Lords Sitting of 1 July 1988

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD AMPTHILL on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Gloucester.

NHS: Capital Programme
Earl Alexander of Tunis Earl Alexander of Tunis asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many major hospitals are currently being planned, designed or constructed.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, the National Health Service is undergoing its largest ever sustained capital programme. In England there are currently 213 schemes in planning, 157 under design and 133 under construction each costing over £1 million. In all, the programme currently comprises 503 schemes at a total value of over £3·8 billion, and total capital investment in the National Health Service in all four home counties is at present running at over £1·3 billion a year.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I should declare an interest in that I am a director of the international hospital group. Is the Minister aware that at present we are in advanced negotiations with one of the area health authorities to undertake a joint venture programme to design and build a major national health hospital within three years instead of 10 years, which is the usual timescale for such developments?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, any hospital which opens ahead of schedule is nothing but good news for those living in the community.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, will the noble Earl agree when the new programme has arrived and been built, that there will still be a strong case for the old village-type hospital because it is near, it cuts down the travelling time and provides a facility for those who are getting on in years; geriatrics and so forth? Although they may be more expensive to run, surely would it not be a mistake to close down such hospitals purely on the grounds of small economy?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I appreciate the point made by the noble Viscount. However, it is for regional health authorities to decide upon the appropriate mix of facilities in their area.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, while the Minister will deserve and no doubt receive the congratulations of the House on his statement, can he say whether the special needs of mental health and mental handicap have been taken into account, because whatever the progress with community care there will always be a substantial residual need for hospital accommodation?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, indeed they are taken into account. Of the 316 health building schemes which have been completed since 1979, 54 included facilities for the mentally ill or mentally handicapped.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am not quite sure that I understood the thrust of the noble Earl's supplementary question. However, will the Minister confirm that it is a feature of the capital programme that beds will also be closed? Can he tell the House how many acute beds will be opened and how many acute beds will be closed under the programme? Secondly, can the Minister ensure that the district health authorities concerned are guaranteed sufficient revenue to bring the capital projects into full operation?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, bed numbers reduced by 35,000 in the period 1974–79 and by a further 36,000 to date. Of those beds 41,000 were mental health beds which were closed as a result of the "care in the community" policy. The remaining closures result from the replacement of obsolete, usually 19th century, hospital stock by new hospitals capable of greater efficiency. This is demonstrated by the increase in activity since 1979. For example, inpatient treatments have increased by 19 per cent.; out-patient treatments have increased by 11 per cent.; day-care treatments have increased by 87 per cent. Those are the telling facts.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend say how the figure for investment of £1·3 billion a year, which is very satisfactory. compares with the investment rate in the 1970s? In relation to the comment made by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, can he confirm that the cottage hospitals have a considerable contribution to make, because they are not only more convenient for patients but for voluntary workers? If one has a hospital in one's midst voluntary workers can serve it more conveniently than by having to get to huge hospitals in the centre of cities.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I take on board the point made by my noble friend about cottage hospitals. I can confirm that 316 schemes costing over £1 million have been completed since 1979 compared with 120 completions from 1974–79.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, the Minister may have mentioned this but, in case I have not heard correctly, will he say whether in the programme serious consideration will be given to the accommodation for staff?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, that is of prime consideration. I hope I have stressed that it is a matter for each individual health authority to decide what is appropriate for that authority.
Earl Alexander of Tunis: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the main thrust of my Question was to emphasise the important part that private enterprise plays in the National Health Service?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, yes, I am aware of that.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the cost of the capital programme he has outlined to the House will be paid out of general taxation, and that the cost is such that the role of private medicine can never be anything more than marginal?
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, I believe that the first question relates more to the Treasury and its particular policy on that matter.

Latin America
11.13 a.m.
Lord Molloy Lord Molloy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy with regard to increasing trade with Latin America and improving the teaching of Spanish in the United Kingdom.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, we wish to increase our trade with Latin America as with other markets. The Department of Trade and Industry makes available its full range of services and our embassies provide support on the ground for companies wishing to trade with the region. The Government attach high priority to the teaching of modern languages, including of course Spanish, both in our schools, colleges and universities and through training for businessmen and the wider adult public.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but is he aware that the Latin American countries involved are about six times the size of Europe? People with detailed and intimate knowledge of those countries take the view that the Government, and indeed private endeavour, are not doing enough. They say that there is a vast amount of good will towards the British in those Latin American countries and that it would enhance our reputation if we had more people who could speak Spanish. If those two matters were put together Britain could only improve its trade and general relationship with Latin America.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. Latin America covers a considerable area. There are some difficulties in trading with parts of Latin America owing to indebtedness, which limits credit availability in some countries. The DTI has been concentrating work on specific sectors selected for their prospects of day-to-day trade without the need for long-term credit and in which UK industry is competitive; namely, chemicals, instrumentation, off-shore oil, mining and textile equipment. I should also say that during the last year there have been four ministerial visits to the region and 1 am sure that there will be more during the coming months.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Spanish is spoken as a first language by more countries than any other language in the world apart from English and as such Spanish as a modern language should not only be included in the teaching of modern languages but should take the van in the teaching of modern languages?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, yes. Spanish is very widely spoken in the world and the Government attach great importance to Spanish becoming more widely taught in our educational establishments.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as regards the teaching of Spanish there is a parliamentary course in the language which began a few weeks ago and which will continue in the autumn? I ask that with interest because I am one of the students.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I wish my noble friend better luck with his language studies than I had with mine at school.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that regrettably there is concern both in industry and in the financial services about the standards of service that various governmental organisations—the DTI and our embassies—are offering in Latin America? Have the Government, in the form of the DTI, conducted any sort of review on those standards of service? If so, are they satisfied that they are performing as well as the noble Lord says? If not, is it not time that that was done?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, the DTI works closely with the Foreign Office in promoting trade in all parts of the world, not just in Latin America. I am not aware of any particular problems in Latin America but I shall look into the matter to see whether there is anything which I can find out and I shall let the noble Lord know.
Lord McNair: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord said about the teaching of Spanish, does he regret that when I moved an amendment which would have had the effect of encouraging schools to teach more than one foreign language his noble friend Lady Hooper dismissed it in an almost perfunctory manner?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I am not sure that I was present during the debate on the noble Lord's amendment. However, I understand that under the Education Reform Bill the Secretary of State is to specify by order the choice of modern foreign languages which will qualify as a foundation subject in the national curriculum. That will allow wide scope for schools which wish to do so to offer a first language other than French instead of or as well as French. There are plenty of teachers with languages other than French and the Government will be assisting diversification projects with education support grants.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, have we given up all hope of teaching Esperanto?
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm whether the Government are seeking to improve trade with those countries which are signatories to the Guatemala Peace Accord of 1987? Is he aware that Nicaragua was one of those countries, and can he confirm that the Government are seeking improved trade with Nicaragua, taking

1829
account of the desperate economic situation in that war torn country? When he referred to the trade representatives of Her Majesty's Government visiting Latin America, can he confirm that they visited Nicaragua?
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, taking the last point of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I cannot confirm what the exact itineraries were. However, I shall look into the matter and let him know. We are represented in all Latin American countries apart from the Dominican Republic, Haiti and Argentina, where of course the Swiss represent us. We should indeed like to do as much business as possible, particularly with Nicaragua. We are aware of the difficult economic problems which exist in that country, and, as I said, we are hampered somewhat by the absence of credit availability. However, wherever possible we try to trade with such countries on the basis of day-to-day trade, as I said earlier.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in addition to the DTI and the Foreign Office there are other well-known organisations in Britain which have massive knowledge, a good understanding and exceptional relationships with the countries involved; for example, the Hispanic & Luso Brazilian Council? That organisation has great knowledge which would assist businessmen and perhaps the departments mentioned by the noble Lord.
In addition, the Royal Geographical Society is soon to send delegations and have investigations carried out in the more remote parts of this country. That is of great interest to these nations and they are very grateful to Britain for it. Could not all the departments of state and voluntary organisations get together? The result could only be better relationships with such countries, and that could be exceptionally good for Britain.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, my department is of course only too pleased to co-operate with such organisations so that we can increase the level of our trade with Latin America. I shall draw the noble Lord's remarks closely to the attention of the Secretary of State and personally make sure that we are in constructive touch with those organisations.

Air Space over London
11.21 a.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are concerned about the congestion of air space over London and what measures they are taking for the convenience and safety of air passengers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords the Government are indeed concerned at the pressure that the continued increase in demand for air travel is placing on UK air space especially in the London terminal manoeuvring area. The Civil Aviation Authority, which is responsible jointly with
1830
the Ministry of Defence for planning and provision of air traffic services, is working on an assessment of air space capacity and options for dealing with expected demand, During peak periods the UK, along with other European countries, has introduced an air traffic flow management system to ensure that each air traffic control centre can operate safely.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for indicating what measures are now being taken, but is he aware that delays in take-off from airports in the London area are now becoming the rule rather than the exception? These delays mean that passengers are required to sit in often fully laden planes for anything up to half an hour or more, sometimes on journeys which themselves take only 40 minutes. That is totally disrupting for the individual programmes of people. Is it not possible for some short-term measures to be taken while these longer-term investigations are being undertaken?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should first like to emphasise that not all the fault lies on our side. There are delays in the rest of Europe. Many of the delays recently experienced have been as a result of problems elsewhere in Europe.
As regards short-term measures, obviously if there is anything that can be done in the short term to alleviate the problem it will be done. I shall be raising the issue with Eurocontrol next week when there is a possibility that something might be done.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, is not the pressure on air space over South-East England very much accentuated by the shortage of runways, with the consequent necessity for aircraft to spend a considerable time in a stack? Can my noble friend say what the Government are doing about that?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as my noble friend will be aware, the Government have asked officials to collaborate with the CAA and BAA in reviewing the forecast for air traffic demand in the South-East and the capacity required to meet it. I draw the attention of my noble friend to the evidence given by the CAA recently to a Commons Select Committee. It was made clear that it is air space and not runways that is the real constraint on the growth of air traffic in the South-East and that it will remain so for some time.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, would it not make sense if the Government were now to assist Manchester in its efforts to attract a larger increase in international flights, especially from the American continent, which would relieve Heathrow and Gatwick of some of the tremendous pressures they are experiencing? Can the Minister give any indication of whether the Government will consider Manchester's case sympathetically as there does not appear to be much progress in that direction at present?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we have done all that we can to assist Manchester to expand rapidly over the past few years. As regards US routes. we

1831
eventually persuaded the American Government to come to the negotiating table earlier this year. The negotiations were not successful but we very much hope that we shall be able to meet the Americans again before the beginning of the next season. As we have stated repeatedly, we must ask for something in return. We are not prepared to give valuable traffic rights away for nothing.
Lord Harvey of Prestbury: My Lords, can my noble friend say when Stansted will be capable of accepting additional traffic?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the new terminal at Stansted and the rail link are expected to open in 1991 when that airport will be able to handle 8 million passengers a year.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord has been busy on other matters, but has he yet had a chance to read the document published by the CAA on 28th June? In its review of licensing policies it recognises that there are terrible constraints on air space capacity. On page 5 the review states:
"In the next few years airport and air space constraints are likely to intensify. Such constraints could limit both the ability of airlines to compete and the necessity for them to do so".
If the noble Lord is able to consider that document in the near future, will he have consultations with the CAA on the problem of runway capacity and this important issue of the shortage of safe air space?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Yes, my Lords. As I said, we are considering that with the CAA. The new statement of licensing policy issued by the CAA was made after lengthy consultation and the review is the result of that consultation.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, my noble friend referred to the evidence given by the CAA. Will he deal with the point which I put to him on my earlier question which he has not yet answered as to whether he is aware that the shortage of air space, which admittedly is the immediate problem, is accentuated by the shortage of runways?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the point I sought to make was that the present shortage is one of air space and not of runways. Even if another runway was built in the South-East there would not be the air space capacity to cope with it.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, would it not help in a small way if more use by international flights was made of the provincial airports? Is it not the case at the moment that travel agents tend to tell travellers from outside London that the best flights are through London? In that respect, can the noble Lord give the House some indication of the future of Prestwick?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as regards provincial airports, except for Prestwick they have all enjoyed an extremely high growth rate over the past few years. If I recall correctly, Birmingham is up by about 25 per cent. and Manchester by about 14 per
1832
cent. As regards Prestwick and its role as a gateway to the United States, that matter is due to be reported on next year when the future should become clearer.
Lord Strathcarron: My Lords, I should like to declare an interest as chairman of Kent International Airport, which may be better known to your Lordships as Manston. Is my noble friend aware that Kent International has a 10,000 foot runway which is partly for the use of NATO as an emergency field? Brand new passenger terminal buildings are being erected and will be in operation next year. Therefore, the airport will not only ease the congestion of airport space in the South-East but will also reduce the high rate of unemployment in the Thanet area.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am certain that Manston will have a valuable role to play, but being in the South-East it will of course be subject to some of the air space constraints in that area.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a considerable amount of public disquiet arising from the reports which come almost daily about near misses? That disquiet has been reflected in the supplementary questions from noble Lords on all sides of the House. Will the noble Lord discuss with his right honourable friend the possibility of a government study and a White Paper, or a Green Paper, which could be debated in Parliament?
There are claims—one was made by the noble Lord, Lord Grimond—for Prestwick, which is rather a long way away in terms of getting to the South-East of England. There are claims of course for other airports which I shall not mention this morning. However, will the noble Lord be good enough to press the Minister responsible for these matters to publish a document which will enable Parliament and the country to know exactly where we stand about these possible dangers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as regards the dangers the number of air misses has fallen sharply over the past few years. In 1977 there were 45 aircraft involved in risk-bearing air misses; in 1986 there were just 16. Although we have not had the final figures for 1987, I understand that they are no worse. That is during a time when the number of flights has risen very considerably. As regards the policy of the Government and whether we need a new White Paper. I shall draw the remarks of the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition to the attention of my right honourable friend. Broadly speaking, our policy remains that set down in the White Paper of 1985 which is not that long ago.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to draw to the attention of the Civil Aviation Authority and of his right honourable friend the comments made by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter? It seems fairly obvious that lack of runway space exacerbates the air space problem. If a large number of aircraft are in stack, surely that situation would be relieved by the provision of more runways.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I shall draw those remarks to the attention of the Civil Aviation Authority. However, the problem is not as simple as that. As 1 said, the CAA says that at the present time it is a shortage of air space and not a shortage of runways which is causing the problem. By the mid-1990s we shall have in place the new central control function which is being installed by National Air Traffic Services. When it is installed that will result in a 30 per cent. increase in air space capacity in the South-East area which will help considerably.
Lord Airedale: My Lords, what is the difference between a near miss and a near hit?

