Lords Sitting of 14 March 1983

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

The Falklands: Land Distribution
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what consideration is being given to a response to the Falkland islanders' claim for a more just distribution of land on the islands.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Falkland Islands Government are currently assessing the demand for land ownership in relation to the amount being offered for sale on the open market. First indications are that this demand is relatively small.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that time is passing? It would appear that the Government are giving thought to certain considerations and have made promises that they will look at this matter, but they seem to be taking a very long time to arrive at a decision. This is causing some concern not merely in the Legislative Council of the Falklands Islands, but particularly among the young who wish to carve out a career for themselves; the only way in which they can do that is for half the land which is now owned by the Falkland Islands Company to be shared among them.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in the autumn the Falkland Islands Government sent a questionnaire to 300 workers in the agricultural sector asking whether and where they would like to buy land on the islands. By the closing date—28th February—only 59 islanders had replied, all expressing interest in acquiring land. Currently two schemes are in being. One, which is being offered by a private landlord, is at Douglas Station; secondly, the Falkland Islands Company is currently offering for sale 50-acre plots of land bordering the road from Port Stanley to Darwin. The Falkland Islands Government themselves are considering the purchase of a three-farm estate in West Falkland owned by Packe Brothers. So this matter is not exactly being swept under the carpet and action is taking place on this front.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the general support for the Shackleton proposals, particularly in respect of agricultural and farming land? Is he aware of the strong concern that there should be better prospects of land tenure and ownership? Having regard also to the fact that 43 per cent. of the land is owned by the Falkland Islands Company, will he facilitate—through the Falkland Islands Development Agency and other means—the speeding up of the prospects not only for local people
470
but also in order to attract more people to the islands?—because they are sorely needed, not only for work but also for the production and development of the future.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, naturally, I take the point that the noble Lord has just made. With all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, it is one thing to put a concrete idea in a report, but it is quite another subsequently to discover whether, in fact, the islanders want it. However, on the possibility of immigrants, I shall certainly take that point and refer it to my right honourable friend.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord means by saying that it is one thing to put something in a report. I had not intended to intervene, but as I always tend to be traduced by whoever the Government are on the subject of the Falklands—I see the eye of the Leader on me; I am breaking the rules—will the noble Lord not agree that if 59 people say they are interested it is possible to consider that it is relatively large and not relatively small?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, relative to what?—is probably the response to that. In a recent television programme in this country the suggestion was made that 60 per cent. of the islanders want to buy land. But the results of the questionnaire do not currently bear this out. So, again, I ask the noble Lord, relative to what?
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, although I have not been to the Falkland Islands, will my noble friend agree that 50 acres is likely to be quite useless to anyone?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, again, relative to what? I agree that 50 acres for the production of sheep would be totally useless; but 50 acres for horticulture, for pigs or chickens, might be extremely valuable.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, when we talk of percentages of population ought one not to make it clear whether one is referring to men, women and children, or to households?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, yes, the noble Earl is perfectly correct on that. I understand that the 59 refers to households and the "Panorama" figure of 60 per cent. refers to islanders.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that anyone who wishes to farm in the Falkland Islands deserves all the help he can get?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I think that anybody who wants to farm anywhere deserves all the help he can get.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that what this is primarily relative to—and I shall try to make him understand this—is the future of the young Falkland islanders? As Sir Rex Hunt has said, there is a disturbing exodus of young Falkland islanders because they cannot get land. Sir Rex Hunt has said the Legislative Council is willing to take land into public ownership by means of compulsory purchase to

471
encourage the young people to stay there. Only last month the Foreign Secretary—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord Molloy: Is the noble Lord aware—I hope that that is not superfluous—that only last month the Foreign Secretary stated in a broadcast on the BBC that this proposal was having the active consideration of the Government? That was repeated only a few weeks ago by Mr. Cranley Onslow in the other place. Can the noble Lord say that these proposals emanating from the legislative chamber for them to be assisted will be made the reality?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as I sought to make clear in my original supplementary answers to the noble Lord, this question is being actively pursued both by the Falkland Islands Council themselves and by my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and the Minister of State with special responsibility for that part of the world. The fact that there are three farm schemes on the go at the moment, while it is too early yet to see whether there will be any call for any more, I think speaks for itself.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, will the Minister not only heed the views of the media—the television and the radio—but also accept that he can be substantially helped and encouraged in this matter by some of us who have been in the Falklands in recent weeks, and who on matters of farming and agriculture have been closely in touch with the grass roots, if I may put it that way? Will he realise the urgency of this matter?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, I am fully aware of recent parliamentary delegations to the Falkland Islands, and I have a feeling that the noble Lord himself was a member of one of them. I readily admit that they have much more immediate grass-roots experience (to use the noble Lord's expression) than I have, and most certainly I would be willing to take advice.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government want to see people emigrating from this country to the Falklands, because if so I can give him a few names?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, emigration and immigration are part of the general Government policy, and we want to keep it that way.

Parental Choice of Schools
2.45 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many local education authorities have given full effect to
472
the provisions of the 1980 Act providing for greater parental choice.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, the school admission provisions of the Education Act 1980 apply to all local education authorities in respect of admissions in September 1982 and subsequently. While some complaints alleging that the Act was not being operated properly have been received by the Government, none has so far been found to be substantiated.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that encouraging reply, which does not altogether confirm what one hears in other quarters, can we be assured that if there is evidence of local authorities not wishing to implement these provisions the Government will reconsider the matter?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I can only repeat that none of these allegations has in fact been substantiated. Obviously, in the first year of any new plan there are teething troubles, and I hope that these will be sorted out in future years.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell the House how the continuing wave of closures of rural primary schools contributes to parental choice? Will he undertake that the Government in future will pursue a more imaginative policy in this respect?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think it is fair to say that every single possible closure is treated on its merits. Some schools obviously will have to be closed because of falling numbers and some may well stay open.
Baroness David: My Lords, if they are closed, how much choice are the parents going to have about where the children go? I have in my hand a document from a parent from a primary school in Cambridgeshire saying that if the school is closed the children are automatically going to be bussed four and a half miles, and that parents do not like it. How much parental choice is there there?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think it is a fairly obvious point that in any rural area there is going to be a lot less choice than in an urban area. Obviously I do not know the details, but most local education authorities probably agree that if there is a place in the school and if the parents are prepared to take their children there, then they will make parental choice available; but they are not very often prepared to transport the children to schools beyond the one that is the nearest.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that parental choice is being negatived in many cases by local authorities changing the catchment areas, so that where a family has two children in one school and then there is a change of catchment area, the younger child cannot go to the school with his brothers in that particular area?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has any details of individual cases I shall be interested to hear them if he will write to me.

473
In fact, the whole idea of the 1980 Act was to provide more parental choice, and the parents have a procedure which they can go through to appeal against any local authorities sending children to a school that the parents do not like.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, would it not be true to say that here we are worrying about parental choice, when there is not pupil choice? Are there not lots of young people who cannot get into the schools or the universities which they wish to get into?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, if there were to be pupil choice I do not know whether you would have toddlers of two or three saying that they did not like to go to their particular playgroup. Presumably when the parents do go they talk to their children and, I should imagine, try to ascertain which school they would rather go to. It would be difficult to bring in legislation where you had the pupil choosing the school rather than the parents.

Overseas Volunteers: Social Security Benefits
2.50 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the arrangements for social security benefits for volunteers returning from service in developing countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): Yes, my Lords. Although some volunteers do not pay Class 1 employed earners' contributions while they are abroad and so cannot get unemployment benefit when they return to this country, any volunteer suffering financial hardship is able to claim supplementary benefit.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a recent survey shows that British volunteers are at a disadvantage in respect of social security benefits by comparison with most other countries? Can the noble Lord confirm that if volunteers pay employee-only contributions for a year, that will now be recognised as a qualification for drawing unemployment and sickness benefit? But even if that is so, as I hope, does it not still leave some half of volunteers unable to qualify because, in the developing countries, they are earning less than the minimum earnings limit?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as for the European position, to which the noble Lord referred in the first part of that supplementary, social security schemes vary greatly from one country to another, and what is appropriate or right in one country may not necessarily be so in another. As for the question of the lower earnings limit, it is the case that some volunteers overseas earn less than £29·50 a week, which means that they are not eligible to make Class 1 contributions, and that being so, they are not entitled
474
to unemployment benefit when they return. But of course that is the position with volunteers working in this country as well, and it would be difficult to create a special class of volunteer who served overseas and who had preferential treatment compared with those in precisely similar circumstances working in this country.
As for the point about employee-only contributions, the Class 1 arrangement is that contributions are made both by employee and employer, but as a matter of procedure we have agreed that where it is not possible to insist on employer contributions—for example, the employer may be an overseas organisation from whom it would be difficult to collect the money—then we shall accept employee-only payments.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, is the Minister aware that recent arrangements have been made between Voluntary Service Overseas and the United Nations volunteers by which they will work closely together in recruitment and in other ways? Would he therefore agree that it is important that this disadvantage, as it can be, should not be extended to international volunteers from any other volunteers? Indeed, would he not agree that it is undesirable that this dosadvantage should apply to any of them?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I imagine that the arrangements to which the noble Lord refers would comply with the three principal conditions relating to Class 1 contributions, and thus people working under those schemes would be eligible for unemployment benefit when they return to this country. Perhaps I could write to the noble Lord with the principal details so that he can clarify that matter in his mind.
Lord Oram: My Lords, does it not arise from the Answer which the Minister gave me that our volunteers are disadvantaged if they give good service for a very worthy cause and then come back and have to apply for supplementary benefit? Should not their benefit be better structured, and will the Minister look into the matter with some sympathy?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I certainly would not wish to have a closed mind on this matter and would be very willing to listen to any representation the noble Lord would like to make to me. But the three priincipal conditions to which I referred are well known and understood, and it would be difficult to create a class of volunteer who received preferential treatment compared, for example, with volunteers working in very similar circumstances in this country.

Road and Motorway Construction
2.53 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many miles of new road and motorway were constructed in the last year for which figures are available.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, in the year ending 31st March 1982, 127 miles of trunk roads and motorways were completed in the United Kingdom. Of these 127 miles, 94 are trunk roads and 33 are motorways. Comparable figures for local authority roads, which are not the Government's responsibility, are not held centrally.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is satisfied with progress in 1982–83, and what can he tell me about by-pass construction?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, progress so far in 1982–83 is satisfactory. In England, a combination of fine weather, very low tender prices and the ability of some contractors to redeploy resources to road construction have enabled us to achieve far more than anticipated; 26 contracts are expected to be completed or open to traffic, 15 of them ahead of schedule, and that will add a further 21 miles of motorway and 62 miles of trunk roads to the national network. To answer the second part of my noble friend's supplementary, regarding by-passes, 234 of these are on trunk roads and 135 have been or are being by-passed. There are plans in preparation for a further 84 and, of the remaining 15, eight have relief roads other than by-passes planned or already in construction.
Lord Derwent: This Question deals with new construction, my Lords. Can my noble friend say in what century the repairs to the M1 are likely to be completed?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, work on the M1 is now under way and it is expected to be completed in the early autumn of this year.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, although the Minister says, probably rightly, that he is satisfied with the progress made, may I ask him to tell the House about the number of schemes and miles of roads which have not been made in recent years, including by-passes and so on? Has he worked out the consequences of that in terms of delays, accidents and other effects to offset the aspect which he would claim was creditable, that of saving public money?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I regret that I am not able to tell the noble Lord the number of roads and projects that have not been completed. I can tell him, however, that the accident rate on trunk roads and motorways involving both passenger cars and commercial vehicles is reducing each year.
Lord Plant: Referring to maintenance, my Lords, may I ask when the Government expect the M25 ringing London might be completed?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the M25 orbital route is on target and completion date for the whole is scheduled for 1986; 51 miles are completed and a further 24 miles are expected to be opened this year, which means that by the end of the year over half the total length will have been completed. The remaining contracts should be let about this time next year.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: Bearing in mind the major importance of road transport in this country, my Lords, does the Minister not think it rather a pity that Governments of both parties have disregarded the Department of Transport's advice on road building programmes and have always used them as the first Aunt Sally in any cuts?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I could not agree with that, my Lords. For example, £620 million is the estimated figure for new construction and maintenance for the current period, 1982–83. That is 11 per cent. up on the previous year, which was 16 per cent. up on the year previous to that.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1983
2.58 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I beg to move that this House approves the draft Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 (Continuance) Order 1983. I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House that the debate should also take note of the Review of the Operation of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976.
The need to prevent terrorism is a serious and sad one which places a grave duty on Parliament to which this House returns from year to year. In the course of the last of those years, one Member of your Lordships' House in particular has turned his hand to this work with considerable distinction and success, and it is with pleasure that I express to my noble friend Lord Jellicoe our appreciation of his review of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976. My own admiration of his work in this delicate area is shared by Her Majesty's Government, and I trust that I speak for your Lordships' House as a whole.
At the renewal debate in another place last year my right honourable friend the Home Secretary stated that there would be a review of the 1976 Act, and announced the decision to appoint my noble friend to undertake it. I believe that we all looked to my noble friend to consider whether the Act achieved the right balance between the safety of the public and the rights of the individual, and in my view the report achieves exactly that balance which was sought.
My noble friend's report on the operation of this legislation was published just over a month ago. It may be helpful to your Lordships if I briefly summarise the major recommendations, including the important new safeguards proposed, and if I confirm the Government's preliminary reactions to it, which were stated in another place last week by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The report recommends that new legislation be introduced subject both to annual renewal and to a limited span of five years in all. Such a Bill would incorporate other major recommendations in the review, subject to views expressed in your Lordships'

477
House, and elsewhere. It is our intention to introduce a Bill which will include the time limits recommended. We accept fully the underlying principle that such legislation should be regularly scrutinised. That has, I think, been amply demonstrated by our setting up the review last year and by the full provision of parliamentary time for discussing both it and the renewal of existing legislation this month. The report points to the changing nature of the terrorist threat, and it is right that such legislation should be capable of being amended to reflect those changes.
Some of the major recommendations are such that we must take the views of a number of those who would be affected by them, before we implement them. The major recommendations on which we are consulting widely relate to the powers of arrest, detention, and exclusion. Let us look first at the powers for detention at the ports. Under the present Act the police may detain for up to 48 hours someone whom they have arrested. After that they may detain him for a further five days, but only on the authority of the Home Secretary. If they apply for an extension of less than five days, there is no provision in the Act for them to apply for a further extension. It is probably as a consequence of that situation that such a large proportion of applications are for extension for the full five days. The report recommends that there should be a power for applications to extend further, up to the maximum, detention originally extended to less than the maximum.
I have said that if the report's proposals become law, important and significant safeguards would be introduced. The expectation would be that applications for less than the maximum would then be made far more frequently than at present. In addition, those detained at ports would have to be given written notification of their rights after one hour, and beyond 12 hours they could be detained only on grounds similar to those which would justify an arrest under Section 12 of the Act; that is to say, where the examining officer has formed a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is either guilty of an offence under the Act, or is concerned in the commission, preparation, or instigation of acts of terrorism, or is subject to an exclusion order.
Looking at detention powers both at ports and inland, I would say that amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, now being scrutinised in another place, would ensure that the right of access to solicitors and notification of arrest to a third party are made explicit. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, has undertaken to move such amendments to give effect in the Bill to those recommendations in respect of England and Wales, and in the related codes. Other recommendations look to greater uniformity of controls at the ports, including the completion of landing and embarkation cards on commercial flights and sailings between Great Britain and the island of Ireland, and to great improvements in the conditions of detention.
With regard to exclusion orders, the major recommendations are as follows. First, exclusion orders would lapse after three years, unless a fresh application for exclusion were granted on its own merits. In other words, if it is considered necessary to continue an individual's exclusion beyond three years,
478
it should be done on the basis of a fresh application by the police, detailing recent intelligence on him, and setting out the reasons why exclusion remains necessary. A fresh exclusion order, signed by the Secretary of State, would be required for exclusion to last beyond three years. Secondly, it is proposed that suspects could not be excluded from that part of the United Kindom in which they had been ordinarily resident for more than three years and; thirdly, the right to make representations and see an adviser would extend to those already excluded. Those proposals are designed, among other things, to prevent the use of exclusion powers causing significant hardship, either financial or emotional, to the family of the excluded person. I take this opportunity to remind your Lordships that my noble friend concluded that exclusion had "materially contributed to public safety".
My noble friend also recommended that, to take account of the significant threat of international terrorism, the arrest and detention powers under the Act should be extended to apply to international terrorists of any group, cause, or nationality. The report draws attention to the major trend of an increasing threat from such terrorism within the United Kingdom. It points to the forging of international links by Northern Ireland terrorist groups, and to incidents on the mainland unconnected with Northern Irish affairs. Your Lordships will recall the recent trial of those responsible for the brutal attempt in June on the life of the Israeli Ambassador, which reminded us all of the gravity of international terrorism.
My noble friend pointed out that the change would help to remove the claim that these powers are anti-Irish, rather than anti-terrorist. But he emphasised that the reasons for which he made the recommendations were practical. I would remind your Lordships that he said specifically:
"I am satisfied…that the arrest powers of this Act have been of considerable benefit in dealing with Northern Irish terrorism. This being so, I believe that they should be available for use in dealing with international terrorism".
The report also recommends a number of administrative measures which we intend to take forward, subject to the views expressed here by your Lordships and by others who have an interest. Where quick action has been appropriate, it has already been taken. Henceforth the views of "receiving" forces will be stated on applications for exclusion (as proposed in paragraph 189) and my right honourable friend himself now already personally considers all applications for extensions of detention.
I turn now to the use made of the present Act during the last year and to make to your Lordships what has almost become a customary annual report on the figures. Since the Act was renewed last year, and up to the end of last month, 224 people have been detained in Great Britain, and 38 extensions of detention have been granted beyond 48 hours. The police in Great Britain have made 17 applications for exclusion, and 15 orders were signed by my right honourable friend. Eight hundred and twenty-eight people were arrested in Northern Ireland under Section 12 of the Act, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland granted 639 applications for

479
extensions beyond 48 hours, and signed two exclusion orders.
Under the arrangements to review an exclusion order three years after it is made, the Home Secretary has, in the last 12 months, revoked eight orders and confirmed 12 others. Seven cases are currently under review. None of those excluded made representations to have his case considered by one of the independent advisers.
Therefore, I ask your Lordships to renew the 1976 Act for a further year in the hope, as my right honourable friend said in another place, that this will be the last time that a Minister will be asking the House to renew it for a full year. I draw no satisfaction from seeking renewal, and I understand fully the position of those who find it difficult to square the legislative provisions with the fundamental liberties which are sacred to us all. But the highest freedom, in Britain and beyond, is—and here I quote the report of another distinguished and noble Lord, Lord Shackleton:
"that of ordinary people to stay alive and go about their business without fear".
Just as exceptional powers require exceptional safeguards, so does the prime freedom require our prime concern. I shall listen with particular interest to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, who did so much to focus public interest and the law on this vital and difficult area.
Against the background of the constructive and humane proposals in the later report of my noble friend and the restrained and measured use of the Act over the past year, we must remind ourselves of the nature of the threat that we confront. Terrorism is destructive and inhuman; it seeks by brutal and merciless acts to shake our own determination to act with reason and resolution. But we are firm in our resolve to protect the rights of individuals and the lives of us all. I believe that the Government of the day were trying to do this when they introduced this legislation in 1974. In subsequent years this House has been united in its resolution to remain steadfast. There can be no doubt that the brutality, horror and grief in our parks last July demonstrated that the threat is undiminished. It is clear that we must continue to give the police the vital support that they need to control it. They are strongly in favour of renewal of this Act. We must demonstrate that this House will not be deflected from its duty to suppress the evils which attack the people of this country. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 9th February be approved. [12th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Elton.)
3.11 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, one matter on which I feel sure we are all united today is that it is regrettable that we still are having to debate the retention of legislation of this kind. We regret it, I believe, for two main reasons. First, because there continue to be acts of terrorism—grotesque and, indeed, obscene acts—which it seeks to prevent. Over the past year, we have seen once again, since the last time we renewed this legislation, further acts, including those to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has already referred, in the London parks last summer, in
480
the Ballykelly public house murders and others, which we join with the noble Lord in condemning in the strongest possible terms. We express, too, our sympathy to the injured and to the victims' families and friends.
We regret the need to debate this legislation, too, because of the nature of the legislation itself and the fact that we have found it necessary to enact laws which restrict our freedom—and I want to come back to the nature of the legislation in a moment. But, first, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his survey of the Act and the report, I should like to join him in the tribute he has paid to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for the very significant service he has performed in carrying out his inquiry and producing his report. I had occasion last year to welcome the decision to hold an inquiry and to welcome the noble Earl's appointment.
As we would have expected, my Lords, he has carried out a very thorough and comprehensive review and has produced what I can only describe as a masterly, persuasive and, I would say, convincing report. This report, and the equally outstanding contribution made by my noble friend Lord Shackleton, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Elton, referred this afternoon, in his Report on the Prevention of Terrorism Acts 1974 and 1976, published in 1978, together amount to the definitive works on the operation of this legislation.
I say that the noble Earl's report is convincing for this reason. Not only has he mastered the detail and intricacies of the way the Act works, but he has also looked at it searchingly and critically. Indeed, it is clear that he has agonised over the provisions which, like so many of us, he has always found repugnant because they restrict our civil liberties and our democratic way of life, even though we are bound to accept them as necessary. I, for one, find the approach of the noble Earl reassuring in that he has plainly agonised over these provisions.
It is perhaps appropriate here to mention a point which some of us have made from time to time and which was made so effectively and eloquently by my noble friend Lord Shackleton in his report in words to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has referred this afternoon, words which bear repeating or at least paraphrasing: that in attempting to prevent terrorism we have sought to strike a balance between the need to preserve civil liberties and the need to protect the lives and property of the overwhelming mass of the law-abiding citizens of this country; and in doing so we have sought to safeguard the most basic civil liberties, the right to stay alive and, indeed, to go about one's business without fear.
My Lords, I mention all this because it is important. It is important that we should not merely make, as a matter of routine, a statement condemning the appalling acts of terrorism that our people have suffered and a statement indicating our abhorrence of the measures in this legislation and then feel that in some way we have been granted some sort of absolution, without making it perfectly clear that we really mean what we say and that we mean to act on what we say. I know that from both sides of the House we have made such statements condemning terrorism and regretting the

481
need for this legislation; and I am quite sure that we have meant and weighed every word. But what I am not so sure about is whether, once the moment has passed, we have all been as assiduous at all times as we might have been in keeping firmly in, mind the precise nature of this legislation and the extent to which it invades the civil liberties that we in this country hold dear.
In other words, my Lords, we must never allow ourselves just to go through the motions of condemning terrorism and with expressing our revulsion against this type of legislation. We must remain constantly on the alert to the dangers of both all the time. We could so easily become anaesthetised and numbed so that we are unconscious of the dangers of acceptance on a long-term basis of these inroads into our civil liberties. Terrorism—this may be obvious but perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves—is evil. It is obscene. It is possible, I suppose, to suppress it, or almost to do so, as the Communists and some other totalitarian régimes have done in cases. But none would even contempate countenancing their methods for a moment. We are prepared to use all reasonable methods to protect life and our democracy, but we are not, I should hope, prepared to jeopardise, still less surrender, our democratic principles, rights and safeguards.
I would urge this, my Lords. Let us constantly remind ourselves that there are limits to the measures that we find acceptable and we would not be prepared to go beyond them if it meant jeopardising the democratic rights we hold so dear and for which we have fought so hard. This brings me to the point that I want to emphasise today. It is that, whatever view is taken about the continuing need for this legislation, I hope that the Government will keep constantly in the forefront of their minds that there is growing unease about aspects of this legislation. The Government have shown that they are aware of that increasing unease, otherwise they would not have set up the inquiry under the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe; neither would they have been preparing to implement, as Lord Elton has indicated today, the main recommendations, if not all the recommendations, in the report.
A major complaint which I and others on these Benches have to make against the Government is that they have not been sufficiently sensitive to that unease and that they have reacted far too slowly; indeed, they have acted only when they have been pushed hard. Let me explain a little further. It was four years ago, in March 1979, that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, first put forward in your Lordships' House, in the debate on the order to renew this Act, his suggestion that when the matter next came up for debate the legislation should be reintroduced afresh as a new Bill, a main reason being that Parliament would then be able to consider possible amendments which of course it cannot do with an order. As we know, we can only take it or leave it as it stands. It so happens that I was at the Home Office at the time that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, put forward that proposal and I responded immediately by saying that we would consider that suggestion. I emphasise that I was not able to say that we would accept it there and then but we were prepared to consider it.
482
Since then I have joined, as have other noble Lords, with the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, in putting that suggestion each year to the present Government. It has taken—and I do not think that we can ignore it—four years for the Government to accept that need. It could be nearly five years before we actually enact a new Bill. Again, it was two years ago that my right honourable and honourable friends in another place called on the Government to set up a new inquiry into the Act. It was not until a year had passed that the Government accepted that proposal, and then only at the very last moment, or so it appeared.
If the Government really believe that on such a matter as the prevention of terrorism it is desirable to have a consensus between the Government and Opposition parties, as in war and perhaps on some other matters—and I feel instinctively that on terrorism and combating terrorism that is desirable if possible—as indeed the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary said in another place last week, then they must be much more sensitive to people's misgivings and be much more forthcoming and ready to respond instead of appearing to drag their feet when they come to reviewing and reforming this legislation.
That is a principal complaint that we have against the Government and I feel bound to spell it out. I say that not in any aggressive way and certainly not because I have any doubts about the sincerity of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, or his right honourable friend, for I have no such doubts. But I offer that view as a piece of advice to the Government. I welcome the report of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and almost all of his recommendations. I hope that the Government will implement them as swiftly as possible if we are to keep this legislation. I welcome particularly what is perhaps his most important recommendation, and one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, today, that a new Bill should be introduced; that it should come up for renewal annually; that it should lapse after five years and then have to be introduced as a new Bill, if still needed, after a further inquiry of some kind. If we are to have the legislation then it is right that it should come up for review and possible revision in that way.
I hope that the Government will not wait until the next renewal date approaches but will introduce the new Bill at the earliest possible moment. Part of the unease about this legislation arises because less and less use is being made of the main powers in the Act, as the statistics show, and as the annual report given to us this afternoon by the noble Lord shows. We see that the number of detentions last year—and I do not need to mention them specifically as they have been quoted in some detail—were a little lower than in 1981 but considerably down on previous calendar years since the introduction of the legislation in 1974. The number of exclusion orders last year was similar to the number in 1981 but much lower than in most other years, and the number of extensions of detention also was down last year. However, as the noble Earl points out, the figures have to be treated with caution; and as he also points out, the proportion of what he calls "catches" has risen over the years. Moreover, as we have said in earlier debates in your Lordships' House, the effectiveness of the Act can never be proved conclusively, for its intention is to prevent terrorism and we can never be sure how many crimes have been

483
prevented, nor can we say exactly what the deterrent effect of the Act has been.
A sizeable number of criticisms has been made of the Act or of the way it has been operated, and the noble Earl has identified those and made recommendations for improvement. I do not want to go through them all in detail, except to welcome them. I want to mention a few of them. I turn first to the power of arrest. At paragraph 68 of his report, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, recommends:
"that the police throughout the United Kingdom śhould be reminded by the appropriate Secretary of State that the power of arrest under section 12 should be exercised only where the use of no other power is appropriate to the end sought".
I support that recommendation, but it should not have been necessary now.
The power of arrest in this Act represents one of the ways in which the Act seeks to assist the police in keeping down terrorism. But it also represents one of the major incursions into our normal civil liberties. The fact that it has been necessary for the noble Earl to make this recommendation—very properly, if I may say so—therefore illustrates all too plainly one of our major worries that this Act and the use of its powers need to be kept under much closer scrutiny than before. It underlines our complaint that the Government have not responded anywhere near quickly enough to the calls for a new inquiry and a new Bill so that that could be done. The same kind of considerations apply to the series of recommendations which are on page 25 of the report which centre on applications to extend periods of detention and the need to specify the period required; and the need for the Secretary of State—as is also recommended—to grant the maximum of five days' extension only where a shorter period will not do, and that if he grants a shorter period, the police will have to apply for a further extension up to a total maximum of five days. I support those recommendations.
I shall just give this word of warning about that particular proposal. Suppose the Secretary of State granted three days on a first application and then a new application came for the remaining two days. Inevitably, that would be a rush job to get the Secretary of State's approval—even more of a rush job than usual. I speak as one who has considered these applications before they have gone to the Home Secretary. There would always be a danger that the Secretary of State, with too little time to consider it, would say, "Oh, let them have the extra time". I urge two things very strongly: first, that the initial application and decision should be as thorough and as certain as possible. Secondly, that a very close watch be kept on these multiple applications, as they might be called, to see that there are not too many of them and to ensure that the system is not being abused by, for instance, asking for two or three days in the first place with the aim of grabbing the extra three or two days, as the case may be, in a great rush or panic from a Secretary of State who feels too hard-pressed to say, "No".
I agree strongly with the noble Earl that Ministers should take an active part in finding out how far the purposes for which an extension was granted have been achieved, and they should satisfy themselves that
484
people are not detained under this Act for longer than is absolutely necessary. I urge that Ministers be given a report as soon as is practicable on each case to satisfy themselves that the steps taken were justified and to enable them to take appropriate action if they are not satisfied. If I do not dwell on the recommendations in Chapter 5 about the rights of detainees at police stations, that is in order to avoid taking up time unnecessarily; but I share the noble Earl's view in attaching,
"considerable weight to the recommendations in this chapter".
There are two other specific matters I should like to mention. One concerns exclusion orders and the other is the offence of withholding information. The power to make an order to exclude a person from part of his own country marks perhaps the most severe limitation in the Act upon our traditional civil liberties in this country. I was not at all surprised that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, found that this provision in the Act gave him the greatest difficulty. His view, expressed in paragraph 176, is—and I quote in part—
"the exclusion of some people … has materially contributed to public safety in the United Kingdom and that this could not have been achieved through the normal criminal process."
I would accept that. He also said in paragraph 178—and again I quote in part—
"the power to exclude should remain … in extreme cases:"—
I would ask your Lordships to note the word "extreme"—
"that its severity should be mitigated … and that the possibility of abolishing it should be kept under regular review, without prejudice to the Act's other powers.".
The noble Earl then goes on to recommend two of the most important changes. First, he says in paragraph 181 that—
"… citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies should not be liable to exclusion from that part of the United Kingdom in which they are settled.".
Then he says in paragraph 198, and I quote again:
"… exclusion orders should henceforth be made only for a fixed term of three years …".
instead of for an unlimited period with a possibility of a review after three years. I would support both those recommendations which have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, this afternoon. On the proposal to keep the possibility of abolishing altogether the power to exclude, I would ask the Minister whether he would not agree that it would be perfectly possible to frame the new Act so that in any further renewal of the legislation there could be provision for parts of the Act only to be renewed, so that, say, the exclusion power could be dropped easily.
But there is one other point about the noble Earl's recommendations on exclusion which needs to be made. That is this: exactly the same sort of considerations arise here as arose out of the proposals to reform the powers of arrest and detention. It really should not have been necessary to make these recommendations now. If the Act had been reviewed sooner, with the chance to amend it, we might have had these changes long ago.
Then there is the offence of withholding information about terrorism. I have always accepted the need for that provision if we are to have this legislation and I have had less difficulty over it than with some other

