.
My final point, because I promised to be brief, is addressed to the noble Lord in regard to his responsibility in education. I should be greatly obliged, as would my constituents in Limavady, if the noble Lord could find the time to visit Limavady Grammar School and paddle, as the schoolchildren must every day, to the 18 temporary wooden classrooms behind the school. Some of those 18 temporary classrooms have been there since 1964. My constituents feel that further building is long overdue, because Ministers know that, regardless of what the future of secondary education is in Northern Ireland, a considerable amount of building is needed at this school to provide the accommodation which is necessary for the welfare of the children of my constituents in the area.
11.20 p.m.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: This short debate has had very wide frontiers. I do not envy the Under-Secretary his task of summing it up.
An agreeable feature of the debate, which has touched on so many facets of Ulster life, was the sympathetic interest shown in the House, not for the first time, by the hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) and for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) in the plight of disabled and physically handicapped in their city. It would have been nice if the hon. Member for Belfast, South had stayed to listen to the hon. Member for Belfast, West. I know that the Under-Secretary was listening sympathetically to their plea for a provincial approach to the problems of the provision of care and rehabilitation, to which the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) also referred, and the application to Northern Ireland of legislation in force on this side of the sea.

1813
At this moment we are authorising supply to the Crown of an amount approaching £110 million, so the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) very properly reverted to the question of the control of public expenditure. Once upon a time, and not so long a time ago, per capita expenditure was lower in Northern Ireland than in Great Britain. Her Majesty's Treasury now estimates that in the past five years the most rapid increase in public spending has been in Northern Ireland. Expenditure per head of the population in the Province is now 48 per cent. higher than in England, where the figure is £754, and considerably higher than in Scotland, where the figure is £948, and in Wales, where the figure is £875—figures, incidentally, which some nationalists might do well to recall.
These statistics record the special assistance given and the incentives provided to industry in a Province where unemployment is above 12 per cent. They make it all the more necessary for the House to insist on rigorous economy in the management of so large an outlay.
I suggest, with reference to Class II in the schedule, that there may be room for economy in the bodies and bureaucracy dealing with assistance to industry. I am not speaking of schemes themselves so much as the bodies and bureaucracy dealing with assistance to industry. The setting up of the Northern Ireland Development Agency might have been the occasion for administrative rationalisation. How, I wonder, does this change fit in with the old Industrial Enterprise Fund set up in 1964 or with the Industrial Development Organisation within the Department of Commerce? I understand that the Department of Commerce has its own schemes under the Industrial Investment General Assistance Acts and the Industrial Development Act. How does all this fit together? Is it costing an unnecessary amount of money or administration?
During the great period of success in attracting new industries to Northern Ireland, nearly all the work was undertaken within the Ministry of Commerce. Besides the other bodies I have mentioned, there are Enterprise Ulster and LEDU—Local Enterprise Development Unit. This admit-
1814
tedly is a limited company financed by the Department of Commerce and is limited to the nurture of firms employing up to 50 persons. It has its own area offices at Omagh, Londonderry and Newry. I should be glad to learn from the Under-Secretary—perhaps by letter—what scope he sees for rationalisation. I should also be grateful if the Northern Ireland Office would reconsider its rejection of my repeated suggestions that the existence and publication of the reports of this and other public bodies be made known through the Vote to right hon. and hon. Members who may be interested.
This House is required, under the system of direct rule, to apply itself to many matters which were formerly within the purview of a Northern Ireland Parliament and Northern Ireland Government, and I think that we should either be given the tools of the trade or be told where they are to be had.
I turn finally and briefly to Class VIII. It is not that I want to add anything to what my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) said about education, but I should like to reinforce the demand which he made—supported by the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker), who always speaks on education with knowledge and experience—for a full-dress debate. The hon. Member for Armagh touched on the complicated system of transfer from primary to secondary education in Northern Ireland which recently came into operation, and this is the sole matter which I should like in conclusion to bring to the attention of the Under-Secretary.
The first phase of the new scheme—which was inspired by the Inner London Education Authority—was completed last month, but already there are teachers who are dissatisfied. We seem to have here a further element of discord in a troubled Province to add to the main educational controversy about which my hon. Friends and other hon. Members have spoken. Primary school headmasters have objected that this ILEA importation places too much power in the hands of the grammar schools. Many ordinary primary school teachers are alarmed by the work and responsibility they have to undertake in using the new techniques of guided choice selection. It

