Sitting of 6 December 1973

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Criminal Trials
    Mr. Clinton Davisasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy with regard to the report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee concerning evidence and procedure in criminal trials.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The report is under study in the light of the debate in another place and the many memoranda and other comments that we have received, but we shall not reach conclusions on this important report until this House has had an opportunity to debate it.
    Mr. Davis: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware of the grave disquiet in the legal profession, as expressed in another place, about most of the major observations contained in this report? Is it not time for the Government to express their view? When does the Minister anticipate that the House will have an opportunity to debate the issue?
    Mr. Carlisle: The opportunity for a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we will not reach conclusions until there has been the opportunity for a debate on the report. I am aware of the many views that have been expressed on it and of the comments that the hon. Gentleman makes. We have to weigh up the various issues involved in this important report.
    Mr. Fowler: Will my hon. and learned Friend beware of special pleading on this
    1426
    report? Is not the overriding interest that of the public? Does he not agree that, while everyone accepts that the rights of the innocent should be protected, there is also a genuine public interest in seeing that the guilty are convicted?
    Mr. Carlisle: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It seems that the approach we should make to this report is to see that the rules of evidence of our courts are appropriate for the present day as the courts seek to do their best to arrive at verdicts in individual cases.
    Mr. Arthur Davidson: Despite criticisms of the jury system and the imperfections in the procedure of the system, will the Minister at least take this opportunity to affirm his faith in it and say that with all its imperfections it still provides the best method and remains the best bulwark for the liberty of the subject?
    Mr. Carlisle: Of course I have faith in the jury system and I willingly accept what the hon. Gentleman says about its importance. But the fact that one believes in the system does not mean that one ought not to review the rules of evidence and the type of evidence which can be put before a jury.

    Fireworks
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will change his method of collecting statistics relating to fireworks accidents, so that they become available sooner than at present.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): The information on which the statistics are based has to be obtained from the hospitals. The complete statistics are available early in the following year, which allows ample time for action before the next fireworks season, but we are arranging for the work to be speeded up as far as possible.
    Miss Fookes: Is the Minister able to say whether the figures are likely to be higher or lower than last year, when, I understand, 1,260 were injured, 234 seriously?
    Mr. Lane: It is too soon to give even an approximate indication of the trend this year. We are speeding up the returns

    1427
    from the hospitals. What my hon. Friend said about the disappointing figures last year is true, but I remind her and the House that until then we had succeeded in more than halving the casualty rate over the previous 10 years. We want to resume that improvement.
    Mr. John Fraser: Is it not a fact that the injury rate last year was up by 20 per cent. but that when the figures were published it was too late for anyone to form a judgment and for any action to be taken? The event of Guy Fawkes night had gone out of people's minds. May we have a promise that the figures will be published earlier this year, so that if action needs to be taken by manufacturers or the House it can be taken in good time?
    Mr. Lane: I do not accept the hon. Member's first charge. We had plenty of time, even on the last occasion, to take a number of new steps before last month's fireworks season. The figures for last year were published in April, and we hope to do considerably better on this occasion.

    Vandalism
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research is being undertaken by his Department into the nature and extent of vandalism and into the most effective ways of combating it.
    Mr. Carlisle: The Home Office Research Unit is undertaking a number of related studies of the extent of vandalism and the factors associated with it. It is hoped that the results of the research will suggest possible ways of reducing this kind of delinquent activity.
    Mr. Knox: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that research is needed not only into the attitudes and motivations of vandals but into the impact on the community at large, since this tends to be a crime affecting the whole community?
    Mr. Carlisle: I entirely agree. The studies to which I have referred will include work on the extent to which vandalism impinges on the lives of ordinary people. We regard it as important that we should not concentrate entirely on offenders, to the exclusion of any concern for the victim.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Since this involves the question of police manpower, how can the Metropolitan Police, for example, adequately cope with the problem when wastage exceeds recruitment and there are well over 5,000 vacancies? Is there anything more that the Minister can say about the claim by the London police for differential pay?
    Mr. Carlisle: There is a Question later on the Order Paper dealing with the Metropolitan Police. I agree that the number of policemen is an important consideration in keeping down vandalism. I remind the hon. Member that for the first lime we now have over 100,000 policemen, which is 8,000 more than we had three years ago.
    Mr. Tinn: In those studies will the Minister consider one of the most frequently experienced although perhaps less serious manifestations of vandalism—the misuse of aerosol sprays in public places? Will he see what can be done about this, rather than relying on the slightly complacent reply that the present deterrents are sufficient, given the experience that the present deterrents against this kind of abuse are manifestly insufficient and ineffective?
    Mr. Carlisle: If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether I shall introduce legislation to ban the sale of aerosol sprays, the answer is "No". That would not be justified. I am aware that they are used from time to time by youths committing offences of vandalism.

    Criminal Damages Act 1971 (Arrests)
    Mr. James Lamondasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been taken into custody and released within 24 hours under the Criminal Damages Act 1971 since June 1972.
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimates he has made of the total number of arrests made under the Criminal Damages Act 1971 since its inception.
    Mr. Carlisle: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Lamond: Is the Minister aware of the disgraceful incidents in Colchester on 3rd and 4th October this year when 25 trade unionists and students returning

    1429
    by bus from a perfectly peaceful demonstration in Shrewsbury were arrested, kept in custody for a lengthy period and had their homes thoroughly searched for no good reason? Is he aware that incidents of that kind add weight to the belief of trade unionists that the police and the law are picking on them? Will the Minister have an inquiry made into the Colchester incident?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am grateful for the opportunity totally to repudiate what the hon. Gentleman said at the end of his question, which is unjustified on any possible basis. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the police act with impartiality on all matters. With respect, I do not see how the Colchester incident arises out of the Question, but I shall certainly write to the hon. Gentleman in detail about that incident, as I have written to other hon. Members.

    Driving Offences (Foreign Vehicles)
    Mr. Hamlingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions for driving offences have taken place, in the last year for which figures are available, of drivers of heavy goods vehicles registered abroad.
    Mr. Carlisle: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. Hamling: Is the Minister aware that complaints have been made in my part of South-East England about heavy lorry drivers from the Continent speeding and committing other motoring offences and getting away with it?
    Mr. Carlisle: Indeed, I am aware of and very much concerned about the position arising from the increasing number of vehicles coming to this country and the difficulty of enforcing action against drivers for a breach of the traffic regulations whilst they are here. We are studying the whole situation.
    Mr. Costain: Does not my hon. and learned Friend appreciate that one of the most serious offences that lorry drivers commit is bringing into the country lorries that are overweight—an offence of which Folkestone has had some experience? Will my hon. and learned Friend give his support to the police in enforcing the law?
    Mr. Carlisle: Certainly, the police will do all they can to enforce the law, but I ask my hon. Friend to accept that there are major practical difficulties in summoning before our courts people who are not normally resident here.
    Mr. R. C. Mitchell: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Hamling). Many people are saying that foreign drivers are getting away with it whereas British drivers are being prosecuted. Will the Minister try to get the necessary information?
    Mr. Carlisle: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, we cannot get this information. Our statistics do not distinguish between heavy goods vehicles and goods vehicles and do not contain information about the country of origin of drivers. On the other hand, I am aware that this is a matter of concern and that there has been an increasing number of cases in recent months.

    Forensic Pathologists
    Mr. Tinnasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is satisfied with the present numbers of forensic pathologists ; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Carlisle: The present numbers are generally sufficient to meet current demands. The future needs of the forensic pathology service are being considered in the light of the recommendations of the Broderick Committee.
    Mr. Tinn: I am glad to note that this is being considered. Does not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the forensic pathology service has to some extent been the poor relation of universities on the one hand and the National Health Service on the other? May I draw his attention to the survey of more than 25,000 autopsies performed at the London Hospital over a period of five years, which shows more than 5,000 cases of unnatural death, of which 263 were not shown to have died an unnatural death in the coroner's officer's report—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is getting very near a statement.
    Mr. Carlisle: We believe that the present number of forensic pathologists is sufficient for current needs. I realise

    1431
    that there are problems about future recruitment, but at the moment outside London and the Home Counties 28 pathologists are nominated by the Home Secretary to assist police forces and inside the Home Counties and London the teaching hospitals are used.

    Fire Brigades Union
    Mr. John Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to have a further meeting with the Fire Brigades Union.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): I have no present plans for a further meeting.
    Mr. Fraser: Will the Home Secretary meet the union when the report of the Pay Board on the pay negotiations is published? Will he ensure that the report on the firemen's pay settlement will be made as soon as possible, in the interests both of the public and of good industrial relations? Will the Minister publish the report, which will be of considerable interest not only to firemen but to policemen, ambulance drivers and many other workers in the public service?
    Mr. Carr: I have no plans, I have not made any promises, and I have not been asked to promise, to meet the union after the publication of the report. If, when the report is completed, the union wishes to see me I shall consider that request. Questions on how Pay Board reports are dealt with are for my right hon. Friend.

    Prison Visits
    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons in the United Kingdom have facilities for the care of young children while prison visits are taking place.
    Mr. Carlisle: Most prisons in England and Wales provide some facilities for mothers visiting with young children. Thirty-two already have accommodation available in which children can be looked after during visits and several others are planning similar facilities.
    Mr. Cox: Does not the Minister agree that that is a very small number? Is he not aware that many mothers with young children have to make long journeys to visit their menfolk in prison, and that
    1432
    in the area in which the prison is sited there are often no facilities for eating, or for feeding young children? Is he further aware that often there is no privacy to enable parents to talk on personal or domestic matters? Will he look at this matter with greater urgency?
    Mr. Carlisle: I agree that the number is still small but I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is increasing. I fully take the hon. Gentleman's point about the importance of proper visiting facilities. Clearly, there should be opportunities for wives and children to visit prisoners, and it is right, when a wife has to take young children with her, that facilities should be available for looking after them. In all designs for new prisons we are including such facilities.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Having regard to representations on this matter from those concerned with prisoners' welfare, is it not proper that there should now be a comprehensive review of facilities for and expenses of those people who wish to visit their relatives in prison?
    Mr. Carlisle: We are carrying out a review with the Department of Health and Social Security on the question of financial assistance for wives to visit their husbands in prison, and we hope to have the result of that review fairly shortly.
    Mr. Stallard: Does the Minister accept that we welcome any extension of these facilities, because many of us have been concerned for several years about the lack of facilities in prisons? Does he agree that one interim solution might be to transfer as many prisoners as possible back to prisons nearer their homes? I have in mind prisoners from Northern Ireland who are in Parkhurst. Their relatives in Belfast have difficulty in visiting them, and when they arrive there are very few facilities.
    Mr. Carlisle: I am not prepared to comment on an individual case without notice, but I can say in general that of course the ability to receive visits from families is one of the matters taken into account when considering the placement of any offender in a prison. But the hon. Gentleman must realise that this is not the only consideration. Security is another consideration which has to be taken into account, as well as the type of sentence

    1433
    the person is serving and the type of offence for which he has been convicted.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Does the Home Secretary intend to publish this report, when it becomes available, prior to any decision by the Government? It would be helpful if we could see the report and make representations before any decision is made.
    Mr. Carlisle: Perhaps I overstated it when I said, "report". I should have said, "review". I cannot answer for certain, although I should think it is unlikely to be the type of review that would be published, but there will be a chance to ask Questions on it in the House.

    Prisons
    Mrs. Renée Shortasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received from prison officers about conditions in Her Majesty's prisons.
    Mr. R. Carr: Views are exchanged between my officials and the Prison Officers' Association on a wide variety of matters as part of the normal consultative process, but I have personally had several meetings with representatives of the asociation about major issues—in particular, the control of difficult prisoners.
    Mrs. Short: As we have a prison system which is scores of years out of date, and as the Prison Officers' Association has warned the right hon. Gentleman that the system is rapidly moving towards a disastrous situation, does not he agree that we can no longer expect prison officers to carry the responsibility of looking after men in overcrowded conditions, in which they have little or no opportunity of rehabilitation or occupation? What does the right hon. Gentleman intend to do when the prison officers make these representations to him?
    Mr. Carr: I remind the hon. Lady that the present Government are taking action which their predecessors signally failed to take. There is a far larger prison building programme than for many decades past. That is the first thing one can do to make the physical conditions better. Secondly, there has been a decline in the number of prisoners and, I am glad to say, while this decline has been going on there has been an increase in the
    1434
    number of staff. I am not saying that the number of staff in relation to the number of prisoners, and the conditions in which prisoners are kept and in which officers have to work, are satisfactory, because they are not. But the fact is that that we have neglected the prison system for a long time and the present Government are paying more attention to it now than has been paid in our lifetime.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his Department has found serious inadequacies in the physical conditions at Strangeways Prison, Manchester, and also overcrowding? What is the present extent of the overcrowding and what action is the right hon. Gentleman taking?
    Mr. Carr: There is still serious overcrowding. I think—speaking from memory—that it is still, unfortunately, a fact that about one-third of our prisoners are sleeping three to a cell, very often in cells originally designed by our Victorian grandfathers to hold one. But with the decline in the prison population and the increase in prison staff, that proportion is declining, too, and at least the proportion living three to a cell is considerably smaller than it was three years ago.

    Shop Hours
    Mr. Evelyn Kingasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will now introduce legislation in order to amend the Shop Hours Act so as to enable working women to shop in the hours of their choice.
    Mr. Lane: My right hon. Friend cannot foresee an early opportunity for Government legislation to amend the Shops Acts.
    Mr. King: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there are huge quantities of married women doing useful jobs who at present are compelled by circumstances to do their shopping in a single luncheon hour? Would it not be better if there were greater freedom under the law for shopping hours to vary, so that the times during which West End shops are open need not be the same for suburban or village shops? In such freedom, would not a more sensible shopping pattern emerge, as in many other countries? Is it not time that we caught up?
    Mr. Lane: I agree that it would be good to get more scope, but it is not generally realised that there is a good deal more scope even under the present law than some people think, particularly for late opening, and we have had to give higher priorities to other areas in Government legislation.
    Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman resist any such amendment to the Shops Acts? Although it might be more convenient for some working women, the majority of people who work in shops are women, who would resist such a change and would not want to work the long hours that shop workers do on the Continent and in America.
    Mr. Lane: That shows how wise we are to go cautiously.

    NACRO Organiser (Prison Visits)
    Mr. Deedesasked the Secretary of of State for the Home Department what representation he has received from the Prison Officers' Association on his decision to permit Mr. Curtis, South-East Region organiser of the National Association for the Care and Rehabilitation of Offenders, to visit Her Majesty's prisons.
    Mr. R. Carr: The association has told me that it is opposed to visits by Mr. Curtis.
    Mr. Deedes: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the allegation is correct that this officer belonged to an organisation known as PROP—an organisation with which my right hon. Friend has said he will not negotiate—and that that is why exception was taken when he visited Norwich Prison, when he was refused admission, and that subsequently the Home Office reversed this judgment and permitted him to visit prisons?
    Mr. Carr: It is true that Mr. Curtis did in the past belong to PROP, an organisation started by ex-prisoners to further prisoners' rights and which, for many reason well known to the House, I did say I was not prepared to negotiate with. But Mr. Curtis left that organisation some time ago, and I think it is right that he should be judged on his present merits. I am sure that the House would agree with that. It is for the governor of a prison to decide to allow a particular visit. Governors are
    1436
    asked to take account of both the views of the prison staff and their judgment about the effect of a particular visitor on discipline in the prison. They have to take into account the views of prison staff, and the governors have now been advised that prison officers object to visits by Mr. Curtis.
    Mr. Dell: Does that answer mean that in practice Mr. Curtis may be allowed to visit prisons? Is not the test the work which this man could do? Is it not wrong that he should be prevented from making visits? Is not that the real effect of what the right hon. Gentleman is saying?
    Mr. Carr: I do not think I said that. I stressed that Mr. Curtis's membership of PROP was in the past, and I hoped that everyone would judge him on his present activities, and not on his past, whatever that may have been. It is also the fact that governors must take into account the views of prison staff. The views of the prison staff are as I have described them, but that does not mean to say that they will always remain so. One cannot ignore the views of the staff. I would have thought that Opposition Members would agree with that.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Is this not an unsatisfactory position? It means, in effect, that the Prison Officers' Association is able to exercise a veto over a man who left PROP because he disliked its methods, has now joined a very responsible organisation, known as NACRO, and is himself acting very responsibly? It is an unfortunate attitude for the POA to take in exercising a veto in relation to a man who has seen that the organisation with which he was once associated is not the kind of organisation to which he wants to belong now, and who is therefore really accepting the Home Secretary's views about PROP.
    Mr. Carr: It is no good pretending that this is an easy matter, because it is not. In considering the current attitude of the prison officers one has to remember what they suffered not much more than a year ago, partly because of the activities of PROP. They are human beings, as we are, and we cannot expect them to forget what happened. I do not think that the attitude is directed personally at Mr. Curtis, but it is a strong feeling which the prison officers have

    1437
    towards PROP and for the moment towards anyone who as recently as just over a year ago played an active part in it. I am not saying that this will—I hope it will not—persist for all time. We must be understanding and persuasive on both sides of this question.

    Nationality Law
    Mr. William Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will introduce legislation to amend the law on nationality to enable men of foreign nationality who marry British women to obtain British nationality.
    Mr. Lane: My right hon. Friend has no proposals in mind for such legislation.
    Mr. Hamilton: Will the Under-Secretary of State tell the House whether it will be possible to include such an amendment to the Government's proposed legislation on equal opportunities for men and women? Has his attention been drawn to Resolution 696 of the Council of Europe, which was passed in January of this year, to the effect that spouses of different nationalities should have the right to choose their nationality irrespective of sex—in other words, that each sex should be treated in the same way?
    Mr. Lane: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wait for the Bill on equal opportunities. One possible consequence of what he is suggesting is the opening up of another loophole in the immigration control which men might be able to marry their way through. I hope that he is not advocating such a loophole. We shall be able to debate the matter further on another occasion.
    Dr. Glyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a further indication that we should be considering not nationality but the definition of citizenship?
    Mr. Lane: Yes. We are doing this. I remind the House that very few foreign and Commonwealth countries confer citizenship on men who marry their nationals.
    Dr. Miller: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is another example of flagrant sex discrimination? Will he give me one good reason why it should be possible for a British male citizen to
    1438
    marry a foreign girl and for the girl to accept his nationality, and not possible for a British woman to do the same thing with a foreign male?
    Mr. Lane: I am not accepting any charges of sex discrimination from a party whose Home Secretary in 1969 reversed a rule so that it would operate against that which the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.

    Fines (Non-Payment)
    Captain W. Elliotasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with magistrates on the non-payment of fines ; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Carlisle: Home Office officials have recently had exploratory discussions on a number of aspects of fine enforcement with representatives of the Magistrates' Association. I welcome the fact that such discussions take place on a variety of matters concerning the administration of justice.
    Captain Elliot: Will my hon. and learned Friend examine the action that has been taken by the Manchester City justices? During the last quarter of 1971 a total of 243 defaulters were committed to prison forthwith, and they all paid up at once. The process was continued during 1972. It was so successful that the cashier had to attend the court to collect the fines. In addition, the justices were able to make adjustments and changes for deserving cases. Could not the other justices learn from the Manchester justices?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that what Manchester says today the rest of the country will say tomorrow. I take note of what my hon. and gallant Friend says. Taking the country as a whole and bearing in mind the only relevant figure, which is the amount of the fines written off, the amount is between 2 per cent. and 3 per cent. of the total amount imposed.
    Mr. Harper: Is it not a fact that the prisons are already bulging at the seams? Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that what is suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) is impracticable? Does he agree that we should readjust the attachment of earnings so that we can recoup the fines in that way? As a

    1439
    former magistrate, I found that when a man or woman came to court and was either out of work or on the dole he or she could not pay the fine. Surely some thing could be done in that respect?
    Mr. Carlisle: My hon. and gallant Friend's point was that the defaulters paid up and did not go to prison. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the most appropriate way to enforce the fines is, where possible, through the attachment of earnings scheme. The existing provision is that people cannot be sent to prison in default without a means inquiry.
    Mr. Grieve: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the situation regarding the payment of fines has become very much worse since the machinery was changed by the Criminal Justice Act 1967? Does he think that the time has come for a review of the whole procedure to ensure that fines are paid more readily, so that even the small percentage to which he has referred is not left outstanding?
    Mr. Carlisle: We are having discussions with the Magistrates' Association on various aspects of fines enforcement. Although it is true that the volume of money outstanding is greater than it was before the 1967 Act, the total amount of fines imposed is higher. The proportion which in the end remains unpaid is much the same as it was before the 1967 Act.
    Sir Elwyn Jones: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman resist any pressure to fill the prisons with debt and fine defaulters?
    Mr. Carlisle: This Government have thought a good deal about the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point and have taken action in attempting to achieve that aim.

    Police Recruitment
    Mr. Molloyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to aid recruitment of police for the Metropolitan area.
    Mr. R. Carr: A special section of the Metropolitan Police undertakes visits to schools and to Her Majesty's Forces at home and abroad, and arranges the participation of the force in careers exhibitions and conventions. The force is currently running a recruitment campaign
    1440
    on which the commissioner has been authorised to spend £100,000 in the current financial year. A similar sum is proposed for next year. In addition, it benefits substantially from the central recruiting campaign, on which over £600,000 is being spent this year.
    Mr. Molloy: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his comprehensive reply. I am sorry that I must say, despite all that he has said, that it has not aided the recruitment of police in the Metropolitan area. Does he accept that the real reason is that there is not sufficient appreciation of the qualities now required in a police officer, the extra duties which he has to do and the unsocial hours which he has to work? Would not an increase in the police constables' salary and the differential between the constable and middle-grade officers help to aid recruitment? Should not there be a realistic appreciation of the work of the police in the Metropolitan area which is reflected in their remuneration?
    Mr. Carr: The House must realise that the main problem arises not so much from the lack of recruitment, which still remains reasonably healthy, as from wastage. Wastage is a serious matter. The commissioner is currently making a serious inquiry into the various causes of waste. I have no doubt that pay and conditions are among the important causes of wastage. As from 1st January Metropolitan Police officers will begin to have the benefit of a substantial increase in their rent allowance. That, I believe, will deal with one of the more important problems.
    Sir H. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that during the recruiting campaign some attention is paid to the universities and to the recruiting of graduates?
    Mr. Carr: Yes. I do not think that the police force has been getting a big enough share of graduates in recent years. That is something to which I very much hope not only the Metropolitan Commissioner but chief constables throughout the country will give special attention.
    Mr. John Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what part of the campaign will be directed towards the recruitment of more coloured police officers in London?
    Mr. Carr: Certainly, that is very much a part of our wish. The numbers are increasing but they are doing so slowly. We want to see much higher numbers. I can assure the House that that is the view of the commissioner and his staff. I am not sure that it is wise to make too directional a recruitment effort as long as we make it clear, as we are doing increasingly, that coloured policemen are very welcome and very much wanted.
    Mr. Dykes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in many ways conditions are as important as pay? Will he consider carefully various examples of the need for better conditions, such as better housing and, more specifically for police constables, smaller examples, which are as important in many ways—namely, the provision of good canteen facilities to replace the existing facilities, which in many instances are inadequate?
    Mr. Carr: I agree with the matters raised by my hon. Friend. To some extent we are in a vicious circle. A major improvement in conditions would require more men. The lack of men is one of the chief problems in improving conditions.

    Animals (Experiments)
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Home Office return of experiments performed under the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876 in respect of experiments performed during 1972, in comparison with the statistics for 1970 and 1971.
    Mr. Lane: The number of experiments, which had remained fairly constant in the years 1970 and 1971, decreased by about 5 per cent. in 1972. This is a welcome reduction, but it would be unwise to attach particular significance to a single year's figures.
    Mr. Chapman: I welcome the reduction of 300,000 in the number of experiments on animals in the last year. Nevertheless, does my hon. Friend realise that over 5¼ million experiments were conducted and that 86 per cent. of the animals involved were not given anaesthetics? Although a certain number of experiments on animals may be necessary, does not my hon. Friend feel that 5¼ million is far too high a figure?
    Mr. Lane: I know that there are strong feelings on this matter. A figure of 5 million experiments is large, but we must keep the matter in perspective and appreciate the benefits obtained, both by human beings and by animals, from these experiments. The system is administered with strong safeguards, which we watch all the time. The declining trend is welcome.
    Mr. Burden: Will my hon. Friend ask the Home Secretary to take into consideration the fact that the Act of Parliament governing vivisection is almost 100 years old and that the conditions envisaged in that legislation are quite different from those which obtain today? Is it not time that this matter was looked at again and the legislation brought up to date?
    Mr. Lane: We shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend said. I know that he has paid a great deal of attention to this matter over a number of years. I repeat that the system of control and supervision is a strong one and we have no evidence that it is being abused.

    Private Detectives and Security
    Mr. Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will carry out an inquiry into the employment of men with criminal records as private detectives and in the private security industry ; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Carlisle: My right hon. Friend does not believe an inquiry is justified. He is actively considering a scheme for disqualifying people with criminal records from employment as private detectives, but he does not think that this method of control would be appropriate with respect to the private security industry.
    Mr. Fowler: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Is he aware of the growing evidence that many men in the private security industry, including some private detectives, have previous criminal records? Is he also aware that it is an unsatisfactory situation that a person who has been convicted of an offence within his own occupation is able to return to that occupation immediately afterwards?
    Mr. Carlisle: We have no evidence of such a degree of abuse as would justify

    1443
    an inquiry. Clearly, the points made by my hon. Friend are important.

    Shoplifting
    Mr. Adleyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to encourage the implementation of the recommendations contained in his Department's report "Shoplifting and thefts by shop staff" ; and if he will encourage supermarkets to concentrate on the prevention of shoplifting and the elimination of deterrent accusations by supermarkets against those suspected of shoplifting.
    Mr. Carlisle: The report, which has been widely distributed to the retail trade and placed on sale, recommends all retailers to concentrate on the prevention of shoplifting. We have no evidence that supermarkets make deterrent accusations against persons suspected of shoplifting.
    Mr. Adley: I congratulate my hon. and learned Friend on the thoroughness of his report. Is he aware that I could provide him with evidence showing that some people are having a thoroughly miserable time as a result of the activities of people such as those mentioned in the previous Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler), particularly in relation to certain supermarkets which use store detectives of the type he mentioned? Will the Minister of State please take action now to implement the recommendations of the report, which will have the simultaneous effect of deterring the thief and protecting the innocent?
    Mr. Carlisle: I do not know what my hon. Friend means by people having a thoroughly miserable time. Surely the question is whether the accusation made about shoplifting is or is not justified. The working party did not recommend legislation. We have sent out the working party's recommendations to the various interested bodies, and I hope that they will be implemented.

    Legal Aid
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals who appeared in court in the last year for which figures are available received legal aid ; and what
    1444
    was the average amount paid to the solicitor or barrister representing them.
    Mr. Carlisle: I assume that the Question refers to criminal cases. The 1972 figures are : for criminal proceedings in magistrates' courts, 147,181 ; for criminal proceedings in the Crown court, 64,473 ; for appeals to the Crown court, 6,103 ; and for appeals to the court of Appeal (Criminal Division) 984. The average amount paid to legal representatives was £110 for a case in the Crown court and £36 for a case in a magistrates' court. These averages include cases in which co-defendants were jointly represented.
    Mr. Pardoe: The Minister of State may be aware that his answer shows that the legal aid scheme is of considerable benefit to the legal profession, but can he be sure that it is of similar benefit to those who really need it? What proposals has he to ensure that people get justice, whether or not they can afford to pay through the nose for it?
    Mr. Carlisle: I am sure that the legal aid scheme is of benefit to the legal profession, in the same way as the National Health Service is of benefit to doctors, but I equally believe that it benefits those who obtain legal aid. For example, about 64,473 people were granted legal aid in Crown court proceedings last year and only 328 applications for aid were refused.
    Mr. Heffer: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that some people, particularly unemployed male divorcees—and I have two such examples in my constituency—are unable to receive legal aid simply because they are unemployed, although they are giving financial aid to their ex-wives? Will he examine this problem? I can assure him that such people are in a very difficult situation.
    Mr. Carlisle: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think the question he asks probably relates to civil legal aid, which is a matter for my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. If the hon. Gentleman cares to write to me about any case relating to criminal legal aid, I shall consider it.
    Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Will the Minister of State take the opportunity to refute the suggestion made on one occasion by the Lord Chancellor that the legal aid scheme is being abused by lawyers

    1445
    defending clients who have no proper defence? Are not such cases more a matter for the Bar Council, and is it not right that the extension of legal aid means that many more people are being properly represented and their cases being properly put before the courts?
    Mr. Carlisle: It is right to say that almost everybody who appears in a Crown court is represented, either by paying privately or through legal aid. On the other hand, we are obviously concerned about the volume of cases before the Crown courts which might be tried in magistrates' courts, and the hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have set up a committee under Lord Justice James to examine the delineation of responsibility between those two courts.

  CBI AND TUC (MEETINGS)
  Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister what further meetings he has planned with the TUC and CBI.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber: I must inform the House that since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister it taking the chair at the tripartite discussions on Ireland, I have been asked to reply.
  I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend told my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Norman Lamont) on 8th November.—[Vol. 863, c. 231.]
  Mr. Meacher: When the right hon. Gentleman does meet those bodies, will he explain how he justifies the fact that over and above the 2–3 billion pounds which the Government will now have to borrow to cover next year's deficit they are encouraging the nationalised industries and local authorities to borrow from abroad at a rate of a further 2 billion pounds per year, so that by this time next year we can expect to be in "hock" to the tune of 5–6 billion pounds? Since, in the present world economic situation, one-eighth of our national income is committed to foreign debts, does this not show reckless housekeeping?
  Mr. Barber: The alternative is to pursue the sort of policies that were pursued by the Labour Government. The
  1446
  facts are that at the end of October the reserves in this country amounted to $6,761 million and the level of public sector borrowing in foreign currencies amounted to $2,131 million. That compares with the situation in June 1970, when our reserves stood at only $2,791 million, with $3,506 million in short-and medium-term official debt, the bulk of which was due to mature very soon. Therefore, we are now in a much better position.
  Sir Robin Turton: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the appraisal of the future growth rates made yesterday by the Director-General of the National Economic Development Office?
  Mr. Barber: The Director-General of the National Economic Development Office this morning issued a statement making clear that certain accounts of yesterday's meeting of the National Economic Development Council were incorrect. It was not the case that Ministers, management and unions agreed that the Government's economic target were unobtainable. What the council, including the unions and management, agreed was that we should aim to maintain growth of output at the highest possible level permitted by physical limitations of supplies of oil and other materials, and that industry could absorb an overall cut of 10 per cent. in oil supplies without widespread loss of output. That was the view not only of the Government but also of unions and management.
  Mr. Healey: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer aware that there will be disappointment on both sides of the House that reports to the effect that he courageously admitted yesterday that the assumptions on which he based his Budget strategy had been undermined by the energy crisis now appear to be untrue and that he is still showing the same complacency as he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry have been showing for so many weeks?
  Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the trade figures published yesterday which show, contrary to Government claims over the last few weeks, that the volume of imports has not increased since January whereas the volume of exports has increased by 9·6 per cent.? I am sorry. Obviously I was overcome by the

  1447
  Government propaganda to which I referred. I meant to say that the volume of exports had not increased since January, whereas the volume of imports had increased by 9·6 per cent.
  Mr. Barber: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman, in the national interest, will agree with everyone else in the country that the efforts being made by our export industries at present are first-class. No one would seek to deny that who has the national interest at heart. The simple fact is that when the right hon. Gentleman speaks in the way he does, he does this country no service whatsoever. If I may say so, he would do well to heed the words of Mr. Len Murray, who said that people who exaggerate temporary problems do Britain no service at all.
  Mr. Healey—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. We have spent seven minutes on this Question, but I shall call the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).
  Mr. Healey: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it in order for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impugn my patriotism for quoting figures published yesterday by the Department of Trade and Industry?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

  NATIONAL UNION OF MINEWORKERS
  Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if he has plans for holding future talks with the leaders of the NUM ; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Barber: I have been asked to reply.
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on 29th November.—[Vol. 865, c. 207.]
  Mr. Russell Kerr: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have the Chancellor of the Exchequer repeat that answer? This is a very important Question. We want to hear what the right hon. Gentleman has to say, and it was impossible because of the noise.
  Mr. Speaker: I have great sympathy with the hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr). I could not hear the answer. I ask hon. Members on both sides of the House to be a little quieter. Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer please repeat that answer?
  Mr. Barber: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) on 29th November.
  Mr. Skinner: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not have an opportunity to meet the miners' leaders in the very near future, will he explain to the House whether it is good housekeeping to send half a million tons of steam coal to France in the middle of an energy crisis? Will he also state specifically whether the £45 million offer which has been made by the National Coal Board to the NUM is the maximum?
  Mr. Barber: My right hon. Friend and I have said on a number of occasions that there can be no question of any settlement outside the guidelines of stage 3.
  Mr. Skinner: I did not ask that.
  Mr. Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that apart from the damage the miners are doing to the nation and to full employment they are also prejudicing their own future and standard of living by their action, especially at this time of the year, and that it is very unwise?
  Mr. Barber: Yes, and I think that the House and the country will note the point which I put a short time ago to the Leader of the Opposition, namely, that the nation is entitled to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to speak out against industrial action in support of a settlement outside the limits laid down by this House. That has never been answered by the right hon. Gentleman or by any right hon. or hon. Member on the Opposition Front Bench.
  Mr. Concannon: On the next occasion that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer meet NUM representatives, will they explain to the national executive members, and, through them, to a great many of my constituents,

  1449
  how it is that even the highest paid men in the industry, working five days a week in one of the most energy-sapping, dangerous and unsocial jobs in the country, will, if they accept the coal board's offer, still be getting under £40 a week? [Interruption.] I repeat that the highest-paid miners will still be getting under £40 a week. Will the right hon. Gentleman also try to explain to them how that situation can exist when miners read every day about the profiteering going on in the country? Did the right hon. Gentleman read in this morning's papers how a painting was sold for £340,000 in an auction which raised more than £2,600,000—a painting which, if it were hung up in a miners' welfare club, would probably have darts thrown at it?
  Mr. Barber: I am happy to say that the points which were put by the miners' leaders when they came to see my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Ministers at Downing Street were a little more pertinent than those put to me by the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon).
  The coal board's offer is more than most other groups will be able to negotiate under the code and will improve the miner's relative position. It is the best offer made to the NUM in negotiation. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, if a comparison is made between average weekly earnings in coal mining and average weekly earnings in manufacturing industry on the basis adopted by the Wilberforce Report, the full offer of the NCB will more than restore the relative position of coal miners established as a result of the Wilberforce recommendations.

  MINISTERIAL MEETINGS AND CONVERSATIONS
  Mr. Grimondasked the Prime Minister if recording machines are used to record any of his or other Ministers' meetings or conversations ; and on what conditions.
  Mr. Barber: I have been asked to reply.
  As is generally known, important international telephone conversations by the Prime Minister have been, and continue to be, recorded so as to minimise the risk of mishearing or misunderstanding.
  1450
  Recording machines are openly used to record some conferences, meetings or interviews which would otherwise be recorded by verbatim writers. Neither I nor other Ministers use recording machines to record meetings or interviews without the knowledge of those present.
  Mr. Grimond: Will the acting Prime Minister consider letting the House know the rules and conditions under which these machines are used and what is done with the recordings? Obviously, this is a matter which can be most dangerous. On the other hand, posterity may well wish to hear what the Chancellor of the Exchequer sounded like in his heyday.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: They will not believe their ears.
  Mr. Grimond: If we had recordings of Pitt, Gladstone and Disraeli, and of Cabinet proceedings, they might be extremely interesting. I appreciate the possible dangers, but will the right hon. Gentleman consider laying before this House the conditions under which recordings are made and how they are kept?
  Mr. Barber: I think that I answered that question when I said in my main answer that neither I nor other Ministers used recording machines to record meetings or interviews without the knowledge of those present.
  Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Nevertheless, will my right hon. Friend consider making available to the Shadow Cabinet machines of the type referred to in the original Question? Surely it is unsatisfactory that some Opposition Members should apparently be unable to recognise accounts of meetings, at which they have been present, given to the Press by the office of the Leader of the Opposition?
  Mr. Barber: That is a very good point.
  Mr. Stonehouse: I should like to ask the Chancellor two questions. First, are telephone callers to Ministers warned in advance that their conversations are due to be recorded? Secondly, is a Post Office licence applied for for this recording?
  Mr. Barber: On the first point, I should think not, and, on the second, I do not know.
  Mr. Ronald Bell: Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the record of the Prime

  1451
  Minister's telephone call to Tokyo to be placed in the Library?
  Mr. Benn: Will the Chancellor tell the House whether he and other Ministers have listened to recordings of what they said to the electorate in 1970? If not, why not?
  Mr. Barber: One advantage of the way that we proceed in this House is that we can rely on the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to remind the country of what we said and we can remind the country of some of the things that they said—and are still saying.

DIESEL FUEL (TAXICABS)
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Varley, Private Notice Question.
Dame Irene Ward: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to bother you, but could you kindly explain why, when I have Question No. 37 on the Order Paper dealing with the requirements of taxi drivers all over the country, I should suddenly hear that a Private Notice Question in a more restricted form has today been granted? Yesterday I told my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that I was putting down this Question. I wonder whether he can solve this problem and thus obviate you from explaining why this extraordinary thing has happened. If the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would kindly answer my Question first, I think that it would be fairer, because I am asking for the protection of taxi drivers all over the country, not just restricted to London.
Mr. Speaker: I have received no request to answer Question No. 37. In making a decision to allow a Private Notice Question I do not give my reasons, but I have regard to the possibility of a Question being reached.
Dame Irene Ward: I think it is awfully mean.
Mr. Varley Mr. Varley (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will use the emergency powers to ensure that adequate diesel fuel is available to the licensed taxicab trade.
Dame Irene Ward: That is not the Question I asked.
The Minister for Industry (Mr. Tom Boardman): My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Industry and Consumer Affairs and officials of my Department saw representatives of the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association yesterday and asked for particulars of the main outlets from which they draw their fuel and the extent of any shortfall in supplies. This information has not yet been received. As soon as it is we will explore urgently with the oil industry what can or should be done to help.
Dame Irene Ward Dame Irene Ward rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Varley, to ask a supplementary question.
Mr. Varley: Is the Minister aware that the assurance given by his Department that the licensed taxicab trade would receive priority is not working out satisfactorily and that oil companies do not seem to be giving the priority that the situation demands?
Does he recognise that, because supplies are so short, many taxi drivers are having to cut down their services at a time when they are most needed in view of the shortage of petrol supplies for private motorists? Does he realise that if the situation deteriorates further it will push more people on to an already over-burdened public transport system? In view of the immense contribution that the taxi trade can make to maintaining essential services, as well as to fuel economy, does he not think that he should have more regular meetings with the taxi trade during this period so that the situation can be worked out more clearly and a satisfactory arrangement can be arrived at?
Mr. Boardman: As soon as this problem was raised my hon. Friend and officials in my Department had discussions on possible proposals. In fact we had anticipated this type of difficulty. We are waiting for the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association to give us certain information. There will be no delay on our part in taking action, if action is found to be necessary, as soon as we get that information. We accept that there is a need to assist people to get about without using their own cars, but at the

1453
same time there must be restraint on the use of fuel by taxis and other users at this time.
Mr. Speaker: Dame Irene Ward, to put a supplementary question.
Dame Irene Ward: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I now ask my hon. Friend when we shall get a satisfactory answer? In view of the fact that I am already rather annoyed about the whole thing, may I say that it is about time—[HON. MEMBERS : "Ask a question."] Does my hon. Friend accept that it is about time that the Government took a decision? The taxi drivers have been bothering about this matter, even if the Opposition have not, for quite a long time. Certainly they have been bothering me.
Mr. Boardman: I know that my hon. Friend is particularly concerned whether taxis should be declared public transport. I remind her that at no other time when there has been this type of restraint have taxis been declared public transport, although they have been given special consideration. The reason is that taxis would have an unlimited supply of fuel when others were extremely limited and that could lead to abuse in that people could hire taxis for a whole day and take an advantage which would not be proper in the circumstances.
Dame Irene Ward: That is a silly answer.
Mr. Grimond: While in no way criticising this plea on behalf of taxi drivers, may I ask whether the Minister is aware that if taxi drivers are given priority there will be great resentment in many rural areas where people have to use private transport to get to work because there is no public transport? In London there is still a great deal of public transport available whereas in some rural areas there is none.
Mr. Boardman: I fully recognise the right hon. Gentleman's point. It is a question of getting the right balance, and that is what we are aiming to do.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: I appreciate that my hon. Friend is waiting for figures, but does he realise that as long ago as last Thursday certain suggestions were put forward—suggestions that his hon. Friends the Under-Secretaries of State for
1454
Trade and Industry and for the Environment know about and recognise—that would have made a contribution to fuel saving by taxi drivers and nothing has yet been done?
Mr. Boardman: My hon. Friend will recall what was said by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment during the Committee stage of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Bill on the Floor of the House. I believe that my hon. Friend was satisfied with that statement.
Mr. Clinton Davis: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the trade does not take his views very seriously at the moment? Taxi drivers are deeply concerned because a number of licensed cab traders have been told by their suppliers that they will not receive deliveries for between eight and 10 days. In consequence, many of them will face financial disaster. Is it not time that rationing was introduced, to get away from this chaotic and haphazard situation, in conformity with the demands that are being made by the trade?
Mr. Boardman: The Association has been asked to give certain information upon which action could be taken. It is for the Association to give us that information. I hope that it will be forthcoming. It was not available a quarter of an hour ago.
Mr. Tebbit: Will my hon. Friend comment on the report in the Evening Standard that oil stocks in this country are down to 46 days? Will he also assure the House that, whilst business motoring is protected, business aviation, which is equally essential, will not be discriminated against?
Mr. Boardman: I will happily correct the impression that appeared in the Evening Standard with regard to stocks. I would draw my hon. Friend's attention to what I said on Monday 3rd December :
"Notwithstanding the heavy stocking undertaken by consumers, the indications are that there has been no significant change in total oil company stocks during the last week."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd December 1973 ; Vol. 865, c. 897.]
As for aviation, the Minister for Aerospace and Shipping will be making a statement in due course.
Mrs. Castle: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen the evidence in today's Daily Mirror that certain petrol station are remaining closed although they are fully stocked up with petrol? Will he take action, by regulation if necessary?
Mr. Speaker: Order. We are dealing with taxis at the moment in this Question.
Mrs. Castle: Some of them, I should have thought, might, like the rest of us, have been desperately casting around for petrol and finding only closed petrol stations.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question was about adequate supplies of diesel fuel for the licensed taxi trade.
Mrs. Castle: It is a question certainly of their having supplies of fuel—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady said "fuel". Previously she said "petrol". She has now brought her her supplementary question within order and she may put it.
Mrs. Castle: These petrol stations are remaining closed although they are fully stocked with fuel. Will the Minister take action, by regulation if necessary, to put a stop to this discreditable practice?
Mr. Boardman: The right hon. Lady will have seen that arrangements are being made through the Oil Industry Emergency Committee to ensure that certain stations are open throughout the period of daytime. It is a question of avoiding congestion in stations and of ensuring that stocks are kept at a level which will run down over the normal period and not all be absorbed by any form of panic buying for a very short period.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I must make it clear that the Question which was put was a narrow Question about the taxi trade. I did not intend to allow questions ranging widely over the whole subject of the present restriction of fuel.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Edward Short: Will the Leader of the House state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir.
MONDAY, 10TH DECEMBER—Until seven o'clock, Private Members' Motions. Afterwards, motion to approve the Sixth Report from the House of Commons (Services) Committee, Session 1972–73, of the landscaping of New Palace Yard.
TUESDAY, 11TH DECEMBER—Supply (5th Allotted Day) : Debate on the Opposition motion on the reorganisation of the National Health Service. At seven o'clock, the Chairman of Ways and Means has announced opposed private business for consideration. Motions on the Grenada Termination of Association Order, the Highlands and Islands Shipping Services, and on the Grants for Guarantees of Bank Loans (Extension of Period) Order.
WEDNESDAY, 12TH DECEMBER—Supply (6th Allotted Day) : When the Defence Vote on Account and the motion on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order will be before the House.
Motion relating to the Local Government (Successor Parishes) (No. 2) Order.
THURSDAY, 13TH DECEMBER—Proceedings on the Northern Ireland Constitution (Amendment) Bill, and on Northern Ireland orders.
FRIDAY, 14TH DECEMBER—Private Members' Motions.
MONDAY, 17TH DECEMBER—Supply (7th Allotted Day) : The topic for debate to be announced.
The House will wish to know, Mr. Speaker, that, subject to the progress of business, it is intended to propose that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Friday 21st December.
Mr. Short: In view of the number of alarming stories that we have heard from the local authorities, can the right hon. Gentleman say when the rate support

1457
grant will be published and when we shall debate the White Paper on local government finance? Secondly, when will the White Paper on public expenditure be published, and when shall we debate that? Third, will he undertake that we shall have a fuller statement on Monday on the chaotic energy situation and tell us when we are likely to debate that? Fourth, when is the prayer to be debated on the very important order on import duties which will result in widespread price increases in the new year? Finally, he has told us the start of the Christmas Recess. Will he tell us on what day it will end? When shall we come back?
Mr. Prior: To start where the right hon. Gentleman ended, if I were to comply with all the requests for debates which he handed me today we should be coming back on Boxing Day at the latest. I cannot yet give the House a date for the end of the recess. This must depend on a number of important factors which are well known to all hon. Members. I will give the date as soon as I possibly can, but I hope that the House will recognise that at the moment I just cannot give it and am not prepared to hazard a guess. As for the rate support grant, the House will be asked to agree before the end of the year increase orders relating to 1972–73 and 1973–74, and an order in respect of 1974–75 will be brought before the House for approval in the new year. However, before then—possibly in the next two weeks or so—we shall be presenting a White Paper.
I have nothing to add to the date that I gave last week or the week before for the announcement of the public expenditure White Paper. A debate will have to take place shortly after our return.
I recognise that there is keenness in the House to debate the Import Duties (No. 8) Order. I hope that I may be able to take account of that in my next business statement. I have noted what the right hon. Gentleman has said about a further statement on the general energy situation ; I should like to consider that with my right hon. Friend.
Mr. David Price: When shall we have a debate on the oil situation? Is my right hon. Friend aware that energy is indeed one of the uses of oil but that many of us are very concerned about the supplies of naphtha, which is an alternate use of
1458
light distillates to petroleum, that the present 90 per cent. of last year's level of supplies is totally inadequate for an expanding industrial economy, and that hydrocarbon molecules coming from crude oil go into practically every industry?
Mr. Prior: I am aware of the point about naphtha and the need for time for a debate on the total oil situation, as opposed to the energy situation. While it may be possible, and may be necessary, for a debate to be arranged on this before the recess, it would have to go wider than the oil situation—although that would certainly be in order in part of it.
Mr. Stonehouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there is widespread support on both sides for a debate on the oil situation, particularly in view of the statements which have just been made by the international oil companies that oil is being diverted from the United Kingdom, notwithstanding what Ministers say, under some international oil-sharing arrangement? Is he further aware that the House will expect Ministers to make some statement about this matter, particularly in the light of what the Prime Minister assured the House and the country a few weeks ago about oil supplies to the United Kingdom? Is it not vital that the House should have an opportunity to debate all aspects of this matter before we rise for what might be a three-week recess?
Mr. Prior: These matters are very much in my mind and those of the House at the moment. I will certainly consider the views of the House and the necessity for a debate before Christmas, bearing in mind, of course, the limited time available—
Mr. Leadbitter: Surely it could take the place of the landscaping debate on Monday?
Mr. Prior: Let us be sensible about this and discuss it again in the next few days.
Captain Orr: Can my right hon. Friend say something about Thursday's business? He mentioned certain Northern Ireland orders, but can he say what orders he expects to take after the Northern Ireland Constitution (Amendment) Bill? Also, as regards the three orders which are down for tonight's business, can he say

1459
whether there will be adequate staff in the House, because they represent a potential four-and-a-half hours?
Mr. Prior: As regards the orders for next Thursday, 13th December, they are the devolution order to transfer powers and functions to the Assembly, the modification order to transfer functions in the law and order and finance fields to appropriate Ministers, etc., in this country, and the order to reorganise Northern Ireland departments. As regards tonight's business, the domestic catering staff of the House will have to close down at 10.45 p.m. in order to get public transport home, and, of course, the Catering Sub-Committee and I regret very much the inconvenience that this may cause to Members. I hope very much that we shall not have too many late-night sittings between now and the Christmas Recess, but I am afraid that we now cannot afford the petrol for the domestic staff to have special transport to get home.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: May I ask the Leader of the House whether it is the intention of the Government to renew the state of emergency, which will need to be done next week, and, if that is done, whether the debate on it will be used as an occasion for the Prime Minister to clear up what is now the glaring confusion, which was in no way cleared up this afternoon, between his reaffirmation of the Government's economic strategy—if that is the right term—in this House yesterday afternoon, and the clear fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer modified that strategy substantially before the National Economic Development Council yesterday? This is a major issue bearing upon the energy crisis. We want a debate on that in the widest sense, in which the position of the Government is made clear on this fundamental issue before we go away for Christmas.
Mr. Prior: The House will have heard what my right hon. Friend said this afternoon, referring in particular to the reports emanating from the National Economic Development Council meeting yesterday, but the fact that he has obviously denied certain of the reports emanating from that Council does not show that there is a difference between the two views. But if the emergency
1460
powers have to be renewed, a statement will be made and, indeed, a debate will be necessary. However, this question does not arise today, and I hope that the powers under the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Bill will be sufficient. But if they are not, the Government will, of course, come to the House and make a statement, the emergency powers will be renewed and there will be a debate on them.
Mr. Iremonger: As it looks as if we shall not have any taxis on the streets of London next week unless we can get some satisfactory solution of the taxi-men's problems, will it be possible to fit in a short debate on my Motion No. 93 next week?
[That this House recognises the special problems of owners and drivers of London taxi-cabs, and in particular the problems of owner-drivers, and calls upon Her Majesty's Government not to delay further in determining the new meter rates and to make special provision for fuel to be available to taximen so long as the current shortages persist.]
Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend will have heard the exchanges in the House earlier this afternoon, and I see no reason why there should not be taxis available next week.
Mr. David Watkins: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will find time next week for a debate on Early Day Motion No. 49, which has now been signed by 187 right hon. and hon. Members? Also, may I make the point to him, quite squarely, that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I, who are the principal sponsors of that motion, have no intention of withdrawing it until such time as the subject matter has been resolved by a decision of this House?
[That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the presentation of an humble Address to the Crown praying for the dismissal of Sir John Donaldson, High Court judge and President of the National Industrial Relations Court, by reason of his Court's action in sequestrating £75,000 from the political fund of the engineering section of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, which is the fund as laid down by section 3, subsection (3) of the Trade Union Act 1913, and not the fund used for the day-to-day

1461
operation of the Union, and thereby ensuring that the punishment was solely inflicted on the Union's political activities, namely, support given to the Labour Party and financial assistance rendered to the constituency parties of the Members of Parliament who are also members of that union for their election campaigns and routine organisation, because, if Sir John Donaldson was not aware of this action, he is guilty of gross negligence and incompetence and if he was aware then it was an act of political prejudice and partiality.]
Mr. Prior: No, Sir, I cannot find time for that debate.
Dame Joan Vickers: In view of the defence debate on Wednesday, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will consider giving a day in the coming Session to discuss the recent report of the Nugent Committee? That will affect a great many individuals, and will affect the constituencies of hon. Members who may not wish to take part in a debate on the defence of the country.
Mr. Prior: Subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I should hope that a debate on Nugent would be kept separate from the debate next week, and that we could find time after Christmas for a debate on Nugent on its own.
Mrs. Castle: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Early Day Motion No. 94 which has gone on the Order Paper today, supported by Members in all parts of the House, calling for an immediate increase in secretarial allowances so that Members can pay their secretaries an adequate salary? Will he make an early statement on this matter?
[That this House, alarmed by the inability of Members to pay out of their own frozen incomes the salary increases to their secretaries which are urgently needed in the light of increases in the cost of living, or to discharge their own responsibilities to their constituents as fully as they would wish, calls on the Government to make immediate adjustments in the secretarial allowances to Members and to consider as a matter of urgency the need to put both the salaries of secretaries and of Members themselves in a fixed relationship with the salaries of appropriate grades in the Civil Service.]
Mr. Prior: I know that there is great interest in the House and some anxiety on this matter, and I said in the debate on the Queen's Speech that I was looking further at it. This is bound to prove a difficult and contentious matter, particularly at a time when the country is facing economic difficulties and when there is, at least, some difficulty over the operation of phase 3 and its acceptability by other sections of the community. I am by no means certain—but I would not want to make a firm judgment on this today—that it would be right at this juncture for the House of Commons to be seen to be increasing its allowances for any sections of the people who serve it.
Mr. Jennings: Will my right hon. Friend consider scrapping the debate on Monday on the landscaping of New Palace Yard, and substituting for it a debate on the rights of the private individual, with specific reference to the type of advice that Ministers would give to private individuals who legitimately drive up to a garage to get petrol and are refused it when they know quite well that others are being supplied? What advice would Ministers give in such a debate?
Mr. Prior: I should not like to give an off-hand answer to that question. But I must just say to the House that we have been waiting to reach a decision on this business of the landscaping of New Palace Yard for a good many weeks. I have wanted on various occasions to put it on either late at night or on a Friday, but I have specifically refrained from doing so because of the interest that has been expressed in this matter. It really is a bit much when, having waited this while and having chosen the time, hon. Members now say that there is no time for it. I think we should get that debate out of the way and see whether we can find further time for debating these other matters.
Mr. James Johnson: May I ask the Leader of the House a question of which I have given him due notice? As the right hon. Member for Lowestoft, he must know, as I do, of the change in the subsidies for the fishing industry. Can he give us at least half a day, if not a whole day, to discuss this matter, because in view of the change we shall lose the day for debating the finances of the industry?
Mr. Prior: Yes. Because of the changed circumstances, resulting from the fact that there are no longer subsidies for the fishing industry, the House does not have a proper occasion each year to examine the state of the industry, and I think that other arrangements will be necessary I must tell the hon Gentleman that we have usually managed to debate the fishing industry fairly late in the Session, and I should not have thought it was a topic which deserved a debate, at the moment, bearing in mind the other demands being made upon us.
Mr. Biffen: I do not want to disparage the importance of the Highlands and Islands shipping services or the Local Government (Successor Parishes) (No. 2) Order, but does my right hon. Friend agree that next week's business is not particularly appropriate to the circumstances when there is widespread and well-founded apprehension about the economic situation? If the National Economic Development Council is to have a special meeting before Christmas, can we arrange to have an economic debate in the House of Commons?
Mr. Prior: Yes, Sir. I think it will be necessary to have a debate on a number of issues, relating to energy and oil and to the economic situation, within the period between now and the Christmas Recess. My hon. Friend has made a perfectly fair point. But even in times such as my hon. Friend has described—[HON. MEMBERS : "Crisis."]—and in times of an oil crisis such as we have now, the task of the Government and the process of supply and legislation have to go on. It is right that it should go on, but we should also take note and take the necessary action to ensure that the House of Commons can debate these matters.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: May I return to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr)? Tonight there are three orders on the Order Paper, on the question of proscription of people in Northern Ireland, on large sums of money totalling up to £600 million of expenditure in Northern Ireland, and on fundamental reform of local government in Northern Ireland. Those are likely to take four and a half hours, yet from 10.45 p.m. there will be no refreshment available
1464
in the Palace of Westminster for the relatively small number who will remain.
An Hon. Member: Send out for fish and chips.
Mr. Rees: In the face of an expenditure of £600 million, is it not possible to tell the Treasury that taxis should be provided for staff serving the handful of people who will be debating matters affecting Northern Ireland tonight?
Mr. Prior: It is not a question of taxis, as the hon. Gentleman knows. It is a question of trying to restrict the use of petrol. [HON. MEMBERS : "Oh."] I take this matter seriously, even if other hon. Members do not. I believe that these are very important matters. There are arrangements by which hon. Members can get hot drinks if they so desire. It is not unreasonable at this time that we should allow our domestic staff to go home at 10.45 p.m.
Mr. Ridley: I thank my right hon. Friend for saying that there will be a debate on the fuel situation and on the economic situation. May I press him to say that they will be separate debates, in relation to the very great importance' which is placed upon the Government's policy as a result of the oil and coal crises and as witnessed by the fall in stock market prices and the fall in confidence and in investment, which make a debate solely on the economic situation urgent and important?
Mr. Prior: I think that it would be quite impossible to separate the one from the other, and that we could have a debate which involves the oil, energy and economic situations.
Dr. Summerskill: As the majority of the country's ambulance services are now involved in some kind of industrial action, will the right hon. Gentleman arrange for an urgent statement or debate on this extremely serious situation?
Mr. Prior: Subject to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I should have thought that some of the problems the hon. Lady raises could be dealt with on the Opposition motion on Tuesday.
Mr. Evelyn King: A few minutes ago my right hon. Friend kindly promised a debate on the Nugent Committee's report after January. For that I am grateful. May

1465
I get this matter clear? May I assume that no decision will be announced by the Government, or at least none affecting Dorset, until the debate takes place?
Mr. Prior: I have made the position on that clear on a previous occasion. My understanding is that the Government wish to have a debate before any decisions are reached, but I should like to check on that and let my hon. Friend know.
Mr. Judd: Has the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity to study Early Day Motion No. 88 on the Order Paper, now signed by more than 90 right hon. and hon. Members?
[That, in view of the detailed and far reaching negotiations now taking place within EEC circles in Brussels concerning Associate Status, Generalised Preferences, the European Development Fund and other related matters, this House believes that Her Majesty's Government should enter into no agreements about future policy in these spheres until there has been an opportunity fully to debate any proposals within this House.]
In view of the far-reaching implications of the current negotiations in Brussels concerning the relationship between the EEC and the third world, will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be an opportunity for a full and probing debate in the House before any irrevocable decisions are taken?
Mr. Prior: My right hon. Friend dealt with this matter in his statement yesterday. The whole question of debates on Community affairs will have to be considered again in the light of the Select Committee's report. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the undertaking for which he has asked, that a debate will take place before these decisions are irrevocably reached, but I will look into that point and let him or the House know.
Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Further to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Jennings), as we are having a debate next week on the landscaping of New Palace Yard, and because of the pressing situation and its possible recurrence in the future, before coming to that debate will my right hon. Friend consider providing in the landscaping for some petrol pumps there, so that at least
1466
we would be regular customers somewhere?
Mr. Urwin: In view of the excessive heat which has been generated in the last few minutes about the curtailment of certain services and, indeed, the withdrawal of certain important services in the House because of the absolute necessity for staff to be able to leave while public transport is available, may I ask the Leader of the House to consider seriously the re-institution, for a period during the state of emergency, of morning sittings? If they were reinstituted, we could not only get people away earlier in the evening but also conserve valuable heat resources in the building.
Mr. Prior: That question raises a rather controversial matter which I think we ought to consider if the present emergency regarding fuel continues. I should like to consider that point.
Dame Irene Ward: While I thank my right hon. Friend for the help that he is trying to give, may I ask whether we shall get the necessary order on the Kielder Dam before Christmas? We do not want to be short of water as well as of everything else.
Mr. Prior: As my hon. Friend knows, I have been doing my best to help the House to have this order before Christmas. I am not in a position yet to give the House any further information.
Mr. Bidwell: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this year the Christmas Recess, whenever it starts, must necessarily be exceedingly short, because the crisis is likely to be continuous and there will be a need, one assumes, for the Government to renew the emergency powers, which will necessitate the very early return of the House? A better reason still is that we have no right in these circumstances to absent ourselves from the House for several weeks.
Mr. Prior: I shall welcome the hon. Gentleman's support if we have to curtail the length of the Christmas Recess.
Mr. Spearing: The Lord President mentioned that he was not prepared to give time for a debate on the GSP preference of the EEC before irrevocable decisions are made. Does he not recall that yesterday his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy said that this

1467
was a most important matter? Does not the right hon. Gentleman now agree that a debate is essential before these decisions are reached?
Mr. Prior: I did not say that I was not prepared to give time for a debate. I wanted to be certain of the last date by which these decisions had to be reached. Without that knowledge I am not able to give the undertaking, because I know how much time there is between now and, for example, 1st January. Therefore, it would be wrong of me to give the House an undertaking which I might not be able to fulfil. But if there is no decision to be reached as early as that, there may be time for a debate.
Mr. Benn: Reverting to the economic and industrial situation, will the right hon. Gentleman convey to his colleagues the feeling expressed on all sides of the House that it would be quite intolerable if the present situation was being discussed between the Government, the TUC and the CBI, involving a re-examination of alternative strategies for the Government, and this information was not made available to the House, and through the House, to the country, so that people can be brought into the Government's thinking? Will he please convey this feeling
1468
very strongly so that the House is able to perform its proper function at a moment which everyone recognises is one of serious danger?
Mr. Prior: I shall take into very careful consideration the views that have been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman and by other hon. Members in all parts of the House. Naturally, it would be the wish of the Leader of the House that the House had a full opportunity for discussing these matters, which I and the Government recognise are of great importance to the country at present. I do not think that we would be able to go away for Christmas without having a debate on these matters.
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House has announced the date on which the Christmas Recess will begin, but he did not announce when we would be returning. In view of the fact that the emergency powers expire next Friday and if they are renewed they would be due to expire again on the second Sunday in January, how can the House continue in this limbo situation without there being a proper timetable laid down?
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman has already dealt with that matter—which is not a point of order—in his reply.