Licensing (Retail Sales) Bill
11.32 a.m.
Read a third time, and passed.

Environment and Safety Information Bill
Report received.

Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1988
11.33 a.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland (Lord Lyell): My Lords, this morning I beg to move that the Northern Ireland Act 1974 (Interim Period Extension) Order 1988 laid before your Lordships on 7th be approved. At this time each year, for the past 14 years, the Government have sought renewal for a further 12 months of the powers contained in the Northern Ireland Act 1974. As I said on I believe four previous occasions, there is little cause for satisfaction in that fact, however necessary the arrangements may be.
The truth is that debates such as we are having this morning will continue to be necessary so long as there remains an absence of agreement among the people of Northern Ireland and those who represent them, about the establishment of a different form of government which would be widely acceptable in Northern Ireland. I spoke about a year ago as regards the Government's concerns over the lack of involvement of Northern Ireland's politicians in the government of the Province. I expressed the hope then that we might see progress made towards a constructive dialogue between the constitutional political parties on these matters following the general election of last year.
The Government were not looking, and could not expect to look, for instant solutions. I wish to stress to the House that as a result of discussions between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the leadership of the constitutional parties which have taken place in fair number over the past year, there is now a clearer understanding of the way forward that we perhaps should follow. I might say more about this shortly.
The main problem that brings me to the Dispatch Box throughout the year—I make no apology for returning to it again as regards Northern Ireland—is that of security. Whatever progress we make on the
1834
political front, firm and effective security remains essential to the wellbeing of Northern Ireland and, above all, to the population of the Province. For there can be no political accommodation with those who express their viewpoint by violence, intimidation or murder and with those who seek to terrorise parts of the community into submission and who claim to speak on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland, while merely deepening the divisions and frustrating the hopes of peace that the enormous majority of ordinary people hold.
Over the past few months, the world has been appalled by, first, the slaughter at the Remembrance Day parade at Enniskillen. Then there was the murder on 16th March this year of three people at a funeral at Milltown Cemetery. We follow that on 19th March with the murder of two British Army corporals who were first of all dragged from their car, then beaten and shot. Then there was the horrific bombing at Lisburn on 15th June, which left six soldiers dead and just narrowly avoided a far larger massacre of townspeople. And now, to add to that awful toll, the bombing of a school bus at Lisnaskea. This is an act of callousness which, even at this stage almost beggars the belief of your Lordships and another place, let alone the world at large. Beyond these examples which fill us with such horror, there is a long litany of individual tragedies, of those murdered or seriously injured at the hands of terrorists.
This morning I believe that your Lordships will join with me in thinking of the brutal murder on 4th June of Lance-Corporal Michael Darcey, who was a full-time member of the 6th battalion of the Ulster Defence Regiment. He was ambushed and shot by gunmen in his car as he returned home from duty in Castlederg, County Tyrone. This deprived his already widowed mother, in the most horrible circumstances, of her only son. There are countless individual tragedies throughout the past 20 years in Northern Ireland.
In addition, there is the bombing of businesses, damage to property, extortion and blackmail, punishment shootings and kneecappings; all carried out by those who make the hideous claim to be the defenders of their communities and the upholders of their livelihood. That of all lies is the greatest lie of all.
This litany of horrors that I have spelled out this morning would be so much greater but for the determination and professionalism of the security forces. Every day they face the most chilling threats to their own lives in order to forestall the atrocities of the terrorists. I once again pay my tribute to the work of the police and the army to whom we all owe a huge debt of gratitude. Their courage and resourcefulness in combating terrorism are the foundations which will support any progress we can make towards a more peaceful and harmonious society.
The Government give high priority to policies which will create wider and enhanced support for the police and armed forces and for the system of justice in Northern Ireland. The Government will seek to ensure that the delicate balance is maintained between the operational effectiveness of security policies, and the protection of the individual rights of

1835
all citizens. That balance is essential to the success of our security policy as a whole.
Over the past year of direct rule we have also witnessed many signs of encouraging progress on the economic front. Unemployment, our most serious economic problem, declined by almost 10,000 in the year to May 1988. The efforts of the Industrial Development Board and the Local Enterprise Development Unit have resulted in the promotion of a record number of jobs—in the region of 9,200 in the financial year 1987–88. I am pleased to say that we can expect this total to be surpassed in the current financial year. We have seen many examples of company expansions during the past year, and quite significant growth in the local enterprise network within the Province. There are now clear signs of real and growing confidence in the Northern Ireland economy among businessmen, which your Lordships and everybody who has the welfare of the Province at heart will find encouraging.
The Government are committed to introducing strong measures to eradicate job discrimination in Northern Ireland and to promoting genuine equality of opportunity in employment. The changes set out in the Government's White Paper published on 25th May are far-reaching. Among other things, they impose important new responsibilities on employers and entail serious penalties for breach of duty. The emphasis throughout our proposals is on fairness. We do not want to transfer hardship from one section of the community to another. We do not wish to impose an intolerable administrative burden on employers. We intend to give support to anyone who is genuinely trying to create employment and prosperity in Northern Ireland. I am sure that all noble Lords would support that aim. In this context, I am happy to pay tribute to the work of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights which has made a valuable contribution to the Government's fair employment proposals. Above all, I should like to pay tribute to its chairman over the past four years, Mr. James O'Hara; and to pass on to the House today's announcement in another place of the appointment of his successor, Sir Oliver Napier, whose talents and experience will already be familiar to many of your Lordships.
As the House knows, we believe that a devolved form of government would best serve the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. That form of government would reflect local concerns and priorities in a manner which direct rule, for all its merits, cannot. It would return to Northern Ireland's elected representatives that direct input to the government of Northern Ireland which at present they lack; and perhaps most importantly, by encouraging the constitutional representatives of the two traditions to settle their differences constructively, it would help to bridge the divide in Northern Ireland's society and so isolate the men of violence.
For these reasons, the Government believe that movement to, or towards, devolution would serve the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. Of course, any new form of government must, if it is to be stable, be widely acceptable in Northern Ireland.
1836
It should involve the elected representatives of the people of Northern Ireland in their government. If we are to make progress, we need a sound basis of agreement among the parties.
Your Lordships will recall that when we debated this order last year I said that there were formidable difficulties in the way of agreement. I added, at the same time, that I believed that the party leaders were seeking a way forward through dialogue. Over the past year, we—that is, my right honourable friend and my colleagues—and the parties themselves have been able to build constructively on the ideas mooted a year ago. Immediately following the passage of last year's order my right honourable friend embarked upon an exploratory dialogue with the leaders of the Unionist parties. Over the past year he has held talks with all the main constitutional parties. The Government's objective in these talks has been to establish whether it might be possible to move towards discussions involving all the constitutional parties in discussions about political progress. I want to stress that progress has been made.
In his talks with the parties my right honourable friend has made clear the continuing commitment of both governments to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The agreement embodies certain fundamental principles which are vital to Northern Ireland's future. They include the affirmation by both governments that the status of Northern Ireland can be changed only by consent; acceptance of the need for close security co-operation with the Irish Government in our common cause against terrorism; the need to increase confidence among the minority community in the administration of Northern Ireland's affairs; and support for progress towards devolution.
During the course of exploratory meetings held earlier this year, the leaders of the two main Unionist parties outlined to my right honourable friend their proposals for changes in the way that Northern Ireland is governed. He found their proposals an encouraging starting point for any wider discussions or negotiations that might come about. We very much welcome the fact that Unionists have something constructive to say and have produced ideas which might be put on the table for discussion. My right honourable friend has also held talks with the leadership of the SDLP. They told him of their support for devolution, and of their willingness to talk to the other constitutional parties about political progress. The Alliance Party of Northern Ireland has also told my right honourable friend that it strongly supports the movement towards devolution and is ready to contribute to wider discussions.
It seems right therefore that the Government should now seek to move away from the phase of initial exploratory discussions towards a substantive dialogue involving the main constitutional political parties. Each of the main parties has expressed interest in making progress towards devolution. They emphasise, albeit from different perspectives, the importance of the Anglo-Irish relationship; and they support constitutional politics and reject violence. The Government, for their part, remain ready to facilitate such a dialogue. They have no wish to specify the format, or agenda, for talks, or to put

1837
forward any single blueprint for devolution or movement towards it; but we remain ready to help matters along in any way that we can.
Of course, we cannot force the parties to the negotiating table. Whether or not they will participate is a matter for them. The leaders of the Unionist parties have expressed concern about the existence of a process of talks between the SDLP and Sinn Fein. The Government's own position is clear. Because of Sinn Fein's support for violence, Ministers will not have contact with it. However, we cannot dictate the actions of the political parties. What we can make clear is that it would be disappointing if real hopes of political progress were to be frustrated by the creation of fresh obstacles to talks. The Government, for their part, are ready to talk to the constitutional parties at any time, without pre-conditions.
To admit that there may be obstacles to dialogue is not to say that dialogue is not necessary, or that it is not feasible. There are in fact signs of greater willingness among the parties to pursue new approaches. We welcome that. Our objective must now be to make further progress to, or towards, devolution. We accept that we can move only one step at a time; but the Government are determined to move forward and to encourage the parties to embark on a substantive dialogue together.
It remains essential, as we attempt to move steadily towards the more satisfactory means of government for Northern Ireland which we all wish to see, that direct rule continues. We shall continue to do all we can to eradicate terrorism; we shall continue to promote reconciliation and partnership between both parts of the community; and we shall continue to encourage the growth of wealth and the creation of further enterprise and industry. It is to serve these objectives that the powers contained in the Northern Ireland Act 1974 remain necessary. I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 7th June be approved [28th Report from the Joint Committee.].—(Lord Lyell.)
11.50 a.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, it is with sadness that we from these Benches are bound to agree with the Government that there is a need to renew this Act; an Act which is described in its title as being an "Interim Period" Act. This is the fourteenth year of renewal.
When the Minister rightly reminds the House that he has come to the Dispatch Box on many occasions during the past 12 months to condemn savage outrages—for example, at a memorial service in a cemetery and at a charity function for the disabled of a particular community—and when each week brings in its train new acts of savagery, there is, I fear, a sense of inevitability about our agreement to the renewal of the Act—even though it is for the fourteenth year.
My noble friend Lord Fitt, drawing on his wide experience of the Province, may well tell the House that in his judgment the Province may have to live with this legislation for many years to come. Yet, it is our earnest hope, from these Benches, that the next 12 months will begin to usher in a more creative
1838
period in the history of the Province and that the leaders of the main constitutional and political parties will come to see that it is in the interest of Northern Ireland, and all its people, that they should learn to work out a means which will enable them to work together in common harness. I believe that we can possibly identify one or two small, hopeful signs.
Many of us on these Benches were impressed by the brave words of the cautious leader of the official Unionist Party, and the tone of his remarks, which he made during a television programme which was shown about six or eight weeks ago. He said in public—I emphasise the words "in public"—that he would be willing to have a direct dialogue about the future with Dublin in certain circumstances and under certain conditions. He also acknowledged the need to have regard to the totality of Irish relations. Your Lordships will know that that is a phrase which the Taoiseach is fond of using. So here was a new, more hopeful voice.
Again, during the past 12 months, we have read in our newspapers about the bilateral meetings which the Secretary of State has been having with the leaders of the main constitutional parties in Northern Ireland. Indeed, I think that was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, this morning. Well, that is another good sign. In that context I should like to express our appreciation for the Secretary of State's tireless efforts to encourage the leaders of the constitutional political parties to seek a common ground from which they could move towards devolved government in the Province.
I noticed that the Minister said that there had been progress. Does that mean that the Government have now been able to identify the major obstacles to progress towards devolved government, and that they are satisfied that such obstacles, with goodwill, can be overcome in the short term? I should be most grateful if the Minister could elaborate on his statement that progress had been made.
I think that one must also refer, as the Minister has, to the talks between the SDLP leaders and the leaders of Sinn Fein. They are seen, of course, by the Unionists to be getting in the way of discussions between the Unionists and the SDLP. I think that we can understand the Unionist position; and we can also understand the Government's position. All that we say is that if the SDLP can persuade Sinn Fein—or some of its leaders—to pursue a nonviolent policy, that would be a considerable achievement, which in turn would help to pave the way for political developments.
The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, rightly paid tribute to the courage of the members of the security forces and their families. Whether on or off duty, or even when engaged in humanitarian efforts, the members of the security forces in Northern Ireland are always a target in the eyes of the men of violence. Whatever criticisms are levelled at the conduct of some members of the security forces in the early 1980s, it is widely acknowledged that they are now acting impartially towards the two communities. However, it is our duty as official Opposition to draw attention to the new report published earlier this week by Amnesty International. The report calls for a wide-ranging judicial review into the policies pursued by