1815
has been put to me in Ulster that opposition from teachers may make the continuation of the scheme very difficult.
I hold no brief for the 11-plus examination. It is a red herring which is often put across the trail. Those who want to defend grammar schools are told that they are advocates of the 11-plus, which is not so. But such is the feeling in some quarters about the new transfer system that some people are beginning wistfully to look back towards the 11-plus system of selection. I hope that the Under-Secretary will include this point when he replies—as he must, I think—to the devastating attacks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon, the hon. Member for Armagh, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), and, I think, other hon. Members, against the misuse of direct rule to force a particular system of secondary education upon the long-suffering people of Northern Ireland.
11.28 p.m.
Mr. Dunn: A great deal of ground has been covered this evening, and it would be absolutely impossible for me to cover it all with the seriousness that hon. Members would wish. Indeed, if I were to attempt to do so I would take exactly as long as it has taken to bring these matters to my notice, and I am sure that the House would not expect that of me.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) intervened before I completed the introduction to the order and I gave him an indication that I was aware that these matters were being discussed. I could not give him any timing then but I am now reliably informed that the matter of the Massareene Hospital is with the Northern Health and Social Services Board. I understand that the board should be making a decision in the next month and that my noble Friend will be writing to the hon. Gentleman in the next fortnight. That might even bring the hon. Member some Christmas good cheer.
I turn to the matters which were raised in the debate and of which in some instances due notice was given to me, thus enabling me to provide a rather detailed reply.
The hon. Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave) asked what progress had been made in implementing the recommenda-
1816
tions in the Quigley Report. I agree with him about the importance of job creation, and he will know that every effort is made to improve the climate for industrial expansion. There have been substantial increases in the level of grants which are available for industrial expansion. In some instances, and in certain circumstances, it it possible to equip a new factory. Taking into account the tax concessions accruing, it is possible to get up to 90 per cent of the total cost. This is a high figure, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, as an attractive incentive to industry to locate itself in the Province, it is a matter which should not be ignored by those who may wish to come.
The hon. Member for Abingdon also asked how many new jobs had been promoted by the Department of Commerce in Northern Ireland. I have been given a document which gives some indication of the progress which has been made. In 1969 the number of new jobs created was 5,943: in 1970 it was 6,484; in 1971 it was 7,265; in 1972 it was 6,864; in 1973 it was 5,182; in 1974 it was 4,806; in 1975 it was 3,075; in 1976 it was 2,251; and between January and June 1977, which are the latest figures available, it was 3,254. They are rather remarkable figures.
Mr. Neave: What is the future longterm target to be? The Quigley Report said that 60,000 jobs were to be created to provide a 5 per cent unemployment rate. The number of jobs created seems to be going down annually at the moment.
Mr. Dunn: The Quigley Report indicated parameters, and we are trying, within those parameters, to improve industrial performance in order to attract industry into the Province. The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the visit to the United States of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State with that objective in view. He will also be aware of recent ministerial visits to Germany. Every effort is being made to attract industry into the Province and; thereby create more job opportunities.
Mr. Neave: Will the hon. Gentleman write and let me know the Government's target for job creation in the long term? Does he agree with the Quigley Report?
Mr. Dunn: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and give him the figures. I shall have to extract them from the Quigley Report. I cannot give them to him off the top of my head. But I can assure him that the Quigley Report is the basis for the Economic Council to engage in its examination, scrutiny and recommendations. Flowing from the consultations with the Eoconomic Council, it may be that the suggestions made in the Quigley Report will be varied. So I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question with any authority at the moment, but I shall write to him about it.
We have heard about the serious burden on industry of electricity charges. We shall be introducing an order later tonight which will help deal with this difficulty as a matter of high priority. The Northern Ireland electricity service will be given aid to enable the tariffs charged to be brought almost to a state of parity with those in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I can also tell the hon. Member for Abingdon that all my ministerial colleagues are undertaking a major drive to encourage new investment into the Province from abroad and from Britain itself. It is hoped that the Economic Council, under the chairmanship of Professor Carter, will give inspired leadership and make suggestions in this regard. We look forward to receiving its advice.
I was asked about tax holidays. This topic has been drawn to my attention before in Appropriation Order debates. It has been said that such a scheme would improve the competitive position of Northern Ireland. I can only say what I have said in the past: it would create difficulties to give special tax concessions to just one part of the United Kingdom. There are many complex problems in creating such as scheme, and if one were introduced for Northern Ireland it would be said that that would be to the detriment of the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not think it would help if I went further on that matter this evening. However, I assure hon. Members that our minds are never closed to any opportunities for further measures to meet Northern Ireland's need for more jobs.
I come next to the youth opportunity programmes. This was touched on by the hon. Members for Epping Forest (Mr.
1818
Biggs-Davison) and Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). Northern Ireland's job creation schemes—Enterprise Ulster and Young Help—have made a major contribution to the Government's policy for dealing with high unemployment there. Enterprise Ulster was established in 1973. Young Help was announced in April 1976. They can both be improved. Allied to that, industrial training schemes could make a serious inroad into the high level of unemployment in the Province among young people. Of course, if the United Kingdom economy generally improved, that in itself would provide an uplift and increase the scope and opportunities for employment for the whole range of the labour force, but particularly for young people. My hon. Friend the Minister keeps this matter under continual review through his manpower services machinery.
The hon. Member for Abingdon asked about financial assistance for small businesses. The Government have given a high priority to such assistance in the Northern Ireland economy, both in public services and in other industry. We are trying to create something within which the community in general can help itself. In Northern Ireland 78 per cent. of manufacturing establishments actually employ fewer than 50 people, and combined employment accounts for about 14 per cent. of total manufacturing employment.
We have tried to help small firms with a whole range of selective financial assistance under the industrial development legislation. The majority of the firms assisted in this way have been small firms. The local employment development unit has been able to help, advise and provide financial and other assistance to such companies. We should not discount the measures announced in the October Budget to help small firms. Relief from capital transfer tax on the transfer of businesses has been increased from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent. There is a 20 per cent. relief from capital transfer tax on transfer of minority shareholdings in unquoted companies, and the level at which CTT becomes payable has been raised to £25,000—which was basically an increase of £10,000. Also, the level of exemption from the apportionment of trading income has been raised from £5,000 to £25,000.

1819
All these are measures that are designed to help small firms. I am the first to appreciate that we must keep striving to find more and more means of providing assistance, encouragement and support wherever it is likely to produce the results that we seek. But, again, there is a break-off where the small businesses would wish to have a greater degree of independence. I suggest that there comes a time when the balance of the accountability for public money and the independence of the industries concerned is very sensitive. We must pay due regard to that on each and every occasion.
The other rather major point raised concerned comprehensive education. I do not think that I can abbreviate any answer on comprehensive education. It is a serious subject. There is an intensity in the representation of opinions on this subject that cannot be ignored, and I would not wish to do so. I repeat what I said when the hon. Member for Antrim, North was courteous enough to allow me to intervene during his speech. The Secretary of State is responsible for the affairs of Northern Ireland. Those of us who work with him as Ministers recognise and accept that overall supervision and control are vested in him. I repeat that he is an elected representative in this House. He is available for questioning. There are many opportunities to bring to his attention the matters before the House tonight. Therefore, I do not accept that there is any element of bureaucracy applicable in the House to those who answer on behalf of the Secretary of State. In the final analysis it is the Secretary of State who is responsible for all the affairs of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Before we go further down the slope towards the scheme beloved of the Secretary of State, may we please have a proper debate in the House? Will the hon. Gentleman please convey that request to his right hon. Friend the Lord President?
Mr. Powell: What about a Supply Day?
Mr. Dunn: The hon. Member for Epping Forest will be aware that it is not within my province or power to grant what he requests. I shall convey the request to the Secretary of State, but even he can only make a recommendation for the provision of parliamentary
1820
time to the Leader of the House and those concerned with the business of the House. I hasten to add that if the Opposition really desire to have a full day's debate on a subject as serious as education—as they put it to us—there are opportunities, although Supply Days are not unlimited. There are opportunities that the Opposition and other hon. Members may take to deal solely with the subject of education. They do not need me to point out the methods available within the House for them to do so.
Concerning comprehensive education, the Government's decision to eliminate selection at 11-plus was announced in a statement made by my noble Friend the Minister of State on 15th June last. This means that secondary education must be restructured so that schools are not divided into those that take mainly 11-plus qualifiers and the remainder that may take mainly those who have not qualified through the selection procedure. The decision that has been taken is not simply a party-political decision. The process of reorganising secondary education in Great Britain on non-selective lines has been going on for the last 10 years. In other words, it has been going on under both Labour and Conservative Governments. The process was neither halted nor reversed during the Conservative Government of 1970 to 1974. The views submitted by the people of Northern Ireland in response to the invitation in the consultative document were carefully considered before the Government announced their decision to eliminate selection at 11. There were full consultations with those concerned, and the professionals and educationists all made their views known.
When the views had been taken into account, the arrangements for the necessary restructuring were also made known. The Government fully accept that it would be wrong to attempt to impose a single, uniform system of reorganised secondary education in all areas in Northern Ireland. That is why the area education and library boards have been invited to undertake the plans for their areas and the consultations with individual schools. The Government believe that local people are in the best position to judge circumstances in different parts of their areas, based upon the geography