IMMIGRATION AND RACE RELATIONS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
4.11 p.m.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Robert Carr): May I open the debate by saying how much I welcome the presence of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). I am sure that the House also welcomes him back as the principal Opposition spokesman on home affairs. We are all sad to lose his predecessor, the hon. Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams), from this post.
I am glad to have the opportunity for a full debate on race relations and immigration. We have on the Table three important reports from the Select Committee dealing with some of the most serious problems in race relations. There is the report on housing, the report on police-immigrant relations and the report on education. No doubt many hon. Members will wish to concentrate mainly on one or more of these reports. The Government will welcome, and will take seriously into consideration, the views expressed about the reports. I want the debate to cover immigration as well as to discuss race relations because it is essential to set off discussion of race relations within this context. I say that because the Government believe strongly that the creation of public confidence in respect of the effective limitation of future immigration is an essential pre-condition for a constructive approach to the problems of race relations.
When I last spoke to the House on the subject, when we debated an aspect of illegal immigration at the end of June, I laid down four basic principles on which the Government founded their policy of race relations and immigration. I shall briefly recapitulate those principles.
The first principle was that in this country we should have no second-class citizens. Everyone born here, everyone peacefully, lawfully settled here, should be equal before the law and should be treated equally in the daily practices of everyday life.
1470
The second principle was that further permanent immigration must be cut to a small and inescapable minimum, because we are an overcrowded country and because over the last couple of decades we have accepted a large number of new citizens as immigrants.
The third principle was that our small capacity to accept and absorb new permanent immigration must be reserved almost wholly for the two categories of people to whom we have special responsibility. The first category is close dependent relatives of those already settled here lawfully. That was a clear promise in our election manifesto in 1970. The second category of people for whom we must reserve a place within our small capacity is those who, as a result of our imperial past, possess citizenship of this country and no other. I am referring to people who are often described as United Kingdom passport holders.
The fourth of the basic principles I laid down in June was that we must do all in our power to halt illegal immigration.
I want to review progress in putting these four principles into action. I start with the second and third of the principles in the order in which I enumerated them, namely, action to reduce immigration to an inescapable minimum and action to reserve our small capacity for dependants of those lawfully settled here and United Kingdom passport holders. Our instrument for achieving action on these principles is the Immigration Act 1971. The Act leaves untouched the previously established right of heads of households lawfully settled here to have their close dependants join them and settle with them in this country. As I have reminded the House, my party specifically promised that in its election manifesto.
The Act also leaves untouched the right of United Kingdom passport holders to come here under the conditions established in 1968. Thus two priority classes were confirmed in the new legislation, but in almost every other way the 1971 Act has established an entirely new situation.
The Act came into full force in January of this year, so we have had nearly a year's experience of it in full operation. As a result, since January of this year no Commonwealth citizen,

1471
other than a patrial, entering Britain for employment, any longer enjoys a right of permanent settlement either for himself or for his close dependants. Work permits issued for 12 months initially apply strictly to approved employment. A permit can be renewed after the first 12 months, and if it is extended for up to four years the holder has the right to apply for, but not automatically to receive, permanent settlement in this country. This is an absolutely basic change. I want to stress that it is a change in reality, not just a change in name.
Before January this year any Commonwealth citizen given one of the old entry vouchers for employment knew that, once admitted with the voucher, he had a legal right for himself and subsequently for his family to settle here permanently. That right no longer exists. I want to make that clear to every Commonwealth citizen who comes here with a work permit under the 1971 Act. Commonwealth citizens who come with these work permits must not assume that, if they are allowed to stay in approved employment for four years, they will then almost automatically be granted permanent settlement. I stress this because it is very important from the point of view of future good relations that the people who come with the permits do not come here with any false assumptions or false expectations, based on past practice, because the 1971 Act has fundamentally changed the situation.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell Mr. Sydney Bidwell(Southall)rose—
Mr. Carr: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman on this specific point, but many hon. Members want to take part in the debate, and giving way to interruptions leads to an inordinate extension of a speech.
Mr. Bidwell: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I well understand his point. I hope to catch Mr. Speaker's eye later, but I wish now to raise the question of second-class citizenship and the right hon. Gentleman's desire to obviate it, which he says is enshrined in his four principles. Does not he concede that we are in an odd situation? A Commonwealth citizen here with a work permit is confined to a specific occupation, but has citizen's rights as a Commonwealth
1472
person, in that he can vote and presumably can come to this House as an elected representative of the people.
Mr. Carr: I am not sure what the hon. Gentleman's implication is or what he wishes it to be. It is true, and we have never made any secret of it, that in terms of immigration for work and settlement here we are now treating Commonwealth citizens in the same way as aliens. We have always made that clear. But so far we have thought it right—I thought with the approval of the House, including the Opposition—still to distinguish Commonwealth citizens from aliens in many of the civil rights they enjoy while here. Those rights do not have to go with permanent settlement. As long as people come here under no misapprehension, we need not be bothered about any effects on race relations. The important thing is that they do not come here under any false impressions, with expectations based on past practice. That is why I wanted to say what I said.
The effect of the 1971 Act is already becoming clear. In the first nine months of this year 1,053 people arrived with the new twelve-month work permits. In the first nine months of 1970 a total of 3,124 people arrived with the old type of employment vouchers. Compared with three years ago, the numbers coming have been cut to only a third of their previous level. The much smaller numbers coming this year have, unlike their predecessors, no right of permament settlement for themselves or their families. This is, as we promised it would be, a dramatic reduction both in number and in future commitment.
I come to the dependants of heads of households lawfully settled here before 1st January this year, when the new Act came into being. Their rights are not diminished by the 1971 Act. We always promised that they would not be diminished by that Act. These dependants of heads of household settled here before the beginning of the year now constitute the major part of Commonwealth immigration. But their numbers are declining and will continue to decline, because since January this year new families are no longer acquiring any entitlement to settle here permanently. We no longer have new families adding themselves at the end of the queue of people with that entitlement to come.

1473
Many people seem to fear that the pressure of dependants to come here is virtually limitless in both time and number, but that is not so, for the reason I have just given. No further dependants are being added to the end of the queue since the beginning of this year, so that that fear is not well-founded. I repeat that the number of dependants coming here is declining and will continue to decline.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is it not possible that immigrants might return to their countries of origin, establish families there, and then themselves return to this country, continuing in that way almost ad infinitum, bringing in dependants or having the right to bring them in? Is it not reasonable to say after a certain stage, "No more, because you have had five or ten years in which to bring in your family. We cannot grant that right indefinitely"?
Mr. Carr: My hon. Friend has a number of rather complex points all mixed up in one statement. I prefer not to answer them off the cuff because, without studying my hon. Friend's words, I am not sure what the implications are. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can give a considered reply when he winds up the debate.
Among other things, the sort of concept I think my hon. Friend has in mind would be very much involved with a review of British nationality law upon which, as I have already announced, the Government have started. They are no doubt all among the important matters which will arise when we discuss and finally decide the future of our nationality law.
What is important is that we are not allowing new heads of household to come here to work with a right of permanent settlement here for themselves and their families, which has been overwhelmingly the major form of immigration hitherto. That is what is immediately needed to deal with the situation.
Mr. John Fraser: I know the right hon. Gentleman did not want to give the impression that he was intending to deal only with what is primarily coloured immigration from the Commonwealth. He has given us figures showing a reduction in Commonwealth
1474
immigration from 3,124 in 1970 to 1,053 this year. Will he now give us the comparable figures for foreigners and EEC nationals and their dependants entering the United Kingdom?
Mr. Carr: My hon. Friend will do that, if the House wishes, but I do not think that it is germane to the argument about the concern in the House and outside. That is why I am talking about Commonwealth immigration. We could have another debate on another subject, but Commonwealth immigration is the matter which is of concern, and that is the comparison I am making.
I want to make it clear that the figures I am giving are not on a colour basis. A considerable proportion of the entry I have been talking about is from the white Commonwealth—as well as from the coloured Commonwealth. I am certainly making a division between the Commonwealth and the EEC and aliens. I am talking about the Commonwealth, but I am not making a division based on colour. The 1,053 who entered in the first nine months of the year with the new work permits were by no means all coloured workers.
Let us consider the figures for dependants and the fact that they have declined and will continue to decline. In 1967 the number of dependants admitted for settlement was 53,000. In 1972 it was 22,000, and this year, based on the figure for the first nine months, it is likely to be about 18,000. According to our forecasts, which have proved substantially accurate in the past, we expect a further drop, although probably not so steep, in 1974 and 1975.
The question of the future scale of entry of Commonwealth dependants rightly concerned the Select Committee on Immigration and Race Relations, which has recently reported on the education of immigrant children. This year's nine-month entry figures show that the Home Office officials were perhaps unduly cautious when giving evidence to the Select Committee in June, at a time when only the figures for the first three months of the year were available.
I recognise, however, in spite of the dropping figures over the first nine months, the continuing concern about the queue of dependants who may wish to

1475
live here. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will visit India, Pakistan and Bangladesh early next year to assess the situation and assure himself that our procedures are working efficiently and that only genuine dependants in the very strict categories eligible are being issued with certificates. The pressure is great, but we believe that the efficiency of our control is sufficient to resist any attempt—there may well be a considerable attempt—to get in as bogus dependants, and that we can sift out the genuine from the bogus. But it is important that my hon. Friend should examine the situation personally and report back to me on it.
I come next to the question of our second priority category, United Kingdom passport holders. I made it clear to the House in my statement on 25th January this year that our acceptance of the sudden and large influx of refugees following their expulsion from Uganda had created an entirely new situation, and that a repetition of it would place unacceptable strains on our society. I said that while we confirmed our responsibility to our United Kingdom passport holders we must ensure that the future entry of these people would be in an orderly and controlled manner and on a scale of the same magnitude as in recent years. The global quota for entry vouchers for United Kingdom passport holders was fixed in May 1972 at a maximum of 3,500 per year. Since the Ugandan expulsion the rate of issue of vouchers has been substantially below that maximum and I confirm again that we intend to keep it within that maximum.
We have decided however that, fully consistent with this policy, it will be possible to increase the allocation of vouchers to Kenya. We have been in close touch with the Kenyan Government about this and the consultations have involved not only our representatives on the spot but also my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary personally. I am glad to say that the Kenyan Government have assured us that they understand Her Majesty's Government's policy for the admission of United Kingdom passport holders and will help us to operate it in an orderly way by means of the special voucher scheme. We very much welcome this understanding. We have likewise kept the Tanzanian
1476
Government continuously informed about the objectives of our policy. As a result we are satisfied that the situation there can be dealt with satisfactorily within the policies of the two Governments. We are most appreciative also of the attitude of the Tanzanian Government.
I shall now sum up the progress we have been making in progressively reducing the total number of immigrants admitted for settlement.
Sir David Renton: Will my right hon. Friend clarify and elaborate what he said about the effect of these new arrangements for Kenya and Tanzania? Will my right hon. Friend say whether the total number of passport holders who are heads of families and dependants will come within the maximum of 3,500 people a year as laid down in May 1972, or will that maximum in the case of Kenya, Tanzania or both be exceeded and if so why?
Mr. Carr: I am glad to have the opportunity to make the point absolutely clear because it is important that there should be no misunderstanding. The figure of 3,500 was fixed in May 1972 and refers to the number of vouchers which may be issued in a year to United Kingdom passport holders who are heads of families. It applies to all countries in which there are United Kingdom passport holders. It is a global total and does not apply to any one particular country.
We have always refused to publish any specific allocation within the total to any particular country because we wanted to maintain—and I think rightly—the flexibility to use up to that maximum but not beyond it in order to meet the needs of our passport holders as they varied from one country to another. We therefore have this flexibility within the total and we shall not exceed it, but within that total, and without exceeding it, although the amount has not been fixed, we have agreed fairly regular amounts with different Governments and we keep in touch with them. We are able while keeping within the total of 3,500 vouchers to increase for Kenya what has been its regular amount in recent years.
I want to emphasise however that the number of vouchers will not exceed for all United Kingdom passport holders in

1477
all countries that 3,500 global total which was fixed in 1972.
Sir D. Renton: And they are heads of families?
Mr. Carr: They are heads of families as they always have been. The family size varies but we have found by experience in order to arrive at the total number of people involved that the figure must be multiplied by between three and four—and it varies from year to year because we are talking in averages—and that is exactly as in the past. Not only the number of voucher holders but the total number of people coming will therefore be within the scale which has existed since the quota of 3,500 vouchers was fixed.
I come now to sum up the progress we have been making in progressively reducing the total number of immigrants admitted for settlement. Here I am adding together all the various categories. The latest detailed quarterly figures have just been published and they show a steep decline. In the first nine months of this year the total was about 20,000. In the first nine months of 1970 it was about 27,000. There has therefore been a reduction of new admissions of some 25 per cent. on 1970.
What is perhaps more interesting to many hon. Members is that it shows a reduction of no less than 30 per cent. on last year's figure, and it is the Government's firm judgment and intention that this decline shall continue year by year. In saying that I wish to stress again that I am referring to the total which includes all those categories including the United Kingdom passport holders. It is our policy to see that this overall total, which has been declining, continues to decline because that is both possible and essential to achieve.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will my right hon. Friend make a corresponding comparison for net immigration, that is "ins" minus "outs"?
Mr. Carr: We have never believed that taken on an annual basis the net inward and outward flows are a particularly good guide—
Sir D. Renton: It is the only final test.
Mr. Carr: Taken on an annual basis I simply do not believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) is right. Flows these days are so large, both in and out, because of the huge number of visitors entering and leaving that the recording system, though it is utterly accurate for total numbers, cannot identify within those total numbers those coming in and those leaving for the purposes of providing any foundation on which to base a judgment of those who will stay. The inward and outward flows over a period of years may be a guide but the fluctuations from year to year and from one part of a year to another are very great.
In the year ended September 1972 the net inflow was of the order of only about 4,000—and I am speaking from memory—which, for some reason I cannot explain, was very much lower than the same 12-month period for many previous years. Here again my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to give more detailed figures if they are required, but the 12 months from September 1972 to September 1973 showed a considerably higher figure, but not greater than had been normal in most recent years. Frankly, I cannot explain why the 1971–72 year was so exceptionally low. When people look at the increase from 1972–73 compared with 1971–72, I ask them to examine the other years and they will see that it is the year from September 1971 to September 1972 which appears to be the exception rather than the latest year.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that it was, in fact, at the time of the Indo-Pakistan war and that it was this which had a dramatic effect on immigration from the sub-continent?
Mr. Carr: My hon. Friend could be right, but we have no evidence on which to base our opinion. The inflow and outflow figures are not, on a short-term basis, an accurate guide to how many people we may expect to be seeking to come to the United Kingdom, let alone succeeding, to settle here or otherwise.
I wish to turn to another category of people who are given the right to settle here. It is a category which has been causing some people much concern. So far I have been speaking about people

1479
who are admitted for settlement in the first place. I deal now with people who, when they first came here, were admitted only temporarily on conditions, but who have subsequently had those conditions of stay removed and who, therefore, acquired the right to stay here.
Since the beginning of this year, the numbers of people in this category are being published regularly, quarter by quarter, along with all the other immigration statistics. The lists are displayed regularly for everybody to see and watch. The figures have been available before on request but have not been published regularly quarter by quarter until this year. For the last three years, the number in this category has been on a plateau of about 8,000 to 9,000 per year, considerably higher than a few years ago.
The concept of admitting persons temporarily with conditions of stay attached was introduced in 1965 or thereabouts, and it was only after five years that the majority of those people, under the old principle applying to Commonwealth citizens, acquired permanent rights to settle. In other words, it was only five years from when we first started imposing conditions that this category began to be a real one. For the last three years, it seems to have settled down at a plateau of about 8,000 to 9,000 per year. That is in addition to the figures for settlement of entry which I have referred to hitherto.
I have been studying the figures critically because I am determined that the removal of conditions on temporary visitors must not become a backdoor way of evading our immigration control. It is clear that in many of these cases there are obvious legitimate and understandable reasons for removing the restrictions on stay. Thus, nearly half the removals are accounted for by people who, after coming here, have established patriality or discovered that they had a grandparent born in Britain and proved it, or by women who married men already lawfully resident here and who automatically acquired the residential status of their husbands.
Nearly half the cases fall into this obvious category. I have, however, been looking particularly critically at one of the largest single elements in this category—students. I have found that between
1480
a quarter and a third of all those who have their conditions of stay removed come here in the first place as students.
We have always had a liberal tradition in Britain of welcoming students from overseas and so, in any year, we probably have between 75,000 and 100,000 overseas students in this country. I am sure that this is a tradition which we want to continue because it creates and cements long-term links with this country, which are of value to us. It also provides valuable technical assistance to many developing countries, particularly those in the Commonwealth.
The overwhelming majority of students come here to take their courses seriously, and, when they have done so, go back to their home countries with valuable qualifications. That is true of the overwhelming majority, but there is some evidence that a small minority spin out their courses by changing from one course to another, more with the intention of staying in this country than of seriously obtaining good qualifications of a specific nature to assist their careers in their home country. This is not fait either to their fellow overseas students or, indeed, to the students born in Britain. I intend to look closely at a number of aspects of our control over the stay of students.
For example, among the questions that I intend to ask myself is whether we should place some control on the total length of time that a student may spend here on studies in the ordinary way. I appreciate that in doing this one must take account of the fact that some courses of study and training, such as medical courses, in their nature take a long time. A number of other points will also need to be considered.
Should we so freely allow students from overseas to continue to study here by switching from one type of course to another, where two or more types of courses cannot conceivably form part of a recognised programme of studies for a qualification in one discipline or in related disciplines?
Next, we should ask whether we should not be more demanding in the minimum number of weekly hours of study which qualify as a genuine course for student status. That point was raised by the Select Committee in its education report.

1481
We should ask ourselves also whether we should obtain, as a matter of routine control, more regular and frequent reports from the institutions where students are working to make sure that admitted students are attending the courses for which they have been admitted, and without which they would not have been admitted.
In looking at these points and deciding how to tighten our control, I should stress that I shall not in any way change our liberal welcome for the great majority of those overseas students who are taking their courses at least as seriously as any people born in this country. What I am talking about is the small minority, and it would be wrong from every point of view to allow that group to snowball into a definite abuse of our immigration control.
I come to what I stated as the fourth of our basic principles, namely, that we should do all in our power to halt illegal immigration. The 1971 Act has given important new powers in this area. It has created a new offence of assisting illegal entry and it has created a new power to confiscate ships, aircraft and other vehicles which are proved to have been involved in carrying this trade of illegal entry. These new powers will be increasingly valuable. We can make use of those powers effectively only by strengthening the effort put into detecting and controlling illegal immigration.
The immigration service has now established its own intelligence unit, which is building up an ever-increasing index of people and organisations, as well as ships and aircraft known to be involved in this illegal trade. The police have also established their own central intelligence unit dealing with illegal immigration.
Members of the immigration service of the Home Office are about to begin visits to entry certificate offices overseas to tie-up the two ends of the operation. Immigration officers here are trying to stop illegal immigrants coming in and the entry certificate officers in overseas posts are dealing with entry requests. It is important that there should be closer links between them than in the past.
1482
Arrangements for co-operation between police and other Government services in dealing with all these matters are also being strengthened, and the new arrangements will be set out in letters which my Department will shortly be sending to the chief constables of the forces principally concerned.
In addition to that, the immigration service of this country is building up co-operation with its counterparts in some seaports and airports on the continent. The smuggling of immigrants is often also linked to other criminal activity, and therefore liaison between our police forces and police forces on the other side of the Channel is also being strengthened. Finally, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is making his visit to the Indian subcontinent, he will also go into, with all the people involved, including the Governments of the countries concerned, what, if any, action can be taken at that end to try to attack this evil trade, this modern version of the slave trade, in illegal immigration.
I sum up now on the immigration aspect. I think I can claim that in 3½ years a very substantial reduction has been made in admissions for settlement, and I can say that we are determined that this reduction shall continue. I can also claim that there are greatly intensified efforts to prevent abuse of our tighter controls, whether by illegal immigration or by other devices.
Thus, I believe that we have made a great deal of progress towards reducing immigration to a small inescapable minimum, and therefore towards creating what we believe to be the essential conditions precedent for a strong positive attack on the problems of race relations and therefore towards the fulfilment of living up to our other basic principle, the first that I mentioned—that we must not allow second-class citizenship to develop in this country.
What is the scale of this problem? To the best of our knowledge, about 1,500,000 coloured residents were in this country in 1971. If that order of magnitude were evenly distributed over the whole country, the problem would not be very difficult to deal with. But for all sorts of reasons, economic and social, a large proportion of that 1,500,000 or thereabouts are concentrated in a relatively few places in a relatively few of

1483
our big cities. For example, we have about half of the West Indian-based coloured population living in the Greater London area.
This is what creates the difficulty, and I do not want to underestimate it in any way. I do not believe that it can anyhow at the moment be precisely quantified, but it is substantial and it is certainly not going to melt away. But we do have to face it ; we cannot wish it away. Whatever we do, we must face the fact that the great majority of these coloured residents are here to stay.
The harmony of our society in the future depends to a very great extent on the white majority learning to live and work with them and on helping them—our coloured residents—to live and work with us on equal terms. This will require sustained positive policies and actions in many directions. Basic to everything else, I believe, are housing and education, and these are the subjects of two of the reports of the Select Committee to which the Government will soon be making their reply and on which I am anxious to hear the views of hon. Members.
Perhaps next in importance comes employment and this, I am glad to see, the Select Committee will be studying this Session. I look forward to its report on this matter also. But in advance of this, the Government have been taking some recent initiatives which are important. In particular, it is important that the Government should set an example as employers and so, in the last few weeks, a circular has been sent out by the Civil Service Department to all Government Departments containing advice about the adoption of a positive attitude in Government Departments to making equality of opportunity in employment in the Civil Service a reality, and I shall follow this up in order to watch progress as closely and as realistically as I can.
The Department of Employment, which has already been developing the work of its advisory services in this area, will now be urging private employers with increasing intensity to follow the example laid down in the Government circular and which Government Departments will be following.
Police-immigrant relations is another important aspect. Here, the Government
1484
have already replied to the Select Committee's report and are seeking to get the majority of its recommendations implemented by the people involved. But I realise, of course, that the main problem falls on local communities and local authorities in a relatively few areas. Much has already been done to help them meet these needs.
Thus, under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966, grants of nearly £8 million are being provided in one year to meet 75 per cent. of the cost of the extra staff employed by these local authorities to deal with the problems of high immigrant concentration. Then there is the urban programme, which, of course, although not specifically designed for race relations, does nevertheless work in a way which means that some 60 per cent. of the urban programme money goes to authorities with high concentrations of coloured residents.
The expenditure of the urban programme is running at about £14 million throughout Great Britain this year, and a further increase is on the way. The White Paper on Public Expenditure, which will be published shortly, will show an increase in the urban programme funds of some £2 million a year above last year's forecasts.
In addition, I am glad to be able to announce today that the urban programme will be further increased by about £6 million spread over the next three years. This further increase is being found from the funds which would have been made available to the aid programme and corresponds to the amount which we would probably have provided as capital aid for Uganda if circumstances there had been different.
It is my intention that this extra £6 million should be used exclusively to help local authority areas where the social services are particularly under strain because of the high concentration of immigrants, and in distributing this additional help I shall bear in mind that the burden of absorbing Asians from East Africa falls with special severity on a very limited number of areas.
In addition, I think that the Prime Minister's action in appointing me as coordinating Minister for all the urban programmes and the establishment that goes with it of the Urban Deprivation

1485
Unit, which I mentioned during the debate on the Loyal Address, again points to the increasing importance which the Government give to the problem of life in parts of our cities. This is, of course, not essentially a racial problem in itself but in practice it does determine the environment in which race relation problems have to be tackled in most of the big concentrations of coloured populations.
Of course, there is a lot to be done, but I hope that we shall not forget that there is a lot to be proud of about race relations in this country. Let us always praise where we can both what is done by the white population and what is done by the leaders of the coloured community, because the basic fact we have to get hold of and recognise in all our actions and activities is that there is this population of coloured people, who have come from far parts of the world, who are with us and who are here to stay, and that more than one-third of them were actually born here as British children.
The success we have in reacting to this fact and the problems it presents will to a large extent determine the future harmony of the whole of our society. That is why the Government are committed to reducing future immigration to the inescapable minimum. That we believe is the condition precedent for the right atmosphere to bring about a constructive approach in our determination to live up to our first principle that there shall be no second-class citizens.
5.0 p.m.
Mr. Roy Jenkins: I find myself coming back after a relatively brief interlude of, I think, 20 months to the feel of a Dispatch Box in front of me and to the less tangible return of a departmental subject from which I have been away for a rather longer interval—one of almost exactly six years. I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his kind words of welcome and am glad that my first appearance in this new Shadow rôle should be in a debate on a subject as important, even if also as delicate and in some ways intractable, as that which we are discussing today.
Certainly it was one of the aspects of my work at the Home Office which I and those who were with me between 1965 and 1967 found most worth while. We
1486
were then able to do something to create an atmosphere of hope. I was particularly happy, before leaving, to be able to announce the shape of the 1968 Race Relations Act, which was certainly not perfect but which I believe marked a substantial step forward. There was far from universal approval for it when my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) carried it through.
I was glad to see that the Home Secretary made an honourable and frank statement of the evolution of his party's view when he addressed the conference of the Race Relations Board at Nottingham in September and said :
"Whatever differences of view there may have been in 1968 I want to put it clearly on record with you that the Government fully endorses the principles of the Race Relations Act under which your Board is established."
I was a little less happy to see that in that same speech he gave a rather discouraging, although not final, reply to some proposals of the board for amending legislation arising out of its experience.
I began at the end of 1965 with much weaker legislation than we have now and with a board which was only in embryo. The appointments had not been made, although they had been discussed. It was also a much smaller board. On the whole, I found it desirable to let the board build up the case for the changes it wanted and then, subject obviously to the discretion of the Government and the House, to act broadly on its recommendations. I believe that the Home Secretary, while giving himself adequate time for reflection, might be wise to follow the same course.
The board has sense on its side in what it is proposing. These are not extreme proposals. One of them is to rid it of a rather nonsensical obligation which it has to investigate complaints which it would not regard as being worth investigating. The recommendations should be acted upon, subject only to a point to which I shall come a little tentatively later, that any legislation should perhaps be set in a broader context of anti-discrimination legislation generally.
In contrast with the Home Secretary, I want to devote the greater part of my speech to race relations rather than immigration, but I want to say something

1487
about immigration first. The right hon. Gentleman proudly announced his reduced figures for the first nine months. I do not dispute that reasonably low figures make the problem easier to handle. We welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said about the Kenyan and Tanzanian position. It is a small but welcome and sensible change. I gather from what he said that it will be welcome to the Kenyan Government, who hope to stabilise the position. Today's statement was wiser than that which the right hon. Gentleman made in January. I happened then to be in Nairobi, and there was a grave danger that the statement made here for home consumption might have precipitated the circumstances which the right hon. Gentleman and all of us were anxious to avoid.
We must have limited and low figures, but in some cases the price to be paid for the limited reductions to which the right hon. Gentleman was pointing can be too high. I want to refer to three matters. First, there are still split families among Ugandan Asians. I understand that the figure is at least 250. The Uganda Asian Resettlement Board, as I understand it, is soon to be wound up, but there are problems remaining. How does the Home Secretary envisage dealing with this problem of split families, which is quite unacceptable? How quickly can it be dealt with? The second matter was brought out during Question Time today and has to do with the fact that British females have no right to bring in husbands to join them in the same way as do British husbands. I know that there is a tu quoque answer to this, and that we can exchange these opinions across the Floor of the House a good deal. We march on in the struggle for equal rights for the sexes and it is difficult to see on what basis of sex equality this absolute lack of any right at all can in present circumstances be justified.
Mr. Carr: May I get rid of the tu quoque idea? I approved of the action taken by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) when he was Home Secretary. I did so regretfully, because although there was growing evidence that men were getting round our immigration controls and coming here to marry, women were not doing so. If women were as irresponsible as
1488
men in this way we would get back to sex equality.
Mr. Jenkins: I am not disputing that there is a problem, although it was concerned mainly with fiancés rather than husbands. The marriage contract is a little more permanent, at any rate, than the undertaking that a marriage might take place in certain circumstances at some stage in the future. I am not inviting the Home Secretary to open what could be a wide door to abuse, but there is a problem which must be considered seriously unless we are prepared indefinitely to proceed on a direct basis of sex discrimination. That would be difficult to do. Even within the rule which gives husbands greater rights than wives, some intolerable delays are taking place.
A case was raised by a constituent about which I wrote to the Home Secretary a short time ago. He has not had time to deal with it. I make no complaint of that, although it was a few weeks ago that I wrote. I know that the Home Office grinds a little slowly. An extremely well-established Pakistani, a British subject holding a British passport, with a good job at Birmingham University, clearly here for permanent settlement, with a permanent job, had a wife whom he wished to bring in. He came to see me and said that his wife had been to see the high commissioner in Islamabad in June. He gave me a letter, which appeared to say that she was to come back in September. I looked at the letter and said, "I quite see that a delay from June to September is not desirable and that you are getting a little impatient, but, after all, September has gone by and three months, while long, is perhaps tolerable." He said, "With respect you have misread the letter. It does not say that she is to come back in September 1973 ; it says that she is to come back in September 1974".
That delay of 15 months between the first and second interview, in a case of the reunion of husband and wife is unacceptable. There is a suspicion that this is being done not because of an intolerable administrative burden ; it is being welcomed in that it produces satisfactory statistics by reducing the numbers. To the extent that that is so, the Home Secretary should not congratulate himself upon statistics that are produced by these inhumane methods which cannot fail to

1489
interfere with family life and cannot be conducive to good relations. When the Under-Secretary of State goes on his tour in the New Year, he should, as he must, deal with questions of possible abuse and also try to ensure that there is more speed and courtesy in treatment by the immigration departments of the high commissions in dealing with genuine cases of this sort.
I agree with the Home Secretary's unequivocal acceptance that we have a coloured population of about 1½ million ; that successive Governments, and Ministers in successive Governments, are responsible in varying degree for their being here—not least the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) when he was Minister of Health ; that, except at the margin, they are here to stay ; that it is moonshine and misleading to pretend otherwise ; and that on every ground of morality and expediency they must not be treated as second-class citizens.
The Home Secretary, however, is some-times stronger on liberal sentiments than he is on positive action. I am not quite sure that he appreciates—and this emerges a little from the balance of his speech between immigration and race relations—the strenuous and unremitting nature of the struggle there must be if the avoidance of second-class status is to be a reality and not just a pious aspiration.
I should like, without, I hope, wearying the House, to offer some reflections on how the problem looks to me, coming back after six years, compared with how it looked when I left it in the autumn of 1967, and to try to see, in a relatively non-controversial way, where progress has been better than might have been expected and where, on the other hand, the problem has proved less tractable.
In attempting such a survey I have been much aided in the last week or so by the successive reports and evidence collected by the Select Committee. We all owe a considerable debt of gratitude to the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), my right hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley) and other members of the Select Committee which produced a great deal of valuable work. We in the House have more reason for gratitude to the Select Committee than has the Select
1490
Committee to the Government for the response it has received.
What, for instance, has happened to the response of the Department of the Environment to the housing report, which is nearly two and a half years old? The response on police-immigrant relations has been forthcoming, after a delay of just over a year. How much time is likely to elapse before a response is received from the Department of Education and Science to the latest report on education? I see that the Secretary of State is here. I shall willingly give way to her if she wishes to answer that question now.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): By Easter.
Mr. Jenkins: I am glad to hear that. It will set a standard which I hope the Secretary of State for the Environment and other Departments will note. I forget whether Easter is early or late this year, but it is a great deal nearer to us than the two and a half years for which we have awaited the response of the Department of the Environment. But paper response, important though it is, is still well short of implementation.
I return to the attempt at a survey of the development of the position over six years. The pattern is a jagged one. Some things are better than one might have expected, others less good. The employment opportunities, particularly for girls in London, have proved better than looked likely. In the PEP report, which was a basic document in those early days, it was not thought likely that by this relatively early date girls would be so well established in secretarial jobs, in department stores and in food shops as they are. There has been progress and acceptance here to an encouraging extent.
On the other hand, the position of young males is much less good, particularly among those of West Indian origin. The 1971 census showed that there was 16·2 per cent. unemployment amongst boys born in the West Indies compared with a national average among boys of 8 per cent. That was in a period of higher unemployment than now. But the discrepancy was worse than it looked, because those born in the West Indies were concentrated to an unnatural extent in areas of high employment, whereas the indigenous population was spread over

1491
the whole country including the areas of heavy unemployment. This group of boys who have just left school and should be in their first or early jobs but are not is clearly a sensitive group from the point of view of future attitudes and race relations. Indeed, there is a depressing indication of a hardening of exclusive, hostile attitudes amongst precisely this group and its immediate predecessors.
Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the statistics which he has been quoting give an indication of the level of employment amongst boys of West Indian origin born in this country?
Mr. Jenkins: I think that it is less, but not significantly less. The figures which I have relate to those born in the West Indies. There might be a slight improvement when the figures which I was relating—namely for those born outside the country and the figures for those born in Britain—are taken together. I have no doubt that the same pattern would be reflected, but possibly to a lesser degree, if the category which the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Wood-house) has mentioned were taken instead of the category used in the figures which I have given.
We have not exactly moved to a less equal performance in education, but we have become more conscious of inequality. That is partly because of the work of the Select Committee. There is not just a culture conflict for those born outside the country. It persists amongst those born in the country as part of an interlocking pattern of deprivation and poor opportunity. To some extent it is bound up with the white problem in the same areas. In that context there is also deprivation and poor opportunity. It is not specifically a colour problem. Where there is difficulty and a culture conflict, and where other adjustments have to be made, the problem is accentuated to that extent. It is not unique to the minority groups but on the whole it is worse for them.
There are some brighter spots. The Asians do very nearly as well as the average in London although, for some reason, a little less so outside London. The West Indians generally have more difficulty. Language can be crucial. That
1492
may sound paradoxical in view of what I have just said. The West Indians are not entirely free from language difficulties. Not nearly enough has been done in that direction. I am glad that the Secretary of State for Education and Science is listening to the debate. To take one example, there are a number of people among the Ugandan refugees who came here last year who were teachers in Uganda and who are not teaching in this country. They are, on the whole, doing jobs which are less useful and perhaps less worthy. Of course, I do not like to say that any job is less worthy than another, but the fact is that they are doing jobs which are less closely related to their talents than those which they were doing before they left Uganda.
Given the great shortage of teachers in many parts of Britain and given the language problem amongst minority groups, it seems to have been a great waste of opportunity not to have put those from Uganda with teaching experience on a short crash course. Very little effort would have been necessary to make them fully qualified to teach in this country and to enable them to make a substantial contribution to the problem.
The Pathway Unit has been operating in Southall in the London Borough of Ealing for three years. It is a limited project which has cost only £25,000. Nothing has grown from the project during the past three years. At the same time, as is undoubtedly the case, the cost of employing people in industry without adequate knowledge of English has greatly increased. There are other countries which have faced the same problem. For instance. Sweden has been spending far more money—I accept that the spending of money is not the object—and employing far more resources in dealing with the problem of people working in the country who do not know the country's natural language. That underlines the importance not only of an early response but an adequate response from the Department of Education and Science to the Select Committee's report.
Mr. Tom Ellis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Russell Report on adult education refers specifically to the problem which he has been discussing? Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Education and

1493
Science if she will turn her attention to it?
Mr. Jenkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Mr. Ellis) for raising that important and informative matter. I shall be glad to let the point ride off me and on to the right hon. Lady. I hope that she will pay attention to it.
I now turn to the important matter of police relations with minority groups. The background should be hopeful. It is often forgotten that amongst the coloured or minority groups the crime rates are below the average for the host community. The crime rates for the Asians are about half the rates of the host community. I think that we would all express the view, "Long may that continue". It should be the foundation for good police-minority group relations. To the extent that it is, it greatly increases the chances of such relations continuing. To the extent that it is not, it greatly reduces those chances.
The position of police-immigrant relations is patchy. In some ways it has improved. We have more coloured policemen. We now have about 70 coloured officers. That is a small number. It is less than one in a thousand. It is less than one-tenth of 1 per cent. That bears no relation to the fact that approximately 3 per cent. of the population is coloured. However, there has been progress since 1966 when, I think, the first coloured police officer and certainly the first in the Metropolitan Police, was appointed.
At a noisy meeting at the Central Hall, Westminster, on an occasion which I believe is annual and which may be familiar to the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the police appear out of uniform and, to some extent, free from inhibition. On such an occasion, in October 1966, my words to them, couched, as always, in moderate terms, when describing the desirability of having some coloured policemen in their ranks were greeted with a noise which I did not take to be the sound of enthusiasm. Such an event would be impossible today. That is substantial progress. None the less, prejudice still exists amongst the police as amongst every category of group and body within the country.
It is not surprising or directly blameworthy that prejudice exists amongst the
1494
police as amongst other groups. However, it is more dangerous amongst the police because it endangers future relationships. Considerable efforts are being made. They are being made by the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis and by a number of other high-ranking officers. For example, the Chief Constable of Birmingham has done a great deal. A great deal can be done by determined effort. It can be done by lower-ranking police officers.
A great change has occurred, for example, in Lewisham in the course of the past year. That has been achieved as a result of a determined effort to deal with a situation which was not very good and which has become a great deal better as a result of that effort. There could be dramatic results from facing the problem and making a vigorous effort. The Home Secretary has a particular responsibility. I hope he will quickly press on with a complaints procedure containing an independent element.
One other matter I want to raise takes on a somewhat more critical note than I have adopted hitherto in my remarks. I refer to the passport raids that took place in London on two days in October. I believe that those raids were most disturbing and created uncertainty and resentment. I believe that they are also contrary to assurances given by the Home Secretary that the 1971 Act would not be implemented in a way that would lead to harassment.
These raids were co-ordinated police operations. I understand that in the first raid about 15 police officers and one immigration officer were involved. They arrived early in the morning and cordoned off a block of buildings near Tottenham Court Road. They conducted a house-to-house search, asked for passports, and those who could not immediately produce them were taken off in vans to Leman Street Police Station—a police station in a different part of London—and they were detained there for several hours. A few illegal immigrants were caught—nobody objects to that—but they were a small proportion of those detained and a tiny proportion of those who were subjected to these mass raids. It was a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I do not believe that this fishnet technique—a technique involving pulling in a number of people

1495
and throwing most of them out again without any apology and causing grave inconvenience—is a process which will lead to good relations with a peculiarly law-abiding, but necessarily somewhat nervous, section of the community.
Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the retrospective effect of the 1971 Act, to which the Labour Party were resolutely opposed, inevitably imposed this new burden on the police?
Mr. Jenkins: I remember making this point when I wound up for the Opposition on the Second Reading of the 1971 Act. The incident I have illustrated proves that that point still has some force. I believe that, even with the Act on the statute book, it should still be possible to operate it in a way which would avoid a repetition of this incident. I very much hope and believe that that is the Home Secretary's intention.
I read his speech made in Nottingham in September with a great deal of interest and perhaps I may quote from it again. He said :
"The point I want to stress today is that we in this country have a strong tradition of personal liberty, and once a person is in the community we do not expect him to carry an identity card or be subjected to inquiries and control at every end and turn."
It seems to me that that principle includes the fact that as a result of a mass raid people should not be carted off to a distant police station and kept there for a period of time because they have not been able immediately to put their hands on a passport.
There is one other very disturbing feature of this raid and a subsequent raid on 25th October. Who authorised this raid and at what level was it authorised? I know that it was not the Home Secretary, and I believe that he has said so. It was not the Commissioner of Police, nor apparently was it even the local Commander of Police, who was unaware that these raids had taken place until after they had happened. If this technique of mass raids of this sort, amounting almost to a dawn raid and involving the cordoning off of an area, is ever again used—about which I am very doubtful—I am certain that it should be authorised at
1496
least by the Commissioner, if not by the Home Secretary himself.
We should have an assurance tonight from the Under-Secretary of State that the level of decision making on a point of this sort will be raised substantially, and that there will be no repetition of this casual entry operation, merely on information being laid, without any senior person either in the police or in the Home Office being consulted and asked for authority in what can be a dangerous procedure. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State, after consultation with his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, will apply himself to this when he replies tonight.
There are other factors which must be considered at the present time when most people want to see the British birth rate stable or falling. It is encouraging that there are indications that the same thing is happening to a very large part of the immigrant population. There are substantial indications that the birth rate among West Indians has fallen to a greater extent and more quickly than might have been expected. The crude figures show that the number is down to two-thirds of the figure in 1970.
The broad conclusion seems to be mixed. Small towns have found ways of dealing with the problem. I am referring to small towns where the problem exists and is not merely academic—such towns as High Wycombe, Slough, Rochdale and Rugby. Small towns paint a rather more encouraging picture than do some of the large conurbations, but since three of four of the people concerned live in the large conurbations it is no good pretending that we have dealt with the problem just because we have coped on a small-town basis.
Opinion on this subject in this country has stood up moderately well, despite sporadic attempts from a number of people, some with powerful voices, to stir up suspicion without providing constructive solutions. While there may have been some cases of hardening opinion, I think that this has not gone very far and action can be taken to prevent its going too far.
I come to a number of specific points. I refer first to the winding up of the Uganda Resettlement Board. Some 20 per cent. of Ugandans in this country are

1497
still unemployed, although out of camps. What machinery have the Government to deal with the remnants of the problem?
My second point relates to the Pakistan Act. Many of the forms which need to be filled in by Pakistanis are complicated and inevitably lead to queries. Where queries have to be settled verbally, this has to be done by people going to an overcrowded office in Croydon from other parts of the country. I have raised this matter with the Home Secretary and I believe that he has applied himself to it. I hope that he can work out a solution which to some extent will provide for decentralisation of the procedure.
My third point relates to the position in regard to the Civil Service. A circular was issued from the Civil Service Department on 19th November, which on the whole is a good circular. It related to employment and to another very important consideration—promotion prospects. However, there was one gap in that circular. No machinery was set up to monitor and review the situation. Everybody who has been concerned with this subject in detail knows that monitoring is an essential follow-through procedure as outlined in the circular. I do not want to over-burden the Under-Secretary of State with too many specific points, but this point is one among other specific points on which I should like a reply. I hope that the monitoring procedure can be set up as quickly as possible.
In conclusion, therefore, I wish to make three broad points. First, even with the very small addition which the Home Secretary intends, I do not think that there is enough positive help and action. The Home Secretary is not complacent. I do not think that any of us could accuse him of that. But I doubt whether he is quite sufficiently activist. I doubt whether he has yet given indications of taking his urban co-ordinating rôle within his manifold other activities and making it sufficiently central to his attention. He will need to do this to make sure, for instance, that the Department of the Environment does not take another two years to reply. I hope that he will do something about that very quickly. I hope that there will be a general indication of a greater sense of central direction than we have had hitherto.
Going a little wider, I think that we are probably moving towards a position
1498
in which we need a new structure for dealing with the whole problem. I am not sure that it is wise to go on indefinitely with the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission as entirely separate entities. Their work is different, but it overlaps to a great extent. United States experience suggests that it is easy to have too many agencies dealing with these matters.
It is also the case that we are to have anti-sex discrimination proposals introduced. We have the Green Paper. The problem is sometimes the same as that which confronts us when we are dealing with minority groups. It is similar, it overlaps, but it is not identical. It appears from the Green Paper as though certain aspects will be dealt with here which are not satisfactorily dealt with in terms of race relations, and that certain aspects relating to sex discrimination will not be dealt with which will be dealt with in race matters. It might be considered whether we should not get a broader, more embracing and therefore more acceptable approach to the anti-discrimination problem if we moved towards a unified structure, not only for the different aspects of race work but for antidiscrimination work of all kinds.
I put that suggestion forward tentatively. What is important is to have effective machinery for both types of discrimination, and I do not claim to have reached a final judgment.
My third and last point is that there is no doubt that the problem which we are discussing is and remains a major challenge to our civilised values, to our traditions of tolerance and to the basic beliefs of us all—certainly all of us on this side of the House—in the equal rights of human beings. It is as fundamental to what we believe in or should believe in as any subject which can be debated in this House. It is also one of the factors which may be crucial to social peace in the future. It must not be neglected. It should not be seen through rose-tinted spectacles. But still less should it be viewed with either complacency or despair. Approached in that way, I believe that it is a problem which can be solved on a basis of which we can all be proud.
5.44 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: I am surprised as well as

1499
diffident to be called immediately after the speech of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). I dare to intervene briefly because I have the privilege of representing an area where, to say the least, there are very real problems concerned with immigration and race relations. I calculate that 25 per cent. of the population in my constituency is made up of coloured immigrants.
There is no doubt that the problems have been accentuated by emotion. There is nothing wrong with that. I claim to make a few observations today because I have been living in the middle of my constituency for 3½ years and because I welcome this as being the first real, wide-ranging debate on immigration that we have had since I was first elected to this House.
Naturally, I am anxious that the problems that we face should not be exaggerated. Nevertheless, they should be appreciated and fully understood, especially by those people who do not live in the areas which some of us represent.
At the outset I must say that, coming new to the problem, I cannot understand why it was not faced by the nation 20 or certainly 15 years ago and that it was only in a real sense dealt with halfheartedly 12 years ago. Especially irritating are the people who should have taken the more sensible decisions about controlling immigration those many years ago now blaming the people who have to deal with the problems very much on the ground as though it were our fault. I believe that that point should be made because it is of psychological importance to the people who live in such areas.
The problems of immigrants who are grouped together, so causing the very real social problems which exist today, are caused not because of the individuals they are but because of the simple and understandable fact that they want to live together collectively and because collectively the problems are increased, especially in relation to the social services in those areas. It is these problems which set up a chain reaction about which we all know.
1500
I am not an expert in predicting population trends, but I ask hon. Members to understand why it is that I do not feel that anyone can be certain about the future. It is interesting to note that the person who probably should have been the expert, the then Registrar General, made a prediction in 1949 that the population of Britain in the year 2000 AD would be less than it already is today. We hopelessly under-estimated the population explosion which occurred in the 1950s and the early 1960s. I note that the number of live births in the United Kingdom reached a peak in 1964 and was approximately 1 million. It has dropped every year since then. In 1972 the number was about 831,000. I believe that the great danger today is that we may be hopelessly over-estimating the population increase.
Obviously, I cannot speak about future population trends in immigrant areas with any authority. But one factor about which I am sure is that, the more people think that the number of coloured immigrants in those areas will rise as a proportion of the population of these areas, the more likely it is to be true simply because other people will move to other areas. I have an interest, I hope from the highest motives, to see that that does not happen. I want to ensure that these demographic changes do not take place because I believe that to have balanced communities in our society is the best way of dealing with the problems that we have to tackle.
The right hon. Member for Stechford said that the overall problem nationally was one of 3 per cent. Obviously that varies in different parts of the country. However, the fact remains that, the more the proportion of coloured immigrants in an area goes up, the more difficult it will be to achieve any solution of the problems.
One of our problems in Birmingham arises as a result of rehousing our citizens generally to areas outside the city. Obviously few coloured immigrants qualify for rehousing. We hope that in future years the proportion who do will grow, and that may help the problem somewhat.
The issues as they relate to Hands-worth can be stated simply. We have

1501
had quite enough talk about the problem. We are getting a little sick of the pseudo-psychologists telling us what is wrong about us. We want action and understanding. Action has been forthcoming from the Government since 1968. It would be churlish of me not to recognise the extra funds that have been made available in parts of my constituency by way of urban aid, housing and education.
I wish to mention one particular problem. I welcome particularly the extra resources that my right hon. Friend announced today, but it is important that all the resources should be better co-ordinated. They should be seen to be going to the immigrant areas. As a small practical suggestion, I submit that in dealing with the urban aid programme the Home Office may find on occasion that it is well to go over the heads of the local authorities and give specific amounts for projects, in response to direct applications, to organisations working on the ground rather than have them channelled through the local authorities.
We obviously need more understanding about the problem. We must accept the problem locally, although it is a national matter, but much more should be done by the Government to bring home to people all over the country the real size of the problem.
The Government have an economic responsibility. They must severely tighten up on immigration, for the obvious reason of numbers, and they must ruthlessly root out illegal immigration.
The right hon. Member for Stechford referred to the problem of coloured school leavers finding employment. I take the point that he made about the disparity between coloured school leavers and the national average. In Birmingham at the last census I think the figure was four to one. I suggest that not only the Government, but the CBI and the trade unions have some responsibility for this situation. It may be a question of education. I do not know. However, I suggest that everyone has a part to play in helping to solve that problem.
There is also a responsibility on immigrants in their communities. I hope that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will not think that I am trying to make a party point. I am not talking about the merits or demerits of the Immigra
1502
tion Act 1971. I know that some of the immigrant communities were led by their leaders into believing the most dreadful exaggerations about that legislation before it became an Act of Parliament. Therefore, there is a responsibility on immigrant leaders to see that the right information gets across to their members.
There is a responsibility on all who live in immigrant localities. I should like to touch on two points in Handsworth. I very much recommend the system that has been set up by the police in my part of the City of Birmingham. An advice bureau has been set up to advise the immigrant communities on their rights. That office has been set up in the middle of an immigrant area. The police have made very real efforts in this respect and deserve to be commended for what they have done in Handsworth. I believe that the situation has improved considerably over what it was five years ago. I pay tribute to the chief constable, the deputy chief constable and particularly the chief superintendent of "C" division, which covers this area, for the welcome measures they have taken.
I should like now to refer to the work that is being done by organisations on the ground. If any hon. Member feels pessimistic about the ability of this nation to solve this problem, I suggest that he should look at some of the work that is being undertaken by different organisations. I do not wish to underestimate this very real problem, but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it presents a tremendous challenge. It is no exaggeration that the most difficult situation in the world today is that of different races living together in peace and harmony. If we can solve that problem in some of our immigrant communities in this country, it will be a shining example to the world.
I do not think that it is an exaggeration to express the wish that if we can identify the problem, deal with it with a little less emotion on occasions, and recognise, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, that we cannot wish or will it away, but accept that it is with us, we shall then begin to tackle the real problem of race relations and immigration in this country.
5.55 p.m.
Mr. Sydney Bidwell: It would be obvious to any observer that

1503
this debate has revealed the closeness of the Government and the Opposition in their determination to work for and achieve harmonious race relations. The Home Secretary, at the end of his speech, deliberately underlined that point, and, as we would have expected, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) trebly underlined it. We might have expected that that would be his position in view of his fine record in dealing with the problem in earlier years. Therefore, he brings great experience to the debate.
In preparation for the debate I looked up the phrase for which my right hon. Friend became famous. It is interesting for the House to seek to determine whether what he said in 1966 is working out in the areas of heavy coloured immigration and its effect on the indigenous population. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) and I understand only too well, because of the nature of our constituencies, the travail in this problem. Both he and I have already had experience from our joint membership of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. I think that he and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey) would agree that an indivisible feature of the continuous study of immigration and race relations is that we are learning all the time. We are in a continuous process of learning and of change.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Stechford in 1966 defined integration not as a flattening process of assimilation—which means to make the same—but as equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance. I believe that that, in a slow way, in a kind of upward moving escalator, is taking place in our society now.
When the members of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration have travelled about, whether we have been in Birmingham, Wolverhampton, Manchester, Liverpool, London or Bradford, we have been struck by the similarity in purpose and spirit of the witnesses before us. Whether they are teachers, educationalists, industrialists or trade unionists, when they have to rationalise the situation before such a
1504
committee, the feed-back is not noted for its diversity as much as for its similarity.
Of course there is diversity between employers and unions, between Church representatives and social workers and those who show the tinges of prejudice, but one generally finds an enormous spirit of good will. During our education inquiry, we were conscious of the wonderful spirit of the teaching profession who have to confront the enormous difficulties of teaching and handling children in a developing multi-racial society. That is the kind of society which is developing and which, whether some people like it or not, will remain with us.
The exercise can be limited to the question of numbers. There is public anxiety about the rate of entry from the new Commonwealth. But it would have been better if the Home Secretary had admitted earlier that there has been a deliberate curtailment of immigration from the new Commonwealth, as distinct from other immigration. When he set out his four principal points, with the repetitious phrase, "inescapable minimum", he was alluding expressly to new Commonwealth citizens. He could not possibly be talking about immigration from the EEC or from the white Commonwealth, New Zealand, Canada and Australia.
Under the rules, we have deliberately freed millions of people from any real or effective control and given them liberties enshrined in the treaties with the EEC, including the absolute right of abode removed to two generations. It is in this regard that I have seen the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) in a new light, remembering the amendment which he moved to the 1971 Bill, which the Labour Party and the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) supported and which was overcome by the Government by means of the rules.
Whatever view one may have of the entry certificate system, which existed before the present Government took office, I believe that the Government have been allowing the rules to overcome the statutory edict of the 1971 Act. If one asks, as with the chicken and the egg, which comes first, the rule or the statute, the answer must be the statute, because that is the will of Parliament as

1505
expressed through a painstaking Committee stage and then again on the Floor of the House. In this case, there was no fight on the Floor of the House.
Enshrined in the 1971 Act to a large extent are the principles of family unity. That is the point at which the Opposition and the Government join hands. That is true of the Select Committee and of the bulk of hon. Members. We are anxious that a breadwinner in this country should have the right to be joined by his wife and family. That is why we drew up the rules and even raised the age limit for dependants from 16 to 18 to bring Commonwealth citizens into line with aliens and EEC nationals. The Home Office can also consider wider matters, such as older children and other people in the family circle who are not easily categorised ; they can be let in if a connection is firmly established.
In a particularly worrying case with which I have dealt recently, the Home Office has shown a lack of humanity and seems to have ignored the indelible principle in the 1971 Act of the right of a wife, in this case—not a fiancée, or a male seeking to join the female—to join her husband. It is an abominable case and sharply reminds one of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Stechford said about the terrible delay, especially at Islamabad.
I was going to ask Mr. Speaker for permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment, but I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to put the facts before the House. The House and the British people will, I think, be astounded at what the Minister ruled in this case, which highlights the agony of husband and wife separated in the way that my right hon. Friend has described.
A 19-year-old Pakistani bride, Nasreen Kausar, recently arrived at Heathrow Airport with an entry certificate, had been told to come in April 1974. But when she arrived at the airport, her marriage was already 12 months old. A short time earlier, a brother of the bride's husband was married, but, because he had stayed in Pakistan for some months and had been insistent at the Islamabad control office, his bride was allowed to accompany him to this country, as was
1506
her right once the bona fides of the marriage had been established.
But when Nasreen Kausar arrived without her entry certificate, she was told that she could not be admitted although it was established beyond doubt that she was the wife of my constituent. She was held in detention for two weeks at the Harmondsworth detention area, and then the matter was brought to my attention. I pleaded with the Under-Secretary to allow her to come in, but he said—and I understood his thinking, though I did not accept it—that if he gave way he would be opening the way to a mass arrival of wives from Islamabad in similar circumstances.
I ask him, in all conscience, to weigh what this young women has been through. She was prescribed some pills by the airport doctor, and she took an overdose because she was distraught. She was then taken to Hillingdon hospital and then—partly because of my intervention, and partly because of Home Office compassion—she was allowed to join her husband for nine days. So she took her luggage, which included her bridal gown, to the home of her new in-laws, but was rearrested nine days later and taken back to the airport.
Lord Avebury then intervened and suggested that the lady might be mentally disturbed, because she had taken on overdose of pills. I do not know the nature of the psychiatrist's report, but I can only assume that it was a negative one and that it was not considered that she came within ambit of the Act which would have protected her as a mental patient, because she was sent back. I plead with the Minister to give me an assurance that the full weight of his office will be brought to bear upon the Islamabad control office, because this young woman, who has been through such torture, has an absolute right under the statute to join her husband in this country as soon as he can arrange it.
I could spend hours talking about my constituents but I will confine myself to two cases which are very much in my mind and which keep me awake at night, even though they do not keep the Under-Secretary awake at night. Another of my constituents, Mr. Qadir, has his home ready, and his marriage is 21 months old. He has been interviewed at the Croydon