485
provisions; because if terrorism is to be fought successfully, the fullest possible information is essential. The corollary of that surely is that the greatest harm could arise from withholding information. I agree with the noble Earl's recommendations, and in particular with the one which says that it should be made plain in the Act itself that in requiring people to be forthcoming about information a person is not being required to incriminate himself, and that in Section 11 of the Act, which is the relevant section—and here I quote—
"… the report should be amended to make it clear that the information which it is an offence to withhold relates only to the conduct of third parties and not to that of the person being questiond."
However, there is one problem here. If the information relates both to a third party and to the person being questioned and it is not possible to separate the two, it needs to be made clear whether the overriding consideration must remain the principle that a person should not be required to incriminate himself.
There is one recommendation of the noble Earl, though it is not one of the most important, with which I do not agree. That is his suggestion that the words "Temporary Provisions" be dropped from the Title of the Act. I can understand the logic behind his proposal, of course, and also the fact that he feels uncomfortable because he regards it as something of a pretence—I hope I am not paraphrasing inaccurately or unfairly—to call the Act "temporary" when it has lasted so long, and because under his proposal any new Act would automatically lapse after five years anyway. But the fact is that most, if not all, of us do regard the legislation as temporary, and I would submit that there is no harm in keeping that in the Title as a constant reminder of the need to remove that thorn—the Act itself—from the side of our civil liberties. I suggest that there is logic in that, too; so I do not feel any qualms about retaining those words.
There are many other excellent recommendations in the report, but what strikes one again and again is that we could have had many of these reforms long ago if only the Government had acted more quickly. I would just add these thoughts. Fortunately, in our debates about combating terrorism, despite some differences, I believe that no one on either side of your Lordships' House or indeed of another place has claimed a monopoly, either of a determination to beat the horror and abomination of the terrorists' evil crimes or of a feeling of revulsion for these exceptional powers in this legislation. I hope that will remain the case, for there are genuine differences of view about their acceptability and effectiveness among people who are nevertheless equally determined to destroy the terrorists.
But this I would say: if it is right to seek a consensus on a matter like this (and even in saying that I would suggest that, in a democracy, we must all reserve the right to keep an open mind) then I would urge the Government, in a spirit of constructive criticism and advice I hope, to recognise that a consensus involves a meeting of minds. Therefore the Government must be more sensitive and more forthcoming much sooner than they have been in the past in order to meet the genuine anxieties which many people have on these matters.
One matter above all on which I am sure we are all united is in our sense of grief for the victims of the
486
violence and for their families and friends, our sense of deep gratitude to our security forces, to the police and to the other services, and our determination to do all that we reasonably can to rid our nation of the scourge of terrorism.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, the first issue that your Lordships have to decide this afternoon is whether to approve the renewal of the order. So far as my noble friends in the Liberal and Social Democratic Parties are concerned, the answer is an unhesitating "Yes". We have consistently supported the order made under the principal Act since it first originated and we have consistently done so because all the evidence is overwhelming that it has served to play a valuable part in combating the evils of terrorism. One has only to give the simple figure which was produced in another place by one of the opponents of the order to make that clear. He pointed out that since 1974 there had been detained some 5,555 suspected terrorists, and he pointed out triumphantly that some 4,900 of them had not been charged. There are two things that follow from that. First, it is highly probable, though none of us will know for certain, that many of those 4,900 gave invaluable information before they were in fact released. Secondly, a simple piece of arithmetic shows that some 655 have in fact been charged, and I defy any of your Lordships to suggest that that did not make a useful contribution in the war against terrorism. That is one of the statistics that goes to show the value of this order.
Perhaps I can add, as one who has been involved many, many times in the criminal courts in the trial of terrorists, that there is no doubt whatever from personal experience of the evidence that became available in those cases that, over and over again, it was the operation of the provisions of this order that led to terrorists being caught and in due course convicted. I know, of course, that there is a very real threat to civil liberties in all this, and I know that we have all listened with care to the warnings given by the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham. It is right that those dangers should not be minimised. But I can only say, speaking for myself, that I would very much rather, being an innocent man, be detained in error and interrogated for five days than be blown to bits by the bomb of some homicidal maniac.
When I indicated that we will support the renewal of this order, and always have done, I do not want it to be thought therefore that we have not from time to time been critical about parts of it. We have expressed doubts as to whether the proscription section is anything more than cosmetic; we have expressed our feeling that Section 11, which makes it a criminal offence to fail to disclose information about other people being likely to commit offences, is a wholly unreal and, very often, a rather ineffectual provision and we have repeatedly expressed our unhappiness about the fact that every year we are asked to renew an order and have no choice, except to take it or leave it. It has never been possible in the years since the Act was passed to attempt to improve it by amending it in part.
The noble Lord, Lord Boston, was kind enough to say that it is now some four years since I first suggested

487
that there might be a lot to be said for a new Bill being brought forward, which could be scrutinised line by line in both Houses of Parliament. That suggestion was one of the main features of the submission made by the Liberal Party to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and I am delighted to hear from the Government that they accept that principle. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, criticises the Government for taking four years to act, but I can only say that if the Government acted on all my suggestions as quickly as that I should be a very satisfied person.
Although we have repeatedly been critical about some parts of this order, we have certainly never contemplated voting against it or against its renewal. Indeed, after the year 1982, in which there were some appalling terrorist outrages, it seems to us even more impossible to contemplate voting against the order. I am bound to say that I, for one, was very sad to see that a once great political party should have decided to take that course in another place. In the situation which we now face, there is no longer very much point in analysing this order with great care, because agreeing that the case for renewing it is overwhelming, we now know that this is the last time that we shall be invited to do so, and we now know that there will—we hope shortly—be a new Bill which we shall be able to scrutinise completely.
What the contents of that new Bill will be are becoming clear. They are becoming clear from the comments made by Mr. Whitelaw and Mr. Waddington in another place, and by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in your Lordships' House; and it is becoming clear that the Government are willing to accept a great many of the principal recommendations of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. Perhaps I may add my tribute to the way in which this report is written. There breathes throughout every line, first, a passionate detestation of the evils of terrorism and a determination to take every possible step to defeat it; and, secondly, there breathes an equal passion to ensure that in doing so we do not infringe the liberties of the individual. It is a difficult balance to hold. I believe that the noble Earl has done it most admirably and should receive, as I am sure he will, the gratitude of all your Lordships.
In those circumstances, I want to make only three very short comments about three of the recommendations, where it appears that there may still be some doubt as to what is to be included in the new Bill. First, the noble Earl recommends the use of Section 12(1)(b) of the principal Act, in order to arrest without warrant not merely terrorists who are concerned in acts of terrorism in relation to Northern Ireland, but any suspected international terrorist. Given the links which have been demonstrated over and over again in recent years between terrorists of different factions throughout the world, that is a recommendation with which I would respectfully agree. The noble Earl goes on to say that it may not be necessary to extend that power of arrest to what he describes as domestic terrorism. I wonder whether that is wise. I wonder whether there is any real logic in saying that a police officer should not be entitled to arrest, without warrant, a person whom he reasonably suspects of being engaged in terrorist activities, whether the
488
terrorism is domestic or international. I find it difficult to draw a distinction.
Secondly, I welcome very much the recommendation that a person detained shall, of course, have a right of access to his solicitor after 48 hours have elapsed. This is important. I welcome, too, the realistic suggestion that, even after that period, there may be circumstances in which the right should be restricted and should be allowed only within the sight and hearing of a senior police officer. I say that with very great reluctance, but there has been a development in the last few years, among both barristers and solicitors, of a number of people who have become so politically committed themselves that they get excessively involved with their clients, to the extent that they are often unable to carry out their professional duty with propriety.
The third area in which I welcome the proposals made by the noble Earl, and on which the Government have yet to make clear their view, is the area in which he suggests certain limitations on the right of exclusion. Perhaps, of all the powers given in this Act, the power of exclusion is the one on which there is the greatest possibility of use in an arbitrary way. I welcome the suggestions made by the noble Earl which will, I hope, serve to reduce that possibility.
With those observations, may I just say that we await eagerly the arrival of the new Bill, so that we can discuss with great care the proposals and the recommendations by the noble Earl and, once again, we express to him our gratitude for this admirable report.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he would kindly make this observation, if he wishes to do so, in view of his reference to the Opposition in another place. Did he carefully study the speeches that were made from the Opposition Benches that decried terrorism, went into the history of the matter and felt that honest doubts had upon that occasion to be expressed? Does he not acknowledge that there are at least two points of view when civil liberties are at stake?
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, I am delighted to express my view, and I do. If the Opposition had succeeded and won the vote in another place, there would have been no order, the order would have lapsed, there would have been no provisions for combating terrorism until such time as the new Bill was brought into force, and I should have regarded that as quite deplorable.
3.49 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I rise to offer strong opposition to this renewal order. That is the convinced attitude of the Labour Party as expressed in another place, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to the matter. No one has a higher regard than I have for the noble Lord, Lord Boston, but he would be the first to agree that in what he said today he was not expressing the attitude of the Labour Party. No one can possibly claim that he was. The Labour Party, to which I have belonged for 46 years or so, voted against it after giving considered reasons, so let us not be under any misapprehension: the Labour Party is

489
against the renewal of this Act. That is very consoling to those of us who, like myself, are against the Act. I am not a docile supporter of my party line on all occasions, but when the party line happens to be, as it seems to me, the right one I can naturally support it with even more fervour than usual.
There is another large element in our society to which I shall refer: the Irish community in this country. I am speaking on behalf of the Federation of Irish Societies when I express strong opposition to the renewal of this Act. For many years I have been President of the Irish Centre which is one of the largest constituent elements in the Federation of Irish Societies. If the House needs any further credentials, let me say that I have never failed to say that I am proud to be Irish. Not long ago I read in The Times that the late Lord Arran lamented to the late Lord Gage—also highly respected here and Father of the House—that in this House there seems to be less support for the protection of badgers than for the protection of homosexuals. Lord Gage replied that badgers are not strongly represented in this House. Noble Lords can read what they like into that observation of the former Father of this place. I, at least, am speaking today on behalf of the Irish community in this country.
There are three main, detailed sections in the report of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. It is a finely written document, as was that of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, though I am bound to say that I find some large gaps in the argument of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. The first detailed section is called Arrest and Interrogation, the second The Port Powers and the third, Exclusion. For reasons of time, I shall confine myself to the first of these headings—that is, Arrest and Interrogation—and deal with that only in relation to the mainland, but the Federation of Irish Societies and, for that matter, I myself would have equally strong criticisms to offer about the other issues.
I should hope that by now the House is sufficiently aware that I have consistently supported the reunification of Ireland. I have a Motion down on that subject for the ballot on short debates. But I have just as consistently denounced violence, here and elsewhere, in pursuit of that end and, indeed, terrorist violence anywhere. I must not fail to quote two sentences from the evidence supplied to the Jellicoe inquiry by the Federation of Irish Societies:
"The Federation as a body, and all its member associations, are totally opposed to terrorism and have no sympathy for those who involve themselves in terrorist activities. We condemn the use of violence and threat of violence for political ends".
I hope that there remains no dubiety on that score. But the federation have consistently and ever more firmly opposed the Prevention of Terrorism Act and they are heart and soul in favour of its repeal. The Act, they say,
"is divisive in that it sets Irish people resident in Britain apart from their neighbours … Many Irish people feel intimidated by the Act … The Act has to a large degree stifled normal healthy and legitimate political discussions [among Irishmen] … As a result of arrest many people have lost their jobs and livelihoods. The conclusion must be that the principal aim of the Act is to give the police and the security forces power to arrest and detain people for the purpose of fishing exercises"—
I repeat that phrase "fishing exercises", because it is very close to my own experience of this subject—
490
"freed from the constraints of the judges and the sanctions of the court".
I shall gladly let any Member of the House have a copy of the full document from which these sentences are extracted.
I stress this attitude of the Irish community which I have just summarised in order to leave no possible doubt about the opposition to the Bill of the Irish community. In another place the Shadow Minister for Home Affairs explained that in 1975 the Home Secretary had used an argument which at the time he, Mr. Hattersley, regarded as having enormous strength and which encouraged him at that time to vote for the measure. The argument was that the Bill was intended to lessen the reaction against the general body of Irish people here. Mr. Hattersley commented that no one seriously advances that argument now.
The arguments against the Bill have been so well deployed elsewhere, though with less fervour than I might have hoped for here, that it is hardly necessary for me to labour them. The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, admits in paragraph 55 of his report—I believe that this is a correct quotation—that there can be no clear proof that the arrest powers in the Prevention of Terrorism Act are or are not an essential weapon in the fight against terrorism. Up to a point I am bound to agree with that statement. I can sympathise with the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, being only too well aware that in this kind of area there can hardly be a coercive proof, a proof which it is impossible for an intelligent and honest person to argue against. But the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, has reached a firm conclusion on his own. He has reached the conclusion that special legislation effectively reduces terrorism. The evidence he brings forward in his report should at least point in that direction, if we are not being asked to rely on his personal hunch, supported by the views of the police.
I would defy anyone—though I cannot challenge the personal recollections of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—coming from outside and studying the report of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to find evidence on the face of the report to justify his firm decision in favour of exceptional and most unpalatable measures. Indeed, I must call attention to a passage at the very beginning of the report which runs as follows:
"In effect".
said the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe,
"it was necessary for me to reach a major conclusion before taking on the job".
I should like the full attention of the noble Earl at this moment because I want to be quite sure that I am not misrepresenting him.
"In effect",
said the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, on the first page of his report,
"it was necessary for me to reach a major conclusion before taking on the job. Before doing so, I satisfied myself from preliminary enquiries and from a close perusal of the parliamentary debates since 1974 that some form of special legislation was indeed required to deal with the continuing threat posed by terrorism throughout the United Kingdom".
In other words, before the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, took on the job, to use his own expression, he had reached the major conclusion that special legislation was necessary, so I am afraid I cannot feel that in the rest of his report he was coming to these matters with

491
a dispassionate mind. However, I appreciate the absolute intregrity with which the noble Earl reached his final conclusion—and, indeed, the absolute integrity with which he reached his provisional conclusion—but it is a conclusion which might have been modified had the noble Earl paid more attention to the views of the Irish community, views which, for reasons I need not go into now, are relevant.
I will spend my remaining time in trying to illustrate with one example what we are talking about in practice when we point out that 85 per cent. of those arrested—or whatever the figure is—are never charged and that a tiny proportion are found guilty. It is not difficult—it never is on these occasions—to find cases of alleged maltreatment by individual police officers, but that is not involved in the case I am going to quote. In this case, as it was reported to me, the officers behaved a trifle crudely, but no doubt they conceived that they were doing their duty and no complaint was lodged. The lady about whom I am talking is a middle-aged housewife. She came originally from Northern Ireland but has been resident here for more than 30 years.
At about 4 a.m. on a certain Wednesday morning, her house was invaded by a number of police. She thought that some of them were armed but I am not necessarily sure whether she was right or wrong about that. She, her husband and her daughter were aroused from bed and taken off to various police stations. She was held and interrogated at various intervals from early Wednesday morning until Saturday evening: the best part of four days. That is well beyond the 48 hours permitted without renewal and so we must assume that some renewal was secured in this case. I need hardly add that when this lady was released, there was no expression of regret, however minimal. That applies to other cases I have looked into.
The lady described herself to me as being bewildered throughout. She could not make out what it was all about. She was asked at one point whether she was a member of the IRA, which she vigorously denied. The main questions, constantly repeated, related to her nephew—her brother's son, still resident in Belfast. She kept pointing out to the interrogators that she had seen this nephew only about twice in the previous 30 years and could tell them nothing. They seemed to disbelieve her for the best part of four days until at last they realised, so it seems, that she could tell them nothing. She was at no time allowed access to a solicitor or any contact with the outside world. She was compelled to strip and hand over her clothes, and was provided instead with a dirty blanket. Is that the way in which the system is supposed to work? I am not taking an extreme case but one that might seem to be a fairly ordinary case. I should like to ask the noble Lord to say, when he replies, whether that is considered on the whole to be something that one justifies.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I should just like to answer the noble Earl, Lord Longford. The noble Earl said that this case is anonymous at present, but I do not doubt that he will reveal it to me afterwards so that I may pursue it. The noble Earl said also that this was probably a fairly ordinary case, although earlier he said that instances of this sort were extremely difficult
492
to come by. I wonder what grounds the noble Earl has for saying that this is a perfectly ordinary case.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I do not think that I did say that instances of this kind were difficult to come by. I am sorry, but my failure of articulation is responsible for a mishearing by the noble Lord. I said that it was not difficult to find extreme cases but that I was trying to cite what seemed to be a normal case where there was not any outrageous behaviour by the police.
I merely want to know what can be expected. Is 4 a.m. the right time at which to call on such a lady? She was dragged off in one direction, her daughter was dragged off in another and her husband in another; she was kept for the best part of four days without any communication with the outside world and was interrogated remorsely about her nephew. If the noble Lord, Lord Elton, says, "That does not, of course, happen and the whole thing is much more humane than that", then let us hear that also. But as I understand it, this is the kind of incident that is bound to result under this particular Act.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, if my noble friend will allow me—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I really must finish because I am taking up around 15 minutes. The House may ask me whether this lady's nephew was regarded with any justification as being a dangerous person. The answer to that is that I have not the slightest idea. I have not gone into the question of the nephew but I am saying that here is a woman who was intimidated for nearly four days in the hope of dredging out of her some information that would help the police in dealing with her nephew. I am saying that if that is the Act, then the sooner it is got rid of the better.
There seems to be some implication in Lord Jellicoe's report that pressure on relatives is something that is repugnant to most people, but as far as I can see under this Act such pressure is apparently an essential feature. Pressure on relatives to obtain information of the kind described is the first step, but quite a large one, towards a police state. Certainly, it is a striking feature of any police state of which we have any knowledge. I am only saying that if that is the plan behind this Act, and it is considered to be all in a day's work, quite normal practice and essential to the preservation of liberty in some wider sense, then it is quite contrary to traditional British ideas of justice and human ideas of decency everywhere. I am delighted that my party—the Labour Party—is so strongly opposed to the renewal of this measure.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, will he answer a brief question which will help us in making our personal plans? In view of the fact that the noble Earl's party is against renewing the order, does he propose to divide the House at the end of this debate?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, I would never dream of taking a step of that kind without long consultation with my leaders.
4.6 p.m.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, we have listened to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, with great interest. Whatever the problems about the nephew living in Belfast in the case in which the noble Earl was concerned, I can assure the noble Earl that if he were to come to Belfast, he would not be considered a dangerous person.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, if I may reply to that point, the only nephew of mine who is at all before the public is Mr. Ferdinand Mount, who is a close adviser of Mrs. Thatcher; so I believe it would be very much out of order to cross-examine me about him!
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, it would be quite wrong for this House to feel that the noble Earl alone has the right to speak for the Irish derived community in this country. I do not know how many members of the Irish population here are in the societies which the noble Earl represents, but I can say with absolute certainty that there are hundreds of thousands of Irish citizens who are perfectly content and who feel that this Act is no threat to them at all. They have a great abhorrence of violence, just as the noble Earl does, but they feel that their enjoyment of civil rights in this country justifies the Act as it is, although there are problems in balancing between freedoms, civic rights, and the need to combat terrorism.
I will start by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, for his report, which I found most interesting and which, like the rest of my party, I absolutely support. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Boston of Faversham and Lord Wigoder, on their speeches, because they put the case extremely well. The statistics which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, produced were very telling. He emphasised the fact that seven-day detention produces information, and that should never be forgotten. The interrogator requires time to get some rapport—if that is the right word—with the person he is interrogating before the information can be produced.
I speak on this subject, of course, from a personal angle. I feel very strongly because I am totally involved, as I am living in a community where people have been murdered. Therefore, I find it easier to accept a limitation of civil rights than do quite a lot of people who live much further from where these incidents occur. I believe it was the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, who said that one must be careful not to be anaesthetised towards such incidents. I can assure the noble Lord that I am certainly not anaesthetised at this moment, but I am very conscious that without a renewal of this order and the new Act to come in, the lives of many people in my area will be at risk—or they may even have been lost by now.
I welcome the inclusion in the report of all international terrorism in the scope of the Act; but I have to say that I consider it absolutely absurd to try to differentiate between nationally derived terrorism and internationally derived terrorism, or IRA terrorism, because to me murder is murder if it is violently done by terrorism, no matter who does it.
I thought I would tell the House of a very small experience I had of the link between international
494
terrorism and national terrorism. About three years ago I was asked to go to Paris to take part in a three-hour television programme. Among my colleagues were one of the Peace Movement ladies, Mrs. Williams, and Austin Curry, who is an SDLP person. To our surprise, when we arrived in Paris we found a certain lady who was deeply involved in violence called Miriam Daley; Mrs. Williams assured me that not only was this lady involved in violence but Mrs. Williams had actually experienced violence from her. I am sad to say that she was afterwards murdered, I do not know whom by, but certainly she met a violent death. The significance of this is that this was a lady from the Falls Road, a not very prosperous part of Belfast, and when she left after the broadcast in Paris, she was collected by a lady who, I was assured on the best posible authority, was the link woman between the Baader-Meinhof, the Red Brigade and the PFLP.
If somebody from the Falls Road, in the IRA or one of those organisations, can go to Paris and get picked up and entertained by somebody involved in that setup, then surely there is no doubt whatever that we should involve all international terrorism within this Act. In my view, we should involve all terrorist acts altogether. As British people we seem to think it is necessary to have a command structure, somebody who pulls the strings and gives the orders. But that is not the way modern terrorism works. There is no doubt that there have been a number of murders—I will not quote two I can think of at the moment—of prominent people, where the IRA may have pulled the trigger, but I very much wonder who ordered the trigger to be pulled. Therefore, I ask the Government to look again at the question of national domestic terrorism and try to include it.
Prevention is the main element. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, said that this was to do with prevention of terrorism. I feel very strongly that it is impossible to calculate what has been prevented by the operation of this Act. I probably suffer as much as anybody else from the point of view of the inconvenience of going through airports. I have not heard anybody complain of the inconvenience. The courtesy of the officers who operate the Act is something we should be very proud of.
What has not been mentioned here, and may possibly be slightly out of order, but it is to do with the prevention of terrorism in one part of the United Kingdom, is that crimes are still being committed in Northern Ireland, quite often more than likely by a Northern Ireland citizen, and the criminal then retreats across the border. The Garda know who they are and they know where they live. But they have not committed any crime or any act of violence in the Irish Republic. Dr. Fitzgerald is a man of great humanity whom I have met and I know. The best method of dealing with this problem is undoubtedly by extradition. That is the best method because all that has to happen is that the two Attorney-Generals, the Attorney-General in Westminster and the Attorney-General in Dublin, have to agree that extradition shall be granted. The level of evidence required is much lower than is necessary for the other method under the Criminal Jurisdiction Act.
I have to repeat what I have said many times, that the Criminal Jurisdiction Act is totally ineffective

495
because the person involved cannot be interrogated by the RUC, or by the Garda if the offence is committed on our side of the border. Ninety per cent. of all convictions occur as a result of interrogation. Evidence is so difficult to produce, because of intimidation. If today, when we have such goodwill from Dr. Fitzgerald, Dublin will not grant extradition, I ask the Government to find some other method; to ask the Government in Dublin—do not let us dictate to them but ask them—to provide another method. It is all right talking about changing the constitution, but for those of us who live in Northern Ireland the most important part of goodwill from Dublin is to bring these men to justice.
My Lords, I did not approve of the Assembly, and I said so in this House. But it is there and we have to deal with the situation as it is. One of my reasons for not approving it was because it validated the IRA. That still stands; they have an electoral validity. I have to say that it was with great sadness that I saw the great Labour Party vote against the continuation of this Act. But I have to note and praise the fact that various members of the Labour Party, Mr. Callaghan, Sir Harold Wilson, Mr. Merlyn Rees, Mr. Orme—in fact every Minister who has had anything to do with Northern Ireland—stood out against that vote; and for that I should like to record the pleasure of the people of Northern Ireland. That vote against the continuation of this order undoubtedly gave comfort to the enemy. There is no better way to defeat the IRA than to show our determination to beat them, and therefore we should approve this order.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I had hoped to spend the time I was going to detain your Lordships in discussing the noble Earl's report, but I am bound to make one or two comments on remarks made by my noble friend Lord Longford. I do not believe I have ever heard him quite so passionately convinced that he was speaking party policy. I think probably he and I have not kicked over the traces very often, but if ever there was a bad case on which to be so passionately committed to party policy this seems to me to be the one. I for one am opposed to what happened officially in the other place. The noble Viscount who has just spoken has drawn attention to the rather strange number of absences from the Division Lobby. Those of us who are old members of the Labour Party are well aware—I give this to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—that we do on occasion disagree with one another; that is perhaps the understatement of the year. I think this is the sort of difficult issue on which there are bound to be strong feelings and feelings of conscience. I hope I can remove any anxieties from the noble Lord, Lord Beloff. It is not generally the intention of the Labour Party in the House of Lords ever to vote against an order. Therefore, I think the noble Lord can go home, if he wishes, at this point.
My Lords, let me deal with one or two points of the noble Earl, Lord Longford., He did pick up, with some triumph in his voice, the statement that the noble Earl satisfied himself before he undertook this task that it was necessary to have some legislation, but he was not debarred from saying what he thought about the
496
legislation. It was perfectly open to him, as it was to me, to say that the legislation was objectionable or ineffective, that he had to have regard to the effectiveness of the legislation and to its effect on the liberties of the subject and to report. And he reported, if I may say so, very admirably.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to interrupt on one point. He, inadvertently no doubt, left out one word in his quotation. The noble Earl was satisfied that there should be some special legislation, not just legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, left out the word "special".
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I will insert the word "special". It does not affect my point, that there was a need for special legislation. If I may say so, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, committed something of a breach in the custom of the House. He said, as I understood him, that he was speaking on behalf of the Irish community. But that is, of course, entirely contrary to the custom of your Lordships. There is a reference, if I can find it, which makes clear that we do not speak on behalf of any interests. We speak for ourselves. We can identify with outside bodies who agree with us, but we do not speak on their behalf. I think it is important to make that clear.
I have always had an admiration and affection for the noble Earl and I am glad that I am speaking after him, and not before, because I am quite sure that he would deal with me far more effectively than I can deal with him. However, I am bound to say that I agree with him on one point. I think he implied that the noble Earl's report was better than mine. I would be the first to agree. It is an extremely good report. I detect that I have a certain irritation on certain things that he spotted, in the thorough and scholarly way that he approached the matter, and that I failed to see. However, it is fair to point out that in my report, and in his, considerable changes and improvements were made in the legislation. I, for one, feel that we cannot do other than renew this particular order now.
It has been suggested that the percentage of those detained at ports, and inland, and subsequently released without charge, is unacceptably high. We all understand the sense of grievance. The noble Earl drew attention with great force, as I hope I did, to the damage, discomfort and worry that is caused in such circumstances. There are conclusions of more significance to be drawn from the figures relating to detention. Here I should like to quote from the noble Earl's report. In referring to my report, he says:
"In the period since Lord Shackleton reported the arrest and detention powers in the Act [at ports] have been used more rarely but with a generally higher proportion of 'catches' than in earlier years. These figures demonstrate an increase in both the selectivity and the effectiveness of the use of these powers by the police on the mainland, which is at variance with the assertions of a number of the Act's critics."
If I may for a moment dwell on my findings in 1978, I believe that the balance of risks and benefits which I weighed then still holds true. I commented:
"It is argued that the consequences of a period in detention for the individual and his family may be severe and that where a person is released without being charged or excluded they are well-nigh unacceptable. However, the same consequences may arise in the case of a person who is arrested, charged, and later acquitted of a non-terrorist offence."

497
Of course, people are sometimes held, and may be held, without charge for longer periods than the great majority of those detained under this Act because the overwhelming majority—and I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to this—were not held for more than 48 hours, and many of them for a great deal less. It is worth while studying the statistics, which the noble Earl points out are still not entirely satisfactory. However, I draw attention to the fact that between the beginning of 1979 and the end of 1982, 459 extensions of detention beyond 48 hours were granted in Great Britain and 210 of those—46 per cent.—resulted in charge or exclusion; that is, 459 out of a total of 5,000. So the amount of time spent in detention was very limited indeed. Therefore, when we look at the noble Earl's report we should pay particular attention to what he says about specifying the period in which people can be kept, even within the 48 hours that he mentioned—the one-hour period and then a 12-hour period.
We do not expect the Government to answer these particular issues now, but I very much hope that they will pay careful attention to them, even though it adds to the troubles of those who are responsible for administering the Act. Because we feel so strongly about this I am afraid that, inevitably, we have to impose restraints on those who have to administer the Act.
I also welcome the recommendation that the noble Earl made in his review for ameliorating conditions of detention. That is a matter to which I drew attention in 1978. I am sorry to find that the noble Earl was still not satisfied that enough has been done—in particular, that individuals detained at ports for one hour should be given a notice of their rights and, after 12 hours, detained only on the ground of suspected involvement in terrorism which would be appropriate for an inland arrest. The example which my noble friend gave is a horrifying one. I do not know how it can happen. If he regards it as an ordinary sort of case I wonder what an extreme case would be, and I am sorry that he has not given any. Perhaps he will give them to the noble Lord. I hope that amendments will follow to the Act, or a future order, which will, in fact, improve this.
In Northern Ireland, about 40 per cent. of all arrests under the Act resulted in charge and about 45 per cent. of extended detentions preceded a charge. The report comments that,
"The most worthwhile figure to use as a basis of comparison between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in this respect is the proportion of 'extended' Section 12 arrests which resulted in a criminal charge. This proportion is virtually the same.".
A charge rate of over 40 per cent. seems to me impressive in this context.
Finally on this particular aspect, while a scrutiny of the use of the arrest powers in relation to criminal charges is of considerable interest it is not, of course, the test by which the powers must be judged. This is meant to be preventive legislation, and I think that that cannot be overstressed.
I should like to make just two comments on the actual legislation which is contemplated. I am not yet entirely convinced that it is right to extend this legislation to other forms of terrorism. Indeed, I should have thought that the case for doing so for national terrorism—that is, other than the IRA—
498
rather than international seems to be stronger because there are much stronger controls at the ports over aliens coming into this country. I am not opposed to what is being done but the need is obviously greater because we are for the most part dealing with people who are not citizens of this country who can, in fact, be refused admission and can be freely deported back to the country whence they came.
I am not clear whether the purpose of Section 12 was, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, deliberately left open so that it might be applied to international terrorism. My own view—and I took this view at the time—is that it was more by chance; and that, if Section 12 applies, so also should Section 11, to which the Northern Ireland dimension is not mentioned.
Perhaps the noble Lord will consider those points when he replies to the debate. It is my view that if the powers are to be extended for international or other forms of terrorism there should be specific legislative authority, because Parliament, so far as I know, certainly did not have in mind such an application for the Act when it was originally passed.
Finally, on Section 11, I still dislike the power to charge people for failing to give information. I know that this was put in at a late stage in the original Act, that no prosecutions took place practically speaking up to the time I did my report and that the moment that I did my report and drew attention to the section a number of prosecutions followed almost immediately. I would ask the Government to consider very carefully. If, like my noble friend, they come to the view that it is a desirable power, I would accept it, but it is one of the ones that I find particularly unpleasant, smacking very much of the sort of police state type of legislation.
In conclusion, I should just like to stress that those who suggest that we are on a slippery slope are misled. On the contrary, the slope is getting less slippery. It is getting more difficult. The amendments that were made following my report, and even more so the amendments that will be made, as I hope they will be, following the noble Earl's report, will make this particular path a more difficult one to follow. It is quite right to accept now that there should be a renewal of the Act—that the Act should in fact be reintroduced every five years, as a guarantee, whether or not it is called temporary or otherwise. I can only say that it is my view that in the conflict between survival for peaceful and innocent people and the inconvenience and sometimes discomfort that is caused to individuals, on balance, this legislation is necessary. I think that the powers of exclusion are perhaps the most unpleasant of all and I am sorry that even now the Government have not yet made any provision to help individuals who are excluded from this country with removal and other expenses, to which the noble Earl has drawn attention. I hope that the Government will look at that. But, having said that, I think there is no choice: provided we can reduce the period, then I think that this Act must be continued. I should be very surprised, if I may say so, if, were a Labour Government in office, they did not in fact do so.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, in joining with other noble Lords in agreeing that the order should be

499
renewed, I would just like to say that I entirely agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, in what he has said about extradition. The extraterritorial jurisdiction legislation which was introduced has not proved to be effective, and I think that extradition from the Republic of Ireland is the only possible way to solve that particular problem.
In turning to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, if I am right in referring to this now, I would like to ask one quick question and one simple supplementary. In Part I, Section 2, it is stated:
"Any person who in a public place—

(a) wears any item of dress, or

(b) wears, carries or displays any article, in such a way or in such circumstances as to arouse reasonable apprehension that he is a member or supporter of a proscribed organisation, shall be liable on summary conviction".

et cetera. Turning later in the document to Part III, Section 19, it says:
"Part I of this Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland".
My question, my Lords, is: why should this be the case? My guess is that the answer is that although there is other legislation which covers this, the problem is that whatever that legislation may be it does not appear to be effective.
All too regularly we see on television and in the press IRA funerals where a group of masked men emerge from the crowd and, with what are presumably illegally-held weapons, fire a volley of shots over the coffin and then retire once again into the crowd. They are observed from a discreet distance by the security forces. I should be very grateful if the noble Lord when winding up this debate would explain why this is so. I would be glad if he would tell us whether or not he is aware that this blatant flouting of the law in Northern Ireland causes considerable resentment among the law-abiding citizens. If, for instance, at a regimental or British Legion parade I were to display an illegally-held weapon, I would be hounded by the police, and quite rightly so. So how, therefore, can these hooded and masked men fire shots from illegally-held weapons in a public place without being arrested and brought to order?
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I would like to say a few things about this review and this Act. I do not want to make a long speech, but I would like just to put forward a thought about the principle behind this review and also an idea about certain of the recommendations made in it.
I think it must be quite clear from what the noble Lord the Minister has said, and from what other noble Lords have said from all sides of the House, that the base of the Prevention of Terrorism Act is to reflect a balance—a balance which is made up, of course, of measures necessary to protect the lives of innocent people while at the same time maintaining the necessary respect for civil liberties and a concern for the sensitivities of those people most affected by those extraordinary powers. In fact, my Lords, it is a balance which will most help the forces of peace to fight the forces of violence. So, my Lords, if we are all agreed that it is merely a case of identifying the best weapons to do this, then I think it is wrong to accuse those who
500
oppose this Act of supporting violence. They do so because they believe that the powers under this Act do not represent that balance.
My Lords, to my mind it is quite clear, from reading the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe's report, that he wrote it with great concern, compassion and a respect for humanity. In my view, this is a constant factor throughout it. It is also clear that he, too, was very preoccupied with maintaining this balance. But I think at some points in his report it is equally clear that the noble Earl was a little doubtful that he was achieving this. To give one example, he said:
"The most important assistance which the police can have in the fight against terrorism is not special powers but the support of the public. It is vital that such powers do not unnecessarily alienate—either in their essence or in their application—any section of the law-abiding population".
Thus, from this extract from the noble Earl's review—and I think I can give others—Lord Jellicoe clearly did have some doubt as to achieving the right balance, yet his recommendation was in favour of renewal, followed by a new Act.
However, I think at this point it is really right that we should remember the noble Earl's final injunction, when he said, as your Lordships will remember:
"the Act should remain in force only while it continues to remain effective, only if its aims cannot be achieved by use of the general law, if it does not make unacceptable inroads on civil liberties".
This leaves us with varying thoughts. I must confess that for my part I find it really impossible to forget what the honourable Member for Belfast, West said in the House of Commons. As we know, there can be no doubt of the continual and courageous stand that Mr. Gerry Fitt has taken against the terrorists and how much he has been persecuted by them. Equally, there can be no doubt of his intimate knowledge of the effect that these special powers have on the sensitivities of the minority communities; and yet Mr. Fitt has decided that, on balance, the Prevention of Terrorism Act is of greater help to the men of violence than it is a hindrance to them. He feels very sincerely that it drives many members of that community into the arms of the IRA.
My Lords, I really do not feel myself qualified to make these decisions, so I would merely like to put forward one or two very brief reflections. First, may I say a word about some of the recommendations in Part II, which deal with arrest and interrogation renewal in the review. These appear to concern the all-important humanitarian provisions about the treatment of detainees. Fairly naturally, my noble friend Lord Shackleton has mentioned these. I would like to support what he said. For example, Recommendation 16 says that:
"Implementation of Lord Shackleton's recommendations on the welfare of persons held under the Act in Great Britain has been patchy and variable".
Can we have an assurance that this will now be carried out?
Other recommendations concern the force orders operating in Great Britain. It seems of the highest importance to have a categorical assurance from the Government that, while the implementation of the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in this regard clearly fell down, the recommendations