1821
and particular difficulties they confront. The area boards will have to approve the schemes, and they will be those best suited to each area.
Mr. McCusker: The board members who are being asked to make these decisions are nominees of the Minister's noble Friend. They were recently selected by him. Is it not highly likely that he selected people who share his view on this subject?
Mr. Dunn: I am sorry that the hon. Member has followed up some outrageous suggestions made in the Press and indirectly referred to in the debate. Without hesitation and with all the sincerity I can command, I completely reject the allegation that my noble Friend has appointed to the boards people who see only the point of view that he wishes them to follow and support. That is nonsense.
Those who loudly proclaim this outrageous allegation do so because they are attempting to discredit those who disagree with them. They want the tripartite system maintained, and they are quite willing to go to the lengths to which they allege others go. I reject that outrageous allegation and make no further comment except to say that if the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) has evidence to support the allegation, let him produce it. There have been comments from some leading people in the Province. A headmaster said recently that he believed the allegation was true, but he could not produce any evidence to support it. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Armagh fell for that.
The Government believe that the restructuring has to be a process in which each step is carefully planned and that ample time must be allowed for consultations and preparations. At the same time, it would be foolish to allow the process to be inordinately delayed.
To those who are concerned, let me say that there will be no imposition on the people of the Province. Those fears are founded on less than fact. There will be full consultation. The area boards will have ample opportunity, and the people in the areas will have even greater opportunity, to make their views known. There will be no imposition by the Government. The area boards will decide for them-
1822
selves. The area boards will have the opportunity of deciding on the recommendations that are made from within their areas. [Interruption.] I suppose that if I were to say that all night the response would be the same.
Mr. Powell: The hon. Gentleman has made an important statement. We should be happy for him to repeat it, but that is not necessary. He has said that there will be no imposition of the system by the Government in any of the boards' areas. That is an important statement, and we are grateful to him.
Mr. Dunn: My noble Friend made that statement on 15th June. He said that full consultation will take place and that there will be no imposition of the system upon the people of the Province. if they do not wish it, through the boards so as to make the system operative. I recall the Questions directed to this matter and the suggestions that have been made. I recall the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) intervening to say that what is good for one part of the United Kingdom is good for the other. However, I hesitate to go further along that path.
The hon. Members for Abingdon and Armagh referred to sixth form colleges. Since the publication in July 1976 of the feasibility study on the reorganisation of secondary education, there has been a wide-ranging and intensive public debate on the issue, which the Government welcome. A number of issues have emerged from the debate. The establishment of the working party on sixth-form colleges for education and library boards was the response to one such issue. The document that has been produced is not a statement of Government policy. It is a working document designed to stimulate thinking and to indicate possible options. The Government accept that there cannot be one uniform system of comprehensive education throughout Northern Ireland. That again is a statement of some significance. That is why I attach particular importance to the plans that are being drawn up locally in consultation with local people and local schools.
I have already dealt with the allegations that have been made by the Principal of Campbell College. He said that the staff in the Department of Education who support grammar schools were being

1823
moved aside. He did not indicate the source of his evidence. I refute the allegations. If the gentleman has any conclusive evidence, or something tangible rather than suppositions and comments that can be read in the Press, I can assure him that an investigation will take place if he gives us the information and the evidence. Such allegations are a reflection upon those who administer the education service, who have done so well for education for so long. When such allegations are flung around they act to the detriment of the service. They do it a disservice, and its reputation suffers. That applies to the civil servants within the service.
Other matters of minor detail have been mentioned. Some were related, for example, to the application of the education scheme. I assure the hon. Members who spoke on such matters that I shall write to them.
The right hon. Member for Down, South once again encouraged me to reach an agreement with him. He made an offer. I am sure that he will not take it amiss if I do not take up his offer. He suggested a bargain. Although it has some personal attractions, he will know that the arrangements and procedures for parliamentary time are not for me. I can give no such undertakings. However, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I shall once again bring his suggestions to the attention of those who have authority. I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman on the matter.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was not so long ago that we were talking about the harmonisation of accountancy systems with the Comptroller and Auditor General. I indicated that harmonisation was being considered. I was advised by various officers on those complex matters, and harmonisation has taken place. What has happened on one occasion can happen again with, perhaps, more rewarding results. I look forward to that.
I refer again to the control of public expenditure. On Monday there was to be a debate on the Public Accounts Committee. I refer to the letters that the right hon. Gentleman quoted that I had sent to him. Discussion on the Public Accounts Committee's report was to take place on Monday, but, for reasons beyond the control of anyone on the Government Front Bench, there was a suspension of
1824
that business. Something of greater importance was taken in its place. Had an undertaking been given that in no circumstances would an Appropriation Order be laid before the House until there had been an opportunity of discussing the Public Accounts Committee's report relating to Northern Ireland, albeit for last year, the year before or the year before that, we could not have carried out the procedures to provide from the Consolidated Fund the moneys necessary to carry on the services.
I should point out that the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) is the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, and that he will no doubt take on board the comments made by the right hon. Member for Down, South. It is difficult to give any undertaking that, in the same timetable from year to year, the PAC's report will be debated before the presentation of an Appropriation Order.
The Public Accounts Committee presents its reports to the House two years in retrospect. I did not realise that until today. When that information was laid before me, I found that I could not give even sympathetic support to the suggestions that had been made by the right hon. Member for Down, South—suggestions that I had previously supported.
In view of the scope and timing of the Appropriation Order and the lengthy process which would have to be gone through by the Department in investigating the different estimates, there does not seem to be any worthwhile prospect of further investigation into trying to harmonise the presentation of the PAC's reports, especially as the Committee reports two years in retrospect. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will further investigate the information that I have given him, but I shall write to him about this matter. In view of what I have said, there would seem to be little advantage in pursuing that line.
I am informed that the Public Accounts Committee has accounts submitted to it by statutory bodies and that arrangements have been made for these accounts to be laid before the House. The question of a review of any particular accounts is a matter for the PAC. If it were to be suggested that more reports should be made available, we