1507
office and, as far as I know, there are no impediments and he should have a clearance. I do not know when the Under-Secretary will be going to Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, but if it is very soon perhaps he can do something then. But I do not think he will run to earth any traffic in illegal immigrants, because I do not think they would parade themselves around the Islamabad office, the Bombay office or the Bengal office. I have not been to Bangladesh, but I have been to those other offices and I think that illegal immigrants will use other routes.
I am aware that there are other hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who want to join in the debate, so instead of talking about other constituents I shall merely say a few words about the reports of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. As the right hon. Member for Stechford pointed out, we are awaiting the rejoinder of the Department of Education and Science to our recent study. The London Borough of Ealing is worried about a curtailment of the money which they get for the bussing system, which they intend to phase out when they are able to do so, and I ask hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to pay attention to the evidence given to the Select Committee by the London Borough of Ealing. The borough is very conscious of the need to increase primary school places at the west end of Ealing, which is in my division. But, as it cannot do that immediately, I ask the Under-Secretary to look carefully at the representations that will be made.
The question of police-immigrant relations has been worrying the London Borough of Ealing, and the Home Office must understand that there is some substance in the complaints. But it is also necessary for the immigrants to understand that the police are certainly not at war with the immigrant community. That could not possibly be so, if the report of the Select Committee is correct in stating that most Asian people are more law abiding than the rest of us, because the old Southall area is essentially an Asian community area. I have been very sensitive about this matter and have continually warned against exaggeration.
I suggested earlier that the 1971 Act imposed upon the police certain new
1508
duties which should never have been imposed upon them, because a policeman's duty is to look for suspicious characters, and if he did not do that he could not do his job. Officers vary considerably in the way they carry out their duties, but we know that the police themselves have been working on this problem. I have visited the police training establishment—the "knife and fork college", as they call it ; the top hat college.
But there was the Kane case, where a boy was thought to have stolen £50 from a garage and it turned out that the money had never been missing, so he could not have stolen it. Details of that case, which involved allegations of brutality, were sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. I wrote to the Minister of State and he eventually replied that the Metropolitan Police, under no less a person than Sir Robert Mark himself, had carried out an investigation. But the Minister's reply to me begs a great many questions, such as where the interrogation took place. The Minister's letter stated that the interrogation could be seen from the road, but that is nonsense to anybody who knows the locality.
I do not want to bandy words about this case, except to say that it underscores the need for a different system of police inquiries—a need which the right hon. Gentleman said he accepted 12 months ago. We wait for an announcement about this new system. We do not want the police to be seen as judge and jury in their own court. A reform is long overdue, and that view is supported by the Police Federation. It would go a long way towards allaying people's fears that, because of the profound esprit de corps in the police force, painstaking investigations into allegations of malpractice do not take place.
I conclude by emphasising the principles on which I began my speech. I believe that as regards the immigrants' struggle to have a system of family unity in this country much more can be said about what militates against it, and so on, which involves much technical detail which is flowing continuously into the Home Office. But there is a twin entity of desire on the part of immigrants to make bridges and to build friendships. They have inevitably done that, though

1509
not to the marked degree that many of us hoped. One-third of the immigrant population, if we think of immigrants as coloured people, brown and black, have been born in this country. They are, therefore, brown and black Britishers. They pass through the British education system. When I take parties of coloured and white youngsters through the House I find that there is no feeling of distinction between them.
In the development of our multiracial society the music of the future is to be heard in the universities, colleges and schools, where there is no militant racialism but only the presence of mutant anti-racialism. "Enoch in the dock" is the cry in the universities. The Young Conservatives of London have disowned the right hon. Gentleman's main theme that it is valid to send people out of this country in great numbers. The British people would not stand for that. That is not in our spirit or nature. It is not what we desire. The future is not with the middle class and certainly not with the Government. It is with the working class, which I understand as well as any because of my background. Before becoming a Member of the House I was a trade union education officer, a former railway worker. We had the very early experience—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going very wide indeed. He has been speaking for 26 minutes.
Mr. Bidwell: We had the earliest experience of mixing up the fine principles which people have applied in approaching these problems. This is the kind of society which British working-class people know.
6.23 p.m.
Mr. W. F. Deedes: Without endorsing every word that the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) has said, I am glad to be speaking immediately after him because we are both founder members of the same club, the members of which, I think, now predominate in the Chamber.
I should like to acknowledge very warmly my debt to the members of the Select Committee, in particular the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley), its distinguished Chairman under the previous Government. In a very sensitive area, the members of the Select Committee have made it possible
1510
for the Committee to issue unanimous reports on four subjects—it would have been five but for the last General Election—some of which at least have touched some of the realities which face us.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) whose return to this milieu we welcome—he seems hardly to have been away—referred to the response from the Department of the Environment, the Home Office and the Department of Education and Science. I would only say that we await these responses with interest. We are awaiting with rather additional impatience the response from the Department of the Environment. We welcome what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science said in reply to a Question about the speed with which her Department will be responding. I have no complaints on that score.
We visited some 30 centres which are grappling with this relatively new social challenge and we talked to about 1,000 witnesses. This place comes in for a good deal of knocking about. However, the fact that the Select Committee should have been able to present about 152 unanimous recommendations, some of which at least have borne fruit, seems to be a modest advertisement for the way in which we can, if so minded, tackle contentious subjects in a reasonably constructive way. I thank the hon. Members who are present for their contribution. Nor do I think that anyone who has read objectively the report on education would accuse us of conspiring to conceal difficulties or of selling truth short in order to get a consensus.
Having said that, I must now speak entirely for myself, not committing the Committee in any way. I admit at once to a profound uneasiness about the way things are going in this sphere. I feel simply that we are not matching the task that we have set ourselves by the resources needed to get us out of trouble. Notwithstanding all that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said this afternoon about urban aid and so on, to some of which I shall come shortly, after five years in this work, and particularly after the last report on the schools, that is my predominant impression.
I take issue with those who think that it is in the best interests of race relations

1511
to belittle the difficulties. Our last report stated :
"If … one conclusion stands out above all others, it is that we have failed to grasp and are still failing to grasp the scale of what we have taken on. Far too many who are closely involved show reluctance to assess it realistically."
There are many factors, which I shall not rehearse now, which induce those with responsibility in this sphere to play down the size of the task. They do it often in reality, not because they are complacent but because they themselves are uneasy.
I see no way out of this difficulty unless we can persuade ourselves—I hope that the Select Committee has offered a lead on this—to bring much more candour to bear on the subject and to face and state uncomfortable facts and not run away from them. On a more controversial matter, we ought not always to turn our face away from people who say things that we dislike.
I want now to make some comments about my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) who was dealt with rather severely, as always, by the hon. Member for Southall.
Mr. Ridwell: Not severely enough.
Mr. Deedes: For my part, I should like less abuse of what my right hon. Friend says and more disposition to sift and weigh what he says and then, if necessary, to argue with it. The voice of my right hon. Friend is not diminished by disapproving silences or abuse ; it is simply magnified. It is not good enough to declare always that he is wrong, out of step or offensive on this subject and that we, by contrast, are always reasonable and right—because we are not. In the past we have proved ourselves to be ingorant, complacent and self-deceiving on this subject. I am talking not about some people in the country but about Members of this House. If my right hon. Friend has erred from time to time, which he has, by exaggeration or by hyperbole, others have equally erred and played into his hands by seeking to gloss over awkward facts and figures. When the Select Committee's proceedings finished, my right hon. Friend was entitled to say to the country at large "I told you so." It
1512
played into his hands. He cannot be blamed for the staff of Government Departments who have been presenting wrong figures.
It is as well to face the fact that there are still many in the areas of concentration, and of all parties, who have not reconciled themselves to the policies and their consequences of the last 25 years. Those who shared experiences with me in the sub-continent may agree that if 25 million British people had settled in the last 25 years in India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, there might be some in the sub-continent who felt the same way. That is a side of the coin which we do not look at often enough. If these irreconcilables are totally wrong, why have we progressively changed our policy and become more restrictive? The present Government and the previous Government have done this. There is no notional figure for immigration or level at which it is possible scientifically to declare that enough is enough.
We must recognise that we have had no strategy and no long-term policy. As successive Acts of Parliament have shown, we have played it from hand to mouth. The policy has been entirely pragmatic. We have played it by ear, moving from one expedient to the next. As in other spheres, events have then occurred outside our control which have pushed us off course.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about illegal immigration, although I have other views on this. I also welcome what he said about overseas students. I want, however, to dwell on the Kenya situation. It is important that we embark upon dealing with it in the full knowledge of all the figures involved. I shall put one or two questions to which I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able to reply.
Of the 3,500 vouchers now under discussion, 1,500 were used for Uganda but have not been used in the last year. Of these, about 750 have been going to Kenya and the proposal now is—I say this subject to checking—to double the number. I make it 1,500 additional vouchers for Kenya, a round total of between 5,000 and 6,000 people in all, because vouchers are given only to the heads of families. My information, however, is that roughly 15,000 are in the

1513
queue—that is to say, under pressure to leave Kenya. Only 1,500 had their licences taken away, but about 15,000 are in the queue. In all, there might be about 30,000 United Kingdom passport holders. I stress that these figures are subject to checking.
My question is this. As I suspect that the numbers may be a little larger than we are at present talking of, what approach has been made to India? The Indian Government are willing to receive a number of these people, given an endorsement from the British High Commission that we accept ultimate responsibility. I think I am right in saying that only about 8 per cent. of those with that endorsement who went to India changed their minds and wished to come to the United Kingdom. That is a small percentage.
The Indian Government have been highly co-operative to my mind, as I am sure the Minister would agree. Are we enabling the Indian Government to make the contribution they would make, given the half-way move by us, the certificate of responsibility? These figures, I repeat, may prove to be larger than we are thinking about. There is an area I should like to see explored.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Is it not the case, and does not experience bear out, that the Indian Government do not refuse these people, even without the certificate of ultimate responsibility?
Mr. Deedes: I cannot answer that with certainty, and I want to stay within my own knowledge. The Indian Government have shown a mood of considerable co-operation. I hope to say more about this later.
I revert to my earlier theme. If we continue in our haphazard way administatively to deal with the consequences of a haphazard immigration policy, we shall run into serious trouble. That is the biggest conclusion I have reached after five years' work on the Select Committee. In no sphere is this more true than in schools.
Let us consider, for example, the way in which we have been assessing our task. The Department of Education and Science feels that it has been unfairly pilloried over its selection formula, which has now been dropped without,
1514
apparently, any alternative. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science wished to be present and has apologised for her absence. It is vain for the Department to declare that counting coloured heads in schools is of no assistance and that in any case teachers and local education authorities are unwilling to do it. The Select Committee never asked for such a count. What we have sought is a way of assessing the special needs of children entering this country, or children who are born here, for whom English presents special difficulties. How in the world can resources be applied unless facts are known? That is our case.
Nor is it valid to declare that indigenous children may suffer the same difficulty and must enter the same calculations. Rightly or wrongly, we have made discrimination against coloured people an offence, endorsed by an Act of Parliament. If we push through our schools coloured children who are deficient in English and thus handicapped when they seek jobs in an advanced society, we are sowing for a terrible harvest of discrimination and bitterness and storing up trouble for the future. Some schools in some areas are tackling this problem, but others are not.
Leicester, a city well to the fore, still reckons that between 15 and 20 per cent. of immigrant children in Leicester might leave school at 16 with insufficient capacity in English to compete with contemporaries in the labour market. That is in a relatively advanced city.
The overall picture is of resources far behind needs. It is against this huge deficit that we must realistically examine now the entry of children from countries of origin. Here I take issue with Whitehall. There are still considerable numbers to come here, particularly from Pakistan. I listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said. I am not entering into argument now about his estimate of the number of dependants still to come to this country. Some people seem to have difficulty in grasping that as long as we have, quite rightly, free movement between this country and countries of origin—and 50,000 entered this country last year from the subcontinent alone, after visits abroad—we

1515
will never reach a finite point with dependants, although the figures may decline.
To attempt to show a decline in current figures may not be meaningless, but it can mislead. As the right hon. Member for Stechford complained, queues of applicants at Dacca, Islamabad and Delhi are growing ever longer.
Mr. Wilkinson: My right hon. Friend mentioned Pakistan. Appendix 2 of the report of the Select Committee, derived from immigration section figures in Islamabad, shows that the number of entrants on employment vouchers declined from 13,526 in 1963 to 75 in 1972. The number of dependants has dropped more than threefold in the past six years, from 17,500 in 1967 to about 5,500 in 1972. Although there are long queues of would-be entrants to the United Kingdom at our embassy there has been a marked decline in admissions.
Mr. Deedes: The appendices must also be examined for the estimates from the posts of how many are still likely to come. There are more than my right hon. Friend is willing to accept, and the waiting time grows ever longer. The right hon. Member for Stechford is wrong to say that officers are acting in a highhanded manner to those who apply. I have rarely seen British officers anywhere applying themselves more conscientiously to a harder duty than these entry certificate officers. They are dealing as patiently as they can with a difficult lot of applicants.
It is wrong to blame the officers. They are confronted by a large number of applicants who, having been bamboozled by agents, have secured—I will not say how—false particulars. The work is enormously increased by an unconditional appeal system. Figures for Islamabad alone show that in 1972 about 1,300 applications were refused. Half of those applicants appealed, and 82 per cent. of the appeals were rejected. That system should be urgently reviewed, in fairness to the genuine applicants.
The crux, however, is the continued admission of 15,000 or more children up to the age of 18 a year unconditionally. Those children are the bulk of the dependants. We said in our report :
1516
"With hindsight the drawbacks can be seen of the policy which has prevailed since 1962 of permitting dependent children up to the age of 16 (since January 1973, 18) unconditionally. In the eyes of many immigrants the short-term prospects of their young on the labour market have understandably taken precedence over their long-term educational interests."
Because wider considerations are involved we did not pursue our conclusion, but I must add a personal view. To add this total annually to the heavy deficit of children deficient in English already in our schools should be thought about very carefully. Hon. Members may well exclaim that to curb it would be to divide families. I doubt whether the House realises the extent to which our policy has divided families already and continues to divide them. Many families are divided now, and will by choice so remain. Sons are here and daughters there, mothers here or there. There are many complete families in this country—it depends very much on the different parts of the sub-continent from which they come—but many families are split and will remain split.
We should realise also that the Governments of India, Pakistan and Bangladesh take a far more realistic view of this than we do. They do not seek outlets for their people here. It is one of the great illusions that they do. They would not resent or resist curbs sensibly applied. Their sole concern, as Ministers know, is discrimination, the humiliation of their citizens already here. That is precisely where our policy is apt to take us with these young if we take on more than we can properly help with their English and future chances of employment.
We must be businesslike about the matter. It is incumbent upon the House as well as Ministers to exercise judgment, to look ahead a little. Outside the House, the claims and counter-claims are difficult to assess. But I should like modestly to suggest that an all-party Select Committee is available to offer the facts and throw a little light on the subject.
If Governments duck unpalatable findings, if they flinch from the necessary steps to bring achievement of the task within our reach, in the short term they may avoid trouble and criticism but they will be sowing for a bitter harvest. They will unwittingly be leading to a

1517
Situation—what irony it would be!—in which some of the grimmer prognostications of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West might even come to pass.
6.43 p.m.
Mr. Arthur Bottomley: I thank the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) for his kind references to my work as the first Chairman of the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. He will recall that, when the Committee was set up and I found that he was the leading member of the then Opposition, I suggested to him that we should have two aims. The first was to try to get race relations out of party conflict. The second was to get the members to project their minds 20 years forward, to see that the public would then be able to say that, as a result of the thoughtfulness and application of the Committee, race relations were better than they might otherwise have been.
As part of that exercise we not only appealed to the members of the Committee to co-operate but we put them in alphabetical order in the Committee room to avoid a party line-up. In that first Committee we had members ranging from the extreme Right to the extreme Left, but because the Committee had to study the facts and be objective in its reporting it is no surprise that each report presented to Parliament was unanimous.
Our first report, presented in 1969, dealt with the coloured school leavers. We naturally had meetings in the House, but we also felt that to study the problem properly we should go outside as well. We went into the towns, and there was resentment from the local authorities about that. The Leader of the House was told that going into the towns was not the business of Members of Parliament.
Having been a local councillor, and at one time Vice-President of the Association of Municipal Corporations, I told local government representatives that the last thing I would ever want to do was to damage local authorities. I said "What we are trying to do as Members of Parliament is to see the problems caused for you as a result of legislation passed by the House". In due course the local authorities were anxious that we should go
1518
to their towns to see the situation for ourselves.
We met not only local authority representatives but representatives of the police, trade unions, employers, teachers, the Race Relations Board and the Community Relations Commission. We saw as many people as we could to obtain first-hand information. We naturally also sought the advice of Government Departments and heard evidence from them.
The first report produced 46 recommendations, all of which were accepted. Most of them have now been put into effect.
We went on to consider Commonwealth immigration. Unfortunately, before we could produce a report the General Election intervened, but the hon. Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair) and I produced a report for the Runnymede Trust. We could not state the views of the Select Committee in that report, but I think everyone accepts that the Select Committee agreed that the entry certificate system for controlling the admission of dependants had to be seen to be fair and efficient.
Incidentally, the distances travelled, the delays that result from pressures of demand and the need to document fully to meet appeal requirements, and the detailed examinations which are carried out at their interviews, must cause hardship for many applicants. However, I share the view of the right hon. Member for Ashford, though perhaps not so wholeheartedly, about our officers. On the whole I accept it, but the circumstances cause the difficulties to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) referred.
It is inevitable that genuine applicants whose bone fides cannot be proved without careful examination pay the price of having to undergo the strict checks made necessary by the fact that some people seek to evade the controls. As happens elsewhere, the innocent suffer because of the guilty.
It appears to me, on the basis of cases sent to me and to other members of the Committee and of what I have heard this afternoon, that there is interminable delay for those applying to come to this country from Commonwealth countries. I think that an explosive situation is building up,

1519
and the Government must treat the matter urgently.
When the Under-Secretary goes to India, Pakistan and Bangladesh he must satisfy himself that in the High Commission posts there are enough staff of the right quality and with the right attitudes, who have been given the right training and experience, to carry out the difficult and delicate task that has been entrusted to them.
The Committee also studied housing. The housing problem is not merely an immigrant problem. It is the responsibility of the Government, Parliament, local authorities and society to provide good housing for everyone. In our report we highlighted some of the problems facing the immigrant community.
I, too, am disappointed that the Department of the Environment has not yet seen fit after a long delay to offer some answers to the 36 recommendations we made, but I shall not dwell on that point because it has been adequately emphasised.
We then went on to police and immigration relations, and there is no doubt that there is need for improvement in this matter. But the police as an organised section of our society are probably better informed and better able to handle race relations than other organised sections. Some of the older men that we met had their patience tested and perhaps they can be criticised, but often not without some sympathy for their position. Equally, some of the young men are arrogant. I am confident that some of my colleagues and others too must have had the experience that I did in one of the provincial cities where an inspector was described as a racialist. I was so disappointed with his behaviour that I mentioned the matter to his chief constable, and I hope that it was put right.
On another occasion when the committee went to Bramshill police college I suggested to a class of about 30 inspectors that it might be a good thing if occasionally they said a few words of welcome to a member of the Asian community in Urdu. One of the inspectors asked "Why should we learn their language? They have come to our country." I looked around the class and was glad to see that not one of the other inspectors nodded assent. They all disagreed with him. I
1520
should like in particular to pay a tribute to the chief constable of my constituency. It is not often remembered that at the time of the Notting Hill riots there were also riots in Middlesbrough.
When I became the Member of Parliament for Middlesbrough, East in 1962 I was aware of these troubles. The police chief said to me that he had a way of handling them which was not orthodox, and he hoped that he could count on my co-operation as the local MP. I believe that, as a result of his handling of the situation then and since, race relations on Teesside are as good as anywhere in the country. I can assure my colleagues on the Select Committee that I have never pressed for the Committee to go to Middlesbrough but we have a substantial number of immigrants in the area.
There is a need for immigrant organisations to make their contribution to a better understanding, and on the whole they do it. However, there are some self-appointed local representatives who behave in a way which does not encourage good race relations. The Home Office paid us a compliment which I believe we deserve—I am glad that we met with its approbation—when it said that the Select Committee had made a notable and constructive contribution to the discussion of the emotive subject of race relations.
Our most recent report has been on education. The right hon. Member for Ashford has explained why the Secretary of State for Education cannot be here. I am sorry that she is absent but I am confident she got my message that I intended to be critical of the Department. Education presents a muddled picture with contradictory statements issued by the Department. We described the Department's formula for the keeping of statistics as useless. The Department should have been prepared for that because in 1969, when the coloured school leavers report was submitted, we drew attention to this fact. It said that the Department should look at the matter more carefully and produce a formula which would be useful.
We made positive proposals about the handling of the immigrant problem in the schools and we asked the Government to give serious consideration to numbers and to the period during which

1521
immigrant children attend school. We first drew attention to the problem in 1969 but it was not until this last report that we had action. What action did we get? A reply to an inspired Question accepted one part of our recommendation but not the substance of it. I see the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Kinsey), who is also a member of the Committee, suggesting that the Question was not inspired. If it was not inspired, I withdraw what I said, but it seems strange that the Department answered a Question dealing with this important matter, accepting the minor part of a recommendation and ignoring the substance of it. Whether it was an inspired Question or not, it would at least have been polite to inform the Chairman of the Select Committee about it and about the proposed reply. At the Committee meeting I remonstrated with the Chairman and he told me that he knew nothing about it. I think I am therefore entitled, on behalf of myself and other members of the Committee, to express disapproval at the way in which the Department treated the Committee.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Timothy Raison): I have been authorised by my right hon. Friend to say that she regrets what happened and that she has conveyed her regrets to the Chairman of the Select Committee.
Mr. Bottomley: I thank the Under-Secretary very much. It is very kind of him to give that apology.
In the report we said there were inadequate programmes for coloured schoolchildren at local levels and inadequate information and direction from Government sources. We said there was too little planning and evaluation to improve the schools for the future. The Under-Secretary was kind enough to convey the right hon. Lady's apologies to us. I hope that the Department will give serious consideration to these matters and in due course perhaps make the kind of report that the Committee is expecting. I gather that this may be done before Easter.
I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend the Member for Stechford on the Opposition Front Bench again. Perhaps it would be appropriate for me to end with the words he uttered when he was Home Secretary. He described the coming
1522
together of the races not as a flattening process, not as a process of assimilation, but as an equal opportunity accompanied by cultural diversity in an atmosphere of mutual tolerance. Our greatest opportunity is to participate in the democratic process in our community. Good citizens do not intrude upon the personal territory of others to dictate or decide in what way those persons shall pursue happiness. A considerate person will do his part in helping to build a community in which everyone has an equal chance to live his life to the full and command respect and consideration from his fellows. In return for these opportunities and that respect and consideration, it behoves everyone, whatever his rights, to make the best contribution of which he is capable and thereby to earn the respect of others.
I should like to join the right hon. Member for Ashford in saying that no two men could have been served by a better group than those who have been on the successive Select Committees. An indication of that is that when Parliament tries to tackle one of the social problems of the day, it can do it and it can do it well.
6.59 p.m.
Mr. Robert Redmond: I shall not pursue the points raised by the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough, East (Mr. Bottomley), but I support his comments about the police. It has always been remarkable to me that the police keep a balance in a most complicated situation, and the right hon. Gentleman's comments on the police in his constituency certainly apply to the police in mine.
I should like to support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). I want to deal with what I shall call the numbers game and I have particular constituency reasons for doing so this week. On Tuesday evening there appeared in the Bolton Evening News a feature article headed
"Shock increase in immigrant figures".
It was based on various research done by the secretary of the Bolton Council for Community Relations. The figures were no shock to me because the true figures were similar to those that appeared in the paper. But it is time that we returned, in the subject of immigration,

1523
race relations and so on, to a proper use of the English language.
The so-called "shock" figures in the article indicated that one-eighth of Bolton's population were foreign-born or of immigrant birth. Because of the euphemistic way that we try to discuss the race relations subject, we now get the picture that one-eighth of Bolton's population is coloured and that that proportion will be increased through the birth of coloured children. The article confuses me when it says that one in 12 is coloured. It purports to give the actual figures, saying that Bolton has 19,058 residents born abroad or to immigrant families. Sizeable minorities come from Ireland, Poland, the Ukraine, Lithuania and Latvia, and they are all white.
I ask myself, what about the third generation of coloured people who have been living in Bolton for a long time? Their grandfathers might have been immigrants, but they themselves are not. It is time that we stopped playing with numbers and applied the problem of community relations in two parts. The first is that we must accept that Britain is overcrowded and we cannot take any more people. I said that to a recent meeting of 400 members of the Pakistan Society in Bolton. My remarks were reported in the Press. The following week I received a number of letters saying "It is time you said that in Parliament and not at a meeting of Pakistanis." Now I have said it in Parliament and got it on the record. But it was apparently a revelation that a Member of Parliament, who supported the Government, could say a thing like that, because it did not seem to have got about that Parliament had taken action. I found that the Pakistanis and Indian people of Bolton who heard me say it agreed with me entirely.
The second part of the problem that we must face on community relations is that Hindus and Moslems do not yet integrate either with themselves or with the indigenous people. I have two examples. The Moslems do not realise the chaos they can cause in factories when they follow the Koran to the letter and observe Ramadan or get out their prayer mats at an inconvenient part of the working day. We should also note
1524
that the Hindus who are in Bolton, and probably in other parts of the country, operate the caste system which is illegal in India. I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will take note that we have second-class citizens among the immigrants. We should face up to the fact.
Alongside the newspaper article, in the right-hand column, was a letter to the editor from a Mrs. McBriar of Radcliffe. Mrs. McBriar showed a genuine lack of understanding about Parliament and its procedures. Among other points, she said that too many laws were passed without the consent of the electorate. As an example, she mentioned the subject of immigration. She said that the subject had never appeared in a party manifesto. I regard that as typical of the lack of information about immigration that seems to prevail throughout the country.
I have tried—I know that the Government have tried, but I wish that they would try harder—to drive home the fact that the Immigration Act 1971 is on the statute book. I realise that a vast problem is created by the presence of people whose habits and customs are totally different from ours, but it should be known that the Act has been passed and that Britain is probably now the most difficult country in the world to which to gain access.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows of case after case which I have sent him which prove that the Act is strictly operated. Far too many Indians and Pakistanis are setting off from their home country intending to stay in the United Kingdom for a short time and are turned back at Heathrow because they do not have proper papers. I accept that there may be delays on the Indian sub-continent in issuing proper papers, but it is right that they should be turned back if they have not got proper papers on arrival. If the fact that that happens were more widely known, we would be reassuring some of those who are worried about the immigrant numbers here. We know that under the Act dependent relatives may come to this country, but do people realise how tough the Home Office is in interpreting the word "dependant"? Again, I have passed to my hon. Friend case after case showing that we are extremely strict in interpreting it. It is right that we should be strict.

1525
I mentioned attending a meeting of the Pakistan Society in Bolton some months ago. I was told that coloured people are assumed to be guilty before they have the chance to prove anything. The society cited to me the case of a man who had been living in Lancashire and working there for some time. He went home to Pakistan, but when he came back he was refused entry because nobody believed that he was genuinely coming in and he was thought of as an illegal immigrant. I checked the incident with my hon. Friend and we discovered that the man arrived at Heathrow with a passport which had obviously been torn to shreds and sewn together in amateur fashion and that he had baggage bearing someone else's name. In those circumstances, I do not consider that it was unreasonable for the immigration officer to be suspicious.
My advice to anyone is that, whatever the colour of his skin, he needs proper papers to enter the United Kingdom. I have always made it clear to the coloured community in Bolton that I regard my passport as extremely important. I should not want to try to get back into this country without it after going abroad.
We must get it home to people that they must not try to come here unless they are absolutely sure that they have proper papers. I have asked the Bolton Council of Community Relations to stress this among the immigrant communities. I hope that the Home Office will also try to do something and that, when my hon. Friend goes to the Indian sub-continent, he will read the Act in all the languages he can and make it clear that Britain is a difficult country to enter. It is necessary to do this because it is necessary for places of stress caused by the influx of new people—places like Bolton—to get more assistance. I was glad to hear what my hon. Friend said about that today, and I shall study his remarks in HANSARD tomorrow. I will be asking him how much Bolton will get out of it and I hope to get a generous answer.
We have peculiar problems in Bolton because we have large numbers of people who are not being integrated with the ordinary communities. Sometimes there is no attempt to integrate. My right hon. Friend talked about white people learning to live with immigrants. But I stress with all the power I can that I
1526
am as much concerned for members of the indigenous community, many of whom feel adversely affected by the influx that has taken place in recent years. The best way to deal with this is to speak plainly and stop talking of immigrants when we mean coloured people. It should not be regarded as racialist to say that a man's skin is not as white as ours.
We must accept the fact that not all people with coloured skins are immigrants. My right hon. Friend was correct when he mentioned that. I have constituents whose skin is a very different colour from mine but whose accent is exactly what mine is—or sometimes even more broad Lancashire than mine—and I do not regard them as immigrants. But I recognise that they look a little different, and with the influx of others they are very often told "Go home" when they have no other place to go to but Bolton, because that is where they were born and that is where they belong.
7.11 p.m.
Mr. William Wilson: The Home Secretary was correct when he told us that, in a number of parts of Britain, we have indeed a multi-racial society. He was also correct when he went on to say that that situation will continue. Anyone who believes that repatriation will solve any problems that immigration has brought to the country is just beating the air. Multi-racial Britain is here for many parts of our country, and it is here to stay. But the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), with whom I agreed completely, was correct in telling us that the need for candour is overwhelming. It is far better that we should acknowledge situations as they exist than try to pretend that they are not present with us.
I was one of the three members of the Select Committee who visited the City of Liverpool. I need not tell the House the findings and comments we made as a result of our visit. They are set out in our report for all to read. But I confess that I came away from Liverpool with a feeling of something approaching depression because Liverpool, as far as its coloured population is concerned, is quite different from any other part of this country.
Liverpool is different because its coloured population has been with it for

1527
generations. If hon. Members take the opportunity to read what we felt in visiting Paddington comprehensive school in Liverpool, they will see the need for a positive attempt and a positive policy by all of us to face the issues that the presence of different nationalities brings to our communities. These problems will not just go away.
On the subject of immigration and race relations, I speak not only as a member of the Select Committee but as one who, within his constituency, has many immigrants of varying sorts. In addition, I speak as a lawyer who is consulted not only by those who live in Coventry but by immigrants throughout Britain. It is out of that knowledge and out of the knowledge I acquired from my visits to India with the Race Relations Committee that I believe that we have to acknowledge that immigration into this country, despite what the Home Secretary said today, is likely to continue in measurable terms for some long period still to come.
It is a pity that the House today is dealing with the whole matter of race relations and immigration. I had hoped that the two last reports of the Select Committee, in relation to the police and education, could each be made the subject of a separate debate because each in its own way is of vast importance. The relations of the immigrants with the police are important in maintaining good general relations. The impact of education upon the immigrant population is a way of creating good relations with the immigrant community. It is, therefore, a pity that these two matters are not being dealt with separately.
I want to speak now about the relationship with the police. For that purpose, I want to quote from Volume 2 of the evidence taken by the Select Committee in 1971–72. It is reported on page 146. The witness is Mr. William Palfrey, then Chief Constable of Lancashire, the largest police force outside the Metropolitan force. He said :
"Up to three years ago you very rarely found an Asiatic boy running foul of our juvenile liaison scheme ; it was practically unknown. Even today there are fewer Asiatics coming to the net than our host children. It is because, as my chaps tell me, there is a closer family life amongst the Asiatic families ; but unfortunately the Asiatic children
1528
are beginning to follow some of the bad habits of our host children, so that we are getting one or two through the net ; but even at this moment"
—February 1972—
"there is not one Asiatic under supervision by any juvenile liaison officer in my county, and this speaks well for their families."
Mr. Palfrey was then questioned by the right hon. Member for Ashford, who asked him :
"You are saying that, talking in terms of juvenile crime, the Asiatic juvenile compares favourably with our own?"
He replied :
"If our own children were as good as the Asiatics then we would not have such a crime problem."
The right hon. Member for Ashford asked :
"Would you apply that also to the West Indians?"
Mr. Palfrey replied :
"Yes, but not quite to the same extent."
That was the voice of a most experienced chief constable. The point I want to make is that what the Chief Constable of Lancashire said in his colourful answer was repeated time and time again by the police forces we contacted on this question. The pattern was that as far as the commission of crime was concerned the Asians were the best behaved, the West Indians came next and then our own indigenous population. What puzzles me is that this was the general picture that was given to us by police forces right throughout the country, and yet we get continually the allegation that the police discriminate against those whom they interrogate because they are coloured.
We had before the Select Committee witnesses who said to us, speaking of the police. "They pick on us." The remarkable thing was, as we pointed out in our report, that often, although the allegations were made, documentary support was lacking. Frequently the examples given were quite old. I have never believed that every policeman is a Dixon of Dock Green. They are not. On occasions they are bound to make mistakes and to be in the wrong. It might help if sometimes the respective chief constables could admit that their officers were occasionally in the wrong. These allegations of discrimination against the coloured population by the police are easily made but

1529
the evidence to support them is often woefully weak.
As a lawyer I am consulted by immigrants from all over the country. Long before I entered this House, and even today, I spend my time defending those who are charged with criminal offences. I always defend and never prosecute. Any lawyer in my position could say that this allegation that the police picked upon certain sectors of the community is easily made. Students, taxi-drivers, bus-drivers and, for good measure, prostitutes say, "The police always pick upon us." This is an allegation continually reiterated and does considerable harm to immigrant-police relations. This is something I have seen time and again.
In all of my experience I have never had a case in which I considered that the police had acted in the way in which they acted because of the colour of the skin of the man being interrogated. It is only right that that should be said, especially now when there has been a spate of propaganda against the police in respect of alleged discrimination. I say this as someone who knows the position from the inside. My experience has been largely with what is now the Warwickshire and Coventry Constabulary. There is no reason whatever why that experience should be any different from that of any other police force.
I will add that there have been cases in which I have been engaged when I have formed the opinion that the police have gone out of their way to help a defendant because he had a coloured skin. I would say that with the police forces the boot is on the other foot. It is not that they discriminate against a man or woman with a coloured skin. It is more the other way round. They go out of their way to help so as to prevent any allegation that such a person has been discriminated against.
I do not say there are no cases which cannot be raised and queried. What I do say is that for every one that can be produced I am certain that I could produce many others in which a white man or woman would raise the same complaint. I am glad to have the opportunity of saying that.
The Home Secretary told us he anticipates that there will be a fall in the number of immigrants, whether heads of
1530
families or dependants. We have to yield to the greater knowledge of his Department. It would be a pity if what he said turns out to be wrong. We have to treat all these matter with a certain amount of circumspection. I recollect that it was said in 1969 that the number of dependent families would decrease. The logic and reasoning behind that was the Immigration Act 1962 which resulted in the number of heads of families being cut down. It would take about seven years for them to be able to set up home. By 1969 it was said the number of dependent families would decline. We know what the situation is. It did not quite work out that way.
Above all I want good relations with the immigrant community. If we have a similar situation to that of 1969, if the prophecy turns out to be wrong, it can only rebound upon us in a way that we do not want. What gives added force to my remarks is that we know that the queues at Islamabad, Delhi and Bombay are longer than ever. It is reasonable to think that the applications which will be made must of necessity be large and the backlog will be such as we have never previously seen.
The Home Secretary will probably acknowledge that one of the reasons why the staff of the immigration section in Islamabad, Delhi and Bombay is kept down is that if there were more staff, more people would make application. I hope that what the right hon. Gentleman has said is correct because upon that could easily depend our good community relations.
I am glad to hear that the Minister is to go to the sub-continent of India to see for himself what is happening in the immigration offices. I have been to India twice in the past 14 months. It has to be acknowledged that the burden we are placing upon the staff who administer the issue of entry certificates is considerable. They cannot see the end of the road and the harder they work the larger the burden upon them seems to be. They have always to take into account the real problem of those seeking to gain entry but who ought not to have entry. Because of that they have to be rigorous towards the genuine applicant. This rebounds upon us. The man whose wife genuinely wishes to join him wants to know why

1531
she should be interrogated in this way. It simply rebounds upon the entry certificate officers and the other staff.
There is the question of appeals. I have participated in many appeals on behalf of immigrants, on behalf of those in this country trying to bring their families here. I say in self-defence that my record of success is much higher than the 80 per cent. which seems to be the average. The House does not perhaps realise the amount of work that is involved in appeals. It is nothing for the paperwork in one appeal to amount to 20 sheets of foolscap paper.
The carefulness with which the entry certificate officer has to give his report is conditioned by the fact that somewhere, somebody at some time will go through it with a tooth comb with the purpose of trying to succeed in an appeal. I hope that when the Minister goes to the subcontinent he will see for himself the great burden that is placed upon entry certificate officers. Speaking from considerable experience, I pay testimony to the care with which the entry certificate officers do their work. They are subjected to many criticisms, but they do a good job in extremely difficult circumstances.
The machinery that we have set up to make sure that those who claim to come here have the right to come and are enabled to come is considerable, I have one answer for those who criticise what we do. No country in the world does as much to protect the right of those who wish to enter the country as does Great Britain, and it is time that we said that aloud.
7.31 p.m.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I hope that the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson) will not have got himself into any trouble with the Law Society, for he has performed an important service by what he put on the record this afternoon about the behaviour and standards of the police. I hope that the contents of his speech will be well noted out of doors amongst the public generally and in particular amongst the police forces.
The debate has not lacked a whole series of encomia upon the work of the Select Committee, three of whose reports are before the House. Some of the
1532
encomia have been bestowed upon them by hon. Members who belong to that Committee ; but they are reports remarkable in their value and in the quality for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) called, of candour.
I want to concentrate upon not the least remarkable of the paragraphs in the report entitled "Education", one to which my right hon. Friend himself referred—paragraph 209.
"With hindsight the drawbacks can be seen of the policy which has prevailed since 1962 of permitting dependent children up to the age of 16 (since January 1973, 18)"—
as a matter of fact, throughout most of the whole period since 1962 there has been an extra-statutory concession which went up to the age of 18—
"to enter Britain unconditionally."
That is a hindsight which I share.
It is difficult now in 1973 to regain the perspective which existed 11 years ago when the Commonwealth Immigrants Act of that year had reached the statute book. To almost everyone it seemed that we had broken the back of the problem, that at last a necessary resolve had been taken and that, though we could not put away the consequences of what happened before 1962, at any rate the bulk lay behind us and it was merely the implications of what had already happened to which we would have to look in the future. In that perspective it was natural that we should have provided a statutory right of entry for the dependants of those already resident in this country. It was a provision which I approved and which I defended in public. But our expectation was greatly mistaken.
I do not imagine that anyone in 1962 would have credited that between 1961 and 1971 the number of new Commonwealth immigrants would treble. In other words, of the new Commonwealth immigrants who were in this country at the 1971 census, two-thirds had entered during the 1960s. That is a point which I know will be of interest, and maybe unfamiliar, to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman). I make no complaint of that, because those of us who have lived with this for many more years than he have found it hard to recognise the proportions and the time scale of the event which the House is debating.
Mr. Bidwell Mr. Bidwell rose—
Mr. Powell: I am anxious to be as brief as possible.
Mr. Bidwell Mr. Bidwell rose—
Mr. Powell: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that time and again I have given way to him, and engaged in debate with him ; but I am anxious, and have promised, to make my remarks as brief as possible. I ask him on that account to forgive me for not giving way.
Again, if we take instead of 1961 the point of time when the control came into force, even then we find that the immigration after control came into effect until 1971 census day was equal to the immigration before control. That was a prospect which nobody seriously envisaged at the time when control was first introduced. It was only gradually, as the 1960s moved on, that the proportions of what had happened before and of what was still happening came to our knowledge.
There was, of course, no accurate information on immigration before control was in effect—by the nature of things, by definition, there could not be—but some years passed after 1962 before, in the course of time, the decisive facts began to become known. For me perhaps the first was the lengthening series of birth figures from Wolverhampton and Birmingham. These showed in the case of Wolverhampton that from 1962 onwards—there were no figures before that—never less than one-quarter of all the births were to Commonwealth mothers. This cast an important and undeniable light not only on the future but upon the scale of immigration that had already taken place.
Then in 1967 there was the estimate given from the Government Front Bench that by 1985 the figure for the coloured population might even be "as low as" 2½ million. Shortly after that, however, when the particulars required at registration of births were increased, we learnt that some of the crucial assumptions upon which that official estimate had been made were ill founded and that in fact coloured births—if the expression may be forgiven—were 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. greater in number than had been assumed by those who made the calculation. Now at last, in the early
1534
1970s, despite all the difficulties and limitations of our information, we know that the younger generation, those under 25, in many major towns and cities and in major parts of the metropolis, is from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. coloured.
I here return to the interesting speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Handsworth. He was right to point out how slippery are projections. Incidentally, what the Registrar-General issues are not predictions but projections of what would be the population, assuming—which, of course, the Registrar-General does not—that the birth rate and all other factors will remain as at the moment. My hon. Friend is also right to say that of all possible factors the birth rate is one of the most slippery—that much misused term which means, when used correctly, births divided by relevant population.
However, the future which is portended by the facts that we now know is not dependent upon projections, and it makes no significant assumption about birth rate—indeed, in nothing I have ever said or written on the subject have I assumed any difference between the birth rate of the new Commonwealth population and that of the indigenous population. We are not looking at a projection or a conjecture about the future. We are looking directly at the future ; for the future is here. The generation aged under 25 is the future, and the make-up of that generation is now determined—the new Commonwealth content of that generation will not diminish, it is determined at least as a minimum. There is, therefore, no element of assumption or conjecture which enters into our thoughts when we say that we are looking at the future.
As long ago as 3rd November 1966, in a debate in another place, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor said :
"The noble Lord, Lord Elton, gave an estimate of the future coloured population in this country in 50 years' time. We have to recognise that in less than that space of time, one-third of the whole population in certain large areas of our big cities is likely to be coloured ; maybe in some cases it will be one-third of the whole."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 3rd November, 1966 ; Vol. 277, c. 707.)
That was an ex-Home Secretary : my right hon. and noble Friend was Home

1535
Secretary from the time when control came into force. He was also ex-Member for a London constituency. Everything that we now know has confirmed the statement of fact which that former Home Secretary made in another place over seven years ago.
Candour and recognition of the realities were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. He said that just these were called for in the light of the facts. Yet there is still the usual ingredient of unrealism and hallucination about today's debate. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in introducing the debate did so with a most comprehensive and thorough speech. Yet I thought, as I listened to it, what irony it was that so much of it—I make no complaint of this—was devoted to figures not one of which exceeded five digits.
It is true that in the end my right hon. Friend got around to quote the false figure, with which we have now been presented by a defective census, of a coloured population at census day of 1½ million. Let it pass, however, whether we accept that incredible minimum figure or a figure of, let us say 2 million, which many who have looked at the other data would regard as more likely. That is not the important fact. The figure is large ; but it is little compared with the future already implicit in what we know—even upon the basis of the census, let alone the corrected census—about the new generation in this country, the generation which will be the future.
It is not possible to acknowledge the fact which seven years ago Lord Brooke put on the record and to have no policy. It is not possible to acknowledge it and, either for a simple Member of Parliament or for a Government, to decline to say "Is this a future which is acceptable?"
Mr. Wilkinson Mr. Wilkinson rose—
Mr. Powell: I am sorry, my hon. Friend must forgive me. I must be just as between him and the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), who would have just complaint if I gave way. I ask my hon. Friend to forgive me for the same reason.
It is not possible to acknowledge that prospect as a fact and, having done so,
1536
to remain silent in front of it. We have to tell the people of this country whether it is a future which is accepted, whether it is a future which is regarded as acceptable. We must tell them; for in the end it is they who will have to decide whether it is acceptable. That is why there has been so shattering a silence, so persistent a silence, year after year from those in authority. They say "We do not know. All this is very conjectural. All this is very uncertain." That is their silence in the face of the prospect which is known.
The Select Committee, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford in his personal capacity, left us in no doubt what was meant by the "drawbacks" now perceived "with hindsight". It has obliged the House to consider, for the first time in any official context, whether it is right that the statutory automatic admission of all genuine dependants as defined should continue. It has not only placed its finger upon what is the principal single cause of the present dimensions of the second phase, the post-1962 phase, of the phenomenon ; it has called in question whether it is right and necessary that divided families should be reunited by the dependants coming to Britain.
Divided families, if they so desire it, should not be prevented from being reunited ; but there is an alternative way, which this country stands ready to assist and which it now faces, now that it has been raised and been placed before the House by the Select Committee.
That in itself is not a policy ; but it is part of a policy, it is the beginnings of a policy. The future implicit in the facts which I have quoted from the mouth of Lord Brooke is not yet irreversible or predetermined. It is not beyond the resources of this country or the policy and Government of this country profoundly to influence whether or not that prospect will be realised. If its realisation, when one has once admitted the scale of it, is fraught with the danger that many believe not only to the indigenous population but to all, the avoidance of it is an object to which the resources and the policy of the State may fitly be harnessed.
Therefore I ask my right hon. Friends to take the first step, which, once taken,

1537
cannot be the last. That is to acknowledge with candour what they must know or what, if they do not know, they can ascertain. It is not too late for this country, with justice and benefit to all and in the interests of everyone concerned, to avert what is portended by the prospect that I have put before the House.
7.51 p.m.
Miss Joan Lestor: I do not want to take up in detail the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), but I merely want to place on record that I believe the policy of allowing dependent children to come to this country as of right is a sane and sensible attitude. Where we fall down—and this is a subject on which some of us are anxious in terms of the high percentage of immigrant children who will be brought into the country—is that we have never matched that intake with the resources and knowledge of how to deal with children from an alien culture who have special language difficulties. The difficulty has not been so much the fact that these children have come here but that we are ill-equipped to deal with the situation and do not devote sufficient resources to it.
I do not believe that all is lost or that we are by any means in a hopeless situation. One of the outstanding things about the latest report on education is that it calls for more resources, for more training of people in education and for a better understanding among us all of how we can begin to live and operate properly in a multiracial society.
One of the difficulties about immigration and race relations in this country over 10 or more years has been the fact that the argument has always been advanced—an argument put forward not only by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West but by others—that the way to improve race relations is to restrict numbers and to send back people who come here from a different country, or perhaps—this may be the view of some—even to sterilise them so that they will have no more children. It has been argued that if we restrict the numbers sufficiently, then this will go hand in hand with the improvement of race relations. But the system does not work like that and it never has done.
1538
Arguments aimed at repatriation or ceasing to allow children to come in will never have the effect of improving race relations, unless control of immigration is seen to be handled sensibly and fairly irrespective of the colour of those involved. Black people who are already in this country and their children—and even their children's children—will see that they are not wanted and are not accepted, but that white immigrants, particularly under the EEC arrangements, are more welcome than they. Strict policies of immigration control have never been related to the whole subject.
The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West dismissed some remarks by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) by saying that that hon. Member was a relative newcomer to the problems of immigration and race relations. I am an old-stager in the sphere of race relations. I have lived with this subject and have been interested in these problems for a very long time. I have personally been involved in the education of children whose background or whose parents' background may be different from our own. I have not changed my mind on many of the facts which I have stated over the years. I repeat that if we have fallen down, it has been in the sphere of resources.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot escape the logic of his own argument. I do not put all the blame on any individual or group of individuals. I do not play the numbers game. In respect of the birth rate, did the right hon. Gentleman when Minister of Health not encourage immigrants to come into this country to help us run the National Health Service? Did he not make such appeals to people whose skins are of a different colour from our own? In so doing, did he imagine that they would not have children? Did he imagine that those children would be white? Of course he did not. It is no good implying, as I have heard the right hon. Gentleman imply, that he was never given the correct information and therefore did not understand the situation regarding the numbers of people coming into the country.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) pointed to areas such as my own—Slough, High Wycombe and others—as areas which have escaped some of the graver

1539
difficulties in the aggravation of social problems which immigration has accentuated. There are many reasons for this. This ties in with the comments made by the hon. Member for Handsworth. I do not pretend that we do not have difficulties in my area, because of course we do ; but my area is one in which we are always crying out for labour.
Slough was built up on a demand for labour. The Slough trading estate brought people from Wales, Scotland and Ireland and from other parts of the world to take up work there. There has always been work in Slough. Although we have had a housing problem, there has never been a situation involving the use of large old Victorian houses which have become slums lending themselves to overcrowding and a concentration of people. Because we are an area of this kind, we have escaped many of these problems, although we have some of the same problems which apply to some areas of London, Birmingham and other parts of the Midlands.
It is not the concentration of immigrants by itself that causes problems, except perhaps to the person who has a colour prejudice. What causes problems is the conditions in which people live. Nobody would seriously suggest that the appalling slums in Glasgow are caused because the people who live in them are white. The problems of the slums in Glasgow arise because of bad housing and inadequate accommodation. This has nothing to do with the colour of the people who live there, but arises because of the appalling conditions in the area. Unfortunately, a large number of immigrants and their children have concentrated on areas which are already deprived and inadequate in their housing provision. This is a fact and it is this sort of problem with which we must deal. We must also make sure that no artificial barriers are erected to prevent people from moving out of areas which are already overcrowded and which offer inadequate facilities. This has happened in many cases in respect of immigration.
I believe that for many years to come we shall have to deal with concentrations of people identifiable by their skin, whether or not they are immigrants, in certain areas of our large towns, partly because of the work situation, partly because they cannot afford to move anywhere
1540
else, and partly because many people like to live together. A similar situation arises when white emigrants go abroad. They tend to seek out people whom they know and who come from the same countries and backgrounds.
I do not regard that as alarming. What is alarming is the appalling conditions under which Commonwealth immigrants have to live when they come to this country. In every report of the Select Committee, whether it has dealt with education, housing or the environment, the Committee has called for more resources to deal with some of the very difficult problems, not all of them caused by immigrants, but all of them surrounding the density of immigrants in our deprived areas.
In the second volume of the report on education, for example, there are two comments which interest me greatly. The first occurs in paragraph 12 on page 3 which says that it is not clear why so many West Indian children in London and other areas are concentrated into schools for the educationally subnormal. It makes certain guesses and produces some suggestions. But it says that no one knows why this is. Then on page 91 there is a direct reference to the appalling child-minding conditions and facilities which exist. I believe that the report on housing also refers to this.
Unless we grasp the fact that the day-minding facilities for all children of working mothers in working class areas are appalling, we shall never see any improvement. We have to bear in mind that of 120,000 West Indian mothers with children under five, two-thirds go to work, that we have a third fewer day nursery places today than we had in 1945, and that more mothers are working.
It does not require a great deal of insight into education problems to understand that probably there are more poor working-class children and West Indian working-class children in appalling child-minding conditions in our large cities than anywhere else in the country and that this state of affairs is connected directly with the poor performances and the behavioural problems of West Indian children in many of our schools today. Of course, the same is true of many working-class children at the lower end of the social and economic groupings. I do not

1541
want to over-state the position in terms of West Indian children. However, they tend to live in the poorer areas of our cities because many of their mothers are unsupported and are forced to go to work for that and a variety of other reasons. The conditions under which their children are looked after are damaging them long before they ever get to school.
There was an extremely interesting article on the subject by Brian Jackson in last week's New Society. He goes into these matters in some detail and he writes of what he calls a typical mother in this situation in Manchester :
"She has a child and is short of money. She is a woman and almost certainly, in factory terms, unskilled. Probably she is black. If you are an unsupported mother and black, then whether you are mixing chocolates or counting deodorants, you must expect rock-bottom wages. Because money is hard to gain, overtime at double rates is gold. You never say no to work. … To earn … money in that situation (I'm talking of £16–£19 a week) you get up at 5.45 a.m., give a sleepy child a perfunctory and undemanded breakfast … carry him on a cold dawn to a sleepy, illegal minder … catch the 6.30 a.m. bus … clock in your card by 7 a.m.—and are glad to work … till 7 p.m. Pick up the child at a quarter to eight, struggle with the tired tot home, then an impossible supper, and sleep for him. … "
One of my first speeches in this House was about illegal child minding, and I want to repeat today what I said on that occasion. Unless and until the Department of Education and Science and the Department of Health and Social Security get together and decide on a completely different organisation for our pre-school children which does not separate the already disadvantaged away from education into day nurseries and to illegal child minders, the situation will never change.
The small nursery school programme that we have makes no contribution to these children. Part-time nursery education will not help them. Until we sort out this situation and rearrange our preschool opportunities for young children, we shall perpetuate a state of affairs whereby large numbers of poor working-class children, many of whom by definition are black, will start off unequal in our society.
On the basis of what I have seen for myself and the surveys which have been done by others, I am convinced that there is a causal relationship between the number of so-called ESN children in our
1542
schools and the appalling child-minding conditions in which many of these children have existed for a very long time. It is about time that the Secretary of State for Social Services and the Secretary of State for Education and Science got together with a view to sorting out this problem. Until it is done we shall continue to look at it in an isolated fashion, not connecting some of the causes.
There are other causes, of course. Bad housing is one. All sorts of deprivations contribute. But this is one of the causal factors and one that we have not yet managed to deal with. I am very happy that my party has made reference to this in our document dealing with education policy. I believe that all facilities for pre-school children, certainly from the age of three years, should be under the control of the Department of Education and Science. If that is not done, we shall deprive children who have the greatest need of educational stimulus at the age of three or four from having it. I believe that the Department of Education and Science and the Department for Health and Social Security have to get together to consider how they can best improve the situation. We must have more trained registered child minders and additional facilities for women who need to leave their children when they go out to work.
In 1968 the Nursery and Child Minders Act was amended to discourage illegal child minding, and we increased the penalties for such ventures. Since then, there have been five or six prosecutions. That is about all. I do not suggest that prosecutions help. However, much as I supported the amendment of the legislation, I was among those who pointed out at the time that it would fail if we did not increase the facilities for people to leave their children legally. As a result, illegal child minding went on, and it is increasing all the time. We have cut down our day nursery places by one-third. Today we have many more working mothers than we did in 1945, and even then facilities were considered to be inadequate.
We must also look more closely at what is going on in our schools. I take off my hat to the tremendous work done by teachers, often with inadequate resources and with knowledge and understanding that they have gained only as

1543
they have gone along. I salute them for their tremendous work in my constituency and in other parts of the country to deal with language and cultural difficulties and a host of other problems. Out we need a great deal more training. Despite figures given to me about the training of teachers working in multi-racial societies when I was a junior Minister, the amount of training available in our colleges of education is quite inadequate. It is beginning to improve, but it is nothing like what it should be.
There is another point that we must take on board, although in the last two or three years we have improved a little in this regard. Just as working-class children when they go to school, are presented with values that are a little foreign to them because they are usually middle-class values, so children with black or brown skins, with Asian or West Indian backgrounds, when they go to school, are presented with materials—visual aids, primary school readers, and so on—that rarely include them. They are excluded from it. Until we present to our children, both black and white, the real world in which they live and get them to understand that it is multiracial—I do not care whether they are in immigrant areas or not—we shall not convince immigrant children that they are included in our society because everything they see teaches them that they are not included.
A small multiparty working group sits in a kind of ad hoc way here from time to time to discuss this problem. Sometimes we have looked at comics and other material that is available to children. We have been appalled at the almost total exclusion of the black or brown child from so much of our reading and pictorial materials. I believe that the situation has improved over the last year or so. Many experiments are going on in universities and other places to try to get this balance right. I beg the Department of Education and Science to look at the matter and to find out where, for example, one can buy a birthday card for a black child in which he can see himself presented for what he is. These areas have been sadly neglected.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) that it is a tragedy that people with black or brown skins should be regarded as immigrants and that all immigrants should be regarded
1544
as black people. This is the measure of the failure of our society to present itself as multiracial.
I recall a situation when a young girl, born in this country of West Indian parents, came to help in a nursery with which I was connected. A mother said to her, "Where are you from, dear?" The child, who was about 15, said, in a London accent, "I am from Battersea." "No", said the mother, "where were you born?" The girl said, "I was born in Wolverhampton." The mother said," No, dear. I mean before that." This was a child born and educated in this country. How did she feel?
If we go on in the way that certain people have suggested, immigrants will never feel that they belong, the children of immigrants will never feel that they belong, and the indigenous population will never feel that immigrants' children born and brought up in our society belong here either.
I support the suggestion, accepted by the DES in this connection, that we should change our whole method of collecting statistics on immigrant children with our ten-year definition. I found this pretty useless during the short time that I was at the DES. I would be given a brief about a school and be told that it had 10 per cent. of immigrant children because the ten-year rule applied. Many black children are not immigrants according to the DES. I would go to the school and be told that it had 40 per cent. immigrant children. I would say, "But my brief tells me that it has only 10 per cent., or 12 per cent. immigrant children." The person with whom I was dealing would then look a little blank and say, "Yes, we have 40 per cent. black children here." This system has not been fair in analysing the problem. Nor has it been fair to the children in our schools.
I believe that it is important to redefine deprivation, recognising that it includes a variety of degrees of those who are deprived. It can include the Asian child who is deprived or deficient in language. That is one area of deprivation. It can include poverty, which can apply to both black and white children alike. It can include the inadequate home, which may not necessarily be poor—the home that is deprived in the sense not of poverty but of English culture and customs.

1545
I believe that the problem of the education of immigrant children should now be merged into the whole problem of the education of deprived children generally and that the concept of positive discrimination for all children in need should be applied fully and generously. We should break down the definition of those who are deprived or have special needs into the special needs that they have.
That does not mean that immigrant children are deprived children. They are not. Those born and brought up in this country often are not deprived. But whatever criteria are used to determine deprivation, it is certain that some will apply to a large number of immigrant children and to a substantial number of children of the indigenous population, and all these children, whether black or white, will be found largely, though not exclusively, in certain big industrial areas of this country. If we approach the problem in that way I believe that we shall begin to understand the many facets of deprivation and how we can best deal with the problem.
Great attempts have been made in our schools to avoid any form of discrimination among children. All that can be done has been done in our schools, with one or two exceptions, to try to avoid that discrimination. We all recognise that schools do not exist in a vacuum outside society and that the pressures and attitudes of parents and speeches made by various people in the country play a great part in separating and quickly dividing people into those who have prejudice and those who cannot seem to operate in a multiracial society.
People who came here as immigrants in the 1950s did not expect equal treatment. They regarded themselves as immigrants. But their children and grandchildren, as we are beginning to see, will demand and expect to be treated as equals. That is a perfectly healthy and normal situation. Unless we extend not only our attitudes but resources into these areas—whether for housing, education or whatever it may be—the expectations of those young people will not be fulfilled. If they are not fulfilled we shall be setting the scene for a great deal of trouble in this country. I am not despondent. I hope that the lessons and reports of the Select Committee on which
1546
I served in the early days will be heeded because what they demand is urgent.

ROYAL ASSENT
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts :

1. Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973.