501
of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, will be strictly adhered to. Surely while we retain these special powers, it is of critical importance to give priority to the humanitarian provisions and to ensure that the welfare of those detainees—after all, many of them are entirely innocent—should be protected and safeguarded. Arising out of this, I hope that when, each year, Parliament debates the annual renewal, the prospect of the five years' re-enactment will not diminish the importance of the debate, while at the same time these annual debates will be used to report on how these recommendations are being carried out and on those other areas of the review.
On another point, I hope that at all times the Government will maintain the closest relations with the Republic of Ireland in order to enable the two countries to co-operate to the full in controlling the violence. Lastly, I also hope that in order to prevent these measures from being considered—as I fear they are at present—as anti-Irish rather than anti-terrorist measures, the Government will always keep an open mind to moving towards a wider framework in which to oppose both domestic and international terrorism.
The noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, referred to the incidence of international terrorism, and many other noble Lords have referred to it. In regard to this matter, the Council of Europe's convention for the suppression of terrorism is, as I said, still thought by very many people to be the most constructive effort to attain a minimal measure of international cooperation for the protection of innocent people. If we were able to move towards measures set in such a wider framework, the Provisional IRA would be robbed of a propaganda weapon which clearly the present Act now presents, and a basis for seeking agreement on extradition and other judicial, political and police forms of international co-operation would be provided. So surely it must be agreed that any steps leading to a more authoritarian society are bound to be abhorred. Already the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill in the House of Commons could be seen as a step in that direction.
Therefore, I end merely by saying that it seems of the greatest importance, first, to attach the highest priority to the humanitarian safeguards included in the recommendation of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe; and, secondly, to keep our minds wide open to alternative and, indeed, more democratic methods of containing the violence which so tragically exists in our society.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, I want to draw attention to a relatively new phenomenon, which is international terrorism, a considerable part of which is government supplied, government directed and government trained. I think that this is a menace to all peaceful societies and one which we have not adequately recognised. There are two kinds of laws—the laws of peace and the laws of war. I think one can say that the primary purpose of the laws of peace is to provide for and protect civil rights. The laws of peace are the laws of the individual. Within the laws of peace I have always regarded capital punishment as an anachronism, an absurdity and inefficient. But the laws of war are a very different matter indeed. The purpose of the laws of war is to
502
provide government with the powers to protect the citizen against the violence of the Queen's enemies. To that purpose civil rights must take a back seat. Courts-martial must be expeditious and feared. Death, not as a punishment but as a means of coercion, must be at their disposal. Both our will and, it seems, our means are inadequate to protect our citizens against this new danger of organised violence and terror.
The Middle East has had a very long experience of the States of the Assassins; right from the days of Omar Khayyám and before the Crusades one found the Society of the Assassins whose leader said, "If two men will obey me totally, I can command the world". He sent his two men with a message to the ruler, "Obey or you will die". The ruler died and the next ruler obeyed. So for 200 years the Middle Eastern rulers were held in awe and terror by the Society of the Assassins. That has continued there through history from that date.
Today Iraq, Iran and Libya are assassin states, training, using, despatching and, through the diplomatic box, supplying and arming assassins throughout the world. The man Rosen, who was sentenced to 35 years for the attempted murder of the Israeli ambassador, is a colonel on active service in the intelligence corps of the Iraq army. How long will be served? How long will it be before the Foreign Office comes here and says, "There are some important trade agreements with Iraq and we have considered an amnesty in these matters, which I am sure everyone regrets"? I can hear them saying it. How long will it be before some important Englishman is kidnapped in Iraq and we are offered an exchange with which, of course, would go various economic deals? When you are dealing with what I think one may term "sovereign" criminals—that is to say government directed assassins—I am afraid that prison is no good. The bars do not hold against a sovereign patron. The only sentence that sticks and the only sentence feared is death.
Then one turns again—and I am talking of Foreign Office behaviour in these matters—to the PLO. Nobody has any doubt at all that the PLO has built its position and gained its influence by its capacity to assassinate rulers in the Middle East. They have also sent a series of assassins who have operated here. Yet it is Foreign Office policy to negotiate with these assassins and to recognise the power which they have taken by assassination and nothing else. I do not think you can operate a peaceful world on these lines. As regards Europe, the international terrorists operate on both the Left and to a far higher degree on the Right. I am told that Britain is regarded as a safe house by the Right-wing terrorists in Germany, Italy and France. I can give the noble Lord who will reply a list of names if he wants them. Terrorists from these countries stow safely away here.
Now again one comes to Ireland. The IRA claim to be soldiers, as indeed do terrorists in the Middle East. They claim to have the right to be treated as military combatants. Let them have those rights. Let them remember that their activities are forbidden by the laws of war under the penalty of death. For combatants to operate without uniform and without order against even an invader is forbidden under penalty of death by the laws of war. If they choose to

503
claim the laws of war, let them have them. Let them be tried by courts-martial.
When the Irish trouble began 12 years ago I was then a Member of another place. I then pleaded for immediate application of martial law to Northern Ireland. I remember that Mr. Whitelaw came up to me and said, "What do you mean by martial law?" I referred him to the Duke of Wellington's memorandum. It is still the classical statement of what martial law amounts to. It means that the legislative power, the judicial power, and the executive power are vested in the commander-in-chief for the period during which martial law is applied.
If you had done that, and if the commander-in-chief, Northern Ireland, had issued an order that arms were to be surrendered by a certain date; that anybody found with illegal arms after that date would be tried by a court-martial, by a drumhead court-martial with a major as president; sentenced; the sentence would be confirmed, and execution would take place within 48 hours, how long would it have taken to disarm Northern Ireland? I do not think very long.
Again—and this is a suggestion I made—the taking of hostages in face of guerrilla activity is recognised by the laws of war and our own military manual as necessary and justified. We had at that time some 300-odd hostages whom we were holding under detention, and who were members of the IRA. I suggested at that time to put their names in a hat and say, "This will be the order in which these men are taken and shot, one for each bomb that goes off'', so that the people who lay out bombs will know at least one of the people they are going to kill.
If we had had the guts to do that, remember the excitement that would build up. The list published and known, and as he came down the list the agitation by the priest and the family, "For God's sake don't kill old Joe"; and how long would they have had the nerve to go on doing it? I very much doubt whether it would have been necessary to shoot half a dozen. Almost certainly not a dozen. Since then over 2,600 people have died horribly by murder, because one did not have the guts to do what was necessary early enough.
It is that kind of weakness for which thousands die. We are facing terrorism in its newest form at this moment. If we go on being soft with it—and this Act is hopelessly soft compared to what we are up against—there are an awful lot of people who are going to join that 2,600 who have already died and been mutilated because of our weakness.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he would agree that the Germans tried exactly that, and would he agree that they were not very successful in the end?
Lord Paget of Northampton: No, my Lords; I would agree that they were exceedingly successful. Where the German Army were in charge, which was primarily France, the German Army were able to go into bars, and they were able to use public transport for over four years until it was clear that the Germans were beginning to be beaten. The German occupation of
504
France was safe, and there was no terrorism or violence in France. As long as you are on the winning end it works. Of course, once you begin to be defeated, then people rouse themselves up.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the review conducted by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, was published only six weeks ago. We have had less than one week's full notice of the debate on that review, and I feel that we have been rushing into it somewhat. I express the hope that the usual channels on all sides of the House will take notice of this. One of the amazing and encouraging things about your Lordships' House is that there seems to be almost always someone or other who knows precisely where the shoe pinches. It is for that reason that I was particularly glad to hear what the noble Earl, Lord Longford, had to say earlier. I would invite the noble Lord, Lord Blease, if he is willing, to tell us when he speaks of some of the problems which have occured of perfectly innocent trade unionists crossing the Irish Channel in both directions and being detained and arrested simply because they happen to have an Irish name or an Irish accent.
I am one of those who, over the years, has been concerned about this Act because of its implications, not only for civil rights, as has been mentioned on many sides, but also for its impact on community relations. I agree that the review provides some considerable improvements. I should particularly like to welcome paragraphs 9, 21, 25, 29, 30, 36, 43, 50, 56 and 57 of the conclusions and summary. We have, however, to remember that the great majority of suspects who are likely to be detained in the future are likely to be innocent people. I say this in spite of the points rightly made by the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Shackleton.
This is what makes me draw attention to conclusion No. 16, and here I follow the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I hope that the welfare of arrested persons will be rapidly improved where it is now inadequate. As regards recommendation No. 19, I should like to ask that persons arrested in Britain should be informed of their rights, as will be done in Northern Ireland. This is already covered by the Judges' Rules in Britain, and by the recent Home Office draft code on the treatment of persons in police custody. I have only just managed to obtain a copy of the code, but I trust it will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom and that it is designed to protect both suspects and police forces. It would be good if the sections on interrogation could form the basis for an eventual European code.
As regards other safeguards, I should like recommendations 10 and 13 to be more positively stated and to read something like, "Except where circumstances make it impossible, applications should" and so on. We should note what is said in conclusion 52 about the relative ineffectiveness of proscribing organisations in view of the existence of legal wings and parallel bodies. I hope it will be possible to abolish entirely exclusion orders before a further five years have passed. Meanwhile, would Her Majesty's Government please consider that a person served with an order should be enabled to make his representations to a judge in chambers, instead of to an

505
adviser? If that happened, the judge could then, in complete privacy, weigh the grounds for suspicion against whatever the suspect might have to say on his own behalf. I believe that would be a more obviously fair way which would not impose a great burden on the judiciary, because relatively few orders are made.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord that the proposition he is advocating was considered very carefully. The danger of it is that it would imply some form of judicial process, whereas by definition it cannot be a judicial process. Therefore I strongly support the use of the appeal to the adviser rather than to a judge in chambers, who would find it very difficult, as it would not be possible to confront the individual with the evidence on which he was being excluded.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I bow to the superior knowledge and experience of the noble Lord, but I should still like to obtain a judicial flavour in the matter.
I am concerned very much with the overlap of the Act we are considering today with the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. In Northern Ireland, a suspect may be arrested under either Act and then treated somewhat differently. Surely there is scope for harmonisation of the two. Last summer the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, wrote to me saying he expected the Government to announce a review of the Northern Ireland Act early last autumn. Can the Government today cast any light on when such an announcement will be made and who will conduct the review?
The terms of reference for this second review will be of great importance, and I ask first, that they should include, the question whether any sections of the Northern Ireland Act can be omitted or amended; secondly, that the review should consider, as I am sure it will, all aspects of the operation of the Act; and thirdly, that the question of harmonising the Northern Ireland Act with the Prevention of Terrorism Act should, in the light of Lord Jellicoe's review, be taken into account. I urge the Government to pay most serious attention to the representations that have been made on both Acts by the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights in Northern Ireland.
5.4 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, first I wish to echo the tributes paid by my noble friend Lord Boston to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and to my noble friend Lord Shackleton for their thorough and masterly reports in a very difficult and sensitive area of issues of a high political nature. A considerable amount has already been said in the debate about general attitudes to the prevention and suppression of terrorism, and I shall try to avoid repetition. However, I feel it important for me to restate the fact that this emergency legislation has been in force for nine years and that in that time the levels of violence and the effects of outrageous damage to life and property have continued to appal peaceful and law-abiding people. At the same time, I firmly believe it is right that emergency measures, like any legislation, should be open to critical scrutiny and public discussion. While, it is not sufficient to rehearse
506
stale arguments based on a lack of sensitivity to human values or because of a blind reliance on the fair and impartial administration of law and order measures, it cannot be claimed that this legislation is perfect. Nor can we be satisfied from the evidence provided that there is not administrative inertia which has allowed delays, default and abuse when legitimate and individual rights have been infringed.
When this order and the Jellicoe Report were debated in another place on Monday last, Mr. Roy Hattersley drew special attention to paragraph 10 of the report, which states:
"The most important assistance which the police can have in the fight against terrorism is not special powers but the support of the public. It is vital that such powers do not unnecessarily alienate—either in their essence or in their application—any section of the law-abiding population."
I agree with Mr. Hattersley when he commented:
"There is much evidence to suggest that the alienation has already happened. Law-abiding Irish visitors feel threatened and harassed at the ports, and the Irish community in Britain feels that it is under constant suspicion. Propaganda victories are handed to the most disreputable elements in Irish politics.".
I am in total agreement with Mr. Hattersley when he went on:
"We can beat the gunman and the bomber only by scrupulous and clearly visible support for the rule of law which the terrorist defies and despises. We cannot beat them by sometimes descending to their own contempt for our normal judicial procedures".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/83; Col. 574.).
However, I consider it important that I should at the same time indicate my equally strong support for the views further expressed in paragraph 10 of the report:
"There is a fundamental liberty about life in Britain which is not easily found elsewhere. Accordingly, if Parliament sees fit to grant the Executive and the Police special powers, in special circumstances, then they should be required to exercise those powers as selectively, humanely and openly as is consistent with the demands of security".
In my opinion, that passage contains the numb of the debate about effective terrorist legislation. For those reasons, I welcome the Jellicoe Report. It provides Parliament with a fresh opportunity to bring forward new, agreed and effective measures to deal with the prevention of terrorism.
I turn to some relevant matters arising out of the report and the debate in another place on 7th March, and I wish to apologise to the Minister for raising some points and asking some questions about which I have not been in a position to give him notice. Perhaps those he is unable to answer when he replies to the debate—and I shall understand his not being able to do so—he will inform me of at a later date. In that debate in another place, in reply to an honourable Member, the Minister of State, Mr. David Waddington, said:
"The hon. Gentleman said that if we have an Act that will lapse after five years that will be the beginning of permanent legislation. That is an Irishism all right. Every five years hon. Members will have the opportunity to examine the legislation in detail and to decide which parts of it, if any, they want to retain. The hon. Gentleman said that the Act should be allowed to lapse so that the Government should be obliged to bring in another Bill. This is precisely what we are doing".—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/83; col. 641.]
Even after considering that statement in detail, I feel that it requires further explanation. Perhaps I may explain how I see the position, and the Minister for his part may clarify the points. I understand that what is proposed is as follows. First, the Government will introduce a new Act based on the decisions arising

507
from the Jellicoe Report. Secondly, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976 will lapse. Thirdly, Parliament will review the new Act each year during its five-years stipulated life, Fourthly, it is possible that during each annual review of the new Act sections of it may be deleted or amended. Fifthly, at the end of the five-year period of the proposed Act, it may be found not necessary to reintroduce whatever may remain of the measures.
I have gone into a little detail because I believe that it is important for us to realise that we are entering into a new situation in dealing with measures for the prevention and suppression of terrorism—a new situation that is born out of two reports and nine years of exercising and administering different measures.
It has already been mentioned that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights made recommendations to the inquiry of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I understand that the Eighth Report of the Standing Advisory Commission has been issued today and is now available in the Printed Paper Office. I know that in its report the Standing Advisory Commission goes to some lengths in dealing with the approaches connected with making legislative changes. It also makes strong recommendations for a monitoring body.
I want to make a number of points, and I want to do so as succinctly as I can. I do not propose to argue them. I think that the relevance of the issues will be understood without my going into a lot of detail. In dealing with the question of exclusion orders, while replying to matters raised during debate in another place, Mr. Waddington said, as reported at column 637 of the Official Report:
"The right hon. Member for Down, South, said that he welcomed the shorter period than 20 years, which would prevent the use of the power of exclusion. That recommendation will be examined. Again, on the question of exclusion the right hon. Gentleman said that he welcomed the recommendation in the report that the police on both sides, that is, on the excluding and on the receiving end, would be consulted and advice taken"—
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the noble Lord quoting at length a Member of the other place who is not a Minister?—because I think that that would not be in order.
Lord Blease: I am sorry, my Lords, if I did not make clear that I was quoting Mr. Waddington, as reported at column 637 of the Official Report, No. 73, Volume 38.
Lord Elton: That is perfectly in order, my Lords; I am so sorry.
Lord Blease: I am concerned here with what is a point of great contention and controversy in Northern Ireland. I shall attempt to restate the reply that was given in the other place:
"Again, on the question of exclusion, the right hon. Gentleman said that he welcomed the recommendation in the report that the police on both sides, that is, on the excluding and on the receiving end, would be consulted and advice taken from them before an exclusion order was made".
I have already said that we are concerned here with a very contentious and controversial issue, and I want to
508
ask the Minister whether he will give an unequivocal guarantee that the Chief Constable of the RUC is fully consulted before an exclusion order directly related to Northern Ireland is made. That point did not emerge from the particular question that arose in the other place.
A further point arises from the new three-year rule regarding exclusions proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe. I appreciate that the Minister made some reference to this point in his opening speech, but will he give an undertaking sympathetically to examine the equity position of persons now excluded, who would not be excluded under the proposed new three-year rule? In other words, they are persons who are now excluded under a perpetual, or a 20-year, rule. If a three-year rule is introduced, will they have an opportunity to be examined? I think that there would be a serious breach of human rights if that position were not clearly understood.
Earlier I said that I shall make my points without arguing them, and I hope that this will be acceptable, but if the Minister wants a further explanation I shall be pleased to elucidate, should anything not be clear. In paragraph 87 of the report the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, stated that he had received evidence of verbal abuse of suspects by RUC interviewing officers. May I ask the Minister what steps have been taken to remedy that?
The noble Lord has already referred to differences between the prevention of Terrorism Act and the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Section 1 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act provides that in Great Britain membership of a proscribed organisation carries a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. Under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, the maximum penalty is 10 years, and perhaps the reasons for the discrepancy can be made clear.
Her Majesty's Government have given notice of derogation under the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the powers conferred by the Emergency Provisions Act. They have not done so in respect of the more extensive powers of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Here I should like to support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and mention that in July of last year we were promised an inquiry into the operation of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Can the noble Lord the Minister indicate when such an inquiry is likely to be announced, or can he state what stage we have reached in preparing for it?
Paragraph 142 of the report of the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, recommends that an examining officer should lose the right to examine and detain a passenger after 12 hours, unless by that time he has formed reasonable suspicion that the person is guilty of an offence under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, or is involved in terrorism, or is subject to an exclusion order. That seems to be an excessively long period. Section 14 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act provides that Her Majesty's Forces may detain suspects for up to only four hours. A 12-hour period may be justified if the suspect is not a United Kingdom resident and inquiries have to be made with police forces abroad. But in the case of Northern Ireland residents, surely their identity can be more readily

509
verified, through well-established links with the RUC, within the four-hour period operating under the Emergency Provisions Act in Northern Ireland. Modern information technology ought to be able to provide a more speedy response to inquiries about any suspect.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to persons arrested and detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act who subsequently had lost their employment. Some such persons looking for appointments had failed to gain employment. I understand that the representative of the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions made strong representations to the review carried out by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, regarding this particular problem. Considerable suffering and hardship have arisen from this particular situation. I know that the position is not simply black and white. There are persons who go out deliberately in order to provoke situations and to bring about some publicity. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would undertake to examine this particular matter.
Also, Paragraph 142 of the Jellicoe Report recommends that a person who is examined at a port for longer than one hour should be given notice of his rights. In the paragraph explaining the rights, it goes on to say, "and so on". But "and so on" does not mean anything in terms of words. I think it might be more helpful if there were a clear definition of the list of rights that a person has to receive in this respect. In Paragraph 180, Earl Jellicoe recognises the strength of feeling in Northern Ireland that the province is being used as a "dumping ground". He also recognises the growing links with international terrorism; but there is no reference in the report to having looked at the controls at Aldergrove or on the Northern Ireland border which might demonstrate an equal concern about keeping terrorists out of Northern Ireland as well as out of Great Britain. I would ask this. Will improvements in port controls in Great Britain extend to the entry points into Northern Ireland?
As has already been indicated in a speech which I would not like to follow at length, it appears that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, perceived a growing threat from international terrorism. We know also that the United Kingdom is a signatory to the European Convention on the Supression of Terrorism (Cmnd.7390) of November 1978. What surpised me was the absence of any reference in the report to the legislation and the administrative measures taken and exercised by other national governments for the prevention of terrorism. Surely, it would have been useful—if not necessary—for an examination of these aspects of international terrorism to have been undertaken.
Finally, I should wish to press the Minister for an earnest consideration of inclusion in the new proposed measures of an effective monitoring arrangement. Some suggestions have already been made, but I would put forward my own view that the appointment of a parliamentary Select Committee or a Standing Commission under a person of high legal standing may be a suitable and appropriate way to carry out effective monitoring. I say this for the simple reason that it would be best if the monitoring arrangements were put in and were subject to report at the annual review period, rather than waiting until the end of a
510
five-year period and then having another long review and the bringing forward of measures. It would be an ongoing situation. I understand that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights has strongly proposed in its evidence to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, the need for an effective monitoring body. Having said that, I support the renewal order and look forward to the early introduction of a new Act.
5.23 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, it is reasonably clear that the Labour Party is seriously divided on this important issue. In another place a week ago, it was announced as Labour Party policy that the order renewing this Act should be opposed. My honourable and right honourable friends there divided the House and there was unanimous support for the Opposition, although, of course, with very noticeable absentions. In this House today we have had strong speeches in support of the order from my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham on the Front Bench, from my noble friend Lord Shackleton below the Gangway and from other noble Lords. I do not see any harm in such a difference of opinion. This Act is an extremely controversial—indeed contentious—Act.
It has always struck me as remarkable that large bodies of intelligent people—and I mean the Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Liberals and the SDP—should find agreement on so many of the extremely diverse subjects that come before Parliament at one time or another. When a matter such as this one arises, I think it is only to be expected that a party that prides itself on its attention to individual matters, to the rights and wrongs of individual cases, should find itself unable to agree. Therefore, although there have been one or two somewhat equivocal voices on this side in opposition to the order, I welcomed the clarion call of my noble friend Lord Longford for opposition to the continuance of this Act.
I have several things in common with the noble Earl. Like him, I am an Irish citizen; I share the wish that he expressed for the eventual reunification of Ireland; and, like him, I oppose as strongly as I can the use of violence in any form on either side in connection with the achievement or non-achievement of that end. I share his conviction that the renewal of this Act by this order should be opposed.
My Lords, it surprised me that my party finally came out in favour of the ending of this legislation without its replacement by any other legislation. But, when I examined the Act again—as I do every year—in more detail, I decided that much of it was so repugnant and none of it indispensable that the days of its usefulness (if they had ever existed) were over. There are two main provisions of importance. They are the power of detention for up to seven days, if necessary, without charge, and the question of exclusion orders. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, referred to the very interesting statistics which are published in the table at the end of Lord Jellicoe's report. If I may say so in parenthesis, I read the report with great interest and admiration.
I must point out that the figures quoted by the noble Lord on the Liberal Front Bench, although he extracted them from the report of the debate in another place, are not accurate, in that although there have

511
been 5,555 detainees under the Act, the figure that he gave of some 650 who had been charged with an offence is greater than the true figure. That figure includes 261 in respect of whom exclusion orders were granted, and those were not charged with an offence. The number charged is only 384, which is 7 per cent. of the total; and, of those, only 303 were found guilty of an offence and only 171 received custodial sentences—that is, 171 out of 5,555, which is just over 3 per cent. It should also be noted that 20 of those were for offences in no way connected with terrorism. They were for burglary, theft and so on. They were just chance minnows that fell into the net. So we have a situation where no more than 2¾ per cent. of those detained were imprisoned for offences in any way connected with terrorism.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, seemed to think that these figures did not demonstrate in any way that the Act was undesirable. He said that there would be some 5,000 detainees who would have given valuable information to the police. That is probably true. The police probably did gain a good deal of information in this way. But is this what the Act is all about? Is this why the right to detain was given? The police are allowed to detain a person only if they reasonably suspect that that person is guilty of an offence connected with terrorism. Here we have a situation where over 5,000 people have been reasonably suspected by the police of being implicated in terrorism and only 151 of those have been found guilty of terrorist offences and sentenced to imprisonment.
This great operation has been carried out by the police, arresting over 5,000 people supposedly on reasonable suspicion that they are terrorists, and 2·7 per cent., of them were so guilty—virtually, none of them. I suggest that this proves that either the police are totally incompetent—which I do not believe to be the case—or that they are unreasonably suspicious or else—which is a much more likely suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder—that they are interested in arresting people without having any reason to think that they are guilty of terrorist offences but because they think that they may be able to provide them with valuable information. That is not the purpose for which this Act became law, and it is not the reason for the police to act in order to obtain information.
Lord Shackleton: My Lords, the noble Lord will, of course, concede that the very great majority of those who were so-called detained were detained for a relatively short time, and that the ratio of charges to those detained for more than 48 hours was very much higher.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, of course I agree that the majority were detained for fewer than 48 hours; but I do not see the significance of that remark because you start to interrogate somebody and if after 36 or 48 hours you feel that you are getting somewhere, then you apply for the period of detention to be extended because the person is a suspicious character. So it is among those who are interrogated for more than 48 hours that you would expect to get a higher ratio of men charged.
512
I turn now to the exclusion orders. Again, some very interesting figures are given in the tables at the end of the Jellicoe Report. We find that 337 applications for exclusion orders have been made to the Secretary of State, and the Home Secretary refused 45 of those. In every case where the Home Secretary did not oppose the application, exclusion orders were made but 11 of these were revoked before the exclusion took place. That gives a total of 281. Some 13 of these were outside the United Kingdom at that time. So 268 men and women were actually excluded, of whom—to complete the break-down—231 were removed to Northern Ireland and 37 to the Republic of Ireland. Of those 268, incidentally, 40 were subsequently revoked, leaving a total of 228. What I want to say about the 231 men who were excluded to Northern Ireland is that these were United Kingdom citizens subjected to internal banishment. That is what it is: internal banishment. They are being told, "You cannot live in this part of the United Kingdom; you have to live in that part of the United Kingdom". How on earth would we feel if the same thing were said about Yorkshire? Suppose there was some trouble in Yorkshire and Yorkshiremen were told in London, "You cannot live in Middlesex; you have to go to Yorkshire". Yet we are told that Northern Ireland is as much a part of the United Kingdom as a British county.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way for one moment? Surely this is an exact example of what we should expect. If there was a group of people in Yorkshire who were openly threatening to bomb us in London, we would expect the police to take steps to see that they did not, and we would resent it if the police failed to do so.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. If this was taking place in an English county, if it was not across that convenient little bit of sea, if there was a move from a British county or an area in Britain to cause terrorism, to cause death and destruction in London, the ordinary civil procedures would be used. The people would be traced by the police, arrested and charged under the law. This is internal banishment, telling people that they cannot stay in England, where they may have lived for 18 years. If they have lived in England for 20 years they are okay; but if they have lived in England for 10, 15 or 18 years they are told, "You cannot live in England any more, you must move to Northern Ireland". I object to that whole provision in the exclusion orders most strongly because there is no trial; very often there is not access to a solicitor. People are told that they have to leave the place of their abode and go and live somewhere else. There is something that is totally odious by any of the normal principles of British democracy and British law.
The final point that I want to make is that we often hear—we hear again and again—the slander that there are known terrorists walking about in the Republic of Ireland who are known to the Gardai but who are not arrested, and that no action is taken. I hope that we shall hear less of that, because it is nonsense. The Gardai and the Irish army have worked with enormous skill and courage to combat the terrorism that threatens the Republic from the North. The fact