1825
should have to consider that matter and, indeed, give an answer. I shall leave it at that. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Down, South will accept that this is the only means by which it can be done.
The Department of Education continues to be concerned with problems connected with the records of lands and premises held by the education and library boards. The right hon. Member for Down, South repeated the request that he made in the debate in July for a register of the lands and premises held by the boards. Arrangements have been made for the Department of the Civil Service to advise both the Department of Education and the boards on ways and means of making progress in that direction.
Following an intervention, I made inquiries and found that the transfer of some of the properties to the education and library boards from other holdings causes a major reorganisation. Some of the records that were in the possession of some of the local authorities—many of which are very small—were not as indicative as they should have been. With the help of the Land Registry and from figures collated recently, an attempt is being made to bring the records up to date. Every effort will be made to complete as soon as possible a full record of the property that is owned by the education and library boards.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) asked me to convey his apologies to the House should he have to leave before the end of the debate. He said that he intended no discourtesy by not staying to hear the reply to his questions. He raised the question of household adaptations for disabled people. I shall write to him on that matter, although some of the answers may be included in my reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford).
I have said this in the House before, and I repeat it. In my view, the provisions of the Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 are equal to the provisions of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. The health boards and other agencies which operate under that order have all the powers that are necessary to provide the services to which reference has been made this
1826
evening. They have all the powers that are specified in the Act. They have an advantage because the order relates only to Northern Ireland and because the Health and Social Services Department is under the same aegis. The order provides those involved with all the opportunities that are provided in the Act.
Mr. Bradford: Is the Minister suggesting that the 1972 order makes it compulsory for a local authority to amass information about the disabled and that it is required to do that?
Mr. Dunn: The powers enable that to be done.
We have discussed before the opportunities for the identification of those who are disabled and how, through that identification, we are able to measure the help and services that are required—both for the disabled and for their families. I have said that more information is needed about the numbers of physically handicapped people in the Province so that the services can be measured to meet the need. Plans are at an advanced stage for the organisation of a survey early in 1978 which will cover every household in the Province. The survey will be conducted by Outset, a charity with long experience of the surveying of the handicapped in Great Britain. The survey will be in two parts. In the first part there will be a postal questionnaire sent to every household. The second stage will involve a visit to all households where handicapped persons live, to obtain a clear picture of the nature of the handicap and of the services required. This is a decision of some significance. Once the survey is carried out we can measure the services required. I hope that hon. Members will make this as widely known as possible because we need the co-operation of those who receive the questionnaire. If they do not fill it in and send it to us we cannot proceed to the second stage.
Mr. Molyneaux: Will there be the same automatic notification to ensure that records are kept up to date once the survey has been carried out as was used—I hope that it still is used—for mentally handicapped persons?
Mr. Dunn: I cannot believe that once this enormous work has been carried out

1827
it would be allowed to fall away. I am sure that records would be kept up to date. If the Government did not respond I am sure that Outset would not let things go. We have only to look at the record of Outset in Great Britain. It would make every endeavour to keep this record as up to date as possible. That does not mean that there will not be human failure. There will be a failure of communication in some cases, perhaps because people have changed addresses and not notified us. There will be an element of human error and confusion, especially among those who are severely handicapped and have so many pressures on them. It is our job to make certain that this scheme is well known, so that if handicapped people move to a new area their neighbours will notify the relevant authority.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South raised the question of specialised services for the physically handicapped and the supply of surgical equipment. He referred to educational facilities. I assure him that I am satisfied that the Health and Social Services Order (Northern Ireland) 1972 gives the Department all the powers it requires. The area boards make every effort to provide a range of services for the physically handicapped equivalent to those provided in the rest of Great Britain. Every endeavour is made, where community or domiciliary requirements exist, to meet those needs. We hope that in the next four or five years there will be an extension of those services and that the level of the services will be raised.
The facilities for the education of physically handicapped children are adequate to cope with the demand. Sometimes highly specialised facilities are needed.
I recall a case in which the hon. Member for Belfast, South was directly concerned on behalf of a constituent. There is occasionally difficulty in a particular locality in finding a suitable school place. For the same reason it is sometimes necessary to send a child outside Northern Ireland.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that every effort will be made to seek ways of improving our services. I can assure him that many physically handicapped children, can, and do, receive education in
1828
normal schools, a subject close to his heart and to mine. Where that is possible it is often of greater benefit to the handicapped child. We want to encourage that as a means of integrating a child into the community.
Mr. Bradford: Does that apply to the provision of the engineering unit to which I referred? If so, will the Minister give us a commencement date and a completion date for the new building? That would remove the need to send apparatus to the mainland to be fixed, with delay causing great hardship.
Mr. Dunn: While I cannot give an answer tonight, I assure the hon. Member that I will bring that to the notice of my noble Friend the Minister of State and will write to him as soon as I have the information.
I assure the House that the level of services available in the next four or five years will be improved. Every effort is being made in this regard.
There will be special effort to match need in providing orthopaedic services and surgical equipment. Once we have the result of the survey the knowledge will act as a spur and give an impetus to all concerned to provide the services on which the hon. Member has made his views well known in the Province.
A number of other items were brought to my attention but I do not think I can answer all. I can deal with only one or two points raised with me by the hon. Member for Antrim, North. May I assure him, on the suggested meeting with grammar school heads and other representatives in that sector which he brought to my attention, that my noble Friend will be only too pleased to meet them at a time and place equally convenient to both sides.
I stress the value of consultation, and I hope that the hon. Member will convey to those who might be under the misapprehension that they will not be received that that is not true and that efforts will be made to deal with those matters as soon as he gets back.
The hon. Member also asked about an industrial training cutback. I mentioned, when I introduced this order, that about £3·1 million was being cutback because the Job Release Scheme had not been taken up in the way originally estimated.