2. Edinburgh Corporation (No. 2) Order Confirmation Act 1973.

IMMIGRATION AND RACE RELATIONS
Question again proposed, That this House do now adjourn.
8.18 p.m.
Mr. John Wilkinson: This is a good time to have a race relations debate. I had thought it was a time when there was no particular controversy affecting race relations and immigration. The Pakistan Act was safely on the statute book and it appeared from first figures that the Immigration Act 1971 was going well. Then my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) added an electric note of tension to the debate. But now we have had a thoughtful contribution, if somewhat lengthy, by the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), whose speech was well-informed and well researched.
I should like particularly to comment on the way the Home Secretary set the debate in its context. My right hon. Friend should once and for all have laid the ghost that has been stalking these corridors, if not the country, of the hordes of people who are still coming into Britain. I think he clearly showed beyond controversy that the intention of the Immigration Act, as declared in the Conservative Party's manifesto in 1970, has been maintained in that there have been substantial falls in the numbers of admissions since the introduction of that legislation.
In particular, over the past three years the number of admissions of heads of families has dropped by two-thirds. This

1547
is the most important category ; my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was quite right to make that clear. Also, over the past six years—I am afraid we cannot claim that the Immigration Act 1971 was responsible for this—the admission of dependants has dropped by just under two-thirds. In the number of total admissions over the past three years, there has been a reduction of about 30 per cent. Right across the board, therefore, there has been a curtailment of immigration, as the 1970 Conservative Party manifesto said would be the intention of the Immigration Act.
The Select Committee fulfils a particularly useful purpose. We are all very much aware, I think, of the family nature of immigrant settlement in the United Kingdom. If I were to take my right hon. and hon. Friends to my own city, I could show them clearly defined areas of settlement, areas which are particularly Bengali, others that are Gujerati, others which are Sikh, others that are Kashmiri and West Pakistani, and so on. In the United Kingdom the same pattern manifests itself nationwide. Certain areas are Sikh and some are West Indian, like Slough and other places.
It is only through the Select Committee that this House gets an overall national picture and can put into perspective the particularities of the local situation which individual Members may have learned from their own constituencies. It is especially important that the Select Committee should coninue to do its work, because it bridges the gulf which already exists in all too many people's minds between the legislators and the governed. The general public often believe that it is as if there are two nations in the State—those who live and work in the multicultural communities of our big industrial cities and those who plan and pass the laws which regulate their existence—with the soundest intentions no doubt but perhaps, in the eyes of the general public, with very little apparent practical first-hand experience of the situation.
The Select Committee lays that ghost as well, because it shows that the legislators not only understand their own patch but also go out into the country to get a nationwide impression of the scene. I
1548
am particularly pleased also that the Home Secretary made a particular point of coming to Bradford just after the Uganda Asian issue exploded on the political scene, and his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has recently been to my constituency.
I do not think that the basic issue of citizenship has yet been tackled. We have heard from the Home Office that a review is being conducted into this matter, but I do not know what has happened to it. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can tell us. This is important. Those who were involved in the passage of the Bangladesh and Pakistan Bills, particularly the latter, in the last Session, will realise how important this issue is. It has an implicit importance from the point of view of immigration control for United Kingdom and colonies passport holders ; it could, at least notionally, have one.
More importantly, the anomaly that exists most transparently was drawn to our attention by the hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), who mentioned the fact that Commonwealth citizens can come here on work permits to work on a temporary basis yet, because they are Commonwealth citizens, and although they are here for only a temporary period, they enjoy the full rights of citizenship as British subjects in the exercise of the franchise.
I have always believed that it was wrong to draw distinctions in this way between Commonwealth citizens and other immigrants.
This error is highlighted further by the situation over Pakistan nationals. It was highlighted over many years by the situation of East European nationals who came in, perhaps, a generation or so ago and who still cannot enjoy the franchise, whereas Commonwealth citizens, many of whom now will be coming in for only a short time to work, will continue to be able to vote as they did previously. It is high time that the Home Office addressed itself to this problem.
On the matter of statistics, it always amazes me that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West claims that he is the only person who somehow saw the light on the 10-year rule and the application of Depart

1549
ment of Education and Science statistics to the immigrant child. There are many areas of the country—my own borough of Bradford is one—where we have a much more liberal definition of the immigrant child and as a result have been able to introduce much more positive policies for solving the language problem in particular.
In this regard, I have always welcomed the language reception centre scheme which we have operated in my part of Yorkshire for many years. It offers widespread advantages which could be copied by other local education authorities. It ensures that the special skills to which the hon. Member for Eton and Slough rightly referred can be brought to bear where they are most needed—that is, to make the immigrant child aware of the English scene, English culture, the English pattern of behaviour and life and, above all, the English language before he is thrown into the school system.
Without that or some similar system, there is a grave danger that not only will English schoolchildren suffer but the immigrant children will never catch up. So this is a very important scheme which we have operated in Bradford. It is a pity that the Select Committee could not visit the county borough—I understand why it could not—but I am glad that it will come this Session. This example could be followed more widely. The proposals of the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the White Paper "Framework for Expansion", the emphasis on nursery education in particular, will help, but more still needs to be done, particularly in relation to child-minding and so on.
I am also a believer in dispersal. This is a contentious issue which emphasises again the difference between different localities. In my locality it works well on the whole. There are stresses and strains, tensions and great difficulties ; I appreciate that. Not only do many immigrant parents resent the fact that their children cannot go to the neighbourhood school, but many English parents who have children in what would otherwise be all-white schools find immigrant children in their midst. None the less, on balance, to keep the proportions
1550
reasonable, I think that the system can be more widely followed than it is.
In the area of police-immigrant relations and community relations per se, I welcome the fact that more money is going to the deprived areas, especially an extra £6 million which was due to go to Uganda. This will be very glad tidings for those who were apprehensive about the reception of Ugandan refugees into this country. The funny thing is—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will confirm this—that the money will go to the "red" areas which did not in the first instance look like getting so many Gujarati and other Ugandan Asians. That is how matters are turning out. The areas which need the money most will be getting it, which is good Conservative practice.
As regards dependants, I have tried to answer the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) about the Pakistani situation. If one looks at the Pakistani picture, one finds that there has been a very dramatic fall in the numbers of dependants. In 1969, the last full year under the previous administration for which we have statistics, the number of people coming in on work permits from Pakistan was 482, while in 1972 the figure was 75. So the number of heads of families who have been admitted is greatly reduced, and the number of dependants has dropped in the same period from 11,880 to 5,476.
I know that there are very long queues and there is immense pressure at our embassy in Pakistan but the total number of dependants coming from India presents a much more serious situation in the sense that there are more coming in and the percentage drop of dependants from India is far less substantial. But in my own area of Bradford the pressure of dependants is declining and, on current projections, should continue to do so.
I believe that when looking at police-immigrant relations it is right to bring the family background into the picture, and in many instances that is the great difference between the Asians and the West Indians. The West Indian situation is one of far less stable families, whereas families are right at the centre of Indian and Pakistani culture. So that when looking at dependants one must recognise

1551
that having a stable family background will make young people much less likely to be at odds with the police. This is a factor which should be brought out when people argue against the admission of any dependants. Part of the reason why relations between Asians and the police have been so good is that they are now establishing stable family relationships in the United Kingdom.
Funnily enough, the aims of the immigrant community are essentially bourgeois. They are the aims which my own party traditionally espouses—to buy a home, to save, to establish a business and, if possible, to send their children to a grammar school ; in other words, to make the most of their opportunities. It is important that those opportunities should be equal. That principle lies at the very heart of the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
I was deeply shocked by the apocalyptic tone of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, particularly when he talked about the young people in our society and the under-25s, because on the whole I find them admirable people whether they come from the English community, the Pakistani community or whatever it is. Of course, there are exceptions and there are those who let their fellows down. I wish that my right hon. Friend had reminded the House of the television programme about the soldiers of the Royal Greenjackets serving in Ulster, which I believe was shown on Tuesday night, in which there was a young West Indian man sharing the dangers, the burdens and the responsibilities of his fellows in total equality. That reminded me of the visit I made to the Commonwealth cemetery in Singapore, to which I referred in the Standing Committee on the Pakistan Bill. Walking down the lines of graves, I felt as if I were out canvassing in my own constituency. There is much in our history that binds us to Commonwealth immigrants, but it is much more important that we tackle the problems of the future realistically, constructively and positively. That is my aim, and I know that it is the aim of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
8.33 p.m.
Mr. Guy Barnett: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for
1552
Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) as a fellow member of the Select Committee. In doing so I recall the close attention to detail which he has shown as a relatively new member of the Committee, as indeed I am myself.
I think the hon. Member will agree that this has been a valuable debate, and I would even include the speech of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). It has been so valuable that it is perhaps a reflection on this House that, to my knowledge, it is the first debate we have had on reports of this Select Committee. But it is perhaps a pity that this is, as it were, an omnibus debate in which the Home Secretary has, quite properly, concentrated his attention on immigration matters and in which a whole range of subjects has been raised.
I want to concentrate my attention on the recent report on education, for two reasons : first, because that was the report which I followed right the way through as a member of the Select Committee ; and secondly, because before becoming a Member of the House I was primarily concerned with education in the work I was doing.
I want first to look at the politics of race relations. Some hon. Members in the debate have referred to this matter, but it is important that we establish the fact that up to date, or, to be more precise, up to the publication of the Select Committee's report, there were broadly two points of view taken by the great majority of people in politics and outside them on the subject of race relations. First there is the point of view that we heard from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West which I will not attempt to summarise. The second, however, is the view which, to a greater or lesser degree, has been held by a great majority of people concerned with race relations. This view has been one in which we have attempted to play down the issues, to pretend sometimes that there were no problems, to be anxious about the facts of the situation and the statistics becoming too well known ; and to be pushed constantly by public opinion and by the warnings that came from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West and others of the dangers of an increase in immigration into this country.

1553
Ever since immigration into Britain began, the liberals have been on the defensive the whole time, being pushed gradually to greater and greater restriction of immigration, because of the arguments which came from the grass roots and the warnings which came from people like the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. This is an unsatisfactory situation and one which I deplore.
One of the reasons why I was glad to be a member of the Select Committee, glad to support its recommendations and glad that it came up honestly and clearly with what it saw the situation to be, was that I thought this might be the watershed, the beginning of recognition by all of us, whatever view we may take about race relations, that if we are to have a serious, sensible policy on race relations, whether it refers to housing, education or anything else, we must have the facts absolutely clear. The facts should not be in dispute, as so often they have been in the past. In a sense, therefore, I would say that if the result of the campaign of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, Southwest has been that at long last we are beginning to face the facts, perhaps that is a benefit which has come from his campaign though possibly his motives for that campaign differ largely from mine.
It seems very odd that those of us who are anxious to build a multiracial society in Britain and anxious for the resources which have been mentioned in the debate should have been so much on the defensive. If we were anxious to have more resources devoted to items such as language training in our schools and to the sort of problems that are faced by immigrant families, it seems that we should have welcomed the facts on immigration and the public knowledge that the Select Committee has put before the House. These are arguments for devoting larger resources to the problems which arise as a consequence of immigration. We should welcome them instead of attempting to play down the consequences and very largely, therefore, failing to obtain the resources that we need.
I have never believed since I have been in politics that anyone ever wins a political argument by attempting to neglect or to suppress such facts as exist. It is right that we bring out the facts, whatever the consequences may be. Only by doing
1554
that, by building a case on the information that we have, have we any hope of obtaining the resources that we need to do the job. One of the arguments, however, for not producing the facts, for playing them down, is that if we bring out the facts we only increase the amount of racialism and make the feeling of tension greater than it otherwise would be. Experience in this country does not bear that out.
We state in the report :
"To pretend that they do not exist can only serve the cause of those who wish to see race relations reach a state of explosion."
That sentence comes in paragraph 20 of the report. As far as I know, it is the only place in the report where we use the word "explosion".
It is interesting to note some of the Press comments on the Select Committee's report. Many of the newspapers which commented on it seized on the word "explosion". For example, The Guardian stated :
"MPs foresee racial explosion".
We did no such thing. What we stated was that we did not want to serve the cause of those who wished to see race relations reach a state of explosion, which is rather different. The Yorkshire Post stated :
"Britain warned about race explosion risk".
Those were not the words of the report. They were a travesty of what we said.
Those examples illustrate the racially charged atmosphere in which the report was published. That atmosphere was in part due to the fact that for years we have attempted to play down the facts of the situation. The right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West mentioned statistics, as he frequently does. Another type of newspaper headline which we got after the report was :
"MPs say figures being faked".
This is all an indication that, as a consequence of not placing the facts squarely before the country, we probably lose rather than gain.
Hon. Members have referred to Liverpool. I was one of the members of the Select Committee who visited Liverpool. I was depressed by what I saw there. It is a city in which there is racial tension.

1555
and the chairman of the education committee told the Committee that the situation was
"in danger of getting worse"
What previous speakers have not mentioned is the interesting contrast between Liverpool and Bolton. I was enormously encouraged by Bolton. The great contrast between the two cities is that immigration into Liverpool has been long term while in Bolton it is a recent phenomenon. In Liverpool little has been done, and little attempt appears to have been made over the years to tackle the problem. Because of the very suddenness and size of immigration into Bolton, action was taken immediately. I imagine that it was seen by the education committee as an emergency situation demanding emergency action.
We saw some exciting developments in Bolton. We saw, for instance, a reception centre for primary children with 12 well qualified teachers all doing a first-class job. We also saw English being taught in a comprehensive school. This was being done within the school and thus had its own advantages. The specialists in English language teaching were going into lessons on English, domestic science and other subjects, reminding the teachers of those subjects that they were also teachers of English. That was a particularly important benefit as a result of the language work being done in the school. The contrast between Liverpool and Bolton needs to be specially marked by the Department of Education and Science.
In travelling round the country, the Select Committee gained a general impression of enormous variation between one area and another in the kind of resources that were being put into the job and the success which was being achieved, as a result, from the work being done. Ultimately that reflects to a degree upon the Department of Education and Science.
It is little short of extraordinary that for years the Department has been collecting statistics which it appears to have recognised were useless. The Secretary of State told us when she gave evidence to the Committee, as we see at paragraph 1224 of the evidence, that
1556
"My Department makes no use of them whatsoever except to publish them. They do not form the basis of any grant from my department."
It is extraordinary that for all those years the statistics were collected and that when she was asked why the Department went on collecting them the right hon. Lady said that if it did not collect them the allegation might be made that
"we were trying to conceal something that had prevously been revealed".
That illustrates the defensive attitude taken by so many people to the problems of race relations.
There are one or two things the Department must take seriously. First, we make a recommendation about the need for an immigrant advisory unit within the Department. We were amazed to discover that no such unit existed. It is little wonder that so little guidance and leadership have been given by the Department in that sphere.
There is one matter that does not appear in the report but must be mentioned because it is important. This country has an immense educational capital in the number of people who have worked on contracts overseas in developing countries or as volunteers teaching in schools. In doing that work they have had to learn how to teach English as a second language. How little have we capitalised on all that experience! It is extraordinary that for years the Overseas Development Administration, or the Overseas Development Ministry before it, has never made available the information it could have made available about the many contract teachers who have worked overseas and could have had an important rôle in our schools if they had been given the proper encouragement to go there. They possess skills that are vitally needed in this important subject of English language teaching to which the Select Committee has drawn attention.
I have criticised the Department of Education and Science. Thank goodness we were not entirely dependent on it. Thank goodness there are plenty of power centres running right the way through out education system. We have them in the local education authorities. Among those we saw, I found Leicester and Bolton outstanding in that respect. We have power centres also in the shape of our teachers.

1557
I want to mention in particular one body that gave evidence to us, the Association for the Education of Pupils from Overseas, now renamed the National Association for Multi-Racial Education. It is not just a band of teachers who happen to have a cause. It is a group of teachers who, because they have had no assistance from anywhere else, to begin with at any rate, have banded together and worked out schemes of work to cope with a situation no one had told them how to cope with. They hold first-class conferences designed to assist teachers in the work they need to do in multi-racial schools. I spoke at one of their conferences at Edgehill College of Education.
It is a great shame that the Department of Education and Science has taken away the association's small grant of £500 a year. In view of the value of the work the association is doing, one of the first things the Department should do is to step up the assistance to it. The association's work is vital. The initiative of the teachers concerned and the expertise they already possess, which does not exist in many other parts of the country, should not be lightly thrown away or neglected.
Many hon. Members may have read in the Sunday Times of a project I know well at Harambee House, Islington which is run by Brother Herman. Some of these black projects, if that is how I may describe them, are doing first-class work, and anyone who reads that Sunday Times article will see the realities of the work which is being done.
There are many projects, a great number of them in London but some in other parts of the country as well. I hope that the Home Secretary will try to ensure that money from urban aid is channelled direct to such projects to give them encouragement. I know that this has already been suggested today. These projects, however, are doing something to try to restore the confidence and self-respect of the new immigrant communities that have settled here.
8.51 p.m.
Mr. Norman Fowler: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy Barnett). Perhaps I may use the first 10 seconds of my 10 minutes to say how sad it is that some hon. Members have spoken for 27 or 25 minutes which has had the effect
1558
of excluding from the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Dorking (Sir G. Sinclair).
There are too many debates on this general subject in which we hear a great deal about immigration policy and not enough about race relations. Today's debate has been an exception to that. From the outset we should recognise the one simple fact that this country has to face serious questions of race relations. Whatever changes we make in future immigration policy, whatever kind of repatriation scheme we introduce, there will still be a substantial coloured population in Britain.
Many coloured people have lived in this country for many years and many were born here. I take a very restrictive view on immigration policy but it would be wrong and we would be deceiving ourselves to think that future immigration policy would solve the present problems. We must face up to the problems of the present and the future which are created by race relations.
There is one other fact to note. There is a very close connection—and here I disagree with the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor) who I regret is not here now after her long speech—between immigration policy and race relations. To put it at its most obvious there will be clear resentment in the home population if too many newcomers are allowed into the country.
What matters here is what the public feel on this question. I suggest that this is not something peculiar to this country. It is a fact of life in Europe as well—even in a country such as Holland. There are two areas I should like to deal with before I come to my general remarks about race relations. In these areas immigration policy and race relations are connected. The first of them, touched upon in the report, is illegal immigration. The very fact of illegal immigration damages immigration policy because it makes that policy seem absurd.
However, the even greater damage is that it help to poison relations by creating an atmosphere of suspicion which harms no one more than those who came to this country legally. It is sometimes claimed that illegal immigration is not a big problem. I say only that this is not the view of the police or immigration officers who have to combat it.

1559
One of my abiding memories of visits to Asia—and the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson) is a great expert on the subject—is the enormous pressure upon the immigration officers in those Asian countries. It is necessary only to look at the figures in the report we produced, particularly in connection with the office in Islamabad, to see the scale of the difficulty. The pressure caused by attempts at illegal immigration is enormous. I was sad to hear what the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) said about the Islamabad office and about the discourtesy shown there by the immigration officers. I do not think that that view would have been shared by any of the Members who went on the Select Committee's visit to Pakistan.
Some people claim that we would counter the difficulty by introducing identity cards of some kind. I do not agree. I have no fundamental objection, but I simply do not think that that would be an effective policy. Anyone who thinks that it would be has only to look at the situation in France where there is a system of identity cards but where illegal immigration still continues.
A much more hopeful and realistic approach to the problem is to tackle it at the source, at the point of work, and to make meaningful checks on national insurance cards. I was, therefore, very glad to hear the announcement my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Sate for Social Services made on this very question. What concerns me is that according to reports I am now receiving this scheme, although announced in the House, is either not in force or is only partly in force. My view is that such a scheme is both sensible and realistic, and I should very much like to know what the state of play with it now is.
I accept that the entire answer to the problem does not lie in this country. It is not unrealistic of us to expect that the countries of source also tackle this problem of illegal immigration into this country. I have a very clear recollection of going to the emigration office in one of these countries and looking out of the window of the crowded office where the emigration officers were under enormous pressure and seeing only a few hundred
1560
yards away the tents of people providing equipment and documents for illegal immigration into this country. It is not unrealistic, therefore, for us to ask for more co-operation to overcome what I am sure both sides of the House regard as a cruel, nasty and disgusting trade.
The second point I want to make, although I must do so very briefly, is that there is a relation between immigration policy and race relations and dependants. We should be in no doubt about what is happening at the moment. If young people come into this country and do not have a full-time education the result will be that we shall be condemning them to be the second-class citizens of the future ; they will become the equivalent of foreign labour in Europe.
Lastly, I would draw attention to the very valuable part of the report touching on race relations and the police, as did the right hon. Member for Stechford. We must recognise that the police are the obvious representatives of our society and in this matter of race relations they have a very heavy responsibility indeed. Let me say straight away that they discharge that responsibility very well. The responses from the coloured communities vary enormously. The response from the Asian community is far more friendly and helpful than the response from the West Indian community, particularly the young West Indians.
We face one difficulty which the right hon. Gentleman did not touch upon and that is, as became clear from our travels, that there are some people who are prepared to exploit the difficulties there are. It would be unrealistic for us not to face that. The police should not try to concentrate upon countering those people. By all means counter them in argument, but they are not likely to be won over. The police should concentrate on winning the middle ground in the immigrant communities, those among the coloured population who are not at the extremes. It is not an unrealistic goal in any sense.
The general relations between the police and the public in this country are certainly the envy of Europe, of the European police forces and, I suspect, of police forces all over the world. The police depend on public co-operation but this is a changing thing and not something which remains static or which can be taken for granted.

1561
Obviously, new situations arise. One new situation is that of the coloured minority. The police must develop policies and techniques and, particularly, the new complaints system which is being introduced. Many people would accept that the police in this country are fair in their dealings with the public at large.
I have had perforce to be brief, but I have made various points and would appreciate an answer from the Under-Secretary of State, particularly about national insurance cards. But the Government's general approach on immigration and on race relations is the right one and it deserves support.
9.2 p.m.
Mr. John Fraser: I hope that I shall not be regarded as churlish in saying that I am not entirely happy with the title accorded to the debate. Immigration has less and less relevance—I would not say no relevance—to the subject of race relations. Race relations is the matter of overwhelming importance.
I was disappointed that out of a speech of 48 minutes only 10 minutes was spent by the Home Secretary on talking about race relations and the other 38 minutes talking not about immigration but about immigration from the Commonwealth. A casual glance at the latest quarterly immigration figures shows that if immigration has any importance, it includes not just immigration from the Commonwealth but equally immigration of people who are aliens, people who, unlike the West Indians, speak no English.
The Home Secretary gave us figures of a reduction in a comparable nine-month period from 3,924 immigrants from the Commonwealth in 1970 to 1,055 in 1973. That seems to pale into insignificance when one examines the same figures of foreign immigration to this country during a period of only three months. During the three months ended September, 6,048 foreign nationals who do not speak English came here, 3,584 for more than 12 months, plus 2,886 EEC nationals. Other figures are available in the Library. One cannot talk of Commonwealth immigration in perspective without these figures. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will do just that.
1562
The paramount issue is that of race relations. Racialism is a disease rather than an accurate weapon. Once it starts spreading, it affects not only the people the disease is aimed at—if one can aim a disease—but all inside our community.
Race relations concern 1½ million coloured people in the United Kingdom, their dignity, their rights and their duties as citizens, their hopes and expectations in what is a closely-knit and interdependent society. Just because we are an interdependent and a largely urban society, race relations are not about the needs of coloured people, but the degree of tolerance, harmony and understanding between all people—black, brown and white—in this nation. As one community relations officer put it to me, acidly but truly, race relations are about different races in the same community sharing the same kind of inequality. If there is no parity between identifiable segments of our community when they live and work with other segments in the community, it is all of us in the end who will suffer.
Anyone who doubts the proposition that race relations matter to the whole community has to look not at Southern Africa, or at the civil war in a Portuguese colony or at a sprawling American city, but across St. George's Channel to the situation in Northern Ireland, where we see the harm done to the whole community when discrimination becomes endemic over a number of years. Britain is an incontestably multiracial society, and what matters to all of us, black and while, is that it should be a harmonious society. Race relations are of crucial importance to the quality of life of all our inhabitants, no matter what their colour.
Perhaps there is a selfish reason for achieving good community relations. But if there were no reasons of self-interest I would still regard it as an unavoidable moral challenge to preserve equal treatment under the law, which largely we have, and equal treatment in practice, which largely we do not have. I think I speak for all my right hon. and hon. Friends and for very many people outside the House as well in supporting this proposition.

1563
I get particularly gloomy when I listen to the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). Sometimes we all get gloomy about the prospects for race relations in this country, but when we do we should be heartened by the kind of contributions made in the debate today, by the work of the all-party Select Committee and by the very great good will of all the major political parties—there are exceptions among the smaller ones—by the Churches, by the voluntary organistions and by, not least, people whose attitude towards race relations becomes more and more dedicated the more they come into contact with immigrant communities.
In going round schools and other institutions I am increasingly struck by the fact that people who may have had some degree of prejudice before they started teaching and had contact with immigrant communities find themselves in that situation becoming more and more dedicated to achieving proper and good racial harmony throughout the country.
It is bad enough that we have a society already where children especially, in the words of "Born to Fail", suffer adversity after adversity heaped upon them even before birth. How much worse is it that children particularly should have another adversity, that of colour, placed upon them. It is bad enough that wealth and power and class both illustrate and reproduce too often in their own image inequality which Socialists and others find unacceptable. It is even worse when the adversity of discrimination is added to all these other inequalities.
I want to turn for a moment to immigration, which I believe is only one adjunct of race relations policies. Here I want to comment on the speech made by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. He, of course, carried his speech far beyond immigration. He used an euphemism about uniting families the other way round. I suppose he might also use the euphemism "Reverse migration".
I shall not argue numbers with the right hon. Gentleman. He did not spell out numbers clearly. He gave us one figure, his estimate of a 2 million coloured population. I point out to him that from
1564
1961 to 1971, a period of fairly heavy immigration of all types, the total population of the country increased by only 1,670,000, although he put the coloured population as being 2 million at the end of that period.
Numbers, however, are not important. Many of our quarrels with the right hon. Gentleman are that his objection to immigration and his concern and worry are about race and about colour. That is the classic racialist. I do not use the word in the vituperative sense, but it is racialism, treating people because of their ethnic background and colour as being different and deserving of different treatment. To use the word "colour" without qualification stigmatises the kind of child mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Miss Lestor), the kind of girl who comes from Battersea, who was born in Wolverhampton and who happens to be coloured. To treat that kind of person as being someone different is racialism.
The right hon. Gentleman is eloquent, intelligent and experienced. What I find so sad is that he has so little to say about achieving good race relations. He does so little and says so little to redress the effect of some of his words. The right hon. Gentleman and I and many others represent multiracial constituencies. We all regard it as being our duty to say and do things which will make relations inside our constituencies more harmonious. Many of us work on the reasonable assumption that a large coloured population, say 1,500,000 to 2 million, is a permanent feature. We recognise the reality of that and we try as constituency Members to achieve harmony.
Therefore, immigration is only an adjunct of race relations. Just as important, if not more so, are the kind of things that the Select Committee has been discussing—housing, education, civil liberties, employment and training. We have to stop talking about coloured people, about black people as being immigrants. As the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) said, it is a misuse of the English language. The people who read about immigration know exactly what is intended : that it is a debate about black and coloured people, and it is about time we stopped talking about coloured people as being immigrants.

1565
The word "immigrant" for many refers to an historical fact. For half a million coloured people in this country the word "immigrant" is totally inaccurate because they were born here and they are part of a new generation of black British. In my view it is not the regulation of entry into the country that matters and is objectionable ; it is whether the operation of control is done in a fair and unbiased manner so that it does not have a backlash effect inside the community here. There are one or two areas where the operation of immigration policy exacerbates poor race relations. When the Government introduced their last set of immigration rules and the concept of grand-patriality, they produced such an adverse effect.
If entry to this country is to be built upon links, I can tell the Minister that the links between Jamaica and this country are far longer established than any of those between this country and Australia and New Zealand. The family links in my constituency between the United Kingdom and Jamaica are far greater in number than those between Commonwealth countries and the United Kingdom. We ought not to discriminate as between one Commonwealth country and another. The grand-patriality clause had a backlash effect, as does the use of retrospective legislation.
I do not deny for one moment the necessity to stamp out illegal immigration That is absolutely right. Such immigration is bad for race relations. Equally, I believe that the introduction of retrospective legislation—to use the words of another place, achieved by "labyrinthian verbiage"—also has an adverse effect. So do police raids to find illegal immigrants and the demanding of passports from people long established in this country. I hope that, in framing legislation, law, rules and practice procedure, the Government will have some regard to the adverse effect which these can have upon well-established and sometimes British-born communities.
Mr. Wilkinson: Would the hon. Gentleman's party, if in Government, amend the 1971 Immigration Act to delete the retrospective provision, or would it draft a totally new Act?
Mr. Fraser: I will not be drawn into setting forth a draft of a new Immigration
1566
Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mrs. Shirley Williams) and others of my right hon. and hon. Friends made clear in a motion dealing with illegal immigration and debated in the House what our position was. If the hon. Gentleman refers to that motion, he will see that the matter is set out formally. All that is necessary is to declare an amnesty for all those who came in before the Immigration Act 1971 received the Royal Assent—that is to say, before 31st December 1971. I will not be drawn further on that.
I turn to another way in which immigration affects race relations and about which concern has been expressed on both sides of the House. Concern was expressed by the Select Committee in the education report which makes clear that, the longer the entry of children to the United Kingdom is delayed, the greater the problems of learning English as a second language and the greater the problems of some West Indian children learning standard English. The problem of catching up is referred to in paragraphs 204 and 231 of the report on coloured school leavers, and I support what is said there.
That report did not distinguish between the late arrival child who comes with his parents and the late arrival child who comes long after the parents have settled here. A child who has spent some years in a Commonwealth country and who comes to join his parents who are established here is met with the shock of the language change, a change of environment and a change of culture. What is more, he suffers a fracture of emotional ties with his foster-parents or substitute parents in his own country and, in addition, the task of building new emotional bonds with his natural parents in this country. That transition can be an enormous task which makes great demands on a child's intelligence and emotional resources.
Parents must be encouraged to have their children join them as soon as possible in a child's life. Secondly, administrative delays in children coming to join their parents should be eliminated, and in the allocation of entry certificates preference should be given to families that come as a single unit and do not have to endure long periods of separation.

1567
The Government have before them 152 recommendations from four Select Committee reports and a good deal of other advice. It is possible to be overwhelmed by advice on how to achieve good community relations. We should be guided by four factors. First, the central enemy is racialism. If there were no racialism, we should not have to consider all these reports. Racialism is a deeply engrained habit. Even in the writings of Rousseau there are passages in "Education and Emile" about the inferiority of coloured people. That is the first thing that must be attacked.
Secondly, we must remember that many coloured people share the problems of a deprived white community and that the presence of coloured minorities illustrates rather than creates problems which are attributed to immigration. Those problems are shared to a greater or lesser degree by black people and white people. They share the canker of poor housing, multiple accommodation and homelessness. They share the inadequacies in the education system, the need for nursery education, the problem of illegal child minding to which my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough referred and the lack of play space. We should not imagine for one moment that squalor and colour are necessarily linked together. They are not.
If all the statistics concerning coloured children in schools were published, one would see that many affluent private schools achieve a majority coloured intake. It is wrong always to equate colour and deprivation. Equally, deprivation is often shared by white counterparts. It is illustrated by immigration to this country.
Thirdly, we must stop treating ethnic minorities as homogeneous units. There are wide differences between Caribbean immigrants and Asian immigrants. They must be treated as individual units and the people themselves as individuals.
The fourth principle is that in so many debates, including this one, we talk about these matters in the absence of those who are most concerned—namely, the black people. For example, the Select Committee recommends that in some cases there should be dispersal. Whether that is right or wrong can only be settled ultimately when we begin to take the
1568
views of black and coloured people. We should be wary about coming to conclusions when the people most concerned cannot take part in the debate.
Equally, black people and coloured people have a considerable duty to assert leadership. They must not expect all the answers to come from us. We need leadership from the coloured community on black people joining the police. We need leadership concerning the duties of parents to their children in schools. Whilst we should not be arrogant, and whilst we should take proper account of their views, we must demand that they put forward their views.
I now turn to the recommendations of the Race Relations Board. It is important that the Government should amend the Race Relations Act 1968. First, it would be symbolic. The Conservative Opposition voted against the Race Relations Bill in 1968. It would be effective if the Government were now to demon-state their willingness to accept the advice of the Race Relations Board to amend the Act. That would have symbolic significance.
Mr. Bidwell: There was mixed feeling in the Conservative Party. I think my hon. Friend is wrong to suggest that the official position of the Opposition in 1968 was one of opposition.
Mr. Fraser: I think that the Second Reading of the 1968 Bill was voted against by the official Conservative Opposition.
Mr. Powell: Yes.
Mr. Fraser: They did not vote against it on Third Reading but they did so on Second Reading.
The Race Relations Board has found that discrimination is not likely to be attacked or discovered on the basis of individual complaints. The board suggests—and I agree—that to complain is not a natural phenomenon. Secondly, it suggests that a complainant frequently experiences delay. Thirdly, the board suggests that a complainant receives no general monetary compensation. It may well be that he will be humiliated if his complaint is not upheld. In using the complaints procedure, we expect individuals to show a great deal of perception and courage.

1569
We must recognise that discrimination and racialism are collective matters which far too often are passively accepted. They cannot be rooted out only by individuals putting forward their complaints. The board emphasised that in its 1971 report. It reiterated the point in its latest report. It recommends that it be given powers to investigate where no individual acts of discrimination are suspected. The board considers that it should have the power to investigate on its own initiative. It quotes as an example the Factories Acts, and suggests that prevention is a much better way of dealing with the matter than to wait for complaints from individuals.
The board believes that it should have the power to obtain information. Unless it has that power, it is impossible to monitor the degree of discrimination which may take place in private industry. Other proposed amendments have been referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins).
Further, I believe that the Government could write in a fair employment clause. That suggestion was spelt out in the Select Committee's reports. It could be written into Government contracts that local authorities should be encouraged to write in fair employment clauses and to monitor the contracts and adopt a much more positive attitude towards ensuring that discrimination does not take place in employment.
We should also seek to ensure that there are proper promotion prospects for coloured people. It is not just the refusal of a job that hurts. It is the fact that coloured people are often stratified in one particular job on a night shift or in one section of a factory. It is very difficult for coloured people in a job who do not get promotion. I hope that there will be a fair employment census to go into these matters, and I urge the Government to ensure that there will be equal opportunities. I also urge my comrades in the trade union movement to monitor employment and promotion opportunities for coloured people.
In terms of both housing and education a great many coloured children, though not all, face social problems which are different in severity as between one part of the country and another. The coloured population is disproportionately
1570
involved in the crisis in our cities. The coloured population is not the only section of the population that is vulnerable in this way. The programme of urban renewal has been pursued without a proper appreciation of the problems which both coloured people and white people will face.
I was amazed at Question Time to hear the Home Secretary say that a Conservative Government had managed to build more prisons than a Labour Government had done. I only wish that the Secretary of State for the Environment would come to the House to say that more houses were being built in our city centres and that more money was being devoted to urban renewal. But if the Home Secretary followed the example of the Secretary of State for the Environment, he would be more likely to come to the House to ask for improvement grants for prisons.
I should like to pick up some recommendations which I believe should be implemented. I agree with the ending of the collection of immigrant statistics about schoolchildren, and the argument on this score has been well made out. But it is important that we should have some method of assessing deprivation in terms of children, whatever their colour. I believe that there should be an index, or some other method, to assess the need to teach English as a second language or to teach standard English to children who come from patois backgrounds. We must pursue a policy of positive discrimination in this respect to give people equal opportunities.
Proposals for special training of teachers with a special awareness of these problems should be pursued by the Department of Education and Science. I find it remarkable that the Department has no immigration advisory unit. We must provide curricula more relevant to children whose parents came from different backgrounds from our own. We also need to review thoroughly cultural and class bias in our curricula and literature. I hope that the Department of Education and Science will bring pressure on examining boards to bring in more examinations on the lines of Mode 3 CSE. Perhaps there could be a Mode 3 "O" level examination to enable teaching to be more meaningful and relevant in these circumstances.

1571
I hope that there will also be an investigation into the situation involving West Indian children being placed in schools for the educationally subnormal. There should be an inquiry to identify the link in respect of poor language performance, behavioural problems and what is now described as educational subnormality. West Indian children are frequently stigmatised by being sent to schools for the subnormal. What we need to stigmatise is the method of teaching applied to these children. There is nothing wrong with the children. What is wrong is the education system itself.
I turn to the subject of urban aid. I agreed wholeheartedly when the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said that we were not matching the task we face with adequate resources. The increases mentioned by the Home Secretary are extremely welcome, but the provision of an extra £2 million or £3 million a year does not in the slightest match the problems of educational deprivation or of urban renewal—problems which face people whatever their colour. The resources have to be very much greater than they are at present. It is important that they should be applied now.
We have many young coloured children in our schools who face educational disadvantage—a greater proportion of black children than white children as a percentage of their respective populations. Unless we apply the resources now we shall find the cost of remedying inadequacies in our system very much more later.
This has been a wide-ranging debate. The most important feature to come out of it has been the expression of great good will and of good intentions to achieve better community relations. We ask the Government to do a great deal. I have mentioned only a fraction of what we should like them to do. But it is not enough simply to ask them to do more. It is not enough to ask their agencies and institutions to do more. There is a responsibility on us all individually to achieve better community relations in our speeches and in our work in our constituencies and in this House. There is also a great responsibility upon each political party to do this. By recruiting immigrants and members of
1572
ethnic minorities the political parties themselves display qualities of integration. They can set an example in getting people together and deciding their future jointly. No party can claim to be multiracial in its objectives if it is not multiracial in its membership and in the representatives whom it sends to local authorities and ultimately to this House.
In all these ways I believe that we can achieve better community relations and that the prospects for the future can be bright. If we do not achieve good community relations, I dread to think of the cost of failure.
9.32 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Lane): This has been a very useful debate and, to adopt a word used by a number of hon. Members, a candid debate. On the whole, it has also been encouragingly constructive. Unlike some hon. Members, I am glad that we have had a debate on such a wide canvas covering both the problems of immigration and these great issues of race relations. The two are very closely inter-related.
We are all aware that it is not easy to reconcile tight immigration control with positive work for better race relations. No one going round the country talking to people working in the field can fail to see the difficulties. On the other hand, I repeat what my right hon. Friend underlined earlier. The strict control of immigration in the present situation is an indispensable prerequisite to good race relations which we shall not be able to develop unless we can encourage a reasonably relaxed attitude on the part of the majority white community.
In these two sides of what is one coin we believe that we are developing our policies broadly on the right lines. I am also encouraged by the general degree of support that we have had today, although there are some points of difference and some points of criticism on both sides. We are discussing controversial and difficult matters.
I want to try to touch on the main theme of the debate and deal with as many of the questions put to me as time permits. I was sorry to miss the speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Guy

1573
Barnett) and part of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Fowler). If I am not able to cover some of the detailed points, I assure hon. Members that we shall keep in mind all the views expressed today as we develop our policies in the time ahead.
I should like to welcome the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) back to the Home Affairs beat again. I will endeavour to reply to his points in what seems the logical order as I go along. Likewise, I hope to respond to the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) in the general tone in which he approached the debate and with which I am very much in sympathy.
It is difficult to be clear on some of these issues just where the Labour Party stands. I welcome the broad area of agreement across the House, but it is no use shutting our eyes to some significant differences. I will give one example from what the hon. Member for Norwood said about illegal immigration. I understood him to say that the policy of his party is to give a general amnesty. In saying that is he also giving the right to what would be many thousands of dependants to come to this country? These are questions that must be put to the Opposition, and the country must draw its own conclusions.
The country might also draw its own conclusions from the strange fact that no Liberal voice has been raised in this debate today. We look forward to hearing on another occasion the maiden speech by the Liberal spokesman on Home Affairs. I understand his difficulties today. But when the Liberals are getting up so often and criticising us, or even the previous Government, the least that we can ask is that one of them might come along and be given time in what is the only big occasion that we have in the next few months for a general debate on this vital subject. This fact also should not be lost on the country.
I want to talk about immigration before coming to race relations. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the feature of 1973 so far has been a substantial reduction—about 30 per cent. if we leave out of account the Uganda expulsions—in Commonwealth
1574
permanent immigration for settlement compared with last year. This is due partly to the 1971 Act being fully in force. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond) pointed out, the Act is very much in operation now in a number of respects. My right hon. Friend underlined straight away the radical changes that the Act has made in our system.
In parallel with the Act being in force we are engaged in a general firming up of our system of control in various ways, as my right hon. Friend indicated—in particular relating to students, some of whom—fortunately a small minority, but still a significant number—have been trying to take advantage of our system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, referred to insurance cards, which form another clear loophole that we are anxious to close. Discussions with the Department of Health and Social Security are still proceeding regarding the details of the closer liaison that we are developing. I hope that that liaison will soon be in force. I am sure that that will also be beneficial in stopping up another undesirable loophole.
There are two main concerns in the House and the country about the general immigration scene. One centres on the Indian sub-continent, which has been mentioned in the debate. We all know of the continuing pressures there and of the unfortunate amount of deception and subterfuge that is employed in trying to evade our controls. These are facts of life that we must face.
I am particularly glad to have the chance of going to the sub-continent early next month to make the best assessment that I can of the whole situation there. I particularly wish to thank—I hope that I have the appreciation of the House with me in this—the work that our staff in the posts there are doing in difficult circumstances.
I shall be looking particularly at the situation of dependants underlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). I shall also be looking at the way in which the appeals system is working out there. I shall, of course, look at the problem of delays which has been mentioned by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It seems unavoidable at this time, when trying to operate a fair system

1575
and when so many methods are being used to get round it, that delays should occur. Our staff there, whatever their number—we have increased the staff in our posts in Delhi, Islamabad and Dacca in the last few years—must be very careful in checking details and eliminating bogus applicants, so that some delays are inevitable. But I note what has been said by a number of hon. Members and I will look out for that, too, when I am in the sub-continent. The other thing that I want to do there is to talk to the three Governments to see whether more can be done at the beginning of this wretched trade—the far end—in illegal immigration to stamp it out or at least greatly to diminish its scale.
When one reads the pathetic stories, as I have to do, of the men who are caught up in this, and whom we are steadily returning to their own countries when they have been found out here, it is worth trying any new measures at either end which might help to cut it down. That is in addition to the steps that my right hon. Friend mentioned to tighten our defences at this end, particularly in liaison with the authorities on the other side of the Channel.
The other main area of concern is the United Kingdom passport holders in East Africa. My right hon. Friend has clearly explained what we have been doing and what we shall be doing in continuing our policy. I should like to make something clear to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. He has misunderstood slightly the numerical situation. The overall ceiling, which includes India as well as East Africa, remains at 3,500 vouchers a year for heads of households. The substantial share of this, which was formerly devoted to Uganda, has been frozen in the last year or so. But now, a part of it will be brought into use again for Kenya, but, as my right hon. Friend said, this will remain within and under the global ceiling of 3,500 so it does not amount, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford surmised, to anything like a doubling of the number of vouchers for Kenya.
My right hon. Friend also asked about the Indian Government's part in this, which we acknowledge is very important. We are in fairly constant touch with the Indian Government, but it was not necessary
1576
to make any special approach to them at this time. The existing arrangements mean that India will admit without numerical limit United Kingdom passport holders from East Africa with what is known as the "Indian endorsement" which says that the United Kingdom will accept them for eventual settlement here if they do not settle in India. This will continue to apply, but in fact it is only a very small proportion of these United Kingdom passport holders who tend to come here from India.
Then there have been questions about what I would call the hard cases. The hon. Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) mentioned the case in which, the other day, I had to decide to send back to Pakistan a 19-year-old wife because she had come here without waiting her turn and without an entry certificate. I assure him and the House that these are hateful decisions to have to take, but I am equally certain that, if we gave way in a situation such as that, in no time at all many other people would be trying to get around our system simply by jumping the queue—and that we will not have.
The right hon. Member for Stechford asked about husbands and wives—
Mr. Bidwell Mr. Bidwell rose—
Mr. Lane: I have many other points to answer. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to raise this matter on the Adjournment, when I should be happy to deal with it.
I want to deal with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Stechford about the different rule which applies to husbands and wives—in particular husbands trying to join women who are settled here. The reasons which led his right hon. Friend the then Home Secretary to change the rules in 1969 to avoid the evasion which was developing are just as strong today, and we do not contemplate changing back again at present. We do not believe that this would be consistent with the firm immigration control which we have to maintain.
The right hon. Gentleman also asked me about split families in the context of the Uganda expulsion. The House will remember that my right hon. Friend decided in February that, as part of the international operation begun by the United Nations High Commissioner for

1577
Refugees, we would admit to this country about 300 men who were expelled from Uganda and who were then in Europe and whose wives and children were here. However, it is the general international practice that families should live in the countries where the head of the household is, and we would not feel justified in making now another concession of the kind that we made in February. Of course, it is open to husbands whose wives are here to apply to the nearest British representative for an entry certificate, and any such applications will be carefully considered in the light of all the individual circumstances of the case.
As I am mentioning the Uganda refugees, may I also say that the number remaining in the last centre organised by the Uganda Resettlement Board is down this week to 250, and the board will be taking stock of the whole present situation at its meeting tomorrow. The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the teachers from Uganda. My right hon. Friend and hon. Friends from the Department heard what he said. I know that they are doing their best to make it possible for these teachers to be further trained and then to play their part in our school system here.
The last point that I want to raise under the general heading of immigration is in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson), who asked us about the progress made in the review of the nationality law. As we told the House just over a year ago, when the Government put in hand a review of the nationality law, we were very well aware that this was a highly technical and complex subject and that rapid progress was unlikely. During the past year, these nationality studies have been proceeding and good progress in analysing the possible alternatives is being made. The review is not yet at a stage when we can announce conclusions, but I hope that it will soon be possible for us to say what the next steps will be.
If I may now turn to the race relations side of the debate, inter-related as these subjects inevitably are, it seems to me that this is, as much as it ever was, a time for moderates to stand up and to speak up. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said in his speech at Nottingham, to which reference has been
1578
made, that there is a clash of strident voices from various points on the spectrum. I have experienced this myself during the past year. I have been shouted at by black militants at a meeting in Liverpool and I have been heckled by the National Front in Rugby, and this continues.
On the one hand, one sees and deplores a kind of reverse form of prejudice which is shown by white or coloured extremists, who allege that our whole British society and way of life is riddled with racism. They may think that they are helping their coloured fellow citizens. In fact, their exaggeration is simply inflammatory and counter-productive and they do the cause of race relations a grave disservice. On the other hand, there are still people who seem not to recognise that most of the newcomers are here to stay.
Here may I say that my quarrel with my right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) is that in his approach to this great national issue of race relations he seems to be invariably negative. Tonight he was talking, as I think my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West put it, in an apocalyptic tone. He talked several times about candour, but it seems to me that it is my right hon. Friend himself who is lacking in candour when he does not give answers to the basic questions which his speech calls to our minds.
If he is assuming, for the sake of argument, that there are 1½ million coloured people in this country, or even as he believes 2 million, how many of them is he hoping to send overseas, by what means is he hoping to persuade them there, and at what cost? It is he who is living in a world of fantasy if he thinks that anything on this scale can be attempted without catastrophic damage to race relations in this country. I would appeal to him to come to terms himself with the realities of the present situation, to accept that there is, and will remain, a significant coloured minority in our population, and to exert his eloquence and his influence on the side of positive measures to build good race relations in Britain.
Mr. Powell: Will my hon. Friend include in his speech an acknowledgment not merely of the present facts but of a future certain prospect?
Mr. Lane: I am as well aware as my right hon. Friend of the future prospects. I am more concerned to do something positive, constructive and relevant about them. That is what the Government intend to do.
I turn now to the Select Committee reports. I join in the general tributes which have been paid today to those reports over a series of years. I deal first, briefly, with the police report. We have responded—I hope that the House will feel that we have responded positively—in our recent reply to that report of the Select Committee. I was glad to hear the tributes paid today to the police, not least by the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. William Wilson). It has been my impression in the last year that around the country relationships on the whole between the police and the coloured community have been improving.
May I here answer the point raised about the recent police searches in London? The searches which were made by the police on 11th and 25th October were made on specific information relating to the addresses visited and where the police had reason to believe that illegal entrants were being harboured. No areas were cordoned off and no one was questioned indiscriminately in the streets. The police were carrying out their normal operational duties and they required no special Home Office authority to do so. Obviously this is a delicate operation and I know that some concern has been caused. My right hon. Friend heard what was said about it and in his periodical discussions with the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis he will be discussing with him whether any special lessons can be learned from this particular episode.
The last Select Committee report to be published, the report which we have been mainly considering today, was about education. The debate has been heard by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. I am delighted to welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science, who has made his maiden utterance from the Government Front Bench today. All that has been said will be very carefully considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State
1580
for Edcation and Science and by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I confirm what was said earlier, that the Government hope to make their reply to the Select Committee report before Easter.
The third report which has been mentioned is the housing report. Here again, my right hon. Friend has spoken to the Minister for Housing and Construction this afternoon. That reply, too, we hope to present to the House very shortly.
I want to mention two further matters briefly, before concluding my speech on race relations. First, the question of employment, in all of our minds, I think, is the main area of concern when looking ahead on the subject of race relations. I should like to answer another question about the Government's circular to the Civil Service. We fully accept what was said about the circular not covering monitoring, that is, any system of recording the numbers of coloured staff and the positions in which they are employed. The fact is that we have this subject very much in mind and we hope that it will be possible to devise a simple and workable system. We are also hoping to learn valuable lessons from the current reference of the Community Relations Commission into the problems of homelessness and joblessness among young coloured people. That too, I am assured by the Chairman, should be ready very shortly.
Lastly, on the subject of urban policy, I need not confirm to the House—although I want to do so in view of one or two things which were said—that my right hon. Friend is giving very high priority to the new rôle that he has taken on in Government over the whole area of urban policy. I was glad to hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Sydney Chapman) said on the importance of this matter and I go along very much with his remarks about balanced communities. I also echo what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford. We have not yet in Britain sufficiently matched resources to the task before us. That applies particularly to the urban problems.
I was asked about the £6 million of extra support announced earlier today. I confirm that in the allocation of that sum over the next three years we shall bear in mind very much the needs of

1581
areas with particularly large numbers of immigrants and coloured people, following the guidelines we have developed over recent years in a number of programmes already in force. I do not think there has been sufficient acknowledgment of them during the debate When I go round to the cities I find that the urban programme, the moneys available under Section 11 and other such support are very much welcomed by the local authorities. The only cry we hear is, "We would like more." We are tying to respond to that cry in the way and to the extent that my right hon. Friend already explained.
I was also asked about the 1968 Act and the suggestions by the Race Relations Board that it should be enlarged and its powers extended. My right hon. Friend has already made clear in his speeches to the board that we are not convinced that the case has yet been made out. We need more time to assess the present working of the Act and to analyse rather more deeply the extent of discrimination and the form it takes in the 1970s, for which the new survey being carried out by PEP will be very helpful.
As my right hon. Friend said in his speech at Blackpool at our party conference, we are determined to pursue two basic aims which are not easy to reconcile but are essential to achieve. The first is to keep down new immigration to a minimum. The people of this country, many of them genuinely worried, must be reassured that we shall maintain firm control and see that the level of immigration declines further.
We shall make full use of the powers in the 1971 Act and shall look for ways of strengthening still more our defences against the pressures that bear upon us. But while we are strict and firm we try also to be fair and humane, and we shall administer the control to the best of our ability, in the words of the immigration rules, without regard to race, colour
1582
and religion. We shall try to avoid rigidity and insensitivity, and in our general application of the rules we shall give proper weight to compassionate circumstances in particular cases.
Our second basic aim is to improve race relations in this country and to tackle the various problems which threaten them. But, as in immigration policy, there must be fairness in our approach to race relations, remembering the interests of the white majority no less than the coloured minority. Yet the main responsibility is surely on us, the overwhelming white majority, to ensure equal rights for all and to remove discrimination wherever it is found.
The Government's ideal is a country where no citizens are made to feel second class and where the colour of a man's skin matters no more than the colour of his hair. Today we are still far short of that ideal, and progress will depend on tolerance, decency and mutual consideration. I stress "mutual" because it must be a two-way matter between different sections of the community.
The responsibility rests not only on Government but on local authorities, employers and trade unionists, and on millions of ordinary men and women up and down the country. Leadership means not just words but action, and the Government will play their full part.
Constructive work in race relations needs to be given a higher priority by us all if the hope of harmoney is to be made stronger than the fear of discord.
In home politics at this time there is no greater challenge than the building of a harmonious society for our children as well as for ourselves. It is a task in which we must succeed, because we dare not fail.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Humphrey Atkins): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

NORTHERN IRELAND (PROSCRIBED ORGANISATIONS)
10 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): I beg to move,
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act Proscribed Organisations (Amendment) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 1880), a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.
The order is the first of its kind to be made under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. Its effect is to add two organisations to the list of those proscribed in Schedule 2 to that Act. They are the Ulster Freedom Fighters and the Red Hand Commando, both extreme self-styled loyalist organisations.
For an organisation to be proscribed under the Act it must be one that appears to the Secretary of State to be concerned in terrorism or in promoting or encouraging it. It is, of course, not sufficient that there should be claims from individual terrorists to represent an organisation. There must be an actual organisation, and it is because there was doubt on that point that this order was not made before.
However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now satisfied that organisations actually exist which are using these names and which are engaged in terrorist activities. He has therefore made this order and I commend it to the House.
10.2 p.m.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: The Minister has been in Northern Ireland for a long time, or at least what probably seems a long time, but he obviously has not picked up the Irish propensity to talk for a long time. However, no doubt he will answer later the points we raise.
I have two basic questions about the organisations that he mentioned. Who are the Ulster Freedom Fighters and the Red Hand Command. May we be told something of their aims, activities and membership? Are they assocated with any other organisation, when were they formed and why are they now being
1584
proscribed? How many alleged members of the UFF and the Red Hand Commando have been detained by the security forces since the proscription of the two organisations almost four weeks ago? How many of those detained have been put in the Maze? How many are to be subject to prosecution in a normal court of law and how many have been released?
The order is made under the urgent procedure and I doubt if anyone will complain about that. As we were told in Macbeth,
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly".
However, the order raises serious questions. On the point about proscription, I remind the House that in the debate on the Civil Powers Special Regulations on 14th May this year we expressed serious reservations about the idea of proscription and on that occasion the Republican clubs were being de-proscribed. In the Division late that evening both my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. MacNamara) and Salford, West (Mr. Orme) voted with the Government on the de-proscription which took place. However, when the emergency provisions Bill was in Standing Committee in June this year the Opposition voted against proscription as a general principle in debates on Clause 18 and Schedule 2.
I should like to repeat the argument that I put then, and perhaps I may remind the House of what I said in proposing that Schedule 2 should be deleted. I said,
"The longer I consider the method of proscribing organisations to deal with the problems of Northern Ireland or any other country, the more I think that it is the wrong approach, and I shall seek to argue that. It does not need repeating but for the record I make it clear that in no sense could anyone countenance the activities of at least some of the proscribed organisations."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 25th June 1973 ; c. 599.]
The question is, what does proscription achieve? I reminded the Standing Committee that members of the IRA in uniform march in Belfast, and Mr. O'Connell goes to speak at funerals there. Has it helped to have the IRA proscribed? I reminded the Committee that the Central Citizens' Defence Committee addressed a

1585
letter to the IRA in Andersonstown. The address of the IRA in Andersonstown was given in the reply of the IRA to the CCDC. Here is a proscribed organisation that advertises its address. Over here, and correctly, in my view, we do not proscribe the IRA, and in strict security terms one of the advantages of that is, I presume, that the Special Branch know who the people are in the IRA, whereas if they were driven underground or into cover organisations it would be a little difficult.
I have been re-reading the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debate in Committee, and there was but a very short reply on this matter when the Minister of State made his speech in that debate. Brevity seems to be shared by Ministers of State and Under-Secretaries of State in answering on this point. Diffused in his speech was that it is politically impossible to de-proscribe. Then we voted against that clause on principle, but we saw the political problem that faces this Government or any Government in Northern Ireland on this matter.
If at best proscription achieves nothing practical, then at worst it has at least one important disadvantage. The act of making membership of certain organisations illegal tends to give the impression to some people that the members of other, non-proscribed, organisations are acting legally ; or alternatively, that the illegal actions of members of such organisations are being ignored by the authorities. The best current example is the Ulster Defence Association. Since that body has not been proscribed some people seem to think that all the actions of its members have been legal, or at least that the illegal actions of its members are not being taken sufficiently seriously by the authorities.
In fact, while membership of the UDA is not illegal, some members of that organisation have been detained, and others convicted of crimes as serious as that of murder. The instance of the UDA makes the point clear. The law should be directed at individuals and not at organisations, and on that basis the policy of proscription, as a principle, is little short of worthless.
I return to the UFF and the Red Hand Commando. I was in Belfast on the day those organisations were proscribed.
1586
There had been killings, and they were killings of Catholics at that time, and, given the proscription of the IRA, there was a cry, "Proscribe those other organisations". Politically, and in my view politically only, the Government felt they had to proscribe those organisations, and it was understandable, given the feeling there was, that the Government acted in that way. But it was a political action, it was not the necessity to deal with the people concerned, because if they had had evidence against the people concerned they would not have needed proscription to deal with them.
We shall not vote against the order tonight. That would be misunderstood in the current situation. I end now as we did in Committee on the Bill. We do not condone violence. We want the Government to act against those who break the law, from whatever organisation they come. We want to see the method of proscription ended. It is dangerous to give advice months ahead, but I would say to the Government, end it when detention is ended. Our hope is that when detention is ended proscription will be ended, and we hope they will be ended next July when the matter comes before the House when some of the provisions of the Act come up for renewal.
Given the situation in Belfast when these organisations were proscribed, we shall not vote against the order. We have grave doubts about the method of proscription, and we shall seek to bring this matter before the House time and again in the months ahead.
10.11 p.m.
Captain L. P. S. Orr: It has become almost a ritual when we embark upon a series of Northern Ireland orders at this time of night to make a complaint. I go through the ritual again simply to place upon the record the fact that we consider this a monstrous way of dealing with matters of such great importance. We are to deal tonight with an order concerning the life, limb and liberty of people, and an appropriation order concerning the whole range of Government expenditure in Northern Ireland. We are to do so while the staff of the House is depleted. We are left with the fag-end of the week, in the small hours of the morning possibly, debating

1587
these very serious matters at an inappropriate time.
It is almost impossible to explain to anyone in Ulster how it comes about that, at what one might call a peak parliamentary time, on Monday next from 7 p.m. to 10 p.m., we are to debate the landscaping of New Palace Yard, but that we are dealing with matters of great importance to Ulster at the fag-end of the week.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has cogently and rightly argued against the case for proscription, and I agree with him. I think that on the whole I have steadily, over these debates on the subject, become convinced that there is no great value in proscription at all. I think the sooner it was ended the better. Proscription, as the hon. Gentleman rightly argued, does not achieve anything in the end. Proscription has proved in practice to have had no marked effect at all.
The trouble about proscription, as the hon. Gentleman again rightly argued, is that it becomes almost impossible to de-proscribe. The only thing that can be said in favour of proscription is that it marks a sort of public disapproval of the organisation concerned and its aims. But one cannot then de-proscribe without doing the reverse—without saying that Parliament is now setting its seal of approval upon the organisation that is now to be de-proscribed. Thus, I place no great reliance upon proscription.
This order proscribes two more organisations. The only value of the order is that it allows us in this House to place on record once again our detestation of any organisations or people who use violent and barbarous means to try to achieve a political end. It gives us the opportunity to do that, and in that sense I welcome the order.
It also displays the impartiality of the authorities in their treatment of violence from whatever quarter. In that sense, too, it is valuable. For that reason I join with the hon. Gentleman in saying that we do not oppose the order, and for that reason only. I also agree that we should eventually try to get away from proscription. I had intended to ask almost precisely the questions the hon. Member asked about the two organisations,
1588
the number of detainees and so on. I have one further question to ask. How many of these people belonging to these organisations, if there be any already detained, will be released before Christmas in accordance with the Prime Minister's promise today? It will be interesting to see whether the release of detainees has about it the same impartial air as the detention.
One of the anomalies about proscription is that we are proscribing organisations in Northern Ireland which we do not proscribe in the rest of the United Kingdom. This seems nonsensical. If it be right for us to use the weapon of proscription against such organisations in one part of the United Kingdom then logically we should use that weapon throughout the United Kingdom.
It seems nonsensical to say that this weapon will be used against the Provisional IRA in Northern Ireland but not against that organisation in the rest of the United Kingdom. Thus these proscription orders, to be logical, ought to be United Kingdom orders. If the UFF is a dangerous organisation, to be banned by parliamentary action in one part of the kingdom, then it is a dangerous organisation that ought to be proscribed throughout the kingdom. It is hard to explain to anyone why the Provisional IRA is unlawful in Northern Ireland and yet is perfectly lawful in the rest of the United Kingdom and can go about its business openly, collecting funds. It would be just as easy to argue that these two organisations, being proscribed, should not be allowed to carry on their activities, if they chose to do so, in the cities of the rest of the kingdom.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not propose to oppose the order. All I say is that it will not make the slightest difference to the activities which it seeks to destroy. Proscription made not the slightest difference to the activities of the Provisional IRA. This afternoon there have been a series of hi-jackings and bombings and they may still be going on. Proscription will not have the slightest effect on the people who normally associate with the organisations we are now proscribing. We are going through an activity here which is a little unreal and out of touch with what is happening. I should prefer to hear from the Minister more about the security forces and what they

1589
are doing about getting on top of violence from whatever quarter. I should like to hear about the work of Intelligence and how it is finding out about conspiracies.
It is not so much an organisation that one wants to get at. One wants to get at those who are actively conspiring against the public good to use violence for political ends. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us a little more about that. I do not intend to oppose the order although I do not think that it will do the slightest good.
10.20 p.m.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) I deplore the manner in which the House is dealing with this Northern Irish business. We are discussing the liberty of the subject in Northern Ireland at this late hour and in derisory numbers. I have already described this situation in relation to Irish business as a constitutional scandal.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) asked, who are these people? I, too, would like to hear a little more about that from my hon. Friend. Doubtless, these two lurid organisations contain some sincere loyalists who justify, to themselves at any rate, desperate courses by the destruction of a parliament to which they were attached and objection to political concessions made by Her Majesty's Government. I am also fairly certain that these organisations contain criminals, common and uncommon, thugs, sadists and political racketeers whose loyalism is an obscene contradiction in terms, the sort of people about whom I was told by a Catholic hotelier of my acquaintance from whom they levied a regular supply of crates of beer in return for not damaging his property.
These people use a flag and abuse a faith for criminal ends. Nor should their use of the Union Jack blind us to the penetration of organisations such as these from the extreme Left. I suppose it could be said that the UFF is like the UVF only more so.
Some hon. Members may have studied an interesting interview with Tomas MacGiolla, the President of the Official Republican Sinn Fein, in the Morning Star of yesterday. In this interview Mr. MacGiolla said :
1590
"It appears to us that the Tyrone UVF has some good people but the local UDA is Right-wing. Elsewhere it is the other way round."
That is very interesting and significant. "Good people" said Mr. MacGiolla. Good for what? Surely, for the erection of a revolutionary republic on the ruins of a Christian Ireland.
We have no sympathy for these organisations. Nevertheless, we want to hear what will be achieved by proscribing them, particularly when the previous Secretary of State rejected the Conservative Party Conference demand to proscribe the IRA in this island as in Northern Ireland. There are arguments on both sides, but it is strange that certain organisations should be singled out in this way, and I should like to hear more from my hon. Friend.
10.24 p.m.
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: When the House of Commons suspended the Parliament of Northern Ireland on the basis that it was not dealing fairly with the affairs of Northern Ireland and took over the duty of running Northern Ireland from Westminster, it should have acted honourably and ethically. Having taken the duty upon itself, it should have given prime place in parliamentary time to dealing with the affairs of Northern Ireland. It has failed abysmally in the exercise of this duty.
Most of the debates which have taken place in the past 20 months on Northern Ireland have taken place late at night or in the small hours of the morning. In that way the proper function of the House to act as a chamber in which grievances can be discussed and ventilated cannot be performed. There is little hope of the matters which are debated in the small hours of the morning being reported in the following day's Press. By two days later the matter is dead. If all the British people were faced with the type of terrorist campaign which has faced the people of Northern Ireland, what would they say if the grievances of their constituents were ventilated only in the small hours of the morning?
I add my voice in protest against the shabby way in which Her Majesty's Government have treated Ireland during the past 20 months since Stormont was suspended.