513
of the matter is that the proof is that there are these 231 persons against whom exclusion orders have been made and who are therefore reasonably suspected of having been concerned in terrorism. They have been sent across and the authorities in the North have known that they were reasonably suspected of terrorism. However, although the laws in Northern Ireland are very much more draconian than they are in the Republic and it is much easier to pick up a known terrorist in the North than it is in the Republic, they are walking about and nobody picks them up, nobody charges them, nobody imprisons them. I therefore draw attention to this fact: if there is any suggestion from anyone that the Republic is not taking the action that it should be taking, then let them look to the 200-plus known terrorists excluded under this Act, not to mention the many others in the same position. We are not, apparently, going to divide the House tonight, but if we were I should express myself, "Not-Content".
5.40 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, I apologise for speaking when my name is not down in regard to this Motion. My colleague was down to speak but is not able to do so and I want there to be no doubt as to where I myself and my colleagues of the SDP stand on this issue. I find myself in acute difficulty even to understand the approach of my old colleague and friend who has just spoken and indeed the approach of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who spoke earlier. But let me say at once that I do not believe either of them are in favour of terrorism; there has never been any question that we have suspected their motives. 1 just think they are wildly, furiously and hopelessly wrong—and dangerously wrong, too.
Nobody who has been concerned in the direct rule or concerned in government in one way or another in Northern Ireland is going to vote against this. Nobody has yet, or has shown the slightest sign of it; and when we were in that awkward position we were constantly being blamed by the "shoot-the-lot" school so well exemplified by the noble Lord, Lord Paget, earlier, for not doing a bit more decimation of the enemy and that sort of thing. We were constantly being opposed by the other side, who objected to every effort we made to tighten up the screws of law and order. I will say no more than this: on the figures quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, at least 151 likely bomb-throwers have been kept out of this country and, so far as I am concerned, this justifies every single thing that has been done.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have listened with the greatest interest and attention to the views your Lordships have expressed. Of course, in deciding whether this Act should be renewed, the Home Secretary of the day and Parliament must seek to strike a balance. My right honourable friend has freely acknowledged in another place that the Act makes regrettable inroads into our civil liberties. We cannot afford to lose sight of this and I do not cavil at anything the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, mentioned in that context. I also accept that consensus is a very desirable foundation for legislation of this sort; that is indeed what we are most urgently seeking.
514
He may think us slow and insensitive in this. The consideration which it was undertaken to give to the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that the law should be made anew, has perhaps gone on for longer than he may think he would have managed with—though it did not in fact take us four years to act because my noble friend's report was commissioned early in 1982. But this passage of time has, I think, sharpened his appetite for what my noble friend has placed upon the legislative menu, and I take careful note of his comments upon it. One of these was that the new Act sould be renewable piecemeal, and I will certainly undertake that we will consider that proposal with care when we come to draft the legislation.
I hope that your Lordships will bear with me for a moment, because replying to a debate of this nature is rather like doing a jigsaw puzzle where the pieces become separated from the main plot; in fact, they sometimes entirely disappear. If I may now turn to the contributions of noble Lords and the noble Baroness, I should like to begin by welcoming the robust support given by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, to the renewal of the order and his very clear exposition of the benefits which flow from it. I also welcome the restrained and balanced way in which he dealt with the anxieties of himself and his party touching the liberties of the individual. I was particularly interested in his comments on the considerations that we should have in mind when looking at arrangements to enable detained subjects to receive professional advice and support. He expressed some reservation, as did the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, about the report's recommendation that the arrest powers should not be extended to non-lrish domestic terrorism. The Government have not reached a final conclusion on that point and will take careful account of the views of both noble Lords. But perhaps I should point out that the noble Earl was concerned that these far-reaching powers should be available to the police only when there was a real and clearly-established need. If non-Irish domestic terrorism were to become a serious problem, it would be open to the Government of the day to ask Parliament for fresh powers.
The contribution of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, highlighted the striking difference in tone between what the noble Lord, Lord Boston, said in this House and what his colleagues did in another place. I had thought that this bore out the rule that mature reflection always tends to add judgment to hasty attitudes, though I found myself shaken in this view when listening to the noble Earl, Lord Longford. I did indeed find it very odd that the noble Earl, who found an ally in the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, should infer that there could be any question that my noble friend Lord Jellicoe's conclusions were based on,
"personal hunch supported by the views of the police".
If the whole report itself does not give the lie to that, which I think it does, the list of witnesses at the end does, and I note the ironic conclusion therein of the Federation of Irish Societies, for which I thought I heard the noble Earl say he was speaking in this debate, although of course I may have misheard him—in which case it must have been the second thing that I misheard from the noble Earl since it would have been, as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said, quite out of order to speak on their behalf—
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I interrupt? For once I cannot get the noble Lord's point. He speaks of the society with whose goodwill I spoke to the House earlier and which I mentioned as those who had given written evidence. They were not asked to give oral evidence, so I do not think that would commit them to anything in the report.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I did not think they were committed to anything in the report. I thought that the noble Earl had spoken not with their benevolence but on their behalf. Plainly I misheard him at the beginning of his speech. As I implied when I intervened in his speech, I will always look into a case where the details are provided to me, and I hope that he will do so in this case.
The noble Earl asked me whether the case that he described was typical of police behaviour. I can assure the House that the police do not seek to make arrests at inconvenient times without good reason. When they are seeking the arrest of suspected terrorists, it is understandable that their primary concern is to carry out their duty safely and surely. That may sometimes lead to arrests being made in the early hours of the morning when both the honest and the dishonest may be presumed to be asleep.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, was well worth the attention which I promised and indeed which I gave to it. It is reassuring to hear such accord between the authors of two such very professionally-constructed reports as his own and that of my noble friend. The area where he was most in doubt is that which concerned the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, as well; namely, the extension of powers to cover international terrorism. The noble Lord asked in particular whether it was the intention to extend the use of Section 12 to apply to terrorism other than that with an Irish connection. I can give him the assurance that we will not do so under existing legislation. If it were to be more widely used it would only be under new legislation.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough took us to Paris to remind us that all terrorism is able to connect with an international network, which bears on my noble friend's recommendation that the powers of the new Act should extend to control of international as well as to specifically Irish terrorism. He also spoke, with a wistfulness which I share, of the advantages which an agreement on extradition could bring in dealing with terrorists who seek refuge in the Republic. Successive Irish Governments have never been left in any doubt as to the importance we attach to the problem of fugitive offenders. We believe that a workable extradition arrangement offers the best way of ensuring that terrorists are brought to justice. We will continue to make our concern abundantly clear, and we have been very encouraged by the success achieved by the Irish authorities in extra-territorial prosecutions of people accused of terrorist offences in Northern Ireland and in London; but we do not consider it to be a satisfactory alternative. The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, was particularly interested in funerals, but as I see he is not in his place I will deal with that matter by correspondence.
The noble Lord, Lord Paget, made a number of far-reaching points, which time forbids me from pursuing
516
in detail. On the recent case concerning the shooting of Mr. Argov, I am afraid that I cannot confirm or deny the truth of the allegations made by the noble Lord, but I undertake to draw his remarks to the attention of my right honourable friend. I see that he is not here, either. Therefore, I shall not deal at length with his remarkable interpolation. I would merely echo what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, said, and, had the noble Lord, Lord Paget, seen fit to give way to me when I sought to intervene, I would have put before him the example not of France, but of Norway, where exactly similar methods were used with totally ineffective consequences. I would not endorse anything that he said.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, were softer spoken in their approach. Their first and shared concern was for the welfare of detainees. That is a concern which we share, as is indeed evident also from the report of my noble friend. The first question to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, then addressed himself was that of when we would review the Emergency Provisions Act. This concerned also the noble Lord, Lord Blease. We did not feel that this review ought to overlap with the review of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, which we have been discussing today.
Since the publication of the report last month, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has been finalising arrangements for the review of the Emergency Provisions Act and hopes to make an announcement very shortly. I have noted his views about the terms of reference that ought then to be taken on board. He referred also to the report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. We hope that the views of the commission will be made known to those—or he—who review the Emergency Provisions Act, and I have no doubt that they will be carefully considered on that occasion.
The noble Lord also wished to know whether the Government consider appeals against exclusion orders to a judge in chambers who would see evidence in private. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, intervened at that point. The Government, I should say, welcome constructive proposals on these matters and will take full account of the views of both noble Lords expressed in the House today.
But I draw attention to the report's conclusion in paragraph 191, that,
"Exclusion is a matter of public policy. It is based not merely on the conduct of the excluded person, but also—once his terrorist involvement is established—on matters such as the security situation at the time exclusion is considered and the danger the person poses to the public at large".
These matters fall properly to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, who is accountable to Parliament for the way in which he discharges these onerous responsibilities, and that is something which we must consider when we look at what the noble Lord suggests.
His third question was on whether the force orders, judges' rules, and draft codes, which are referred to in the report, are public documents. Force orders are, in fact, operational documents and are not made publicly available, but copies of the judges' rules and draft codes are in the Library of the House for him to refer to. I should say that the noble Lord is a very kindly

517
man. In spite of his feeling, to which he gave voice this afternoon, that we had given him too little notice of the debate in this House, he was kind enough to give me notice of his questions and that may have quite a lot to do with the fact that I have been able to answer them. If more of your Lordships were to do as much, I dare say that my speeches would be a good deal longer and my letters a good deal shorter.
The noble Lord, Lord Blease, did not follow that admirable example and I fear that I must reply to him principally by post. But I can confirm his lucid exposition of the Government's position on new legislation in all respects except one, and that I have already given the lie to. We are only considering whether the new legislation should be renewable piecemeal as opposed to in toto. On exclusion orders from Great Britain, I can confirm that the recommendation that the RUC should be consulted has already been implemented and is being observed. The position of persons already subject to exclusion orders will be carefully considered in the course of preparing legislation. On the monitoring of the Act, I would refer the noble Lord to paragraph 17 of my noble friend's report. On a number of other points I will write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, made much of the small percentage of detainees who are subsequently charged. I think he said that the figure is 2·7 per cent. It matters not how small it was. It was a very small percentage—
Lord Kilbracken: It was 7 per cent.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if it was 7 per cent., a fortiori what follows? The noble Lord is, I think, connected with farming, He may be familiar with the disease of ergot in wheat. This has the effect of giving a poisonous character to a few grains in a crop. I do not believe the noble Lord would think that the millers were failing in their duty if they sifted the whole of the crop before baking his bread, if only 2·7, 7 or, indeed, 0·2 per cent. of the grain proved to be infected, because the result of that is to protect his life, and that is the purpose of the legislation which is before us.
I have listened carefully to the matters which have been raised and I hope that I have referred to most of them. In conclusion, may I repeat one point? Of course, this Act causes inconvenience and perhaps even an occasional sense of injustice to innocent members of the public. I regret that as much as any other Member of this House, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is always ready to look into any case which appears to have caused hardship. But it is perfectly clear that the terrorist groups in Northern Ireland are still as dedicated as ever to violence and to murder.
I believe that the public are entitled to look to us to do all that we can to protect them from acts of terrorism. This Act has helped the police significantly in their fight against terrorism. They deserve our help and I am persuaded that they need the practical support which the powers in this Act give them. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe's review has given us many constructive proposals to consider, and we shall be looking at this very carefully in the light of the views expressed today in this House and in another place last week. But, while the threat from terrorism remains at
518
the current level, I believe it would be folly to allow the Act to lapse and I ask your Lordships' House to agree to its renewal for another year.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): The Question is, That this Motion be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say, Content?
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, Not-Content?
Noble Lords: Not-Content.
The Deputy Speaker: I think that we have constitutional difficulties about dividing the House on this Motion on this order. I will put the Motion again. As many as are of that opinion will say, Content?
Noble Lords: Content.
The Deputy Speaker: To the contrary, Not-Content?
Noble Lords: Not-Content.
Lord Kilbracken: I think the Contents have it.
The Deputy Speaker: I need a little advice on this.
Lord Elton: I think the Contents have it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1983
5.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, which was laid before this House on 16th February, be approved. This order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Its purpose is to appropriate the 1982–83 Spring Supplementary Estimates and the 1983–84 Vote on Account of Northern Ireland departments.
Part I of the schedule to the draft order describes the supplementary provisions sought. These amount in total to some £62 million and bring the total voted provision for expenditure by Northern Ireland departments for this financial year to £2,581 million. Part II of the schedule gives details of the services for which the Vote on Account of £1,139 million for 1983–84 is required to enable services to continue until the 1983–84 Main Estimates are debated and approved, and that, as your Lordships will know, is usually in July. It is based on a standard calculation of 45 per cent. of the total provision for the current year.
The major items in the Supplementary Estimates are for payments to Northern Ireland farmers under the European Council's Calf Premium Scheme, for restructuring the package of financial assistance to Lear Fan, for payments resulting from the decision to abolish the four-month delay on capital investment grants and for expenditure in connection with the

519
proposed supply of natural gas from the Kinsale field. Additional provision is also sought for the roads, housing, education and health programmes. More detailed information on the Spring Supplementary Estimates can, of course, be found in the Estimates Volume itself, copies of which have been placed in the Printed Paper Office, along with the copies of the 1983–84 Statement of Sums required on Account.
I have no doubt that the Northern Ireland economy and unemployment will figure largely in the debate. I understand that it is also to be subjected to major television treatment by the "Panorama" team this evening, although of course I have not seen that film. I should like to set some of these issues in perspective by reminding your Lordships of the very basic issues in repect of the broad economic environment in which we have to consider the Northern Ireland economy. It is of course our firm conviction that the future economic prosperity and well-being of the United Kingdom as a whole and of Northern Ireland in particular depends on the creation of conditions which permit sustained rather than temporary economic growth, as only sustained economic growth can in turn provide stable employment. As I have said before often enough—and I make no apology for repeating it this afternoon—we must continue to control the erosion of the currency and of investment through inflation. This is a critical plank in the Government's overall economic strategy.
Equally critical to that plank is control of public spending, and particularly Government borrowing. Increased spending and borrowing results in increased interest rates and increased taxation, and both are deleterious to jobs and growth. Therefore, if we want to do more in any particular area or service in the United Kingdom, this inevitably means doing rather less in another sector. We must keep the books balanced, and we do this by setting targets and by ordering and debating our priorities within those targets.
The way we operate within Northern Ireland is exactly the same. When I spoke to your Lordships in December recommending approval of the Autumn Supplementary Estimates, I referred to the announcement by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that public expenditure in Northern Ireland in 1983–84 would be of the order of £3,800 million. This represents an increase of some £30 million over the previous plans for the province at a time when for the first time in some years the total public expenditure plans for the United Kingdom as a whole are being maintained at a lower level than the planning total previously set. So this allocation to Northern Ireland represents the Government's recognition—indeed, the Government's continuing recognition—of the special needs and circumstances of the province at a time when world economic conditions are difficult and at a time when the national economic situation is being strictly directed and controlled in this respect of public spending.
It is our responsibility, then, to ensure that the funds which are allocated to Northern Ireland are used to the best possible advantage there. This means assessing competing needs and programmes, and in the final analysis it means drawing up a list of priorities. It is in
520
this crucial task that I look to the Assembly, as elected representatives, to play an important part. Producing worthwhile schemes is not at all difficult. What is difficult is trying to accommodate them within a given, fixed total. Difficult choices have to be made. As we all know, they have to be made nationally and it follows that they have to be made locally as well.
Over the past two to three years we have given the highest priority to law and order services in order to secure the protection of life and property; to the promotion of the Northern Ireland economy by encouraging investment; and, within the social and environmental programmes, to housing. We believe that this balance remains the right one. As the world moves out of recession and the national economy improves, then Northern Ireland must be in a position to take best advantage of all opportunities. Our aim is to create and maintain the viable long-term jobs in the private sector which are essential to future prosperity. On the industrial front, the IDB and LEDU are making a vital contribution to stimulating job creation throughout the province. Indeed, the IDB is currently developing its strategy for the future.
Nevertheless, substantial programmes on other services are being maintained. Very substantial sums have been allocated to maintain agriculture, health, education and environmental programmes. Assembly committees have been set up for each of the Northern Ireland departments and they have already made an impressive start in getting to grips with the problems. The Assembly has, in fact, now got down to its task of scrutinising the processes of direct rule, and it is already clear that it has a useful part to play. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has referred a number of proposals for draft orders in council to the Assembly for its comments and the departmental committees have been examining a wide variety of subjects. May I give a quick summary at this point of the activities of these committees to date?
The Agriculture Committee has produced an urgent report on special aid for Northern Ireland agriculture and an interim report on inland fisheries, and it is currently examining the possible extension of less favoured areas. The Economic Development Committee is currently taking evidence and preparing a report on industrial development incentives and will be looking at the issue of consumer protection. The Environment Committee has produced reports on proposals for two draft orders in council dealing with access to the countryside and housing. It is currently examining rent structures and levels, and its future programmes may include an examination of planning law and integrated operations for the Belfast area. The Finance and Personnel Committee has produced reports on the Property (Discharge of Mortgage by Receipt) Draft Order and a discussion paper on the regional rate, and it is also currently examining the issue of additionality of European Community funds. The Education Committee has carried out a major examination of the rationalisation of schools and is preparing a report. The Health and Social Services Committee is examining the proposed reform of housing benefit, changes in the structure and management of health and personal social services and also the education and training of mentally handicapped children.

521
In addition to considering the reports of the departmental committees, the Assembly has held debates on a number of other topics. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has addressed the Assembly in plenary session on security policy. My honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Butler, addressed it about unemployment and the Michelin Company. And my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr. Mitchell, addressed it on housing. I myself welcomed the opportunity to explain the Government's approach to public spending and some of the problems involved in resource allocation. The Assembly has also raised a great many matters of local interest in adjournment debates.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and my ministerial colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office are very glad to receive the Assembly's views and to take them into account in the formation of policy. This was demonstrated in our response to the Assembly's views on the proposals for a draft Rates Amendment Order and a draft General Consumer Council Order. In response to the Assembly's views on the draft Rates Amendment Order, my right honourable friend decided to increase the discount offered to ratepayers who pay their total rate bill promptly from 3½ to 4 per cent. My right honourable friend also decided that he should not proceed to lay the draft General Consumer Council Order before Parliament, given that the Assembly was not satisfied that the new arrangements proposed for consumer protection would be as effective as the present arrangements. He has asked my right honourable friend Mr. Butler to discuss this matter further with the Assembly's Economic Development Committee. This illustrates both the important role which the Assembly has to play and the Government's willingness to listen carefully to its views.
Finally, may I turn briefly to the major items featuring in the draft order. The provision sought in Class I, Vote 2, relates to the European Community Calf Premium Scheme under which Northern Ireland farmers are expected to benefit to the extent of some £2 million in the current financial year. On the industrial development front, a Supplementary Estimate on Class II, Vote 2, is sought mainly for technical reasons to enable financial restructuring relating both to the former Northern Ireland Development Agency and to Lear Fan.
Additional provision is also sought on Class II, Vote 3, mainly to meet the costs of the Government's decision to abolish the four-monthly delay in the payment of capital investment grants. New provisions totalling some £3 million are sought for youth community projects and employer-based schemes which form part of our special programme of employment measures to help young people. Supplementary provision is also required to meet a capital contribution of £5 million toward expenditure incurred by the Republic of Ireland on the construction of a pipeline to carry the gas to the Border, although this will only be required if there is a successful outcome to the negotiations this year.
Moving on now to environmental and social matters, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the supplementary provision of £3·4
522
million sought under Class IV, Vote 1 Roads Services to allow the completion of several new construction schemes, the commencement of a number of priority works and the making good of excessive damage to road surfaces caused by the severe weather during the winter of 1981–82. The Supplementary Estimate on Class V, Vote 1 seeks an increase of almost £9 million for housing services. The major requirements for the increased provision are the housing grant (which meets the difference between the Housing Executive's rental income and approved revenue expenditure) and support for the voluntary housing movement.
The major element of supplementation required on the education services is for the increased costs arising from the 1982 teachers' salaries award, while on the health services the additional provision is sought to meet the increased pay settlement to National Health Service workers, expenditure on maintenance and equipment, grants to voluntary bodies, and the increased costs of the family practitioner services.
I know that your Lordships have particular points which you may wish to raise and I am especially grateful to those noble Lords who gave me advance notice of the topics that they may be bringing up today. I will reply to as many of your Lordships' points as I can at the end of the day—and any which remain unanswered through lack of time will, of course, be replied to in correspondence later. I commend the draft order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
6.12 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I am certain that the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for his comprehensive introduction to this appropriation order and also for the information given in the various documents. It was a very comprehensive introduction and I can choose only a few handy items on which to comment and to seek information.
The noble Earl referred to the Lear Fan project. When we discussed the last appropriation order in December, I raised this question and at that stage the noble Earl considered it rather inopportune to say too much. I noticed a statement in the Guardian on 14th February where doubt was thrown on plans to start production this year. The article stated, and I quote:
"A company forecast that the controversial new Lear executive aircraft would begin production in Belfast this summer is not supported by US aviation officials".
The report continued:
"If the venture were to fail, and it has already come close to the edge of bankruptcy, it would cost British taxpayers a £50 million Government investment".
I am certain noble Lords will appreciate that after the De Lorean failure and the devastating cutbacks by Michelin of their Northern Ireland factories, any failure to start the Lear company's production will have an appalling effect in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the noble Earl can tell the House what the position is and how much public money has already been expended?
Under Class III, there is reference to provision for expenditure to facilitate the restructuring of the gas

523
industry. The spring supplementary estimate booklet for 1982–83 shows an item of £5 million in connection with the introduction of the supply of natural gas. The estimate for 1983–84 for restructuring of the gas industry is a sum of £16 million in total with £10 million required on account. Can the noble Earl say on what the £5 million for 1982–83 was expended? In the last debate, on the previous appropriation order, I raised the question of a possible natural gas line for Kinsale to which the noble Earl made a brief reference this evening. At that stage, the noble Earl said that a final decision had not been taken and that it depended on costs and viability. May we know what the current position is and what the possible financial implications are?
I note from a Written Answer to a Question from Mr. Adam Butler in another place on 14th February that, although the cost of a pipeline from Dublin to Belfast will be around £21 million, the cost of transmission lines and pipelines to customers and for the conversion of appliances will bring the total cost to around £147 million. Has a clear decision been taken? What will be the effect of these costs on the gas industry and on the cost of gas? If this opportunity for natural gas is taken up, will it have a very great effect on the future of the gas industry in Northern Ireland?
Linked to this, I note that in Class II, Vote 3, of the spring supplementary estimate there is provision for £166,000 for a consultancy exercise on the possible exploitation of lignite deposits. Is any information about this available? I noticed that in the booklet.A Strategy for the Future, issued by the Northern Ireland Electricity Service, there is a paragraph on this matter, which emphasises that these lignite deposits are the only significant proven fuel reserves in Northern Ireland. I quote from the booklet:
"Therefore, the service is naturally keen to thoroughly assess and utilise this deposit. In fact, a press notice of 9th February said that this assessment should be expedited".
With 90 per cent. of the generating plant in Northern Ireland being oil-fired, the development of lignite together with the steady conversion of some plants to coal would not only conserve British oil but would also help Britain's coal industry.
Under Class VI, Vote 2, there is provision by the DLE for the enterprise zones in Belfast—which started, I believe, in October 1981—and Londonderry. Can the noble Earl say what will be the net cost, taking into account all the financial assistance to concerns coming into these two zones? How many new jobs are being created? There is an indication that in some enterprise zones in Great Britain some firms are not creating new jobs at all; all that has happened is that new firms have moved in from other areas to get the financial benefits which are available in enterprise zones. Will this aspect be watched, and how will it be avoided? Is there any indication of how many new jobs have been created by the enterprise zone already in Belfast?
The noble Earl has given his views and the Government's views on the progress in the Assembly and has given encouraging information about the development of the departmental committees. It is gratifying to know that the Government are taking into account some of the observations of the Assembly committees
524
on some of the orders referred to it. May I ask whether the Assembly will be considering orders which will be subject to affirmative resolutions of each House here? If that will be so, when these affirmative resolutions are brought forward will Parliament be informed of any changes that have been made as a result of consideration by the Assembly?
Unemployment in Northern Ireland has now risen to around 21 per cent. It has been pointed out that nearly 27 per cent. of males are without work. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a programme, "The Trade Union Alternative", which has been prepared by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions. This points out that of the registered unemployed, nearly 20,000 are under the age of 19. This matter may have some relevance to the Unstarred Question which your Lordships will be debating later this evening. Nearly half of the number of unemployed have been without work for a year. The trade union document points out, and I quote:
"Our industrial decline is dramatically illustrated by the fact that there are now 30,000 more people on the dole than at work in manufacturing industry".
Then there is a somewhat frightening sentence from these men and women in the trade union movement of Northern Ireland, who know only too well the situation there:
"It may well be that the industrial base of Northern Ireland has moved to a point beyond which recovery is impossible."
In this connection, although good progress has been made with the development of new housing by the Housing Executive, over 23,000, or 48 per cent., of the construction industry workforce are out of work. This is double the figure that it was in May 1979. The document points out that the housing programme required to deal with the level of unfitness alone has not yet materialised.
Time will not permit me to give details of this alternative programme put forward by the Northern Ireland trade union movement, but a paragraph in its introduction states:
"The core of this programme is an industrial strategy. With the devastation of the manufacturing sector of the economy referred to earlier, there is clearly a need to restructure the entire industrial base".
The programme goes on to urge:
"The Government must tackle both unemployment and poverty by ensuring major public investment in industrial development".
Although the programme to which I have referred is one for Northern Ireland prepared by the Northern Ireland Committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, the proposals are regarded by that committee as being the application of the British TUC's alternative strategy adapted to meet the problems of Northern Ireland. I ask the noble Earl: how far is the programme being considered by the Government? I understand that, at a meeting of the Finance and Personnel Committee of the Assembly on 10th March, evidence was to be given by the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, by the CBI, by the Northern Ireland Economic Council and also the Commission of the European Communities. As there are amounts included in the appropriation for industrial support and regeneration under Class II, it would be very helpful if the noble Earl could comment on the trade

525
union programme and on this very important meeting of the Finance and Personnel Committee of the Assembly, because that may give an indication as to how far the Assembly will be able to deal with economic matters, which may have a considerable bearing on the progress of events in Northern Ireland.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl for his introduction of this order. As we are having a more general debate later on, I will confine myself to asking the Minister four questions of which I have given him notice. First, can he give any more information about Class II, No. 3? He did say something about LEDU earlier on. Can he give more detail of how much is going on account to Harland and Wolff, Shorts and Lear Fan respectively? The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also raised this point. Secondly, with regard to Class II, No. 4, can the noble Earl give some details of the success or otherwise of promoting the tourist industry? The amount allocated to this does not seem very large. Does he think the troubles have a seriously adverse effect? Thirdly, on Class IV, No. 2, is the noble Earl satisfied that enough is being spent on recreation, considering the great need in a society with such high unemployment?
The total Vote mentioned is only just over £8 million, and this includes planning, historic monuments and other environmental services, including enterprise zones, which again the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, touched on. Fourthly, on Class XI, £1,260,000 is allocated on account for the Northern Ireland Assembly. What has been the expenditure to date, because this does not seem to be listed?
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, I should like to start be welcoming this order. I have given my noble friend notice of two questions which I want to raise. I should like to start by welcoming the establishment now of the IDB, the Industrial Development Board. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, talking about De Lorean, I just hoped that we shall not have what could be called the De Lorean factor inhibiting the IDB from taking risks again. The situation in Northern Ireland, with its very high, unacceptably high, unemployment, means that there is no possibility of getting large-scale investment without taking risks and without the Government taking risks. When many years ago we had another failure in Northern Ireland—it was called seenozip—the total amount was only £100,000 or something like that, but I can tell your Lordships from my experience in the Ministry of Commerce that there was a seenozip complex, and for some time those in charge of Government grants were over-cautious in what they were doing. I should like to feel that the hands of the IDB are not being tied by the failure of the past.
I want to raise the question of inward investment into Northern Ireland. We have practically no inward investment coming on at the moment, in contrast to our neighbours south of the Border; their incentives and their inward investment appear to be very successful. I have heard my noble friend's colleagues saying that the great inhibiting factor is the violent image of Northern Ireland. That may be so, that may be the only reason, but Borde Faillte, the Southern Irish
526
Tourist Board, in complaining about its failure to attract tourists, has said that the image of violence envelops the whole of Ireland. If that is so, and if their incentives are bringing in investment, where lies the difference? I believe that there must be some reason for one to succeed and the other to fail.
I have spoken about this and tried to do something for many years. Our incentives in Northern Ireland must really be seen in the context of incentives in other development areas in the United Kingdom. There is absolutely no doubt that the Northern Ireland package is the best package in the whole of the United Kingdom. It is the best compared to the North-East of England or Wales, or somewhere like that. Any industrialist who takes time can see that it is a very good package. The problem is that, in order to catch the industrialist's eye, the goodies have to be in the first five lines of the brochure. The Dublin incentives include a tax incentive; they have had freedom from income tax for exports for many years. There is absolutely no doubt that that has produced an enormous amount of inward investment. But I repeat that, if any industrialist were to cost the whole thing out over five or 10 years, he would find a lot of the advantage of that was rather illusory. However they do not do that. It is the sugar coating on the pill that we really require; we really want a sexy photograph at the beginning of the brochure to attract their attention.
I would ask the Government whether they cannot persuade the Treasury to let us experiment. After all, Northern Ireland is separately costed; it can be totally limited. Let us be allowed to experiment with totally new forms of incentive which are not common to the rest of the United Kingdom, because the problems of our unemployment are so absolutely catastrophic.
While sitting here today I suddenly thought of something of which I have not given the noble Earl notice. I do think that the Government's problems are made so very great because of currency fluctuations. The noble Earl mentioned the importance of maintaining the value of the currency. We used to have in Northern Ireland the greatest concentration of artificial fibres in Europe. We had two extremely efficient factories, one British Enkalon and one Courtaulds. They were exceptionally efficient. The Courtaulds factory was near Derry. They have both been closed. I believe that, had they not been closed, they would, with the reduction in the valuation of the pound, in fact now be the largest profit-making artificial fibre plants in Europe. It must be extremely difficult to make decisions on whether or not to support a factory when, in the course of less than a year, our currency can drop like that and an uneconomic factory become economic.
I turn now to the second subject about which I warned the noble Earl. This concerns the amalgamation of the new university and the Ulster Polytechnic. I was in the Government when the polytechnic was first formed and when the whole Act went through our Parliament. The reason that we formed it was that we felt there was a great need for practical-orientated higher education with a commercial tilt to it. Any question of languages had to be related to what I call trade and industry. In 1965 the Lockwood Report proposed that. I see a great danger, with the amalgamation of the polytechnic with the university, of what

527
could be called an academic drift. I remember what happened, or what almost happened, to our secondary moderns. There was always a try on the part of the secondary moderns to become grammar schools and a failure to realise that the education provided in the secondary moderns was a very important part of our educational process.
I have made inquiries about what has been happening in the polytechnic and there is such a tendency already. I should like to know from the Government, considering the freedom that they give to the various universities to allocate their money, how they will make sure that that allocation maintains the commercially orientated courses at the polytechnic. I am very much afraid that we shall end up by having just one university. That will be to the detriment of Queen's University, which is the oldest established university.
Still on the subject of education, I now turn to the actual technical colleges. I start off by congratulating the Government on getting the youth programme—YTP—off the ground. We are miles ahead of the rest of the United Kingdom and I feel that that should be trumpeted from the hills. The Government deserve great credit for getting on with the job. Our technical colleges throughout the province are excellent and they stand absolutely at the top of their ladder. I am worried that they will be swamped by YTPs.
Perhaps I should explain that. I do not know how many people know this, but when a young person is on a YTP programme he must, one day a week, go to a technical college. He can, if he wishes to accept it, go to the technical college the whole time. There is a great danger that discipline will break down, because whatever one may say—and there are a lot of extremely good YTPs—on the whole they are comprised of people who have failed to get a job for some reason, and many of them put the discipline of those colleges at risk. I already know of one student who has refused to go to a technical college in Bangor because she feels that the discipline is breaking down and that she will not be able to achieve her aim of being a nurse. So I ask the noble Lord whether he can tell me how the Government will maintain the money for the polytechnic for technical commercial courses and how they will control the question of YTPs swamping technical colleges. I welcome this order.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for presenting the appropriation order in his usual and characteristically very clear way. I also thank him for giving us news of the work of the Assembly about which, on account of the rather negative reporting that often happens in the Press here, we have not heard enough. I was extremely glad and grateful to hear about it. I should like to make one or two points about housing and ask the Minister two questions of which I fear I have not given him notice, but knowing the very capacious content of the Minister's mind I am quite sure he carries most answers with him.
I cannot claim to be a constant visitor to the Province but I do go to Belfast often enough to be
528
constantly struck by the level of housing for people there. It is a heartbreaking level. Therefore, when we hear the Government say that they are putting the housing programme for Northern Ireland at the top of their list of priorities and are aiming to spend £400 million on housing we can feel nothing but relief. However, in regard to housing it must be remembered that in Northern Ireland there is a different level from that which exists here. It must also be remembered that right from the point of departure the level of housing in Northern Ireland has been infinitely inferior to that on the mainland. So although I know that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive is an enormously respected body and that there is much admiration for many of the housing developments, nevertheless it is generally accepted that simply to keep pace with the unfitness level of houses in Northern Ireland the Government would need to make another 500 starts this year, and so far as I can see that is extremely unlikely to happen.
When one reflects on another aspect of housing—namely, that, as my noble friend Lord Underhill said, half the total construction workforce in Northern Ireland is out of work—then one begins to despair. There seems to be an unbelievable paradox that, on the one hand, we have the worst housing in the European Community, recognised by the Brussels Commission, and, on the other hand, we have half the labour force sitting around idle and costing the Exchequer a huge amount of money in unemployment benefit.
Therefore, may I ask the Minister this first question. Can he give us any news about the European funds—I think it was £6 million—which the Community has set aside for Belfast housing? I know that there has been a problem, in that one of the member states had blocked this as it did not wish to see a precedent established; but perhaps in view of the really critical state of housing in Northern Ireland, the Minister would be good enough to tell us whether this problem has been resolved and whether the blockage has been removed.
Secondly, in relation to housing, I raise the question of the homeless in Northern Ireland. As noble Lords may well know, there is an anomaly in Northern Ireland regarding who is responsible for the homeless. This surely points to the urgent need for the introduction of statutory rights for the homeless in Northern Ireland. Indeed, bearing in mind the desperate housing shortage in the Province one can think of no place which is in greater need of such statutory rights. As I understand it, at the moment the official position appears to be that the social service authorities provide temporary accommodation for the homeless while the Housing Executive in due course provides permanent accommodation.
The Government have promised to draw up a joint code of practice to clarify the responsibilities of the two agencies. I understand that the Housing Executive is also considering some minor changes to its house allocation scheme to give greater discretion to local housing managers to grant absolute priority to the people most currenty covered. But although this looks all right on the surface, it is all hotly contested by the voluntary agencies who are actually dealing with the homeless. They argue that the absence of any statutory