1839
some members of the security forces in 1982, as Amnesty International is dissatisfied and worried about the Government's response to the question about the events which took place in 1982. We think it is important that the debate about the sad events of that year should be resolved.
If the Government have nothing to fear from a wide-ranging review, why do they resist it? On the other hand, if it is now seen that grave errors of judgment were made in 1982, should they not be acknowledged? This desperately unhappy matter has been around for many years and it continues to poison the atmosphere. It also has serious implications for public confidence in the security forces and in the system of administration of justice in Northern Ireland.
The announcement by the police authority for Northern Ireland on Wednesday that it was unnecessary to inquire further into the conduct of the chief constable, the deputy chief constable and the assistant chief constable, fails to carry conviction. It fails to carry conviction as it was carried by a majority of only one. Indeed, the fact that it was only carried by one vote is disturbing. I wonder whether the Minister can tell the House how many of the authority's 16 members voted for the resolution. Further, can the Minister confirm that the report made by Mr. McLachlan of the police inspectorate into the conduct of the three officers I referred to was not given to the police authority? Did the authority come to a decision without knowing the contents of that report?
On 25th January last in this House, my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones wisely urged the Government, at that early stage, to establish a wholly independent judicial inquiry into the sad events of 1982. He advised then that that was the safest course in the circumstances. That is the advice that we again tender to the Government.
I believe that the Minister could have listed some improvements which have been made in the administration of justice during the past year or two; but there is still too long a delay between remand of suspected terrorists, in the preferring of charges, committal, trial and appeal. However, I note that this is an item on the agenda of the inter-governmental conference.
Another item on the conference agenda is unemployment among Catholics. Surely it must be unacceptable that unemployment among Catholics should still remain two and a half times that which exists among Protestants. But we now have the Government's commitment to the introduction of major legislation within the next 12 months to tackle this mischief; we also have the Government's promise of economic growth which could also help.
Between now and November the two governments will be reviewing the working of the intergovernmental conference to see whether any changes in the nature and scope of its activities are desirable. We on these Benches believe that the Government can draw more than a crumb of comfort from the fact that the agreement has survived, notwithstanding the hostility of the Unionist parties and of Sinn Fein and,
1840
of course, notwithstanding the major differences between the two governments in some areas of policy. The agreement's survival for three years is not an end in itself. The agreement must be judged by the contribution it makes to improving security and security co-operation. It is one item that has dominated the business of 15 out of 20 meetings of the conference. It must also be judged by the contribution it makes to the difficult task of effecting reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
Applying both criteria, we are bound to accept that the agreement has not as yet fulfilled all our expectations, not that anyone promised or expected miracles. There have been gains—they could have been listed by the Minister. There have been disappointments. In their approach to the review, the Government will no doubt take account, among other things, of the Unionists' perception that the existence of the agreement in its present form is the single most important obstacle to political development in Northern Ireland. It would be helpful if the Minister could give us a broad indication of how the Government approach the review. "Review" is the word used in the agreement. Is it intended that it should be a broad or a narrow review? While we would not expect or encourage the Government to set aside the agreement until they have a better structure which is acceptable to both communities to put in its place, at the same time we would urge the Government to continue with their efforts to find ways and means of encouraging the Unionists to work together with the other constitutional parties, if only initially, to rescue the Province from the direct rule which is imposed by the order we are today renewing.
To the political parties in Northern Ireland we would just say this: at a time when the President of the United States of America is prepared to travel to Moscow to speak to the leader of the Soviet Union about arms limitation, is it too much to expect, on the fourteenth anniversary of the order, that the political leaders of the two religious communities in Northern Ireland—a very small corner of the world—should also begin bridge building in the course of the next 12 months?
12.2 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for setting forth the Government's case for extending the Northern Ireland Act 1974. Like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, we on these Benches, although sadly, find ourselves in the position of having to approve what is in fact inescapable. We see no alternative other than to support and say that we approve.
Perhaps I may at this point take up a matter which was raised by the noble Lord with which I wholly agree; that is, the Stalker affair, as it is popularly known, and the outcome of the inquiries into the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is not something that we can by-pass. The outcome—a majority of one among 16 persons—and a decision that no disciplinary action should be taken against any of the officers involved must be deeply unsatisfactory and profoundly worrying. What is worse, it means that an affair which has gone on since 1982, and which has

1841
caused all of us deep concern, will not now be over and finished. It will merely continue to be a source of concern and anxiety and provide people with a deep sense of insecurity about the security services themselves. I hope therefore that in his reply the Minister will be able to reassure us—he will find it difficult—that things are not as bad and as unhappy as they seem.
In the course of his opening remarks, the Minister said that one of the problems—I share his feeling was how to instil a sense of confidence among the minorities in Northern Ireland. One of the central political problems which we face in this intractable situation is that we are dealing with two minorities. The Catholics are a minority in Northern Ireland. The Protestants are a minority in the whole island of Ireland. Both groups behave like minorities and both are to some extent affected by the paranoia to which minorities are prone.
It presents, as one need hardly say, a difficult situation. The Catholics have historically been victims of Protestant hegemony and discrimination which the Government's new White Paper on fair employment in Northern Ireland boldly attempts to tackle, and about which I hope to say a word or two in the second part of our proceedings today. It is not surprising that the Protestants, seeing how they have treated a minority, should themselves be anxious never to become a minority in any way. That contributes to the kind of stalemate in which we find ourselves. It is a stalemate of insecurity and fear. Fear, of course, is the worst basis for negotiation. It is that which makes it so difficult to see any progress towards a settlement.
One must therefore welcome the report that was given us today of the small, cautious, but nonetheless positive, steps which have been taken over the past year to engage in a dialogue with the constitutional parties and which I hope will lead us to being able to persuade them to engage in dialogue with others.
The effect of fear among some animals is to make them freeze so that any change in the status quo appears to some of the political parties in Northern Ireland as fearful, and induces a desire to freeze in the position in which we are at present. If we look at the situation which confronts us, I suppose that there could be said to be three options which different groups generally offer. The first is based on the premise, as someone put it, that Northern Ireland is as British as Finchley—a proposition that no one who has been to either place finds it easy to accept—and would return Northern Ireland to the position prior to the imposition of direct rule. The second advocates the removal of British troops—washing our hands of the problem, abandoning the responsibilities which lie clearly on this Parliament, and risking, if not actually provoking, a bloody civil war. The third derives from the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and depends upon a steadfast determination to pursue and to build on its objectives.
The first of those options seems to me a cul-de-sac, the second a policy so irresponsible that it cannot seriously be entertained. We are therefore left with the third, which we on these Benches support.
1842
We stand by the commitment of this country, of Britain, to Northern Ireland. We believe, with the Government, that building on the Anglo-Irish Treaty is the only way forward and we welcome and support the statement of the Secretary of State, as expressed on 29th June.
No one pretends, as the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, said, that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is perfect. But it can be improved and it provides an opportunity for the governments of the two countries to consult, to sort out their differences and to coordinate joint measures to fight the common enemy of terrorism.
It seems to me that it must be our objective to persuade the Unionists in both their manifestations to tread this cautious path towards dialogue so that they dare to talk with those with whom at present they refuse to talk; so that they dare to respond positively, and, as appears to be possible, to make Mr. Haughey's invitation an open-ended discussion; so that they dare to recognise that the world changes, just as the Catholic Church has changed in the last 30 years, just as Russia is being transformed in front of our eyes today. With those changes, opinions and attitudes change. Northern Ireland is not the Galapagos Islands.
The Unionists might note the words of Mr. Desmond O'Malley, leader of the Progressive Democrats in the Republic. He said:
"I want to say to the Unionist community: You are not without friends on this side of the border. I have already spoken of this party's commitment to a tolerant, pluralist Republic.
"There is a deep and growing appreciation throughout the Republic of the terrible suffering you have endured, not least in the border areas, where a virtual campaign of genocide has been waged against you by the IRA."
That shows an understanding and sympathy for the position of the Unionists in Northern Ireland which I think should be greatly welcomed.
The Anglo-Irish Agreement, as Mr. Hume has said, provides a framework. By providing that framework, it seems to me that the two governments have set an example. I do not believe that the Unionists run any risk by engaging and participating in discussions. Talk might even allay their anxieties: it might even allow them to enjoy the fourth freedom as defined by President Roosevelt, freedom from fear.
Lastly, we agree with the Secretary of State that devolution is the right way forward and that we attach great importance to the opportunity which the inter-governmental conference taking place later this year will provide.
12.13 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies and I sat through most of the debate in another place when this order was being renewed during the week. I am quite certain that he left the Chamber feeling as depressed as I was because there did not seem to be any indication whatsoever that there had been any change in the traditional attitudes of the Northern Ireland representatives that we have seen over many years.
I have been a member of both Houses now for something over 22 years. I have listened to the

1843
previous speaker, the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, but this is the first time that I have heard him speaking on Northern Ireland. I have listened over many years to the words of sweet reasonableness, words in both Chambers which were designed to help to ease the awful problem of Northern Ireland. Then I have gone back to Northern Ireland and those words were never heard; they were not listened to. The only attitudes in Northern Ireland are those attitudes which have been created by centuries of history of division in nationality between the two communities.
It is not possible to discuss this order in total isolation from the Anglo-Irish Agreement because as far as the Unionist psyche is concerned that agreement takes precedence over all other legislation that has been promulgated from this House to be effective in Northern Ireland.
There are occasions when I should like to take part in debates on Northern Ireland in this House. I should like to exude optimism. I should like to say that I see changes in Northern Ireland attitudes. That is what people want to hear in these Chambers. They are reasonable people, unaffected by the terrible, tortuous history that we have in Northern Ireland. If noble Lords walk down to the St. Stephen's entrance they will see a little exhibition relating to the tercentenary of the glorious and bloodless revolution of 1688. That is something which is being commemorated in this House. People are commemorating a glorious and bloodless revolution which laid down the basis of our parliamentary democracy. In Northern Ireland it was not glorious nor bloodless. There were all the battles when King William, Prince of Orange, came to Britain in 1688. That is where we get Orangemen from; that is why we get the 2,000 Orange marches taking place in Northern Ireland every year. Those Orange demonstrations are either to assert their supremacy in Northern Ireland or to express their fear of being taken over by the rest of the Irish Republic. In Northern Ireland, in the island of Ireland, there is certainly no reason to commemorate the tercentenary of the glorious and bloodless revolution.
When we come to the anniversary of the next year, 1689, we shall be talking of a Bill of Rights here in the United Kingdom. In Northern Ireland they will be talking about the siege of Derry and how the Apprentice Boys held those gates against the forces of King James II. Three years from now we shall celebrate 1690, when we had the Battle of the Boyne.
Those are three of the most evocative years for the Irish political psyche as between the Protestants and Catholics—this year, next year and the year after. Here we shall be celebrating the glorious and bloodless revolution. We shall be trying to express words that will bring about reconciliation. But to remember the terrible, disastrous history of those three years and the previous years in Ireland may be some help in understanding what motivates the people in the island of Ireland.
I referred to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. When that agreement was first promulgated, I had two versions of it here in the House: the British version
1844
and the Irish version. The British version said, "This is an agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, and the Government of the Irish Republic". Factually, that was right; that is what the agreement was. The Irish version said, "This is an agreement between the Government of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom". They could not even agree on its name because the British Government had to sell it to their supporters and the Irish Government had to sell it to the Republican ethos in the Republic of Ireland.
As soon as I read it, I realised that it was not going to work. Having been born in Northern Ireland, having lived in Northern Ireland, having represented one of the communities for many years, having seen and lived with all the divisions, I realised at first glance that this would not work. I debated with myself whether I should say that in this House. I talked to my wife about it. My wife said, "I don't think it is going to work, but don't say that over in the House of Lords because if you say that in the House of Lords they will regard you as some sort of troublemaker. They want to believe that it will work. If you express any reservations, you will be regarded as throwing a spanner into the works".
I told the then Leader of the House that I was not going to say anything in the debate because I could not say anything optimistic about the agreement. I regard the former Leader of the House as being not only a political friend but a great personal friend. He told me that even though I had reservations, I should express them in the House. Therefore I expressed my reservations. That was three years ago. I express those same reservations today. I believed that everything that I said then was going to happen. I did not want it to happen, nor did I will it to happen, but I knew that it was going to happen.
Nothing has happened since the Anglo-Irish Agreement in the island of Ireland that will in any way contribute to a lessening of the hostilities that we have lived with, not only over the past 20 years but throughout centuries. The Anglo-Irish Agreement was allegedly designed to do two things. In its own wording it states that it was designed to bring about reconciliation and harmony between the two communities which would lead to a devolved administration.
But there was a second more important element in the Anglo-Irish Agreement that was not mentioned in the agreement itself. It was meant to deflect international criticism. Some of that criticism from international sources as regards the British conduct of affairs in Northern Ireland was totally unjustified. I mention particularly the Irish-Americans who were continuously criticising Britain for trying to do an impossible job which they themselves had never attempted, nor would they ever attempt, to do.
In the weeks after the setting up of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, I was absolutely inundated with comments sent from the Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin and from the Foreign Office in London. There were comments from President Zia in Pakistan, from an ambassador in India, from a spokesman in Uganda and from a spokesman in Malaya. President Zia said that he thought the