1829
There are one or two cases where help by industrial training grants is coming from the European Communities and they are delayed in their accounting system. By the time our accounting system is provided with that money, one cannot easily correlate them. That is why the estimates have been reduced by that amount.
A total of £109 million more is being spent than last year, and that is an improvement of services in the Province.
I will make sure that a written reply is sent to any question that I have not answered. I thank hon. Members for their patience in listening to my reply.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved
That the draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 9th November, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (RATES)
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the draft Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.—[Mr. Dunn.]
12.15 a.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to raise one matter on this order—
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you help the House on this? I believe I am right in saying that this is a consolidation order and that in the case of a consolidation Bill it is not in order to raise any points except the proposition that the Bill does not correctly consolidate the law as it exists at the moment. I make no complaint about the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) seeking to speak to the order, but could you indicate whether the same rule applies to this order, which is really Northern Ireland legislation, as applies to consolidation legislation of the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): The answer is that the scope of the debate should be restricted to the desirability of consolidation.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I merely seek clarification on Article 31 with regard to the reduction of 35 per cent. of the amount of rates on certain premises. Article 31 (3)(a) says that the article applies to any hereditament
"which is occupied for the purposes of a club, society or other organisation that is not established or conducted for profit and does not (except on special occasions) charge for the admission of spectators"
to its premises. The Minister will be aware that Orange halls have had their rates jumped by a considerable amount. Does paragraph (3)(a) cover such a society, organisation or club that is not making money except on special occasions?
Mr. Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for raising almost the same point again. I think that it will be understood after this evening's proceedings that there is no desire on the part of any Member of the House not to obtain information, but it would appear from the ruling you have just given that it would not be in order for

1831
the Minister to answer the question just addressed to him.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can only repeat that the debate should be confined to the question of consolidation.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. James A. Dunn): I have noted the question put by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley). It might well be raised with me at a later date. If I can be of help, I will gladly write to anyone who raises it with me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That would be the best way out of a rather difficult situation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Rates (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House to take the next four orders together. I shall therefore put the Question on them as a group.
Resolved,
That the draft Agricultural Wages (Regulations) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.
That the draft Supplementary Benefits, &c. (Conequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.
That draft Supplementary Benefits (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.
That the draft Road Races (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 10th November, be approved.—[Mr. Dunn.)

NORTHERN IRELAND (ELECTRICITY SERVICE)
12.18 a.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): I beg to move,
That the draft Electricity Service (Finance) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 9th November, be approved.
This order provides for a major reconstruction of the finances of the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and for grants to be made to it to enable tariffs to the larger industrial and commercial consumers to be reduced to about the same levels as in Great Britain. This reduction should remove one of the major disincentives to further industrial growth in Northern Ireland and is an important component of the long-term strategy for the Northern Ireland economy.
The reduction in the debt of the Electricity Service to the Government Loans Fund will be financed by a one-for-all increase in the grant-in-aid paid to the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund from the Northern Ireland Office Vote, a Supplementary Estimate for which was presented to the House on 2nd December. This will be used to repay borrowing by the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund from the National Loans Fund. It will thus be several years before an order under the Northern Ireland Loans Act 1975 is required to increase the statutory limits on such borrowing.
These transfers of money are all within the public sector and involve no immediate cost to the Government in terms of further demand for real resources or finance. Nevertheless, the write-off of £250 million will result in reduced interest recipts for the National Loans Fund, and the debt interest components of public expenditure will be increased correspondingly.
I believe that this order will put the finances of the Northern Ireland Electricity Service upon a secure footing and will provide a framework within which the service can expect to achieve viability. Financial discipline is important for the public as well as for the private sector, and my officials will be discussing with the board of the service targets for its future operation.
12.20 a.m.
Mr. McCusker: I rise, on behalf of my right hon and hon. Friends, to give a brief but wholehearted welcome to the order and to reiterate what we said in Committee some months ago when we congratulated the Minister and the Secretary of State on obtaining what is, in effect, a vast amount of money for Northern Ireland. Although we could argue that it is only our due and that it will make only a marginal movement towards parity with the rest of the United Kingdom, it would be churlish of us if we did not compliment the Minister on what must have been a formidable achievement at a time of economic recession in getting this money.
The sum of £350 million is not something to shrug off lightly, as many people in Northern Ireland seem inclined to do. The Minister will be better able than I to confirm that this amount represents the total amount of damage inflicted by the IRA in Northern Ireland in the past eight years. Seen in those terms, this £350 million is put into perspective.
However, there is little point in pouring that amount into the Northern Ireland Electricity Service coffers if there are leaks at the bottom, and there are, in fact, two leaks, of which the Minister is well aware. This matter has been brought to his attention once again this year by the report of the Northern Ireland Electricity Consumers Council in these terms:
"It will be a tragedy if the new-found financial stability of the Electricity Service is eroded or in any way jeopardised by the continued failure of increasing numbers of electricity consumers to pay for the electricity they use. It is essential that there is immediate co-operation between the Government, the Electricity Service and the Dept. of Health and Social Services to evolve an effective strategy to reduce the electricity debt. With this in mind, the Council have asked for a meeting with the Minister of State."
The Minister was given due warning of this problem, because last year the consumers council, which would not necessarily be a body to make that sort of assertion, made a number of fairly alarming statements. It feels justly sore that it was ignored 12 months ago, having said in its report published in March 1976:
"Perhaps the greatest frustration of the Council during the year was the failure of Government to take any steps to deal with the
1834
huge electricity debt in Northern Ireland. This intolerable situation, which is clearly outside the control of the Electricity Service, must have a demoralising effect on the general body of consumers. In spite of a clear undertaking from Government that firmer measures were in the offing, the Council is still awaiting details of what these may be."
That was said 18 months ago, and we still have not heard what action has been taken. Between publication of the 1976 report and the 1977 report, the debt has grown from £4 million to £8 million.
The council referred to what it called an "inquitous" situation, saying in its report for 1976:
"We have therefore the iniquitous situation in which consumers in certain areas will be disconnected for non-payment of accounts whilst in other areas consumers will not be disconnected however seriously in arrears they may be. The failure of these consumers to meet their responsibilities is at the expense of the vast majority of consumers, including old age pensioners and many families on very low incomes, who are often consistently conscientious about paying their bills, and represents a totally different problem from that of consumers who are in arrears due to genuine hardship."
I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government intend to do to reduce this massive debt.
It is a dreadful indictment of electricity consumers in Belfast that one-third of them—they cannot all be Republicans, or people on rate or rent strike or something like that—owe about £5½ million. That sum is owed by about 60,000 consumers. I congratulate the people of Coleraine, because only 650 of them are in arrears, the total being about £54,000—though that is still a sizeable sum. But I have to feel very sore about Craigavon, where nearly 10,000 people owe more than £1 million.
If that were to continue and if it were to double year on year—I do not expect that it will, and I certainly hope that it will not—it would make a big hole in the amount of money that the Minister has managed to get for the service. I hope that he will say what he intends to do to get this money from these people.
The other leak is one that is well known in Northern Ireland but until now has never been officially recognised. It is, however, officially recognised in this year's report, which says:
"Finally there is the considerable problem of the theft of electricity where a consumer effects an illegal connection or tampers with