1591
The questions which have been put by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and by some of my hon. Friends must be answered by the Minister. He must deal clearly with what advantage he sees in the banning of the Ulster Freedom Fighters and the Red Hand Commando. He must reply to the question which has been put by some hon. Members—namely, how many arrests have been made in the months since those bodies have been banned and how many of those arrested have been charged or will be charged. My hon. Friend must deal with that matter.
Further, my hon. Friend must deal with the reply which has often been made in the past to myself and my hon. Friends when they have asked that the IRA should be banned in this country. My right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench have said that to ban the IRA would be to drive it underground. Why did they not take the same view in respect of these organisations? My right hon. and hon. Friends cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot say on one occasion that they refuse to ban the IRA because it will do no good, because it will hinder the security forces in the detection and prevention of crime, and yet when dealing with these two bodies—
Mr. Stanley Orme: Deal with the point.
Mr. McMaster: I shall deal with the point in a moment. My right hon. and hon. Friends suggest that there is an advantage in banning these organisations. If there is a difference, my hon. Friend is under a duty to spell it out.
I remind my hon. Friend that during the past four years, since the trouble started in Northern Ireland in October 1969, some 281 soldiers and police have been killed. In each case the IRA has issued a statement afterwards claiming responsibility for those deaths. Not one soldier or officer has been killed by anyone other than members of the IRA—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Leeds. South wishes to interrupt me, perhaps he will do so and give the statistics to the House.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I do not wish to join in an argument about who killed whom.
1592
I assure the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) that I have an example in front of me of a member of the UDA who killed a policeman. I have the details in front of me because I have been checking over the past few months why the man who killed the policeman had a licensed gun. The hon. Gentleman knows by now that there is no one on this side of the House who wishes not to deal with those who want to shoot and kill. During the whole time that the IRA has been killing and shooting it has been a proscribed organisation. That is the argument which we are putting forward.
Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman is not following my argument. I was talking about the position not in Northern Ireland but in the United Kingdom. The IRA is not proscribed in the United Kingdom. Leaders of the IRA have come to this country and have not been arrested and charged with being members of the IRA, simply because the body is not proscribed. The hon. Member for Leeds, South has mentioned just one case out of 281 when a policeman was killed by a member of the UDA. In the other 280 cases the IRA issued statements later. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to do so, I will go through the papers with him to prove it.
I ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State why a body that has waged war, and is waging war, on the British Army—a body that has claimed responsibility for the death of our Service men and of our policemen—should not be proscribed in this country. These other two bodies, which have not been responsible for anything like the carnage of which the IRA is guilty, are being proscribed. There is a difference in treatment which cries out for explanation.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and I have repeatedly asked for action. A resolution at the Conservative Party Conference this year seeking to ban the IRA was not accepted by the Government, yet at the same time they are seeking to proscribe these other bodies which, to the best of my knowledge, have been in existence for only a number of months and whose operations are very limited when compared with the operations of the IRA.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I state categorically that I detest and hate killings and bombings by the IRA or by anybody else in Ireland. Will the hon. Gentleman say that he detests the UVF, the UFF, the Red Hand of Ulster and everything they stand for?
Mr. McMaster: Of course, I decry anybody or any member of an organisation who takes it into his own hands to cause assassinations or deaths. But I am asking why one body should be treated differently from another.
Mr. Rees: Let us get the situation quite clear, because it appears to be getting somewhat confused. In Northern Ireland the IRA, the UVF, the UFF and the Red Hand of Ulster are proscribed. They are all treated exactly the same. We are saying that proscription is a waste of time. We are saying that they should be dealt with for what they are doing and that we should not waste time on proscription.
Mr. McMaster: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that these bodies should be proscribed in Ireland, why does he not say that they should be proscribed in this country? The IRA has recently been responsible for bomb outrages in Britain and at this very moment it is carrying out hijackings and a bombing campaign in Northern Ireland. I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has taken my point and I hope that he will deal with it. The IRA is not banned in Great Britain, and yet the Government seek to ban these two bodies in Northern Ireland. Is proscription worth while or is it not?
I believe that it is valuable to proscribe illegal bodies, and I say this for two reasons. Let us take as a parallel recent legislation in this House relating to pornography and discrimination. They are going through this House because it is believed that if they are included in legislation it will help to form public opinion.
Mr. Orme: We accept that point.
Mr. McMaster: The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) apparently accepts that point. In the same way I argue that the IRA should be banned in Great Britain. I want to be told why these bodies are being proscribed by the
1594
order and yet the IRA is not being proscribed.
My second point is equally valid. When bodies such as this are proscribed—and again I speak not only of Northern Ireland but of the United Kingdom as a whole—the media are inhibited from interviewing their spokesmen. Members of those bodies do not get a free and easy Press. At present, both the Press and the broadcasting organisations not only give these persons an opportunity to repeat their propaganda and their threats but also claim that they have the duty to interview them so that their views can be presented to the public.
If you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, had witnessed some of the events in Northern Ireland that I have seen, if you had seen people who had lost members of their families killed by casual bombs placed by terrorists, if you had seen injured people in hospital, and if you had then tuned in to a television programme only to see a member of the IRA interviewed in Britain or in Dublin, you would be outraged. Why, then, do we allow this indefensible position to exist?
I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider the Government's attitude to this question. If he thinks it right to proscribe the bodies specified in the order, will he not come to the logical consequence of his act and also accept our argument that the IRA itself—both the Provisional and the Official IRA—should be banned throughout the United Kingdom?
10.37 p.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: We have heard some of these arguments many times, and I quite understand the one advanced by the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) about proscribing. I understand why he opposes it. I shall try to put the arguments as we see them, though I admit that this must be a matter of judgment.
Some hon. Members have said that I must answer the questions which have been put to me. I shall try to do my best. But in this difficult situation in Northern Ireland, especially in view of security considerations, it is not possible always to supply the exact information required by the House. I hope that hon. Members will not think I am being rude if I say that they go a bit far when they

1595
insist that I must answer their questions. I shall do my best.
No one will contend that proscription of an organisation by itself is an adequate means of dealing with terrorism. Like other means which have to be employed in situations of severe civil unrest, it has features which those accustomed to the standards of a peaceful society understandably find objectionable. However, where a situation exists in which a terrorist organisation is daily killing and wounding innocent people and destroying their property and publicly professing its intention to continue to do it, it is equally objectionable to the victims, their friends and the community at large if the Government do not do all in their power to prevent the terrorist organisation flaunting its power and extending its intimidation. My hon. Friends are always on at the Government, and rightly—it is their duty to criticise—about the need to combat terrorism. I am saying that this is one method of aiding that.
The hon. Member for Leeds, South asked what proscription does. It serves a notice on anyone who may be a misguided but comparatively innocent member of the organisation concerned that it is time that he got out. It prevents or inhibits the organisation from openly collecting money or soliciting support in the Press or on television or recruiting young people for the furtherance of its activities.
Captain Orr: Surely my hon. Friend is making a very strong case for the proscription of these bodies throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Mills: If my hon. and gallant Friend will be patient, I shall try to deal with that point as well.
Proscription prevents or inhibits the organisation from openly collecting money or soliciting support in the Press or on television or recruiting young people for the furtherance of its activities. It also reduces the dangers to the public peace which would result from public parades and demonstrations of organisations which are known to have killed and maimed innocent people. Some hon. Members say that it does not do enough. But it could be worse. The problem could be 10 times worse.
1596
If we proscribe these organisations, a chief constable can issue certificates to people who are injured so that compensation can be paid. That point should not be overlooked.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the hon. Gentleman explain a little more about the chief constable's certificate?
Mr. Mills: I will look into this matter more closely, but I put it forward as a point of interest. The chief constable has to give a certificate that terrorist activity has taken place so that the person concerned may claim compensation. If the organisation concerned is proscribed, I believe that adds weight to the claim. I will certainly check that point. I put it in as a small point in favour of proscription.
Mr. McMaster: If someone suffers as a result of IRA terrorist activities in London—for example, in the recent bombings—does such a certificate need to be given? Is not this an argument for the IRA and other bodies being banned throughout the United Kingdom?
Mr. Mills: My hon. Friend is anticipating. I will come to the position of the IRA in Great Britain in time.
Mr. McMaster: Is a certificate necessary?
Mr. Mills: The question of the IRA in Great Britain is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, not for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
Mr. McMaster: My hon. Friend is not with me. Before damages can be claimed, is a certificate from the chief constable necessary and does it help if the body is banned?
Mr. Mills: That is true in Northern Ireland. The position in Great Britain is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I shall not answer on his behalf.
Questions were asked about the statistics of terrorist activities. The Secretary of State is satisfied that the organisations named in the order have been involved in terrorist activities. Certainly it would not be in the public interest to indicate the nature of the intelligence that has led to that conclusion. It is a combination of both

1597
political and security action or aid. I believe that it has a deterrent effect, although some hon. Members may disagree.
There is no doubt that the UFF has publicly claimed responsibility for certain terrorist actions. The Red Hand Commando is an organisation with its own command structure and, whilst an independent body, acts in direct alignment with the policies and principles of the UVF. It is not possible for me to go further on that point. Since proscription, 29 Protestants and 53 Catholics have been arrested and charged with security offences.
I note the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) about timing and so on, which he has made before. He must have had his tongue in his cheek when he asked me how many would be released before Christmas. That is not a question for an Under-Secretary to answer ; it is entirely one for the Secretary of State.
As for proscribing the IRA in Great Britain, the Government recognise that the maintenance of law and order throughout the United Kingdom is of primary importance. Therefore, we are prepared to take any action that will be effective in dealing with terrorists and violence. If declaring the IRA illegal in Britain would help, we should not hestitate to propose the necessary legislation. But I am sure that everyone would agree that the main aim is to get and bring to justice those responsible for acts of violence. I suppose I am slightly out of order in replying to this, because it is a matter for the Home Secretary.
Mr. McMaster: I fail to follow my hon. Friend. If an IRA terrorist escapes from prison, or even if he has never been arrested, and comes to Britain from the North or the South of Ireland, if the IRA is not proscribed what steps can then be taken to bring him to justice?
Mr. Mills: This is a matter of judgment. My hon. Friend's judgment is that the IRA in Britain should be made illegal. The Government say that they are prepared to do this if it would help over here, where the situation is entirely different.
1598
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) has no sympathy for these organisations : they do not deserve any sympathy. I too have seen the misery that this sort of thing has caused. Terrorists are terrorists, whatever their label, and should be dealt with. My hon. Friend also mentioned the UDA in England. I do not suppose for a moment—
Mr. Biggs-Davison: I did not mention it.
Mr. Mills: I am sorry, I thought he did.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) was, I think, against proscribing these two organisations Although we do not say that this is the main way of dealing with these terrorists, we believe that it is a deterrent.
Mr. McMaster: I did not say that I was against proscribing these two organisations. I said that I was against proscribing them if we did not at the same time proscribe the IRA in this country. What is the difference between collecting money and recruiting in Britain and doing the same in Ireland? Can British money be used for the IRA?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I think that the hon. Gentleman is getting out of order. It would be better if we moved on and left that point.
Mr. Mills: I accept it if the hon. Member says that he did not say he was against proscribing these two organisations. I simply thought he did. All I was trying to say was that one cannot have it both ways. We believe that proscription acts as a small deterrent and an aid, quite apart from the compensation point. This is a matter of judgment, and we believe that it is of some aid for the reasons I have given.
I would not deny that power to prosecute is also dangerous if it is not carefully used. It might drive organisations underground. It might influence people who have not realised that the organisation to which they belong is more dangerous than appeared to them when they joined it. It might even attract sympathy to an organisation when a large section of the public believes that it has been unjustly dealt with. The decision is one which must be taken after careful consideration of the security

1599
factors and of what one might broadly call political factors, since the attitude of public opinion is vitally important.
In the present circumstances, weighing up all these factors, the decision was taken to proscribe the two organisations named in the order, and I honestly believe that the decision was right. It is for that reason that I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act Proscribed Organisations (Amendment) Order 1973 (S.I., 1973, No. 1880), a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (APPROPRIATION)
10.52 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): I beg to move,
That the Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.
We now turn to something entirely different. This order, which appropriates the Autumn Supplementary Estimates, is the third Northern Ireland appropriation order to be considered by the House this year. In March last the House approved the first appropriation order, which voted £204 million on account for the present financial year, and in July the House approved the second appropriation order, which voted the balance, £358 million, of the main Estimates. An additional £31 million is now required for the Autumn Supplementary Estimates, bringing total Estimates provision in the current financial year to £593 million.
Broadly speaking, about half of the additional provision sought arises from the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland, and as such does not constitute an actual increase in public expenditure. Of the balance, £9 million approximately is required to provide for new policies or to meet increased expenditure on existing policies and just over £6 million is needed for pay increases.
I propose to deal in some detail with the more important items in turn.
1600
In Class II, No. 7, on page 3 of the order, hon. Members will see that £15 million is required to clear the debit balances on the revenue accounts of the former local authorities. These balances were transferred to the Ministry of Finance on 1st October 1973 under local government reorganisation. I should emphasise, however, that this figure is inflated to some extent because grants and other debts which were due to the former local authorities were not, in fact, in all cases received by them before 30th September.
Some consequential savings in the expenditure of various Ministries may therefore be expected when the appropriation accounts are prepared. I should also emphasise again that this is purely a transfer of expenditure from one part of the public sector to another and does not rank as an increase in public expenditure.
In Class III, on page 3, an additional £5·2 million is required for law and order. The sum of £2·6 million is for the police service, largely for police overtime which was particularly high early in the year as a result of duties connected with the border poll, local government and Assembly elections, and for increased rates of pay and allowances. The sum of £1·2 million is needed for prisons and borstal institutions, partly to cater for increases in the number of prison staff and partly because of increased rates of pay. The increase in the number of staff reflects the increases in the prison population, which in turn reflects the increasing successes of the security forces. That must not be overlooked.
An additional £1 million is also required to pay for compensation for criminal injuries. I need hardly point out to hon. Members that it is very difficult to forecast expenditure under this head.
In Class IV, on page 4, an additional £2·2 million is required—for supplementary benefits, old persons' pensions, attendance allowances and family income supplements. The greater part of the extra money is needed for higher rates of benefits. The balance reflects increases in the number of beneficiaries.
Those are the main points to which I should wish to draw attention, but I shall endeavour to answer any points which hon. Members may have. On

1601
such a complicated and long appropriation order, I hope the House will forgive me if I do not know all the answers, but I shall see that hon. Members receive proper answers.
I think, however, that all hon. Members will agree that the making available of these additional funds yet again testifies more eloquently than any words of mine can our absolute commitment on this side of the Irish Sea to a peaceful, prosperous and just Northern Ireland. These are large sums of money.
For the reasons I have given on three of the more important matters, I believe that I can commend the order to the House.
10.57 p.m.
Mr. Stanley Orme: This is an extremely wide-ranging order. We could have a full day's debate on what is virtually a supplementary budget for Northern Ireland. There have been three such supplements this year, dealing with a total of about £630 million. It is a considerable sum, and we have a very short time in which to debate it.
If, as we hope, the Executive gets off the ground and the new constitution in Northern Ireland works, this order will be the last legislation in this form to come before the House of Commons. Looking at the Northern Ireland Constitution Act and the White Paper, we see that entirely new provisions for financing the Government in Northern Ireland, through both the Assembly and the Executive, will have to come into force.
The sum granted to the police force is £2,607,000, but in the appropriations-in-aid there is a decrease of £3,000. What does that mean?
Under phase 2 and phase 3 the police in Northern Ireland have been penalised. They have asked for special payments, but these have been refused because they would put the police there out of line with those in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is extraordinary, because the police and fire services in Northern Ireland are doing an exceptional job under exceptional circumstances. To use phase 3 against such provisions is idiotic, particularly when there is a need for recruitment and improvement in the service. We have all welcomed the new attitude and outlook in the RUC, which
1602
we hope will develop during the coming months and years. I may be wrong about this appropriation-in-aid, and the figure of £2,607,000 could be an appreciable increase because of overtime.
On page 4 we read of an increase of £572,900.
"For the salaries and certain expenses of the Ministry of Health and Social Services, a grant in aid and for the selective butter subsidy'.
I hesitate to raise the point during such a debate, but has that anything to do with the Common Market? What does the increase entail? There is also an increase for the payment of non-contributory benefits. Because of the special pressures on the social services in Northern Ireland, there is need for an increase. The Minister might care to give some details about the terminology "Sums Granted" and "Appropriations in Aid". We should like an explanation of exactly where the moneys have gone.
Assuming that the figures I have given are correct, and there is a quite considerable increase in expenditure over the three mini-budgets, I feel that we should have an explanation. We are not criticising that increase in the sense that we do not think it has been applied correctly, but the Minister should give an outline. He might say how much of the increase has been borne by Whitehall and whether the increase is in line with Government policy on controlling public expenditure. We on the Opposition side who are opposed to phase 3 anyway would hate to see that policy used so as not to improve conditions in Northern Ireland.
In winding up the debate on Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill on 24th May, the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. David Howell) dealt with the new financial arrangements which will come into effect when the new Executive and the new constitutional arrangements come into full operation. They had been outlined in the White Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) asked the hon. Gentleman :
"Does the Minister recall that the Government issued advice about these Northern Ireland financial arrangements which has been invaluable in the past year? Would they consider issuing the new arrangements in some such form? It will save a great deal of time."

1603
The Minister replied :
"We will certainly agree to do that. It sounds a very good idea."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May 1973 ; Vol. 857, c. 795.]
He added that we could expect to learn from the Government how the new proposals would work.
We are to deal with a new form of financing for the whole of Northern Ireland. Under a block grant system, the Treasury will hand over to the Northern Ireland Executive and the Assembly a sum to be negotiated, which will then be used in an overall grant system of allocation to the different Ministries for the different expenditures. The negotiation that will take place between the Executive and the Treasury will be of crucial importance because, of course, it will depend on the budget which will be used by the Executive and the Assembly.
Captain L. P. S. Orr: I want to clarify something. The hon. Gentleman talks about negotiation between the Executive and the Treasury. I understand that the negotiation will be between the Secretary of State and the Treasury. The old system was negotiation between the Government of Northern Ireland and the Treasury, with an Exchequer board. The system is to be changed since the Secretary of State will allocate the money.
Mr. Orme: That is a valid point, and it is one we want to clear up. But, of course, the Secretary of State will not hold the negotiation without consulting the Executive. We should have it spelt out. The House is to discuss devolution next Thursday, and that will include expenditure in relation to the Council of Ireland. It is about time we knew what the financial provisions are to be. The hon. and gallant Gentleman is probably right in his speculation from what was said on 24th May and in the White Paper. All we have to go on, however, is two paragraphs of the White Paper and what was said on 24th May. As yet we have nothing in concrete form.
Again, what about finance for the reserve powers expenditure of the Home Office and so on? This is another sector which will come into a very complicated picture. We are looking tonight beyond the order. We do not expect the Under-Secretary of State to answer in detail off
1604
the cuff tonight, but we want him to convey our concern to the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South and I have discussed this, and we feel that there is urgent need to bring forward these financial provisions.
We welcome these proposals, but it is unsatisfactory that we should have to debate them in an hour and a half. We accept the criticisms made by Conservative Members in that regard. Possibly this is the last time such matters will be discussed in this setting, but this House of Commons should look at the other proposals which are to be considered in the new Assembly and the new Eecutive of Northern Ireland.
11.9 p.m.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: What the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has said has been most helpful to the House. I wish to speak briefly on the rather surprising decrease of £3,000 under the heading of, "Police Services". I should like an assurance that it does not represent any slackening in the Government's determination to recruit to bring the RUC and the RUC reserve up to full strength. I am not sure what the recruiting position is now, but I am particularly disturbed by the fall in the Catholic component, which is now, I believe, below 10 per cent.
I also hope that there is no lessening in the Government's determination to see that both the RUC and the RUC reserve are fully equipped with the most modern weapons, transport, R/T and so on. A year or so ago I accompanied a special patrol group of the RUC. It was said then that its equipment was not of the same standard as that used by the UDR. I believe that there has been a great improvement since then. However, that rather odd figure of a decrease of £3,000 raises questions in my mind and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will reassure me.
11.10 p.m.
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I should like first to endorse the point made by the hon. Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme) asking what future arrangements will be made for the provision of money for services in Northern Ireland.
The order provides for £31 million to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund

1605
and gives further power to the Minister for Finance to borrow about £16 million. Those are substantial sums and I shall therefore consider in some detail the items set out in the schedule.
Will my hon. Friend first deal with Class I? It is provided there that the salaries of the Central Ministerial Secretariats and other expenses, including expenses of the Information Service, shall amount to £35,000. Just how is that money to be spent? What proportion of it is to be spent abroad? My hon. Friend the Minister will be aware from the debate we have just concluded of the effort of the IRA to raise money abroad to support its campaign in Northern Ireland. I have seen evidence of its activity in the United States. I want to know what the Information Service is doing to counter that propaganda campaign and the efforts of subversive organisations in Northern Ireland to raise money abroad and to spread propaganda to the detriment of the people in Northern Ireland and this country.
What support do the services get from British embassies and consular services? Are they in any way covered by this grant and what additional moneys are made available? Are persons appointed to the embassies to deal with this campaign which is so damaging to the reputation of this country?
I move on to Class II. Various items are there set out and I note that £15,900 is allocated to public works. I note, too, that there is no increase in the appropriations in aid for the current year. We all know how the prices of building and land have increased in the last year. May we be told why there is no increase in this amount in view of those rising prices? What has been the effect of inflation? Does the absence of an increase mean that there has been a fall in the amount of work done under this head?
I move on to Class III under which my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) referred to the decrease in expenditure on the police services of £3,000. My remarks about public works apply equally here. With the increase in salaries one would expect there to be an increase under this head. Why has there not been one? I should like to delve a little deeper into the police
1606
services, which is probably one of the most important services to be covered by the order. I should like to be told about the effect of the moneys provided for police recruitment. We all know that the police in Northern Ireland are facing the most difficult task of any police force in the United Kingdom, indeed in the world. They have had to put up with heavy casualties over the past four years. Many have been killed carrying out their duties, some while on leave. Others have been seriously injured. If recruitment is to be increased so that the terrorist campaign can be adequately contained we must increase the inducement offered to men to join the force.
It is particularly necessary to obtain a balanced police force. One of the criticisms which led to the appointment of the Hunt Committee was that the force was not properly balanced when the disturbances started in 1969. What success have the Government had, as a result of the implementation of the Hunt Committee's recommendations, in restoring the balance? If members of the minority community in Northern Ireland are to be persuaded to join the police, and we understand the pressures against them, then surely we must be prepared to offer some inducement to these men to take on the tremendous risk to themselves, their families and relations. Great risk is involved in their public-spirited action in offering themselves as recruits for the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
Can the Minister say a word about the control of the police? This is a matter of considerable concern in Northern Ireland. Both the SDLP—and I am sorry that we do not have a representative of that party here tonight—and the Dublin Government have suggested that control of the police should be vested in the new Council of Ireland. This is something which would be strongly resisted by the majority of people living in Northern Ireland. What are the Government's intentions about this vital matter?
I want to deal with one matter reported to me, and of which my hon. Friend is aware, namely that senior officers in the RUC will not at the moment, under a Government directive, be eligible for promotion unless they have served abroad for two years. We

1607
know the pressures under which the police are operating in Northern Ireland. We know how scarce senior and experienced officers are. What is the Minister doing about this? If he insists that all senior men must have two years' experience abroad then many of the top men in the RUC will not be eligible for further promotion. Can these men be spared? If they can be, are there positions abroad in which they can obtain the necessary experience? Is the police service in Northern Ireland to be deprived of these senior men, and what will be the effect on recruitment if this is so?
Much has been made of complaints against the police. What is the true history? How many complaints are received about the conduct of police officers in Northern Ireland as compared with complaints against police officers in other parts of the United Kingdom? Is the number of complaints rising or has it fallen? What is the true record about complaints against members of the RUC?
I should like to ask by hon. Friend what are the Government's plans for restructuring the police force. A great deal of anxiety has been expressed to me on this topic.
I asked my hon. Friend recently in the House whether the Government had any plans for restructuring the police force and he gave me a most equivocal reply, saying that we had an excellent police force which could be praised in any way, but he did not answer my question. I hope that he will meet the question square on and will tell the House whether any plans are afoot, and if so, what they are, to restructure and reorganise the police force.
Perhaps he will add a word on the standard of morale. I had the opportunity recently to speak to the new Chief Constable, Mr. Flanagan—my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell was with me—and I was pleased at the confidence which Mr. Flanagan expressed in the morale of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I should like to know what my hon. Friend thinks on this point.
I do not want to go through each provision of this order because my hon. Friends have points to make on Classes
1608
IV, V, and VI, but I should like to ask about one detailed accounting point about Class VI, 3, in respect of improvement of livestock, diseases of animals, and so on, for which there is an allocation of £353,100. This represents an increase of £602,000 over the previous year. Does this mean that there was a negative sum of £300,000, or is there a misprint in the order? These two sums do not tally. I cannot understand how his figure is arrived at. Perhaps my hon. Friend will look into the point.
With respect to Class VII, for expenses of the Ministry of Commerce in respect of industrial development services, I have a particular interest because part of the money will probably be allocated to my constituency. Some of my constituency's problems have been mentioned. Many hon. Members know that East Belfast is a heavy industry area and I wonder whether my hon. Friend will say whether any of the allocation of money for the expenses of the Ministry of Commerce on industrial development is to be allocated to Harland and Wolff which I believe needs further assistance to complete the modernisation of its yards—or is the money to come from an additional fund?
On the same topic, perhaps my hon. Friend will say something about the other great industry in my constituency, Short Brothers, which employs many people from my constituency and others. What progress is being made by that firm? Is it seeking further Government assistance or is it a viable concern? My hon. Friend has taken a great interest, and Ministers have visited the factory. Perhaps my hon. Friend will say something about it because those employed in the aircraft industry show anxiety because of the cloud over the industry with the present crisis of oil and fuel and the likely effect this might have on employment in Queen's Island, Belfast.
What plans have the Government for dealing with the oil crisis? We in Northern Ireland are 90 per cent. reliant on oil for the production of electricity. That is much higher than the national average. A new power station is being built and others are planned. These new power stations should be capable of burning either oil or solid fuel. Have the Government carried out research into the cost of making the power stations dual purpose, so that Northern Ireland will not

1609
suffer if the current shortage of oil continues for many years? Oil is vital to the economy of Northern Ireland.
On Class VIII I wish to refer to the repercussions on housing services of the shortage of oil. Many hon. Members have visited Northern Ireland and seen the imaginative slum clearance that is taking place. The old slum houses are being replaced by modern blocks of flats. Many of these are to be centrally heated by oil-fired boilers. If oil is not available, what will be the effect on the persons who are rehoused in these blocks? Will my hon. Friend deal with the heating arrangements—
Mr. Peter Mills: I do not quite understand how I can be concerned with the heating arrangements in the flats. I cannot do anything about the plumbing. Does my hon. Friend mean the fuel supplies?
Mr. McMaster: What I am saying relates not only to blocks of flats but to individual flats and council houses without chimneys. That is a matter of concern. If these houses are to be adequately heated the Government's policy needs to be reviewed in the light of the current oil shortage. Provision should be made for the burning of coal if that is the cheapest and most economical fuel available.
There are two aspects. There is the heating of individual houses and the provision of a chimney and fireplace, and there is the central provision of warm water and heat from central boilers. Can those central boilers be dual purpose?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton) Order, this is very interesting but we are getting a little wide of the point at issue. It is a question of the funds rather than of the structure of the houses.
Mr. McMaster: I should like to see some additional money provided under Class VIII, 2, because of the needs of my constituents. I hope that I shall not be prevented from addressing the House on that matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must debate what is in the order and not what is not in the order.
Mr. McMaster: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not know how the money set out in the order will be spent. Perhaps some will be allocated in the way I suggest. Will my hon. Friend tell me whether that is the case—and, if not, why not? Those are the main points of concern for my constituents. With those remarks, I welcome the order.
11.31 p.m.
Mr. J. D. Concannon: After hearing the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster), I can understand you feeling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is little left to be said. For an Englishman trying to interest himself in Irish affairs, I can understand that sometimes it is pretty hard going. It does not get any easier when we have to listen to the hon. Member for Belfast, East making the same speech time after time.
Class III, 3 and 4, relate to expenses of criminal prosecutions and other law charges, including the expenses of civil litigation, and salaries and allowances. Is any of that money available to British Servicemen and their counsel when they go to Northern Ireland to obtain compensation.
When the hon. Member for Belfast, East talks about people in Northern Ireland being murdered, killed, wounded and disfigured, he must remember that there are few English hon. Members whose constituents have not similarly suffered. It concerns many English hon. Members that soldiers must go back to Northern Ireland to present their cases in the Northern Ireland courts.
In that way Northern Ireland seems to be treated as a separate entity, yet we hear talk that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. Has the Department considered the position of British troops who have been terribly injured and maimed who have to go back to Northern Ireland to present their cases? There must be some way of getting their cases heard and dealt with in England.
I try to advise my constituents when they come to me with their problems. I think of Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom. I suddenly find that it has separate laws or rules. Last weekend one of my constituents told me that he wanted to go to live in Northern

1611
Ireland. He has never been there. I do not know why he wants to go there. He has a flat to go to. I told him that it is an integral part of the United Kingdom. He has now discovered that he must find himself a job, but he has not obtained a work permit.
We know that the traffic from Northern Ireland to England is uninterrupted, yet when my constituent wants to go to Northern Ireland to live and to work he finds that he must have a work permit. As an Englishman, I try my best to understand Northern Ireland affairs. It would help me to know in which ways Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom. We should consider its affairs carefully and try to bring them into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. I do not want to say anything else ; it has all been said and covered. Obviously I do not expect an answer on these two points tonight, but I hope that somebody, somewhere, is looking into them.
11.35 p.m.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I welcome the support that the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) has given to the plea which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and I and some of my colleagues have made time and time again for complete integration into the United Kingdom. We look forward to having the hon. Member's support in the Lobby next time we bring forward an amendment with that end in view.
On Class III, item 2 "For police services", I gladly support what has been said on both sides tonight about the need to encourage recruitment to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and to the RUC Reserve. Like other hon. Members, I wonder whether the Government have finally set their face against any special allowances in view of the hazardous duties undertaken by the police in Northern Ireland. When we last pressed this point we were told that there were difficulties caused by phase 2 and the rest. Now that we are entering phase 3, could not the Police Authority at least be encouraged to examine ways and means of helping these gallant officers and the men who do their bidding?
If I might mention the problem of police accommodation, I have in my constituency
1612
in South Antrim two important RUC stations, one at Antrim and one at Lisburn. Both are now divisional headquarters. Because of the age of the buildings, both are now unsuitable and very inadequate for their present purpose—or, indeed, for any purpose. I would like the Ministry of Home Affairs to be asked to speed up the replacement of both buildings by stations which would provide much more civilised and efficient conditions.
In Class IV, item 7 relates to health and personal social services. As a former vice-chairman of the hospital management committee who was demobbed on 30th September as a result of the reorganisation, I have refrained from criticising the new structure which came into being on 1st October. I was prepared to give it a long honeymoon, and I still am, but I want to be assured that everything possible will be done to allay the fears of those with a special interest in mental health and special care and to see that every effort will be made concerning these two vulnerable categories of patients to ensure that they do not in any way suffer from the restructuring.
Under Class V, item 2—grants to education and library services—one has evidence to suggest that the performance of the new boards is somewhat patchy. For example, in the area of the Western Board one suspects that there is some delay in reaching staff establishments. This may be why, for example, the primary school in Limavady, County Londonderry, which under the old county education committee was provided with a very efficient library service, has now had that facility withdrawn.
I think also that the new board offices suffer from being rather short of equipment, particularly telephone equipment. Efficiency would be improved if this point could be looked into.
I turn to the subject of agriculture which is dealt with in Class VI. I wonder whether anything can be done to mitigate the still increasing costs of animal feeding stuffs. Earlier in the autumn hope was expressed that there might be a downward trend in prices, but while some prices have dropped others have risen. The net picture is that there has been no overall reduction.

1613
Only today there are alarming indications that prices are likely to start to rise again. Maize is already up in price and the price of protein has risen considerably. If grant assistance cannot be afforded under this heading, then it is essential that in today's price review calculations should not be based, as formerly, solely on differences in returns but should take account of the substantial increases in food costs which have affected Northern Ireland farmers far more than farmers in the rest of the United Kingdom.
I hope that account will be taken of the effects of the monopoly situation which affects the supply of raw materials for fertilizers. The situation led to an increase in cost to Ulster farmers amounting to over £1 million in the current year. I hope that this point will not be lost sight of during the review.
Under the heading of animal diseases, the most worrying problem is that of the serious outbreak of fowl pest which is currently affecting the eastern part of the Province. I want to pay a sincere tribute to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Ministry of Agriculture for their speedy and efficient handling of this emergency situation. The measures necessary have thrown a great strain on the veterinary staff, and we have admired the degree of flexibility which has permitted the recruitment of people with a knowledge of the poultry industry to assist in the formidable task of slaughtering, vaccination and prevention.
On the problem of compensation, I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) queried the increase, because I was hoping to press my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for sympathetic consideration to be given to compensation claims during the emergency. There is a serious problem for egg producers whose flocks have been in production for some time but which are still earning the first profit those owners have made for years. In many cases the farmer is relying on these final months of production to pull his undertaking out of the red. But if he is compensated only at the market value of the bird, the carcase price, he could find himself making a substantial net loss on the whole undertaking. I
1614
hope that sympathetic consideration will be given to such cases.
Turkey producers are also seriously affected. As my hon. Friend the Minister will know, this is very much a seasonal venture, and if things go wrong in the next vital three weeks the loss to farmers could be staggering. With the increase in the cost of feeding stuffs since mid-summer, they could be greatly at risk as a result of the outbreak. Therefore, I trust that the greatly increased cost of feeding stuffs which have gone into producing birds to near market readiness will be taken into consideration when compensation is assessed.
I trust that in the matter of licensing birds—I am still mainly on turkeys—within vaccination areas, care will be taken to avoid placing producers at the mercy of large monopolies. In the case of small producers whose markets consist of individual orders for delivery within their own locality, I hope it will be possible to devise a simple system involving the provision of a list of those orders which have been placed during the year so that it will not be necessary to obtain a licence for every transaction.
There are many other matters of vital concern to a considerable number of people in Northern Ireland in this order. When the Parliament of Northern Ireland was in being, these matters could have been raised with all the responsible Ministers present. My hon. Friend, as always, has carried the whole burden with ability and courtesy but, in the very nature of things, our scrutiny must necessarily be rather limited. But I hope that I shall not be thought presumptuous if I conclude by saying that we express our gratitude to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their part in this limited operation, and I trust that our combined efforts will be of some benefit to the people of Northern Ireland.
11.45 p.m.
Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: I shall not detain the House for more than two minutes. I wish to ask my hon. Friend only three questions.
Clearly the decrease of £3,000 in respect of police services seems incredible at the time when the RUC is so hard pressed. I want especially to underline the remarks about police barracks, because such of them as I have seen would

1615
have done rather well to have had the £3,000 spent on them.
My second question, also about the police, arises from what the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said. It concerns the block grant. Does this mean that the police will be paid by the Ulster Executive, or will they be paid in some other way? Is it a case of he who pays the piper calling the tune, or does someone pay the piper, with someone else calling the tune?
My final question relates to the Agent for Northern Ireland in Great Britain. It is only a small sum of £35,000. But I feel that he may be a left-over of the former political structure in Northern Ireland. Can my hon. Friend say what is the task of the Agent for Northern Ireland in Great Britain? What does the Berkeley Street office now fulfil as an office for Northern Ireland? I hate to suggest putting anyone out of a job, but is there any need for him to have that job in the future? Is there any parallel with what he once did for Northern Ireland or with anything which may be given to Scotland or Wales?
11.47 p.m.
Captain L. P. S. Orr: I join in the tributes which have been paid to the Minister. I am sorry for him, having at this late hour to deal with such an enormous range of subjects, and I shall not add to his burden by further detailed comment about the various heads of expenditure in the order.
I rise only to reinforce the question asked by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) about the financial arrangements which will be with the new Executive and about how this kind of operation will be handled in the future.
I have referred to HANSARD of 24th May, and in many ways it adds to the confusion. I do not imagine that my hon. Friend will be able to answer the question tonight, but perhaps he will be good enough once again to draw the attention of the Government to it and to say that between now and next Thursday we shall require considerable clarification of the position.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: May we again reinforce this point? On the detail of it, we do not expect a reply
1616
tonight. But, given the discussions which are taking place this weekend, if next Thursday we are to discuss sensibly the devolution order we must have more information. It may be that this can be done in some detail by means of a Written Answer, but we must be clear about what the financial arrangements are before we can discuss devolution. We were promised that these matters would be spelled out. For some reason, they have not been. But this is a most important point, and we support what the hon. and gallant Gentleman is saying.
Captain Orr: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) for that intervention. I would add little to reinforce it, except to draw attention to what was said by the Minister on 24th May :
"Under Clause 16, the Secretary of State will take power to make a general grant-in-aid of Northern Ireland's revenue resources. This is a continuation of the system introduced in the Northern Ireland (Financial Provisions) Act 1972. Under the Bill, the grant-in-aid will be capable of comprising the separate special payments which are to come to an end, as I described earlier. Although Northern Ireland for the foreseeable future will undoubtedly require a large grant-in-aid to supplement its revenue, the assumption of the cost of excepted and reserved matters in London, dealing with law and order, and compensation for the time being, coupled with plausible alterations in tax yields and other feasible changes, like the growth of payments from European sources, suggest that the new financial arrangements should include provision for a possible—I emphasise, only possible—deduction from Northern Ireland's proper share of tax proceeds."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th May 1973 ; Vol 857, c. 795.]
If my hon. Friend could tell me what that means it would be of great assistance. But I am satisfied that not even he, with all his acumen and skill, could tell me what it means.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: Despite the incomprehensibility of what my hon. and gallant Friend has read to the House, is it his understanding that the grant-in-aid mentioned in that passage is the same as the annual sum mentioned in paragraph 83(b) on page 21 of the White Paper?
Captain Orr: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That was the very question that I was about to ask : is this the same? We want to know whether there will be an analogy between the Northern Ireland Executive and the local authorities

1617
in this country. I understand that at present there is an annual grant, or whatever it is called—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): Order. I think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman is straying a little wide of the order. I am sure that he does not mean to do so. Perhaps he will give a little attention to the point.
Captain Orr: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The point is that if next Thursday we are to have the devolution order this will be the last of these appropriation orders. I am grateful for the latitude that has been shown, but I thought that you might allow us to ask what is to replace this procedure when the time comes. I do not want to labour the point. Perhaps my hon. Friend will add to what I have said on this matter. When my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) asked what the formula would be, he said that there was no reason why there should not be consultation. We want to know whether the Secretary of State, in negotiation in the normal process in the Cabinet, will get the money and will then allocate it or whether there is to be a system of consultation with the Executive as there is with local authorities in this country in the same position. That is all I wish to add to reinforce what was said by the hon. Member for Leeds, South, so that we may know the position before next Thursday.
11.54 p.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: I have some task before me to answer all the points that have been made, so I will speak fairly fast to try to cover them. I understand that the hour and a half will be up in about 25 minutes, but I will do my best.
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr Orme) welcomed the order. He was quite right that if devolution takes place this will be the last budget, as it were. Once we get the Executive under way, this can be dealt with. My hon. Friends are right to say that there is not enough time to debate these points, and that time is needed in the Assembly. This is what we are working for and why we are asking for their support. This is what they want and they are right to say that proper debate should take place.
1618
The decrease of £3,000 which has been referred to is a reduction in the total income for the police vote for the year. It arises from a slight adjustment in the estimate for pensions contributions by policemen, and is not significant in itself. In the "sums granted" column there is a supplementary estimate for the police of £2,670,000. This is an increase in expenditure. It is just that the police vote did not get as much as had been expected from contributions.
I should be out of order to go into the question of the Common Market, but 100,000 people in Northern Ireland have benefited from the cheaper butter scheme. The increase borne by the British grant-in-aid is £169 million. It would be best if I wrote to the hon. Member on this point. Expenditure in Northern Ireland is £644 million, income £383 million and the deficiency of £258 million is met partly by the grant-in-aid.
I can understand hon. Members being concerned about future financial arrangements. The Government are committed to bringing forward a White Paper setting out the financial arrangements. At the moment and until devolution, we are operating under the system set out in Cmnd. 4498 published in June 1972, entitled "Northern Ireland—Financial Arrangements and Legislation". The White Paper makes it clear that the Government will discuss these arrangements with the new institutions and authorities in Northern Ireland before they are finalised—particularly the proposals for the control of public expenditure. These discussions are not yet concluded, and it follows that the White Paper will not be published until devolution. I will get this situation clarified before Thursday, although I cannot promise the House that it will be included in the speech. I hope that that clears up the point. The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) talked about the decrease of £3,000. I hope that I have made the position clear. There will be no slackening in recruiting or in providing equipment, and to improve these will be our main aim. A lot of time and energy are being spent in seeking the necessary recruits, and there will be advertising.
I now want to turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr.
McMaster), who raised over 14 points. I will try desperately to answer some of

1619
them, but I assure him that they will all be covered by a letter. There was a point made about Class I, "Sums Granted £35,000". This represents increased rates of pay for existing staff. Under Class II, item 4, "Sums Granted £15,900", this represents loan charges on buildings taken over from local authorities. I can assure my hon. Friend that expenditure is not going down. There will also be a spring supplementary in which the amount will be fairly considerable.
While I am on this subject, it is important to explain the various columns in this order. In all cases, the sums granted—that is, the first column—are increases in expenditure. Any increases in appropriations in aid are increases in income, and are taken into account before asking for the extra sums granted. Any decreases in appropriations in aid mean that the sums granted are increased by that amount. I hope that that clears up that point.
As regards control of the police, we have given the assurance that the RUC will remain under our control. On the question of senior officers having to come over to this country for a certain time, if my hon. Friend will excuse me I will see that he has a letter setting out the position very clearly. I will look into what my hon. Friend said about complaints, but, from my own knowledge, there are very few complaints about the police. Certainly, there will be changes and improvements in the organisation of the police. These are going on all the time, and I am sure my hon. Friend will welcome that fact. The organisation of the police is not something that is stationary. Morale is very good, and I find it improving as I go around the various police stations. I am afraid that I have forgotten the point about agriculture.
Mr. McMaster: It was a misreading of the increase in the appropriations in aid which has already been covered.
Mr. Mills: That is very helpful. Short Brothers, are doing an excellent job and I am sure that we have every confidence in them. They seem to be highly competitive with their Skyvans. Harland and Wolff have a certain amount of problems due to the shortage of steel and other
1620
factors, but there is a great programme of modernisation going on and, again, I have confidence there.
Turning to the oil position in Northern Ireland, which caused my hon. Friend considerable concern, I spoke to my hon. Friend the Minister of State a few days ago, and I can assure him that he has these matters well in hand and I am sure he will note my hon. Friend's concern about this matter. I understand that the position is reasonable. As regards the flats and houses, and provision for coal instead of reliance on oil, I hope that the authorities and the builders will note my hon. Friend's remarks, because this is obviously an important point. I, for one, still use the old-fashioned wood and logs and I do not rely on oil or on coal. But I am sure that the point will be taken note of by the authorities.
I now come to the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) whom we welcome to this debate. After the many orders that I have had the privilege of moving, it is nice to see a new face. Whether he is whipping, sitting down or speaking, he is very welcome. He made three important points, especially the one about whether soldiers need to go back to Northern Ireland. I will try to find out something about that aspect, because there is something in the point he made about a man who has been severely wounded and shocked having to go back to give evidence. I should like to look into that point.
Regarding the work permit and the future, that point will also be noted. One of the first things that happened when I arrived in Northern Ireland was that one person there—not one of my hon. Friends here tonight—had the sauce to ask whether I had a work permit. I had not got one, though I was able to do some fairly hard work over there.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) raised the question of the special allowances for the RUC. Pay for the RUC is a matter for negotiation in the Police Council for the United Kingdom. The Police Council has made it clear that it would wish to make some monetary recognition of the special circumstances in which the RUC operates at present. The pay code for stage 3 provides for a new pay limit and, in addition, a flexibility margin and premiums for unsocial hours. While the

1621
Government have great sympathy for the long hours and strain under which the RUC operates and had the problem very much in mind when drafting the stage 3 code, it finally proved impossible to write in any extra provision beyond the improved flexibility without seriously breaking the integrity of the code.
However, before there are too many moans from the Opposition, I want to point out that stage 3 provides some scope for worthwhile increases for the police forces generally, and the flexibility margin is available for those engaged in pay negotiations. That covers the point, but obviously it will not satisfy everyone.
Mr. Orme: I have discussed this matter with Mr. Stanage of the Police Federation, after he had attended a recent meeting of the Joint Police Federation of England and Wales on being invited over from Northern Ireland. The Police Federation is highly dissatisfied with this arrangement. We think that it is wrong for the Government to play about with phase 3 in the United Kingdom, but doing it in Northern Ireland and trying to square the circle is not working. I urge the Minister to tell his right hon. Friends that this is not good enough. It is a barrier to the improvement of conditions within the RUC and the fire service.
Mr. Mills: My right hon. Friend and those concerned will note what the hon. Gentleman has said. But this is some progress in that there is flexibility and the matter of unsocial hours.
Mr. Molyneaux: Will my hon. Friend accept from me the view, which I hope is shared by all who have had experience of police activities in Northern Ireland, that every hour on duty could be classed as an unsocial hour?
Mr. Mills: That is a worthwhile point, which again will be considered ; but I cannot go any further than I have on the matter.
Regarding the future of mental health work in Northern Ireland, every effort will be made to continue the good work that is being done. On a personal level, my wife has visited many of the establishments concerned and has always returned with the view that they are of a very high standard and that a tremendous
1622
amount of work is being done for the people involved. All concerned are to be congratulated. That work will continue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South opened the whole subject of agriculture and animal feeding stuffs. I could talk for about five hours on that subject, but I cannot do that tonight. I have looked into the matter very carefully. There are difficulties because of Northern Ireland's remoteness but Northern Ireland is still receiving considerable extra aid. There is still the differential because of the distance, the sea and so on. But we are looking into the matter. If my hon. Friends will help with devolution and getting the Executive under way, probably a new Minister of Agriculture will carry on where I have left off. [Interruption.] For all that, I am sure he will do a first-class job.
My hon. Friend is wrong about protein. The price of soya meal has come down from a peak of nearly £300 a ton to about £100 a ton. The problem is that that fall is not being reflected in the compound feeding prices because merchants have bought forward, but it will be reflected in time.
I thank my hon. Friend for the tribute he paid to my Ministry with regard to fowl pest. We shall consider the whole problem of compensation carefully and sympathetically. Fowl pest is a major problem over there. Although great efforts are being made to contain it, obviously quite a number of people will suffer. Every farmer must take the greatest care that the disease does not spread, by seeing that there are no intruders and that precautions are taken.
We welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson) to these debates. He asked who would pay the police after devolution. They will be paid by the Northern Ireland Office. It is not a matter with which the Executive or the Northern Ireland people will be concerned.
I hope that the Northern Ireland Agent in Great Britain will continue. I cannot pay a high enough tribute to him. I have worked closely with him in promoting seed potatoes, milk products and all sorts of other things for sale outside

1623
Northern Ireland. He does a worthwhile job in London to further the exports of Northern Ireland.
I think that I have covered most of the points raised by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr).
This has been a long debate. I have probably not covered everything that I should, but I shall look closely at HANSARD and try to deal with what has been omitted.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Appropriation (No. 3) Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 15th November, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND (LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION)
12.15 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Reorganisation (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.
The reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland came into effect on 1st October. As a result, the former local authorities were abolished and their functions transferred either to the 26 new district councils or to various Government Departments in Northern Ireland. This order, which is consequential upon the transfer of those functions, amends certain Acts of the United Kingdom to take account of this reorganisation. Among the amendments which will be achieved by the order, there are three matters to which I should like to refer in some detail.
First, as hon. Members will have observed, Article 2 makes the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland the electoral registration officer and returning officer for constituencies in Northern Ireland which return members to the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Before 1st October 1973, the statutory duties of electoral registration under the Representation of the People Acts were carried out by the Town Clerk of the County Borough of Belfast and the secretaries of
1624
each of the six county councils. As a result of the reorganisation of local government, these appointments no longer exist, and it is therefore necessary to make alternative provision. Since the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland already has the responsibility of preparing the electoral register for Northern Ireland assembly and local elections, it seems right that he should be given the duty of preparing the register for United Kingdom parliamentary elections. Indeed, the register prepared is in practice a combined register containing the names of all persons in Northern Ireland entitled to vote at United Kingdom parliamentary, Northern Ireland assembly or local elections.
The returning officers for the 12 Westminster constituencies in Northern Ireland are, under existing law, the under-sheriffs of Belfast and of the six counties. These officers are practising solicitors in private practice. I should like to take this opportunity to commend publicly the excellent work they have done as returning officers over the years.
However, since there is a chief electoral officer responsible for the organisation and conduct of Northern Ireland assembly and local elections, it is appropriate that this officer should also be entrusted with the task of conducting elections in the Westminster constituencies in Northern Ireland.
I turn now to Article 3 of the order which relates to the appointment of high sheriffs for the county boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry. Under present legislation, the procedure for the appointment of sheriffs for the county boroughs of Belfast and Londonderry differs from that in the counties. Nominations for office in the county boroughs were, prior to 1st October, made by the county borough councils—namely, the Belfast Corporation and, in the case of Londonderry, the Londonderry Development Commission, whereas in the counties nominations are made by the Crown judge at assize in each county.
In addition to the differing procedure for appointment of sheriffs, the period of office for sheriffs of county boroughs is different from that of sheriffs of counties. Although the term of office is one year for both, in the case of county boroughs the term runs from June to June, whilst in the counties the term is the calendar year.