1845
agreement was a wonderful thing. All those comments were received. They said that we should welcome the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I do not know who it was who persuaded all those spokesmen to send their commendations. But the most important one came from the Belfast Telegraph. When the agreement was first announced that paper stated in banner headlines: "It will not work!"
That was by far the most important assessment of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The Belfast Telegraph did not print that statement because it represented a Unionist point of view or because it was an anti-Nationalist newspaper. I think it was written by someone who was aware of all the passions that existed in Northern Ireland, and who realised that the agreement carried within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Although it may be said from this side of the water that the Anglo-Irish Agreement was set up in order to bring about reconciliation, it was seen as a victory for the minority, as a victory for the Nationalists, as a victory for the Republicans and as a victory for the Republic of Ireland. If it was a victory for them, it must be seen as a defeat for the other element. In Ireland there are victories and defeats. The Anglo-Irish Agreement was seen as a victory for those opposed to Unionism. However much it may be denied, there is a certain air of triumphalism now prevailing among the traditional constitutional and extreme Nationalists. They regard the Anglo-Irish Agreement as a victory for them.
What has the agreement achieved? What was it designed to do? Was it designed to bring about reconciliation between the two communities? Can anyone really say that it has contributed in any way towards that laudable objective? The Secretary of State has said of the atrocities in Northern Ireland that one is continuously searching for words. After every terrible atrocity in Northern Ireland we try to find new words which will express our feelings in relation to it. There are not enough words in the English dictionary. One gets sick and depressed by trying to find new words to express one's feelings in such a situation.
But the Secretary of State found a new word this week. He talked of the "peculiar awfulness" of the past year's tragedies, since the Northern Ireland Act 1974 was last debated. He was referring to Enniskillen, the murder of innocent people and the continuous vicious attacks made on the Protestant community in Northern Ireland. I am not a Unionist. I have fought the Unionist Party throughout my political life. But I have lived with Unionists on the island of Ireland. When the Catholic community was under attack, as it was continuously from certain elements within the Loyalist community, I put forward my views in the Catholic interest. I do the same now on behalf of the Unionist community.
If this Act were designed to do something for the Unionist community, it patently has not done so. Unionists have lost many of their sons, their husbands, their brothers, their fathers, their mothers and their daughters over the past year. The Unionist community as such seems to have nothing going for it. Do the main parties in Northern Ireland really want devolution? That point has not been stated
1846
publicly. I have expressed it privately to many of my political colleagues in Northern Ireland of both persuasions, but I have not said it publicly. I say it now after having calculated the impact which it may make.
I do not believe that in my lifetime there will be a devolved government again in Northern Ireland. I do not believe that any of the major political parties want it. When the Labour Government allowed itself to be blackmailed by bringing about an increase in the number of constituencies in Northern Ireland from 12 to 17, it in effect killed any hope of a devolved government. In granting an extra five seats the boundaries had to be rearranged, and Enoch Powell who was the chief instigator of the blackmailing process at that time cut his own throat by that measure. When the new boundaries had to be drawn as a result of the increase in seats, Enoch Powell received 10,000 more Nationalists or 10,000 more Catholics into the South Down constituency. That meant that he was assured of losing his seat in the next election.
At the moment there are 17 representatives. The SDLP already has three seats. There is a possibility that it may obtain one more seat—the seat of Mid-Ulster. I do not think that it will ever obtain Fermanagh, South Tyrone or West Belfast. It has three seats, and there is a possibility that it may get four. If the other Unionist representatives in another place got together and found a means to reconstitute Stormont, there would be a political assembly in Northern Ireland.
At the moment the spotlight of Northern Irish political opinion is focused on the 17 MPs who represent constituencies there and who attend Parliament. If those representatives went out of their way to help in the creation of another Stormont, that spotlight of opinion would immediately swing away from them on to Stormont. Stormont is situated in Belfast. After a debate had taken place in Stormont, the locally elected assembly men would be received into the television studios at the BBC or Ulster Television. Their comments would be taken into consideration. They would be, as we say in Northern Ireland,
"the fellows in the big picture".
The 17 elected representatives at Westminster would find themselves way out on the periphery once again. They are 17 individuals—17 politicians. Would it be right to expect them to create an institution which would detract from their own importance? I have spoken to representatives of both communities and it is my considered, honest opinion that the Anglo-Irish Agreement is not going to bring about devolved government in Northern Ireland within my lifetime. Even though I had a by-pass operation a few years ago, I hope to be around for some time!
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Fitt: My Lords, the agreement may have deflected international criticism. I believe that it has to a certain extent. However, that is not in itself a good reason for the promulgation of such an agreement. The agreement took away the alienation

1847
of the minority. However, it has led to an alienation of the majority.
What could the party which I formerly represented have done in the face of that agreement? In the Unionist mentality, it was an SDLP agreement. The SDLP had an input into the agreement and it was talking to the Irish Government and to the Opposition; and the Irish Government and the Opposition were talking to the British Government. However, the Unionist had no voice at all. He was not consulted; he was faced with a fait accompli. It could be said that if the Unionist Party had been invited to take part in those discussions, it would either have wrecked the discussions or would not have attended. We do not know. However, if it had been invited and had not attended, we could have said to it: "You did not come and you are responsible for not taking part in the discussions". If it had attended and had wrecked the proceedings, as it is quite capable of doing and has done many times, it could have been told: "It is your own fault".
As it is, the Unionists can say, with some justification: "The agreement took place over our heads; we were not consulted and were totally isolated. Therefore, how can you expect us to agree with its workings". I say, totally sincerely and with regret, that the Anglo-Irish Agreement has not done any of the things which it was supposed to do.
I believe that the SDLP could, and should, have done much more in the wake of the agreement to try to allay the fears and suspicions that have been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. The noble Lord is quite right about the double minority syndrome in the island of Ireland. That has been a continuing factor since partition, and for many years before that. The SDLP has not recognised the security forces in Northern Ireland—the army, the police and the UDR. It says: "We will recognise the police when they are carrying out their functions impartially". However, that places the SDLP in the position of saying when the security forces are acting impartially. If the security forces are acting in conformity with the wishes of the SDLP, that is all right. If they happen to be acting in any other way, that is all wrong.
The Unionist mentality sees the SDLP attitude towards the security forces as being little less than open support for Sinn Fein and the IRA. The SDLP will seek every opportunity to criticise the security forces. The security forces in Northern Ireland have not been totally blameless or innocent in many of the things which they have done over many years. However, I believe that the SDLP, in the wake of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, and having had that agreement given to it, should have said: "Yes, we will take our seats on the police authority". How much better it would have been to have had an elected representative sitting on the police authority and questioning what was happening in the security forces. We would have known today—my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies would not have had to ask the Minister—how many people were in attendance at the last meeting a few days ago. The SDLP representative would have been there and would have been able to make a contribution. We would not have
1848
had to call for inquiry after inquiry. He would have been able to voice his objections to anything which was not done in the interests of the whole community. At the moment, the SDLP criticises the army, the police and every facet of the security forces. That in itself does nothing to bring about confidence within the Unionist community.
Anyone who reads the speech made by the Secretary of State in another place will see some contradictions. However, I do not think that there is anyone, in this House or anywhere else, who can have any doubt that Sinn Fein and the IRA are one and the same thing. I can confirm from my experience in Northern Ireland that they are one and the same thing. And yet, they have 85,000 votes in Northern Ireland. What do we do about those 85,000 votes? Do we push them aside and say that we do not recognise them? Do we say that we have 85,000 people who cast their votes in a free election whether we like it or not, and we shall have to recognise them?
The Secretary of State and the Minister have said: "We are not talking to Sinn Fein. They are an adjunct of the IRA and we cannot recognise them". The Sinn Fein elected representatives are gunmen at night and politicians during the day. They go to council meetings and sit beside elected Unionist representatives. The Unionist representative does not know whether the Sinn Fein representative has been engaged in a series of murderous attacks on his community. Certainly his organisation has. There is one law for the local authority councillor and another for the Administration in Northern Ireland.
The ordinary Unionist—not the elected representative but the ordinary Unionist on the street—bitterly resents that position. Ordinary people on the street have said to me: "How do you expect us to sit down with Sinn Fein, which is the spokesman of the IRA?". I pose the question to the Government: Do they intend at some time in the future to recognise Sinn Fein because it has 85,000 votes, or are they going to say that they will not recognise it?
In the talks which the Secretary of State is saying that he hopes will come about, he will talk to constitutional parties, which will be the Unionist representatives here and the SDLP. What happens if Sinn Fein says: "We also have 85,000 votes and we are entitled to be heard"? That is already happening. It may have something to do with the Sinn Fein—SDLP talks. I recently read a depressing report of a meeting of the Belfast Corporation, of which I was a member for 23 years. When a Sinn Fein member stood up to speak, the representatives of the DUP began a tirade of abuse. The SDLP representative shouted to the DUP representative: "You have to listen to them; they have 85,000 votes". Is that the thin end of the wedge? Are the SDLP advocating, as a quid pro quo for the present talks, that Sinn Fein should in some way be brought into political discussions? I am not sure. The Government will have to make up their minds on that matter.
On the very important question of the SDLP-Sinn Fein talks, I should like to think—as who in the name of God would not?—that if their objective is to dissuade Sinn Fein and the IRA from engaging in

1849
their war of violence, they will be successful. I should like to think that. I would also have liked to think that the Anglo-Irish Agreement would work. However, I have no hesitation in saying that at the end of the day Sinn Fein and the IRA will not desist from their campaign of violence. It is the only card that they have to play. Without that campaign of violence, Sinn Fein and the IRA would be total nonentities in the political situation in Ireland. With all the talks that have been taking place between John Hume and Gerry Adams and other leaders of Sinn Fein, there still remains the not simply continuing but escalating war of violence such as we have seen over the past few days.
The two British soldiers who were killed in the horrifying circumstances that we all saw on our television screens in March are totally forgotten except by their wives, families and relations. They are gone; they are another statistic. The Irish News in Belfast every year lists the number of killings that have taken place since 1969. Every year it is updated. I have that list in my office and I look at it every morning when I go in there. I am continually adding names to it.
What I have had to say here today may not have been to the liking of noble Lords because it does not exude optimism. However, I know that it exudes reality. If there is to be any hope of political development in Northern Ireland, then the political parties in Northern Ireland—the DUP, the SDLP and the Unionist Party—must act with greater honesty. I listened to speeches which were made in another place the other day. It is very easy to stand up in any Chamber in this building and say, "Let us all get together. Let us all have peace. Let us all vote for reconciliation." One would damn nearly get a standing ovation for saying that. One would damn nearly get a standing ovation for expressing those sentiments. It is very easy to say that in this House and then to go outside and do something which is absolutely and totally different. That is what is happening now in the case of the elected representatives in Northern Ireland.
1 noticed that in the debate which took place members of my own party voiced their support for the Anglo-Irish Agreement and said that the Government had to be tough. However, when it came to voting for the continuation of the Act they were not there because no member of the SDLP could be seen to be walking into a Division Lobby to support the British staying in Northern Ireland. That would offend Republican sympathies among certain sectors of their electorate.
I urge the Minister to tell the elected representatives that we feel that they are not doing enough to bring about a devolved government in Northern Ireland. If they do not want a devolved government, let them say so and then this Government can look at other means of redressing the awful situation.
I believe that in the review of the Anglo-Irish Agreement something should be done by this Government to ease the way for the unionists to enter into the political process once again. They have been totally isolated over the past three years and something must be done to ease their way into that
1850
review. That review must be positive and must make it clear and public that the agreement was not a victory for nationalism over unionism but that it was really designed to bring together the two communities in Northern Ireland.
12.44 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I remember the debate in your Lordships' House after the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I remember on that occasion welcoming the aspirations and objects of the Agreement but, like the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I felt that it was very doubtful that it would work. Whether it was tactless or not, I said so on that occasion in your Lordships' House.
This is perhaps the last occasion on which we shall have an opportunity to discuss the matter before the review of the agreement begins. Surely that review will have to begin soon after Parliament resumes following the Summer Recess if the results are to be announced shortly after the third anniversary of the signing of the agreement. I consider it most important not only that the review should be comprehensive, constructive and flexible but also that it should be fundamental. It should he a fundamental reappraisal of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
If we were dealing with a regime which had worked reasonably well but in which, quite understandably after three years, areas where it could be improved in terms of administration, procedures and effectiveness had been identified, that would be one thing. However, we are not dealing with that situation. One must ask whether the agreement has worked over the three years in even beginning to reach its aspirations of bringing about peace, stability and reconciliation. That is a stupid, rhetorical question because we all know that those aspirations as set out in Article 4(a) of the agreement have not only not been achieved but are, if anything, further away than they were three years ago.
I think that it is most important that the review or reappraisal should be undertaken not by the Anglo-Irish Conference but by the Inter-governmental Council. It was the Governments of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland which set up the agreement and therefore it ought to be the Governments which look at it from the outside rather than those inside reviewing themselves.
We are told that the agreement has brought about better inter-governmental understanding and that it has brought about improved cross-border security co-operation. One can only ask why, if it has brought about better inter-governmental understanding, there is such a muddle at the moment over extradition. Why have Her Majesty's Government been humiliated time and time again by failure to have suspects extradited? That does not say much for inter-governmental understanding.
As for cross-border security, we were told before the agreement was signed that cross-border security co-operation could not be better. Now it seems that the impossible has been achieved and that it is better. Yet the violence continues.

1851
This is not a matter for tinkering, adjustment or improvement here or there. This is a matter for a fundamental reappraisal. That, incidentally, is a view taken by the leaders of the three main Protestant Churches even to the extent that, in his presidential address to the General Synod last year, the Primate of the Church of Ireland suggested that a new agreement should be negotiated.
To avoid the error that was made last time and to which the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred, I urge that, when the agreement is reviewed and in the lead-up to the review the leaders and prominent representatives of all the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland should be invited to participate. If nothing else, that would put pressure upon them to be constructive rather than shouting slogans from their trenches. It would mean that at least they would be part of the consultative process and would not feel the resentment which, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, mentioned, they felt on the last occasion. Indeed one welcomes some signs of greater flexibility from certain members of the unionist parties, particularly the official Unionist Party, but one observes the continuing talks between the SDLP and Sinn Fein with regret, sorrow and concern.
Having said that, I agree that an agreement between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland is desirable, as indeed it would be in any part of the world where there are two friendly neighbouring states which share a common land boundary, common interests and, in this case, unfortunately, common problems. Obviously an agreement makes sense. However, if in three years' time the present agreement has not begun to achieve its laudable objectives and instead has probably done more harm than good in alienating so many of the majority in Northern Ireland, then one does not need to be a genius to realise that it is the wrong sort of agreement.
So I should like to urge that, in making this fundamental reappraisal, a formula be sought whereby an effective agreement might be found that will enjoy the support of the majority of the people from all sections of the community. Having said that, I see no alternative other than to renew the legislation for another year and I thank the noble Lord for his presentation of it.
12.51 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I should first like to thank all noble Lords who have stayed to discuss this particularly important and possibly regrettable annual order that I have to introduce. I understand that this is the fifth occasion on which I have carried out this task. Every year we have a very constructive discussion and, if I may venture to say so, this year the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, has presented us with a notable review, which is pessimistic at some stages and optimistic at others, of how he sees the political scene in Northern Ireland, the rest of the United Kingdom and also in the Republic of Ireland. A little later in the day I may have a little more to say about his comments.
Once again we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, for his careful consideration of the
1852
order, and indeed of all the activities that have taken place in the political scene as well as in the wider context throughout the past 12 months. The noble Lord agreed that my most frequent appearances before your Lordships were to inform the House of the most dreadful acts carried out in Northern Ireland with singular regularity. It is certainly not an attractive task for any Minister to perform. At this point I should like to stress that I am always immensely grateful, as I know are my colleagues and the security forces in Northern Ireland, for the immense support that we all receive from this House in such moments of sadness. However, there are many other moments of happiness and joy which I have felt, and the Province too, I believe, has experienced, over the past 12 months.
On the political side there has been some movement over the past year. I am sure it will be remembered that in the latter part of 1985 and in 1986 the major viewpoint of Unionist politicians consisted of saying, "Not an inch—we shall not discuss anything. We shall not speak or have any contacts with Government Ministers, or indeed with any representatives of Government". Anybody who has travelled to Northern Ireland, or has any knowledge of people from Northern Ireland, will not fail to understand how strongly views are expressed there. For my own part I am quite used to hearing views expressed with considerable strength and force. I appreciate every view that is put to me and, indeed, if those views are not put with traditional Ulster forthrightness, I begin to worry about the health of the speaker and ask whether he is off his food or needs medicine. That is my reaction if his views are not expressed with vigour or conciseness.
However, I believe that in the past 12 months there has been a considerable amount of progress. It seems to me that there is a fairly regular pattern of discussions taking place between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and the leaders of the constitutional parties. I am not able to tell your Lordships today how many times my right honourable friend—and indeed my other honourable and right honourable colleagues—have spoken to members of the constitutional parties in both formal and informal sessions. There is a very wide channel of dialogue and discussion between government representatives and the leaders of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland.
So far as concerns today's debate, we accept that there are inadequacies in the present system of direct rule. We also recognise that there is a range of deeply felt concerns about the government and the method of government of Northern Ireland. We should prefer to listen to the elected representatives of Northern Ireland who speak from a depth of knowledge which only they have, and indeed from a closeness to their constituents which none of us, let alone a non-elected Minister, can possibly claim to possess. We would wish that all the elected representatives from Northern Ireland would be, and indeed should be, able to participate fully and more directly in the government of the Province.
As a footnote I noted what the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, had to say about a devolved system of government and those who would represent the