1835
his meter in such a way that his use of electricity is not accurately recorded. For obvious reasons, evidence to indicate the extent of the problem is not readily available but there are good reasons for believing it is causing increasing and substantial loss to the Electricity Service."
The Minister must know, as many of us on this Bench know, that for a small fee there are gentlemen who are prepared to bore small holes in meters into which little pins can be inserted, and the "fiddle" starts from there. Action has to be taken on that front too, because once again this is happening not just in no-go Republican areas but throughout the community, and it is like the consequential reaction of the Loyalists when they saw what they thought were Republicans getting away with it. This is the sort of consequential thieving that goes on when they see Republicans getting away without paying their dues in society. It is essential that action is taken here, and I am sure that the majority of people in the Province will welcome anything that the Government announce they intend to do to deal with the problem.
Can the Minister tell us anything about the interconnectors with the South of Scotland Electricity Board and the Republic? Has any further action been taken to reconnect our generating capacity with that of the Republic, because this is to our mutual benefit? What action has the hon. Gentleman taken on the interconnector with Scotland? Will he bear in mind that if he puts an electrical interconnector across the North Channel it might be possible to avoid duplication? Will he consider this project under the umbrella of the other interconnector that we want across the North Channel? I hope that in the near future the Minister will be able to tell us something about these interconnectors.
12.28 a.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to raise one point with the Minister—that is, that orders have gone out from the Electricity Service to deal with many of these debts, which everyone in the House agrees must be paid. I must stress to the Minister that he had better see that even-handed justice is done, because there is great resentment in Ballymena, in my area, where there has been a drastic
1836
cutting off of electricity even though people have made arrangements to pay by monthly instalments. That has been done not by getting access to houses but from the street. There are other areas where there is a far more massive debt but where no effort has been made to cut off supplies. I have raised the matter with the electricity authorities. I have had a meeting with the mayor and with the boss of the Electricity Service.
I draw the Minister's attention to this because I believe that the best way to deal with the matter is by having evenhanded justice so that everybody in the Province who is in debt is dealt with in the same way. People who do not pay will have to be dealt with by the drastic step of having their electricity cut off. That seems to be the only way of recovering a debt. The managers in my area say that this is the best way. It may be a drastic step, but people who are without light and without heating are prepared to make sacrifices to pay off their arrears and will even accept the installation of a meter. Are meters to be made more readily available so that they can be installed at the premises of those who have experienced difficulty in paying bills?
12.30 a.m.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that his object was to achieve parity between industrial tariffs in Northern Ireland and those in. Great Britain. The reduction in industrial tariffs is 30 per cent., but I heard him say in the Northern Ireland Committee on 20th June that many industrial tariffs are still 50 per cent. above the Great Britain level. Is parity the objective? If so, are there to be some further adjustments?
12.31 a.m.
Mr. Concannon: I thank the House for welcoming what we have done to help with the tariffs in Northern Ireland. There is not a uniform tariff throughout the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland was about 40 per cent. behind the mean average. This change will bring Northern Ireland within the mean average of electricity prices for the rest of the United Kingdom. It will not be top of the league, but it will not be bottom of the league either. It will have on a broad

1837
basis the same tariffs as apply in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The electricity debt is now £8·3 million. I would not dispute a word that the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. McCusker) said. I merely ask the House to restrain its impatience a little longer. I am sure that there will be an announcement later about the ways in which we intend to tackle the debt, because tackle it we must. The debt is rising.
I have heard tumors about the loss of electricity and I have read the report. There does not seem to be much evidence in the hands of the electricity board. I shall draw the comments which have been made to the attention of the board, but the board does not think that the wastage from the system is any more than the natural wastage which goes on elsewhere.
As to the connector from Scotland, I am pleased to say that discussions between the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and the South of Scotland Electricity Board have reached the stage where both parties are satisfied that an electricity interconnector and undersea cable link between the two systems would not be likely to present insuperable technical difficulties. Talks are continuing on the commercial aspects.
As to the other interconnector, talks are proceeding between the South and the North. It depends to some extent upon the security situation. I can assure the hon. Member for Armagh that it will be to the benefit of both sides that the connection be made as soon as possible.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Can the Minister confirm that in further considering the Scotland and Ulster connection the possibility of a technical link with a gas connection is not being left out of account?
Mr. Concannon: I wondered how we would get the question of gas into this debate tonight. Talks are continuing on the commercial aspects. Great discussions are taking place within the Northern Ireland Office on the subject of gas. If the right hon. Gentleman will contain his impatience for a little longer, we shall have to take some important decisions on the gas industry sooner rather than later.
As to the matter of electricity cut-off and supply, I shall bring this to the
1838
attention of the Northern Ireland Electricity Service. It is obvious that there would have to be a set policy across the Province, without acting to the detriment of one area as compared with another. There should at least be parity in this respect. In England the Central Electricity Generating Board has, I believe, a code for dealing with these situations. But the electricity board is being pushed, shoved and bullied at the end of the day to get the £·3 million of debt reduced, and we have asked it to try every means available to it. If other means are needed, we shall have to look at the matter. As I indicated earlier, however, if hon. Members will be patient a little longer I am sure that there will be announcements to this effect.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: Will the Minister encourage his sister Department, the Department of Health and Social Services, to resist the temptation to write off the debts by way of special needs payments? That would destroy the kind of effect which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) outlined when he talked about the radical measures that were required to encourage people to pay their debts. They will not pay them if they are to be written off by another Department such as the DHSS.
Mr. Concannon: I cannot say anything about it at the moment. The House understands my difficulty. I do not differ from what has been said about public debt in Northern Ireland, and I have never altered my stance on this. But if hon. Members will please be patient a little longer, I am sure that something will be said about this.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved, That the draft Electricity Service (Finance) (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 9th November, be approved.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)
Motion made,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their Fifth Report, in the last Session of Parliament, on Computer-based Indexing for the Library.—[Mr. Tinn.]
Hon. Members: Object.