1625
As a result of the reorganisation of local government and the consequent separation of the new local government districts from the judicial areas of counties and county boroughs, it is felt appropriate to amend the law so that the method of appointment and period of office of sheriffs of county boroughs will be the same as that for the counties. This, then, is what Article 3 seeks to achieve.
Article 4 extends to Enterprise Ulster and three other public bodies those provisions of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 which prohibit discrimination in the public sector on religious or political grounds or the requirement of certain oaths and undertakings as a condition of employment.
The remaining provision of the order deals with the consequential and more technical amendments of United Kingdom enactments to which I have earlier referred.
12.20 a.m.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: This is the 54th item of legislation that we have dealt with since the temporary provisions legislation. I throw in that interesting statistic because it bears out some of the points that have been made from both sides of the House about the difficulties of discussing Northern Ireland legislation. I am sure that we all look forward to the legislation we shall have next Thursday. We hope to see the power being devolved, the Executive established and much that has been discussed in this House being discussed properly in the new Executive and Assembly in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, though this is perhaps the last piece of legislation before the devolution order, it is one of the sweetest we have ever had and is certainly the sweetest of the three we have dealt with tonight. The first was obviously distasteful to all hon. Members. The second dealt with the "nuts and bolts" and, while important, was not easy to get excited over. This order is of great importance in that it extends the field of human rights. However, whether or not there was to be devolution, this order would still have had to be discussed in this House.
It is a consequence of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act which became law this year. As the Under-Secretary
1626
indicated, the order is in many ways a very technical matter, dealing with the provisions consequent upon reorganisation of local government in the Six Counties, particularly in Articles 2 and 3. I should like to take this opportunity of joining the Under-Secretary in not only congratulating the under-sheriffs for the work that they have done as electoral returning officers, but to congratulate the Chief Electoral Returning Officer of Northern Ireland and his staff whose work we have observed with admiration over the last year in connection with the border poll, even if we did not like the poll. We congratulate them too upon the fine work that was done for the elections to the Assembly, work which would have been good in any circumstances, but which in the particular difficulties of the Six Counties in the last few years is remarkable.
Article 4 is the most important part of the order because it deals with an extension of human rights and the prevention of religious and political discrimination. It extends Sections 19 and 21 of the Constitution Act. Section 19 deals with discrimination against any person or class of persons on grounds of religious or political belief. It is well worth reading again, because it is particularly important to the minority population. It says :
"It shall be unlawful for a Minister of the Crown, a member of the Northern Ireland Executive or other person … to discriminate, or aid, induce or incite another to discriminate, in the discharge of functions relating to Northern Ireland against any person or class of persons on the ground of religious belief or political opinion."
Section 21 deals with the particularly contentious subject of oaths which have caused so much trouble in the past. It says,
"it shall be unlawful for an authority or body to which this section applies to require any person to take an oath, make an undertaking in lieu of an oath or make a declaration, as a condition of his being appointed to or acting as a member of that authority or body, or of serving with or being employed under that authority or body."
These were things that many people in the north of Ireland and in this House have striven for. The provisions extend the area of protection, as the Under-Secretary indicated, to many important matters, but particularly to the four area boards for health and social services. The order does not mention the area

1627
boards for education and libraries. Has similar provision been made for members of those boards? If so in which piece of legislation is it contained? If no provision has been made, why not? If it is intended to introduce a further order why are two pieces of legislation to be brought in when one would do?
One of the purposes of Article 4 is to prohibit discrimination in the employment sector covered by the Health and Social Services Board. That is very proper. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Marlyn Rees) has been in correspondence with the former Secretary of State concerning allegations of possible discrimination in the Western Area Board in relation to the selection of administrative staff in the public health sphere. The allegation, basically, was that no member of the minority was given an appointment and that when the reorganisation was taking place no member of the minority was sent on a training course so as to become eligible for appointment. The right hon. Gentleman replied to my hon. Friend outlining the procedures followed and claimed first, that the area boards are reasonably representative of both communities and, secondly, that the proper procedures were followed and an independent assessor was present. He claimed also that the recommendation for attendance on the training courses was made by the Departments concerned within the board's area and there was no set procedure for selection.
The person who originally wrote to my hon. Friend has sent a further letter in which it is stated that, first, all members of the interviewing panel were non-Catholics, second, that the independent assessor had spent at least five years in a senior capacity at the Royal College of Nursing, Belfast, and, third, that all the people who had power to make recommendations for training courses were non-Catholic.
There the matter rests. Doubtless there will be further correspondence from the Secretary of State to my hon. Friend, with, perhaps, copies to me. There may be no substance in these allegations. I mention the case because it indicates the type of problem we are seeking to overcome. Because we are
1628
concerned about it we feel that a lot of the good work that has gone on, and a lot of the legislation we have enacted, may be observed in the letter but not in the spirit. The explanation in this case may be that this situation arose because of an accident of history, perhaps because there were no suitable members of the minority to go on these courses, perhaps because none applied or perhaps because the degree of excellence of the appointees justified, on any consideration, their being appointed. But the grievance is there and felt to be there.
Mr. James Molyneaux: Will the hon. Gentleman accept my assurance that during the time I served with the Northern Ireland Hospital Authority I sat on many appointment panels and on those occasions when I took the trouble to check, I did not do so normally, I discovered that the minority was actually in a majority on the panel by 3–1?
Mr. McNamara: I can accept what the hon. Gentleman says. All I am saying is that we have a system which, apparently on the surface is fair—I do not doubt the Government's good faith over this system—but in looking at the mechanics of what happened it seems there were no set procedures for people to apply for training. It was left to local discretion, or so it is alleged. It is said that the independent assessor was not independent because of previous association with the Six Counties. Here is a matter which needs careful examination.
The lesson I was about to draw from this situation was that there must be a more careful examination of the procedures and the personnel taking part in these procedures to ensure that possible causes of grievance, which can be used and exacerbated by evil men, are not used to wreck the work that we in this House and the Executive-designate are trying to do for Northern Ireland.
Mr. Molyneaux: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the course he is advocating brings with it all the evils of the system we are trying to move away from? Is he not suggesting that we have to scrutinise all appointment panels, all

1629
forms of committees, assessors and so on and grade and balance them on grounds of religion? In other words, such persons would be appointed because of their religion when religion should not enter into it.
Mr. McNamara: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not want a "statutory Catholic", a "statutory Republican", a "statutory Provo" or whatever. We still cannot get away from the situation that we are trying to overcome some difficult history in this situation and in an area like the western area, which is peculiarly sensitive, we should take particular care. That is all I am suggesting. This arises purely and simply because although one can understand what is contained in Section 18, subsection (1), of the Act and Article 4 in this order, unless the spirit is followed as well as the letter we shall be in a difficult situation.
Some of the best constitutions in the world exist in eastern Europe, beyond the Iron Curtain, but I should rather live here without a written constitution than in any of those countries. We are making an important point. Article 4 concerns important matters of human rights, but between Sections 19 and 21 in the Act comes Section 20 which establishes the Standing Advisory Committee on Human Rights to which Mr. Victor Feather has been appointed Chairman. This is an important body and we congratulate the Government on their wise and imaginative choice.
There is no greater believer in fairness, respect for the proper and correct administration of the law and the importance of human dignity than a trade unionist, and Mr. Feather will be quick to advise the Government on any political or religious discrimination which he suspects is being perpetrated against any section or person in the community of Northern Ireland.
Similarly, with the appointment of Mr. McGonagle as Commissioner for Complaints. He has a distinguished history in the Irish Transport and General Workers' Union—
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: Can the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) relate this to the order?
Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect, I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman was the last person to suggest to others that they might be outside the rules of order, but in any event, I expect you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to call me to order, not the hon. Gentleman.
This is an important matter concerning human rights and an important point on that is the appointment of the Advisory Commission on Human Rights. The Chairman of that Commission is Mr. Victor Feather and we are now concerned, if I may finish my compliment to the Government—a thing I rarely pay to a Tory Government—that they have, in the appointment of Mr. McGonagle, again shown imagination. He will be a serious loss to his own trade union in Ireland as I know because I spoke to the General Secretary last Mondey, but he has all our good wishes.
Now we have a chairman of the Advisory Commission, when will the other members be appointed? When is the Commission due to start work? In the Queen's Speech it was also announced that there was to be legislation on discrimination in private employment in Northern Ireland. Can the Minister tell us when we are likely to see the Bill?
We all know how difficult it is to reorganise local government. We should like from this side of the House to congratulate the Ministers concerned and all the officials in Government and in local authorities in Northern Ireland on achieving the reorganisation of local government so smoothly in spite of the difficulties and on achieving it well in advance of England, Scotland and Wales.
Finally, a new Minister is going there, Mr. Austin Currie, a friend of many hon. Members. We know that he is going into a good department and that he will acquit himself well. We hope that he will be a distinguished Minister in the most important enterprise that he and his colleagues will be undertaking.
I support the order.
12.35 p.m.
Mr. James Molyneaux: We would all willingly give our support to any method likely to deal competently with legislation as an alternative

1631
to the Order in Council procedure, but the new vehicle on which some had pinned such high hopes at Stormont has been having a stormy running-in period and we may be excused for having doubts.
Article 2 gives the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland power to take over the function of the former electoral registration officer in each county. I do not wish to criticise the electoral officer, his deputies or his staff, and I subscribe to much of what has been said by the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North (Mr. McNamara).
I understand what the Government are trying to do. For example, for the first time they are providing in the register the street and road numbers, which is an even more complicated operation in the new lists and registers. This will undoubtedly be of great help to the political parties when they are engaged in electioneering. In a much wider sense it may provide a comprehensive directory for each constituency in Northern Ireland.
On the minus side there has been some confusion, possibly because too much has been attempted. One example is the reliance placed upon the return of registration forms in a year when the electorate are weary of postal voting and the complicated apparatus involved. I know of constituents who, when asked whether they had completed their forms, said "We are having nothing to do with this postal voting ; we burnt ours." Only about two-thirds of the forms were returned, and when it became necessary to augment the system and return to the original system of canvassers it was impossible to include the additional names in the electoral list published on 30th November. The additional names appear in supplementary lists which are held at the office of the appropriate deputy registration officer.
Because of this the chief electoral officer is reluctant to issue individual claim forms and prefers that party agents and other interested people should take lists of persons omitted to the various offices to check them against the supplementary list. It is necessary to furnish the people who have been omitted with a claim form, which will have to be completed and returned to
1632
the deputy registration officer by 15th September. As one who had the chore of seeing that this was done in former years, I doubt whether this added complication will make it possible for the returns to be in by the required date. I hope that the Minister responsible will allow some latitude to take account of this complication.
This system might possibly work in a city constituency, but it presents problems in a large rural constituency. When the Unionist agent for South Antrim called for his lists he was given only 18 names for an electorate of 130,000. Is it possible to issue the claim forms on a less restricted scale, possibly by placing some in each Post Office?
Article 2(b) makes the chief electoral officer the returning officer for each constituency. I assume that that in practice means that the deputy electoral officer would be the returning officer in the constituency in which he operated. The problem is that the returning officer's area does not coincide with the boundaries of the deputy electoral officer. The requirement of the Representation of the People Act 1969 is that the local boundaries shall not be broken unnecessarily except in special cases.
It is the local authorities which have made nonsense of the constituency boundaries. With the reorganisation they have in practically all cases completely disrupted the old lines of demarcation. It might have been a far happier solution to have retained the well-tried organisation which is based on the Westminster constituencies which were drawn up by a commissioner appointed by the House.
Bearing in mind that presumably the registers will be published every year in their parliamentary form—that is, showing the old polling areas and boundaries as defined again by Westminster—I imagine that the new local government register with the new-look areas will be published only once in four years. It seems strange that the interests of Stormont and Westminster should be subordinated to those of local authorities composed, it is true, of many worthy people but with limited powers.
I hope that in due course the teething troubles will be overcome and the priorities sorted out.
12.42 a.m.
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I do not intend to keep the House long. As the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) chose to mention the extension of the provisions of Sections 19 and 21 of the Constitution Act, and made heavy weather of doing so, I draw the attention of the House to the fact that we have had the Ombudsman in Northern Ireland and he has looked into complaints of the sort to which the hon. Gentleman referred for a number of years.
The Ombudsman, the same person who performed the same function in the United Kingdom, is a highly respected ex-senior civil servant. He found that few cases were referred to him. In a negligible number of cases was there any decision. I feel that the hon. Member for Salford, West has made heavy weather of the order. Perhaps unwittingly he has added a little to the undermining of the establishment in Northern Ireland. I personally regret that we have had to listen to such an extent to a matter which has such little substance.
Mr. McNamara: The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) should not heap my sins upon my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme). My constituency is Kingston upon Hull, North. The very point which the hon. Gentleman was making about undermining the system and the dangers involved was the point which I was seeking to make.
12.44 a.m.
Mr. Peter Mills: I should like to reply to some of the points which have been raised in this short but interesting debate. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) say that he welcomed the order. I am sure he is right, as is the whole House.
Having listened to the various points which have been raised, I am most disappointed that no hon. Member has asked about the sheriffs and their duties, because I was longing to mention that these are set out in the Sheriffs (Ireland) Act 1920, which states that one of their functions is exercised in connection with oyer and terminer—that is, to hear and determine. I was sorry that the point was not raised, but I have made the
1634
duties quite clear. It is important that people should know.
I also welcome what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said about congratulating the various staff—he is right about this too—and also what he said about the chief electoral officer. It is important that all of us should look upon this as a new start. There is no going back to the past in this whole field. There is new registration and a new chief electoral officer. He has a full-time staff, he is completely independent, and he has a full complement of staff to deal with the problems. I am sure we congratulate the chief electoral officer on what he has done already.
I turn to Article 4, which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster) was right to bring forward, and the extension of human rights. I welcome what my hon. Friend said about Article 4. As regards education and libraries, the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 provides for the education and library boards to be added to Schedule 1 to the Commissioner for Complaints Act (Northern Ireland) 1969. Since this article of the order came into effect on 20th March 1973, the boards are clearly within the scope of Section 19 of the Constitution Act. It is, therefore, already in operation.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North touched on the question of the Western Health and Social Services Board and a personal problem. I should like to make a few general points first. My experience in Northern Ireland is that these things are most carefully looked into, certainly in the Ministry with which I have been concerned. We take into account very much the minority. I know that all Ministers watch this point carefully. I am sure the hon. Member would agree that appointment must be made on merit. It does not matter what a person's label is.
I know that there are sensitive areas and sensitive people about this. We have to watch this carefully so that there is no misunderstanding. I only hope that in this new, shall we say, climate many more people will come forward from the minority to offer themselves for these appointments and that we may work together in the future irrespective of our religious label.

1635
I have looked into the case that was mentioned. I do not know whether the hon. Member wants me to go into it in a little more detail, but the article provides that health boards are within the scope of Section 19 of the Constitution Act and the Commissioner for Complaints may, therefore, be asked to investigate a complaint concerning discrimination. I do not think that it happened in the case in question. If the hon. Member wants me to pursue the point further, perhaps he will let me know. I assure the House that we have looked into the matter carefully and that my right hon. Friend has given a reply to the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) on this point.
Mr. McNamara: There has been further correspondence by the person concerned with the Secretary of State—correspondence which perhaps has not yet percolated through to the Under-Secretary of State.
Mr. Mills: The correspondence has not yet reached me, but I am certain a detailed reply will be sent in due course.
Reference has been made to the Chairman of the Advisory Council, and I was asked what other appointments would be made. We are seeking to press ahead with this matter. The matter of a Bill in the private sector is entirely a matter for the Leader of the House and for the Government, and it is not for me as a mere Under-Secretary to enter into those realms.
Mr. McMaster: Will the Under-Secretary accept from me, as somebody who has studied this subject very carefully, that if appointments are made or refused to be made as a result of pressure, then this itself can cause resentment and can do far more harm than good?
Mr. Mills: That may be so, but I can assure my hon. Friend that in my experience in Northern Ireland I have come to realise that people are very sensitive about these matters. The greatest care must be taken, and there is a long history involving people who have these fears.
Captain L. P. S. Orr: On both sides.
Mr. Mills: Yes, I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for
1636
Down, South (Captain Orr) that the fears are on both sides. Therefore, we must tread carefully, but we welcome this as a step forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) made a lot of rather technical points about claim forms, lists and local boundaries. I think that at this late hour I shall not attempt to deal with those matters in detail, since my hon. Friend is an expert on those matters and I am not. I promise to write to my hon. Friend and give him the information he seeks.
In commending the order to the House, it only remains for me to thank hon. Members on both sides for their kind remarks to me. I cannot say that I am always happy to be here at this time of the morning, but it was pleasant to hear those things said.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Local Government Reorganisation (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 8th November, be approved.

CIVIL DEFENCE
Ordered,
That the Civil Defence (Planning) Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Weatherill.]
Ordered,
That the Civil Defence (Grant) (Amendment) Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November be approved.—[Mr. Weatherill.]
Ordered,
That the Civil Defence (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
Ordered,
That the International Cocoa Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) (No. 2) Order 1973, a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th November, be approved.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

DIPLOMATIC PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES
  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Weatherill.]

HMS "CONWAY"
12.54 a.m.
Captain Walter Elliot: HMS "Conway" was established in 1859. For nearly 11 years she has given valuable service to the nation. During that period many changes have taken place and "Conway" has adapted to the needs of the times.
Credit is due to generations of management committees and shipowners who have recognised the vital contribution made by "Conway" to our maritime interests and who have given their time and money to ensure that the ship has been safeguarded for the nation. Many old boys of "Conway" have achieved great distinction and high office in our national life. Thousands of them have manned the bridges of our ships in peace and in war, and four Victoria Crosses are among the many decorations awarded to them.
The value of the education and training given by "Conway" is not to be measured only by the distinctions achieved in many walks of life by a minority. The value lies in those qualities of self-discipline, initiative, self-reliance and high moral standards which are inculcated into each "Conway" cadet, and each fit him to become a strongpoint in our national life.
Another great strength of "Conway" is that her cadets are drawn from all strata of society and from all income groups. They are welded into a community and they leave the ship equipped to take their places in the modern world with a sense of their obligation to society. Whatever the future of "Conway", that is a vital ingredient, and I for one would not be arguing her case if that ingredient were to be lost.
With those traditions and those records, it is not surprising that nearly 140 Members of Parliament, many among the most distinguished in the House, from all parties and from all parts of Britain, should sign a motion calling on the Government to ensure the continued existence of this unique establishment. It is not surprising that letters should have come not only from this country but from all over the world calling on the Government to save "Conway" for the nation. It is not surprising that a study group set up in 1968, sponsored and chaired
1638
by the Department of Education and Science and composed of representatives from that Department, the Board of Trade, the Cheshire local education authority, the management of the school and Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Schools, should have reached the conclusion after examining the situation that the continuance of "Conway" was in the national interest.
What is surprising is that the Government today, against this weight of opinion, should hesitate about whether to save "Conway". What is surprising is that, with all the tens of millions of pounds given to other educational establishments of all types, the small sum necessary to save "Conway" may not be found. I will examine this position in greater detail.
First, are enough boys coming forward for places at the school? In 1972, the last year before "Conway's" future became in doubt, there were 800 applications for entry. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary should inquire why, of those 800, only some 200 were interviewed of whom 65 were accepted. He should inquire also why from 1969 to 1971 considerable numbers of boys, interviewed and suitable, could not be admitted. So the boys are coming forward.
Secondly, is there a large enough proportion of "Conway" cadets going into the Merchant Navy? Of course, some go into the Royal Navy and the other fighting services. The figures are as follows, and they include both navigation and marine engineer officers. In 1969 there were 72 per cent., in 1970 there were 58 per cent., and in 1971 69 per cent. These are high percentages, and they could be made higher. Taking the crude figures each year these do not appear high, because the total number of cadets at the school is not great. This has been so for decades.
In 1972 the figure was 34 per cent. and in 1973 32 per cent., a sharp drop. But the reason was that by then the axe had been poised by Cheshire. Therefore, the boys were leaving "Conway" to find further education at establishments with a secure future. Indeed, most of the 1972 intake left in 1973. I suspect that the Department of Education and Science has been given some misleading or perhaps

1639
incomplete figures on this issue and that they should be checked.
Therefore, when times were normal at "Conway", a high proportion of cadets was going into the Merchant Navy, and this proportion could be higher.
What are the educational standards? The number of O-levels and A-levels gained are above the national average. Recently a team of "Conway" cadets came second out of all schools in the United Kingdom for scientific endeavour at the Television Science Fair and later won £1,000 at an international exhibition in Holland.
I will quote from one letter of the hundreds that I have received. This is from a Professor Smart, who says :
"I know at first hand of Conway's excellent work in the teaching of navigation up to GCE standards, for I examined 50 to 60 cadets annually for roughly a score of years for the Oxford and Cambridge Schools' Examination Board. … I can certify that the Conway cadets were well taught the foundations of navigation and that they achieved—and maintained year by year—a high standard of excellence."
There is no doubt that the educational standards are high.
To summarise, "Conway" has fine traditions and an outstanding record of service to the nation. Demand for places at the school is high. Demand for "Conway" cadets by the shipping lines is strong. A high proportion of the cadets enter the sea services. The standard of education is of a high order.
Why, then, is the continued existence of "Conway" in grave danger? Why, indeed, am I forced to raise this matter on the Floor of the House? Has this great maritime nation got its priorities so wrong that, while supporting every other type of establishment, from ballet schools to bankrupt companies, it will not support the unique nautical training school known as HMS "Conway"? There are two main reasons for the difficulties which have arisen, and these can be remedied.
The study group, chaired and sponsored by the Department of Education and Science, investigated and reported on the situation. To this report the officers of the Department made an important contribution. The whole tenor of the report was that aided status should be given to "Conway". But instead of accepting
1640
the report—here is the vital point—the then Minister said that aided status would be granted provided that Cheshire accepted only pupils from education authorities which were prepared to meet the cost. That was the reason why, in 1969, 59 boys suitable for "Conway" had to be refused admission, and another 58 in 1971. Both groups had to be refused because their local councils would not accept responsibility for them. That was the reason for the decline in the numbers at "Conway".
The requirement by the then Minister was fundamentally at variance with the report of the study group which had indicated clearly that, in accordance with the Education Acts, the Cheshire authority would have the right to admit boys from other areas and to recover fees from the local authorities of those areas.
This situation placed the Cheshire authority and the British Shipping Federation in a difficult position. Cheshire, a local authority responsible to its ratepayers, naturally could not be expected to subsidise a national institution. I have here a letter from a member of the county council education committee. I will not give his name, since it was written to someone else. It gives an idea of what members of the county council think of "Conway". He writes :
"I agree with you that it is a tragic loss to the nation and to the students. The closing will be in my view a disaster, because the school was unique, but I think you will realise that, as a committee, one has to consider the position from all points of view, and the ratepayers' in particular."
The county council's motivation is clearly, and rightly from its point of view, the protection of its ratepayers. But in the wider context of the value of HMS "Conway" to the nation and the need to ensure her survival, the position of the ratepayers of one local authority is completely irrelevant. One simple solution, yet not the only one, would be to give "Conway" the full aided status which was recommended by the study group.
The second main difficulty concerns the British Shipping Federation and its link with Cheshire's problem. The BSF as such did not subscribe money to the buildings but it took financial responsibility for "Conway" for a few months in 1968, hoping that the establishment

1641
would be self-supporting. The BSF also took the view that too few cadets were making the Merchant Navy and the Royal Navy their careers. I hope that I have already put the record straight on that point, and I have stressed the special circumstances during the year 1972–73.
The BSF accepts that "Conway" cadets are of high calibre and much sought after. In addition it recognises that in the case of "Conway" cadets there is a lower wastage rate than with entrants from other channels. The BSF also says that, because the pattern and length of cadet training has changed, the advantages enjoyed by "Conway" cadets over other entrants have been eroded.
First, the "Conway" cadets still have an advantage. Second, the high demand from the shipping lines for these cadets exists not because they are better seamen or navigators than the other entrants, although this may well be so as a result of their earlier sea training. The true reason for the demand is the qualities inculcated in them during their training, of which I spoke earlier.
I was sent a brief from the BSF. I do not know who wrote it but it gives much misleading and incomplete information. One paragraph, however, expresses well the feeling in that body :
"It must be stressed that it is not the function of the British Shipping Federation to support institutions providing general education. Consequently, any proposal to revert to running 'Conway' as an independent establishment must find support elsewhere."
It appears to say that it has paid out enough money and does not want to give any more. But it does not really mean that it does not support an institution providing general education, because the shipowners have been supporting "Conway" for over 100 years, precisely because the type of general education and training given to the cadets makes them sought after by the shipping lines. The BSF is really saying "We object to paying money to educate and train boys who then depart to a career other than the maritime services."
In my opinion, if there was a problem it was the duty of the management committee appointed by the BSF to take action to solve it. It would not have been difficult and "Conway" would certainly
1642
have played her part. I confess I get the impression that the present board of management and the BSF are not very interested in "Conway". But I shall have more to say about those aspects and about the parts played by the various authorities on another occasion. In any case, I should like to express the hope that our great shipowners, who have a reputation of far-sightedness and public service, will not allow their judgment about "Conway" to be guided solely by the balance sheet. I am sure they will not allow that to happen. After all, the shipping industry gets a lot of help from public sources. A good example in this regard is set by the livery companies of London, the Drapers, the Haberdashers and many others, who support schools not all of whose pupils enter their trades.
To sum up this part of my case, I would say that for over 115 years "Conway" has seen many changes in the requirements of nautical training. The ship has moved with the times, has kept up to date and can most certainly adapt herself to recent changes in the needs of our maritime service if there is a good board of management.
What can be done to make the future of "Conway" secure and beyond doubt? It could be given full aided status. I quote a letter from the Cheshire authorities. It states :
"The only possible way of granting a reprieve for the school would be for the Ministry to reverse Miss Alice Bacon's decision and to remove from us the obligation to consult with other authorities and accept boys only with their agreement."
That is one way.
In spite of the problems, which I know all about, it could become a direct grant school. May I briefly quote the views of the Under-Secretary's predecessor, who has now gone to the arts? Talking about direct grant schools, he said this among other things :
"We shall continue to cherish, guard and back you so that you may continue in the future, as you have done in the past, to make a contribution to the education of the nation, both notable and profound."
Cannot this maritime nation do that for this unique nautical establishment?
Finally, "Conway" could receive a grant in aid, coupled with an organised appeal for an endowment fund in order that she might become independent.

1643
Should this last course be the only possibility, will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary give me an undertaking tonight that he will not impede its implementation and that he will help its progress, both legally and financially If he does that, or ensures the future of "Conway" in some other way, I promise him that neither he nor the nation will regret his decision.
1.15 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Timothy Raison): My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) has made an honourable and gallant defence of HMS "Conway". One is bound to be impressed by the moving terms in which he has spoken of the school.
I find this a difficult problem with which to deal. My hon. and gallant Friend has set out the basic history of HMS "Conway". There is no need for me to go into that again. We have to start from the fact that in 1968, after many years of distinguished work, the school found itself in financial difficulties and the school governors made a proposal, under Section 13 of the Education Act 1944, that it should be maintained as a voluntary aided school. As we know, that proposal was accepted by the Secretary of State of the day.
Then the maintaining local education authority, Cheshire County Council, after four years' experience of running the school as an aided school, made a proposal and published statutory notices under Section 13(3) of the Education Act, 1944 to cease to maintain the school with effect from 31st August 1974. The local education authority's proposal was made in November 1972, as my hon. and gallant Friend knows. As he also knows, such proposals require approval, with or without modification, by the Secretary of State before they can be put into effect. The Secretary of State is not empowered to consider alternatives to the published proposal.
In accordance with the usual procedure, the Cheshire authority's proposal to cease to maintain HMS "Conway" was duly considered along with the objections to the proposal. Here I acknowledge that the objections to the pro
1644
posal that were received came from every corner of the United Kingdom and many from "old Conways" living abroad. There was no doubt that the type of education they had received was very highly regarded, as were the traditions and discipline of HMS "Conway".
However, my right hon. Friend announced on 10th October this year that, having taken account of the objections to the proposal and of the points made in favour of continuing the school, she had decided on balance to approve the local education authority's proposal to cease to maintain the school. In doing that, my right hon. Friend took careful note of the economic and educational considerations put forward by the local authority.
I must comment about those considerations, First, on the question of the size of the roll, the total complement of places at the school is 210. There had been a steady decline since 1969, and by 1972 the figure was down to 167. I know my hon. and gallant Friend said that about 800 boys applied for entry in that year, but we must face the fact, first, that many of these boys would not be sponsored by their local education authorities and, secondly, that for many of them the standards of "Conway" were too high. These are the standards which "Conway" no doubt rightly set down itself, but the boys were very largely not academically capable of undertaking the courses that were offered.
The decline in the roll has come to mean that the school is very small in relation to its age range of 13 to 18. The school's inability to recruit an adequate number of pupils capable of benefiting from the education offered has meant that from July 1968, when the school became voluntary-aided, to the present date, the authority has sustained a loss of some £242,534, which has been a heavy extra burden on the Cheshire rate fund.
Capt. Elliot: A good many tens of thousands of pounds of that money were depreciation costs, and Cheshire has been using the buildings for its own purposes, and so on.
Mr. Raison: On top of that, however, the authority has had to bear these costs and to bear the fees for the authorities which have not been willing to pay them.

1645
But this was not the only problem which had to be faced. Another problem was that "Conway" boys had in the past, as I understand it, had a considerable advantage in terms of remission of sea service training, but in a sense the other forms of training had caught up with this and this advantage had disappeared.
In addition, there has been a tendency for pupils to seek sixth-form courses leading to university or other further education institutions. The report of the Rochdale Committee of Inquiry questioned the wisdom of beginning serious vocational training before the age of 16 on the ground that a longer and better general education was needed for every child. This is a trend which is widespread in education and is not specific to this area.
There is also the problem that there seems to be an increasing preference for national qualifications rather than for the "Conway" certificate. Therefore, I ask my hon. and gallant Friend to believe that at least there are serious reasons why this decline in the numbers of pupils at "HMS Conway" has taken place.
The question is, what happens now? The difficulty is clear. The Conway Cadet School Company, which provided the premises in which the school is conducted, has been registered as a charity. The company has an interest in the premises of the school by way of a 999-year sub-lease from the Cheshire County Council but, being without endowment, is not in a position to conduct an independent school, nor is there any prospect of a buyer being found for HMS "Conway".
Towards the end of his speech my hon. and gallant Friend came up with the proposal that there might be an appeal with a view to setting up the school on an independent basis. He asked how
1646
the Department would react to the legal operation entailed and to the financial side. We would certainly be willing to help with advice on the procedure by which the operation could take place. We have no objection in principle to the notion that HMS "Conway" should go it alone or stand on her own feet. What I cannot do from this Dispatch Box is to offer the second undertaking, that of providing financial support for the scheme. I am aware that my hon. and gallant Friend will be disappointed by that answer, but I cannot go beyond it.
Captain Elliot: My hon. Friend says that he cannot offer that undertaking from the Dispatch Box. I appreciate that, but perhaps the matter can be looked into.
Mr. Raison: I must be very chary ; I cannot honestly arouse hopes in my hon. and gallant Friend's breast on this score, and it would be misleading of me to do so.
If it is not possible for HMS "Conway" to go independent, that does not mean that the premises come to the end of their useful life. The Cheshire education authority would hold the "Conway" buildings for residential education purposes and preserve the name and some of the traditions of HMS "Conway". That would be useful, but I will not seek to persuade my hon. and gallant Friend that it is an adequate substitute from his point of view for something about which he and many other people feel very deeply.
The passing of HMS "Conway", if it comes about, will be a sad thing, but the difficulties which have cropped up seem to me virtually insoluble.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past One o'clock.

HOME DEPARTMENT
  British Summer Time
  British Summer Time
  Hare Coursing
  Hare Coursing
  Criminal Records
  Criminal Records
  Traffic Congestion (Ceremonial Occasions)
  Traffic Congestion (Ceremonial Occasions)
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
  Urban Programme (Lambeth)
  Urban Programme (Lambeth)
  Consumer Protection
  Consumer Protection
  Water Safety
  Water Safety
  Road Accidents (Foreign Drivers)
  Road Accidents (Foreign Drivers)
  Chilean Citizens
  Chilean Citizens
  Winchester Bomb Trial Prisoners
  Winchester Bomb Trial Prisoners
  Police Questioning
  Police Questioning
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Commonwealth Immigrants
  Circus Animals
  Circus Animals
  Young Persons (Imprisonment)
  Young Persons (Imprisonment)
  Picketing
  Picketing
  Life-sentence Prisoners
  Life-sentence Prisoners
  Chemicals (Accident Services)
  Chemicals (Accident Services)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Soft Fruit Harvesting (Research)
  Soft Fruit Harvesting (Research)
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Dairy Herds
  Dairy Herds
  Diabetic Food Prices
  Diabetic Food Prices
  Milk Production Costs
  Milk Production Costs
  Dressed Poultry
  Dressed Poultry
  Meat Substitutes
  Meat Substitutes
EMPLOYMENT
  Coal Industry (Dispute)
  Coal Industry (Dispute)
  Work Permits (Mauritius Citizens)
  Work Permits (Mauritius Citizens)
  CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
  CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Minamata Disease (Japanese Mackerel)
  Minamata Disease (Japanese Mackerel)
  Nurses (Meal Charges)
  Nurses (Meal Charges)
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Hospitals (Wandsworth)
  Hospitals (Wandsworth)
  Temporary Accommodation (Warley)
  Temporary Accommodation (Warley)
  Meals on Wheels
  Meals on Wheels
  Home Helps
  Home Helps
  One-Parent Families (Finer Report)
  One-Parent Families (Finer Report)
  HEARING RESEARCH
  HEARING RESEARCH
  PRESIDENT POMPIDOU
  PRESIDENT POMPIDOU
  MINISTERS (RESIGNATION)
  MINISTERS (RESIGNATION)
  LONDON WEIGHTING ALLOWANCE
  LONDON WEIGHTING ALLOWANCE
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL
  GREATER LONDON COUNCIL
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  DUNGENESS
  DUNGENESS
  INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  INDUSTRIAL AFFAIRS (MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW BODY
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW BODY
  PRIME MINISTER'S VISITS
  PRIME MINISTER'S VISITS
  COAL INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
  COAL INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
  CORRESPONDENCE WITH MINISTERS
  CORRESPONDENCE WITH MINISTERS
  ELECTORAL LAW (SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE)
  ELECTORAL LAW (SPEAKER'S CONFERENCE)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pay
  Pay
DEFENCE
  Civilian Personnel (Dorset)
  Civilian Personnel (Dorset)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Museum Charges
  Museum Charges
ENVIRONMENT
  Road Accidents
  Road Accidents
  Kerbside Markings
  Kerbside Markings
  Management Consultants
  Management Consultants
  Bedford—Bletchley Railway
  Bedford—Bletchley Railway
  Unlawful Eviction
  Unlawful Eviction
  Rent Allowances (Information Leaflet)
  Rent Allowances (Information Leaflet)
  Sewerage (Bawtry)
  Sewerage (Bawtry)
  Motorway Lighting
  Motorway Lighting
  Local Government Boundaries
  Local Government Boundaries
  Petrol Rationing
  Petrol Rationing
  New Towns
  New Towns
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Hong Kong (Transport)
  Hong Kong (Transport)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  European Assembly (Members' Expenses)
  European Assembly (Members' Expenses)
  Petrol Duty
  Petrol Duty
  Fuel Conservation
  Fuel Conservation
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Estate Duty
  Estate Duty
  Overseas Loans
  Overseas Loans
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Debt Collection (Statutory Enforcement)
  Debt Collection (Statutory Enforcement)
  Abductions
  Abductions
POSTS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS
  Mail Delivery Staff
  Mail Delivery Staff
SCOTLAND
  Local Public Holidays
  Local Public Holidays
  Teachers (Lanarkshire)
  Teachers (Lanarkshire)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Taxis
  Taxis
  Oil Allocations
  Oil Allocations
  Petrol
  Petrol
  Mining Accidents
  Mining Accidents
  Patents
  Patents
  Holiday Tours (Surcharge)
  Holiday Tours (Surcharge)
  London and County Securities Limited
  London and County Securities Limited
  European Coal and Steel Community
  European Coal and Steel Community
  Geothermal Dynamics
  Geothermal Dynamics
  Energy
  Energy
  Waste Paper
  Waste Paper
  Exports
  Exports
  Oil Rigs
  Oil Rigs
  Offshore Supplies Office
  Offshore Supplies Office
  Petroleum Division
  Petroleum Division
  Offshore Oil
  Offshore Oil
  Caravans
  Caravans
WALES
  Road Safety (Maerdy)
  Road Safety (Maerdy)
  House Prices
  House Prices
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Radioactive Material (Newport)
  Radioactive Material (Newport)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

IRAQ AND THE SECURITY COUNCIL
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to have the decision appointing Iraq as a member of the Security Council of the United Nations from January, 1973, revoked, in view of her active participation in the attack on Israel.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Iraq was one of the five United Nations members to be elected by the General Assembly on October 15 to sit on the Security Council from January, 1974. There is no possibility that this decision will be reversed.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, would the noble Earl say whether some kind of protest will be made with a view possibly to altering the rules in relation to the Security Council? How can a nation which is at present at war with one of the other parties be appointed to the Security Council, particularly when it is going there merely in order to increase the very serious imbalance which already exists against Israel on that Council? How can it possibly be a judge in a cause of this sort on the Security Council, when at the present moment it is absolutely defying any question of accepting the cease-fire?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Iraq was voted on to the Security Council by the Members of the United Nations, and there is no precedent for reversing an election to the Security Council. I would only remind the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government have often called for close attention to be paid to Article 23 of the Charter, which provides that in electing the non-permanent Members of
752
the Security Council due regard should be specially paid in the first instance to the contribution of those Members to the maintenance of international peace and security. If this provision is ignored, the authority of the Council of course must suffer.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, surely what is happening now is making the situation even worse in the eyes of the world with regard to the Security Council. Already everyone regards it with considerable scorn, and is not this adding to the terrible situation which the organisation ought to be helping?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, this is really a matter for the United Nations Assembly. They have voted this country on to the Security Council, and there it is bound to remain. There is no evidence that if any other course were taken, there would be a different result.

THE MIDDLE EAST: EGYPT AND NUCLEAR WEAPONS
3.8 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they know whether the Soviet Union has brought nuclear warheads for SCUD missiles into Egypt.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we have no confirmation of reports which have appeared in the Press recently on this subject.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, supposing these reports, which are quite circumstantial, were true, would it not be an extraordinarily grave matter that the Soviet Union, which can hit any place on earth with its nuclear missiles from Soviet territory, should have deliberately placed the future of the State of Israel to some extent at the will of the Egyptian Government by moving their nuclear warheads into Egypt?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I can only reassure the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that we have no confirmation that this has happened. I would remind him that in fact Russia has herself signed the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND POLICE POWERS OF ARREST
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government under the authority of what Act of Parliament Regulations were published in a Statutory Instrument, November, 1973, permitting a uniformed constable to arrest without warrant the driver of a non-European car when suspected of not having insured it properly after a previous warning.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is referring to the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations 1973, although the power of arrest is not quite as the noble Lord describes it. It relates not to a suspected offence of not having proper motor insurance but to a suspected offence under the Regulations themselves. These Regulations were made under the authority of Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 and the European Communities (Designation) Order 1972.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for her correction, may I ask her this question? Is not this Regulation the result of a Directive by the Council of the European Community? Is it not a fact that it has never been discussed in Parliament, and does it not considerably extend the power of arrest without warrant which was previously restricted to serious cases authorised by Acts of Parliament? Does not this mean that Parliament has no authority, or no effective control, over serious Regulations of this kind?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, the relevant E.E.C. Directive requires us to check vehicles entering direct from non-E.E.C. countries whose drivers do not have adequate insurance. It goes on to say that they must be prevented from driving the vehicle, or may drive it only to a particular place. We in this country have said that in order to fulfil this obligation a police constable shall have the power of arrest, and we have based this
754
on the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972, which sets a precedent for it.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, does not that answer illustrate my point? There is a Directive by the E.E.C. which is applied in this country without any discussion by Parliament, and which deals with this deeply held principle of arrest without warrant. Has the noble Baroness noted a very strong objection made in The Times of November 24 to this? Does not this prove the necessity for the Select Committee which has been proposed in another place, so that decisions about the law and regulations of the European Community should come before Parliament before they are applied?
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, can she help us by casting some light on what is a "non-European car"?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, if I may first answer the question of my noble friend Lord Inglewood, this definition refers to vehicles from non-E.E.C. countries.
LORD INGLEWOOD: The country from which it has come, or its country of manufacture?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, it might refer to either or both. The Directive concerns cars driven from non-E.E.C. countries and coming direct to this country, and it is concerned quite specifically only with those cars or vehicles which enter and which do not have compulsory insurance. The Directive says that they must be stopped. In the case of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I think the confusion arises in that the Directive does not say anything about the powers of arrest. We have said this in the Regulations because we believe it to be the only way that we can carry out the Directive. I would accept, however, that the whole question of the discussion of E.E.C. Directives is a matter for both this House and another place.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is not it quite extraordinary that this power to arrest without warrant should be extended in this way without any endorsement whatsoever by Parliament?
BARONESS YOUNG: As I said in answer to an earlier question, my Lords,

755
this particular power to arrest is based on the previous Act, the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972, which was of course discussed in both Houses.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Baroness confirm that the power to arrest was not a consequence of the Directive? If that is the case, would the noble Baroness then say whether it would be possible for either House to reject that Statutory Order without infringing its responsibilities to carry out the Directive under the Treaty of Rome?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said in the first part of that question. I think the answer to the second part is that it would not be possible at this stage to amend the Directive.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I thought the noble Baroness said that this power to arrest did not derive from the Directive itself. If that is so, would not the noble Baroness agree that it would be open to Parliament to reject the Statutory Order for the purpose of omitting that particular part without affecting our responsibilities under the Treaty of Rome?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I am sorry; I misunderstood the noble Lord's question. I understand that what he has suggested would be possible. However, I am bound to say that when the former Bill was being discussed, although it contained similar provisions to stop lorries and buses which infringed certain laws of this country, there was very little comment on the powers of arrest.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that driving without insurance is a fairly serious offence, whether it is committed by European or non-European cars?
BARONESS YOUNG: Yes, I would agree, my Lords; but in the case of the E.E.C. countries there is a joint agreement which would cover someone involved in an accident who drove without compulsory insurance. It does not cover cars from non-E.E.C. countries.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would the noble Baroness confirm that
756
her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, means that half the countries of Europe are no longer European?
BARONESS YOUNG: No, my Lords, I would not agree with that.

OVERSEAS AID TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES
3.16 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the heavy movement in terms of trade against the United Kingdom and the resultant trading advantage to the developing countries and their greatly increased earnings on exports (particularly raw materials and food to the United Kingdom) it is not now appropriate to review downwards our overall generosity in granting Overseas Aid.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, while some of the developing countries have undoubtedly benefited from the recent rise in commodity prices, on the other hand some of the largest and poorest of them have been adversely affected, as we have, by higher prices which they have to pay for their essential imports, including oil and food. The general state of a developing country's economy is a major factor which is taken into account in decisions on the level and terms of aid to that country.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, that is a disappointing reply. Would not my noble friend agree that in grave times, when our balance of payments is so massively adverse, when the external value of the pound is so weak, thus raising the cost of our imports, including food, and when Government Bonds are selling on the basis of a 12½ per cent. return, all items of overseas expenditure, such as £280 million a year on overseas aid and contributions to the United Nations of £52 million—I repeat, my Lords, £52 million—should be scrutinised and every possible economy made?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we have problems, but Her Majesty's Government do

757
not believe that that fact should prevent this country from carrying out her international obligations. We believe it right that we should help the less privileged countries in their efforts to further their economic and social development.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: My Lords, is the Minister aware that only last week a petition was presented to the Prime Minister indicating a continuing concern that British policy should reflect a generous attitude to the Third World, even at a time of our own economic crisis?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for putting forward that point of view. Indeed, that is precisely what Her Majesty's Government are trying to do.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, is it not a fact that the people of this country have the remedy for this problem in their own hands? Would not 10 per cent. more effort on the part of the country do the job within two years?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am quite certain that if everyone in this country were to take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, it would make a very great difference to the general output of the economy.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, do not the less privileged countries in the Middle East, and particularly the Persian Gulf, also have an obligation to help us to develop our own economic prosperity?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there are several countries in the Middle East which have indeed taken on their own obligations to other, less developed countries. Countries such as Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Abu Dhabi, have already given financial assistance to other developing countries.
LORD WADE: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that apart from the oil-exporting countries the gap between the developing and the so-called developed countries is still very great and that we must take a long view on this matter? Furthermore, if world prices of raw materials other than oil fall, as they may do in the coming years, would not the need for overseas aid be even greater, rather than diminished?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I agree that the gap is a wide one and is getting larger, but we believe it is right that we should undertake our international obligations to less developed countries. We believe, also, that it is in our own interests to do so, because if we promote development in those countries we shall encourage general world trade which would be to our advantage as well.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that a few moments ago he said that we had "problems", whereas the Prime Minister said that we have our "problems of success"? Is there any particular significance in the deletion of those last two words?
EARL FERRERS: Only, my Lords, that my expression was somewhat more succinct and less long.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, is it not a fact that a large part of the benefit accruing from rising commodity prices does not go to the primary producers of the poorest countries, and that therefore it is somewhat misleading to look on this as being a reason for our reducing our aid to those countries?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it depends on the primary products which the countries are producing. Many of the countries which are recipients of our aid are those which are producing items which have not risen in price as much as other things.
THE EARL OF ARRAN: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that our obligations apply, if only morally, to the State of Israel as well?
EARL FERRERS: I do not believe, my Lords, that Israel comes under the heading of an underdeveloped country.

THE CHRISTMAS RECESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to inform your Lordships that, subject to the progress of Business, the House will rise for the Christmas Recess on Thursday, December 20, and return on either Monday, January 21 or Tuesday, January 22. It might be for the convenience of the House if we were to meet at 11 o'clock on Thursday, December 20.

759
My Lords, we have a long list of speakers for today's very important debate, so perhaps I may take this opportunity, in view of the difficulties of travel and the fact that the House has sat late on two nights already his week, to ask noble Lords to keep their remarks today as brief as is reasonably possible. I am sure that it would be for the convenience both of the House and also of the staff if we were to sit not too late tonight.

EUROPEAN INSTRUMENTS: SCRUTINY PROCEDURES
3.22 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM)THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM) rose to move, That this House takes note of the Second Report from the Select Committee on Procedures for Scrutiny of Proposals for European Instruments. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in opening a debate of this sort I find myself more than usually conscious of the fact that I wear two hats. In fact, my collection seems to be growing a little at present. As Leader of your Lordships' House I have a responsibility for trying to identify what is the common will of your Lordships and to do everything I can to try to further it. I accept that role with some humility and with some pride, too, and will always be anxious to do anything in my power to strengthen your Lordships' House and to increase its reputation. At the same time, as members of the Government, as are all who sit on this Bench, we are not entirely free agents. The Government have to decide on their policies in the light of the opinions of both Houses of Parliament, as well as of many wider considerations, and where the raising and spending of public funds is involved the Commons are of course paramount. Thus, in a matter of the sort that we are debating today, it is necessary to keep in mind both those sets of considerations.
The first point—and it is one which raises no difficulties of demarcation of any kind—that should be made right at the start of this debate, is to put on record our warmest thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and the members of his Committee for all the work they have done during the period of
760
seven or eight months since the Committee was first appointed. When one looks down the list of members of the Committee and sees what a strong Committee it has been, including so many distinguished and busy Members of your Lordships' House, one realises that the thanks of the whole House are doubly due to them for giving up so much of their time. There is no doubt, my Lords, that the Committee have greatly benefited from the widsom and procedural knowledge of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, a former Speaker of the House of Commons. The Committee were fortunate to have in their Chairman a Peer who knows the procedure of another place so intimately. This in itself must have done much to encourage the spirit of friendly co-operation in which your Lordships' Committee and the parallel Committee in another place worked. One or two noble Lords of our own Committee were, if they will not mind my saying so, somewhat less ardent in their zeal for British accession to the European Communities than was the House as a whole. But none the less, all Parties and all interests in Parliament, in another place as well as in your Lordships' House, co-operated willingly in working out proposals as to how the British Parliament could best evolve procedures to enable us to discharge our responsibilities concerning proposals emanating from the other side of the Channel which can, and often do, affect the everyday life of people in this country.
Her Majesty's Government have recognised from the outset the need for a Committee in each House, or a Joint Committee, if that proved possible, to examine the ways in which Parliament could scrutinise proposals of this kind. Both my predecessor the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and also the Lord President of the Council in another place gave evidence to the respective Committees to the effect that in their view appropriate machinery would have to be established by Parliament for the scrutiny of European legislation. Thus the Government, my Lords, needs little convincing of the general principles underlying the Report that we are debating to-day. But before coming to any final decision we want to hear the views, and to establish the wishes, of your Lordships' House and also of Members of another place.
It is particularly helpful that the list of speakers fir to-day's debate includes several noble Lords who were members of the Committee, as well as the Chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King. Peers like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, gave evidence to the Committee; and also in our list of speakers for to-day's debate we have a number of Peers who are Members of the European Parliament. Perhaps I could pay a tribute here to the work of the British Members of the European Parliament who themselves have the function of scrutinising proposals at Strasbourg, Brussels and Luxembourg. They are very busy people and I believe we owe them a debt of gratitude for the impact they have made on the European Parliament in its formative stages. But no less important, as I think we would all agree, are the views of those Members of the House who were not members of the Committee and are not Members of the European Parliament but who, nevertheless, have studied the Report and are interested in the workings and in the functions of the House. All these opinions need to be heard before conclusions are reached. This afternoon, therefore, I have a mainly listening role, although it might be helpful if I were to comment—I shall do so briefly—on some of the recommendations in the Report. In doing so, perhaps I should stress that anything I say at this stage is entirely without prejudice to the final outcome. This will depend on the views both of the House and of the Government as a whole.
My Lords, the most important recommendation contained in the Maybray-King Report is of course the proposal for a Select Committee to be appointed on the European Communities. As I have already indicated, the Government accept the need for a Committee on European Community affairs. We gave evidence to this effect to both the Lords Committee and the Commons Committee, and while the Government's evidence in favour of a Standing Committee in each House was not, in the event, accepted by a majority of the Maybray-King Committee, the Government agree that a Committee of some sort is required.
Speaking for myself, I see the strength in the argument that the Committee
762
should have the power to call for evidence and hear witnesses. There are also the questions of what the terms of reference of the Committee should be, and how large a Committee should be constituted. The Report contains some suggested terms of reference, and I shall look forward to what other speakers have to say about these in the course of the debate. Although the Government's mind is open, our present thinking is that there would be advantages if the terms of reference of any scrutiny committees set up in this House and in another place were as nearly as possible in line with each other.
Then there is the question as to the size of any committee we may decide to set up. The Maybray-King Committee envisaged a membership large enough to allow for the apointment of several subcommittees, including a law sub-committee. This is rather more ambitious than what the parallel Commons committee proposed, and I believe it would be wise to think very carefully before taking on commitments on a scale that we might not be able to fulfil in practice. There might be advantage in starting off on a more modest scale with one main committee, properly staffed and with a strong membership, rather than over-extending ourselves with a series of sub-committees in addition. It would then be possible to review the position in the light of experience.
Another recommendation of the Committee was that my noble friend, Lord Bessborough and other members of the European Parliament might attend the committee and receive the appropriate papers. In principle this seems a useful suggestion, and I look forward to hearing the reaction of noble Lords who are members of the European Parliament in the course of the debate. I know that the pressures on the time of members of the European Parliament are considerable and might make it difficult for them to attend all of the meetings. Here again, it might be easier to have one main committee, in the early stages at least, rather than a number of sub-committees.
The May-bray-King Report also commented that if both Houses could agree to joint procedures for the scrutiny of European legislation it would save duplication of effort and economise in manpower. While the equivalent committee

763
in another place, presided over by Sir John Foster, suggested that the same specialist staff might serve both committees, they were not in favour of joint procedures. Partnership requires the assent of both sides, and I fear we may have to wait rather longer for joint procedures in this field. I should like to say, however, how much I welcome the co-operative approach of the Foster Committee in their suggestion that the specialist staff of the committees should serve both Houses of Parliament. This would seem to be a most useful step forward, and I believe it would certainly result, if agreed to, in real savings in terms of public service manpower as well as in terms of public expenditure. At the same time, both Houses would be able to benefit from the same body of skill and knowledge.
In this context I should welcome the views of your Lordships upon the recommendation in paragraph 125 of the Maybray-King Report that the Select Committees' specialist staff should include a legal adviser who is conversant with both community and domestic law to advise the committees on the repercussions of community legislation on domestic law. A similar recommendation was made in the Report of the Commons Select Committee, although that Report went on to recommend that there should be a third Law Officer who would be ultimately responsible to the committee in respect of European legislation. The recommendation in paragraph 125 would be very similar to the role which until recently was played by Counsel to Mr. Speaker in the Commons Select Committee on Statutory Instruments which experience has shown successfully provides the necessary measure of independent legal advice.
My Lords, the Maybray-King Committee also recommended that time for debates on Reports of the proposed Select Committee should be discussed through the usual channels. As your Lordships know, apart from Wednesdays, which are normally set aside for debates on subjects of topical or general interest, we have no Orders or conventions in this House whereby specific subjects are discussed at specific times. My noble friend the Government Chief Whip and I believe that the Committee's recom-
764
mendation is the most practical way to proceed, particularly since the pressure on time in your Lordships' House is nothing like so great as in another place.
Next there is the question of the role and status of the chairman of the proposed Committee for the Scutiny of European Legislation. I see merit in the suggestion that the chairman should be responsible for the initial sifting of Community documents. He would be assisted by a clerk and by whatever specialist assistance is available to him. This preliminary task of sifting and of scrutiny will be an importing and demanding task, and the Maybray-King Committee, in consequence, recommended that the chairman of this Committee should be salaried. I do not think it would be appropriate to make any commitment at this stage, but I should certainly like to look at this suggestion in more detail. I am aware that there has been some pressure in any event for a full-time—and consequently salaried—deputy to be appointed to the Chairman of Committees, and the extra work which European legislation would inevitably throw on to the Committee Office might make it an appropriate time to consider such an appointment.
The Maybray-King Committee also made the novel suggestion that the House of Lords should have its own Parliamentary observer at Brussels who might feed in early information to the committee from the European Economic Commission and the Council of Ministers. It also envisaged that he would be authorised to keep an eye on the Court of Justice in Luxembourg. My colleagues and I have considered this interesting proposal very carefully, and understand the reasons which lie behind it; but, to be frank, we see considerable difficulties about putting into operation what might well prove a frustrating and embarrassing role for anyone appointed to the post.
In the first place, any observer or agent of this kind would lack any official status vis-à-vis Community institutions He would thus be in a different position from the German observer on behalf of the Länder Government, who enjoys the unique privilege of attending Council meetings. This privilege was granted to the German States, which together comprise the Federal Republic, at a time when the Treaties were originally being

765
negotiated. Nor would he have any special access to the United Kingdom permanent representation other than the normal right of any member of the public who has, of course, normal opportunities to approach the United Kingdom representation for help or for information. Nor, in all probability, would one man, from one House of the British Parliament, lacking any popular electoral basis, find it possible to cover adequately the full range of Community activities.
My Lords, I ought to set an example by following the advice of my noble friend the Chief Whip and not speak for too long in opening this debate, but there are two further points which I might briefly mention. The first is the recommendation that the Committee on the Preparation of Legislation, under the chairmanship of Sir David Renton, might consider the possibility of typographically distinguishing Community law translated into United Kingdom law. I can inform your Lordships that this suggestion has already been drawn to the attention of Sir David Renton's Committee.
The second point is the suggestion contained in the Maybray-King Report in paragraphs 19 and 20, that the Government should make a Statement to explain its attitude towards the disclosure of information on Council proceedings. Perhaps I may remind the House that the Government made a Statement on this point on March 13 last, to the effect that Ministers would make reports to Parliament by way of Ministerial statements after a series of Council of Ministers' meetings. The Government undertook to place in the Printed Paper Office written statements about forthcoming Council business. My right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council also dealt, in detail, with the question of making oral statements to Parliament before Council of Ministers' meetings during a debate in the House of Commons on April 18 last. During that debate he gave the Government's provisional view that for Ministers to be publicly questioned, perhaps only a few days in advance of a meeting of the Council of Ministers, would either put at risk the interests of effective negotiation on the country's behalf or result in a series of such guarded defensive replies as would hardly be a worthwhile use of the time of the House. My Lords, the essential
766
difficulty here arises from the fact that the Council of Ministers is not the equivalent of either a Cabinet or a Legislature. Its essential character is that of a forum for international negotiations.
The Government's view was that when Peers, or Members of another place, have had a chance to study the written estimates of Council business it might be better if they were to put down specific questions on subjects which interest them and so use the normal Parliamentary methods of bringing pressure on the Government. This has already taken place with regard to the size and weight of juggernaut lorries.
I think that I have covered, albeit briefly, most of the main recommendations made in the Committee's Report. As I said at the outset, I have not tried to be dogmatic about the Government's view, nor have I sought to cover every point of detail. But I would suggest to your Lordships that, before deciding finally upon what procedures we should adopt, we should take due account of what is happening in another place and of the implications for the policies of the Government of the day. For this reason I believe that it might be valuable, as a next step, after hearing the views expressed in to-day's debate and in another place, to refer the question of what sort of Committee might be set up—if it is your Lordships' wish that we should move in this direction—to the Procedure Committee. In that forum issues such as the terms of reference and size of the Committee, and the specialist advice it would require, could be considered in detail before reporting back to the House.
My Lords, Parliament has adapted itself, over many centuries, to meet changing circumstances and I sense that we all realise that we should make some adjustment to our procedures, and in the role of Parliament, to meet the new circumstances created by our accession to the European Communities. Perhaps I might draw your Lordships' attention to a remark of Sir William Anson in the introduction to his Law and Custom of the Constitution, when he says:
"Our Constitution is a somewhat rambling structure, and, like a house which many successive owners have altered just so far as suited their immediate wants or the fashion of the time, it hears the marks of many hands, and is convenient rather than symmetrical."