529
duty to deal with particular cases means that the social services and the housing executive can mess around individual applicants by prevaricating and passing the buck. Thus, the social services do their best to find hostel accommodation for people who have nowhere to live, but when dealing with families clearly they have to divide them up and put them in different hostels. In many cases the children go to institutional care. This seems a highly unsatisfactory situation, the more so in a troubled area such as Ulster, where the cohension of the family unit is obviously of enormous importance. Moreover, as there is no statutory obligation on the housing executive to find these families public accommodation, the family risks remaining split up for very lengthy periods.
I gather that the organisation of Shelter in Northern Ireland last month brought out a report which has tried, first, to identify and quantify the problem of the homeless and, secondly, to set out the steps to be taken to alleviate it. The major points which emerge from this report are as follows: first, that the problem of homelessness appears to have been worsening over the last 12 months; secondly, that the problems spring directly from the lack of Government response in the way of increasing funding or legislative initiatives—either increasing one or the other; thirdly, that there is a heavy reliance upon voluntary bodies to play an important housing function and that they do that with limited resources, limited statutory support and inadequate co-ordination. Finally, although there is a critical need for support services for the homeless, the need to cater for housing-related problems has never been satisfied in either legal or financial terms.
Would the Minister give an assurance that the recommendations put forward very clearly in this report by Shelter will be seriously considered by himself and by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State? On the other hand, will he say whether the Assembly is empowered to make some decision in this regard? Surely it must be agreed that, while the lack of houses is one sad truth, the fact that in some cases there is not even a satisfactory statutory procedure to distribute that housing makes it even worse. I would be very, very grateful for some kind of assurance from the Minister on that point.
6.42 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I, too, would like to thank the noble Earl for having kindly given us notice of this debate and having solicited points which we might want to raise. I gave him notice of a number of points but he will be relieved to know that I shall not by any means touch on all of them.
The first point concerns the control of dogs under Class I(1). In fact in Saturday's post I received a memorandum on this subject which I was glad to see but which I have not yet had an opportunity fully to assimilate. The only comment that I would make about that is that, when many years ago we started talking about the necessity to improve the control of dogs, particularly to obviate the very serious incidence of sheep worrying, particularly in the spring, it was thought that an increase of the dog licence to £5 would be enough to instil into aspiring dog owners a sense of responsibility; but inflation since then has been such that I would hazzard the suggestion that perhaps £5 is
530
no longer sufficient and that by the time the legislation reaches the statute book perhaps something more like £10 would be appropriate to ensure that people do not take on the responsibility of acquiring a dog without realising how great a responsibility that is and the degree of control and maintenance that is required.
Another matter on the subject of agriculture under Class I is that of poultry. I have received complaints about chickens in transit being overcrowded in lorries. One particular complaint was investigated and those responsible for transporting the poultry reported that afterwards only eight in the lorry-load were dead. I would respectfully submit that eight is eight too many. Having made inquiries, I understand that there is no statutory maximum of density when transporting fowl by road; rather there are spot checks done by a Ministry of Agriculture veterinary surgeon. I would respectfully suggest that there should be a statutory limit so as to ensure that this particular cruelty is avoided.
Again under Class I, less favoured areas is a subject that has been under scrutiny by the Agriculture Committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, of which I am a member. We have so far spent 14½ hours on this subject. From the evidence which we have received it has become apparent that a very much broader brush was used in defining less favoured areas in other parts not only of the United Kingdom but of Europe as well, and the Republic of Ireland, than was the case in Northern Ireland, where the boundaries seem to be somewhat arbitrary. Odd islands of comparatively good land—I say comparatively with deliberation—have been excluded.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, who is not in his place at the moment, will know one of the areas to which I refer, because it is in the Clogher Valley adjacent to where he lives. That has been excluded from the less favoured areas, thus being denied the advantages to be derived therefrom. There is no doubt that that is an area of land which is basically far inferior to areas in Scotland, for instance, which have been designated as being less favoured. In Scotland I understand that some 92 per cent. of the total agricultural land is designated as less favoured. I know some of it quite well just to the east of Stranraer. It is most certainly superior to some of the land which has been excluded in Northern Ireland.
Another factor which has come to our notice is that, because a certain farmer may have been assiduous in improving his farm—draining it and working it well—although his land is no better but just looks better, he has been excluded as well. I hope that with the present application which I understand is under consideration at the moment for the whole of the United Kingdom for a review of the less favoured areas, the anomalies which have up to now existed in Northern Ireland will be made good.
Turning now to Class III(1), I am wondering what is happening about the gas pipeline link-up. My view was that the most economic and obvious way to link up the Northern Ireland gas grid would have been to put an undersea pipeline to Scotland, thus making a supply of North Sea natural gas available, but Her Majesty's Government have consistently rejected that proposal. However, I understand that the proposal to link up the Northern Ireland grid with the Kinsale

531
supply is still under review. The consideration of that seems to be dragging out rather a long time. I would be interested to know what is happening. While the future of the gas industry remains in doubt the gas undertakings are finding it more and more difficult to retain their customers. Sales of gas appliances have plummeted to a very dramatic extent.
Similarly under Class III, I am wondering what is happening about the electricity inter-connector between Northern Ireland and the Republic which your Lordships may remember was blown up a number of years ago. Nothing has been done about it since. I think that it is a sad reflection on the security situation if we cannot have an electricity inter-connector replaced and properly guarded so that surplus capacity for generation of power in the north can be sold to the south, thus making the electricity service in the north more viable.
Under Class IV, a rather startling document was reported in the press last week to the effect that maximum fares on the Strangford Ferry were to be trebled. It has since become apparent that these are maximum fares which may—not necessarily will—be brought into effect over the next five years. I sincerely hope that the maximum will not be reached within five years because there are many of us who feel that this ferry ought to be regarded as an extension of the road system. People do not have to pay a toll when crossing a river bridge, and in the same way the ferry should not be regarded as something which has to be financed by passengers and vehicle drivers paying an economic fare to travel on it.
I come to Class V, dealing with housing. I would merely mention that the housing associations seem to have started to do an extremely good job, but, despite the extra injection of cash which was announced earlier this year, I would draw the noble Earl's attention to the fact that even projects which are in the pipeline now are likely to have to wait for some five years before a start can be made on building. I think that that is a great pity because the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, referred to the deplorable housing situation in Northern Ireland and the necessity for many more houses to be built. The housing associations are all ready to do this if only the finance is available. I know of a site adjacent to my home which could be developed right away, but the finance is not there to enable it to proceed as a viable project.
The final class to which I would refer is Class XI, and in No. 1 we read that £1,260,000 is to be voted for the expenditure of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I would pose the question as to whether or not this is money well spent, because, if the Assembly is to continue to work—and I use the word "continue" deliberately—it will be money very well spent indeed. But if the Assembly does not work, it will not be money well spent; it will be money squandered.
Therefore, the question is: do Her Majesty's Government want the Assembly to work or not? It would appear that the Secretary of State does want it to work. I quote from a statement issued by his office on 10th March last, in which the Secretary of State said:
"I welcome the wide range of topics which the Assembly is addressing, and my Ministerial colleagues and I will continue to do
532
all we can to assist the Assembly, and to take full account of its recommendations."
Those were words which I welcomed, which I was glad to read. But I wonder whether that view is shared by all the Minister's colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office. I pose this question because in the Assembly I was responsible for moving one of the first resolutions which was passed by that Assembly without a Division. I am aware that a number of resolutions passed by the Assembly were not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government because they involved additional expenditure of public funds for which provision had not been made. Indeed, perhaps they were verging on a sensitive area from a political point of view.
However, I moved a resolution that park coursing of live hares—in other words, coursing of live hares in an enclosed space—should no longer be permitted in Northern Ireland, and the Assembly agreed to that. That was on 27th January last. On 24th February I wrote to the Secretary of State asking him what the next step would be, as it was four weeks since the Assembly had passed that particular motion and I had not yet received a reply. I do not complain about that because I realise that Ministerial replies take a while to process. But other members of the public who are interested in this particular issue wrote to the Secretary of State and received what seems to have been an identical letter from a member of the permanent staff of the Department of Health and Social Services, writing on behalf of the Minister responsible for that department. The letter says that the Minister:
"is very much aware of the sensitivities of this subject in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, the Government's view has been that questions of this sort are more suitable to be raised through Private Members' channels than through Government legislation since in the former way MPs are free to vote as a matter of conscience. In this connection you may be interested to know that the law in Northern Ireland on this subject is essentially the same as that applying in England and Wales."
I am very sorry to say that not only do I consider that reply to be disgraceful, but I consider it to be an insult to the intelligence. Perhaps it was designed to mollify members of the public who are not familiar with parliamentary procedure, but anyone who is remotely familiar with parliamentary procedure knows that the chances of a Private Member's Bill getting through or even getting selected for debate are very slim indeed. Anyway, why should it be subordinated to a Private Member's Bill?
For instance, in the case of compulsory wearing of seat belts, I understand that a majority of both Houses of Parliament eventually, after many years' debate, voted in favour of the compulsory wearing of seat belts in cars. Would it have been in order for Her Majesty's Government to have said, "All right, Parliament thinks that this ought to be the case, but it is rather a sensitive issue so we will just leave it and see whether a Private Member happens to raise it in a Private Member's Bill" I hardly think so.
Similarly, if Her Majesty's Government are to accord the Northern Ireland Assembly the status which the Secretary of State seems to think it deserves, I respectfully suggest that when a resolution is passed without division, action should be taken rather than having it put on the long finger in this respect. Further

533
more, the reply from the Department of Health and Social Services says that:
"the law in Northern Ireland on this subject is essentially the same as that applying in England and Wales."
Quite frankly, that is not true; it is different. Park coursing—that is, coursing of live hares in an enclosed space—is not permitted in England. The motion that I raised in the Assembly was merely to bring the law in Northern Ireland into line with what it is and has been since the 1920s in England.
Therefore, the question is: do Her Majesty's Government want the Northern Ireland Assembly to work or not? If they do, they had better back it up. The Alliance Party and, to give credit where credit is due, the Democratic Unionist Party as well have done all they can to try to make this Assembly work. My party has backed Her Majesty's Government and the Secretary of State to the hilt. We cannot go on doing that unless we receive some reciprocal backing as well.
Therefore, I respectfully suggest that the ball is now in the court of Her Majesty's Government, and I sincerely hope that the civil servant who was responsible for the letter from which I have quoted will be admonished and told not to write letters like that again.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I rise to support the order before us this evening. I should like to say that I warmly welcome the Minister's statement concerning the role and functions of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I am also very pleased to have heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath—spelling out the problems of the Assembly in this Chamber. I think it is important that the Minister has taken the initiative and that it is placed on the record of this House that, so far as the Government are concerned, there is a very perceptive understanding of the constructive way in which the committees of the Assembly have undertaken their deliberations and their functions. There is a general awareness outside among the general public in Northern Ireland that the Assembly is at these early stages fulfilling a useful, participatory role, and exercising great responsibility and prudence in the decisions concerning the distribution of resources in Northern Ireland.
I also read with great interest the Official Report of the Minister's own appearance, if that is how one terms it, before the Assembly on 16th February. The debate was wide-ranging, covering agriculture, shipbuilding, housing, health services, education, construction, youth training programmes, EEC funds and energy, among other matters. I have the impression from the tone of the official debate that the Minister found it a useful experience.
As well as the Northern Ireland Assembly, I consider that there are at least three other developments which are deserving of favourable comment at this time. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, has already mentioned the emergence of the Northern Ireland Industrial Development Board. I am sure that I share with many, not only in this House but in the general public in Northern Ireland, in offering warmest congratulations and delight at the appointment of Mr. John Parker as
534
chairman and chief executive of Harland and Wolff and the Belfast Shipbuilders, and also to Sir Philip Foreman, the current managing director, on his appointment to the position of chairman of Short Brothers and Harland, the Belfast aircraft and engineering enterprise. Both these men have made valuable contributions to their respective industries and have honourable records of dedication and leadership within the context of industry in Northern Ireland. It is deserving that they should be mentioned in this House because they represent the two largest employers in the engineering industry in the Province.
Within the last few days we have had the announcement of the Industrial Development Board direction. This direction gives the guidelines to the vital task of the IDB in the promotion of industrial development. There are a few general questions I wish to put to the Minister at this stage in the debate. The matters will be obvious, and I am not going into a lot of detail. Can the Minister indicate whether the annual report and accounts of the Industrial Development Board will be laid before Parliament? I understand from a statement in another place on 10th March that the Industrial Development Board have produced a strategy document. Would the Minister indicate that this document is available, particularly to Members of the two Houses of Parliament here?
It is understood that the Secretary of State, Mr. Prior, is undertaking a review of industrial incentives. As it is felt in some quarters that the delay in publishing this review could hinder some investment proposals, may I ask when we are likely to have a statement about the relevant incentive issues? I am not putting my points under particular class headings, because they come under various headings.
The British Textile Confederation has proposed a programme of action to rebuild confidence and fulfil the potential of the industry. As this programme has important implications for the development of textiles and clothing in Northern Ireland, can the Minister give an assurance that the Industrial Development Board will undertake to give adequate support to the relevant Northern Ireland initiatives? I should also like to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the programme of afforestation in Northern Ireland is being maintained.
May I ask the Minister whether he has read the statement made on 1st March, by Mr. Gordon Burnison, the director of the Federation of Building and Civil Engineering Contractors? Mr. Burnison declared that 45 per cent. of building and 80 per cent. of civil engineering firms are operating at less than half capacity, and that some 25,000 construction workers are unemployed. I would be pleased if the Minister would urge his ministerial colleagues and the departments to do all they possibly can to stimulate an increase in the development projects and capital spending relevant to the construction industry.
Finally, I know that the Minister has a very high regard for the rich, diverse, and beautiful natural environment of Northern Ireland. With a view to the maintenance and improvement of this environment and the development of Northern Ireland's natural resources, may I ask him whether he would kindly draw to the attention of the information divisions of

535
Northern Ireland departments and the Industrial Development Board the series of studies undertaken and published jointly by Queen's University, Belfast, and the New University of Ulster? This book which has over 500 references is obtainable at a nominal price of about £6. I know that this sounds like a commercial plug, but I understand that this publication is not done on any sort of commercial basis, and in my opinion it warrants inclusion in any information package sent to potential capital investors in Northern Ireland. I know that the Minister's interest in this matter would be much appreciated. With those general remarks, I welcome the order.
7.6 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for the general reception of the appropriation order. I tried in my opening remarks to place these large figures within the context of the Government's overall strategy, and I shall not repeat myself here except to say that at a time when public spending has been under considerable restraint and has been successfully contained for the first time in many years to the levels planned, Northern Ireland has had a modest increase, but nevertheless a real increase in real terms. That, I think, is an earnest of the Minister's commitments to the special needs and difficulties of the Province.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asks me about some adverse media comment about Lear Fan. I am afraid that I cannot comment on the newspaper report to which the noble Lord refers. In fact, I read the newspapers carefully but this particular item is news to me, and I shall look it out. I can say that the company has already achieved two of the three critical milestones on its way—the prototype construction and the first flight, to which of course should be added the flights of the second prototype—and the next target of the company is type certification of airworthiness by the United States Federal Aviation Administration. I certainly know that we all wish the company well in seeking that certification. We know that it is difficult and that there may be need for additional research and development work.
On the matter of the Kinsale natural gas project, as I said in my opening remarks the estimate provides for an up-front payment, to use the jargon, of £5 million to the authorities in the Irish Republic on the signing of the heads of agreement. The estimates I have laid before your Lordships allow for that. Whether this money is spent is dependent on the agreement of acceptable terms of supply with the Government of the Republic. A broad understanding was reached in May of 1982, but I have to advise your Lordships that important issues remain to be resolved, and I shall of course keep the House informed as these develop.
I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, that it is thoroughly to be desired that uncertainty should be ended in the gas industry. It would be expected that consumers in Northern Ireland could first receive natural gas approximately two years after a decision to proceed with the project, and we all hope that such a project should be viable. Still on energy matters, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred to lignite resources and wanted to know the
536
latest news of the utilisation of those resources. Again, I cannot go far at present because a detailed assessment of the reserves is in progress. On present information it is estimated that there are recoverable reserves of 100 million tonnes in the landwood area near Loch Neagh, and the Government are currently looking into uses for these resources, and possible uses would include electricity generation, which, in view of the high costs of electricity generation in the Province, would be very welcome.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked about developments in relation to the Belfast enterprise zones and for some hard information about that. I can tell him that 193 jobs in 30 firms have been created in those zones since designation, in October 1981; 69 of those are genuine new jobs spread over 22 new small businesses, and the eight firms which have relocated have not done so solely to obtain the benefits but because they had wanted to expand their businesses or because existing property has been subject to compulsory acquisition. It is also encouraging to note that, of 175 further jobs to be created in the near future, 140 will be in two companies which are setting up in Northern Ireland for the first time. Private investment in the zones to date amounts to an estimated £8 million, and I shall note the points of advice the noble Lord gave and refer them to my honourable friend the Minister responsible.
Turning to matters connected with the Assembly—and I was grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blease—the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, kindly gave me notice that he intended to ask whether the Assembly considered orders to be subject to affirmative resolutions of Parliament and, if so, whether both Houses would be informed when they were considered here. My right honourable friend refers proposals for draft orders in council on transfer of matters to the Assembly, with the exception of the appropriation and other routine financial orders, pure consolidation orders and orders to be made by the urgent procedure. This is done on publication of the proposal for public consultation. Simultaneously, copies are placed in the Vote Office of another place and in the Printed Paper Office. The Assembly's report on a proposal is laid before Parliament pursuant to Section 3(4) of the Northern Ireland Act 1982 and therefore Parliament, including of course your Lordships' House, will be able to take the Assembly's views into account when the draft order is laid.
I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that I have indeed seen the document of the trade union alternative strategy and I shall continue to study it carefully. I can only say at this late stage in the debate that there are substantive general economic strategy differences between the Government and the trade unions who, we feel, in spite of many useful suggestions and much good work, ignore the difficulties of containing public spending and containing inflation. I would remind them, as I have reminded the House, that public spending, by which they set considerable store in the document, is higher in real terms in Northern Ireland than in the rest of the United Kingdom, and higher even after taking into account the needs for benefit and the law and order budget. It is really for that reason that we are anxious to get some political movement into Northern Ireland, so that investors inside and

537
outside the Kingdom acknowledge that Northern Ireland is taking its own special needs and difficulties into account and is trying to wrestle with the problem of creating a stable environment there which can attract investment.
Still on the issue of the Assembly, I did, as the noble Lord, Lord Blease, was kind enough to remind us, have the pleasure of addressing the Assembly on 16th February. I outlined the general strategy and order of priorities which underlay the plans contained in the White Paper and I listened with great interest to the views expressed there. What I had to say to the Assembly was that it was not enough, respectfully, for them to call for additional expenditure; they must get down to the hard job, through the committees, of making the allocations within overall planned resources, and that I am confident they will attempt to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked about progress by the LEDU. Since its inception in 1971 to 31st January 1983, LEDU has promoted 14,377 jobs, including 1,613 in the last financial year. I regard that as a significant achievement and it can be attributed to the body's close involvement with, and recognition of, the needs of small industry in the Province. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State announced in Parliament on 9th March that the Government would be making available public funding of £7·4 million to Shorts in the year to 31st March 1984. Discussions are continuing with Harland and Wolff as to their funding requirements for the next financial year, and I too welcome, with the noble Lord, Lord Blease, the appointment of Mr. Parker.
With regard to Shorts, as with other aerospace companies, the current recession in the industry has had a great impact on Shorts, and the company's aerostructure division in particular has suffered a loss of orders. But the company will continue to pursue contracts on any new aircraft developments, and their new commuter airline went into service last November, which is certainly welcomed. Your Lordships may like to know that missiles made by the company were used in the Falklands campaign, and Shorts are hopeful of obtaining export orders now that their products have been so well proven in combat conditions.
Regarding Harland and Wolff, it would be a very bland Minister who felt anything approaching optimism in relation to the state of the world-wide shipping market. There is very fierce competition, particularly from the Far East, for the very few orders which are available, but I know the new chairman and chief executive will be spearheading an energetic drive to secure some of those orders.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked about tourism, and perhaps I may give a blanket answer also to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, whose concern for the lovely environment of Northern Ireland I wholeheartedly share. The tourist industry has suffered from the poor image of the Province. The people we attract there from all over the world, either as tourists or in order to see the investment possibilities, are constantly amazed at the way peace has broken out in almost all corners of the Province. But it is difficult, while there is so much intransigent political debate, for that amazement to be widely
538
shared, which of course is what we should very much like to see.
I will draw together the points about how we might approach the North American/Canadian market, where there are an estimated 20 million people with Northern Ireland roots, as part of a major drive for tourism in the Province. Of my right honourable friend and my colleagues and myself, one of us is nearly always either just completing or about to undertake a trip to North America in relation to this and other matters, and we shall keep the needs very firmly in mind. That point goes well with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Blease, when he suggested that we must start adapting to the needs of greater leisure in our society, and I certainly take his argument on that on board.
Both the noble Lords, Lord Hampton and Lord Dunleath, asked about the costs of the Northern Ireland Assembly; £1,260,000 is allocated on account for the Assembly, and expenditure incurred to date in the current financial year on the Vote is £1·3 million. The Vote on account is based on 45 per cent. of the expected full year costs for next year, in the absence, of course, of comparative costs for the current year.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough asked me about incentives to industry, and he made a point which I think is often made; namely, that in this regard we may perform adversely compared to the Republic. This, too, is a complex issue, and my noble friend will be aware that the criticism may have lost a little validity in recent years; not, I fear, for very good reasons, but rather due to the sad fact that at the moment there is a certain amount of investment famine all over the Western world, and in this respect the Republic is not in fact doing so well as it was. Of course I take no satisfaction in noting that.
Nevertheless the fact of the matter is that, in terms not merely of security issues but of political deadlock and intransigence as well, the poor image of the Province is a disincentive to investment. I urge all those political representatives in the Province, on both sides of the community divide, when they make their utterances to weigh them very carefully with the need to attract overseas industry to the Province. In saying "overseas industry", I include investment from this part of the Kingdom; and I have often made play of the fact that there is greater investment from Great Britain in the Republic than there is in the Province.
I do not think that there is too much wrong with our package of investments, but I take my noble friend's point that the shop window is not—as he put it—sexy enough. I do not know whether Northern Ireland would welcome a very sexy shop window, but I shall bring to the attention of the bodies concerned my noble friend's view that there is a need for that.
On my noble friend's point about the merger of the new Ulster University and the Ulster Polytechnic, I would say that we have repeatedly made it clear that the new institution is to have a practical and vocational emphasis, as well as pursuing academic quality. The steering group that is responsible for planning the merger is also acutely aware of this vocational need, and the draft charter which the steering group has prepared makes specific reference to sub-degree and higher technician courses, as well as

539
general degree and post-graduate work. It also places an obligation on the new institution to conduct regular reviews of the university's success in meeting these objectives.
I was not aware of there being special problems in terms of the North Down Technical College, but if the noble Lord will give me further information on some of his anxieties. I shall of course have the matter looked into. On the special arrangements being made to meet the requirements of the youth training programme at the college, I would say that eight additional temporary classrooms have been provided and accommodation has been rented in Bangor for the Youthway courses.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, asked about the housing executive's programmes. I share her concern, and the concern of others of your Lordships, about the need to improve from a very poor base the housing stock in Northern Ireland, as well as the connection between poor housing in inner cities and some of the problems in the Province. In respect of the failure of the European Community regulation proposing special aid for housing in Northern Ireland, I have to say, as I think the noble Baroness will be aware, that the proposal failed to secure agreement at the Council of Ministers because of reservations expressed by the German Government. However, discussions on aid for Northern Ireland are continuing, and I can say that it has not been necessary to effect any reduction in housing programmes in the current financial year due to non-receipt of European Community aid.
However, because of the doubts surrounding future aid from the Community for housing in Northern Ireland, the Government feel that it would be unrealistic to plan future programmes on the assumption that such special aid would be available, and the housing executive has been advised to adjust its forward programmes by reducing the annual planned level of new starts from 5,250 to 4,500—a reduction of 750, for which European Community aid had previously been assumed. But I can say that we as a Government have been unremitting in our efforts to bring to a successful conclusion the Commission's initiative. My right honourable friend has been to Brussels in order to pursue the issue, and my honourable friend Mr. Mitchell went there shortly before Christmas. Of course, we all recognise that any progress on the question must be dependent on the initiative having the support of all member states. To this end we are continuing to work hard with the Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, drew our attention to the issue of dogs. Very often when one raises an issue regarding dogs, people think that one is dealing with rather minor factors, but as the noble Lord well knows, this is a major problem in Northern Ireland. The present position with regard to the draft Order in Council on dog control is that the order, which was published on 8th July last, has now been amended to take account of comments made during the consultation period and during debates. It is expected that it will be laid before Parliament very shortly. In using that term I do not want to fall into the trap that your Lordships baited for my noble friend Lord Swinton the
540
other day, but I think that in this context "very shortly" probably means this week.
I share the noble Lord's concern regarding the conveyance of live animals; he referred to poultry. This matter is covered by statute. The Conveyance of Live Poultry (Ireland) Order 1979 covers the carriage of poultry by road, rail, and sea, and the order still applies in Northern Ireland, as does the Welfare of Animals Act 1972, with its general provisions. All complaints, whether from welfare organisations or the public, are investigated, and the department is willing to prosecute if it is at all possible. I shall take note of the points that the noble Lord put to us in this regard.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, then moved on to the question of the less favoured areas. I have to say to him that all boundaries carry with them the likelihood of boundary disputes. There are, for instance, questions such as: Where should an enterprise zone begin or end? Where should a boundary of a less favoured area begin or end? I am aware that in some areas there is dissatisfaction about the drawing of lines. The proposed boundary line cannot be regarded as definitive until Brussels has decided on the areas to be designated. Representations will then be considered, but I warn the House that it is my belief that the scope for adjustment will be somewhat limited.
The noble Lord asked me why there was a five-year wait before new starts can be made by housing associations, despite the increases in finance provided, which he generously acknowledged. As the current housing associations' development proposals contain schemes amounting in total to £60 million, it is necessary to programme them over a period of years to ensure the proper control of available funds and the application of those funds on a priority basis.
The noble Lord asked me about the restoration of the electricity inter-connector with the Republic. I share very strongly with him the view that this would be desirable, and both sides of the border, which in economic terms is fairly artificial in many areas, would benefit from the restoration of the link. We are determined to restore it as soon as practicable, but, as the noble Lord will appreciate, the detail of this is not I think a matter that is appropriate for debate on the Floor of the House, though of course it is a perfectly fair and suitable point for him to raise.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, asked me whether I would make a statement on the Strangford Lough Ferry Order 1983. This revised the maximum levels for the tolls or dues recoverable from users of the ferry, and it will enable the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland to continue its policy of fixing annually tolls for the ferry over the next five years, or such longer periods as economic circumstances may permit. The ferry, which I have had the pleasure of using, obviates a journey of 45 miles around the head of the loch, and it therefore results in a very considerable saving in terms of both time and cost for traffic from Downpatrick and its hinterland, bound for the Ards peninsular, and vice versa.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Blease—
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me—and he is now moving on to his final point—could he give us, before he sits down, the reply

541
to the question of whether he and his colleagues want the Northern Ireland Assembly to work or not? If they do, will they pay respect to resolutions passed without Division by that Assembly?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have already given that reply, both in my opening remarks and at the beginning of my speech in winding up the debate on the appropriation order. Of course, the Government are committed to the Assembly, but our commitment to the Assembly and to its part in achieving greater political progress towards stability in Northern Ireland does not mean that the Government are bound to agree with the Assembly on every particular. I will look at the issue on hare coursing, which was new to me—and as the noble Lord will be aware, it is not my direct area of responsibility in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord must not tempt us into thinking that an agreement to differ on an issue between the Government and the Assembly in some way undermines our commitment to that body or to the achievement of political progress. If I may so respectfully suggest, I hope he will not put it quite in that way.
The two last points which I wished to make were in response to the noble Lord, Lord Blease. The noble Lord asked about the IDB guidelines. These were published on Friday, 11th March, and copies were widely distributed. In due course the board will be publishing its own industrial development strategy document. I will endeavour to see that there is a copy of this document placed in the Library of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord, Lord Blease—and this point was taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs—added his concerns to those of others about the construction industry in the Province and wanted to know when the Secretary of State was going to make a statement. The Government continue to be aware of the importance to the Province of the construction industry. The plans for public expenditure, which I have mentioned, provide for capital expenditure totalling £611 million in 1983–84, an increase of 8 per cent. over the previous year, and some £10 million higher than previous plans. In addition to capital expenditure on construction, this large sum includes expenditure on grants and loans to the private sector, which generates considerable work for the construction industry.
Current expenditure on maintenance will also generate work for the industry. In particular the plans for 1983–84 provide for the high level of house building established last year to be maintained, as the Housing Executive has acknowledged. A further £5 million has been added to the £12 million package of measures to assist areas of special need which was announced last year. These levels of public spending are a substantial contribution to reducing unemployment in the construction industry and they are being made, as I said at the beginning, at a difficult time. Noble Lords should be under no doubt. There is no way in which we can solve the problems of employment in Northern Ireland through public spending alone. They are too deep-seated. High rates of public spending are an earnest of our own contribution but, as we constantly urge, Northern Ireland must start to make its own contribution towards the settling of its very deep-seated and long-standing difficulties.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down may I say that I know I did not give him notice of my question about statutory rights for the homeless in Northern Ireland referred to in the report by Shelter. Will he be good enough to write to me on this subject, as it does seem a very important point?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am sorry that that point escaped me. I will write to the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (International Airports) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983
7.35 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie rose The Earl of Gowrie rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the main purpose of this order is to allow a wide range of duty-free goods such as cigars, cigarettes, alcohol, perfumes, watches and jewellery, to be sold at any time to departing international passengers in the licensed premises within the duty-free area of designated airports in Northern Ireland. The order will also allow sales of non-duty-free alcoholic drinks for consumption in such premises provided other kinds of beverages are available at the same time.
The facilities I have mentioned will be available only to bona fide international passengers departing from Northern Ireland. The order brings the law in Northern Ireland in this respect into line with that applying throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 16th February be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl for so briefly moving this particular order. I understand that one of the reasons why this particular order has been moved is to enable additional revenues to be generated at Aldergrove Airport, which will enable the landing charges at that airport to be kept down and so to alleviate from increased charges those flying into Aldergrove from such destinations as London, Birmingham, Edinburgh, Manchester, Glasgow and the Isle of Man. But we all realise that those particular passengers on domestic routes will not themselves be customers in the duty-free areas and that the only customers in the duty-free areas will be those who are making international trips. I understand that the amount of international traffic at Aldergrove has substantially increased over the past few years and that this would include traffic to Dublin.
We are aware that the sale of duty-free goods overall has managed to keep down the air fares by about £100 million a year through the profits generated by these concessions. I think one has some concern at this point of time as to whether the situation with regard to duty-free goods will continue in the same way as it has been in the past. We know that the European Economic Community commissioners have made emphatic

543
statements about retaining the rights to buy duty-free, but I wonder whether the noble Earl had any information about the attitude of the European Court to the sale of duty-free goods within the Community as a whole.
I should be interested to know whether the noble Earl would have any figures with regard to the proportion of international passengers using Aldergrove who are passengers from within the Community and those who are passengers from outside the Community; because, as noble Lords will recall from when we have been discussing previous orders concerning duty-free goods, different regulations apply to goods which are manufactured outside the Community and bought within the Community from goods which are bought within the Community and manufactured within the Community itself. It seems that unless one is very certain about all these things, the establishment of these duty-free facilities at Aldergrove may not be as easily and as readily justified as one would hope. Certainly, in a general sense, one welcomes this order because it will provide an additional subsidy to the running costs of the airport which will enable landing fees to be reduced.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for his brief introduction. I see no reason to oppose the order. Perhaps I might put two questions. Reference is made to international airports in Northern Ireland such as Aldergrove. Are other airports planned? Secondly, what is the meaning of the qualification in the explanatory blurb in the words, "so that to all intents and purposes" international passengers departing from a recognised airport in any part of the UK will be subject to the same treatment under the law?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have always felt that the phrase "to all intents and purposes" was a kind of "legislativese" for covering one's bets. I shall look into the point that the noble Lord makes. I cannot give him an off-the-cuff answer on the latter issue. I think that it is only sensible, since there are other airports in Northern Ireland—there is an airport at Enniskillen, and in Belfast itself at Sydenham—that the order should cover contingencies at all airports there. But obviously in practical and immediate terms this applies to Aldergrove, which is where the vast bulk of international traffic takes place. I am grateful for the way that the order has been received.
I am a little bemused by the reception of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. As a spokesman for a party committed to taking us out of Europe, he feels that we should skulk in the wings until Europe has okayed every suggestion of a sensible kind that we should make. That would seem to be rather a contradiction. I think that we can go ahead without recourse to Europe on such a sensible matter. I know of no objections which are likely to be made for providing facilities for international travellers which are common in all other parts of the United Kingdom. I shall look at the anxieties which the noble Lord has raised. I hope that he will not feel that we should not go ahead with the order until every jot and tittle is
544
cleared up, as otherwise we shall have to wait in this country for a very long time.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Rates (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1983
7.42 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the order is short and uncomplicated and basically seeks to do three things to require only one rates demand to be issued to ratepayers each year, instead of the current half-yearly billing; to allow discount for prompt payment of domestic rates only if the full amount of rates is paid as a single sum; and to provide for the partial exemption from rates of non-domestic hereditaments which straddle the boundaries of enterprise zones.
The provisions on annual billing and on discounts for domestic ratepayers have resulted from a package of proposals made by a team of officials working in consultation with Sir Derek (now Lord) Rayner. This team was charged with the task of considering ways of improving efficiency and reducing the cost of rate collection in Northern Ireland. I was the overseeing Minister in respect of this exercise.
In relation to the first objective of the order—that is, annual instead of twice-yearly billing—this will facilitate the introduction of a new computerised rate collection system which we hope will start on 1st April 1983. This change will reduce administrative costs and will enable action for the recovery of arrears of rates to begin earlier in the rating year and take account of the full year's rates. Similar procedures have been introduced by many local authorities in England and Wales with a resultant reduction in costs and an improvement, of course, in cash flow. I can assure the House that ratepayers will not suffer any inconvenience as a consequence of this proposal.
When the draft order was published on 29th November 1982, it was proposed to raise the level of discount from 2½ to 3½ per cent. However, the position has been re-examined in the light of trends in interest rates and analyses of the costs of operating the new system. I am pleased to say that the Government are prepared to raise the proposed level of discount even higher; that is, to 4 per cent. In arriving at this increased figure, close attention was paid to the comments made during the debate on the order by the Northern Ireland Assembly. Indeed, this proposal was the first to be considered by the Assembly which took note of the proposal and passed an amendment to the effect that the amount of rates due should be payable in two moieties before appropriate dates at 3½ per cent. discount.
In the course of that debate on the draft order reference was made to the position of ratepayers following the introduction of the new procedures. I am, of course, very conscious of the need to facilitate ratepayers in making payments and dealing with any problems or queries they might have. In relation to the payments, I am pleased to be able to say that arrange-