MR. GOVINDASWANIY SELVARAJAN
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]
12.37 a.m.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Six years ago my constituent, Mr. Selvarajan, made a complaint of racial discrimination by his employer, the Inner London Education Authority. The complaint was investigated by a committee consisting of a group described in Professor Griffith's highly praised book, "Politics of the Judiciary ", as
"a group of able men and women holding positions of responsibility".
They included Lady Nancy Seear and Dr. Bayliss, a senior civil servant in the Department of Employment.
As Professor Griffith says, the committee received representations in writing and orally from all concerned from May 1971 to February 1972. The sub-committee then reported to the full committee that unlawful discrimination had taken place. The committee accepted the recommendation, but the Inner London Education Authority rejected it and the matter then went to the full Race Relations Board.
The Board, instead of taking a decision, referred the matter to another committee—the Employment Committee—which then invited the Inner London Education Authority to reply once again to the complaint. It did so in 16 pages.
On 4th December 1972, Mrs. Coussey, an officer of the Board, made a recommendation
"That the Committee form an opinion of no unlawful discrimination."
In other words, on the investigation of a single officer, the recommendation was given to the employment committee that it should reverse the decision which had been reached by the committee which had carried out the full inquiry. Four of the six members present at that committee had not had the papers, as Professor Griffith points out in his damning indictment of the procedures which took place in this matter.
In January 1973, the committee confirmed its acceptance of its officer's recom
1840
mendation and, on this slender ground, the position was reversed.
In all the circumstances, my constituent naturally was gravely upset, and he decided to test the matter in the courts. The matter went to appeal, and Professor Griffith says on page 90 of his book:
"One of the most remarkable decisions of the Court of Appeal since 1965 was in Regina v. Race Relations Board, ex parte Selvarajan. The applicant, a graduate of Madras and London Universities, was appointed in 1961 to the City of Westminster (now Walbrook) College as a lecturer grade 1. Most lecturers are promoted to grade 2 with-in a few years. Mr. Selvarajan was never promoted during fourteen years"—
now 16 or 17 years.
"He felt this was because of his colour or race, and he complained to the Race Relations Board."
Then, after going through the story which I have already briefly summarised, Professor Griffith continues, on page 92:
"In all this story the matter which most troubled the Court of Appeal was that four members of the employment committee were not in a position to form an opinion of their own because they were not in possession of all the information."
Professor Griffith concludes his summary of the matter by saying:
"The members of the Court of Appeal were clearly most reluctant to interfere with the decision of the Race Relations Board and no doubt this reluctance is often justifiable. But in this case the disparities between the ways in which the conciliation committee and the employment committee proceeded were so glaring that the propriety of the employment committee's actions was surely in question. The conciliation sub-committee had seen all the parties and had investigated the matter at great length. The employment committee saw none of those concerned, were presented with a prejudicial recommendation by an officer who had seen none of those concerned, and came to a conclusion although four of its seven members had not seen all the papers. How in the light of all this could Lord Denning conclude that the opinion of the Race Relations Board was ' manifestly correct '? How could he conclude that the applicant had been ' most fairly treated ' "?
My constituent's case was dismissed.
My constituent is a very aggrieved man, for there is another cause for concern unknown to Professor Griffith. The court received a document from the Race Relations Board after the hearing and before giving judgment. This became known to

1841
my constituent by accident. In that document, it was admitted that the Board had not acted correctly and that it was desirable in future that the person responsible for the alleged racial discrimination should be named.
My constituent was kept in ignorance of this admission and kept in ignorance, too, of the Board's apparent promise of good behaviour in future which, of course, implied incorrect behaviour in this case. It was claimed that this document did not influence the court. But what was the effect on my constituent, already convinced by the evidence which convinced Professor Griffith that the cards were being deliberately stacked against him?
Even worse was to come. Lord Denning awarded costs against my constituent, and he added, more than once, words suggesting that those costs might not be collected. He said, for example
"Whether they will enforce it is another matter."
Counsel for the Board said that this would be taken into consideration, but apparently it was not. The Board went for my constituent, taking out a distraint warrant attaching his property. I appealed to the successor to the Board, the Commission for Racial Equality, which has replaced the earlier organisation and taken over its duties.
I urged the Commission to wash its hands of the whole matter and to cease trying to collect the amount, or any part of it, from my constituent. But Mr. Selvarajan is a man of strong principle. He is convinced that he has been gravely wronged and he will not pay, for, he says, the body set up to protect him has not only refused to do so but has now become his persecutor.
Mrs. Selvarajan has not slept very well for a long time. She has a little money of her own, and she wrote to me privately asking to be allowed to try to settle the matter. The Commission agreed, after this motion appeared on the Order Paper, to accept £250. Mrs. Selvarajan's cheque for that amount has been sent to it. The sum is about a quarter of the amount originally awarded. That money was sent so that my constituent and his wife might not have to live in a house without furniture, since that furniture was to be dis
1842
trained by the Race Relations Board which was set up to protect racial and ethnic minorities, to which my constituent belongs.
This is a melancholy tale. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to do three things. Will he take the costs on to public funds? Will he ask the Commission, which has foregone its pound of flesh, not even to retain the quarter pound it now has, which means more to Mrs. Selvarajan than to it? Will he ask the Commission to respond to the thrice-repeated hint of Lord Denning, regard the matter as closed, and return to Mrs. Selvarajan her cheque, or an equivalent sum? Will my hon. Friend draw the attention of all concerned to this worrying affair so that they may consider that the only people who took evidence and saw witnesses directly concluded that unlawful discrimination had occurred, and that my constituent believes that that discrimination is still being exercised against him to this day.
I do not know whether my constituent suffered racial discrimination, but I do know that justice was not seen to be done. Where that is the case, the presumption must be that justice was not done. As my constituent sees it, it was considered in 1972 to be intolerable that a public body such as the Inner London Education Authority should be found guilty of racial discrimination, and that the establishment closed ranks so effectively that the more he struggled to secure justice the graver the injustice he had to endure.
I ask my hon. Friend to take the matter into his own hands and to talk to his colleagues who are influential in these matters, including the Lord Chancellor, and to put the matter right at long last.
12.50 a.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Brynmor John): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Jenkins) for raising the case of Mr. Selvarajan and for giving me the opportunity of clarifying the rôle of the Commission for Racial Equality in this matter.
As my hon. Friend has said, Mr. Selvarajan was, and still is, a lecturer within the Inner London Education Authority, and he considered that in not promoting him the authority was discriminating against him on racial grounds.