1853
Province here in Parliament. I particularly enjoyed his reference to what he called "the big picture" in which some of us appear, and in four and a half years in the Province I have learned something about it. Whenever I appear in the "big picture" I know that it is not always good news, since there will probably be some vociferous comments from the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, or the Department of Agriculture and that there will always be strong views expressed. What the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, had to say about local politicians was apt and accurate as always.
The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised two points in particular. One dealt with the Amnesty report in the Stalker affair, the details of which we discussed earlier this year. The noble Lord also asked about the review of the agreement. Perhaps I may deal with that first. It was of considerable interest to other noble Lords and particularly to the noble Lords, Lord Bonham-Carter, Lord Fitt and Lord Dunleath.
The best way to deal with this matter is to say that it is premature to comment on the precise review that will be carried out of the agreement. The review under Article 11 in the agreement is detailed to be the review of the working of the conference, and I stress that it is no more and no less than that. Indeed, Article 11 emphasises that:
"at the end of three years from the signature of the agreement",
and, as I also note,
"or earlier if requested by either Government, the working of the Conference".
(and that I think is a particularly important phrase) will be examined by the two governments,
"to see whether any changes in the scope or nature of its activities are desirable".
I hope that noble Lords will accept that this review under Article 11 will be very much on the working of the conference. I think that that is how we ought to leave the matter today. However, 1 shall certainly give noble Lords an assurance that the working of the conference is constantly present in the minds of the Government and indeed of our colleagues and representatives who help us in everything that we do when dealing with the agreement.
With regard to the Amnesty report and the Stalker affair, I wish to stress to noble Lords that the statement issued by the Police Authority on Wednesday was full and fairly conclusive and I do not wish to add much today to that statement. I stress that a copy of the statement is available for your Lordships in the Library. However, the decision on disciplinary action in respect of the three senior officers was a matter for the police authority. The decision was taken, we understand, by a majority of one. That is what the authority stated. It would be wrong and inappropriate for me to say more about the voting in the authority. The statement went on to stress that special inspection reports are not normally made available to the authority. But the authority has received the assurance of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State that Mr. McLachlan's report has been accepted by the chief constable and indeed that the recommendations of Mr. McLachlan have already been implemented in large measure.
1854
I wish to make two other points on this aspect. In regard to the investigation by the police authority, there was no question of criminal behaviour on the part of the three senior officers. Mr. Sampson made that quite clear in his observations which went to the police authority. He subsequently reiterated that view to them. Disciplinary action is entirely a matter for the police authority. The decision not to appoint an office to carry out further investigations was taken after full consideration of the evidence and discussions with Mr. Sampson, Mr. Kelly and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary.
I conclude by saying that in his Statement in another place on 17th February this year my right honourable friend admitted that serious mistakes had been made and that management of the police force would take its share of the blame for mistakes. However, such shortcomings are not a disciplinary matter. That would have been dealt with by the police authority.
Perhaps I may return to the political points that have been raised on the order. I stressed to the House and to the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that if we think back to the Unionist attitudes in 1985 and 1986 towards the agreement—that was before the election—we certainly now see a great change. However, the next step must be inter-party dialogue. We hope that that will now be possible, given the stated positions of all the constitutional parties. The Unionists' opposition to the agreement remains, but progress towards devolution would in itself limit the scope of the agreement. I have covered the point on a review of the scope and the workings of the agreement. It would be too early to speculate on that.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, declared his abhorrence of the exploitation of the democratic processes by Sinn Fien councillors. He is right. I wish to stress to the noble Lord once again that if Sinn Fein will not disclaim, or indeed disavow, violence and if it continues to make statements and comments that with one hand they hold the Armalite and with the other the ballot paper, there can be no contact between Ministers or government representatives and any representative of a party holding that view and failing to renounce violence.
We published a discussion paper last year about the problems of Sinn Fein councillors in Northern Ireland sitting with elected representatives of constitutional parties. We recommended that council candidates of all persuasions should sign a declaration of non-violence. That would not be a difficult thing. It might be, for all I know, for members of the particular party mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. But we are still considering some important details of this matter. We have not yet reached a final decision on the introduction of legislation to try to carry out what we think would be a very important step forward.
Perhaps I may welcome the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, to the circle of Ulster speakers in your Lordships' House. I thank him for his very thoughtful speech. On the question of the police authority report the noble Lord will accept that the report, which was issued on Wednesday, covered the three senior officers. Mr. Kelly handed over his report

1855
to the Chief Constable on 20th June this year. The noble Lord will know that Mr. Kelly was reporting to the Chief Constable as a result of comments and statements made earlier this year.
On the second major point of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, concerning change in the status quo, the agreement sets out in fairly clear and unequivocal terms that there will be no change in the status of Northern Ireland without consent. The noble Lord, together with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, drew attention to this extraordinary problem of a minority within a minority that we have either within Northern Ireland, or within the island of Ireland. It is that problem that we are attempting to address today and, it seems, every day in the political considerations on Northern Ireland.
Perhaps I may direct one or two more comments to the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. Whenever the noble Lord enters the Chamber, we see the face of optimism and—so far as I am concerned, and I am sure this is the view of other noble Lords —f immense courage. We all know what the noble Lord achieved in the course of his political career in Northern Ireland.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to everything that was said by the noble Lord. If there are any points that I have not taken up, I am sure that he will forgive me. We shall write to him on them. I note what he says about the end of devolved government. I hope that he will see devolved government again very soon and be in fine health to celebrate that great event in the Fitt traditional style.
It was entirely in line with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, has done in his career in your Lordships' House, as well as in Northern Ireland, that he welcomed all the hopes and aspirations of the agreement. I cannot recall his precise words in November 1985, but I stress once again to the noble Lord that the review of the agreement will cover the working of the agreement. The mind of the Govenment is directed towards that, as I speak today. I note well his thoughts that other representatives of the constitutional parties in Northern Ireland might be drawn into those discussions. Perhaps I may raise those points with my right honourable friend and hope that he might have some reply to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, although I regret that it will not be today.
We have further Northern Ireland business today. It remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have spoken and for the thoughtful speeches that we have had. I hope that if in a year's time another speech must be made or another order such as this moved, we shall be firmly on the road to devolved government. I believe that over the past 12 months progress has been made on the political front. For that and for many other things in Northern Ireland we may all be grateful.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988
1.10 p.m.
Lord Lyell Lord Lyell rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move. The order is being made under paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974. The draft order before your Lordships' House authorises the expenditure of £2,020 million. This is in addition to the £1,598 million approved by your Lordships on 16th March and gives a total for voted expenditure of £3,618 million for the 1988–89 financial year. Details of the services on which this money will be spent can be found in Northern Ireland Estimates 1988–89 volume which is available from the Printed Paper Office. It is of the usual considerable bulk and fascinating interest.
I should first like to highlight certain key features of the Northern Ireland economic situation. I am certain that noble Lords will welcome the fall in unemployment in the Province. In May this year seasonally adjusted unemployment was some 9,400 below the level of May 1987. The latest figures for employees in employment are equally encouraging, showing an increase of 5,000 in the year ended March 1988. The number of jobs is growing across most sectors of the economy. The shining sector of the economy which we should like to detail is the construction sector, where output in 1987 was nearly 20 per cent. above its 1986 level.
The UK economy is growing and we have, therefore, the reasonable expectation that in the months ahead the Northern Ireland economy will benefit from further growth at national level. Independent surveys, such as the CBI, indicate a favourable economic outlook for the Province with relatively buoyant investment intentions and business confidence. In my agricultural travels in Northern Ireland I am very impressed by the revival of the commercial life of Belfast and other urban centres. The fact that the Province's job-creation agencies had a successful year in 1987–88 also bodes well for the future and is a clear demonstration that Northern Ireland offers, as many noble Lords know, a most attractive location in which to invest.
I now turn to the details of the Estimates. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has picked up several details and 1 look forward to answering his questions. I should like to take your Lordships through the details which appeal to me particularly. As regards expenditure on agriculture, page 28 of the Estimates shows that in the two Votes we are seeking the sum of £127 million covering agriculture, forestry and fisheries.
Vote 1 on page 28 of the Estimates volume covers expenditure of some £40 million on national support measures which apply throughout the UK. In the main this is made up of some £27 million to assist structural improvements by way of various capital and other grants, and nearly £12 million is to support farming in the less favoured areas by means of headage payments on hill cattle and sheep.
Vote 2, the broad details of which are given on page 33, seeks total provision of some £87 million for local agricultural expenditure programmes. This includes £16 million for industry support of which I would draw your Lordships' particular attention to the allocation of just over £6 million, in subhead C3 on page 36, for the first year of the revised agricultural development programme which will commence shortly and which is of considerable interest to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. As can be seen from the fine print in the subhead detail, the programme will provide a range of assistance for farmers in the less favoured areas, including renewal of existing drainage, grassland improvement and silage effluent and animal waste storage facilities. That is of particular interest in the Province with greater attention being paid to environmental protection.
These measures are extremely important to farmers in Northern Ireland's less favoured areas, which cover almost 80 per cent. of the Province. The re-opening of the agricultural development programme will place farmers in a strong position to maintain levels of capital investment in farm structures. I know that a lot of effort has gone into securing European Community agreement to reopening the programme and I hope that there will be a high level of participation by eligible farmers. I have no doubt that there will be.
Turning back to page 33, the other main elements of Vote 2 are nearly £38 million in Section A for agricultural, scientific and veterinary services to the industry; £20 million out of the £28 million in Section C for drainage and forestry; and nearly £12 million in Section D for central administrative services including accommodation.
Moving on to the Department of Economic Development, Vote 1 on page 41 covers many aspects of economic, industrial and commercial life. Vote 1 covers IDB industrial support and regeneration. Three-quarters of the £75·7 million sought in section D on pages 41 and 43 is for industrial support and regeneration, including support for marketing and research and, development. In addition, £13·4 million in Section B at the bottom of page 42 is required for the provision and maintenance of industrial land and buildings. The balance of £13·3 million is made up of £9·1 million for administration and £4·2 million for industrial development promotion.
The Department of Economic Development's Vote 2 covers other economic support measures. As can be seen from the second entry in Section B on page 46, some £59·7 million of the £110 million sought is to provide assistance to Harland and Wolff. At the top of the same page, the Local Enterprise Development Unit, the Northern Ireland small firms agency, has an allocation of £22·9 million. We believe that the unit's record speaks for itself. Since 1971 when it was founded it has promoted over 35,000 jobs. It is a local enterprise development unit of small businesses which has required considerable individual effort to produce that figure of 35,000 jobs. However, the current allocation which we are making this year will enable 5,000 jobs to be promoted, and we hope, retained in 1988–89.
In Vote 3 on page 50, which is happily entitled "Functioning of the labour market", a total of £116·4 million is sought for various labour market measures such as the youth training programme. This programme is an important item in the government strategy for fighting unemployment. As can be seen from Section A, it requires some £34 million this year. Perhaps if I tie up this section with what I said at the outset, we believe it is very important to note that training can be guaranteed for every unemployed young person in the Province who is under 18.
Another important element in the Government's programme is the Action for Community Employment Scheme and, I am pleased to report, it is proving very successful. The scheme provides useful employment for those who have been out of work for at least 12 out of the previous 15 months. The provision of £37·4 million, which can be found near the top of page 53, will enable the number of ACE jobs available to increase this year from 6,200 to 8,000. The balance of £45 million in Vote 3 is made up of £29·2 million for industrial training, £12·4 million for other employment schemes such as Enterprise Ulster and just under £3·4 million on various labour market services such as the Fair Employment Agency.
Environment in Northern Ireland is especially important and, as regards the Department of Environment, Vote 1 on page 65 covers roads, transport and ports. A total provision of £126 million is sought for these services. The major portion, some £102 million, is required for roads. Vote 2, on pages 73 and 75, covers another very important area—housing. In his statement in another place on 24th November 1987, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State indicated that in the face of competing pressures in other key programmes it was no longer possible to provide resources for housing on the scale of recent years, or to meet in full the Housing Executive's bid for resources for the current year. Nevertheless, the Government's public expenditure allocation to housing of some £338 million in 1988–89, which is supplemented by rental income and capital receipts, will mean that gross expenditure on housing should be over £552 million. Considerable progress has been made in tackling the Province's housing problems, for example, the level of unfitness has fallen from 14·1 per cent. in 1979 to 8·4 per cent. in 1987. The substantial resources available now will enable the Housing Executive to continue to tackle Northern Ireland's housing problems and to build on the improvements achieved in recent years.
DOE Vote 3, which covers other fascinating matters such as water and sewerage services, is set out on page 77 of the Estimates volume. Of the £84 million total over £26 million is earmarked for a capital works programme. Part of this is aimed at improving sewerage facilities in the greater Belfast area thereby improving the quality of the River Lagan. I hope that it is also pure water and pure air that is going into that. Your Lordships will appreciate that sewerage will aid water purity.
In Vote 4, Environmental and other services, the main provision I would draw to your Lordships' attention is the £18 million in Section C, on page 83,