545
ments have now been made with the Post Office whereby payments can be made through the National Giro Bank, and the cost of transactions will be paid by the department. As I mentioned earlier, domestic ratepayers can choose to pay their rates by 10 instalments, two half-yearly payments, or in a single sum for discount.
The House will recognise therefore that the general effect of the order is to streamline rate collection procedures and so increase the efficiency of the administering department. At present the rate collection arrangements in Northern Ireland are being reorganised and the changes proposed in this new order will form an integral part of a new computerised rate collection system. When this reorganisation is complete and the new procedures proposed here are fully implemented savings of £1 million a year will be realised. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd February be approved.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, in welcoming the explanation given by the noble Earl, may I ask one question? There is to be a saving as a result of this single billing. Can the noble Earl indicate whether this will lead to redundancies and tell us the number of jobs likely to be affected? What will be the net effect of the saving in view of the heavy unemployment position in Northern Ireland and the net loss that will be encountered by paying out unemployment benefit and losing tax revenue?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I hesitate to be drawn into the macro-economic argument with the noble Lord. The saving of public monies is essential to maintain employment. It is not deleterious to employment. No individual jobs that I know of are lost by this saving, although it should be—and I hope it may well be—that those engaged in public administration in respect of the grades for whom, as I have said, I am responsible will he more usefully and more productively employed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

European Assembly Elections (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.47 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I hope in all modesty to be able to convince your Lordships that it would he contrary to natural justice were you to decline to give this Bill a Second Reading, or indeed to pass it. A Member of the European Parliament represents not the British institutions vis-á-vis the British Government; he represents the people of his constituency vis-á-vis the institutions of the European Community: specifically the Commission and the Council of Ministers. I would humbly suggest that it is therefore anomalous and illogical that a British subject should be banned from being able to exercise his franchise simply because he lives in another part of the Community outside this country.
546
It is also a matter of concern that there is an increasing number of British citizens living outside the United Kingdom in other member states. It is estimated that there are 250,000 citizens. Most of them are disenfranchised and will be disenfranchised in June 1984, when European elections take place, unless your Lordships have approved this Bill or some similar Bill so that they can be placed on the electoral roll. Another anomaly is the fact that British servicemen resident in other member states are able to vote in European elections. Why, I ask myself, should not British businessmen resident in Brussels, Paris, or Frankfurt, be able to do the same? A British businessman surely these days is doing his country as much good and is serving his country as faithfully as is a British serviceman. Nevertheless, he is under present legislation disenfranchised if he lives in a different member state from that of his nationality.
I place this matter really in the same category, in terms of national elections, as whether a Londoner should be disenfranchised if he moves to Glasgow, or a person from Manchester if he moves to Cardiff. Such a thing would be wrong, and I hope your Lordships will agree that it is equally wrong for a British subject to be disenfranchised simply because he lives and works in Paris, in Brussels or in Rome.
I would also suggest to your Lordships that the present situation clearly violates the principle that there should be no taxation without representation. All those who reside in Community member states pay value added tax, and it is the 1 per cent. of value added tax which makes up a very large part of the Community budget. In other words, a British subject is a European taxpayer whether he lives in this country or in France or Germany. He still pays VAT, and when he buys something which is subject to VAT the tax that he pays goes into the same Community budget, but if the British subject is resident outside the United Kingdom he has no say in how that taxation money should be spent. He does not have a vote in electing a Member of the European Parliament; and that Parliament, as the joint budgetary authority over the European budget, has to make its decisions without any influence being brought to bear upon it by that very substantial group of British citizens.
I am happy to say—and I am sure that my noble friend Lord Elton will confirm this—that the Government accept the principle that I have just put forward. Indeed, that principle was accepted by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne when speaking for the Government in June 1979. He said that the Government favoured the extension of the franchise for European Assembly elections to include United Kingdom nationals resident in other member states and they would in due course consider the introduction of legislation for this purpose.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne said "in due course", and I suppose that these words are the nub of the matter, because nearly four years have passed and legislation has not been introduced along the lines suggested by my noble friend. It has been put forward by Government spokesmen that this matter must await a decision on a uniform electoral procedure for European Parliamentary elections. I have to say that I am afraid, if that is the case, that we are not going to find this matter resolved for many years to come,

547
because the question of a uniform electoral procedure is a very long way away from solution at the moment, and certainly it cannot be solved before the elections next year.
However, there are other persons of influence close to the Government's thinking who feel that this matter should be dealt with separately. The Paymaster General, in his capacity as Chairman of the Conservative Party, said in evidence recently before your Lordships' Select Committee that he personally hoped that the Government would consider taking interim action on this point before October 1983, even if agreement on a uniform electoral procedure proved impossible. I believe that is a view which is widely held in circles close to the Government, and I hope that my noble friend will confirm it.
Perhaps most importantly of all, your Lordships' Select Committee itself recommended unanimously that the Government should take action. The noble Baroness, Lady White, I have no doubt will be referring to that point; but I think in these opening remarks I should point out that paragraph 74 of her excellent report suggests clearly and unanimously that the question of enfranchising British subjects living in other member states should be considered a completely separate matter from that of the electoral system. It points out that elections are on the horizon, and it urges the Government to proceed rapidly. I hope that my noble friend Lord Elton will be able to assure us that he takes these quotations—one made on behalf of the Government, another made on behalf of one of the major political parties and another made on behalf of your Lordships' Select Committee—extremely seriously, because I believe there is a majority in this House for such a principle, and not only for the principle of enfranchisement along the lines proposed but for the principle of rapid action. That rapid action should be before October 1983, which probably would be essential if those British citizens abroad are to be able to take part in next year's elections.
I shall be the first to admit that the Bill before your Lordships this evening is incomplete. It is very much a Second Reading draft; but I hope that your Lordships will not castigate me too severely on that account. Indeed, in the course of this evening's debate and in the course of the next few weeks, if your Lordships are kind enough to give it a Second Reading tonight, I hope to receive amendments from noble Lords. I hope also that amendments will come from my noble friend Lord Elton. I also hope, indeed, that my noble friend will be able to indicate to me whether he will be prepared, assuming that there is a Second Reading, to take a constructive attitude towards this Bill, to try to get it into shape and to try to work out its details, to dot the i's and cross the t's.
Clearly, many questions are begged. Who is to be allowed to vote? One would hope that all British citizens of age living in other member states would be allowed to do so; but in practice I suppose they are going to have to prove a connection with a constituency, since that is the electoral system at present prevailing in the United Kingdom. In which constituency would a British subject resident, say, in Frankfurt, be entitled to vote? Would it be in the
548
constitiuency in which he was born, in which he was last resident or in which he was last on the electoral roll? All these points will have to be worked out at the Committee stage, but I hope that your Lordships will look at the matter constructively and helpfully and that you will forgive me for not having tackled these details at this early stage of the Bill's legislative procedure.
Also I should like to point out that this is a matter which I believe should be tackled on its own. It is not an attempt to solve the question of a uniform electoral procedure for the European Parliament, or even to take very much of a step along that path. Certainly it is not a step towards electoral reform, either of the European Parliament or in this country; that must be a separate debate. But I believe that the present situation, where a substantial number of British citizens is disenfranchised, is essentially unjust. It is essentially undemocratic, and being, as we are, part of a European Community which is based on democratic principles—unlike its East European conterparts—I hope that this principle will be the one that overrides all other objections and that your Lordships will be kind enough to consider the Bill and give it a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Bethell.)
7.59 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, has explained the purpose and intention of this Bill in terms which everyone can understand. He has also referred to your Lordships' Select Committee's report on the question of a uniform procedure for elections to the European Assembly. As a member of the Select Committee which made that recommendation, I am naturally in accord with the recommendation made. But as to whether this matter can best be dealt with by a Private Member's Bill, that is open to question and would certainly be dependent upon the suggestion which the noble Lord threw out, that the Government should take over and give assistance in drafting the Bill. Unless that is done many important issues may not be dealt with. I hope that the Government will pay attention to the important issues which are not referred to at all in the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, freely admits. Therefore, although I have sympathy with the aim, I think there are points which must be considered.
First, the noble Lord himself raised the subject of electoral registration. This matter cannot be treated lightly, because the compilation of a proper electoral register is the key to sound democratic elections in this country. Therefore we must pay careful attention to that aspect. That point, and other matters which will need to be resolved are dealt with in a memorandum submitted by the Home Office, which is in paragraphs 24 to 29 on pages 34 and 35 of your Lordships' Select Committee's report.
The noble Lord said he hoped that this would include all persons resident abroad. I wish to make it clear that although there is sympathy with the aim of the Bill, in no circumstances would the Labour Opposition support extending the franchise to those persons who have been resident abroad for very long periods—20, 30 years or more—or to those persons

549
who, frankly, are tax exiles from this country. Therefore, there are certain qualifications that we shall wish to see.
If there is to be an extension of the franchise we must look at a number of issues. The first, which is dealt with by the Select Committee, is that a person should be given the franchise for European elections only provided that he was resident in this country within a fixed period. The Select Committee threw out the suggestion of 10 years. The question of extending the franchise to British subjects resident abroad is also being considered by the Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs. They have been looking at numerous aspects of the Representation of the People Act and their report has not yet been presented, but a memorandum submitted to that committee by the Home Office states that
"to avoid the basis of the extension—that is, a previous connection with the United Kingdom—becoming increasingly artificial, a time limit would seem to be essential."
A memorandum to your Lordships' committee states that the longer the absence from this country, the less satisfactory registration at an address in a United Kingdom constituency would become. Your Lordships' committee suggested the possibility of a 10-year period and the Home Office suggested a seven-year period, But some have considered that this may be too long, and have suggested a five-year period.
The other important point which will need to be considered is the question of a declaration—which some people feel is essential—that a person who wishes to take advantage of this extension, if it should be agreed, should indicate a definite intention to return to take up residence again in the United Kingdom. As the Home Office evidence points out to your Lordships' Select Committee, there are at present provisions for certain persons resident outside the United Kingdom to be registered in a constituency in this country. There are what we call service voters. They cover persons who are members of the armed forces overseas and their spouses; persons who are employed in the diplomatic service and persons employed by the British Council. The provisions do not cover persons who are temporarily working abroad or British citizens who have taken up residence overseas.
The requirements for these service voters are all listed in the present regulations on the representation of the people, as is the declaration which they have to make. Therefore the declarations of the persons who are at present covered, although resident outside the United Kingdom, can be verified. If the franchise for European elections is to be extended to British subjects resident in member states of the Community, it is essential that a procedure be devised, so that any declaration that such people make can be on a par with that of the present service voters. Unless that is done, it will be trying to give natural justice in one way, but inhibiting the situation as regards the present service voters.
The existing service voters are registered in the constituency in which they were last resident before going abroad, and, unless there is some careful check, it could be possible—there may be legal penalties—that without a proper procedure for verification a person could be registered in more than one United Kingdom constituency. That is why the declaration
550
and verification are so important. As I said, that can be done in the case of service voters, persons in the diplomatic service and persons who are employed by the British Council. Therefore the issues raised are not merely academic; they go to the heart of our electoral registration, which is based on a residential qualification. So, while having some sympathy with the aims, I believe that these points must be dealt with—possibly, in a schedule to the Bill.
The attitude of the Labour Opposition will be dependent upon the answers that are given by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he replies for the Government. If the Government are prepared to look into the two important issues that I have raised—and these are points raised by the Home Office evidence as well, both to your Lordships' committee and to the Select Committee on Home Affairs in the other place—and adequately to deal with them, then I think that we shall give general approval to the Bill. But I emphasise, as did the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, that this is a matter which is being dealt with solely on its own, and it does not involve any other electoral procedure. That was a recommendation from your Lordships' own Select Committee and, no doubt, my noble friend Lady White will amplify that. But provided that we get that assurance from the Government, we shall wish the Bill good progress.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, this short Bill does not require a long speech. We on this Bench support it, in principle, and would vote for the Second Reading if there were to be a Division. I am also speaking for our Liberal allies, who have asked me to convey their support as well. The extension of the franchise for elections to the European Parliament to include British subjects resident elsewhere in the Community who would be entitled to vote if they were resident in the United Kingdom is the aim not only of this Bill but also of a recommendation which has been mentioned—in fact, the only recommendation—made in the report of your Lordships' sub-committee on a
"Uniform Electoral Procedure for the Election of Members of the European Parliament".
on which I had the privilege to serve under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady White, together with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill.
Paragraph 3 of that report states that
"this matter appeared to the Committee not to be dependent upon the choice of a particular electoral system, which may require protracted consideration. It affects a democratic right of citizenship which could and, if necessary, should be determined separately."
The report then turns to consideration of the main part of its remit—that is, the question of a uniform electoral procedure—and does not revert to the question raised by the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, until Part VI, paragraphs 67 to 74, where it goes into the matter in more detail and specifically, in paragraph 72, suggests a mechanism for implementation of the extended franchise.
This brings me to the first query raised in my mind by the noble Lord's Bill. His proposed addition of a new category to paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 1 to the European Assembly Elections Act 1978 does not specify how, or where, the group of people whom he very properly seeks to enfranchise would vote. The

551
noble Lord himself admitted the Bill's shortcomings in this respect, and indicated his hope that the Government will help in filling in the missing parts at a later stage. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be able to give him that undertaking.
One possible course is registration at a British consulate and vote by proxy. But there are problems in deciding whether under a list system the proxy is to be aggregated at regional or national levels. The committee therefore opted for an interim arrangement, under which those who have within the previous 10 years been registered as electors for parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom would be entitled to vote by post, or by proxy, in the constituency in which they were last registered. This, I think, was in line with the preferred solution in the Home Office memorandum on this subject, which is printed in the subcommittee's report.
The choice of method is of course largely a matter of cost and administrative convenience, but whatever method recommends itself most on these grounds one would hope that the Government would give it their full backing. This at least is what one would have expected after the statements of sympathy for an extension of the franchise made by Lord Trefgarne in June 1979 and Lord Belstead in June 1981, both referred to in Paragraph 69 of this report. But the noble Lord, Lord Elton, was rather less helpful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, in November 1982. One therefore awaits with interest the Government's reponse this evening.
But I am afraid I cannot quite let the matter rest there, with a pat on the back for the Bill and hopes for a sympathetic reception by the Government. The subcommittee chose to see this issue as,
"a completely separate matter from that of the electoral system"—
Paragraph 74—and urged the Government to proceed on this basis. I do not dissent from this. It is obviously posssible to right one wrong without righting another, and arguably better to do so than to do nothing. At the same time, though the two issues are not "interdependent"—that is the sub-committee's word—they are obviously not poles apart. If we enfranchise these 300,000 fellow citizens, are we then going to sit back, rub our hands and say, "Well, that was a good day's work" and simply leave it at that? I would submit that this is not good enough. For what shall we have enfranchised them for? I will tell your Lordships. We shall have enfranchised them for an election which, on present policies, is likely to yield as distorting, not to say as farcical, a result as it did the last time round in 1979.
Whatever the merits or demerits of the first-past-the-post system for Westminster, there can be no doubt that it is highly unrepresentative for much larger European constituencies. As a result, the votes that we are proposing to bestow are likely to be largely wasted. In his evidence to the sub-committee, on page 63, Doctor Butler said:
"I have tried to think through the consequences if at the last European elections we had given the franchise to everyone who wanted it who were British citizens living overseas. I doubt if a single constituency would have gone in a different direction".
That is the electoral system the Government appear to want to perpetuate and to which we shall condemn
552
these new electors if the Bill becomes law. I do not think the Government can simply shelter behind the Council of Ministers and say, "Oh, well, they couldn't agree on a uniform method, so that absolves us", for all the other countries of the Community have already adopted a more rational system than our own and there is absolutely no reason why we should not unilaterally put our own house in order—for example, along the lines proposed in the 1977 Bill which is described in paragraphs 33 and 34 of the report.
Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, this still would be just possible if the political will were there. If the political will were there, we would still be able to ensure a fairer result in 1984, with a less distorting effect on the whole balance of the European Parliament. As matters stand, we may see similar and equally unwarranted distortion in favour of the Labour party or the Alliance. I have here some simulations using the present electoral method. One of these assumes a switch of just one-third of the 1979 Tory votes and one-third of the 1979 Labour votes to the Alliance. The result gives, in percentage terms, 41 per cent. to the Alliance, 33 per cent. to the Conservatives and 22 per cent. to Labour. In terms of seats, this would yield 75 for the Alliance, two for the Conservatives and one for Labour. This might be a consummation devoutly to be wished, but no one could possibly claim that it would be a fair or proper representation of the state of British opinion.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, if I appear to have muddied the limpid waters of his Bill, for which I repeat our support. My quarrel is not with him but with the Government. What I would like to hear from the Government is not only that they will find time for his Bill in another place and help him to fill in its lacunae, but also that they will follow it up with further legislation of their own to ensure that electors to the European Parliament, both existing electors and those whom this Bill is intended to enfranchise, are given a better deal and that the European Parliament gets a more representative cross-section of British opinion than at present. If the Government help to pass this Bill, they will have taken one small step in the right direction, but let them not lie back and think they have finished the job.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, it falls to me as Chairman of the Select Committee in your Lordships' House which studied this matter in some detail to indicate that in principle we support entirely the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in promoting the Bill which is before your Lordships' House tonight. Needless to say, it would be much more appropriate if this were a Government Bill because it is a constitutional matter. Sooner or later it would appear to me that if it is to proceed in time for the next European elections it will have to be a Government Bill. I should have thought that propriety demanded that it should be a constitutional Bill sponsored directly by Her Majesty's Government.
I do not know whether it is by accident or design that this matter is being discussed tonight. My suspicious mind suggests it could just conceivably have been by design because this very question is on

553
the agenda for the Foreign Ministers' Council, and they might possibly have reached it today. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will enlighten us if they have. However, if it is reached at all, this question is more likely to be reached tomorrow. But, unless the despatches have come with haste from Brussels, it means that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, will be in no better position tonight than he has been all along in stonewalling on this question when it has been put before him on previous occasions in your Lordships' House. He has taken a very detached view of the whole matter.
We have it on record—it has been repeated in another place by the Minister of State at the Foreign Office, Mr. Hurd—that it is the Government's wish to extend the franchise; they simply find the technicalities too much for them. When he replied to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on 22nd December last, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, said:
"There are many important and difficult considerations, all of which are at present with the European Council, and which Her Majesty's Government will have to consider when the matter comes to us".
How detached can one be? From that Answer one would suppose that we had no part in the European Council, that we were utterly aloof from it, that we were simply waiting on some detached body to indicate what proposals they had and that then Her Majesty's Government could at leisure consider the matter.
Similarly, on a more recent occasion, in reply to a Question on a different matter—the Irish citizens' vote—on 9th March when the noble Lord was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, if he could say whether there is any other country in Europe which allows non-citizens to vote in their general elections—a slightly different question but germane—he gracefully sidestepped, did not mention Europe at all but gave the interesting information that several Commonwealth countries, including Australia, New Zealand and, in some elections, Canada, allow non-citizens to vote in their domestic elections.
We are not asking for anything so revolutionary as that. We are asking that for the elections to the European Parliament it should be possible for British citizens who would be entitled to vote in this country, if they were still resident here, but who are resident in some other member state, to be enfranchised. Our Select Committee report makes this quite clear. I must not reiterate what has already been said very comprehensively, particularly by my noble friend Lord Underhill, but that we were at one in this particular matter, though we had differences of view on the desirability or otherwise of various electoral procedures. So far as they were concerned our remit was, as far as we could, to analyse and elucidate the proposals put forward by the European Parliament. But on this matter of justice and the civil rights of British citizens in the Community, we were entirely at one.
There was no division whatever in the committee on the principle. We recognise, of course, that there are problems. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred in his speech to the evidence which was given to your Lordships' Select Committee by the Home Office. Further evidence, and, to my mind, more sympathetic
554
evidence, was given some three weeks later in another place to the Home Affairs Committee, who were examining this matter, though not, of course, from a European point of view. The major part of their discussion was concerned with the possibility of some general arrangement for overseas voters—nothing to do with the Community as such—and it was in that context that they discussed the question of registration and the possibility of a period during which the people who had been previously registered could be retained or re-registered in the constituency with which they were formerly connected. It was in that context that the period of seven years was mentioned; not in the context that we are debating tonight.
The context in which we are discussing these matters tonight is a narrow one. It is confined to the European Parliament and confined to persons resident within member states of the Community. We are discussing something that is not necessarily linked with any extension for parliamentary elections to Westminister or for local elections in this country. We should have that point perfectly clear in our minds.
In the evidence given to the committee in another place on 19th January, representations were made, I was interested to observe, by the British Conservative Association in France and the British Conservative Association in Belgium, as well as by the Association for the Rights of Britons Abroad, who also approached your Lordships' Select Committee. We did not have the pleasure of receiving arguments from the British Conservative Association of either France or Belgium but there is no doubt that those two bodies—which are associations of British citizens in those countries who support the present Administration in the United Kingdom—were very much concerned that justice was not being done. When asked by the chairman of the Select Committee in another place,
"Is it the view of our witnesses"—
that is, the representatives of those associations—
"that Britain places her citizens in a less fair position vis-á-vis voting rights than any other European country?"
the gentleman from Belgium said,
"That is absolutely right".
The gentleman from the British Conservative Association in France said,
"This is not only absolutely but blatantly right".
He then continued:
"This causes great surprise abroad because it is not appreciated. When European politicians are told that, in Britain, the Mother of Parliaments disenfranchises her citizens who happen to live outside Britain, they do not understand".
I have in my hand one of a number of letters received on this subject. It is addressed to the "Committee on Suffrage" in the EEC Parliament, so I took it that it was possibly intended for myself. It begins, engagingly,
"My dear Lords: As a British subject"—
this is from a gentleman who lives in France, in Liancourt—
"I live and work in France, yet I have no right to vote for the European Parliament elections. Thus, as a citizen of one EEC country living in another EEC country and so, one presumes, following the policy of the EEC to create greater understanding between the member populations, I cannot vote for the EEC Parliament. This strange situation appears to apply to British subjects; the French, Dutch, German, Italians, et cetera, all vote when living

555
abroad. The Italian Government even pay fares home to Italy for national elections. To this contradictory state of affairs must be added the special position of Ireland".
That, I think, we all appreciate, because Irish subjects living in the United Kingdom can vote in British elections and also in European elections. My correspondent continues:
"I am informed that soon British subjects living in Ireland will be able to vote there too. I fear, my dear Lords, that the basis of this problem is simple laziness on the part of some legislators who cannot take the time to apply the democratic right to vote—the very basis of all we hold so dear. I should like to thank you for all your efforts in making an inquiry into the problems of voting for the European Parliament and hope that your work may result in the application of universal suffrage for that Parliament."
I think that puts in a nutshell the emotions of very many Britons who live and work within the Community—not least those who are working for the institutions of the Community; persons who are themselves British subjects and who feel that it is grossly inequitable that they, who have been working for the success of this experiment, are deprived of the vote. They feel not only disadvantaged but in a sense rejected. They believe, as I think our own Select Committee believe—that if the Government really wish us to take steps in this matter, they can and should still do so.
One appreciates that it would be very much better if we could legislate in this country on lines which were compatible, in most details at least, with the arrangements in other member states. The stance of Her Majesty's Government so far has been that unless there is complete agreement of the Council of Ministers on the frachise matter, then they are unable to proceed. We do not accept that argument. As we have said, we recognise that the choice on the main electoral procedures whether one goes in for some measure of proportional representation or not, is a very different matter. It has already been declared by the Council of Ministers that there is no possibility of this being determined in time for the European elections in 1984. This does not apply to the enfranchisement of British citizens, enabling those who would be entitled to vote in this country, and who were previously registered in this country, to vote in the 1984 elections.
It would be possible for Her Majesty's Government, if they really wished to do so, to get the legislation through. It may be that we shall have the happy tidings, at the conclusion of the Council of Ministers' meeting tomorrow, that they have reached agreement. If so, so much the better. But if they have not reached agreement then I would ask the Minister directly, do the Government have any deadline in mind by which they can wait no longer for agreement between the member states and the Council of Ministers? By this is meant a date from which the Government could still obtain legislation in this Parliament to make it possible for those who were previously registered in constituencies in this country to re-register by 10th October 1983. This would enable them to vote by post or proxy, as we have suggested, whichever seems to be the more satisfactory from an administrative point of view.
I am quite certain that, if the Government really made up their minds, the Government could get
556
through in a week the kind of Bill that is necessary! The noble Lord, Lord Elton, looks disbelieving, but we have seen it done when it has had to be done. I am not suggesting that it is in the least desirable, but we do not know what other things may be happening between now and October. What we really want tonight from the Minister in charge is a firm declaration that, having supported this principle in Opposition and in Government, the Government are now prepared to take the necessary steps.
In conclusion, I would call in aid the statements given to us in evidence by Mr. Cecil Parkinson, who is not only Chairman of the Conservative Party but a member of the Cabinet. He made it perfectly clear that in his view it was entirely desirable to take the kind of action which we have outlined. I am quoting from page 125 of the evidence submitted to the committee. I am sure it is engraved upon Lord Elton's heart. Mr. Parkinson said:
"I fervently hope that room can be found in the legislative programme for a measure to enfranchise the approximately 250,000 Britons who will otherwise find themselves deprived of their right to participate in elections in which they have as much stake as those permanently resident in the United Kingdom constituencies."
Nothing could be plainer than that. He went on
"This is such a serious question that I would personally"—
he is not, admittedly, speaking for the Government, but he is speaking as Chairman of the Conservative Party—
"hope that the Government will consider taking interim action on this point before October 1983, even if agreement proves elusive in the Council."
That is as clear and specific a statement as anybody could ask for. It is supported by the Select Committee of your Lordships' House, and we hope, therefore, that the noble Lord tonight will indicate that, whatever is happening in Brussels at the Council of Ministers today or tomorrow, Her Majesty's Government have the will to do justice to these British citizens.
8.31 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I would like to begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Bethell for bringing this important matter before your Lordships' House this evening. It is right that we should address ourselves to elections to the European Parliament in which we ourselves may vote and stand for election. Indeed, four Members of your Lordships' House, including my noble friend himself, are also Members of that Parliament. So this is a matter in which your Lordships' House can express a particular interest.
I would also like to take this opportunity of conveying the Government's thanks to your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities, and to the sub-committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady White, for their recent report on the European Parliament's proposals for a uniform electoral procedure. Much of the ground covered in that report lies outside the scope of today's debate. But the Government have noted that the right to vote in elections to the European Parliament is the subject of the only recommendation in the committee's report. I shall say something about the substance of that recommendation in a moment.
I have listened with very great interest to everything that has been said in today's debate, and in particular

557
to the view which has been expressed that the Government must take steps to ensure that British people living in other member states of the European Community should be able to vote at the next European Parliamentary election on 17th May 1984. Before I go any further I should make it clear that the Government agree that British citizens ought to be able to vote in elections to the European Parliament irrespective of their place of residence in the Community. That was our view in 1978, as I have been several times reminded, and it remains our view today.
As noble Lords will recall, it was agreed in 1976 that for the first direct elections to the European Parliament each member state should run its own election in its own way. So far as the right to vote is concerned, some member states gave the vote to the citizens of other member states resident in their territory, while others gave the vote to some or all of their own citizens resident in other member states or outside the Community. The result was that some Community nationals could vote in two member states while others could not vote at all. Although while we were in Opposition we tried to change this, British people resident outside the United Kingdom were among those deprived of a vote.
The initiative for correcting this sorry state of affairs rested with the European Parliament itself, which was required by the Community treaties to draw up proposals for a uniform procedure under which its elections would be held throughout the Community. So far as the right to vote is concerned, the Parliament had, in effect, to choose between what for convenience' sake I refer to as either the residence or the nationality principles. By the residence principle I mean the idea that a person should be given the right to vote by his country of residence. By the nationality principle I mean the idea set out in my noble friend's Bill that a person should be given the right to vote by the country whose nationality he holds. The European Parliament, after toying with the idea of a mixed system, came down in favour of the nationality principle. Under the proposals which the Parliament eventually adopted last March, member states would be required to give the right to vote to their nationals irrespective of their place of residence in the Community.
It then fell to the Council of Ministers to decide whether it could agree to recommend the Parliament's proposals for implementation by individual member states. It is now almost a year since the Council began considering the Parliament's proposals. It soon became clear that agreement on a common franchise was not going to be possible without some amendments to the Parliament's text. Prompted by a desire to reach agreement on this issue in time for member states to pass the necessary legislation by 1984, the Council decided a few months ago to give priority to discussions on a common franchise. Last month, the Council agreed to make a further effort, and the Council is meeting in Brussels today and tomorrow to see whether agreement is possible. I regret I cannot tell the noble Baroness where they have reached on the agenda at this particular time, but I have received no courier hot foot from the meeting.
The Government are aware of a widespread feeling
558
that we should simply ignore what is happening in Brussels and go ahead with out own legislation. This is, for example, the view put forward by your Lordships' Select Committee. In considering the possibility of "interim" legislation the Government have to remember that as a constitutional measure a Bill to extend the franchise at European Parliament elections would have to go through all its stages in another place on the Floor of that House. Experience shows that legislation of this kind is acutely controversial. The Labour Government's European Assembly Elections Act had to be introduced twice and took a whole session to get through. That was, of course, a more wide-ranging measure than my noble friend's Bill, but even so we could expect any Bill to extend the franchise at European Parliament elections to take up a disproportionate amount of parliamentary time.
The noble Baroness would, I think, concede from her experience in Government that, except where there is national unanimity in a national crisis to motor something through both Houses in—I cannot believe she said 48 hours; she may have said a fortnight, it is not within our grasp. The Government simply could not justify asking Parliament to go through the whole procedure in the absence of all-party agreement on the details of the scheme as well as on the principle of the scheme, and in the knowledge that the whole lengthy and acrimonious process would have to be repeated once agreement is reach in the Council.
There are, furthermore, a number of substantial issues which need to be settled before legislation can be introduced. The most important is perhaps the question of who should qualify. The noble Lord has proposed it should be all British citizens, and with commendable precision he refers us to the British Nationality Act 1981 which introduced the term. The noble Baroness and her committee, on the other hand, propose that it should be British subjects. The term "British subject" now refers only to a few residual groups who have no other citizenship under the 1981 Act, and I assume—the noble Baroness will correct me if I am wrong—that the expression is intended to convey the sense it has in the Representation of the People Acts, including not only British citizens but also the citizens of all other Commonwealth countries who can vote if they are resident here. The committee also proposes that the right to vote should be limited—I quote from paragraph 72 of the report,
"to those who have within a fixed period of, say 10 years, been registered as electors for parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom".
That, of course, would exclude any Members of your Lordships House who happened to find themselves in another member state. No doubt the Select Committee had its own good reasons for considering that desirable, though I am not quite clear whether your Lordships would welcome it. What are the Government to do? The two proposals—that is, my noble friend's and the noble Baroness's—are, in fact, mutually exclusive. We cannot have them both. And if we adopt either we know we shall have to think again when agreement is reached in the Council.
That brings me to my next point, which is that the Bill tells us nothing about how these new electors are to be put on the electoral register. The noble Lord,

559
Lord Underhill, picked up this point. I know that my noble friend takes the view that this is something which can be left for my right honourable Friend the Home Secretary to sort out in regulations. Would that it were so! What is needed here is a new power for the electoral registration officer. At present he can only register a person who is resident in his local government area. He cannot include the names of people resident in other parts of the United Kingdom let alone in other member states of the Community.
And how are we to decide which constituency a non-resident voter should vote in? If we give the right to all British citizens many, it is true, will have some sort of link with an address or a constituency which would help decide where they should be registered. But many British citizens do not have such an easily identifiable link, and some have never lived here at all. Some new electors would presumably have to be given a more or less absolute choice of constituency. I can tell your Lordships that if I were in that position I should certainly cast my vote in the most marginal constituency I could find.
Finally, my noble friend's Bill needs to make provision for his new electors to cast the votes that they have been accorded. I am sure we can all agree that, if we do give the vote to people who live outside the United Kingdom, we ought to make sure they can exercise it. I doubt that your Lordships would be content with the solution adopted by Luxembourg in 1979, which was to allow those resident abroad to vote provided they came back home to do it.
Perhaps this is a suitable time to pick up the challenge that the noble Baroness I think intended to throw before me—perhaps I ought to say "My dear Baroness White"—on the question of what the provisions are in other countries in the Community. Briefly they are these. In Belgium, eligibility is given to citizens whose main place of residence is Belgium. They vote by proxy. In Denmark, citizens permanently resident in other member states vote by post through diplomatic missions. In Germany, citizens resident in other member states vote by post. In France, all citizens resident abroad, whether in other member states or elsewhere, vote at diplomatic missions or by proxy. In Ireland, eligibility is restricted to service voters, who vote by post. In Italy, all citizens resident abroad, whether in other member states or elsewhere, have the vote and exercise it at consulates in other member states or in person in Italy. In Luxembourg, as I said, citizens resident in other member states can vote in person in Luxembourg. In the Netherlands, citizens ,resident in other member states can vote by proxy. In this country, your Lordships are familiar with the arrangements which extend to service voters.
So we should have to choose between postal voting or proxy voting. Proxy voting is the method traditionally used by service voters and other electors resident abroad. But it is not a popular method, and your Lordships might consider that postal voting would be a better alternative. The objection to allowing electors who are out of the country on polling day to vote by post at a general election has always been that it would require an extension of the parliamentary elections timetable. Your Lordships might
560
consider that for European Parliament elections, when the date is known so long in advance, postal voting would, in fact, be a possibility.
One of the most invidious tasks entrusted to a Minister is to tell one of your Lordships, and more particularly one of his noble friends, that his drafting is defective. I hope that when I tell my noble friend that this is so he will accept that it is not intended as a criticism of him but as a reminder of the immense complexity of legislative drafting. The points I have raised are, however, points of substance as well as points of drafting, and before we can get the drafting right we shall have to have a settled policy.
The Government have no monopoly of wisdom here. In the normal course of events we should expect the issue to be resolved through discussion with the political parties. I should remind your Lordships at this point that the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place is currently examining ways of giving the vote at parliamentary elections to British people resident abroad. Their report is expected in a few months' time.
My noble friend rallied to himself various allies in his desire to get legislation swiftly on to the statute book. In particular he quoted, and was echoed in this with even greater precision by the noble Baroness, Lady White, my right honourable friend the chairman of the Conservative Party. An important contradiction in terms was included in my noble friend's reference and the quotation of the noble Baroness. My noble friend said that my right honourable friend spoke both in his capacity as chairman of the party and personally. The noble Baroness quoted the relevant passage. If my noble friend reads the passage quoted by the noble Baroness, in paragraph 12 of the account of the select Committee's proceedings, he will see that my right honourable friend was indeed speaking personally and not in any other capacity when he excited my noble friend's expectation of legislation before October 1983.
So far as the prospects of the Bill are concerned, the qualifying date for voting at the 1984 elections is 10th October this year, so any Bill altering the franchise would have to reach the statute book before the Summer Recess. I have explained how Bills on this sort of subject have fared in another place in the past. I have also explained that this subject is under active consideration in Brussels. The Government think that it is not appropriate to bring forward our own proposals at this stage. Even without the cogent remarks of the noble Baroness, I should have had to say that the Government's legislative programme is already full enough without trying to force more contentious measures into it than there is time to consider properly. That is why the Government are not, I regret, prepared to help my noble friend with drafting amendments to his Bill. Nevertheless, as an indication of the Government's sympathy with what my noble friend's Bill seeks to achieve, we do not intend to oppose this Second Reading of it.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Bethell: My Lords, I am, of course, grateful to my noble friend for the qualified welcome that he gave to the Second Reading of this Bill, and for the assurance that he and his noble friends on the Front