1843
However, I must rehearse a little of the history of this matter, because although there has been a fundamental change of law and of procedure since then, before the passing of the latest Act the complainant, as he was obliged to do, complained to the proper authority, namely, the Race Relations Board. That board then had a duty to consider the complaint and, where appropriate, to refer the matter to a conciliation committee or an employment committee. That procedure was carried out. Then, upon receipt of the report, the Board had a further duty. That was to decide whether to accept the committee's report or to reinvestigate the matter.
My hon. Friend has talked about the ILEA having been found guilty of racial discrimination. That was not the function of the conciliation committee at any stage, nor was it the function of the Race Relations Board.
The Board's function was to see whether there was a sufficient case for it to sue on behalf of the complainant. In fact, authoritatively, only a court could possibly have found the ILEA guilty of racial discrimination.
I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that distinction, because it is a vital one.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. John: I should like to develop my case.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: It is on a point of fact.
Mr. John: I shall certainly give way to my hon. Friend before the end of my speech.
In this case, the Race Relations Board chose to reinvestigate and it eventually came to the conclusion that there was no unlawful discrimination. In that, as my hon. Friend said, it differed from the committee.
My hon. Friend complains, as have others, about the decision of the Board and the way that it was arrived at. But the decision was open to review by the courts, and Mr. Selvarajan exercised that right. He applied to the Divisional Court for an order of certiorari to quash the decision of the Board. This in itself formed a
1844
unique event in the Board's history, in the sense that it was the only time that the Board, the body set up to take up so many cases on behalf of persons who had been discriminated against, was the respondent to an action.
The Divisional Court dismissed Mr. Selvarajan's application and awarded costs against him. He was dissatisfied by that and he appealed against that decision to the Court of Appeal. He lost also on that occasion, the court finding, as my hon. Friend said in his valuable summary, that the case had been fully investigated in accordance with the statute, that he had been fairly treated, and that the Board's opinion was manifestly correct. That was the judgment of the Court of Appeal and, again, costs were awarded against him.
Mr. Selvarajan then sought leave to appeal to the House of Lords. That was refused, in November 1975.
When my hon. Friend comments about the Board's decision, I would say this to him: it has been upheld in two courts. Although my hon. Friend and, indeed, Professor Griffith may be dissatisfied with the outcome. I think that we have to draw a distinction between the rôle of a Minister, in this function, and that of a distinguished academic lawyer. Distinguished academic lawyers are able, for the benefit of their students, to analyse cases and to point out seeming errors and seeming inconsistencies in them. But it is no part of a Minister's function to interfere and put himself in the place of the court by usurping any decision. This is a matter that has a long tradition in this House, and it is one that is jealously guarded by Ministers in my Department because we value the independence of the judiciary.
The second point is—this is unfortunate for people who litigate—that is well known that if litigants lose and are not legally aided, severe consequences can be visted upon them if costs are awarded against them. That is something that the complainant must have been aware of when he embarked upon the litigation. The costs were considerable.
The Commission for Racial Equality came into existence only as a result of the 1976 Act. Previously, it was the Race Relations Board, which was abolished and had its affairs wound up in June

1845
1977. Under the transitional arrangements, all the property, rights and liabilities of the Board passed to the Commission.
My hon. Friend has asked me to take account of the shortcomings of the procedures of the Board's consideration in the matter of this action. But the general lessons were already learned—not arising from this case but from the wider and subsequent Act. The new Commission does not have the same relationship with individual complainants as that which existed under the 1968 Act, which provided that a complainant had to report to the Board, which litigated on his behalf. Under the 1976 Act, the onus is placed upon the individual to bring his case.
There were two reasons for the change, the first was that the Commission has been empowered to undertake strategic investigations and is freed, to some extent, from individual investigations. The second—I know that my hon. Friend, who takes a keen interest in this legislation, supports us on this reason—is that the Government felt that it was paternalistic for any citizen to have to report to a body so that it could take up matters on his behalf.
The changes can best be illustrated by what would happen if the case were brought now. Mr. Selvarajan would now take his complaint direct to an industrial tribunal and would receive aid in bringing his case either from the appropriate trade union or from the Commission, which might consider assisting him but which would not litigate on his behalf. The decision to litigate in the tribunal would be his alone. That is evidence of the Government's determination to allow a judicial hearing for people with a sense of grievance.
Mr. Hugh Jenkins: I did not use the term "guilty". I simply reported the fact that the full committee accepted the recommendation that unlawful discrimination had taken place. That is a factual matter. I did not use the emotive term "guilty". I did not declare the Board positively to be guilty.
My hon. Friend indicated that the changes that have been made are an improvement. I agree it may be that this case provides one of the reasons for the
1846
change having taken place. Is that not all the more reason for the Board to exercise the clemency that I recommended and that I hope my hon. Friend will also recommend before he concludes his speech?
Mr. John: My hon. Friend was anticipating part of my speech. I took a note of the word "guilty", but I am happy to leave it that no authoritative judgment on unlawful discrimination could have been made at that stage.
My hon. Friend mentioned the change in the procedure of the Board. It certainly changed its procedure as a result of the Master of the Rolls recommending a change in a judgment. It is prudent and true of every body that it changes its procedures if it finds them wanting. Our decision to abolish the Race Relations Board should not be taken to imply a general criticism of the Board. I know that my hon. Friend would say that in general, if not in particular, the Board performed most valuable work throughout the country on behalf of those against whom discrimination had been practised.
The issue of costs is crucial in this matter, but as my hon. Friend said, events have taken a turn for the better. As I have indicated, the costs that were taxed for two appeals were very large. At all stages the Commission has sought to compromise on the matter. Mrs. Selvarajan has offered a sum in settlement of the case that is rather less than the one-quarter of the total sum my hon. Friend mentioned, and nearer one-eighth. I understand that a letter has been des-patched to my hon. Friend by the Commission. He will probably receive it tomorrow. The letter sets out the Commission's reaction. I wished my hon. Friend to be aware of the letter before I said anything further. The Commission is not the creature of the Home Office.
My hon. Friend has suggested that the Commission, as a gesture, might waive the sum even at this stage. I have no doubt that the Commission will read what my hon. Friend has said. As usual he has presented his case fairly and persuasively on behalf of Mr. Selvarajan.
I have no power in this matter. The Commission was set up as an independent body. It was set up quite deliberately to be independent of Government. My right

1847
hon. Friend the Home Secretary has a responsibility for the appointment of the chairman and the members of the Board, but he has no responsibility for carrying out the Commission's duties. That is an independent task for the Commission. My right hon. Friend could not and would not wish to intervene in the day-to-day affairs of the Commission. It is for the Commission to decide this case.
I am satisfied that even if it cannot accede to my hon. Friend's request, the way in which the Commission has approached the compromise will help Mr. and Mrs. Selvarajan. I shall undertake to draw to the Commission's attention my hon. Friend's remarks. However the decision is its decision.
My hon. Friend made two points, one about costs and the other about discrimination. I hope that I have shown by what I have said about the new procedure that there is a means whereby any person who is aggrieved can now take
1848
up his case directly without having to go through any other organisation. It must be for Mr. Selvarajan to consider his position in the light of the Race Relations Act 1976 if he believes that discrimination on racial grounds is being practised against him. I am satisfied that it has been no part of the Commission's function to be vindictive. It has been the inheritor of a uniquely unhappy event and it has tried its best to come to a compromise.
I hope that as a result of the debate and the events of the past few days this story will come to an end, so that the Commission can get on with its primary task that my hon. Friend and I applaud—that of tackling racial discrimination on a realistic basis, on a basis of authority and justice.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past One o'clock.