1859
for urban regeneration measures, which stresses very much what I said earlier about the regeneration of city centres and, above all, the city centre of Belfast which, even in my career in Northern Ireland has been quite startling and is going ahead at an ever increasing rate. These measures are aimed primarily at improving the economic health and the environment of areas suffering from urban dereliction. An important element in this policy is the encouragement of a partnership between government and the private sector. This is best illustrated by the Urban Development Grant scheme, which is very successful, in which every £1 of public money generates £3 of private finance. Indeed, only last week I was in a major new office redevelopment, which goes to show that this partnership is achieving results and we believe that it is no mean success.
I now turn to education and the consultative paper outlining the Government's proposals for education reform in Northern Ireland which was published at the end of March. These proposals are designed to improve standards and to increase the involvement of parents in their children's education. The main features are the introduction of a common curriculum, attainment testing of pupils, financial delegation to schools, the opportunity to seek a new type of grant maintained status and greater freedom of choice for parents in selecting their children's schools. I can assure your Lordships that, in making decisions, the Government will be considering all the comments which have been received, and which I have no doubt will continue to be received.
The estimates before your Lordships today seek a total provision of £803 million for Department of Education services. Of that amount some £677 million, in Vote 1, detailed on page 99, is for recurrent expenditure on the schools. A major element of this expenditure is required for the salaries of almost 18,700 teachers in the Province. This will maintain the pupil/teacher ratio at the enhanced 1987 level of 18·3.
The recurrent grant of £250·3 million, at the top of page 100, to area education and library boards, is for the running costs of controlled and maintained schools. This represents an increase of 5 per cent. over last year's spending. In the further education sector, provision has been made for an additional 30 lecturers in the priority areas of engineering, business studies and micro-electronics. The estimates in Vote 1 and 2 provide for total capital expenditure on education of some £51 million.
In the Department of Education's Vote 2 on page 107, which covers higher education other services and administration, provision of £127 million is sought. Some £100 million of this in Section A and B covers expenditure on the two universities in the Province, expenditure on the Open University and expenditure on teacher training. Grants to the universities are based on the principle of maintaining parity of provision with comparable institutions in Great Britain.
Turning to the Department of Health and Social Services, a total of £762 million is sought in Vote 1 on page 117 to maintain and further improve Northern
1860
Ireland's excellent health and personal social services. The largest elements within this total are the advances to the health and social services boards, which come to £625 million. This figure appears at the top of page 118. A further £25 million has been earmarked for capital expenditure. This will permit the continuation of a substantial programme of major and minor works, including the first stages of the new area hospital at Antrim, the new block at the Mater Hospital, Belfast and geriatric units and day hospitals at Enniskillen and Armagh.
Vote 3, on page 129, provides £70·8 million for the Department of Health and Social Services administration and miscellaneous services. And, finally, Vote 4 on page 133 provides £825·3 million for social security. This includes £32 million for support for the National Insurance Fund, £18 million for payments to the Social Fund and the balance, nearly £775 million, is for family and noncontributory benefits as well as for means-tested benefits.
Once again, I thank and commend your Lordships for your patience while I have taken your Lordships through one or two of the headings in the volume before us today. With that, I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 26th May be approved—(Lord Lyell).
1.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I rise to acknowledge with appreciation the care to detail that the Minister has shown in this opportunity—and those of us who have an interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland do not get many such opportunities—to debate the order somewhat dispassionately away from some of the awful happenings with which we are all too familiar.
I also acknowledge that in this order we are seeking to redress some of the balance in the impression that may have been given from the detail in the earlier debate. The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, referred to the depressing feeling that one can get from listening to the recent debates in another place. Although I was not there as long as my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies or the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, I have read the reports. All of us in public life are accustomed to vigorous debate, anger and passion. However, the element involved in Northern Ireland politics is difficult to understand—I refer to the vituperation and the personal denigration that one cannot seem to escape in considering those matters.
We also acknowledge that we are debating what the Member for South Down, Mr. Eddie McGrady, said recently are the bread and butter issues. My honourable friend Ms Mowlam in winding up also used the same phrase. We acknowledge that in Northern Ireland affairs the all-pervading vital interest—in fact, the life and death interest—in security and constitutional matters certainly plays a full part. Nevertheless, as one of my honourable friends in another place said, we must also reach a due proportion in these matters. There are priorities in resources, men and materials, and the attention of the mind to security and constitutional matters is all

1861
very proper. However, life goes on, and it goes on sweetly for a great many people in Northern Ireland. With these orders we must examine closely how to ensure that that continues.
The ministerial friend of the Minister, Mr. Needham, gently chided my honourable friend Ms Mowlam for what he said was a torrent of questions. That is perfectly proper and fitting in the circumstances. On this side of the Chamber we are eager not only for the truth but for information. We are hungry for it. And I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, because he always satisfies those of us who raise such matters. He is not only diligent at the Dispatch Box during debates, but we always receive a full reply to matters that we have raised and to which he cannot immediately reply. I will be asking a number of questions today and I shall not in the least be upset if I have to wait for a letter in a day or two, or even a week or two—but not a month or two, though we never wait that long. I shall be happy to wait for his replies.
I turn to unemployment. The Minister is right to draw attention to the improvements that have occurred in the general economy. Those improvements have certainly occurred in Northern Ireland. However, we should also acknowledge the depressing employment prospects in Northern Ireland. If one uses last year as the bench mark or measuring rod, of course there has been an improvement. However, if one goes back to 1979 it appears there is still a great way to go. The Government are entitled to say that in the past 12 months unemployment in general has been reduced by almost 1 million, but it is still twice as high as in 1979. I hope that before we conclude our debate the Minister can augment the unemployment statistics by giving the figures relating to 1979. He is entitled to say that there has been an improvement over last year but perhaps he can say how far the figures must improve before they get back to what they were when his party came to power.
I should like the Minister to take on board the remarks of my honourable friend Ms Mowlam when she drew a relationship—not too fine, not too firm—between the depressing fact that there seems to be a greater proportion of 16 year-olds leaving school in Northern Ireland who are unqualified for the very limited number of jobs available compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister will understand that these are not malicious questions designed to make a political point, but we must be realistic in assessing the situation.
Ms Mowlam drew attention to the statistics for youngsters and said:
"That is a worrying statistic because it creates a climate of deprivation, poverty and unemployment which is a breeding ground for alienation, frustration and paramilitary recruitment."—[Official Report, Commons, 29/6/88; col. 493.].
I hope that the Minister does not dismiss all of that as either nonsensical or invalid. Those of us who study these matters are satisfied that where those elements exist it is easy to see how breeding grounds can exist for people who want to misuse and abuse the situation.
Can the Minister also say something about the elements in the appropriations in respect of consumer
1862
affairs and consumer protection. Turning to the Department of Economic Development, in the global phrase we have expenditure on administration, consumer protection, and so on. Can the Minister give any Northern Ireland statistics for consumer credit and the problems of consumer credit? One of the facts that must worry the Minister and his colleagues is the extent to which the total debt of individuals has grown enormously. We all understand why that is so. The cost of consumer durables goes up. Families 20 years ago might never have had a motor car, a television set or owned their own houses. There is a natural expectancy for such items now. The size of the debt is absolutely frightening. Has the Minister any statistics about the indebtedness of individuals in Northern Ireland, and whether it is any greater or less than for other parts of the United Kingdom? If the debt is as high as it is elsewhere that would be worrying, but if it is higher, that is even more worrying.
I should like the Minister to tell us a little more about what he alluded to as the great Education Reform Bill and the follow-on—the consultation that is taking place with parents on the Government's plans for changes in the curriculum, the ability to opt out, to choose their own schools and participation in governing bodies. In my view the Government have a shocking record, in general, for not taking notice of the people they consult.
In looking at the other elements in the report and referring, for example, to youth facilities, we have under the Department of Education Vote the arts, museums, youth, sport, and community services. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that about two hours ago in another place, a ministerial colleague made an announcement as regards the privatisation of sports and leisure facilities in local authorities.
I should like to use this example as an illustration. Earlier this year the Government sought consultation with local authorities and said to them, "What are your views on whether (a) you believe that this service should be privatised, and (b) what are the options?" I can tell the Minister that 97 per cent. of the local authorities said, "Do not touch them and do not change." That did not prevent the Minister saying an hour ago that the Government have consulted widely. We have not been told what is the response.
I hope that as regards education the Minister will tell us that he has consulted widely with parents concerning their views on the changes. If my information is correct—the Minister will be privy to better information—and one takes into account the views of parents, the Minister will not touch the changes with a barge pole. However, we know that the Minister is not a free agent in these matters. He will continue to visit upon Northern Ireland substantially the writ and the whim of the Government here at Westminster. I do not quibble with the constitutional position, but the Minister should not pass off in this House or anywhere else the view that he takes into account what parents and educationists are saying.
Having raised the question of privatisation, can the Minister tell us what are the consequences of the Local Government Bill which earlier this year passed through this House? It provided local authorities

1863
with a wide range of opportunities to privatise their services. I raised the question of sport and leisure. There needs to be in Northern Ireland full and comprehensive facilities for the young, the unemployed and the disabled and the maintenance of a wide measure of recreational and sports facilities. That is essential. Can the Minister say whether he and his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office will say or do anything to ensure that Northern Ireland is treated somewhat differently from what I fear will happen in other places?
The Minister quire rightly pointed out his desire to develop and regenerate. I ask the Minister to look very closely at situations such as the one I now wish to put to him. In Northern Ireland the co-operative movement plays a very full part in a wide range of matters. There are not only agricultural cooperatives but there are marketing and servicing cooperatives. There are also credit unions which are responsible for the management of the small amounts of money that people have in order that they may better manage their financial affairs.
There is also the very important place of the Cooperative Wholesale Society, which is a powerful financial institution. Alongside that organisation we have the Co-operative Bank, the Co-operative Insurance Society, which collectively are powerful organisations. Currently they are playing a large part in the regeneration of Northern Ireland. If the Minister cannot give much information in his reply today, I hope that he will write to me on this point.
To what extent do the Government recognise the value of the co-operative arm? There is a private and a public sector and there is the co-operative sector. The Minister never used the words "co-operative" or "co-operative sector" in his speech and I do not cavil at that. However, I believe that it would be a very good use of time and money by the Minister and his colleagues if they concentrate upon helping the cooperative sector and, in particular, on paying attention to the desires of bodies such as the Co-operative Wholesale Society which has money to invest and expertise which it is anxious to use in a helpful way.
I ask the Minister whether he has any comments to make about the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland. Can he tell us to what extent there is liaison and an exchange of experience between the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland and both MAFF here and the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland? I have in mind areas such as marketing, forestry and fisheries. They have common problems and restrictions on expenditure, actual and pending, in England and Wales and also in Scotland.
I say to the Minister that though he serves, and is proud to serve a Government, he is also responsible for a department. Along with others, I believe that departments have common problems. The question is to what extent he and his colleagues try to ensure that their common problems are looked at as joint problems and not merely as problems relating to a department?
1864
As regards the Department of Economic Development, and Vote 5, can the Minister tell us what form of assistance is being given to the gas industry and at what cost? How are electricity tariffs being subsidised? Does mineral exploration include the area surrounding Lough Neagh? If it does, what are the prospects for exploiting the alternative electricity generating material, lignite? While the commercial exploitation of this source benefits domestic and industrial consumers, can the Minister confirm that? If development is being undertaken privately, will the public sector be rewarded for past financial help given to this important venture?
I wish to say a final word about housing. I was disappointed by the acknowledgement frankly given by the Minister that in general there has been a curb upon the new build housing in Northern Ireland. As the Minister knows and I acknowledge, the Housing Executive is led very well indeed by Mr. Victor Blease, the son of a Member of your Lordships' House. He is leading the executive with distinction and flair. He is in desperate need of as much support as he can receive. We have a right-to-buy situation when we need houses desperately; and it is a nonsense that at the same time we are encouraging people to buy the very houses that are needed for rent. Has the Minister any figures of the extent to which the right to buy has been taken up in Northern Ireland?
Many other questions remain, but today I have had the opportunity to ask a fair number. There are other people who can speak with authority and experience of these matters and they have yet to speak. I very much hope that the Minister has something helpful to say. I repeat that noble Lords on these Benches recognise the enormity of the task which faces the Minister and his colleagues here today. Very often we feel for you, at the burden you have to carry almost thanklessly in Northern Ireland. We wish you to know that we appreciate very much that you are doing your best and we wish you well.
1.48 p.m.
Lord Bonham-Carter: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for presenting the order that we are discussing today in such detail and so thoroughly. I shall not detain your Lordships very long on this matter. I wish to concentrate upon one aspect of the employment position in Northern Ireland. The stark fact is that Northern Ireland has, and always has had, massively higher unemployment than Great Britain. As the Minister said, though the situation has improved in the past year it is still horrendous. The latest figures I have are up to April 1988 and they show that unemployment in Northern Ireland is 118,000. The terrible fact as regards that figure is that 33 per cent. relates to people under the age of 25, and 52 per cent. of those 118,000 people have been unemployed for over a year. Taking the figures a little further, unemployment is two and a half times as high among the Catholic population as it is among the Protestant population. It is this matter at which I wish to look briefly, particularly in relation to the White Paper Fair Employment in Northern Ireland. That is a most admirable document. I hope he will take steps to ensure that it is brought to the attention of the Home Secretary with the utmost speed. If in