561
Bench will not oppose it. However, I suspect that I speak for the majority of those present in this House when I express my disappointment that, when it comes to practical measures to put this Bill on the statute book, my noble friend is not prepared to be helpful. However, I hope he will accept that those of us who support the principle of the Bill and who believe that the present draft—however incomplete, although I hope not too defective—contains the basis for a Second Reading and the basis on which a Bill could be built, will be ready to proceed and to produce a piece of legislation that will at least pass your Lordships' House and will be ready if, indeed, it should turn out that time were to become available in another place in this Session or another Session.
I believe that it is preferable to proceed along these lines than to take the perhaps rather slow approach recommended by my noble friend, which is to wait until full agreement has been reached on a uniform procedure by the Ten. If we wait that long I fear we shall wait until the Greek Kalends and very large numbers of British subjects will be disfranchised in the meantime. I suspect that most of your Lordships will consider that such a thing is wrong and undesirable.
A number of points were raised in this debate. One was the question of whether British subjects should have a cut-off point beyond which they should be ineligible for the franchise. It was even suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that some of those whom this Bill hopes to enfranchise were tax exiles. I should like simply to state my personal view to him that, due to the wise administration of the present Government, there are few tax exiles left. Indeed, the incentive to become a tax exile has very largely vanished. Great benefits have accrued to the Exchequer as a result of this wise provision.
Several noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bethell: I am glad at last to be getting one or two cheers from my Front Bench. Perhaps the third will follow at some later date.
The question of proxy or post is important, but that is a Committee point and one which I hope will come out in the later stages of this Bill. I very much agree with those who put forward the view—I think everyone who spoke, except my noble friend Lord Elton—that it would be more appropriate if this Bill were a Government Bill. Given the length of period during which the Government have expressed themselves in favour of such a principle, it seems a pity, to put it mildly, that they have not taken any action at all in nearly four years and seem unwilling to take any action now, or indeed to be helpful over action taken by a private Member and supported by a large number of your Lordships. However, we will proceed as best we can nevertheless. I am grateful for the neutrality of my noble friend, benevolent or whatever it may be.
I would like in conclusion to thank my noble friends who have worked hard for this provision, and in particular my noble friends and colleagues Lord O'Hagan and Baroness Elles. I would also thank my colleagues the Marquess of Duoro and Mr. Adam Ferguson who put forward cogent evidence to your Lordhips' Select Committee in support of this provision.
562
It is true, as my noble friend Lord Elton pointed out, that this matter is controversial. It is true that it could take up parliamentary time, but I hope that having put forward these practical observations, my noble friend will not lose sight of the fact that this is a provision which is essentially just and that it should not be left for too long. The vote is a basic right of anyone who pays tax. Partially in response to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, I point out that all British subjects on the Continent pay Community tax. I would suggest to your Lordships that all of them should have the right to vote and should be entitled to have an influence over how the tax that they pay through value added tax is spent. It only remains for me therefore to commend this Bill to your Lordships and to ask you to be kind enough to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Northern Ireland: Violence
8.53 p.m.
Lord Hylton Lord Hylton rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking with a view to limiting, and if possible ending, the spiral of violence in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, towards the end of something of a marathon day, I would almost apologise for asking this Question at this time. I do not do so because of the ever-present urgency of the matter and because I believe that the British Government can do more than just stand firm in the face of violence. I would suggest that the two qualities most needed are, first, sensitivity and, secondly, imagination. I will come back to this point later on.
The background to the question is that there are two distinct identities existing in Northern Ireland and two traditions in political, cultural and religious matters. This has been much recognised, particularly in the devolution White Paper of April 1982, Cmnd. 8541, and then in the month immediately following, in greater depth possibly, in Dr. Garret FitzGerald's Dimbleby Lecture. I am glad to say that a two-traditions group has recently been formed in Northern Ireland to work at voluntary level towards mutual respect between the two sections of the Ulster people.
I should perhaps try to explain in a few words what I mean by the spiral of violence. We have seen how violence persists from one generation to the next and how it continues in certain families and in certain neighbourhoods. We have seen also how it can feed upon itself and how one atrocity can lead to another, sometimes by way of reprisal or revenge. The question, I believe, is how can Government help people to abandon some of their current attitudes which may on occasion include a sneaking or half-admitted tolerance for the men of violence. I would suggest, first, that we need greater sensitivity and awareness of the actual effects of policies and practices. I may say in passing that we did see something of this in the earlier debate this afternoon on the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I would submit, secondly, that Government should try to show greater respect for the legitimate and democratic aspirations of various sections of the whole population. Here the remarks

563
made earlier by my noble friend Lord Dunleath might be cited.
The sensitivity and respect that I think are needed will call for the development of current policies in a number of ways, and I should like to give some examples. I would welcome once again, very warmly, Circular No. 21 of 1982 from the Department of Education in Northern Ireland. This concerned cooperation between Protestant and Roman Catholic schools. Schools, I think it is agreed, have a considerable potential for the improvement of community relations. For example, recently 250 children from 19 secondary schools in Belfast, 10 Protestant and nine Catholic, came together in Belfast Cathedral to put on a musical version of the story of Moses. That I think is something that just could not have happened only a very few years ago.
I would come next to consider this time of high and rising unemployment, when it is of the utmost importance that recruitment and promotion should be scrupulously fair and non-sectarian. Her Majesty's Government have a clear responsibility for what happens in the Civil Service and the public sector. I should like to ask whether they will, in the near future, make a statement of what they have been doing in this respect in recent times and what their plans are for the future. Do Her Majesty's Government think, secondly, that the Fair Employment Agency has been as effective as it was intended to be? Will the recently agreed extra staff in the agency and the revised committee structure enable it to do substantially better? The agency must, I think, enforce the law, and if it cannot do this it will be seen to be a toothless watchdog.
I had intended to say something on the subject of coroner's inquests into violence and unexplained deaths, but only today I received a letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I think that the noble Earl also has a copy and this letter is a long one which needs considerable study, so I shall confine myself to saying that there is considerable concern in Northern Ireland on this matter. I have had letters from a number of sources about it. Where a delay of more than a year occurs after a death and then the Director of Public Prosecutions decides that there can be no prosecution, then follows an inquest and quite often one just gets an open verdict. Sometimes this is felt to make a farce of the whole procedure. I should like to ask the Government whether they will think very hard about ways and means by which the whole process can be speeded up.
Next, I come to joy-riding and by this I mean young people riding about in stolen cars. It is a very sensitive subject, and I have mentioned it before in your Lordships' House. It has caused several deaths in Belfast. Some good preventive work has been done by volunteers so that stock-car racing can be enjoyed by young people. But I should like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will co-ordinate the Department of Manpower Services and the social and probation services in organising training on the repair and construction of cars, together with some controlled driving and racing? I suggest that perhaps three or four workshops and one racetrack would save quite a number of lives and, in the process, produce
564
some quite skilled people. Could there be a combination of intermediate treatment and youth training for employment and adult life?
Next, I move on to some of the recommendations made in past years by the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights. Will Her Majesty's Government repeal the Flags and Emblems Act 1954? This was asked for in the second report from the commission. I understand that the law on the breach of peace covers this matter perfectly satisfactorily and that there have been no prosecutions for a good number of years. I believe that the Act is redundant and should go.
The commission also asked for certain minor tidying up of Northern Ireland electoral law, particularly in paragraphs 16 to 18 of the report, which I have already quoted. Will the noble Earl the Minister please think again about this and, if possible, change his stance from the reply he gave me to a Question for Written Answer on 28th January? Surely it is proper to correct anomalies affecting the rights of probably over 5,000 people—and I take this figure from the Anglo-Irish Studies Paper, Cmnd. 8414.
My last point concerns prisoners with families in Northern Ireland who are serving their sentences in prisons in Britain. Many of them have applied for transfer to prisons in Northern Ireland. However, I believe that since 1975 none has been transferred, except possibly one man who was temporarily moved. This is so despite assurances from the present Home Secretary that each request for transfer is considered on its merits. The present impasse imposes great burdens on families and an added penalty on the prisoners. A careful costing shows that one wife would have to spend over £300 to take three children under the age of 12 to visit her husband in prison on the Isle of Wight. Another case known to me personally is of a mother who had to spend £175 to visit her son in Gartree Prison in Leicestershire and the visit lasted only two and three-quarter hours.
Thus, heavy expenditure falls either on the family or, failing them, on the Department of Health and Social Services. The result is that the prisoner is lucky if he gets three or four visits per year as compared with one visit permitted per month in Britain or two visits per month in Northern Ireland. I also have details of four men now serving life sentences who have averaged only two visits per year in recent years.
I submit that successive Governments have been breaching the spirit and intention of Prison Rule No. 31, which is paralleled by Rule No. 57 of the Northern Ireland Rules. I beg Her Majesty's Government to listen to the reasoned case put forward by the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders and the National Association of Probation Officers. The latter body wrote last August:
"Transfer would ease the pressures on families and relatives, reduce the risk of family and marital breakdown, improve stability within relationships and help these men and their children to maintain some form of parent/child relationship. For others it would give the opportunity to keep closer contact with often ageing parents, who are frequently in poor health and unfit to travel long distances. In addition it would considerably reduce the financial burden now placed on all relations when a visit to England is planned."
I think that these are three very cogent reasons, all the more so because we know that over one-third of

565
the cases in question are life sentences. Therefore, on humanitarian grounds I appeal to the Government. I urge them to grant this appeal from a position of strength in accordance with the prison rules and in the spirit of the European convention on the transfer of sentenced persons.
At a time when the Northern Ireland Assembly is experiencing difficulties, I have made suggestions for improving direct rule. They are not suggestions that require the expenditure of large sums of money and only a few of them call for minor legislation. Taken together, they would show that the Government are possessed of sensitivity and imagination and that they command the support of people of goodwill in all parties. Further, I believe it would show that the Government are determined to use all lawful means to limit and, if possible, end the spiral of violence. I hope that I have outlined a case for believing that progress does not depend on security and economics to the exclusion of all other considerations.
I should now like to thank those who will speak later and express the hope that they will fill in the details which I may have omitted or only sketched in. Just in case there should be anyone here who might think that I have been speaking in any kind of one-sided manner, I should like to say something to the British Labour Party and to those people in Ireland who advocate a united Ireland. I would say: beware of arousing expectations that cannot be fulfilled. Such expectations may well lead to frustration and, in turn, frustration may produce more violence. The advocates of a united Ireland by consent should hammer out the practical details. For instance, how can the pound and the punt and their respective green currencies be brought together? How will, or how would, the very large grants from the British Treasury be replaced? How can welfare and social benefits be harmonised as between the South and the North? What indeed is the future of the Irish constitution? How can the reasonable and very real fears of so many Unionists be allayed? Let those who advocate unity consider the views of Professor Frankel. He, my Lords, is, or was, a distinguished American visiting professor at Queen's University, Belfast, who wrote in a Canadian academic journal:
"The present boundaries in Ireland must be accepted as final if there is to be any hope of peace".
From my own point of view, I suggest that, unless these and other relevant questions receive prompt and practical answers, a united Ireland may prove to have been a chimera of a particularly expensive and divisive sort.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, could he kindly say why he thinks that the Flags and Emblems Act ought to be repealed when that Act was directed essentially against the flag of a nation which, in its constitution, is making by definition hostile territorial claims against this part of the United Kingdom?
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I shall do my best. This Act, so far as I can understand, is a dead letter. Nobody attempts to enforce it. It is really something quite obsolete, regardless of claims or anything else.
9.9 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is, what steps are the Government taking to limit and, if possible, end the spiral of violence? I am certain that most noble Lords will agree that this is not a question that can be answered solely on steps to suppress terrorism. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, in his speech, for which we all thank him, went along those lines as well. With the tragedies of Ballykelly, Regent's Park and Hyde Park still in our minds the situation must appear awesome. I want to make it clear that so long as there is one sectarian killing, or one bombing, the tragedy remains with us.
However, all is not as disastrous as it may appear, and I recognise that only those who live in Northern Ireland can really understand the full situation. I was pleased that I was able to make a brief visit to Belfast earlier this year and to contrast the situation with what I saw on my previous visit a few years before. There was far less military presence on the streets. This was apparent. In discussions both with the military command and with the RUC senior officers, including the chief constable, there was a ready acceptance that the authority is with the RUC, with the military as a back-up to be called in by the RUC as necessary.
This is emphasised by the chief constable himself in his recently issued report for 1982. In the course of it he said:
"As the RUC gains in strength and professionalism, and as the level of terrorist violence is more and more diminished, so is the future need for military support reduced".
That development is encouraging. But one of my last engagements before I left Belfast enabled me to see some of the new housing developments in Belfast by the Housing Executive.
Reference was made by the officials with me to various new estates as being "Catholic estates", or as being "Protestant estates". I asked the natural question, "Surely, this is not a question that you ask when you allocate properties?" I was told, "No, but this is how the people themselves prefer to have it". I asked whether I could see housing development near Bombay Street, because I still had recollections of seeing the ghastly burnings in the days of 1939 in that area. When I saw the housing development I was saddened to see—what? A 20 foot wall. A Belfast "Berlin Wall" around the housing estate because of the fears of the community in that estate. On the one hand, there were encouraging developments, and, on the other hand, a saddening position that the division between the communities is still there.
On 7th February a Written Answer was given in Commons' Hansard, columns 237 to 242, which gave statistics of the steady decline in the numbers of shootings, explosions, and similar incidents since the peak of 1972, Much as we deplore a single death or injury arising from terrorist activities, we must welcome that steady decline. I have no doubt that the Minister may wish to refer to these statistics; therefore, I shall just take two figures which I extracted from that Written Answer. Shooting incidents peaked at over 10,000 in 1972, but have fallen steadily each year to 382 last year. There were 1,382 explosions in 1972, which declined steadily to 219 last year. Of course, these figures are still appalling, and the downward

567
trend must not detract from the feeling of any of us about the horrific killings, brutality and violence which still take place.
In contrast to those encouraging figures, although compared with 1972 the numbers of armed robberies have declined, they have stablilised at between 400 and 600 since 1977, and last year the number was 580, almost the same as in 1981. But the amount stolen last year, £1,400,000, was the highest ever recorded since 1971, and I wonder how much of that stolen money was for terrorist activities. A section of the chief constable's report says:
"As a consequence of the resources of the police being deployed principally to combat murder and terroroist acts generally, there was an increase in ordinary crime and a fall in the detection rate. This is yet another manifestation of the fact that terrorism, whether directly or indirectly, is eroding the quality of life in Northern Ireland".
Those final words are of great importance to us all. The ever-increasing rate of unemployment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred, particularly among young persons, with the atmosphere of hopelessness, linked to a lack of community trust, must be an added factor leading to the situation described by the chief constable in that section of his report.
A senior police officer spoke to me with great pride of the work of the police in community relations. I have since noted with interest the chapter in the chief constable's report dealing with that aspect, which begins:
"The main thrust of the community relations programme was directed towards young people—tomorrow's adults. Emphasis was placed on the constructive use of their natural drive and energy, especially in those areas where unemployment is a growing problem, and projects were designed to involve people from different backgrounds in activities which promoted a spirit of understanding and co-operation".
In describing the various activities carried out, the report is heartening, particularly when it refers to the 1,000 blue lamp discos which, in 1982, the chief constable's report states, were attended by nearly 142,000 young people in Northern Ireland.
I was unable to find in the report—perhaps the Minister could tell me—whether participation in these various activities is from both communities; whether they participate jointly or the events tend to be attended only by the persons in the community area where the event is being held. In other words, how much of the work being carried out so excellently by the police develops into community activity; or is there still something to be achieved in that context? The chief constable concludes his introduction to the report by saying:
"Much of the progress achieved in 1982 was due to the public, and this surely points the way forward".
That links with what Mr. Gerry Fitt, whom I am sure we all admire, said in the Commons on 10th February. I am not allowed to quote him but, to paraphrase, he said that irrespective of what might be said in Dublin, Parliament or Washington, the only people who could resolve the differences were the Protestant and Catholic communities of the North. What we can do to help in the supression of terrorism, from whomever it may come, is to create improvement in the economic situation, with a reduction in un-
568
employment—that is imperative—and improvements in the living conditions of many people, particularly in the inner city areas.
I do not know if other noble Lords noticed a short letter which appeared in the Guardian last week from Mr. Charles Brett, Chairman of the Housing Executive, who, in answer to some criticisms about housing allocations, pointed out that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive was established in 1971 with the remit to take out sectarianism from housing administration and allocations, and that in no case during the last 12 years had the Commissioner for Complaints made a finding of discrimination on political or religious grounds against the executive. In other words, among our general dark feelings are some encouraging things to note. It is so easy for us, who do not live in the area, to talk here. Nevertheless, we are all appalled by the inhuman violence that takes place and we must give encouragement to every possible move that may lead to a better understanding.
In my first speech on Northern Ireland, which ,I made some three years ago when I opened a debate on the economic and social problems of Northern Ireland, I referred to the then staggering unemployment rate of 11·1 per cent. Today it is getting near double that figure. With some districts approaching 35 per cent. of male unemployment—in a mainly single-community area—there is every encouragement to sectarian bitterness. I recognise that the religious leaders have condemned violence, but I am certain that there is something more that all the Churches can do to encourage moves towards reconciliation and practical cross-community activity.
It is encouraging to learn that the Secretary of State, with the noble Earl who is to reply to this evening's debate, met the Foreign Affairs Minister of the Republic on 1st February. I do not know whether it is possible for the noble Earl to tell us what transpired, or whether that is confidential. Also welcome is the suggestion made by the noble Earl that there should be a framework of triangular arrangements among London, Dublin, and Belfast. That may fit in with a statement recently made by Garret Fitzgerald, to which I shall refer before I conclude.
The position of the Labour Party has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. The Labour Party believes that progress towards unification of Ireland is essential, but that it cannot be brought about by threats, coercion, or force. It can be achieved only by common consent. Anything that helps to build a bridge between the communities in the North as well as between the North and the South must be welcomed and encouraged.
That point leads me on to the decision of the Political Committee of the European Assembly to send an inquiry team to Northern Ireland. I think that many noble Lords would agree that the Community has no right to interfere with the internal affairs of a member state. However, I hope that when the members of the Political Committee of the European Assembly arrive in Northern Ireland they will be given every assistance. Obviously, there should be nothing in the way of negotiations with that body, but it is in everyone's interests that the members of the committee should gain a complete and true picture of the situation in

569
Northern Ireland. I hope that that will be made available to them.
I referred earlier to a statement by Dr. Garret Fitzgerald. His suggestion about a forum for democratic parties from both the North and the South, aimed at a new initiative to solve the Northern Ireland problem, surely ought to be encouraged. Of course care should be exercised. Any discussions in such a forum should not be rushed, and no predetermined solutions should be pushed forward. An editorial in the Guardian today emphasises that
"If there is to be a way out, it will have to be done on that side of the water".
The solution will rest with the people of Ireland as a whole; not only with the people of Northern Ireland. I am certain that we cannot countenance a permanent state of terrorism. Steps to control terrorism must be taken, but they alone will not be enough. The basic issue remains to be dealt with. How can the two communmities in the North move towards reconciliation? How can an understanding of some kind be achieved between the North and the South? Those, I believe, are the essential issues to which we should all direct our thoughts in considering the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. Unless we move towards getting answers to those two questions, we may find that terrorism will be with us for many years to come.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, this is a vitally important question, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his introduction of this debate. I shall listen with interest to what further is said, and I hope that the Minister can reply with some optimism. I was not altogether certain what represents "a spiral of violence", and I am more familiar with the term "vicious circle". In relation to the Irish situation, this term was, unfortunately, already in use more than 60 years ago. Last week I was shown a copy of the New Statesman journal published on 14th June, 1919; that is, before the Province of Northern Ireland existed as such. I read how certain ladies at Killarney sold flags on Labour Day without permits, and how large forces of armed military and police were sent to make house arrests, and a "huge crowd" of sympathisers formed. The soldiers fixed bayonets and pushed back part of the crowd. Having stated the facts, the paper went on to comment:
"When one reads a story like that of the flag-selling ladies of Killarney, it is certainly not an impression of the brutality of the authorities that is made on one. It is an impression rather of the vicious circle in which the Irish situation turns".
The paper concluded:
"In this case, evidently, Sinn Fein won both the glory and the grievance at a very small cost in suffering".
Small beginnings may unfortunately lead to major confrontations.
British Governments (both Labour and Conservative) have made repeated promises that Northern Ireland may remain in the United Kingdom so long as a majority so desires it. Danny Morrison, a Sinn Fein director of information, a non-attending representative from mid-Ulster, wrote in the magazine Fortnight, published in December 1982, defending his party's support for the Provisional IRA's use of armed
570
force as the only way of achieving the goal of British withdrawal. He concludes his article with these words:
"Republicans cannot subscribe to constitutional politics as the sole panacea for Ireland's major ailment or as a substitute for the political effectiveness of force. For this reason, the IRA wages a guerrilla war, aimed at wearing down the will of the British Government to remain in Ireland. And there is no one and no argument that can convince Republicans that Britain, as she so often asserts, cannot eventually be broken".
Tragedy lies in the use of that word, "broken". There is no suggestion of the power of reconciliation, no understanding that the British Government wish the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic well.
And so the murders go on with all the suffering and fear that they arouse. Mr. Gerry Fitt, speaking in the other place last week, referred to the knee-capping—that terrifyingly brutal torture—inflicted just recently on a young girl of only 16. How brutal, how vicious, can some people become if their aims are persistently frustrated! I regretfully concur with the view that if the British were to withdraw from Ulster, or plan to withdraw in the near future, there would be widespread bloodshed.
In an edition of the Irishman, published in America last October, the Labour MP, Clive Soley, is reported to have said:
"If Labour won tomorrow, the paramilitary groups on both sides would stop fighting".
I am sorry, my Lords, but I think that that is pure moonshine. The noble Earl the Minister once said that, we cannot in a democracy impose a solution. He said, "They have to start sorting this difficulty out among themselves". Hence, the setting up of the Assembly, which my party supported, and the offer of "rolling devolution". We should be delighted if the Northern Irish would get on with the job.
Contrast this with the tragically mistaken view expressed in certain prejudiced papers such as the Boston Irish Echo of November 20th last year, which had the headline:
"Brutal British effort to hold on to one of its last Colonies".
It is difficult to argue with people who really convince themselves that we want to hang on to Ulster as a colony, who are blind to the fact that our efforts are costing us British lives as well as a lot of British taxpayers' money; and who cannot accept that we are committed not to oppressing a subject race but to stabilising a volatile situation according to the wishes of the majority of the people there.
This leads me on to the next point that I wish to make. The European Parliament has decided to prepare a report on the political, economic and social problems of Northern Ireland, and this has been condemned by both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister (and from other parts of the House in the other place) as unwarrantable interference in the internal affairs of a member state. I suspect that we shall hear more of this from the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. My party, however, takes a different standpoint. I believe that such a report, fairly and impartially made out, might well help to lessen the strength of the argument that we are an obdurate colonial power. That, in turn, could weaken the flow of cash from the United States to the IRA and, consequently, weaken their position and enhance stability. As I understand it, the European Parliament has no intention of

571
instructing either the United Kingdom or the Republic of Ireland in their constitutional affairs. The report is aimed to help constructively rather than to criticise.
Can the noble Earl when he comes to reply remind the House of the total sum of financial aid that has passed from Europe to the people of Ulster? That might help to lessen the feeling that the European Parliament is interfering where it has no right.The Times newspaper has admitted that a successful report might well prove beneficial. Others here will probably have seen the report of an interview with Bishop Daly of Derry, again as reported in an edition of The Irishman in the USA last October. There are a number of encouraging points, such as his condemnation of the provisional IRA. He says:
"It is an evil organisation … The IRA have only succeeded in further dividing the Irish people".
There is the frank admission:
"I have to say that I feel much safer walking around Belfast or Derry than I feel walking around most American cities late at night".
There is the happy affirmation:
"I was born in the North. I have spent all my life there as priest and bishop. I love the people. I love the place".
Which leaves me with a sense of unreality as to what is really going on in Northern Ireland today.
Less encouraging is the fact that in response to a direct question: "Would you care to offer some suggestions for solving Northern Ireland's miseries?", the bishop appears to have made no constructive suggestions, resting on the belief that:
"Within 50 years there will be a Catholic majority in the North".
So we are left with the old double minority problem unresolved.
The Earl of Longford: May I interrupt the noble Lord? My Lords, I do not know why the noble Lord should seek support for whatever his point of view is from an interview attributed to Bishop Daly in America in October. Bishop Daly is known to many of us perfectly well, and is much admired by many of us. He comes to London quite often. Why has one got to pick out one particular article in America? From where did it reach the noble Lord?
Lord Hampton: It reached me, my Lords, from the Library. But it seems to me relevant to the subject that we are discussing. I refer to getting the opinions of someone who might be sympathetic to the IRA.
The Earl of Longford: That I must repudiate. Bishop Daly has repudiated the IRA much more effectively and much more vigorously than it will ever fall to the lot of the noble Lord to accomplish.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his intervention. So we are left with the old double minority problem unresolved: the present Catholic minority in the North and the Protestant minority in the whole of Ireland.
I here pay tribute to the work of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who works so hard for Christian unity as opposed to uniformity. He has pointed out on a number of occasions that would-be Christians are prevented from understanding and hence believing in
572
the truth of the Gospel when they read of or experience the bitter hostility of so-called Christian groups to each other in Northern Ireland. It is important at the same time that we should not forget some remarkable people who are quietly beavering away for a better way of life, often with great courage in circumstances of great distress.
In my home town we have an Anglican, a Catholic and a Baptist Church, all of whom are concerned at the troubles in Ulster. Over the weekend I read an article in our parish magazine about the work for reconciliation going on at Corrymeela. This ended with these words:
"And on the dark days when the warclouds gather and darkness overshadows the humanity of man and the faith even of believers is stretched almost beyond endurance, there are still the rich revealing and quiet moments when the motto of Corrymeela shines through: 'It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness'."
How can we best help to light a candle? The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has mentioned the Churches. Perhaps after the debating, the politicising and the reasoning are over, we can join with the people of the whole of Ireland in praying that happier days may lie ahead. Divine intervention could succeed where human efforts fail.
9.34 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, very much indeed for introducing this debate and giving us a chance to add more to our debate on Northern Ireland today than hitherto. He covered the subject very well, as did previous noble Lords who have spoken; therefore I feel that there is not very much more to say. As the hour is very late I should like simply and briefly to support two of the points which have already been brought out in this debate. The first is about the Government's policy of imprisoning Northern Irish prisoners far from home. I have never really completely understood why the Government wish particularly to penalise and punish families of prisoners. I find it difficult to understand, both from an humanitarian and also from a practical point of view.
Like other noble Lords, I am sure, I have received many letters from families with relatives imprisoned far from home on the mainland and they talk about the problems of maintaining contact, problems arising through lack of funds and through illness, through the age of certain members of the family, and all the things which prevent them from travelling very often. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has already remarked on the number of times people can visit their relatives, and it is very low. Reading these letters is indeed a heartbreaking experience. I know that this subject is also under consideration by the European Parliament, this policy of making Northern Irish prisoners serve long sentences in prisons far from their families, which really does constitute inhuman treatment. Grandmothers, grandfathers, mothers, fathers and children—all such relatives really suffer hardship as a result.
I find it also difficult to understand from a practical point of view. Surely this policy must alienate the Catholic community more and more from British policies. At the same time it must make the reintegration of the prisoner concerned into his family and his community at the end of his sentence even

573
more difficult. That has something to do with the subject of this debate, the spiral of violence.
Since this debate is concerned with the spiral of violence, I feel justified in adding a little more to what previous speakers have mentioned about that verymuch-protested-against European Community initiative to examine the economic and social situation in Northern Ireland and the internal political crisis. As I understand it, that survey, which has caused so much stir, would exclude any reference to the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. I must admit to having been really amazed at the vehemence of the Prime Minister's denunciation of this initiative. I still find it difficult to understand exactly on what grounds she bases this deep displeasure, unless it could be on grounds of chauvinism, and I am sure that could not be the case.
Having accepted that membership of the European Community is unlikely to bring Britain all the economic benefits which were hoped for. I, for one, have looked for other advantages of membership. The idea that the European Community could act as a catalyst for healing internal divisions within the individual member states has always been of very great interest, to my mind. I believe that the more frameworks which exist as a means of increasing understanding, the better. Surely it must be agreed that the limited Anglo-Irish framework to create that understanding up till now has not totally succeeded.
On another point, I feel that the Government are showing inconsistency in viewing this initiative as an interference. After all, the Government certainly do not view economic intervention as interference. They welcome the grants made by the European social and regional funds with open arms, and often they have accepted them with so much pleasure that they have kept them within their own Exchequer and not treated them as additional funds. So I think the Government should accept that the European Community has every right to examine whether those funds have been applied to the best advantage.
Also I do not think that there should be any concern as to the calibre of that very serious and cautious Dane, Mr. Niels Haagerup, in whose hands the inquiry will lie. As Danish representative for the Institute of Strategic Studies and indeed as no stranger to Ulster, he will fully recognsie that the tactical success of the inquiry is very strictly limited and that although his report will concern itself with political as well as social and economic conditions, it will, as I said before, exclude an examination of the constitutional status of Northern Ireland. So what is really so threatening about this initiative? The report will also serve to inform the European countries, from whom we often get very adverse publicity.
Surely, the more people in Europe who are aware of the complexities which face the British Government regarding Northern Ireland the better, not the worse, for Britain. They may even become a little more sympathetic about it. Again, the Northern Ireland Office already spends a lot of money in Europe and America to promote that awareness. So whatever the pros and cons of British membership of the Community, surely in this case the European framework could be used to remove some of the heat and to advance greater understanding and
574
reconciliation, which is what I understand this debate is all about.
Finally, it would be almost impossible to talk about such a subject without mentioning the great admiration that so many of us have for the work which the people of Northern Ireland are themselves doing towards working out their own problems in the fields of special understanding and reconciliation. As I said, I should very much like to take the opportunity of this debate to express my renewed admiration for all that they do.
9.41 p.m.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, the admirable way in which the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, put his Unstarred Question will, I think, arouse in us a great amount of curiosity and interest to hear the replies of my noble friend when he answers at the end of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, clearly shows a very great detailed and personal knowledge of events in Northern Ireland which one can only admire. I am sure that my noble friend will be giving very full and detailed replies to those questions.
I should also like, before I go any further, to say how much I agreed with very much of what the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, said, about the spirit of Christianity and the need for conciliation among the peoples of Northern Ireland, because this is something which politicians are very often afraid of saying. If I may say so, I admire the way in which he expressed those feelings with great sensitivity, and I am sure that they are supported by all noble Lords listening to this debate.
I should like to deal with one or two aspects which are not concerned in detail with the internal events of Northern Ireland, except to say that I think it is perfectly clear to everyone, including the IRA, that the people of Northern Ireland are not going to change their political beliefs or aspirations as a result of continued intimidation, violence and acts of terrorism. That must be made perfectly clear. On the contrary, it appears to the observer to reinforce and strengthen their determination.
The people of Northern Ireland have, after all, the right, both under a British Act of Parliament and under the United Nations Charter, to self-determination and to determine their own future. However, too many people outside the United Kingdom, and indeed many inside it, have not understood or appreciated these political realities, so in that way giving moral assistance and encouragement to terrorism.
In the United States, which has already been touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and as is well-known to your Lordships, the considerable financial assistance given through Noraid, the public parades and the demonstrations, particularly that coming up on St. Patrick's Day, constitute in themselves a formidable encouragement for violence in Ulster. I was happy to see today that President Reagan himself—well aware of the situation in Ulster—is calling on the Irish Ambassador, and he discourages very strongly such demonstrations and financial assistance to terrorism.