767
I leave this thought with your Lordships in the hope that we can, once again, evolve procedures which are "convenient rather than symmetrical". But for to-day, my Lords, both the House and the Government are anxious to listen and to evaluate, and then to move on with the minimum of delay, to the necessary action. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Second Report from the Select Committee on Procedures for Scrutiny of Proposals for European Instruments.— (Lord Windlesham.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, can he give any idea of how long he thinks the Procedure Committee might take to make recommendations?—because the whole of this is rather urgent.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I appreciate the urgency, and I hope I reflected that in my final remarks. If your Lordships did feel that it was appropriate to refer this matter to the Procedure Committee, so that the proposals could be considered in detail, I should hope that that could be done as early as possible after the Christmas Recess.
3.46 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having introduced this debate and for the manner in which he has done so. Naturally, we expected, with a "take note" Motion, that the noble Lord's speech would be tentative. It has been tentative. On the other hand, there were some parts of it which were constructive and encouraging. I was a member of the Select Committee, but this afternoon I speak from this Dispatch Box on behalf of my noble friends and seek to express their view on what is a very major document, a major Report. It represents, I believe, radical changes in procedure. It is true that your Lordships' House is always reluctant to consider any innovation but, as I shall seek to show in the course of my speech, our entry into the E.E.C. has created a need for Parliamentary change, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said, as a matter of urgency. I shall leave it to the noble
768
Lord, Lord Maybray-King, to reply on behalf of himself and the Committee. I think I should pay a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, not only for the quality of the Report but also for the relentless drive that he placed upon all the members of that Committee. May I say that that relentless drive was a consequence of the recognition, by the Committee as a whole, of the urgency of the need for Parliamentary reform in this matter.
Anyone reading the Report, seeing the number of witnesses, not only in the United Kingdom, but in Denmark, Holland, Bonn, Germany and Strasbourg, and including the Commissioners in Brussels, will be conscious of the efforts not only of the Chairman of the Committee but also of Mr. Michael Wheeler-Booth, who was the Clerk to the Committee, and Miss Jane Franks. It was only because of their untiring efforts and, on occasions, great ingenuity in arrangements that it was possible for a Report to be ready in July, but unfortunately it was unable to be printed until mid-September. This Report has now been in your Lordships' House for two months, and I should have thought, even taking your Lordships' normal pace of consideration, that we should now be in a position to take a view. Recognising the position of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I must say, on behalf of my noble friends, that we should much have preferred to see a Motion to approve, so that proceedings could have been taken immediately on the implementation of the Report.
The Select Committee's terms of reference were to consider procedures for scrutiny of proposals for European Community Instruments. The effectiveness of Parliament depends largely on its procedure and the manner in which it seeks to control the Executive. Government and the Executive, by their nature, gather more power and continually enlarge their functions and areas of administration. So, too, should Parliamentary procedure be adapted to maintain effective control. As a consequence of our joining the European Community, there has been a marked change in the balance between the Executive and Parliament; and the time has come, in my view, for Parliament to seek to restore that balance. The primary responsibility for this lies with

769
the Commons, as the elected Chamber; but we, too, have a responsibility. It is my judgment that if the recommendations of this Report were accepted and implemented to the full, then the consequences to your Lordships' House could be profound and could create opportunities for this House to perform a Parliamentary role of greater significance than at any time in its recent history. It would represent a radical change in procedure and functions, and I believe it would be wrong to hide this fact. But whether the change proves to be fact or fiction will depend on whether the Membership of your Lordships' House can rise to the new opportunities.
Having said that, it would be wrong to suggest that the proposals and recommendations redress the loss of power and control of Parliament over the Executive as a consequence of our entry into the E.E.C. Prior to our entry, the control of Parliament over the Executive was absolute. Parliament had the power to say "Yes" or "No" to any action of the Government. Entry into the E.E.C. has changed that dramatically over a wide field of national policy. Under the Treaty of Rome originally, agriculture, transport and external affairs were the areas of conformity; but these have been added to as a consequence of Summit conferences and now include energy, social affairs, regional development and monetary and economic co-operation. The Treaty of Rome gives such powers to the Commission as to make regulations issued by them immediately effective as the law of the land without any Parliamentary scrutiny or approval.
The power of the Council of Ministers is even greater, by way of Council regulations, which take immediate effect as part of the law of the United Kingdom and naturally prevail over any law of the United Kingdom which is inconsistent with them, and by way of Council Directives which place on Parliament an obligation to make and change the law of the United Kingdom in all such respects as is necessary to give legal effect in the United Kingdom to the provisions of the Directives. If decisions are taken by the Council of Ministers on a majority vote, then the absolute power previously held by the British Parliament over a wide field of public policy—the right to say
770
"Yes" or "No"—has clearly gone. But as a result of the Luxembourg Conference, where an unanimous vote is required on important matters, it is possible for Parliament to claw back its lost position of absolute power on matters which are to be decided by the Council of Ministers, by an insistence that Government obtain the consent of Parliament to any proposal prior to consideration and decision by the Council of Ministers. To some extent, Denmark is in this position, since the Danish Parliament has taken power to mandate its Ministers. Its Parliamentary Market Affairs Committee agrees with the Ministers what should be the Danish negotiating position at the Council of Ministers and, if necessary, comes back for a new mandate. But if all national Parliaments were to adopt the position that they had to consent to all proposals before they were agreed by the Council, then very little would be done and perhaps frustration and delay would bring about the collapse of the European Economic Community.
Your Select Committee do not recommend the adoption of such a provision, and I personally would support that view so far as this House is concerned. Certainly such a proposal would have been outside the terms of reference of the Committee; but I have always taken the view that this House is complementary to the House of Commons. It is a Revising Chamber and should not be in a position of being able to frustrate the will of the Commons. Were the Commons to insist on such a provision, then it would be time for this House to consider its own position. The Commons Select Committee on European Community Secondary Legislation set out their objectives in Paragraph 37 of their Report—that is the Report to which the noble Lord the Leader of the House referred—when they say that the objective must be to restore to Parliament responsibilities for and opportunities to exercise its constitutional rights in respect of the making of these laws, involving, as they must, first, by the Government, that it necessarily follows that it must be at the expense of some of the freedom of action enjoyed by the Executive since the United Kingdom's entry into the E.E.C., and, by Parliament, that the scope, means and degree of scrutiny and control must be attuned to

771
the fact that it is dealing with a new way of making laws which is very different from that to which it is accustomed.
Your Select Committee believe that Parliament is entitled to know, and indeed has a duty to know, what are the proposals prior to a decision by the Council of Ministers, and Parliament should have an opportunity of making clear to Ministers what are its opinions and what view it would take of the Government were they to take any decision that runs counter to the clearly-expressed views of Parliament. I have no doubt, either, that the Government should be more accountable to Parliament for the decisions arrived at and positions taken by the Government at the Council of Ministers. In your Lordships' House, a Minister has stated that the Council is a negotiation body and that its deliberations are equivalent to those of a United Kingdom Cabinet Committee. The noble Lord the Leader of the House developed this matter further. I personally feel that the Council of Ministers is more of a legislative council than any other form of body. True, it has an executive role, but it is here that the European Community matters are discussed and decisions finally taken. I have no doubt at all that Parliament is entitled to know what has been the position of Ministers during legislative discussions.
The member-countries of the E.E.C. differ very much in their practice of disclosure to their national Parliaments. In the Netherlands, by what is called the Lulls Doctrine, it is customary for the Minister on the Floor of the House to disclose his position, but not that of other countries. The Acts of ratification of some other countries lay a duty on the Government to keep Parliament informed fully, and this has been taken, in those Parliaments, to include all information on Council proceedings. If the Government are answerable to Parliament and Parliament is answerable to the electorate, clearly Parliament has a duty to know why a decision has been taken.
We look forward to hearing from those noble Lords who are Members of the European Parliament. I think they would be the first to agree that it is really an Assembly since it has no legislative powers. The European Parliament has some power over the Commission, but
772
none over the Council of Ministers; and I should not have thought that a national Parliament, until there has been a major change in the European Parliament, would wish to hand over any of its national responsibilities to such an Assembly. Clearly, Parliament would, either by an Act of Parliament or by a Resolution, have to take such a decision.
One other matter on which I believe, as did your Committee, that we should have a great deal more information and general exposure is with regard to the position of the general public towards the European Economic Community. Many noble Lords are deeply anxious about the British public's attitude to the E.E.C. I, for one, believe that this may be due to the absence of real knowledge, information and understanding. I personally believe that it should not be left to the media, whether television or radio, to pass on information, and that Parliament should be in a better position to inform the general public.
What sort of procedure should we adopt? The Government, in their original evidence, recommended that we should have a Standing Committee. My noble friend Lord Diamond, who, unfortunately, is not able to be here to-day, also held that view throughout our Committee. There was a considerable case for such a procedure. Certainly it gives the opportunity to influence Ministers. But the Select Committee that was set up by your Lordships' House took the view, and I share it, that there are three prime objectives: first of all, the opportunity to influence Ministers; secondly, the acquiring of information and knowledge; and thirdly, the securing of a full appreciation of the consequences of any decisions and proposals.
The influence of Ministers is undoubtedly on the Floor of the House: a full expression of view and, if necessary, a vote. But one has to consider some of the practical difficulties which the noble Lord, the Leader of the House, dealt with. There are some 2,000 documents published by the Commission each year. Some of them are of very great importance and some have a life of only a few hours. It was estimated that between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of those documents warranted Parliamentary scrutiny. Therefore the question immediately arose: who was to decide what was

773
to be scrutinised and how should it be done? We came to the view that it could be done only through a Select Committee procedure, by which one could first of all sift the important from the non-important and also have the ability and opportunity of questioning Ministers.
I was grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, acknowledged this and, I thought, supported the view. So if this is to be adopted, clearly it has to be within a Select Committee procedure. I think such a procedure as set out in the Report, with the duty of the Select Committee to produce a full Report setting out the general effect of a proposal, the policy implications, the effect of the proposal on the United Kingdom law, and also the opinion of the Committee on the proposal, with possible amendments, provides the House with an opportunity not only of an informed debate but of being able to identify those subjects which the House as a whole ought to take into account.
In regard to Ministerial Statements, I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, from his own experience yesterday, would regard this as particularly satisfactory. First of all it breaks into a debate, then we have, as we did yesterday, a report of, I think, some 12 different meetings of Ministers on a very wide range of subjects; and no doubt due to the need for brevity, very little information was given as to what had in fact taken place. There is another matter, too: it is by courtesy that the Front Bench on this side of the House receives a copy of the Statement at three o'clock in the afternoon, half an hour before one is required to reply. It is usually only at 12 o'clock on the day in which the Statement is to be made that the Opposition is aware that a Statement is being made; and most noble Lords, who may be interested in the Statement will have no knowledge of it at all until they are in the Chamber. Certainly there is no real opportunity for examination. I should have thought that the proposed Select Committee procedure could well be used by the House referring such Statements to that Select Committee, and for the Select Committee to be able to report to the House on matters which they thought were of interest and importance. Statutory Instruments and Bills that arise from decisions within the E.E.C. that come
774
before your Lordships' House should also go to the Select Committee.
The suggested terms of reference are to be found in paragraph 111. I think they are concise and would meet the point. Your Select Committee suggest that we should have a committee that is relatively large in order that it can be sub-divided to embrace particular subjects like agriculture, social affairs, foreign policy, energy, transport and the law. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, I do not say criticised it, but I thought took the view rather of the House of Commons on having a smaller committee. The procedure that we have recommended in our Report is more in conformity with your Lordships' House's practice as with the Offices Committee, and Procedure Committee, setting up a large overall committee from which sub-committees are appointed. I view the Commons' recommendation of a small committee of nine as being very much of a steering committee; it is true that they will have the power to investigate and report, but they equally have the power of setting up sub-commitees.
I, for one, would accept the House of Commons' proposals, because the smaller the committee the more powerful and more influential it is—certainly it gets things done a good deal quicker than having a large committee. Therefore if the Government were to propose a smaller committee on the lines as suggested for the House of Commons, with a power to create sub-committees, I unhesitatingly would go along with them, despite the fact that we are departing from our usual custom. In regard to the Chairman, I do not think we should underestimate the work that will be involved. Certainly there will be the sifting and the initial scrutiny to be carried out. As the work develops there will be the relationship between the committee and the Departments; the relationship between the Select Committee and the Officers of the House; and there will be a good deal to do in the supervision of the work of sub-committees. Your Lordships' House has Recesses, but the E.E.C. continues, and it may well be that the Chairman and the sub-committees will have to continue working through the various Recesses. The Committee felt that this should be a full-time and salaried post. Whether the suggestion made by

775
the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will prove acceptable, I do not know. If it does it would have to be quite clear that, as a Deputy Chairman, he had a full responsibility to your Lordships' House, because he would be the Officer of the House who would have to deal with very many complex matters.
My Lords, the fact that the House of Commons have agreed—or at least, in the Report support the proposal for a joint official staff—means that many of the problems and difficulties which we took into account when we made our recommendations for Joint Committees have been overcome. I was impressed with the House of Commons' view of the need for having two separate Committees, one in the House of Commons and one in the House of Lords. The noble Lord the Leader of the House spoke in generosity of the attitude of the House of Commons and I should like to quote from paragraph 77 of the First Report of the Commons Select Committee. They say:
"… it would seem entirely desirable that each House should devise whatever processes are best suited to its own role and procedures, and if the two bodies set about the same task in their own separate ways it would have twin advantages:

(a) that it is that much less likely that any item of significance will be overlooked, and

(b) that … to the extent that the two Committees reached the same conclusions as to which items were and were not important that would be even more convincing than the views of one Committee only.

It would be reasonable for the expert staff to serve both Commons and Lords Committees, and the proposed legal adviser could also service both Committees."
I think that if that suggestion were accepted by the Government and by the House of Commons then many of the difficulties that could have arisen from proceeding in our separate ways could be overcome.
The other factor that we had in mind for joint procedure was the special burden that falls on Members of both Houses who would be called upon to take part in these Committees. I have a lingering doubt, and I think I should give it to the Leader of the House: he has heard it before, and I think he should hear it again. My Lords, we are a voluntary House; we are unpaid and what allowances we do receive are very inadequate in relation to the expenditure in which
776
one is involved in attending your Lordships' House. Our Members have many commitments both in terms of employment and with the local authorities and many voluntary causes. We have, too, the increasing pressure of domestic legislation, so that there is cause for doubt about adding to the duties and responsibilities of Members of this House. I would not in any way wish to be critical of the House as a whole, but I think there would be a recognition of the fact that the everyday burden falls upon a relatively few Members of your Lordships' House. Certainly for members of my Party to be called upon to man subcommittees of an E.E.C. relationship would stretch still further what are already overstretched resources. E.E.C. matters clearly need to be considered and I believe that the Select Committee procedure is in fact the most economical. This is not an occasion to suggest any remedy for the basic problem in which the House may find itself, but I think it is right, when we are considering these proposals, that we should recognise what burdens are going to be placed, and we may need to consider ways of overcoming them.
My Lords, I believe that the success of this procedure will depend very much upon the relationship of the Select Committee and the Government. I hope that the Government and their officials will not regard this as a confrontation but will regard it as an area in which cooperation would not only be to the benefit of the occasion but permit Parliament to perform its undoubted rights and duties. The critical issue, it seems to me, is the type of documents that the Government can make available to Parliament. Some are official documents and some are unofficial, the unofficial being the pre-legislative, the discussion documents, which are issued by the Commission before official submission to the Council of Ministers. I believe that it is here that Parliament can exercise its greatest influence over the Government: in the pre-legislative period, before a final decision has been made either by the Commission or by the officials. So my Lords, it is essential that the Government make available to Parliament all this class of paper and that the Government should be ready to discuss with the Select Committee the implications even

777
of these proposals in their very earliest draft position. If the Government are willing to do this, the question of having a Parliamentary observer in Brussels quickly disappears.
In conclusion, I would only refer the Leader of the House to the fact that we have now been in the Common Market for twelve months. Denmark and Eire, who joined at the same time, have already established their own procedures for scrutinising E.E.C. legislation, and we are only just beginning. So, my Lords, if the noble Lord wishes this to go to the Procedure Committee I shall not object, but I hope that the Government and the noble Lord the Leader of the House have taken the sense of your Lordships' House that proceedings ought to be taken on the proposals before us, subject to amendment. Then I hope that early discussions, if not immediate discussions, will commence between the Leaders of the Parties and noble Lords who sit on the Cross-Benches to see how best these proposals could be brought into a package for presentation to the Procedure Committee for their approval. I think it would be quite wrong to expect the Procedure Committee to start working out how these proposals are to be implemented. If that happened, I can see that it would be 1975 before we had any machinery in being. I believe that it would be a failure of duty if we were not to have some machinery in existence, some procedure in your Lordships' House actually working, in the early part of 1974 for the scrutiny of European Instruments. My Lords, I would close with one last word, because it is of great importance: silence signifies consent; and if your Lordships' House remains silent on these matters it can only be construed by the public as meaning that we have consented to them, irrespective of the merits of the proposals.
4.19 p.m.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, I appreciate the honour given me by the House in appointing me to preside over this important Select Committee. My colleagues would wish me to express our gratitude to the Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Wheeler-Booth, for his devoted and distinguished service to us for over six months and for nearly every day of that period. I would thank too Miss Jane Franks for secretarial assistance beyond praise, and involving the typing of
778
thousands of pages of documentation. The Report which we have presented owes much to the assistance we have received from officials and Ministers of both Houses, and to the evidence from experts of various kinds, both here and in other European countries. For all this help and advice we are grateful. I am pleased that from the start we have shared evidence and papers with the House of Commons Select Committee. This has been helpful to us and, I hope, to them.
The Reports from the two Committees are not so much different as complementary. They marry with each other. In our earlier days we had thought and desired that there might ultimately be one Joint European Committee, just as, under Lord Brooke of Cumnor, there is a Joint Committee for Statutory Instruments. But the Report of the Commons Committee clearly points out that as the two Houses are very different in con-situation and function, their tasks vis-à-vis Europe take different forms. But I think both Houses will agree that, whereas there will be two scrutinising Committees, most of the apparatus, the expert staff, will be one, and will serve both the bodies which Parliament sets up so that there will be no unnecessary duplication of machinery.
I am more grateful than I can express to my colleagues who have served on the Committee. It is their combined wisdom which has produced what I hope the House—and the Government—will find a convincing Report. I am indeed proud to have been associated with them in their arduous task. Our work is over. It is now for the House and the Government to take action—for action there must be, and that quickly.
Let me briefly, and perhaps over-simply, set the scene. Britain has now been a member of the European Community for one year. That Community makes decisions, some of them affecting profoundly the life of every European citizen, and therefore of every British citizen. And, as yet, there is very little opportunity for the British Parliament to play its necessary part in influencing what decisions are made by the Community. Roughly, there are three important European bodies. The first

779
is the Commission, headed by 13 Commissioners, each of whom leads a team of experts in his own field. We appoint two of the Commissioners—our own two, George Thomson and Sir Christopher Soames—both of them working hard; we had first-hand evidence of this at Brussels.
It is this Commission—each of its members sworn to be Europeans rather than nationals in their loyalty—which has the initiative in making proposals to the second body. This second body is the Council of Ministers—a Council which is steadily growing in power and importance. When proposals are made to the Council by the Commission, the Council, after careful deliberation, seeks to arrive at a unanimous decision about the proposals. Just as the Commission has its own experts, each Government maintains at Brussels its own permanent body of advisers—a permanent staff headed by an official of ambassadorial rank. We were tremendously impressed by the work of our own Permanent Representatives and by our own Ambassador in Brussels, Sir Michael Palliser.
Then there is the European Parliament. This is so far largely a Consultative Assembly. But it seeks, and no doubt will in time achieve, powers which will make it a real Parliament. That aspect of the matter was outside our remit—but we saw our own British colleagues at work in Strasbourg, under the capable leadership of Peter Kirk and the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, working towards making the European Parliament a real Parliament. But—and I would stress this —whatever developments take place at Strasbourg, the British Parliament still has, and will still have, its own European tasks to perform. For our part, we believe that the point at which the British Parliament has to prove itself effective is between the time of the formulation of a proposal by the Commission and the Council of Ministers (which includes our own Minister) making a decision on it; sometimes perhaps, even before the proposal has taken complete shape in the Commission, or when policy papers—for example, what we call Green Papers—are being considered. First, then, it is of key importance that the House
780
be made aware at the earliest possible moment of any new proposals which are being made by the Commission to the Council of Ministers.
In his evidence to us, we had the assurance of the then Leader of the House, my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, that the Government accept as a clear duty the provision of all necessary information. Both our Report and that of the Commons set out the ways in which this must be done. We then discussed what form the new Scrutinising Committee should take. This was the only issue on which there was any substantial disagreement in our Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, shared the original view of Lord Jellicoe that it should be a Standing Committee. Every other member was in favour of a Select Committee—as a more effective and more powerful machine for the job. This Select Committee will have power to send for persons and papers, hear evidence, examine witnesses—Ministers if necessary. It will create sub-committees by which it will be able to call on the vast and various wisdom and experience of this House. The Commons Report too is in favour of something like the Select Committee on Procedure—though it gives it another name.
Now other European Parliaments have Committees which meet in confidence—without any published report of what has been said. Britain is different. Our Committees' reports are published. We feel, however, that there may be occasions when a Minister (or one of his officials) may wish to speak to the proposed Lords Select Committee off the record, in order to avoid disclosing his hand before meeting his fellow Ministers on the Council of Ministers. Our Report suggests how this may be achieved by the method which the House of Commons sometimes uses—which is called the "side-lining" procedure, which would allow the Committee not to publish certain evidence if they thought it would be against the national interest to do so.
In our First Report we were anxious —over anxious, perhaps—about the problem of sifting the massive documentation which comes to us from Europe. Later we felt that this presented less difficulty than we had thought. But there must be some Member of this House, advised

781
by a professional staff, to sort out the comparatively few important documents from the many less important ones. In our Report we suggest that this noble Lord be a salaried Chairman. He will have heavy and continuous duties. In any case, when the documents have been so sifted into "unimportant" and "important" any member of the Select Committee will be able to insist that a document which the sifters have regarded as unimportant be considered as an important documents, and be scrutinised. The Select Committee which we propose will report to the House the results of its examination. Its work will be critical in the fine sense of the word "criticism" —positive as well as negative.
Every Parliament in the Community is grappling, in different ways, with the important task of providing adequate influence by the national Parliament on the decisions which its own Minister is to table at the Council of Ministers. Our Report indicates how your Lordships' House can play an important role in this matter. My colleagues on the Committee will be adding to this debate their wisdom and experience, and we are delighted that so many other distinguished noble Lords are to speak, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, whose evidence was so valuable to the Committee. This is an urgent matter. From this important debate we hope that practical results will flow. If so, then the months of work of the Select Committee embodied in its Report will indeed have been worthwhile.
So far, I have spoken for the Committee. Obviously, I could not consult them on what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was going to say to-day. I understand the reason for the delay is that the other place has yet to consider its Report, and that the suggestion of the noble Lord is that this matter should then be referred to a Procedure Committee. The basic feature of this Report is the urgency of setting up the Instrument. This is of importance. I hope some of my colleagues will express their views on this question. We would hope that sending it to a Procedure Committee would not mean delay in the setting up of an Instrument, which should have been set up twelve months ago. I am grateful to the House for listening to me.
4.24 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, this Report, as is only to be expected, given its Chairman and its composition, is a thoroughly workmanlike and extremely readable Report on a new and important problem which, so far as I know, has no precedent in your Lordships' House. I need hardly say that on these Benches we agree broadly speaking with its conclusions. Clearly, there must be some system whereby the United Kingdom Parliament is informed in advance of prospective legislation in Brussels, or rather, of any legislation which is likely, for better or worse, to have any serious effect on the national economy. When and if real powers are vested in a directly elected European Parliament, then, and only then, will the powers so conferred presumably be outside the scope of any national Parliament, including our own. But, as we all know—and here I agree, broadly speaking, with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said—the European Parliament at present has virtually no powers, nor is it directly elected, even nationally. I think it will fairly shortly have considerable powers, in which case the situation will change to this extent: that whatever else it is, it will no longer be, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said it is now, a mere assembly. That is common ground.
Therefore, at the moment, the Ministers in the Council of the European Economic Community are, from a democratic point of view, answerable only to the Parliaments which they represent. If these Parliaments are to be in a position to call Ministers to account, they clearly ought to be aware of what is going on. Of course, a national Parliament can call a Minister to account by simply depriving his Government of a majority if they do not like what he has done. But if they can do so only after the measure approved by the Ministers and contested by the Parliament has already become the law of the land under the Treaty of Rome, then this can hardly be said to be a satisfactory situation. On the other hand, it is obvious that no Government in present circumstances will agree to anything in Brussels which it believes would be unacceptable to its own Parliament. This is so long as the unanimity rule prevails in the Council. If there

783
were to be a qualified majority vote in the Council, as is provided for in the Treaty, a Government could be in the position of being overruled, whatever it thought its own Parliament might think, and then, however obnoxious it might hold the measure to be, the national Parliament could only deprive the Government of its majority and cause it to fall. But I suggest that this sort of situation is likely to arise only when and if the actions of the Council, or some of them, do not require the consent of the national but rather the European Parliament. Until then, I doubt whether the Governments will be willing to abandon the unanimity rule.
For the time being, therefore, we can all admit that some special procedure is necessary for keeping national Parliaments informed of what is going on at an early stage. But seeing that the European Parliament will increasingly be invested with real powers, such special procedure will to some extent be provisional. If all goes according to plan and as the Ministers have suggested, there is going to be a European Union in 1980, and in such conditions there will clearly be little need for any procedure. Having said that, however, by way of a few preliminary remarks, I should like to make a few criticisms, if I may, of the procedure now proposed, at any rate so far as this House is concerned. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, will take them in good part, more especially since they are designed to be helpful and do not detract in any way from my admiration of the Report he has prepared.
In the first place, although I agree that the weight of evidence seems to be—I think it is—in favour of a Select rather than a Standing Committee, I must say I still cannot quite see why there should not be a Joint Select Committee. Perhaps I did not read the evidence with sufficient attention, but throughout I had the impression that one saw occasional references to the fact that such a Joint Committee would result in a considerable economy of effort and, indeed, of some expense, although perhaps that is not so great as we might have thought, since we have agreed to have a joint secretariat or something like that. It was further suggested—and this is the point that I should like to make tentatively—that if there
784
were a Joint Select Committee it could result in a more dispassionate examination of the available material and in a tendency to regard it less from the standpoint of Party politics and more from the general interest. That is the impression I had from certain evidence given to the Committee.
Now not having taken part in the discussions, I cannot say from where exactly the opposition to the proposal for a Joint Select Committee actually came. I only hope it does not come from any who may desire to make use of a vast mass of material in front of the sifting machinery for the chief purpose of criticising the Government of the day, and even for the perhaps more sinister purpose of slowing up the whole operation of what is already an almost impossible cumbrous institution. Perhaps I am being too suspicious, but I should be interested to learn whether any noble Lords, to say nothing of the Government themselves, feel that there may be some danger, if the new scrutinising procedure is not used with great discretion and restricted to really important matters, of a gumming up of the works.
After all, as things are, a proposal for European legislation, in order to get going at all, has to germinate in the Commission, where nothing apparently is secret, and then has to run the gauntlet of various powerful management committees, expert bodies, the Economic and Social Council I rather think, the famous and very powerful Coreper, the Committee of Permanent Representatives, and finally, under the new procedure, the European Parliament itself, before actually coming up to the Ministers. If, before the Ministers take any final decision, it has in addition to be examined, as it were de novo, in subcommittees, both in this House and perhaps in another place, torn to pieces conceivably by nationalistically minded experts, or even, so far as we are concerned, by any noble Lord who may care to attend one of the sub-committees of this machinery, exposed, in other words, to hostile analysis by avowed enemies of the Government and of the European Economic Community, and then finally debated in both Houses of Parliament—and, incidentally, what is going to happen if the two Houses are not in agreement?—then I must say that

785
the chances of ever getting anything agreed at Brussels will be considerably less than they are at the present time.
I do not say that all this may not be desirable and even necessary where an important matter of principle is at stake; I would be the last to suggest that. But it does seem to me that there may be a real danger in the new procedure unless it is operated with intelligence, and, above all, with restraint. Much, therefore, as I see it, would seem to depend on the personality of the salaried Peer who will be Chairman of the Select Committee. Might we not agree—I throw this out as a suggestion—that he should be a Cross-Bencher who is neither a European federalist nor a known opponent of our entry into the E.E.C.? I should like to think also that the chairmen of the numerous sub-committees would be noted less perhaps for their Party political zeal than for their objectivity.
Whether we should have a number of sub-committees is something on which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has thrown a certain doubt. I myself think there is something in the potential criticism of the Report in that respect which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has made. Would it not perhaps be better to follow the Commons' example and set up one committee, with a chairman and a deputy and a simple staff, and then, if it is found to be necessary, set up sub-committees, as many as are necessary for the purpose? But do not let us start with an enormous machinery. Start off with a smaller apparatus and then see how it goes. I think that is in accordance with our normal procedure, our normal tendency, in this country as a whole.
There is another matter on which I must say I share the view, as I understood it, of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and that is in regard to the proposed appointment of a Parliamentary observer in Brussels. I must say that if I was responsible for trying, during any very difficult negotiations, to get all the pigs into the poke in the complicated jungle of the European Economic Community, I should regard this gentleman with a certain apprehension. If indeed he were that kind of person, he would have an almost unique opportunity of starting up unnecessary hares. Who
786
would nominate him, and how would he be paid? Would the Government have any say in his choice? Perhaps that was considered in the Report, but if so I did not see it. Personally, I should have thought that all that is really necessary would be for the Chairman of the Select Committee, and perhaps also his many sub-committee chairmen, to subscribe to what is known as the Agence Europe, which gives all the gossip on what is happening in Brussels, and indeed other similar productions. Little in any case seems to escape the eagle eye of a large number of highly intelligent journalists accredited to the European 'Economic Community. It might thus be better, and it would certainly be much cheaper, for the Committee to rely on some good Press-cutting agency. Finally, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd in what he said about Ministerial Statements. It is perhaps irrelevant to this Report, but I would very much support what he said.
I said at the beginning of my remarks that in my belief all this rather elaborate apparatus will probably be, over the years, of a provisional nature only. If the European Economic Community, under the dreadful strains to which it is now being subjected—and there may be worse ones to come—breaks up in the coming years obviously all this apparatus will not be necessary and would gradually lapse. If, on the other hand, the European Economic Community, as I myself still believe it probably will do, fairly shortly becomes a monetary and soon after that some kind of political union (again I think that enormous forces are pressing us into European unity, whether we like it or not) responsible, among other things, for its own foreign policy and defence, equally the present machinery will not be necessary, because we shall all be agreed by then on what decisions, generally speaking, shall be taken in some European centre by entirely democratic means and what decisions will be left for decision by the Parliament at Westminster.
Not all of us may want to proceed in this direction, which was nevertheless the direction indicated by all Heads of State and Governments just over a year ago, and recently reiterated by that important and celebrated Socialist statesman Herr Willy Brandt. One of the best, if not the best, present means of advancing along

787
this road, if indeed we want to advance along it, is the granting of real powers, not only over the Community budget, which is now being considered, but in other spheres as well, to the existing European Parliament which by then, let us say quite soon, will have to be directly elected on a national basis, pending agreement on its election on a European-wide basis on an agreed universal suffrage.
What would be the most desirable means of electing it nationally is something which I think this House would be well advised to discuss before very long. For you simply cannot give real powers to the present Parliament, and the Ministers are, after all, pledged to do this very thing, without changing the existing method of composing it. It is like riding a bicycle: unless you press on, you fall off. If you do press on, some real powers are going to be removed from Westminster, in which case the labours of this machinery we are contemplating will pro tanto be less. Equally, if we fall off, there will not be any need for them. So, as I say, we must surely regard the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, however useful and indeed necessary, things being what they are, as essentially transitional measures, subject to constant review in accordance with the development, or alternatively the non-development, of the Community itself. I hope that it is in this sense and with this proviso that the Government will eventually adopt this Report, and that produced in another place, which seemed to me, incidentally, to be very much on the right lines. Perhaps I might end simply by parodying the famous lines:
"For forms of scrutiny let fools contest; That which is best administered is best."
In other words, the machinery matters much less than the way you work it.
4.50 p.m.
LORD CROWTHER-HUNT: My Lords originally it seemed an admirable idea when it was suggested that I should make my maiden speech in this debate which deals with a new but fundamental constitutional question, because, after all, for the last twenty years or more now I have been lecturing Oxford and Cambridge undergraduates on fundamental constitutional issues and, among other things, emphasising the virtues of our flexible, pragmatic and largely unwritten
788
Constitution. But I now recognise the folly and the dangers of this afternoon's enterprise. It is one thing to tell Oxford undergraduates how our affairs should be conducted; it is quite different to address your Lordships on these matters. After all, Oxford undergraduates only think that they know better than I do, and clearly it would be an indefensible impertinence to the accumulated wisdom and practical experience of your Lordships' House if my few words this afternoon could even be remotely construed as an attempt of a brash newcomer to lecture your Lordships on how best to perform one of the most crucial and important functions of this House, the preservation of our basic constitutional principles and the preservation too of the fundamental rights and liberties of the people of the United Kingdom. I therefore ask your Lordships' indulgence, and trust that nothing I say can possibly be construed in that way. Fortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and his colleagues on the Select Committee, have, I trust and believe, entirely saved me from the danger of any possible impertinences this afternoon, because virtually my sole purpose to-day is to say how much I admire the splendid, scholarly and practical Report, and to add my voice to those who have been emphasising its virtues, and to urge Her Majesty's Government to take urgent and speedy action on it.
But, my Lords, in commending the Maybray-King Report to the serious consideration of Her Majesty's Ministers it would be wrong of me to hide a minor ulterior purpose, and that is to insert what might be called a "mini-plug" for the Memorandum of Dissent which accompanied the Report of the Commission on the Constitution. When Professor Alan Peacock and myself were debating together about our Memorandum of Dissent, we were very much exercised by the impact that United Kingdom membership of the Common Market was having, and will increasingly have, on the workings of our system of government. Here I am flattered to find that our diagnosis of the constitutional implications of our membership of the Common Market is broadly the same as that so lucidly presented in the Maybray-King Report. Since the diagnoses are broadly the same, there is naturally a

789
broad similarity about the main recommendation in the two Reports; the recommendation that proposed regulations, or Directives, from the European Commission should be considered in the United Kingdom by a Parliamentary Select Committee or Committees, though here I must confess a slight difference. In our Memorandum of Dissent I suggested that these proposed regulations, or Directives, should be handled mainly by an appropriate Select Committee in the other place, but that was written before I had any indication whatsoever that I was to become a Member of your Lordships' House, so I trust that I may be forgiven for not being sufficiently farsighted on that point.
I am fortified now in my belief that your Lordships' House has a major role to play in the scrutiny of proposals for European Instruments not only by the Maybray-King Report but also by the parallel Report that has now emanated from the other place. If that appears to be both enigmatic and backhanded, as indeed it is, may I be permitted to explain more precisely what I really mean in a minute or two. I should like first of all to set out and emphasise what seems to me the basic principle which should guide us in devising proposals for the scrutiny of European Instruments. It seems to me that the fundamental principle to be applied here is that all proposals from the European Commission to the Council of Ministers, whether for regulations, Directives, or Treaty agreements, should be referred to this Parliament for scrutiny before Her Majesty's Ministers are called upon to reach a decision on any of these proposals in the Council of Ministers. Clearly such a scrutiny can be carried out effectively only by a Select Committee, or Committees, of appropriate size and with appropriate staffs.
Here it is worth for a moment considering the Select Committee proposed in the parallel Report on this subject by the other place. They recommend a very small Select Committee of not less than 9 and not more than 15 members, and their job is seen simply as informing the other place as a whole about any proposals of legal or political importance so that the other place can debate them if it so wishes. Here the pattern being followed is simply that of the Statutory Instruments Committee. But my own view on this is very strongly to prefer the recommenda-
790
tions made by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, because these recommendations envisage that your Lordships' Select Committee to scrutinise proposals for European Intruments can be concerned with their merits as well as their importance. It will look, as I understand it, at the merits of what is being proposed. So it is suggested that the Committee would be large enough to form functional sub-committees on finance, agriculture, and so on, and then when the Committee, or the sub-committees, have reported on the merits of what is being proposed, the Select Committee would be able to make recommendations which could be the basis of informed debate in your Lordships' House before—and I emphasise this again—Her Majesty's Ministers are called on to make final decisions on these matters at the Council of Ministers in Brussels. If the recommendations of the proposed Select Committee were not unanimous, because agreement on merits is often more difficult than agreement on importance, I see no harm in that. Minorities have a role to play in contributing to democratic debate.
Clearly Her Majesty's Government need to give effect to the Maybray-King recommendations at the earliest possible moment. Since we became Members of the European Community and up to November 15 of this year, there have been some 252 regulations approved by the Council of Ministers which have now become, or are becoming, the law of the United Kingdom, and none of these has been scrutinised, still less approved by Parliament. Unless this is urgently remedied it will contribute still further to what was one of the most disturbing pieces of evidence put before the Commission on the Constitution; that is, the evidence of the widespread sense of powerlessness which ordinary people throughout the United Kingdom feel to-day against the omnipotence and remoteness of government. In this context, if the recommendations of the Maybray-King Report are acted on and as soon as possible, this House will be able to make a major contribution to bridging the gap between the people of this country and the decision-makers in London and Brussels.
I should like to make one final point. The Select Committee being recommended by the noble Lord may well be

791
seen in some quarters, as indeed it is, as a sort of temporary expedient. For example, some may argue, as has been argued this afternoon, that when the European Parliament gains in strength, is directly elected and becomes a European Legislature with real power, then it will no longer be necessary to have a Select Committee in this House to scrutinise proposals emanating from the European Commission. But, my Lords, with respect, I cannot believe that this is so. If and when the European Parliament develops in this way, there will still be, in my view, a crucial role for our Parliament to play in the governing of this country. The fundamental role of the European Parliament, as I see it, is to consult with the European Commission on the evolution of proposals being put to the Council of Ministers, and in these consultations it must seek to develop those proposals from an overall European point of view—from the point of view of the extent to which they will contribute to the welfare of Europe as a whole. The job of this United Kingdom Parliament is different and at once more important to the people of this country. It is to scrutinise those proposals which emanate from the Commission, and to scrutinise them in the context of how far they will contribute to the welfare of the people of the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the essential role of our Parliament is to hold Her Majesty's Ministers responsible to the elected Members of the other place and to this House for the decisions they take at the Council of Ministers in Brussels; and if your Lordships' House is able to act now and in the future in the way proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, not only will this House be carrying out its traditional role of safeguarding the rights and liberties of the people of this country, it will also be building a bridge between the people of this country, their Government in London and beyond to the Common Market institutions in Brussels—and such a bridge, my Lords, is in my view an urgent and vital need to-day.
5.2 p.m.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very happy to be the first Member of your Lordships' House to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord
792
Crowther-Hunt, on a fascinating and most valuable contribution to our debate. I am glad to see that we were both at Cambridge and both in the Royal Artillery, so we have some bonds in common. Certainly his unrivalled knowledge as a member of the Commission on the Constitution, in particular, makes him a valued Member of this House. I hope that we shall hear more from him, and hear more of his humour, on many other occasions. I am very glad that he has spoken to us this afternoon.
I am also grateful to my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal for having moved his Motion in such lucid terms; and I would also thank the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, for a most interesting and comprehensive Report. I know, too, what a wise and important part my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor played in the work of this Committee. I am grateful to many people this afternoon. I am grateful, too, to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy in another place for his comprehensive survey of Community affairs, which he delivered in another place last week. This enabled those of your Lordships who read his speech to look at the broad spectrum of Community affairs in the perspective which they deserve.
My Lords, I will be as brief as possible and will confine my own remarks to the activities of the European Parliament, which is one of the important institutions of the Community and of which I have the honour to be a Vice-President and also deputy leader of the European Conservative Group. First of all, I should like to say that I support what my honourable friend Mr. Kirk, the leader of the Conservative delegation in the Parliament, said in his speech in another place last Tuesday in regard to the powers of the European Parliament, which are referred to in paragraphs 71 to 76 of the Select Committee's Report. As Mr. Kirk said there is a strong body of opinion in the European Parliament which believes that the last word should rest with that Parliament itself, and that it should have the right in certain circumstances, and with a qualified majority, to overrule the Council. Mr. Kirk agreed —and I agree with him—that that is unrealistic at this stage, and certainly so long as the unanimity rule remains within the Council.

793
However, the result is that this situation may well lead early in the new year to a motion of censure and the dismissal of the present Commission if they are not prepared to change their views or to persuade the Council to change its views. This power of dismissal is one which the Parliament possesses, and in my view it is nonsense for a spokesman of the Labour Party to describe the European Parliament as a sham assembly—and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, did not describe it as such. It is true, as I recognise, that it has not the powers of the Council, of the Commission or, indeed, of the European Court of Justice, but it does have this power to dismiss the Commission. It also has a very considerable influence under the Treaties, for the Parliament has to be consulted on a very wide range of legislative instruments and Lord Maybray-King covers this in paragraph 61 of his Report.
I know well, from a year's experience, that the committees of the Parliament have a significant influence over members of the Commission and the kind of proposals which they put forward to the Council. Indeed the Commission seem to consult the Parliament on virtually every issue. I would judge that they do so considerably more extensively than even the Treaties require. All the same, from the Parliament's point of view the situation is not wholly satisfactory. For example, during the last plenary session in Strasbourg on November 15 (the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, was one of the noble Lords present on that occasion) we were informed by the commissioners that, as reported in the Press, the Commission had made certain proposals to the Council regarding Community supplies of enriched uranium—a sensitive subject, I agree. Although I asked the commissioners whether I could see a copy of those proposals as a member of the Parliament and in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, they were not immediately available and in fact were given to me on a confidential basis as a member of the Parliament's Energy Committee only this last Monday, December 3; that is to say, over a fortnight after the proposals had been put to the Council. I was told that the delay in communicating this document was the fact that it was confidential and that the Commission wished to be
794
courteous to the Council and to give them an opportunity to study it before it was communicated elsewhere.
Although this is not wholly satisfactory, it at least means that members of the committees of the Parliament are personally in possession of these confidential proposals, and I am therefore in a position personally to discuss them with Ministers and officials in Whitehall. I should also think—and I address this remark particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King—that in a case of this kind it would be possible for me or another member of another committee to communicate such proposals, still on a confidential basis, to the Scrutiny Committee when it has been set up. I recognise, too, that under the Treaties it is technically for the Council to communicate this kind of document to the Parliament, even if sometimes the Parliament receives it direct from the Commission. I give this example only to show that even if the methods of communication are not ideal, the relevant committee of the Parliament, and eventually the Parliament itself in plenary, is given an opportunity to express its opinion before a final decision is taken by the relevant Council of Ministers or, perhaps in this case of enriched uranium, by the Supreme Council of Ministers—that is to say, the Heads of State and Governments—when they meet later this month.
At all events, the point I wish to make is that the European Parliament is constantly consulted by the commissioners and also, I may say, their Directors-General, more regularly, perhaps, than national Ministers consult committees in some national Parliaments. The European Parliament is therefore not a sham Assembly. None the less, it should, in my view, have increased powers; and I was glad to hear my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy in another place say last week that both the Council and also the Commission have agreed with the European Parliament on improvements in their relationship and methods of work, and it was proposed that the Parliament should achieve additional budgetary powers next year to reinforce those it would attain by previous agreement in 1975. My right honourable friend added that this pro-

795
gressive accumulation of real power was generally seen as the right way forward.
I am very glad that my right honourable friend Mr. Davies said that. I am sure that it is right. I am equally certain that, having increased powers, it is also important that the Parliament should ultimately be directly elected, or even in the interim perhaps designated in a manner somewhat different from that which exists already, or at any rate in a manner which would relieve the excessive strain and burden resting on my honourable friends, particularly those in another place. But I would say also that it is equally a strain on my noble friends in your Lordships' House. It is not possible for us effectively to carry out our double duties. We exist on an expense allowance paid only when we go to Strasbourg or Brussels or Luxembourg or wherever our Committees meet. We cannot even then receive our allowances in this place; we have no paid secretaries, and in this respect we are certainly less well off than those in another place, although we do not have the burden of a constituency to serve.
No congressman in the United States nor member of the Canadian House of Commons could function in this way, or function as a member of their own State or Provincial Legislature. I do not want to see my honourable friends and my noble friends here break down under the strain. But the European Parliament having increased powers, and ultimately being directly elected or designated in some other manner, would not mean that either your Lordships' House or another place would be in any other way by-passed so far as Community legislation is concerned.
I agree broadly with Lord Maybray-King's proposal. I see no reason to fear that the Council of Ministers as the ultimate legislating body will take decisions at variance with the wishes of either House of Parliament in this country. The checks are already considerable and I should not think it necessary—this is the only place where I disagree with the Report and agree with my noble friend the Leader of the House —to appoint a Parliamentary observer or observers and specialists in Brussels in the way the Germans have done. After all, we know that we have a strong
796
national Governmental delegation in Brussels led by a most distinguished and able diplomat, Sir Michael Palliser, to whom several noble Lords have already paid tribute. That delegation is looking at all the Commission's proposals to the Council on a day to day basis. Secondly, we know that Members of your Lordships' House and of another place who are Members of the European Parliament are likewise scrutinising the Commission's proposals. Thirdly, from a Party political point of view there are the Party group secretariats in Luxembourg also carefully sifting the Commission's instruments. Fourthly, there will now be—I hope they will be set up as soon as possible—the two new scrutiny committees, or whatever they may be called, of both Houses. Therefore, it seems most unlikely that the Council, with their strong United Kingdom membership, backed by a strong team of officials, would accept Commission proposals likely to be opposed to British interests.
I do not think that there is any great risk of the Commission's proposals slipping through without the knowledge of either House of Parliament at Westminster. If the Labour Party also agreed to send delegations, and had their own Party officials, the risk would be even less. They would represent a fifth and important sieve. It is true that, due to the fact that we were not in the Community at the outset we have some difficult problems, especially the Common Agricultural Policy, with abuses such as the butter mountain. But the C.A.P. is largely the result of not having joined the Community earlier. In any case, we know that Her Majesty's Government, led by my right honourable friend Mr. Godber, are doing everything possible to see that the C.A.P. is amended. And when I speak of "mountains" I would also mention another conceivably potential mountain which might be created if the Commission's proposals in regard to enriched uranium go through. By the end of the decade this might involve a mountain of rich uranium and I should be sorry to see this happen if indeed there is a great deal of overproduction as a result of the Commission's proposals that both technologies should go through.
Finally, let me say that I am very happy with Lord Maybray-King's proposal in his Report that noble Lords who are members of the European Parliament

797
should be encouraged to attend meetings of the Select Committee or Scrutiny Committee, and/or its sub-Committees, on their specialities and that I, as the Leader of the Lords Delegation, should receive the papers and attend, whenever possible, the main Committee. Even if such meetings may occasionally clash with our meetings in Brussels or Strasbourg or Luxembourg or elsewhere on the Continent, it is very likely that I or one or other of my noble friends will be able to attend as required. But I emphasise again that the exercise of this dual mandate and the folly of having to attend meetings in so many different places is a severe strain, and I hope that the Government will bend their mind to this matter of the location of the Parliament.
I am certainly in favour of introducing a system of direct election sooner than perhaps one might have thought was realistic on joining at the beginning of this year; or at any rate, as I said earlier, in a different form of designation which would relieve my honourable friends in another place. If we are to achieve complete political union, as was stated at the last Summit Conference, by 1980 and we have, in Chancellor Brandt's words, a European Government by the end of the decade, then a directly elected Parliament should, in my view, exist alongside it. I have not made up my mind whether the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and his Committee should be referred to the Procedure Committee. Whether or not they are referred to the Procedure Committee I hope that the proposed Committees should be set up as speedily as possible and I am glad that the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Maybray-King, agree with me on this.
5.10 p.m.
LORD DIPLOCK: My Lords, I count it a happy coincidence that my taking part in this debate should have given me an opportunity to hear and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, upon a maiden speech on a subject on which he is an acknowledged authority. I intervened in the debate on the Second Reading of the European Communities Bill to make one point only. It was a point which I thought that I could make with propriety because it raised a question of constitutional law which I believe far transcends any Party
798
allegiance. It was to urge the early appointment of a Committee to consider what machinery could be devised to enable both Houses of Parliament to be informed in advance about proposals for Community law, and in appropriate cases to debate them before they were made and before it was too late to influence. It was urgent then because we were about to accede to the Community. It is the more urgent now that 12 months have passed since we have done so.
My Lords, I should like to add my tribute to the Maybray-King Report, and particularly to mention the lucid analysis that it contains of the way in which the Council and the Commission prepare Community legislation. It puts flesh on the bare bones of the constitutional structure of the Community institutions which are contained alone in the Treaties themselves. It shows that that constitution is flexible and able to adapt itself, in the light of practical experience, to needs as they arise. And, most important, it leads one to hope that it will be able to adapt its procedures to accommodate the desire of national Parliaments, and particularly this Parliament at Westminster, to play a part in the preparatory stages of laws and policies which will be binding on all the subjects of this realm.
The proposals of the Committee have my unqualified support. I hope that they will be put into effect with the absolute minimum of delay. The need for urgency was underlined by Lord Brockway's Question on the Order Paper to-day about provisions in a Statutory Instrument laid before Parliament on November 9 to give effect to a Directive of the Council of the Communities about compulsory insurance of motor vehicles. When I saw that Question on the Order Paper it seemed to me that it would provide a practical test of the Committee's proposals to see what would have happened if the United Kingdom had been a member of the Communities and the Select Committee proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, had been in operation when the Directive upon which that Statutory Instrument was founded was prepared.
It was as long ago as June 24, 1970, that the proposal by the Commission for the Directive was sent to the Council. That proposal set out, as all Directives

799
do, the reasons why it was being proposed. The broad policy, it said, was to eliminate frontier controls on vehicles crossing from one Member State into another. The particular purpose, it said, was to eliminate the need to check at these internal frontiers between Member States whether a vehicle was properly insured against third party liability as required by the law of the particular Member State. And the means by which it proposed to achieve this purpose was that Member States should assume responsibility to see that vehicles registered or based in their own territory were insured against liabilities in other Member States of the Communities; and, a necessary complement to that, that vehicles from non-Community States entering a Member State should not be allowed to be used until the Member State was satisfied that they had the appropriate insurance against third party liability as required by the laws of each of the Member States. The actual wording in which this last requirement was put was:
"That each Member State shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that vehicles normally based in a non-Community State entering the territory of the Member State shall not be used in its territory unless there has been the appropriate insurance policy cover."
This was a Directive. It set out what was to be achieved. It therefore left Member States to decide what was the most appropriate way of carrying it into effect under their own legal system. That was June 24, 1970. A Directive was not made until April 24, 1972. So there was a period of almost two years in which there could have been discussion of its contents. When it was made in 1972 it required that the Member States should bring it into effect upon December 31, 1973.
My Lords, what would have happened if the proposed Select Committee had been in operation? First, the Committee would have seen the draft not later than April, 1970. The sifting process would have thrown it up at once as a Directive which required consideration and report, because it would affect hundreds of thousands of British motorists travelling into European countries; it would affect commercial vehicles, and it might affect the insurance interests of this country.
800
The Government's proposals to amend the law would, under the recommendations of the Maybray-King Report, have been placed before the Select Committee with the proposed Directive. As I have said, the Directive gives some scope for choice of methods to be used by the Government. In the Government proposals which are now embodied in the Statutory Instrument laid before Parliament last month the problem as regards home-based vehicles was fairly simple. All that was necessary was to extend compulsory cover already required for this country to compulsory cover for liabilities incurred in Community countries. Incidentally, that would involve the creation of a new criminal offence in this country, but of a relatively minor nature. As regards entering vehicles, the Government's chosen machinery, as the Statutory Instrument disclosed, was to require such vehicles to produce evidence of requisite insurance cover, and to prohibit their use in this country if that evidence was not produced. It created an offence, not of a novel character, of using the vehicle in breach of the prohibition, and it conferred a power of arrest of the person using it in breach of the prohibition.
My Lords, I have not mentioned this because I am concerned in any way with the merits of the proposal, but it is one that affects the liberty of the subject. It has aroused public apprehension, mainly, I think, because of lack of information and explanation. This House ought to know about a proposal of that kind, and to have an opportunity of deciding whether it merits debate, although I do not say that if a full explanation had been given this House would have thought that it merited debate. In order to consider whether the terms of the proposed Directive should be modified, in this case in respect of the entering of non-community vehicles, or in any event whether the Government's proposals for meeting the obligation were the best machinery for carrying out what the Directive required, if the Select Committee had been in existence, there would have been full information to enable Members to decide whether a debate was required, and to ensure that if a debate took place it would be a fully informed debate and to the point. In this instance there would have been all the time

801
between June, 1970, and April, 1972, for that to happen.
My Lords, may I leave this subject with two comments. First, I hope the Government will accept the need for a legal adviser, familiar with Community law, to provide services for this Committee. I think that is essential. Lastly, may I say that I was naïve enough politically to believe that the task of scrutiny and report might usefully have been undertaken by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. No doubt that was naive of me. It certainly was not to be. It is encouraging to see that the Committee in another place has recommended a machinery comparable to that proposed in the Report of this House, and has welcomed the proposal that there should be a share-a-service of expert advisers and secretariat.
My Lords, the task of these Committees is bound to be demanding of the time and effort of members of the Committee, of Officials of the House, and of Ministers. Every effort should be made to avoid unnecessary duplication. The example of the Statutory Instrument which I have been discussing is such that it would not be necessary for both Houses individually to look at the matter. I hope that experience will show that there are other means by which Committees of the two Houses will co-operate to avoid unnecessary duplication of vital, but very exacting work.
5.34 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House made a number of remarks with which I agree, and none more so than his tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King. It was a rewarding experience to serve with him and his colleagues. I must also say that there were a number of remarks made by the noble Lord with which I profoundly disagreed: on the subject of the Committee and the sub-committees, the role of counsel, the participation of Parliament with the Commission, and other points with which I shall deal in the course of my remarks.
My Lords, the events of past weeks have severely tested the links which bind the Community together. There has been criticism, even scorn, at lack of concerted policies. To my mind, the significant feature of the crisis has been the other side of the picture: the growing influence
802
of the Community on national policies. Britain and other Member States may for a long time in their national policies fall short of the standards set by the European ideal. But I believe that public opinion is becoming more Community minded, despite the increases in food prices, despite the energy crisis, than might have been expected a year ago. In using that expression, I do not mean to imply pro- or anti-Community, but simply an acceptance of the existence of the Community and of Britain's involvement. It may be moving a little faster than the Government on some issues, including the pooling of scarce resources. As I shall hope to convince noble Lords, a wider Parliamentary involvement will greatly assist the vigorous growth of the Community, and in my view the pace of recent events has made the Committee's recommendations even more urgent. The future tense has become an imperative, and the Government's time for reflection even shorter.
Much of the Committee's Report deals with Community institutions and with the nature of the legislative processes. This is described in paragraph 97 as
"a distant, bureaucratic and unaccountable decision-making process in Brussels."
As one who believes in Parliamentary democracy and in the future of Europe, I am sorry to have to acknowledge that that description is true. The role of the Commissioners has been fully explained by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and I would only add these few words. The Commissioners are appointed by national regimes but placed, by the Treaty, outside their control. They are, in a sense, accountable to the European Parliament but are not members and they cannot rely on Party support for their policies. They have no right to vote, yet they have executive powers, derived from the Treaty or conferred by the Council, to make Regulations which are promptly binding on the citizens of all Members States.
In short, my Lords, they are a bureaucracy, with a substantial executive and some legislative power, whereas the European Parliament has a mainly consultative role and limited powers. Due to a reluctance of Member States to transfer sovereign powers to Community institutions, the right of final decision over most important legislation remains vested

803
in the Council of Ministers: as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said, neither a Cabinet, in the British sense, nor a Legislature, in the Parliamentary sense, but a body which I should prefer to define as one in which a consensus is sought between the European policies of Member Governments with a view to promulgating or rejecting legislation proposed by the Commission.
Bureaucratic Governments, and powerful executive branches of government, overshadowing comparatively weak Parliamentary institutions, have often been a feature of European constitutions; and if this country had helped to establish the Community's institutions I am sure they would have had a different shape. Although national Governments participate in the legislative processes, national Parliaments are excluded from them. They would be superfluous if Community laws evolved from policies formulated by a European Government and were enacted by a European Parliament. But that is not yet the situation.
This poses the problem for national Parliaments, which is examined in paragraph 97 of the Report, as to how far they should participate in the decision-making process. In that paragraph and in paragraph 98, because of the nature of the Community's legislative process, the Committee underlines the need for the national Parliament to participate before decisions are taken in the Council and suggests that the formulation of policies to which the United Kingdom is a party should be subject to scrutiny by the national Parliament, and concludes that the purpose of Parliamentary scrutiny is to influence the United Kingdom Ministers prior to discussions on Community proposals in the Council, in which they take final form. In a subsequent paragraph the Report states:
"While Parliament cannot itself amend, alter or reject Community legislation, it can bring pressure on Ministers to try to do so in Council."
Part V of the Report focuses on the special problem of suitable procedures for the House of Lords. The method proposed for scrutiny is, as noble Lords have heard, by means of a Select Committee; and the point cannot be made too strongly that the function of the Committee would be to inform itself and report
804
to the House and not to influence or persuade Ministers directly on the occasions when they may be invited to give evidence. Paragraph 104 proposed that:
"In the Lords, it is on the Floor of the House where Ministers may be directly influenced, and that is where debate—as distinct from scrutiny—should take place."
The Committee conclude in paragraph 130—and although the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, has already mentioned this point, I should like to quote directly from the Report—that:
"The effectiveness of the Committee's work would depend on the response by the Government to a report or to a debate on a report. The Committee's reports might also be taken directly into account by the Commission."
The point initially raised by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham—and I believe there has been some argument about it—was as to the composition of the Committee and whether it should immediately include a number of sub-committees. It seems to me that this argument does not reveal any profound differences of opinion. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, will agree that the reason why the Committee felt that there should be sub-committees was because they were aware that a large number of specialist subjects would require to be dealt with by one or two noble Lords with specialist knowledge, so that it would be a waste of time for all noble Lords to sit around in the main meetings of the Committee while some subjects with which the majority were not involved were discussed. For this reason, it seemed best to say that the Committee should form itself into sub-committees so as to deal with these specialist subjects.
I hope the Government will not find anything difficult or unacceptable in the proposals, despite some of the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. I was surprised that they apparently ignored the First Report of the Committee, but I assume that they, too, were awaiting the second wedding of the year—a wedding which never took place. Noble Lords may know that both Committees were given powers to confer, but in the event they only exchanged papers. So it can be said that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, waited over nine months at the altar for his right honourable friend—and I use the word in its romantic, rather than the Parliamentary sense—who shall remain anonymous, to

805
show up. All he got for his patience was a bouquet and an offer to share the cost of the priest.
I should like to remind the noble Lord the Leader of the House of the fact that the Select Committee in another place have recognised that this House has an advantageous role to fulfil, both in the new processes and in the expression of views on important items of Community legislation, and that both Committees have recommended joint staffing procedures as being reasonable and as facilitating the sharing of work. The Reports were in essentials complementary, and noble Lords may consider this a further argument in support of the conclusions reached by the House of Lords Committee.
I noticed the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, regarding the desirability of the terms of reference of the two Committees being as closely akin as possible. The terms of reference were spelt out by the House of Lords Committee in paragraph 111, and they can be read there by noble Lords. I cannot find anything in the Report to the House of Commons Committee which conflicts in any way with their terms of reference, although they themselves did not spell out their terms of reference. Perhaps I need not take that very much further.
I should now like very briefly to look beyond the body of the Report, and try to evoke something of the spirit which, so far as I personally was concerned, animated our discussions. I have no doubt whatever that the inter-relationship between Parliament and the Community in its widest sense was very much in all our minds. Membership of the European Assembly provides a powerful and continuous link between Westminster and Strasbourg, although one could wish that it were truly representative. I have already mentioned ways by which Parliament can participate indirectly with Government in the deliberative and legislative functions of the Council; but what must, I think, be read between the lines of the Report is the need for increasing contact between the representative bodies of Parliament and the European Commission. It might very well be necessary for these to remain informal, since the Commission is understandably reluctant
806
to maintain contacts at official level with the Parliaments of nine Member nations.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment, solely to correct what I think may possibly be a mistaken impression given earlier in the year by the Commission about their attitude towards national Parliaments. If I may be forgiven for doing so, perhaps I should tell the House and the noble Lord that the Commission says that it is gratified by the interest shown in its work by individual and national Parliaments, and wishes to grant all possible assistance to members and committees of Parliaments of the Member-States. That was stated in an official answer to a Written Question.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord has made my point for me. I will not go on with that point any longer, except to add that in paragraph 38 reference is made to these views having been expressed by Mr. Ortoli, President of the Commission, and by Mr. George Thomson to the Committee. Those are the fair Reports of a Parliamentary observer, and perhaps it might be worth saying a few words about them at the juncture: that is, that the flow of information from Brussels will be vital to the work of the Committee, and particularly the flow of early information. Because contact with the Commission (despite the noble Lord's remarks) may have to remain unofficial, it may not be easy to maintain them on an official level. Therefore in the early stages it will certainly he extremely useful and advantageous if the Committee could maintain unofficial links with the bodies in Brussels, and particularly with the Commission, which would enable them, on the basis mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, to receive advance information on important memoranda and other documents which might in the future lead to policies and proposals from the Commission. This is why we felt so strongly that it would be helpful to have somebody situated in Brussels to maintain these contacts.
Noble Lords should ask themselves where they stand on participation: whether they regard the British Parliament as being outside the mainstream of Community activities and uninvolved, or whether they think that British membership has qualified Parliament to be des-