1865
race relations legislation in this country, we had a coverage, an enforcement procedure and an organisation such as is set forth in that document, we would be more than satisfied. It contains almost every recommendation made to the Home Office since race relations legislation was first passed in this country. I should like to say a few words about its merits, something which one does not often have an opportunity to do when speaking from these Benches about a government measure.
The White Paper was prompted by the limited success—some would say failure—of the Fair Employment Act 1976. What is encouraging is that it does not respond by concluding that the law is useless in this area and that it cannot change attitudes and cannot change practices. It asks: why has the law in this case been ineffective? How can it be made more effective? How can we set up a better way of changing practices and attitudes? The figure of unemployment which I quoted earlier showing the disproportionate number of unemployed Catholics is, according to the Standing Commission on Human Rights, based on discrimination, that being in its view the most likely explanatory factor. That second element lies at the heart of the White Paper. Why does the commission regard this as so important? It may seem self-evident but it is worth rehearsing the reasons which it gives.
It says it is important to eliminate discrimination partly because it is wrong that anyone's employment prospects should suffer on account of his religious background; because fair employment has a part to play in building up a more united community; because fair employment will make the best use of our human resources; and because fair employment will help to broaden employment opportunities for people in areas of high unemployment. Hence it extends the law to expand the duty to ensure that equality of opportunity is being afforded and in addition it splits the responsibility of the agencies into two bodies—one responsible for individual complaints and one for patterns of discrimination and education.
This is a sensible and constructive approach to the problem. Moreover, it provides adequate enforcement procedures and sees to it that the public sector falls squarely under the supervision of the Fair Employment Commission and the Fair Employment Tribunal and that the public sector carries out its duty both by setting an example and by ensuring that those with whom it makes contracts conform with the law. This is a promising and constructive document which I notice is to be reviewed periodically. It will be interesting to see how effective it proves. I hope it will provide a model which we may imitate in this country. It is an interesting undertaking from the present Government. It is generally believed that the Prime Minister is not very enamoured of social engineering. This is a piece of social engineering via the law on an ambitious and well thought out scale. I commend it and I congratulate the Minister and those who have produced it.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, will the Minister accept one more question before he rises to reply?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall certainly take a question from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in the gap, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, is boiling and ready to speak. If the noble Lord wishes to ask a question, I shall certainly take it.
1.55 p.m.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I do not want unduly to detain the House but I must say that I found it heartening to listen to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. It is obvious that he has been reading into the affairs of Northern Ireland.
I remember vividly being a member of the Standing Committee in another place which considered the Fair Employment Bill in 1976. Several members of the Committee were Northern Ireland Unionists, ably led by the then new Member for South Down, the right honourable Enoch Powell. During the debates in Committee over several months the Unionists said that there was no discrimination in Northern Ireland and that the whole thing was a figment of the nationalists' imagination, and in particular of my imagination. I could have expected this from Unionist representatives but I had to listen to tirade after tirade from the newly elected Member for South Down who was the leader of the Unionists in that Committee. He insisted time and again that there was no employment discrimination in Northern Ireland and that the Fair Employment Bill, which subsequently became the Fair Employment Act, was totally unnecessary. As we now know, even with that Act, we have been unable to contain the ongoing ravages of discrimination.
One can see further injurious elements emerging from this position. For example, throughout the history of the Belfast shipyard 90 to 95 per cent. of its employees have been from the Unionist tradition. The yard was situated in East Belfast and generation after generation of families were employed there. So far as I was concerned, it was keeping people in jobs. I did not want to see anybody losing a job. However, the industry received no sympathy from the Catholic population.
I was leader of the SDLP. When the subject of further financial subventions to the Belfast shipyard came up in Parliament I supported it on the ground that it was keeping people in employment. When I went back to my party councils I was hauled over the coals on many occasions for supporting an industry which employed only Protestants. I did not see it that way, but if certain industries or commercial undertakings in Northern Ireland predominantly favour one religion, great industrial unrest is caused. I am delighted to see the White Paper referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter. I believe that is is being discussed in another place today. It is a well drawn up document and it points clearly to the need for further legislation if we are ever to get away from the cancer of discrimination in employment as it exists in Northern Ireland.
On the question of jobs in Northern Ireland, the Local Enterprise Development Unit is one of the few organisations set up by the Government to have gone from success to success. I have never heard anyone criticising the efforts of LEDU in all the years of its existence. I know some of the officers of LEDU. They

1867
are men of total dedication who day after day give their utmost to ensure that further employment opportunities are created in Northern Ireland. For example, the Minister announced today that in the past year LEDU has created 4,700 jobs. That is more jobs than at present exist in the Belfast shipyard and people ought to look at it in that way. I think all those who have been responsible for this should be commended. As I say, I know some of the officers in LEDU. They are certainly of a calibre which would be hard to find in any other branch of the Civil Service in any part of the United Kingdom. They have created 35,000 jobs in all the years since their existence. That certainly is no mean achievement.
I am afraid I had to leave the Chamber for a few moments to make a telephone call and I wonder whether my noble friend on the Front Bench mentioned the Belfast shipyard—
A Noble Lord: No.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, as we know, the Belfast shipyard has become a big talking point in Northern Ireland in recent days. It is more than an industrial undertaking; it is a whole symbol of industrial life in Northern Ireland. For that very reason there are many people who want to keep it in existence and many people who would like to see it wiped out of existence. There are many people in high areas of unemployment throughout Northern Ireland who will say, "Why should the Government pour so much money into Harland and Wolff and not give us the same sort of financial assistance?" I have never taken that view. I believe that the Belfast shipyard has a history in peace and war that we can be proud of. I hope that the Government will do everything to keep it in existence as a viable shipyard.
As a former and wartime merchant seaman, I speak with some considerable feeling on the matter. I think it would be a total disaster politically, industrially, economically and symbolically if anything were to happen which would lead to the closure of the Belfast shipyard. I am a bit worried at the moment about recent developments regarding the proposals made by Mr. Ravi Tikkoo for the building of the "Ultimate Dream". I should love to see that come in. It would also be a dream so far as many other people are concerned. I should like to see it happen. But it appears that the Government are now saying, "You go ahead and build it yourself, and we will sell you the shipyard". The gentleman concerned has been on television in Northern Ireland and said, "I wanted to see a ship built but I didn't want to buy a shipyard".
I hope that that is not the beginning of a process which will lead to the privatisation of Harland and Wolff. If that were to happen, it has been predicted by the trade unions in Northern Ireland that within one or two years when the profit motive has become paramount and all the social consequences have been pushed to one side, it would be the beginning of the end of the Belfast shipyard. I hope that the Government will do everything they can to ensure the continuation of the Belfast shipyard as a viable shipyard. I say this not only for the sake of Belfast but
1868
also for the whole of the United Kingdom. If it were to close, to refer to what was said in the last debate, it would be of such symbolic importance to those who are at present employed there that it could indeed—and it is being talked about at the moment—be the beginning of British economic withdrawal from Northern Ireland. That is the way it is being talked about at the moment. I hope that the Minister will be able to dissipate the fears which are at present abounding in Northern Ireland.
The other matter I should like to speak about is this. I still act in many ways as an MP in Northern Ireland, because the present MP for my former constituency would not perhaps be approached by people in the same way as they have been able to approach me. I believe that there is a great rundown in many aspects of our hospitals in Northern Ireland. I have been most proud of hospitals, especially the Royal Victoria Hospital. Rumours are abounding now that the Government may have taken a decision to close down this whole hospital complex.
I received a letter only recently from an old man who was most concerned because his wife was on a very long waiting list for a cataract operation; in fact she was very nearly blind. He was worried about the length of the delay which was taking place because of the waiting list. It would appear that the only place that such operations can be carried out in Northern Ireland is in the Royal Victoria Hospital. He wrote to me and I then sent a letter off to the Minister in charge of Northern Ireland. They must have a most efficient Civil Service going on over there since I left because an acknowledgement was sent to my Belfast home—although I do not have a Belfast home: it was burnt out in 1983. But that is where the acknowledgement was sent.
In view of this I took it upon myself to ring certain individuals and eye specialists whom I had known in Northern Ireland and within a few weeks the old lady had had her cataract operation. It has changed her whole life. Now, had I not been able to do that, 1 think that that old lady would have been living in most unfair circumstances. Therefore I hope that the cutbacks that are taking place have not led to a very lengthy waiting list in relation to those operations which are so important to those who need them.
The other thing which has not been mentioned—I hope the Minister will be able to tell us something about it—is the proposed plan for West Belfast, the area which has been so industrially deprived and economically neglected over so many years. I can say this irrespective of its present representative. When I was the representative it was indeed industrially neglected and there was always a good deal of despair and deprivation in the area. It would appear now that the Government, in conjunction with the International Fund, which was an adjunct of the Anglo-Irish Agreement may do something. If something could be done here I may even say something in favour of that agreement, or at least the International Fund end of it. Can the Minister give us any indication of how much the Government are prepared to spend on the revitalisation of West Belfast and how much will be coming from the International Fund?

1869
Let me just say this in support of the Government. We hear of the great friend that America has been to Irish nationalism, to Irish republicanism and to Irish aspirations throughout the years. In relation to the International Fund, the figure mentioned was 250 million dollars. That is not an awful lot of money by American standards and it is spread over a period of five years. There is some talk now that the American economy is in such dire straits that they are even thinking about whether it will be possible to give the second instalment of this sum. So, whatever money comes from the International Fund, the present government—albeit a Tory Government—are giving a hell of a lot more to try to maintain the position in West Belfast. Therefore I do not think that we should unduly clap our hands at whatever small amounts may be coming from the International Fund. We are grateful for anything and we hope that it will be matched by the Government—indeed, exceeded by the Government.
I do not want to use the word "warning" but I must ask the Minister to be very careful in regard to any public expenditure that takes place in West Belfast to ensure that the paramilitaries do not get their hands on it. All sorts of representations will be made to the Government and government agencies as to where the money should he spent and how it should be channelled into West Belfast. Speaking from experience, I have no doubt that the paramilitaries will not be far away from the scene when the Government try to direct the money to where it should be spent in West Belfast.
I have already referred to LEDU. There is at least one officer—there may be more—in LEDU who is aware of all the circumstances and nearly all the personnel in West Belfast. I shall give his name to the Minister. I believe that that officer should play some part in advising where the money should be spent in West Belfast to ensure that it does not go to the paramilitaries.
The Belfast shipyards are important for West Belfast. They are the two main symbols in Northern Ireland, and symbols can be all-important. I hope that in those two projects the Government are seen to be giving even-handed assistance to both organisations.
Lord Hunt: My Lords, I do not wish to burden the Minister with more than one question to add to the formidable list to which he has already been asked to reply. I noted that when speaking in the education debate he did not refer to integrated education, neither did I see it in the Estimates at page 97. I shall be grateful to know whether the Government, not having made any specific reference to the establishment of integrated education, nevertheless intend to give it maximum support. Integrated education in Northern Ireland, as the Minister knows only too well, has a special connotation. It is difficult to exaggerate its importance to the long-term future prospects of Northern Ireland. I am thinking especially of institutions such as Hazelwood College, but there are a few others. Will the Minister say something on that subject when he rises?
2.11 p.m.
Lord Dunleath: My Lords, I was more than happy to give way to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and to
1870
hear him make that observation with which I entirely agree. It was most encouraging to learn just the other day of the granting of maintained status to the new integrated school in Newcastle, County Down.
Time is moving on. I thank the Minister for his presentation, as usual, of the draft appropriation order. I shall touch upon a couple of points only. First, there is the Department of Agriculture Vote 2 in which fisheries are referred to. The Minister will be aware of the grave apprehension caused to residents of North East Antrim and the fishermen on the coast there by the proposal for a caged-salmon fish farm in Red Bay. I mentioned that point to the Minister in advance. They are concerned about the environmental and ecological effect that fish farming may have because of the discharge of excrement and, what is perhaps even more dangerous, the large amount of antibiotics that I understand have to be used when fish are confined in an area of high density so as to avoid the spread of disease. There are other hazards. I understand that dye has to be used artificially to colour the flesh of the fish before they mature. There is some danger of the caged fish escaping and mingling with natural fish, which can have a detrimental effect.
All those possible dangers are open to argument, or they should be. The trouble is, contrary to the provisions of the Environmental Assessment (Salmon Farming in Marine Waters) Regulations 1988 which I think are to come before your Lordships this day week, it would seem that there has been no consultation with interested parties. As far as I can see, there has been no proper environmental statement. Not only has the information not been given to the interested public; it has been made inaccessible to them. That is inexcusable. Conflicting replies have been given to inquiries. There have been contradictions about the area that the fish farm will occupy. Had it not been for the alertness of the local people, the public would not even be as aware of the situation as they are now.
On the face of it, this looks shady or at best incompetent. But one way or the other I put to the Minister most strongly that there is need for an independent public inquiry with proper advertisement so that everyone will know about it and have access to all the relevant information. I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will take that on board if he is not fully conversant with the situation already.
I am sure that the noble Lord must be tired of my referring to the Strangford ferry. I shall not ask about it today but merely sympathise with the noble Lord on the bad luck which he seems to have with the briefs given him on this subject. On 17th March—incidentally St. Patrick's Day—he told your Lordships, in answer to my question, that a survey by experienced marine consultants showed that the existing two vessels could give useful service for some time to come. Unfortunately, within three weeks of the noble Lord having made that statement, the steering on the principal vessel broke down with the result that it drove on to a rock, was holed below the water line, had to be pumped out by the local fire service and was out of service for five or six weeks. That was bad luck; the noble Lord could not have