575
However, perhaps some pressure could be put on the United States Government by our Government to ensure closer and tighter control of the sale and export of arms from the United States, to say nothing of declaring Noraid an illegal organisation, which it should surely be in a country which believes in peace, liberty and democracy. Indeed, information to American citizens on the true objectives of Sinn Fein would also be beneficial. I know, of course, that it is impossible for Government to be solely responsible for communication to other countries throughout the world. But I am quite certain that the vast majority of the citizens of the United States are not aware that Ulster is the last bulwark for the Republic of Ireland against becoming a socialist democratic state on the same lines as Eastern European countries. Indeed, not long ago I heard a broadcast in Italy, given by a member of Sinn Fein, spelling out exactly what were the objectives of their party: that once Ulster became part of the Republic of Ireland the whole constitution of Ireland would disappear and they would turn it into a socialist democratic state on the lines of Eastern Europe.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, the noble Baroness is far too intelligent to suppose for a moment that, whatever happened in Northern Ireland, the 26 counties of Southern Ireland would turn into an Eastern European state. If the noble Baroness is suggesting that, she is falling a long way below her usual standard of good sense.
Baroness Elles: My Lords, perhaps the noble Earl did not quite hear what I said, or perhaps I did not put it clearly—in which case I apologise. I am saying that the objective of Sinn Fein is to turn the Irish Republic and Northern Ireland into an Irish socialist democratic state. This they have always said, and they go on repeating it. Whatever the noble Earl may say, these are the facts, as I understand them. I am merely saying that not very long ago I happened to hear this on the radio in Italy. Whether or not the noble Earl likes to argue with me, that is what I heard and that is what Sinn Fein are saying. I am not saying that what happens in Ulster will mean that this will happen if there should be unity of Ireland. I am saying that this is the objective of Sinn Fein and that this is the objective behind terrorism in Northern Ireland.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, a phrase slipped from the lips of the noble Baroness, perhaps inadvertently. She said that something which is being done in Northern Ireland today is the last bulwark against Southern Ireland turning into an Eastern European state. How did the phrase "the last bulwark" come into it?
Baroness Elles: The fact that Ulster remains Ulster and part of the United Kingdom means that a unified Ireland, which some people wish to see, is protected at least from becoming a socialist democratic state under Sinn Fein. I hope I have now made myself a little clearer, if not totally clear to the noble Earl. Nevertheless, because of the kind of broadcasts which are taking place in Europe and the kind of information that is being spread in Europe—as noble Lords know
576
and as has been referred to by several speakers—there was a proposal, due to three resolutions being tabled by Irish MEPs as well as by John Hume of Northern Ireland, to discuss the question of Northern Ireland: not only the political, social and economic affairs, which have been referred to by certain noble Lords, but also a basis for negotiations between the Irish and British Governments as to the future of Northern Ireland. This is also in the resolution tabled by John Hume who demanded a formal hearing on the future of Northern Ireland.
I do not hesitate to say in this House that that is precisely why I and five colleagues from the European Democratic Group (that is, the British Conservatives) voted against a report being drawn up on the subject of Northern Ireland. It is, first, a breach of the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a member state. This principle is adhered to not only by member states of the Community. It is in the United Nations Charter and applies to all member states of the United Nations. When I raised this question in the Bureau of the European Parliament, I pointed out that, if you start having formal inquiries, as proposed in these resolutions, to look into the political affairs of part of a member state of the European Community, you are opening a Pandora's box. A whole series of precedents will be created which, whether people like it or not, will create immense problems and political difficulties for Members of the European Parliament. I only have to tell your Lordships that on Friday a new resolution was tabled on the subject of the internal affairs of Greece to which the socialist group are, understandably, already objecting. This was one reason why we very strongly objected to this particular set of resolutions being the basis of a report on Northern Ireland. I should also like to add that no consideration was given to the sensitivity and resentment of the people of Northern Ireland.
Neither do I believe that anybody wants their internal affairs to be discussed in any other international forum. I quite understand that feeling and I support them. Thirdly, there is the risk we have to recognise, that—subject to what has been said, and on the basis of this report and of what has taken place in the European Parliament—it could in the end cause an escalation of support for some forms of violence and terrorism. I do not say that it will but it is a risk that I had a duty to consider, and I therefore thought it my duty to vote against such a report; and I maintain that we were right to do so.
It is worth recalling that the basis of these resolutions does not bind the rapporteur to what he will put in that report. If such a report is to be written, I have every confidence that the rapporteur—who has not yet been appointed but we hope very much it will be Mr. Niels Haagerup, a Danish Liberal—will do it with fairness, balance and impartiality, so that at the end of the day, the people of Europe will perhaps know the truth about Northern Ireland and not be subjected to the longstanding and continuing propaganda from the IRA which has filled the minds of so many people whether they wanted it to or not.
I should like to state here and now in your Lordships' House that, if this report is to be written and if there are discussions in the Political Affairs Committee, I shall consider it a dereliction of duty not

577
to take part in that discussion and give all the facts and knowledge available to me on the state of the United Kingdom for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland, in order to contribute to a report that will be balanced and fair and which would put the case for the people of Northern Ireland, which otherwise would go by default. If I may be allowed as a Member of the European Parliament to use a French phrase, les absents ont toujours tort, and, if we were not there, I believe that the report would be lacking some substance.
Nevertheless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has said, of course the European Community can contribute to certain aspects of life in Northern Ireland as it does to all parts of the European Community—all those parts of the European Community where there is economic and social instability, or where there is more poverty than in other parts of the Community. It is the duty of the Community to raise the living standards of the people of Europe and to make them more equal in terms of economic growth.
Again, last year we debated a report by a Liberal, Mrs. Martin, on regional aspects of Northern Ireland. Altogether, I understand that something like £600 million has come from the Community to Northern Ireland since our membership. Perhaps my noble friend will confirm that figure but it is something of that order—although it appears very small when compared with the £2 billion approximately which is the net transfer from this country to Northern Ireland to support its economic and social life.
Finally, I should like to ask one or two questions of my noble friend Lord Gowrie. I wonder whether he will give the view of the Government on the All Ireland Peace Forum which we understand is being set up by Doctor Garret FitzGerald? If he is setting up this peace forum, will every encouragement be given to him, since he obviously believes in the maintenance of peace in Ulster as well as in the Republic, to ratify the European convention on the suppression of terrorism and the Dublin Agreement, which has not yet been done?
Another point I should like to raise in connection with terrorism is to ask my noble friend how far there is now closer co-operation with Interpol in identifying terrorists throughout the European Community. It is quite clear that, in view of the systems being used, for
578
example, in West Germany and Italy, terrorism as such has declined very considerably over the past two or three years by the capture of members of the Baader-Meinhof gang and the Red Brigade. It is quite remarkable that there has been a considerable decline in terrorism and I wonder whether my noble friend would be prepared to comment?
Also, I believe that no one has yet paid tribute to the courage, and the continuing courage—which is quite another matter—of our troops in Northern Ireland who daily and every night go out at the risk of their lives in order to maintain peace. This cannot be stressed too strongly. I hope that from this House there will be a strong tribute to the troops who contribute to the suppression of terrorism and to the maintenance of peace in what are undoubtedly extremely difficult conditions.
Finally, I would like to comment on the two days that I spent in Northern Ireland. Many of us who do not live there will have gone over for visits for various reasons and we all get a very rapid impression, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who went over and saw officials and so on; we all have to do this in the course of our work. Two things struck me very forcibly. One was the beauty and peace of the countryside compared with the terrible fears of intimidation and violence which one encounters when talking to officials who are having to deal with these problems. The differentiation is really and truly striking.
What was perhaps of most concern was the fear of intimidation and violence which is being bred among the chidren of Northern Ireland. Only the other day I heard a story of a young child who came over with his parents to the mainland, Great Britain, for the first time. His father left his car unlocked in a street and they went off shopping. The little boy was quite frightened: he tugged at his father, and said, "How can you leave your car; you have not locked it and there is nobody there to guard it"; and the father replied, "You forget, we are not in Northern Ireland any more". I think this brings out the horror of the effect on the minds of children, who, after all, are the next generation, that fear breeds violence and violence breeds terrorism. I am sure my noble friend will make some comment on the very great efforts being made by voluntary organisations as well as the efforts being made by Her Majesty's Government.
9.57 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, whom I have not heard in this House since several years ago when she used to give me a lot of trouble when I was on the other side. I am going to follow the main point that she has been making in a moment, but I should like to say a couple of things first. Incidentally I am going to be very careful not to say anything to offend my noble friend Lord Longford, because I do not think I have ever taken part in a Northern Ireland debate without getting a letter of apology from him the next morning.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, made one or two very interesting points that I want to deal with. First of all, he used a phrase which is very important as describing part of the trouble of Northern Ireland; he spoke of a sneaking or half admitted tolerance of violence. It was an interesting thing to say and it made me think. I think it is true of a large number of very good people on both sides of the House, sneaking and half admitted tolerance.
Several people have talked about the prisons, including the noble Lord who opened the debate and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I was in post in Northern Ireland at the time of the Price sisters crisis. Noble Lords will remember that they committed a fairly violent crime; I cannot remember exactly what. They were in prison for life over here, and they went on hunger strike in order to get back to Northern Ireland. The position in the North at that time was that if my right honourable friend Mr. Roy Jenkins, who was then Home Secretary, had given way at all quickly to that, there would have been riots in Northern Ireland. So the situation is not an absolutely clear one. I do not believe that that is the situation today. But I think one must not try to force this kind of generosity on people who are responsible for law and order; one has to wait until they think it possible. The fact that NIACRO recommends this puts it in my favour. I am in favour of it because of that. I was the first speaker that it ever had 15 years ago at its first meeting. I am glad that it is holding such sensible views.
The second thing that the noble Lord said, and which is what I want to talk about, is that one must beware of arousing expectations if one is talking about a united Ireland. This is extremely important. I have said it to the Labour Party every time I have spoken in this House. To arouse such expectations is a very dangerous thing indeed to do. Three new initiatives have been reported in the newspapers in the last week or two. The first is the one that the noble Baroness and others have talked about—the MEP initiative; the second is what we call the Gowrie triad; and the third is the Fitzgerald—SDLP proposal. All these three initiatives are new. They are all in the direction of a united Ireland, or at least slight steps in that direction. The noble Lord shakes his head, but we will deal with that later if we have time. All I am saying is that they all want to be watched very carefully. On the whole I am in favour of all three.
580
I differ from the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, about MEP initiative. It has come about the wrong way. I should have liked us to do what my right honourable friend David Owen suggested two years ago: approach the EEC and see whether it could give us useful advice. In making that suggestion he said:
"It would be easier for both Governments to think afresh within the wider context of the EEC, but neither Government would have to give up any of their sovereignty or independence. There are no votes if there is no agreement."
I would have totally supported that. It seems to me that the present situation is rather more difficult, because it is, in a sense, rather out of line for the EEC to approach us in this way. But, as it has done so, in general I would give it as much information as I could, simply because I believe our case is cast iron when one really looks at it. One cannot do much more than the British Government, through the noble Earl and his colleagues, are trying to do at the moment. If one tried to do much more one would probably make things worse.
The second is the Gowrie initiative which the noble Earl suggests is nothing to do with Northern Ireland. I agree with him and it should certainly not have anything to do with the constitution. But, of course, the harder side of the Protestant world will take a lot of convincing that that is the case. There is so much to discuss about extradition, about crime this side of the Border and on that side of the Border, about the regular smuggling of cattle and sheep, and so on, that there ought to be far more tri-party discussion, and I am fully in favour of that. But I warn the noble Earl that, whatever he says, certain people will not believe that he is not selling the past. That is the awkwardness of his particular position.
The third is the Garret Fitzgerald—SDLP initiative. Dr Fitzgerald is probably the most hopeful man we shall ever have as Taoiseach. I think he is first-class and that he does not wish to do anything which is in any way even awkward for the Protestant majority. He wants to obtain a better arrangement. Although the Protestants may say that they cannot even discuss this, it is not a bad thing to clarify what one will not even discuss. It seems to me that if Dr Fitzgerald, with his colleagues, and the SDLP, with John Hume and the rest of them, decide on the best possible terms that they could offer if the situation ever arose, then at least the Reverend Paisley and others would know what they are prepared to discuss, which at the moment they simply do not. I am in favour of all these three initiatives, but it is very important not to raise false hopes, as the noble Lord said.
I am glad to see that my old friend Gerry Fitt has been quoted by two or three speakers. I want to quote him again, naturally in paraphrase. He said the day before yesterday, I think, that no EEC or other Army would be as acceptable on the Northern Ireland streets as the British. That is rather nice. The second thing that he said was that, in spite of anything that Mr. Ken Livingstone may say, Sinn Fein has no policy to attack unemployment. In association with the IRA, its policy is to destroy jobs with bombs.

581
The absolute barrenness of the Sinn Fein and IRA approach is shown by their very hatred. If they want the troops out they have only to go away themselves and the troops will be out tomorrow. If this happened they would be no nearer a United Socialist Ireland—this was the point that the noble Baroness was making: the North will not have unity and the South will not have Socialism. So really all this is about nothing, and that is the tragic thing. But it must be a good thing for outsiders to understand this—to understand that we do not want to cling on to our hold on the North but that we certainly will not abandon those British citizens who live there. In fact if we did abandon them, which is unthinkable, they would fight and almost certainly win unless there was foreign intervention. My instinct is to let any delegation from the European Parliament see everything that they want to see and talk to everyone they want to talk to. The truth is nothing to be ashamed of.
I have supported a bipartisan policy for the last 10 years and I support it still. I think that it is very important that we should support the efforts which the Government are making to make the Assembly work, with all its great difficulties. The future peace, which I believe is not within two generations' sight, in my opinion can come only through some form of power sharing. The first attempt at power sharing at Sunningdale was wrecked by the hard Protestants. The second attempt, which is the Assembly now, has really been spoilt by the SDLP refusing to take part. I think that the Government have to go on trying. I do not think that there is anything else that they can do. I think that what they are doing is something which they need not be ashamed of. The more people who understand it fully the better.
10.7 p.m.
Lord Blease: My Lords, I would take this opportunity in the debate to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, for his continuing and thoughtful interest in Irish affairs. I also wish to express my appreciation of his introduction of this debate. I welcome and support the speech of my noble friend on the Front Bench, Lord Underhill, who dealt in some detail with the practical political and social problems in connection with Northern Ireland and violence.
It is my opinion that the debate has indicated forcefully that there can be no simple solution to the problems of on-going violence in the Province. One reason for this is that there is no common agreement on the root cause of the problem. It is often overlooked that if Ireland were to be united tomorrow, or indeed if Northern Ireland became a separate political entity, the violence would not be halted because the terrorists' aims and methods are in direct conflict with the basic constitutional principles of parliamentary democracy as we know it in these islands. North and South in the United Kingdom as a whole will suffer from any upturn or any giving way to the methods of the terrorists.
Appeals to the conscience of the terrorists fail because they operate within an inexplicable standard of morality and inhuman disregard for life itself. In
582
this respect I would wish to join with the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in her commendations of the dedication and the continuing work of the security forces and especially of the steadfastness of their families. They are continually working under terrible circumstances.
The people of Northern Ireland must themselves discover such a hatred of violence and of those who perpetrate such bad deeds that they will be isolated or, indeed, may perhaps see the error of their ways and turn with the same vigour to promote the ways of peace. The more we hate violence, the more we must have a personal and a community will to work together for conciliation, if not agreement—the will of individuals and of the community to undertake practical approaches towards conciliation and compassionate caring, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, outlined in his speech.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and other noble Peers in the House will know of the quiet efforts towards bridge building across the community divide that is continuing in Northern Ireland. I warmly welcome the support for the efforts expressed by noble Lords and especially by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton. These are not the kind of efforts and issues that have made the headlines. Indeed, perhaps it is best that these efforts are not given headlines.
10.11 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, has addressed to the Government today the question of how to end the "spiral of violence", as he calls it, in Northern Ireland. He has at the same time raised a number of specific points—and other noble Lords have taken up some of these and sometimes added to them— which relate to various aspects of the Government's policy in the Province. I will deal with these specific points in just one moment.
At the beginning, perhaps I may say that, while I am at one with the noble Lord on the need to reduce violence and at one with all noble Lords who have spoken in praise of the way in which the noble Lord made his points, I part company with him only on one thing, and only just a little, and that is on the use of the term "spiral".
I should like to make it clear to the noble Lord that I do not believe that, in the ordinary definition, violence in Northern Ireland is exactly spiralling. Figures on violence in a situation like that in Northern Ireland, must, of course, be used with the very greatest care. Behind any given figure lie tragedy and heartache for some, whatever the precise nature of the incident. Each figure reminds us forcibly of the callous disregard of men of violence for others.
As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, wisely reminded us, one murder or one injury is one too many. But I do not think that we need be guilty of lack of sympathy or feeling if occasionally we take the opportunity to look at the figures as dispassionately as we can. These show us that since the dreadful years of the early 1970s violence has indeed fallen and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for making that point. Violence has not gone down smoothly, but it has gone down. For instance, last year saw 97 deaths as a result of terrorist incidents, which was fewer than the year

583
before—1981—or 1979, although it was slightly higher than 1978 and 1980. Last year's figures of injuries and shooting incidents were the lowest ever. As a Minister in the Northern Ireland Office, I am, of course, among the first to appreciate that violence remains a dominating element in the lives and thinking of many in Northern Ireland. As Finance Minister and also as Minister with responsibility for police and prison matters, I am acutely aware of the damaging cost.
So one should never be complacent, and I certainly am not in a position to be complacent or to underestimate the impact of suffering on individuals and on the community as a whole. But I think that we may mislead ourselves and others if we think that we are in a ever-worsening situation, which is what I would take to be a spiralling situation. We are not, and we must not base our approach to other matters in the belief that we are, not least because that would be to denigrate the sterling efforts of the security forces, to whom my noble friend Lady Elles and others paid tribute.
As the House will be aware, successive Governments in recent years have based their security policy on just one principle—that of the primacy of the rule of law. Violent crime in pursuit of political aims is not qualitatively or morally different from any other violent crime. War is of course indeed horrible wherever or whenever it occurs, but wars can only be conducted by states, they cannot be waged by individuals or organisations. Violence by individuals is crime, and the same standards of evidence apply to prosecution. If convicted, perpetrators serve their sentences in the same way. The simple issue in a democracy is that all are subject to the same laws and the same constraints, and all are treated accordingly.
The police are, of course, in the front line in the enforcement of law, but they are also themselves subject to laws. In the last 10 years the number of police in the Province has risen from about 4,000 to over 12,000. The army are engaged in security duties in the Province in support of the police, and only in their support. At the end of last year 10,000 or so troops were in the Province. Of course, that is still too many, but it is less than half the number who were there only 10 years before. Once more I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for underscoring that fact.
It is important to recognise that this approach is a matter on which we are all ecumenical, on which all the major parties are agreed. I do not believe that it requires much justification. It seems to me that it is up to those who would take a different approach, and use unfamiliar measures, who need to justify themselves and those measures. I would draw your Lordships' attention to an excellent article by Mr Stan Gebler Davies in today's Daily Telegraph and to the view reinforced here this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, that any precipitate withdrawal by British troops would lead to violence on a terrifying scale compared with that which we have known.
Within the approach I have outlined, the Government of course use all the vigour they can to support the enforcement of the law. For instance, we announced last November that additional resources
584
were being made available for an increase of 800 in the strength of the RUC and the full-time reserve. And, again without suggesting any element of complacency, there have been successes. Last year 686 people were charged with offences of the terrorist type (including 50 of murder and 96 of attempted murder). Last year 709 people were convicted of such offences. In the same period more than 300 firearms and nearly 4,500 rounds of ammunition and over 5,000 pounds of explosives were safely recovered by the security forces.
We have concentrated today on violence, but I emphasise to the noble Lord, and indeed with the noble Lord, that violence in Northern Ireland cannot be satisfactorily considered in isolation. The Government do not pretend that the enforcement of the law on its own can end terrorism. Nor is the ending of terrorism our sole goal, vital though it is. The scene is wider than that, and the search for answers has to go deeper. All the various aspects of Northern Ireland affairs—the political instability we have witnessed in recent years, the violence and the economic decline, affect each other.
The Government are firmly committed to the policy they have embarked on. We want, as the House knows, to encourage the people of Northern Ireland themselves, through their elected representatives in the first place, to seek accommodations and ways of working together which will allow the whole community to move forward constructively.
This policy is based on a number of principles. No detailed blueprint designed to encourage or embody political movement can be imposed from London. Nor can things be done against an unrealistic London or British electoral timescale which allows people in Northern Ireland insufficient time to try to find ways of starting to come to grips with the difficulties of their special situation. We also believe there must be full recognition of the roots and significance of the two historic traditions in Northern Ireland. They are a fact, not an invention, and they must be recognised as such. The movement we are seeking to generate must thus come from within the historical context of Northern Ireland and must reflect the true nature of society there.
In the first instance, constructive local political activity, rather than sloganising, has to be encouraged, however slowly or painfully, and there are clear signs that in this respect the Assembly is having an impact. Its six committees concerned with the work of the Northern Ireland departments are hard at work. They are doing the things that people in Northern Ireland want their representatives to do, examining local issues and seeking to advance the interests of the Province. Their work shows a deep common concern for the well-being of the people in the Province.
The task now— and it is an inordinately difficult one, but the difficulties in Northern Ireland have been a long time in the making and they will be a long time in the solving—is to translate this kind of work into an effort to tackle the deeper-seated political problems which beset Northern Ireland, so that, in the longer term, a lasting stability can be achieved, and I am delighted to pay tribute to the work of individuals and voluntary bodies, not simply the work of politicians, as my noble friend Lady Elles encouraged me to do.

585
The Government have often said that answers to Northern Ireland's difficulties must come principally from the people of Northern Ireland. They are committed to the view that there can be no change to the general constitutional position of the Province as part of the United Kingdom, save with the consent of the majority of the people. But equally, you cannot make progress towards political stability by pretending that the interest of the Republic of Ireland in Northern Ireland affairs simply does not exist. The Republic is the focus of the aspirations, and indeed the loyalty, of many, perhaps most, of the minority community. It therefore has an interest unique among foreign Governments in the affairs of a substantial part of the population of Northern Ireland.
I am able to tell my noble friend Lady Elles that it is no surprise that the legitimate constitutional Nationalist political party in Northern Ireland is proposing to confer with the political parties who support them in the South, and of course they now have, as a result of our policy, the electoral authority to do so. I hope, however, that as they confer they will not fail to recognise that the primary loyalty of Unionists is to the Crown and to being administered by the Crown in Parliament. I do not see that changing, just as I do not see the fundamental allegiance of Nationalists changing, and I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, with his experience of Northern Ireland, said on that. The attempt to recognise the permanent feature of these two identities, loyalties and allegiances is what I mean by triangularity, and what I mean by triangularity is not a new initiative but is inherent in the Government's White Paper, our principal policy document.
Then, of course, the people of the Republic have a unique association not just with Northern Ireland but with this country, Great Britain. No other country has exchanged populations with us in the same way over such a long time. Our history and demography are inextricably linked. It is, in my view, a wholly blinkered view not to recognise this interest of the Republic and the strength of the connection—and of course the physical fact of the border cannot be ignored, and the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, drew our attention to that.
So our policy is to encourage political movement within Northern Ireland because stability, security and the economy depend on it. Of course, it is one thing to encourage this movement; it is quite another to see it achieved. As I have often said, it will take a long time. We are at present facing the undoubted setback of the abstention of the SDLP from the internal deliberations of the Assembly. I believe that this is unfortunate for the Province as a whole, as I think it is inimical to the long-term interests of the Nationalist community. It should be no surprise to the SDLP that in the same dog-in-the-manger spirit (if I may put it that way) it seems likely that Unionist Assembly members will boycott any conference with parties in the South.
However, I am glad to be able to say that as the major constitutional nationalist party, the SDLP resisted pressure to abstain from the elections, and as a Government we treat its representatives as having the full authority of elected positions. We have always
586
emphasised the need for legitimate electoral authority, which we recognise that it now plans to use, as it is wholly its right to use, in the course of its forthcoming deliberations with parties in the Republic.
The Government make no pretence to have found solutions. Indeed, I believe that in this context the word "solution" is misconceived, as the Unionist and Nationalist positions are impossible formally to reconcile one with another. What the Government are seeking to produce is a framework within which not solutions, but accommodations, can be made and understandings advanced between two communities, neither of which proposes to change its position in the foreseeable future. They are accommodations within which the people of Northern Ireland can start to find ways out of the tragic impasse in which they have existed for so long.
Against this background of the need for general political movement and accommodations, I should like quickly to turn to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and others who spoke in the debate, put to me. The noble Lord started by mentioning discrimination in the public sector, including the Civil Service. We are totally committed to equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland, and we have supported the development of safeguards and remedies against discrimination in employment on religious or political grounds, whether that is in the public or the private sector. The Fair Employment Agency is currently conducting an investigation into the religious composition of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, and I certainly look forward to seeing its report in due course. A small number of additional posts have been authorised in principle to enable the staffing of the Fair Employment Agency to be improved and to expand its activities, and discussions continue to determine the precise nature and grading of these posts.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, kindly said that he did not expect me to trespass into the field of my noble and learned field the Lord Chancellor on the question of coroners' inquests, and I understand that my noble and learned friend has written to the noble Lord. However, on the issue of delays in the holding of inquests in Northern Ireland, the noble Lord will I think recognise the need for the possibility of criminal proceedings to be fully examined before an inquest hearing, and in the Province such investigations can be long and complex. I would remind the noble Lord that often delays are a result of requests by the defence, for instance, for an opportunity to gain information.
On the issue of joyriding, the Department of Health and Social Services and the Northern Ireland Office are together funding two experimental projects in West Belfast, which are run by a voluntary organisation, and which seek to divert young people from joyriding and to encourage a more responsible attitude towards the use of cars and motorcycles. I cannot yet say how effective this will be, but we are certainly trying. I would point out that in Northern Ireland the current rate of car theft and taking cars without consent is, proportionately, a third less than it is in England and Wales. Nevertheless, it is a serious problem, and we take it seriously.

587
On the issue of the flags and emblems, the Flags and Emblems Display Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 makes it an offence to interfere with the display of the Union flag and confers on a police officer the power to remove any emblem or flag if he believes that its display is likely to cause a breach of the peace. The Act does not make illegal the flying of the Irish Tricolour. It is used solely and infrequently to enable the RUC to take action to prevent a breach of the peace. I am aware that the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights have several times recommended that the Act should be repealed. I am, as I have to be, also aware of the strength of conflicting feeling on this issue on both sides of the community. I will keep the use of, and the need for, the Act under close review.
In relation to the transfer of prisoners between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of course, I am sharply aware, as Prison Minister there, of the difficulties and hardships that are faced in Northern Ireland by families of prisoners serving sentences—in many cases, very long sentences—in Great Britain. Any prison administration tries to take into account the convenience of visiting for the families. These considerations are the reason why we have, in the relevant provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, arrangements under which prisoners may be transferred from one country to another within the United Kingdom to serve their sentences. All applications by prisoners in Great Britain for permanent transfer to Northern Ireland are considered on their own facts and merits; and our general approach to Northern Ireland is to accept prisoners who are normally domiciled in the Province and whom the Home Secretary is disposed to transfer. Sixteen prisoners have been transferred to Northern Ireland since 1973.
But the Northern Ireland Office is not, in general, prepared to accept prisoners whose current behaviour and attitude, taken with their history and background, suggest that they could not be relied on to co-operate fully with the normal prison régime. It has been our painful experience over a long period that prisoners who have not formally severed their links with paramilitary organisations tend to operate in cohesive groups in prison and are unwilling to accept the constraints of ordinary prison routine, however advanced and enlightened that routine may be. But again these are issues that we shall have to continue to keep under review, and I will bring the points made to the attention of my noble friend Lord Elton. I think the House will recognise that this issue is primarily one where the responsibilities are with the Home Office.
On the subject of assistance with the cost of visits, assistance is provided to prisoners' wives and other close relatives who receive supplementary benefits or whose part-time earnings are close to the supplementary benefits qualifying limit. This assistance normally comprises the full cost of visiting once a month by public transport and, where required, a payment in respect of bed and breakfast. But I do recognise, as I have said, the hardships which can be involved and I would like to use my efforts and energies to improve them if I can.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke about police projects with young people. The difficulty in Northern
588
Ireland about cross-community activities, as he knows, is the issue of geography; the communities are fiercely segregated geographically. Therefore, how much cross-community activity there is depends rather upon area; but I understand that the police are very keen to foster it and will go on seeking to do so.
The meeting with Mr. Barry was just that. A new Administration came into being in the Republic. Neither the Secretary of State nor myself knew Mr. Barry. We sought to do so, we had an agreeable and fruitful meeting, enjoyed his company and I hope that he enjoyed ours. I certainly believe that these meetings should be as overt and above board as possible and I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Hylton and Lord Donaldson, that we cannot be too careful in raising expectations. I myself do not have a breath of criticism for the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, from his Front Bench this afternoon, but I rather wish that his sensitivity was echoed in the Front Bench of another place more frequently.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, and my noble friend Lady Elles raised the vexed question of the European Parliament's self-designated interest in the affairs of the Province. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, talked about the vehemence of the Prime Minister's reaction. Perhaps I can give my own reaction. I would ask the House to accept that I am quoting myself because this is from an interview in a newspaper. And perhaps the House will further accept that I made this reaction before I knew about the vehemence of my right honourable friend's reaction. In response to an interviewer's question I said that I thought it a retrogressive move of the parliament and I continued:
"Those of us, like myself, who are very much in favour of the Community, and the participation of Britain and, indeed, the Republic in the Community, do find our advocacy of the Community made very difficult if people are not clearer about the nature of the Community and its ground rules. Rightly or wrongly, it is not a Community of Monnets. It is a Community much nearer the ideas of De Gaulle, who was certainly the dominating figure in Europe, politically, during its formative years. It is a Community of national sovereignties, not a body which exists to try and create one Continental Sovereignty. It is not, as it were, the USA 150 years ago. In my view, the realities of European life and history are such that it will indefinitely retain that character. Therefore, when a useful and valuable body dealing with Community matters, scrutinising the budgets and the work of the Commission, starts floundering around in matters of great sensitivity and difficulty within the sovereignties in question, I think it puts progress right back. I would think that this present exercise, particularly at this sensitive moment when we want to improve Anglo-Irish relations and see the development of Northern Ireland politics, is disturbing the chance of progress for Northern Ireland, of the very kind which most of the people in the European Parliament want to see."
We have made our position quite clear. I hope that we can make it clear in as favourable a way as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked me what aid the Province had received from European Community funds. From the time we joined until the end of last year Northern Ireland received £120 million from the European social fund; £78 million from the European regional funds; and £30 million from the guidance section of the European agricultural fund, making a total of £228 million.
My noble friend Lady Elles talked about the importance of the Government's views and indeed the views of men in the Province being put across in

589
America. I have visited America, as have all my colleagues. I shall be visiting again very shortly indeed. If I may dare stray into the controversy between my noble friend Lady Elles and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, my fellow Anglo-Irish Peer if I may associate myself with him in that way, Sinn Fein does indeed attack the Dublin Government in terms no less virulent than the terms in which they attack the Westminster Government. As a regular reader of their newspaper, I can indeed confirm what my noble friend said there.
The reactions of a number of leading people in the United States to this year's St. Patrick's Day parade is I believe a welcome indication of a growing understanding in that country of the true nature of terrorism and those who support it. It is again the aim of the Government to encourage that understanding. I must add also that the Irish Government have been at the forefront of making this understanding known and achievable in the United States.
I think my noble friend will understand if I do not wish to comment on operational security matters, INTERPOL and the like. But as police Minister, I take the European experience in counter-terrorist activity very seriously and I know from the RUC that both they and the Garda Siochana do so as well.
In sum, as I said earlier, the need for the political recognition of the two identities is paramount if there is to be any prospect of achieving lasting stability. It is against that wider background that I ask the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to judge the Question before us today. We have to direct our attention to ways in which the kind of accommodations can be promoted. The spiral that Northern Ireland is faced with is not, it seems to me, one of ever-increasing violence but one of political intransigence feeding on terrorism, terrorism feeding on economic decline and each on the other. That is the spiral from which we all want to break loose. The Government believe that the framework they have established provides all the people of Northern Ireland with a chance at least to escape from the prison of their history.

British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before eleven o'clock.