1871
foreseen it. It is significant however that he made that statement on St. Patrick's Day. It indicates that even if St. Patrick drove the snakes out of Ireland, he has not yet been successful in driving the gremlins out of the Strangford ferry.
Finally, I should like to refer to the Department of the Environment Vote 4 on conservation, environmental services, urban affairs, lands, planning and administration. The inconsistencies which exist in the implementation of planning and conservation policies are quite astonishing if we look into them carefully. It is the law-abiding citizen who tries to play the game by the rules—if he can understand them—who suffers. By contrast, the experienced developer knows that the most effective cash-flow way of going about his business is to build first and then to seek planning permission later, presenting the planning office with a fait accompli.
I should be very glad if the noble Lord could tell us, (if not this afternoon, then perhaps he could let me know in due course) on how many occasions an unauthorised building, erected without planning permission, has had to be demolished or radically altered, as opposed to retrospective planning permission having been given.
Similarly, in the case of listed buildings, on how many occasions have penalties been imposed for unauthorised demolition? It is suprising how many listed buildings just unfortunately fall down in the night. To what extent are owners of listed buildings made to observe the obligations which they have to maintain them so that the buildings do not get into a dangerous condition and thus have to be demolished?
Furthermore, how do we know what the curtilage of a listed building consists of? The Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 states, with regard to listed buildings:
"Any object or structure fixed to a building or forming part of the land and comprised within the curtilage of a building shall"—
shall, not may—
"be treated as part of the building".
The situation then was that the prinicipal building which was listed was delineated on the map in red. Around it there was a pink shaded area which indicated the curtilage to the building. But there has since been a change. In 1982 it was stated that the pink shaded area which had always been regarded as the curtilage was no longer a curtilage but, rather, the setting for the building. Despite what Article 31(7) of the 1972 planning order says, the charge map shows a charge against the principal building but not against the objects or structures in the curtilage. How does the owner of a listed building know where he stands?
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, lived in a listed building when he was in Belfast. Did he know what the curtilage of it was? How did he know that a developer might not come in and build an eight-storey block next to him or either side of him, perhaps? He might have opened a sandwich bar if he had had two eight-storey blocks either side of him. But it would have destroyed the environment of an important listed building.
1872
There are other inconsistencies too complicated to go into at the moment. The whole thing is a muddle. It is the small property owner who suffers. He may, in good faith, have lived up to his obligations and spent money on his listed building, maintaining it and keeping it in a condition whereby it will survive for future generations. But then an inappropriate development takes place within what would have been the curtilage, the context is ruined, and the value of the listed building depreciates.
This is a cause of great concern. It is too wide a subject to consider in detail now as the hour is late. But I should be glad to hear more from the Minister. Not to put too fine a point on it, the planning and conservation divisions of the Department of the Environment are in disrepute. Something must be done.
2.21 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, once again I am very grateful to noble Lords who have picked their way through this fascinating volume of estimates. I am grateful too for the detail of the questions asked today. As the perspicacious noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, was quite right to observe, I shall not be able to answer, nor would it be the wish of noble Lords that I should answer, every single point from the Dispatch Box today in the detail which is deserved. I shall write in considerable detail to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on many of the points that he has raised. But I shall try to answer quite a few of the points today.
The noble Lord pointed out that his honourable friend in another place had made a speech—quite an interesting speech it would appear—the day before yesterday. But the noble Lord failed to emphasise that my honourable friend the Minister stressed that he could not answer all the points raised by the noble Lord's honourable friend in 90 minutes, let alone the nine minutes that were allotted to him.
I am sure that the point about the 25 per cent. of school leavers in Northern Ireland who leave school without qualifications, as compared with the 10 per cent. in England and Wales, will be covered by my honourable friend in another place. I shall certainly co-ordinate that reply and let the noble Lord, Lord Graham, have a detailed reply in my own hand in due course. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the nice things he said about myself and my right honourable and honourable friends who serve in Northern Ireland. But I stress to the noble Lord and to your Lordships that while we are immensely grateful for the encomia thrust upon us, such praise is also due to every member of the Northern Ireland Office—both here and in Belfast, as well as to those in my department—the Department of Agriculture scattered throughout the Province—those in the Department of Health and Social Services and all those who assist in our life in the Province.
The noble Lord raised a question about consumer credit. That will constitute the first note in the letter that he will receive from me. As regards unemployment, in 1979 the total number of people unemployed in Northern Ireland was 55,000. In 1987 the total was approximately 124,000. The percentage of unemployed in 1979 was 8.2 per cent. and in 1987

1873
it was 18.3 per cent. I think that the noble Lord would agree, and your Lordships would be at one with him, that in common with the United Kingdom, unemployment in Northern Ireland rose rapidly as a result of the international recession of 1980–1981. Indeed, in the year 1980–1981 it rose fairly mildly. By 1981 unemployment had risen to 13.1 per cent. However, all of us agree that the figures are too high. Everything that we can do in your Lordships' House and elsewhere will be done to try and reduce these enormous figures.
The noble Lord also asked about the debts of individuals. That point may be covered by the note on consumer credit that I shall send him. He will, of course, appreciate that a large proportion of the debts of individuals are in respect of electricity bills, gas bills, rent and rate bills. Those are covered by single payments where individuals receive payments from the Department of Health and Social Services. If large outstanding payments are owed to corporations, be they for gas, electricity or rates, a deduction may be made from the payments. That is always a matter for discussion, negotiation and agreement with individuals.
Lord Graham of Edmonton; My Lords, I was referring to the growth in debt per se. I illustrated that by noting the increase in the purchase of consumer durables. More money is spent these days on holidays, leisure activities, motor cars and televisions. There is a tendency in our society to encourage people to incur debts. That is all very well in terms of employment and so on. However, there are social consequences as well.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I shall make sure that that point is covered in the reply relating to consumer credit which I shall make to the noble Lord. I hasten to add that there is no less pressure put on individuals in this country as regards the purchase of the things which the noble Lord has mentioned.
The noble Lord also asked about electricity tariffs. As he will be aware, Northern Ireland remains heavily dependent on oil for electricity generation. Even though the first phase of the current conversion of Kilroot power station will be completed next year, 70 per cent. of the Province's generating plant will still be oil-fired. That is an excessive dependency on oil. The unpredictable nature of world oil prices must be considered. Our policy remains one of keeping tariffs in Northern Ireland at the level of the highest tariff in England and Wales. I believe that that will be the continuing policy in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord raised the question of the co-operative sector. The Government and we in the Department of Agriculture recognise the contribution which has been made by the cooperative movement to the life and economy of Northern Ireland. The noble Lord may be interested to note that on page 46 the sum of £160,000 is mentioned as being allocated to other enterprise initiatives. The major percentage of that money will be used to assist the Northern Ireland Co-operative Development Agency. The role of that agency is to promote in all areas the co-operative approach towards assisting economic and social development
1874
in the Province. I hope that the noble Lord will think that that is a reasonable starting figure for the Government's commitment and support to the co-operative movement.
The noble Lord kindly raised the matter of my own department—the Department of Agriculture—as regards fisheries, marketing and forestry. Concerning fisheries and marketing, the noble Lord may rest assured that my department, along with the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries in Scotland, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in London and the Welsh Office Agricultural Department (with the attractive acronym of WOAD), are in close consultation. As regards forestry, in Great Britain that is administered by the Forestry Commission. In Northern Ireland, those matters come under the Department of Agriculture and the Forest Service. So far as forestry policy is concerned, I believe that we in Northern Ireland are at a level with, or even ahead of, the Forestry Commission in several respects.
The noble Lord mentioned consumer and industrial gas. With the exception of the largest gas undertaking in Belfast, all undertakings dealing with gas in Northern Ireland have completed their closure programmes. The conversion programme for Belfast is planned to be completed by November of this year. And expenditure on that process in this financial year will be some £15 million. I do not think that I can assist the noble Lord with anything more today. He will therefore be receiving a fairly heavy tome from me with the accustomed detail.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we were most grateful for the very positive comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bonham-Carter, on our proposals dealing with the promotion of equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland. As he will know, the White Paper setting out our proposals for strengthening the law against religious discrimination in employment, as well as promoting fair employment practices, was published just over a month ago, on 25th May. It is being debated in another place today.
The White Paper sets out very detailed and comprehensive frameworks for promoting fair employment which the Government are fully committed to implementing. The noble Lord will be aware of the main points of the White Paper so I shall refrain from repeating them today. Any noble Lords who wish to question me further on that issue may certainly take another opportunity to do so, and I recommend that they read the White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, raised the interesting questions of the shipyard, Harland and Wolff, and the Local Employment Development Unit. We are particularly grateful for his support for the LEDU and his mention of the 4,700 jobs which it has created. In my earlier speech this afternoon I mentioned that we are very keen on promoting business studies and micro-electronics, which are two of the main aspects at the forefront of LEDU's development programme in small businesses throughout the Province.

1875
The noble Lord asked about what he called the Belfast shipyard—Harland and Wolff. As was indicated by my honourable friend the Minister in another place, the Government's position is perfectly clear. If there were to be an expression of interest in the acquisition of Harland and Wolff, we would invite the interested parties to talk to us. Any such proposal would be taken very seriously and would receive detailed scrutiny.
I understand that an expression of interest in the acquisition of Harland and Wolff has come forward from Tikkoo Cruise Line Limited, which to all intents and purposes is the same as Mr. Tikkoo. As I said on an earlier occasion, when my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne asked me about the projected cruise liner "Ultimate Dream", the Government will consider this proposal from Mr. Tikkoo and any other proposals from any other parties which might lead to the privatisation of the company, or indeed to any other project for the yard.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, raised the question of rumours which are apparently circulating about the closure of the Royal Victoria Hospital. My honourable friend said in another place earlier this week that those rumours concerning the Royal Victoria Hospital are totally unfounded. Those are the words of my honourable friend, who is responsible for the hospital as well as the health services in Northern Ireland. Our plans are directed towards further development of the Royal Victoria and certainly not to its closure.
The noble Lord, Lord Fitt, quite rightly raised the question of not only Bell's Hill but also West Belfast. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is most anxious to see an improvement in economic activity in West Belfast and is considering urgently what additional practical steps he might take to promote such an improvement. As I hinted earlier in relation to development grants and the redevelopment programmes, success will not be achieved in that area or in West Belfast merely with unilateral efforts by the Government. The private and voluntary sectors must and I believe want to have a major role.
As the noble Lord knows and has said many times in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, the biggest single boost to the prospects for that area would come from a renunciation of the violence which is a major obstacle to achieving better prospects for everybody who lives there. As he also suggested, the Government have a responsibility for seeing that any funds put into the area by the Government or in the form of voluntary aid remain where they ought to remain, for the promotion of business—that is, what we understand by "business", and not the kind of business that one reads about in novels or what one might call paramilitary business.
We take that responsibility very seriously and I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, and other noble Lords that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State hopes shortly to be in a position to make a statement on the subject of West Belfast. I am sure that the noble Lord will contain himself with patience and I hope that there will be some good news for him.
1876
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, raised the question of integrated education. The policy of the Government is that such education should be encouraged. Moreover, the Government will support proposals where they can be shown to reflect the wishes of local people and will not involve undue public expenditure. I hope that those last three words will not be taken as cast iron, cast in concrete or anything like that. I hope that we will be open to discussion and perhaps to persuasion.
I want to stressߞand I think that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will be at one with me on this matter—that there can be no question of forcing integration on anyone who does not want it. As a point of detail, applications for maintained status follow the normal statutory development procedures, which include an assessment of any long-term viability of any such change in educational facilities in any particular areas or schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, raised three points with me. First, there was the question of salmon farming in North-East Antrim. I think that the concern about salmon farming in Red Bay is not entirely well founded. All the expert knowledge that we possess in this field is satisfied that the tidal currents off the Antrim coast and indeed throughout in that area should mean that no significant pollution problems are likely to occur. It was in the light of that knowledge that the decisions were taken to issue discharge consents and fish culture licences. We also paid very close regard to the economic benefits of those proposals.
However, I am sympathetic to the points that were made earlier and raised this afternoon and stressed by the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. Before any licences are issued I shall consider the need to provide an opportunity for public consideration of proposals for marine fish farming. I confirm that future proposals will be advertised as appropriate and that the departments—departments in the plural—which are concerned will be considering the best way of giving effect to that.
I should like to stress to the noble Lord and others who are concerned that I am prepared to meet all those people who have raised objections to the proposals for a salmon farm in Red Bay. In fact, quite inadvertently I stumbled upon four of them at a reception given not more than a fortnight ago by my right honourable friend at Hillsborough Castle. I am prepared to meet the people who have raised objections.
The noble Lord mentioned the draft fisheries amendment order. Following publication of the draft order, representations have been received from various quarters. I am considering these representations before finalising the order and laying it before your Lordships.
The noble Lord also raised the question of planning policy. The Department of the Environment controls development on the basis that planning permission is granted unless there are sound reasons in the public interest for withholding it. Each application for planning permission is determined having regard to that basic policy, to the development plans for the area and to the individual

1877
circumstances of the application. With certain exceptions—and perhaps as one major example we may take development relating to agriculture—planning permission is required for carrying out any development of land.
However, where development is undertaken without the benefit of planning permission, the department normally takes enforcement action aimed at ensuring compliance with the planning law. On listed buildings, anyone who proposes to demolish, alter or extend such a building in a manner which would affect its character is required to obtain the consent of the department. On the query of the noble Lord about the figures, perhaps I may write to him with them.
The noble Lord quite rightly raised the question of the Strangford Ferry service. I know how important that is to everyone in the Ards Peninsular. As he is right to point out, there was what I am told was a minor collision. I enjoyed the noble Lord's description. Perhaps it did not tally with the facts that I have. I understand that the motor vessel "Strangford Ferry" struck Swan Island just outside Strangford Harbour. Luckily the vessel, which had only three vehicles on board, was able to dock under its own power. The vessel has been repaired, as the noble Lord will be aware. It is operating a service. When I was in Strangford last weekend it seemed to be operating at full capacity. I hope that that will continue to be the case. We would regret any hold up to this generally reliable service, and we would take appropriate and swift action.
I note that almost the last word with which I have intervened was "swift". I hope that I have covered all the points that have been raised. If I have not dealt with them today we shall scan my remarks and those of noble Lords and I shall write to cover any further points. I commend the order to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at eighteen minutes before three o'clock.