807
cribed as an institution of the Community, even if not so designated by the Treaty, and to play a full and continuous role in the Community's processes aided by a two-way flow of information between Westminster and Brussels; the contacts of the Committee's permanent staff with officials of other Government Departments and the Commission, and access to Commission papers at an early stage, such as communicative and consultative documents.
My Lords, I stand, if not with the Angles, at least with the guardian angels of Europe, of which we are now an integral part. I believe the Government will lay themselves open to justifiable criticism unless they accept the Committee's recommendations fully, promptly and effectively. I urge the noble Lord the Leader of the House to consider very seriously the danger to Parliamentary democracy inherent in the present stage of development of the Community institutions and legislative process; to bear in mind the urgent need for adequate procedures for Parliament to play its part as guardian of the rights and liberties of the British people, and as the maker of their laws; and to enable increased Parliamentary participation in the future development of the European community. I invite noble Lords to lend their support to the Committee by endorsing the Report, by their approval of the recommendations and by their active and beneficent interest in Community affairs under the new procedures.
5.52 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is not often that we on this side of the Chamber can meet the wish of the noble Earl the Government Chief Whip, when he invites those taking part in today's proceedings to speak as briefly as possible. I am able to do so for two reasons: one, because I find myself almost in entire agreement with the Report; and, secondly, because my noble friend Lord Shepherd has said far better than I could say them all the things I wanted to speak about. I merely say to the Government that I hope that, in making up their minds what they are going to do, they will read carefully my noble friend's speech so that notice can
808
be taken of the various points he has made.
It seems to me that there is a tremendous—in fact I would say a definite—responsibility on the Government to see that Parliament has full knowledge of what is being done by the European Community and of the effects of their decisions on the United Kingdom. Like the Committee, I want to see the setting up of a Select Committee, but I feel bound to ask myself this question: if a Select Committee is set up what are we going to achieve? If we are going to achieve anything at all, procedures must be found whereby the decisions of the Select Committee can in some measure be mandated on the Minister, or whoever is negotiating on our behalf, in the Community. It is pointless that we should have a Select Committee spending a good deal of time going into these various matters unless at the end we can have some assurance that the decisions which the Select Committee, and ultimately our Parliament, reach do in fact become mandatory upon whoever is speaking for US.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is advancing a revolutionary concept in the British Parliament—government by Committee. If anyone mandates a Minister it must be a House rather than a Committee.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was working on the assumption that if a Select Committee came to certain decisions, and they felt it was desirable in the interests of the people of the United Kingdom that that point of view should be put forward, then that point of view would be raised in Parliament, and Parliament would make a decision on the matter. If I did not make that clear I am all the more grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity of doing so.
I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is not present because I want to take up one or two matters in his speech. I received the impression that he was in favour of a Select Committee, but had some doubts in his mind about the usefulness, perhaps at this stage, of sub-committees. Taking the

809
Report which we are discussing to-day, and the kind of work the Report envisages for the Select Committee, involving fields of finance, economics and regional policy, agriculture, external trade and treaties, environment, social health and education, energy and transport, I would have thought that it was impossible for a Committee to give real, deep consideration to these matters. Furthermore, there is within your Lordships' House a tremendous amount of real ability, real knowledge and competence. I should have thought it would be in the best interests of the United Kingdom that we should harness the experience and knowledge of certain people to work in sub-committees in these various fields. Therefore I feel that sub-committees stemming from the Select Committee are an absolute essential.
I do not think that the matter can be met in the way the noble Lord suggested; that is, by Questions on the Floor of your Lordships' House. Reference has already been made as to how they can develop, and very often they are unsatisfactory. I should also like to raise the point about the advisability of referring the matter to the Procedure Committee. I hope that I shall not be misunderstood when I say that there is a doubt in my mind as to whether the Government really want a Select Committee to consider these matters if they now want the Procedure Committee to deal with them. If the Government really want a Select Committee, so that both Houses of Parliament can examine sincerely the documents and the proposed Instruments coming out of the E.E.C., we should give teeth to the matter immediately. I can see no reason why in the next few days we cannot have a Motion before your Lordships' House saying that this Report has been adopted by your Lordships, and that a Select Committee should be set up forthwith.
Procedures must be adopted so that we can exercise a real measure of control in respect of the decisions that are being taken. It seems to me appalling that we have been in the Community for nearly 12 months, and that, as my noble friend Lord Shepherd said, something like 2,000 decisions have been made during that period. The Committee were of the
810
opinion that something like between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. of the decisions made by the E.E.C. would necessitate very careful investigation. If that is so then something like between 300 and 400 decisions which can be of real significance to the United Kingdom have been taken and we have not made any investigations, preliminary or otherwise, into these matters. I feel that we should take steps within the next few days to see that this Report is adopted, and that a decision should be taken by your Lordships that, as recommended in the Report, a Select Committee with sub-committees should be set up forthwith.
6.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, this is not the first time that I have had the pleasure of following the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, but it is the first time that I have agreed with everything he has said. I, too, plead with the Government to listen to the case for urgency, to listen to the charge, however unfair it might sound, that to refer the matter to another Select Committee can only create delay. My Lords, may I first of all apologise in advance for the fact that owing to another engagement of long standing I must leave the Chamber by 20 minutes to eight. If, therefore, I am not present when the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, speaks or the Front Benches wind up I hope the House will accept my apology.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think we are all hopeful that we shall be able to keep to the suggested timetable.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, after the experience of yesterday I thought there was no harm in putting as nicely as I could that we are all concerned about time. It was an unusual pleasure to have listened to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt. We beheld the assurance of knowledge and saw it adorned by mode-sty of address; we listened to realism, born of experience, lit by the faith that comes with vision. Surely we shall all look forward to hearing him again.
My Lords, it would be churlish to intervene in this debate as an alumnus of the Select Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, without paying a personal tribute to himself. Those of us who contributed anything at all

811
did so thanks to his inspiration; we lit our lights at his lamp. Throughout the deliberations two antitheses kept challenging one another in my mind, not least as we observed that the Community is itself still unfolding. The antitheses that I sensed were those of a Continental vision on the one hand and, on the other, the proud traditions of personal liberty protected by the Parliamentary habits of a maritime country. The antitheses recalled to mind a tract by Lord Halifax, in 1678, called The character of a Trimmer, when he discussed which is the greater beauty, Monarchy or Commonwealth. He called Monarchy "a thing that leaveth men their liberty"; he called Commonwealth "Such a one that allows them no quiet"; and then he wrote, as he put it,
"of our blessed constitution in which dominion and liberty are so well reconciled. It giveth to the prince the glorious power of commanding free men and to the subjects the satisfaction of seeing the power so lodged as that their liberties are secure".
My Lords, those antitheses came out clearly in the Report of our parallel Committee in the other place, at paragraphs 36 and 39, where they stated—
…it remains central to the United Kingdom concept and structure of Parliamentary Democracy that control of the law making processes lies with Parliament… Your Committee … reject entirely any suggestion that the Executive should, for that or any other reason, have an unfettered right to make or alter any part of the law it may choose, subject only to securing the agreement of other Governments to those changes."
In our deliberations I find one sentence in the evidence more pregnant than all the others. The Lord President of the Council, whose memorandum is printed on pages 39 and 40, said in paragraph 9—
"…ultimately Parliament's influence will derive from its power to make and unmake Governments by calling them to account for their actions in the Council of Ministers".
But the gravity of the situation lies in the fact that, even if Parliament were to bring down a Government in reprisal for their behaviour in the Council of Ministers, whatever they had consented to there would still stand, and the creation of any new Government would do nothing whatever to alter that fact. In other words, what is done is done, and the gravity of the situation is that only before the Council of Ministers take a decision can our Parliament have any serious effect.
812
This really means that Parliament's influence and power depend entirely on obtaining early warning of what is afoot and giving early warning of its worries to the Executive. This requires that Parliament in general and the Opposition in particular—especially in view of the Opposition's constitutional role as Her Majesty's loyal Opposition with the job of probing and criticising—must have access to the facts on proceedings in the Council. This must still be so even if, as we were led to infer by my noble friend Lord Windlesham's description this afternoon, its transactions resemble those of a horse fair. He described the Council neither as a Cabinet nor as a Legislature, but as a forum for international negotiations. In order to meet this problem several of the Nine have imposed a demanding and explicit obligation on their Executive—omitted from our legislation—to keep their Parliaments informed of the proceedings within the Council, albeit sometimes on a basis of confidentiality. Indeed in this regard Germany's experience illustrates the value of establishing an independent line of inquiry as an independent source of information, something that is responsible to Parliament and independent of the Civil Service.
My Lords, since the E.E.C. itself is a hybrid, the Council is a hybrid also. The Commission's structure is perhaps suited best to a United States of Europe; the Council's structure is perhaps best suited to a federation of sovereign States. But the fact is that, whatever we call the Council and however we describe it, it does exercise both legislative and executive functions. As a legislature, it passes laws binding in their effect upon every citizen, perhaps—and we heard this matter so well (if I may put it like that) illuminated by the noble Lord, Lord Diplock, just now—affecting his cherished freedoms, such as immunity from arrest without warrant. My Lords, it is intolerable, it is out of tune with our practice and traditions, that such legislative deliberations, akin, if you will, to Parliamentary procedures, certainly in their effect, should occur in secret. In this we are back to the days of John Wilkes.
To reply that the Council is in fact like a Cabinet—not my noble friend's argument this afternoon, but that of my other noble friend sitting on his left on last April 3, when he likened the Council

813
to a Cabinet—belies the facts. For it is already accepted, vide the Luns doctrine, that Ministers may well disclose to their Parliaments how they have behaved. Indeed we know from the evidence given by Ministerialrat Herr Dr. Blischke of the Bundestag—it is on page 108, Question 373—that Ministers not only declare their own stance; they issue their own speeches and on occasions they describe how other countries and Ministers have behaved in the Council. Then there are executive functions and there are, still more, a sort of in-between range of phenomena, such as agreements on the semi-float of currencies, which was finally decided, so Mr. Thomson told us in his evidence—and that is Question 501 on page 137—at Council level. The Germans made it quite clear to us, and others did, too, that they regarded the Summit Conference in Paris, even though Britain was there as a guest at that time, likewise as essentially a meeting of the Council of Ministers.
The German experience, which has focused on beer, as ours might on butter or juggernauts, has been particularly instructive. We were told in our inquiries in Bonn that the German Government's obligation to inform Parliament is total, and Herr Blischke's paper said virtually the same on page 101 in paragraph 2. We were told that this includes developments inside the Council while they are in train and the very state of the deliberations themselves. We were also told in Bonn—this was a kind of obiter dictum, as one might say; it is not printed in our evidence but we were told, and much impressed by what we were told—that the Bundestag Committees have the initiative; we were assured that those Committees are determined to win, and are indeed winning, the struggle to control the Executive.
In the light of all that, our Committee saw that it would not be sufficient for Parliament simply to be content with looking at proposals for Community Instruments in the narrowest sense. So we interpreted our terms of reference as relating to all proposals while still in the formative stage, before they were considered by the Council; and paragraph I of our Report states that. We made it clear that that covered recommendations, opinions and even memoranda, whether they emerged from the Council
814
or the Commission. But we also found —and yesterday's experience is an admirable illustration of the problem which was stated so clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, earlier on—that ministerial statements were not at present a satisfactory means of conveying information. At paragraph 139(a), our Report issued the understatement of the century. It said that ministerial statements
"have not always been entirely satisfactory."
We have therefore proposed that it should be open to any Member of the House to move that a particular statement be referred to the Select Committee, where it can be fully probed and studied.
Two functions are quite evidently required. The first is an early warning system so that we really can find out what is brewing in good time. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, instructed us just now, as he did so clearly in his evidence to our Committee, when he pointed to the history of the particular insurance Directive to which he was referring. It had been going on for a long time and it is the kind of thing which one wants to know about at the start.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham cast some doubt on the merits of a Parliamentary Observer at Brussels; and it may well be that I personally am at fault here because in talking to the Press I said that what we really wanted was a "spy" to find out what was going on. But I think it will be not unduly disclosing the proceedings of our Committee if I say that, thanks to the long arm of the services of the Clerks of this House, it was possible in advance of our going to Brussels to learn things which we probably would not have found out on our own unaided. Surely if this Select Committee is to be adequately staffed it must have some sort of advance echelon at the centre where the decisions are taken—at the centre where, as Sir Christopher Soames put it so well, the Commission sits in a building made of glass and secrets there are none. Surely the case for having somebody there, whatever his status, but distinct from the British Foreign Office Delegation to the Community, stands well supported by the admirable experience that the German Bundestag showed us. Need we be shy, my Lords, of learning from the Germans?

815
This is not the first time that we in this country have learnt from our antagonists at other times. Let us readily take their experience to heart and let us also recognise, as surely we must, that if early warning is one function, probing, probing, probing, is the other. If this demands for its success a measure of confidentiality, why then the adaptation to this House of the "sidelining" procedure, common in Select Committees of the other, is the answer.
The merits of the Select Committee have already been gone over sufficiently, but surely only a Select Committee could achieve that balance, so rightly endorsed by Sir Michael Palliser in his evidence (Question 547, page 151), between what is constitutionally right for Parliament to require and what the Executive must rightly reserve to itself. That balance can be attained, in my view, only—and, after all, this is the view of our Committee—by a Select Committee which can tackle the problem with security to the public interest, with impartial responsibility to Parliament, and without danger of partisan domination.
Parliament has an educative as well as a watchdog role. It is common ground to us all that what is said in this place one day is said in the supermarkets and at the street corners three or six months later. If it is also the case—and this too seems to be common ground—that public opinion has turned sour, surely it is all the more urgent that this Select Committee should be established, and established without the delays implicit in reference to the Procedure Committee. In this matter the public wants to be quite satisfied that Britain is not being bamboozled; and even the delay of pushing our Report on to the Procedure Committee might be so misinterpreted. In this matter, as in others, your Lordships' House has a function wholly complementary to that of another place. It is to look closely; it is to look wisely; it is to look early while time yet remains. And, my Lords, whether the machinery will best be described as symmetrical or convenient, Parliament must work with the tools of the age or it will sculpt no monuments for the future.
6.19 p.m.
VISCOUNT HOOD: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I am glad to have this chance of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and his Committee on their handiwork. It is a remarkable feat in a subject which is so involved to have produced a Report so lucid and so constructive. So far this evening there has been no dispute to the basic proposition in the Report, where it is stated that effective procedures are urgently needed by Parliament for consideration of Community matters. That now seems to be common ground, and the discussion today has effectively focused on machinery.
I, like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, am naive. I was persuaded by the case in the Report for joint machinery and I was disappointed by the reactions of the House of Commons. It may be that tile role of the two Houses is different and separate, but I hoped that this was a matter in which the two Houses could act as one. However if we find—and it seems likely that we shall find—that it would at any rate be more expeditious to set up two separate committees, I hope very much that we shall, again as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock suggested, try to identify ways whereby those two committees can operate in a complementary way. There must surely be fields or functions in which one or other can specialise.
Equally with two committees, we can hope at any rate to have common services. It is accepted in both Reports that this would be wise and I hope that that recommendation will be endorsed by both Houses. It seems to me that a team of Clerks drawn from both Houses is obvious good sense; equally the appointment of a legal adviser. There was one suggestion in the House of Commons Report which has not been mentioned, namely, that there should be a committee of Whitehall officials to help in the sifting Process, and I should think that that would be a useful addition to the procedure suggested by the noble Lord. Lord Maybray-King. I believe that the recommendations of that sifting, committee would be of considerable assistance to the Lord Chairman of the Lords Committee.
Then we come to the Parliamentary Observer in Brussels. I am against that

817
idea. It seems to me that it is too much for one man to be able to report intelligently on what is going on in Brussels, and I should have thought more fundamentally that it would be a mistake for this House to take any action which would, so to speak, dilute the responsibility of the Government to keep Parliament informed on everything that is going on in Brussels. It is the duty and the responsibility of the Government to do that, and it is for them to devise the best means. The best means might well be to detail one or two members of the Delegation in Brussels to specialise in this kind of thing, and if it were felt that the Clerks of this House or the Clerks of the other House were particularly well equipped to do that, I cannot see why a Clerk from our establishment should not be seconded for a term of duty in Brussels. He would have to be seconded and for a period of years he would cease to be our servant; he would be a servant of the Government and he would be responsible to the Ambassador, but as such, and subject to the approval of the Government and of the Ambassador, he could be a contact man for the purposes of any Select Committee. I imagine there would be no problem about his attending the meetings of any Select Committee from time to time.
I should now like to deal briefly with the question of whether meetings of the Select Committee should be held in private or in public. I agree with what is said in the Report that it will be a prime task of the Select Committee to make Community activities and affairs more intelligible to the average citizen. The noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, dealt most effectively with that point, and I think the Report contains an excellent phrase where it speaks of creating a two-way flow of opinions and ideas between the Community institutions and the British public. Therefore I think the hearings should be in public as far as possible, and I should have thought it was perfectly possible that the hearings should be published and that there should be a full verbatim record whenever the Committee was informing itself about what is going on or what is intended in Brussels; when it is trying to assess the effects of that legislation on the law in this country; when it is considering what changes would be required in the British law to bring it
818
into conformity with European legislation, and even when it is attempting to draw its conclusions upon what is proposed in Brussels. But if and when the Select Committee then attempted to go on to discuss with a Minister, with a responsible member of the Executive, how he should handle his brief in Brussels, or, at an even later stage, if the Committee should then discuss with the Minister what had happened in Brussels, what had happened in the Council meeting and what the next step might be, then if the discussion was to be meaningful I think it essential that it should be an informal discussion in private—in fact, in great confidentiality.
I am not familiar with the side-lining procedure, but personally I should think that to publish a document with a good many gaps in it is both difficult to follow and probably gives rise to quite unnecessary suspicions. In such cases, therefore, when the Committee is meeting in private I would dispense with any verbatim account and rely purely on the Report which the Committee would publish at the end of its deliberations. The Report struck a note of urgency. That same note has marked our discussions to-day. It seems to me that the terms of reference in paragraph 111 are just about right, and I hope that a Committee with those terms of reference will be established rapidly.
6.28 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I make frequent journeys to the Continent and I am often asked to explain the rôle and purpose of the House of Lords and, still more often, my own membership of it. I think quite a good explanation of the work of this institution is contained in a copy of the Report we are debating to-day, which fully illustrates many of the tangs for which your Lordships are rightly known. It has a bipartisan approach; there is a far-ranging collection of evidence assembled, and a penetrating analysis with some practical conclusions that can quickly be put into practice and make a realistic contribution to the running of the country as a whole. The Report hallmarks many of the better contributions of your Lordships to British Parliamentary life and public life in general, and I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and his colleagues

819
have given an outstanding example of what we can do to adapt our institutions to the challenge provided by our membership of the Community. I only wish that other equally ancient institutions could respond with such elasticity and imagination.
I find some difficulty in saying what I want to say because I always think it is impertinent of people to lecture this House. I do not intend to do that, but I feel I should follow on from the admirable maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, in one particular aspect. In order to do so, I must make one or two preliminary remarks. I think it is generally accepted, except amongst Parliamentary romantics, that the ability of Parliament to control the Executive has declined in recent years. I cite a evidence the statement of Sir William Armstrong on a recent Granada Television programme, when he was asked if he took the point of view that Parliamentary control is not now as effective as it was when he joined. I quote his reply, "It has certainly loosened". That is one of the background factors I wish to mention. To that I would add the fashionable but nevertheless true statement, that there is increasing distrust of authority, particularly political, local councils and the like, as was evidenced in the observation of the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, and in the remarks made on television last night by Mr. Harold Wilson (who, if nothing else, is a brilliant political barometer) when he was it mising various ways of involving people more closely in decisions taken allegedly on their behalf. Whatever the Government said during the passage of the European Community Bill, if sovereignty has not actually left this country, it has been pooled with the sovereignty of others in such a way as to make our sole control over certain areas considerably diminished. This is a fact we must recognise because if we allow it to stay in that state, sovereignty has left our Parliament and gone to the Council of Ministers, to "a horse-trading fair", as the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, termed it, or to an international negotiating body, if you like to term it more politely. That is the end of my lecture. That is the general context in which I wish to set matters.
820
We have in this country a Government that in some ways perhaps are rather more aloof, brusque and remote than others. We have in our membership of the E.E.C. something that is not the subject of general enthusiasm among the people of this country. What I am trying to say is that in this rather muddled list there is no room for complacency, that if we wish people to see the value of our Parliamentary institutions we must show them that they make a contribution to their lives, and that with the imposition of membership of the Community, all the people of this country, if we are not to turn them further against authority, must be provided with some safety device whereby they can express their point of view in such a way as they think might be taken into account by those who rule them. It is therefore against this background that I do not ask but implore, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to treat this matter of a Select Committee as one of urgency, because from the figures we have here there are a huge number of decisions, directives, regulations, opinions, whatever they may be, of the Community which are going to influence the lives of the people of this country. Yet we still run behind the Irish and the Danes, because we at Westminster have not set up the machinery by which we here can look at this legislation while it is still in draft, to see whether there is anything in it that we really cannot take from the national point of view. This is something that we must look upon as a matter of action this day, rather than leaving it for the Procedure Committee to forget tomorrow.
I would support all the recommendations of this Report with the exception of the proposal for putting an observer in Brussels. This I oppose partly because it could be done more effectively by clerks who read Agence Europe and by maintaining the records used by those of your Lordships who are Members of the European Parliament. People would get hold of the information which is so necessary. I oppose it, secondly, because I feel that for many years it will be necessary for the European Parliament or Assembly to act in parallel with national Parliaments. To attempt to tinker with the machinery of the Community—and sending an observer to Brussels would be so interpreted by some people in the

821
Commission—would be only worth doing if there were no other way open. As there is another way, we should respect the rights of the Community institutions, because in the long run if we do so we are more likely to get what we want out of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, asked for an expression of the will of the House, and he wondered as to the value of the legal adviser. I myself would have thought the legal adviser with experience of Community institutions and/or Community law was absolutely essential because of the differences in the systems, which I know far less about than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, and many others. Without someone with the mental furniture, if not the actual ability to work in Community law, I think this Committee would find itself making silly errors quickly and therefore vitiating what it was set up to do, particularly if there was no one who could interpret the legal nuances, and so on. I hope that such a person could be shared with the other place. A role of this sort, as the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, termed it, could be in part fulfilled by the Members of the European Parliament or Assembly who could not, of course, commit themselves to attending regularly meetings of the House of Lords Committee. They might find themselves in occasional difficulties if they were seen by Community institutions to be acting on behalf of a national Parliament in vetting Community legislation. They might get themselves into a constitutional entanglement there. As they would not be able to guarantee to be present at meetings, it would be better if they could continue the right of ordinary Members of this House to sit in on Committees, and they could provide useful information by so doing. If they were unable to attend, they could provide useful papers to the Clerks. That might be the best thing they could offer.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has looked forward to the day, as I do, when the European Parliament is more of a real Parliament, and we all want to know what is the Government's position on this. But whatever the future of the European Parliament, it has not yet got much control over these matters. What we must be careful to do, if we are genuine Europeans, is to safeguard the interests of the people of this country in a way that does
822
not inhibit the evolution of the European Parliament, because in the long run it is probably more likely that a European institution with British representatives in it, on the spot and mingling in European circles, will, on a purely logistical basis, have a greater ease in dealing with draft legislation. That position is a long way away. So I feel that for a long time it would be necessary to operate some parallel system, because both institutions, the national and the European Parliaments, will have a great deal to do.
What I should like to ask the Government is when they see a chance for moving towards direct elections. This is the turning point of the evolution of the European Parliament, and if we are going to progress towards European Union by 1980 I presume that they will have to come before then. If the institutions are to submit a report on the complex of relations of Member States into a European Union to a Summit Conference by the end of 1975, can we safely take it that Her Majesty's Government will come out with a view on direct elections before them? Because how can the institutions make a coherent report unless they know the position of the Member States on direct elections?
I have never been a member of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, and I am very hesitant in making comments as to how the proposed new Committee should work. But when the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was considering the possibility that it might be sensible to have a small Committee which did not divide itself up, I would ask whether this view has taken into account the nature of Community legislation. The type of thing in which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, was so interested today was one kind of Directive. As a result of the Summit Conference last year, and the one we shall have towards the end of this year—and also, if the Prime Minister in this country and France have their way, the increasing Summit Conferences we shall have, all of which lay down great programmes—we shall be getting huge blocks of legislation tied together; complicated social action programmes or environmental programmes; huge bundles of company law, and similar matters. It may well be that if the Committee were to examine subjects such as the one that interested Lord Brockway

823
today, this could be done by a smallish Committee that did not split itself up into sub-committees—I do not know. But what I am certain of is that these complicated bundles of legislation, which have the equivalent of Community White Papers and Green Papers and cover great areas of policy, must be dealt with by people who are continually looking at that area, people who are well informed about the Community's intentions and practice in that area; otherwise they will be lost.
This is the way that the European Parliament deals with the subject: it splits up the Community's activities into 12 fields, and members monitor draft legislation through being members of one of the 12 committees. I would submit that there is good reason why the European Parliament does this, even though it has no real power. That is a purely practical point of view, coming from my own membership of the Social Affairs and Employment Committee in the European Parliament. and from looking at all the legislation in those fields with which we deal, even though at the moment we cannot influence them very greatly. I would make that plea.
I should like to ask the noble Lord a constitutional question about the Parliamentary accountability of Management Committees of the Commission. I understand that Management Committees are very important bodies and that they are composed of the representatives of Member States, chosen by the latter, and presided over by a representative of the Commission. Are these people accountable to Westminster; are our representatives accountable to Westminster? Will they be able to appear before such a Committee, especially in view of the fact that it is the Commission's view that they are not accountable to the European Parliament? Is there a gap here or not? These bodies are very important, especially so far as food prices and the like are concerned.
My Lords, I have one practical point. If the proposed Committee is set up, I hope that the Printed Paper Office will be able to cope with the requests of the Members. At present, I understand, there is one clerk who has to hop up and down stairs between the European Printed Paper Office on this floor and
824
the one above. And since there is no index of draft legislation except by number one has to know the number of a Paper before one can ask for it. Would the noble Lord look into the question of the Printed Paper Office so far as European papers are concerned, because a Committee trying to work rapidly might find it very difficult to do anything in present circumstances.
I suppose that the danger when people get interested in the E.E.C. is that they become crusaders or hot gospellers or missionaries of some sort. Perhaps that is what is happening to me. I regret that the Government have not been able to convey to the people of this country some of the exciting constructive aspects of the Community, and that its hope for the future has been doused, so that most people tend to see our membership as some sort of defeat or expression of decline. They do not see that the rôle of Britain inside the Community could be something very dynamic and constructive, not only from our point of view but for the future of the West and of the world as a whole. I do not ask the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in his new capacity as Minister for Information or whatever it may be, to go round making impassioned speeches about the soul of the Community, because he would not be believed at the moment. But unless the Government think that we have a permanent scepticism about central Government and about the Community, there must surely come a day when the pressure is relieved and people will be able to think, "Perhaps there is something good in this Community; perhaps there is something idealistic about it." I think the criticism of the Community for not "baling out" the Dutch shows that people expect the Community to be a Community. This is very encouraging.
I would ask the noble Lord whether he is confident that Government machinery in Whitehall is capable of making our membership of the Community more of a national adventure, or a British initiative in the larger field; or is he going to leave it in the present state, where it is essentially a Foreign Office matter, a matter of Foreign Office policy, seen by the Government machine as something to fight for abroad but whose ramifications at home are all too little thought of, all too little worried about, the consequence

825
of such a policy being that a genuine evolution of the feeling that we are part of Europe and we might make it into something splendid is constantly undermined? Would he show the House that this process of trusting the people and having confidence in their views is beginning, because at the moment the Community is something that has been thrust on them. And until we provide some Parliamentary machinery, whereby people have access to Parliamentarians, and therefore to the Government, and their views are taken into account, until we have the sort of Committee that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, has recommended, we are never going to get away from the state of affairs we have now, where the Community is about as popular as the Arab sheikhs. I apologised at the beginning, my Lords. I said that I thought it impertinent to lecture your Lordships. I have never done it before, and I shall try not to do it again.
6.50 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am very happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan. I agree with practically everything that he said. I am not usually asked to explain the House of Lords; am asked to explain it away. First, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his sympathetic speech and his welcome of the Report, except for one thing that he said. Is it necessary to send the Report back to the Procedure Committee? There really is urgency about the Report, and the sooner it is acted upon the better. Then I must congratulate my noble friend Lord Crowther-Hunt on his excel-lent maiden speech—a speech we would expect from him, a professional.
I am not surprised that the Commons rejected the idea of our having a Joint Committee, because I believe they always rather regard us as "high caste Untouchables". As the least expert Member of your Select Committee, my contribution was to give it my very close attention. I wish to underline one matter to which my noble friend Lord Shepherd referred in his wide-ranging speech. I have long felt that both Labour and Conservative Governments have failed to make the mechanisms of the Common Market intelligible to ordinary people, and that this ignorance breeds a growing
826
public disillusionment. I think that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, also referred to this point. It is true that the institutions of the European Community—the Council, the Commission and the European Parliament—are highly sophisticated structures, but little attempt has been made to explain how they have evolved from a Customs Union to a Common Market and to a European Community, except by those with a special interest in them.
I first saw the light after the Select Committee received a Paper from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock. Before receiving that I could not understand a thing. Among the papers that I have collected over the years, I recently came across one of the shortest, and what I thought was the clearest, expositions written in 1962 by Emile Noel, who is now the Secretary-General of the Commission, and who gave evidence to our Committee while we sat. The noble and learned Lord tells me that that evidence is now out of date.
I had little idea of what to expect from our Select Committee, but I soon realised that it was no ordinary Committee of consenting adults sitting in private and engaging in a public relations exercise to boost the Common Market. Its most ardent advocates did not regard it as sacrilege to draw attention to some of its obvious imperfections. We were lucky and privileged to have as our Chairman the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, the Speaker in the previous Labour Government. There must be something about having been a Speaker for several years, for he was so calm and so fair. We also had the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the experience and grasp of complexities by these two men simply staggered me.
First, I was struck by the great number of Instruments, or "proposals" as I would rather have them called—at least I understand the word "proposals", but I do not understand the word "Instruments"—which ranged from the important to the trivial. As the investigations went on, the relative weakness of the Eupropean Parliament, which bears no resemblance to our national Parliament, seemed a more serious criticism of the Community, and I was very pleased to hear the speech of the noble Earl, Lord

827
Bessborough, who gave me great encouragement about the way he thought the European Parliament should go. It is not surprising that many of us fear for the sovereignty of our own Parliament; fear that being a member of the Community weakens us. The other countries, France, Holland, Germany and Belgium, do not appear to feel this threat. Germany has an observer there, and so far as I remember we rather favoured this idea in the Committee because it is so urgent that our national Parliament should be able to look at proposals at the earliest possible point. Most speakers agree on this. My noble friend Lord Shepherd stressed this in his careful account of the Committee's work. He took a somewhat different view from that of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, who seemed to be rather frightened to knock his "idol". He has been so long an advocate of the Community that when he said he did not think that any changes should be made just now, I felt he was being perhaps too cautious.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, all I wanted to say was that at the moment the European Parliament has virtually no powers. I hope and believe that very shortly it will have powers. I am behind the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, in hoping for that. But until it has such powers, it is useless to treat it as if it did have powers.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords the present idea is that the political views of the Parliamentarians, or members of Governments, are taken account of by the Commission, but this is done purely on an unofficial basis and seems to me rather unsatisfactory.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not think it is quite true to say that this is done purely on an unofficial basis. Under the terms of the Treaties we have to be consulted, and any proposals usually go to the Committee officially. As I have described, there are sometimes cases where they come to us confidentially, but I think there is an official process in action as well.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I am afraid those are not my words, they are words I took from one of my documents when I did my homework. Various witnesses pointed out that any refining or reforming of the institutions of the
828
Community within the present Treaties would mean giving more powers to the European Parliament. I hope that I am right about this. Even if this will take time to achieve, it is the European Parliament which must be built up to become the institution of democratic scrutiny and control, and there is a strong case for greater national Parliamentary representation.
I believe that this Report of our Select Committee is good and comprehensive, and I hope that it will help those who study it to understand the intricacies of the Common Market set-up as much as it has helped me. Apart from its educational value, I really enjoyed this Committee. It is often instructive to watch men at work, so to speak, and each Member had an individual approach when probing and dissecting the ways and means of scrutinising the proposals for European Instruments. There is no doubt that the Select Committee procedure is one of the strongest organs in the armoury of our democratic institutions.
Before I come to my final sentences I should like to thank the Clerk of our Committee, Mr. Michael Wheeler-Booth, who did a mammoth and speedy job on both the interim Reports and the final Report—and he wrote them in pretty good, reasonable English. Finally, my Lords, I hold the view that now that we are in the Common Market we must endeavour to make a success of it. I myself, as most people know, am an agnostic and rather anxious pro-Marketeer. This Report encourages me in this view because it suggests measures for the improvement of procedures and the effectiveness of the European Community.
7 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, we have just listened to a modest speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, but I should like to say that, though she was possibly the most retiring member of our Committee, she was by no means the least valuable, and I shall always look forward to opportunities to serve on Committees with her in the future. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, not only on his distinguished maiden speech but also on his skill in choosing the

829
occasion for it, because his great knowledge enabled him to make a contribution of, I thought, unique value to this important debate today. He highlighted the very centre of the problem when he mentioned that figure of 252 regulations made by the Communities and not subjected to any supervision, scrutiny or examination by the British Parliament. It is the increase of that figure which we must bring to an end as quickly as we possibly can.
I could not carry through my speech without paying my personal tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King. I have had the experience of sitting under him in days gone by when he was Chairman of Standing Committees in the House of Commons and I was a Minister trying to take a Bill through. There he was in a position to call me to order. In your Lordships' House and in its Committees he enjoys no similar privilege, but he certainly has the knack, even without the power, to get his will obeyed. Nobody could have found in the whole of your Lordships' House anyone better qualified and more distinguished to carry through this difficult inquiry to a successful conclusion. I should also wish, as the noble Baroness has just done, to pay my tribute to Mr. Michael Wheeler-Booth, the Clerk of the Committee, and also to his secretary, Miss Jane Franks, not only for serving us with unfailing efficiency but also for their cheerfulness, which boosted our morale whenever we got tired with the length of our duties.
My Lords, no speech in this debate touched me more by its sense of precision and drive than that of the noble and learned Lord. Lord Diplock. When we debated this subject on a previous occasion he spoke very wise words; and, if I may say so with respect, he gave absolutely first-rate evidence to the Committee. I want to back up what he said about the urgent need for all possible speed. It is that which is required here, above all things. We may not be able to get our machinery perfect from the start, but we must get it there and start it working, and then try to improve it as we go along. The responsibility for the delay which there has been rests certainly not with anybody in your Lordships' House, nor with the Government. The fact is that two years ago the Government proposed in another place the set-
830
ting up of an ad hoc Joint Committee of both Houses to do the job which the Maybray-King Committee and the Foster Committee were later appointed to do. But that original initiative by the Government was frustrated because the Opposition in another place, for political reasons of their own, were not willing to join at that stage in a Joint Committee, or indeed in any Committee that was designed to seek to help Parliament play its part within the European Community. We were not in the Community at that time, and the Opposition felt, rightly or wrongly, that it was their duty to stay outside of everything until we were actually there. That is how a most valuable twelve months was lost to us, because if things had turned out otherwise we should have been holding this debate twelve months earlier—a month before we entered the Community instead of eleven months afterwards.
I certainly found it somewhat embarrassing, as a Parliamentarian, when we visited Copenhagen and took evidence there, to find that the Danes had their Parliamentary machinery operating within seven weeks of their entering the Community, and we were coming after seven months to ask their advice as to how we might do it. I should say in passing that in each of the capitals which we visited, where we took evidence from Parliamentarians and civil servants, it was quite obvious that they were immensely pleased that the great Parliament at Westminster should be sending people to their Parliament to learn how they did things in case our Parliament could be guided by their experience in setting up the machinery which we required for a similar purpose. Everybody was extremely helpful to us.
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for the tone of the speech with which he introduced this debate, and now that he has listened to the debate I hope he will be able to pick up a number of the points and perhaps be somewhat more specific about them. Like others of your Lordships, I have been made anxious by his suggestion that the Report should now be referred to the Procedure Committee. My appeal to him would reinforce the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, a few minutes ago, imploring him to take whatever steps are needed to get this machinery into operation as soon as

831
humanly possible. I appreciate that there are a number of loose ends which still have to be tied up, and we certainly do not want a position to arise in which half-baked proposals are put before your Lordships—half-baked, I mean, in the sense that the ends have not yet been tied up (to mix my metaphors rather badly)—because what we wish is to be able to see and to approve as quickly as possible a scheme which really will work. If, as I believe from his speech, my noble friend thinks that reference to the Procedure Committee would hasten rather than delay that end, well and good, but I should be greatly gratified if, in winding up this debate, he would support my view that within three or four weeks of the reassembly of Parliament after the Christmas Recess we ought to have a plan laid before the House for any necessary amendment or addition to Standing Orders, and all the other arrangements which will be required to set up this machinery. If my noble friend thinks that a quick reference to the Procedure Committee will help to reach unanimity so as to save time subsequently, after the proposals have been introduced, well and good; but I should like to be sure that the Procedure Committee was going to meet very soon after the House reassembles following the Christmas Recess and that it was going to meet with a determination to go on sitting until it had ironed out all the difficulties and was in a position to help the Leader of the House, or perhaps the Chairman of Committees, to put before us for our approval an agreed scheme which would then come into force quickly.
My Lords, my noble friend spoke about the sub-committees and the size of the main Committee. This obviously is not a point of principle. I myself think that if we have a small Committee like the Committee recommended for another place it will be too small and we shall very quickly find that we shall have to expand it in order to man the subcommittees; because I am quite certain that no small Committee, similar to the one recommended in the Foster Report, could get through the work that will be required of it according to the Maybray-King Report. It will certainly be required to do more work on particular Instruments and documents than the
832
Foster Committee proposes should be done by the small Committee in another place. But that is not a point of principle. We can learn as we go on. I trust that we shall start with the machinery being set up by Sessional Orders which we can revise at the beginning of a new Session. Indeed, when I am quite sure that the Procedure Committee will be needed is in about July of next year, when we have had six months' experience of the machinery. Then the Procedure Committee, backed by that experience, can examine how we have been getting on and see whether improvements are needed in the Sessional Orders or, it may be by then, Standing Orders for the following Session.
I noted what the noble Lord the Leader of the House said about the possibility of appointing a Deputy Chairman of Committees. My one concern here is that we should not do anything which might suggest that the chairmanship of the new Committee on European Instruments would be a second-class job. It will not be; it will be an extremely heavy job. I have no special knowledge of the load of work falling on the Chairman of Committees, which I believe is very great; but in this case there will be the extra burden in that it will be pioneering work. For the first 12 months, or for the first session or two, the new Chairman of this new European Instruments Committee, if it is sot up, will, I am certain, be carrying a tremendous load of work and responsibility on his shoulders. I do not think that we ought to do anything to suggest that this was only a subordinate part of the work of the House of Lords. It will certainly not be that.
As for the observer in Brussels, what I think we actually recommended was an observation post and not specifically a human observer. But here again this surely is no question of principle. It may be that if we start without it, the Select Committee may come to the conclusion after a year or so that they badly need additional assistance at the Brussels end. On the other hand, it may be that the Committee will find that the criticism which has been made of this recommendation in your Lordships' House this afternoon was well-founded and that nothing of that kind is required. To my mind, the tragedy is that this

833
proposal was travestied in an article in The Times which appeared to me to represent a deliberate misapprehension of what the Committee required. But, as I said, this is obviously a minor recommendation of the Committee and not something which has to be settled here and now for all time.
My Lords, I greatly hope that as a Committee we have served your Lordships well. I dearly hope that in winding up this debate my noble friend Lord Windlesham will be able to endorse what I have said about the need for urgency, and will pledge himself to us that a Select Committee of some kind will be set up as quickly as possible in the New Year.
7.12 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I do not propose to make the case for the Committee. Indeed, I had hoped to enable the noble Earl. Lord Lauderdale to catch his train. I know that he has to catch a train, and I was timing my speech to the departure of his train. But I think perhaps I should be embarrassed now and might go on longer. There is very little more that I can say. But perhaps, as one of the few non-members of the Committee, I may say that it was obviously an exceptionally good Committee. The members seem to have enjoyed themselves a great deal, judging by some of the tributes which have been paid, and I think that congratulations may fairly be extended to everyone. Certainly in this House we should be pleased—and it says much for the wisdom in the period before the Select Committee for Committees was created—that we managed, through the usual channels, to put together such a good team.
I should like to echo what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. It is obvious that there is a very real urgency. Examples have been given. Particularly we have in mind what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock. I do not think this is an occasion to dot all the i's and cross all the t's. Listening to the debate I have come to the view that the House has expressed its will that a Committee should be set up at the earliest possible moment. This is a House of Lords matter. By courtesy, we allow the Government to have a small say now and again; but we do expect the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, who I know has his heart in this matter, to go
834
ahead. If I may, speaking as someone who has in previous years occupied the post that he now holds I would say to him that I hope he will rely primarily on the advice of your Lordships. He knows that I have a very high regard for civil servants, but one of the things on which I think anyone who has held Ministerial office will agree is that even the best of civil servants never seems to understand Parliament. I think we know what we want on this occasion, and therefore I would echo the words of those who have suggested that we do not want to take any time over this matter.
I am hesitant about its going to the Procedure Committee, but there are some "nuts and bolts" that need adjusting. There is the question of the permanent Chairman. This is something that I regard as of great importance, but it need not come first. Again, there is the question of the observation post, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, corrected the impression with regard to that. I hope that by the end of January, say, this Committee will be actually in being. I think that we could get it into being because there are one or two ways in the normal procedures that we have in this House by which it could be done. There was set up the equivalent of the special Committee—I cannot remember whether it was "The Three Wise Men" or another Committee —which looked into the procedure of the House. But I do not doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was involved, because he seems always to be involved in these valuable activities.
My Lords, although I can see that here and there in the recommendations of the Maybray-King Committee there are particular points about which we could pick holes, it is so good and clear a Report that, even if there are improvements which could be made, we should adopt it lock, stock and barrel, and do as much as possible, particularly regarding the setting up of the Committee, at the earliest possible moment. As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, we could do this by Sessional Order. If in the light of experience a large Committee with sub-committees proved not the right answer, we could always change the set-up. I think the arguments in favour of what the Committee have recommended are valid. The

835
Committee spent a long time thinking about these things. One is impressed by the industry of its members, and, without wishing to reflect on another place, I think we have been at least as well served, if not better served, by our Committee in this matter.
So, my Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, if he is unable to give positive answers to-day—and I would not wish to press him—will carry away the sense of urgency that has come out of this discussion. I think we have reached a very satisfactory synthesis of the problem, and the Report is so good that I would make one suggestion. That is that the actual Report might be published without the evidence—although the evidence is fascinating, and there is so much of it. Many of us feel guilty about picking up a publication worth £2·40; and rather guiltily one goes and puts it back in the Printed Paper Office, who never seem to want it. If it is going to the Procedure Committee, I should like to suggest that the whole Report, or a reprint of this clear and informative, almost hand-book, guide to the Community, should be circulated to the members of the Procedure Committee as holiday reading: and we might also send them the Hansard of this debate.
I therefore would end up, my Lords, by saying that, so far as the usual channels on this side of the House are concerned, I echo what my noble friend Lord Shepherd said in his clear speech, and my noble friend Lady Gaitskell, who I am sure was a most valuable member of the Committee. My noble friend should not be too modest, because we know of her long experience at the United Nations. So far as we are concerned we should like to get on with the job, and I would certainly encourage the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, to do so.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I only rise to ask the noble Lord whether, looking back over his long and distinguished career, he can recall any occasion when one of our Committee's Reports has received a warmer or more unanimous approval than the Report that we have had before us to-day.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I was not sure whether the noble Viscount was intervening to make a speech. I
836
have known many periods of high self-congratulation in the House of Lords, but not with quite so much intellectual content as we have had to-day.
There is one other point that must be made, and that is the strain on Parliament. All this comes about because, as my noble friend Lord Crowther-Hunt in a brilliant maiden speech made clear, Parliament is not doing the job that is expected of it. Though I do not wish to go back to the misfortune of the lost reform of the House of Lords, I support what my noble friend Lord Shepherd said: that if we have to go down this path (and we shall have to), the resources have to be provided; and I have no doubt that at some point those who take on what may well be an onerous and virtually lull-time job will have to be paid at least up to the standard of local councillors, because the demands are heavy.
7.23 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the postscript to the noble Lord's speech enables me to join him in a tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, on his maiden speech. It was a most notable contribution to our debate. The whole House, as the noble Lord could see, listened to him with the closest attention and interest, and we shall look forward to hearing him on many future occasions. There will be a debate on the Kilbrandon Report shortly, and perhaps we shall have the opportunity of listening to the noble Lord again very soon.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said in reply to my noble friend Lord Amory, it has been an admirable and thoughtful debate; and I hope it has been one which the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and his colleagues will feel has been fully worthy of their Report. I was asked one or two detailed questions in the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, put a fairly detailed list of questions to me. I accept that they all flow out of the Report but they were not directly connected with the proposals contained in the Report, and I do not think it would be appropriate at this stage in the debate to deal with any of them in detail. However, I should like to follow them up with the noble Lord, and the questions of any other noble Lords who feel that they have not had an answer to any specific question put to me.

837
There is no doubt after listening to this debate, as I anticipated when I opened it, that there is a broad body of support for the proposal to set up a Select Committee of your Lordships' House to concern itself with the impact of our accession to the European Community and the proposals which emanate from Brussels. It is likely, I understand, that the parallel Report of the Foster Committee will be debated in another place shortly. The need for urgency has been emphasised by almost every speaker who has taken part in this debate, and I can assure noble Lords that the Government intend to press on without delay with the preparation of a final reply when the views of both Houses have been heard on the two Reports: and, as I say, there should be no delay at the other end of the Palace on this matter.
The main point of doubt which has arisen in the course of the debate has been whether it is really necessary for the Procedure Committee to consider this matter. First of all, let me say that there is absolutely no question of this being regarded as a delaying tactic. I am aware that when it is said that another Committee should look at a subject this is thought to be putting an extra wheel on what is already a four-wheeled coach. There is no question of its being a delaying tactic. Nor is it a question of referring the Report to another quite separate committee of people. What I would envisage is a meeting very early after the Christmas Recess—I think the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, indicated in his speech that the timetable is perfectly feasible—at which some of the detailed proposals as to how the machinery should be put together could be put before Members of the House. I say "Members of the House", because the Procedure Committee is a Committee to which any of your Lordships can come: and I would expect that all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate would attend that meeting, and would speak, as is often the case when a major issue is considered by the Procedure Committee. So there is no question of this being referred to a quite separate group of noble Lords who have to familiarise themselves with it. I would hope that noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, as well as members of the Procedure Committee, would be present.
838
What we are talking about is the implementation of the Report. Where the Procedure of the House is concerned, the Procedure Committee is the best forum, in my judgment and in that of many others who have far more experience in the ways of the House, for reaching agreement. Otherwise there is only one alternative, and that is for the Government and the Opposition Party, through the usual channels, to get together and hatch something up and to put it before the House.
There is a general consensus—I agree about that and it makes it a great deal easier—that has emerged out of the debate. But it is clear that there are differences of opinion on a number of specific matters, and it is these, rather than the Report as a whole, which would be considered by the Procedure Committee and by those of your Lordships who attend the meeting of the Procedure Committee. For instance, there is the question of whether there should be one committee or a number of sub-committees, and what the response of the House would be towards the staffing of committees if there are to be a number. It is no good setting up committees only to find that you cannot get the number of noble Lords required to come forward to sit on them. This is the sort of issue on which we must obtain some further reaction from Members of the House. There is the question of the observer in Europe, on which the debate has been divided. There is the question of staffing of the Committee if we are to have joint appointments with another place, which I think is so important. There is the question of by whom they are to be paid. There is the question of the status of the Chairman and whether he should be paid. These are the sort of points which should be put to a meeting of the Procedure Committee, and at an early date. Otherwise, it is difficult to see how there could be a method for those of your Lordships who are interested in this subject to have an opportunity to influence the shape of the actual proposal before it is put before the House.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, said, I think, that she was alarmed at the prospect of the Report being sent back to the Procedure Committee. There is no question of that. It is sending it on. We are talking about the next step. I have been concerned with a number of organisations, as many other noble Lords have,

839
and from getting general agreement to actually making something happen is by no means as easy as it looks, and it does not happen by just saying, "Let it happen". I think, my Lords, having looked at this matter and given the assurances that there will be no delaying tactics whatever, that is a sensible next step.
My Lords, once again, on behalf of all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, let me thank the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and members of his Committee who have brought forward this Report. I should also like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I would end by saying once again that the Government will certainly take the views of noble Lords into account, will take the sense of urgency—the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, just now—and will move on with the greatest possible speed, spurred on by this debate to reach and implement decisions.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION ACT
Read 3a, and passed.

FUEL AND ELECTRICITY (CONTROL) BILL
7.32 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have one small point of which I have given private notice to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. Under this Bill, the Government are taking power to regulate, through industry, all questions concerning petroleum and by-products. Certainly under Emergency Regulations, the Government have instituted a process by which manufacturing companies are now making application for allocation of heavy fuel for use in driving equipment in their factories. My understanding is
840
that the manufacturing companies are likely to receive a certain percentage of the fuel that they consumed during a given period of this year. There are some companies who have undertaken a very large investment programme and that equipment either has just come on stream or will shortly do so. My Lords, if the allocation system is to be based on what was an average at an earlier part of this year, it means that those companies who have undertaken investment and have now got their equipment in being will be placed at a disadvantage as against those companies who have not carried out any form of investment or re-equipment; because the company that has had to reequip will need to carry the cost and charges on equipment which obviously now they will not be able to use.
My Lords, I gave notice of this point to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, because I thought that if he was in a position to make a statement on behalf of Her Majesty's Government as to their attitude, it would be very helpful indeed to those manufacturing organisations who are expressing serious concern about how they are going to keep their re-equipped factories in being and profitable during the obviously very difficult period that will face us at least in the early part of 1974.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for having given me notice that he was going to raise this point. Of course I very much appreciate his anxieties about the possible effects of reductions in fuel oil deliveries to export industries and to those industries which have installed new oil-fired capacity in response to the Government's investment campaign, or indeed have installed plant which use the products this Bill deals with or those which are derived from petroleum fuels.
My Lords, as far as firms which have made new investment are concerned, as the noble Lord is aware, the present allocation scheme allows a ground for appeal for additional allocation through the supplier to the regional office. This means that anyone who is dissatisfied, for one reason or another, will be advised, and is being advised, to get in touch with the supplying company who will investigate the complaint and make a recommendation to the Department of

841
Trade and Industry regional director. The regional director will authorise whatever supply is considered appropriate. As my right honourable friend announced yesterday some 1,100 appeals have already been dealt with. This flexibility was deliberately included, among other things, to allow for new customers as well as new investment.
Looking to the future, in drawing up new allocation schemes the Government are anxious to ensure that any cut in supplies of fuel oil which may be necessary is designed to do the least harm to the national economy. But any scheme must, of course, be capable of being put into practice. That means that it cannot be too complex. Inevitably, of course, if one is devising an allocation scheme like this in relation to the national economy, one must take into account 'priorities. With that caveat, it is expected that any scheme that is established in future will have regard to the essential needs of industry. I do not think that I can go further than that. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord in the meantime.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT REORGANISATION (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1973.
7.38 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD BELSTEAD)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD BELSTEAD) rose to move, That the Draft Local Government Reorganisation (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, laid before the House on November 8, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. As your Lordships are no doubt aware, local government in Northern Ireland was recently reorganised and, with effect from October 1 this year as a consequence of this reorganisation, certain Acts of the United Kingdom required adjustment.
May I call the attention of the House to the more important matters which are included in the Order. The first of these is contained in Article 2 which provides
842
for the transfer of certain functions to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland. Prior to the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland, the duties under the Representation of the People Acts for the registration of electors for the Parliament of Westminster were carried out by officers of the local authorities, namely the Town Clerk of the County Borough of Belfast and the Secretaries of each of the six county councils. As these posts no longer exist, it is necessary to make alternative arrangements, and the logical solution to the problem is to vest these duties in the Office of the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland, which has already been given the responsibility of preparing an annual register for, and the organisation and conduct of, the Northern Ireland Assembly and local elections by the Electoral Law Order, Northern Ireland, 1972. As a single register is sufficient for all elections, it is proposed that the responsibility for its preparation should rest with the Chief Electoral Officer.
In the past, the duty of organising and conducting elections for the 12 Westminster constituencies has been carried out in a most efficient manner by the Under-Sheriffs of Belfast and the Six Counties—who are, incidentally, solicitors in private practice. I am sure that the Chief Electoral Officer of Northern Ireland and his staff will prove to be equally dedicated and will carry out their official duties no less efficiently than did their predecessors.
Article 3 seeks to standardise the method of appointment and the period of terms of service of high sheriffs in Northern Ireland, whether they are serving in areas which have been county boroughs or county areas. Finally, may [mention that Article 4 seeks to extend to the public bodies mentioned therein the provisions of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act which prohibit discrimination in the public sector on religious or political grounds, and the requirement of certain oaths and undertakings as a condition of employment. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Local Government Reorganisation (Consequential Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, laid before the House on 8th November be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
7.41 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for the explanation he has given of this Order. Since the passing of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972, we have already had 51 items of legislation, and the three Orders before the House to-night will bring the total to 54 —five Bills and 49 Orders. This seems to me an appropriate moment to extend a warm welcome to the Executive Designate of Northern Ireland, and despite the difficulties created by a minority, to offer to the Leaders of the Unionist, Social Democratic and Labour and Alliance Parties our congratulations and good wishes in the unique power-sharing which promises to bring Catholic and Protestant politicians together for mutual benefit. May I also say that on this side we hope that the tripartite talks which started to-day will result in an effective Council of Ireland and that the time may be nearer when the inadequate procedures for direct rule from this place will no longer be necessary. I was delighted to see on the tapes just now that those talks appear to have got off to a pretty good start. One hopes they will prove to be outstandingly successful.
The Local Government Order is non-controversial, and we on this side certainly do not oppose it; but I should like to make one or two observations and to ask one or two questions. The noble Lord referred to the appointment of certain sheriffs under Article 3. I do not know whether the noble Lord can tell us who is going to nominate them. Certainly the nomination of sheriffs and high sheriffs in this country is to most people something of a secret, and perhaps it might be as well if we could be told who is to do the nominating for Northern Ireland. Article 4, to which the noble Lord referred, itself refers to Sections 19 and 21 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act of 1973. Section 19, I believe, prohibits discrimination against any person or class of person on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion, and Section 21 makes it an offence to require any person to take an oath. Those two provisions are extended in this Order to four Area Boards on health and social services.
844
I think it would be helpful if the noble Lord could tell us the position regarding the five Area Boards for education and libraries. I wonder whether he could either remind us or inform us. As it is, I wonder why the two sets of Boards were not dealt with at one and the same time, and why it has been necessary to take two bites at this particular cherry.
Since Article 4 refers to the Constitution Act, may I refer to Section 20 of the same Act, which establishes a Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights in Northern Ireland. While congratulating the Government on the appointment of Mr. Vic. Feather as Chairman, may we be told when the other members of the Commission will be appointed and, perhaps even more importantly, when the Commission will start work and when we can expect legislation to be published dealing with discrimination in private employment in Northern Ireland? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will not find those questions too difficult. It will be appreciated if he is able to give replies to them. All those involved in the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland are to be congratulated on a smooth achievement, and we all wish to extend our best wishes to Mr. Austin Curry, who has been selected as head of the Department of Local Government and Planning in the National Executive Designate. As I have already said, my Lords, we on this side of the House do not intend to oppose the Order.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for the good wishes he has expressed for the future of the Executive Designate in Northern Ireland and for the preliminary talks now taking place. The answer to his question on Article 3 is that nominations which were made by the county borough councils of Belfast and Londonderry will now be made—as they are, and have been, made by the counties—by the Crown Judge at Assize, and the appointment will be confirmed by the Secretary of State.
Referring to Article 4, the noble Lord has questioned why the education and libraries boards do not figure in Article 4 of this Order. The reason is because the Education and Libraries Order (Northern Ireland) 1972 provides that the

845
education and libraries boards should be added to Schedule 1 to the Commissioner for Complaints (Northern Ireland) Act 1969. Since this section of the Order came into effect on March 20, 1973—in other words, before the Constitution Act —the boards are clearly within the scope of Clause 19 of the Constitution Act. I agree with the noble Lord that this is an important point, and I am glad that he has given me the opportunity of clarifying it.
As to the Advisory Commission on Human Rights, I would concur with the noble Lord's remarks about welcoming its most distinguished chairman, Mr. Feather. The other members of the Commission will certainly be appointed as soon as practicable, and I should like to assure the noble Lord that legislation on private employment in Northern Ireland, which was mentioned in the gracious Speech, is now being considered. With those answers, I hope that your Lordships will now approve these provisions.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, there is just one small point I should like to raise. Can the noble Lord give any idea at all when the Commission is likely to begin work?
LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords; without notice I am afraid I cannot do so this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT
7.45 p.m.
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (VISCOUNT HOOD): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act,
Edinburgh Corporation (No. 2) Order Confirmation Act 1973.

APPROPRIATION (No. 3) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1973
7.47 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD LORD BELSTEAD rose to move, That the Draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, laid before the House on November 15, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. I mentioned when moving the Appropriation (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 that Supplementary Estimates would be necessary during the present year. The Appropriation Order now before Parliament embodies the Autumn Supplementary Estimate. The total to be appropriated by the present Order is approximately £31 million and brings the total of Estimates during the current financial year to almost £593 million. Almost £16 million of the additional £31 million results from local government reorganisation and represents a transfer of expenditure within the public service. It should be borne in mind, however, that this is to an extent a gross figure, since grants and other debts due to the former local authorities were sometimes not received by them by the date of reorganisation. Of the balance, about £9 million is required for making available additional finance for certain services, particularly law and order, and the social services; and just over £6 million is required for pay increases, including increases for civil servants and teachers. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order 1973, laid before the House on November 15, be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
7.50 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, once again I thank the noble Lord for his explanation. As he says, the Order authorises a further issue of something in excess of £31 million from the Northern Ireland Consolidated Fund for 1973–74. Together with the sums granted and the appropriations in aid for the full year, I make the total figure some £630,052,850. I take note that the total for 1972–73, for those two items together, was £484,145,810. This means, if my arithmetic is correct, an overall increase of £145,907,040. I wonder why the expenditure for Northern Ireland has increased by so much? How much of

847
that expenditure is borne by Whitehall? Is the increase in line with Government policy on public expenditure in relation to the control of inflation? If I may turn to page 3 of the Order, under Class III, I notice a decrease of £3,000 for police services. I wonder why there should be a reduction in this figure, having regard to all the circumstances. There are a number of questions I should have liked to ask, but the time is late and I know the noble Lord has a very busy time and we have another Order to take. I am sorry that I did not warn him that I should be asking these questions, and if he is not able to let me have answers to-night I would appreciate them when he can let me have them. It seems to me that these are questions which are not only well worth asking but which are well worthy of replies, since it clearly is a matter of public policy.
7.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I am emboldened, after Lord Garnsworthy's speech on the first Order, to go into a little more detail on this second Draft Order, in spite of the fact that the time is late. I speak as Chairman of the Parliamentary Unionist Party in Northern Ireland. Nobody agrees with the noble Lord more than I do on the question of encouraging everything that is going on in order to make sure that in the near future this noble House does not have to deal in a short time at a late hour with most important matters concerning part of the United Kingdom which previously had governed itself. But I feel that this is an important Draft Order and that this is one of the few occasions on which I can raise certain subjects which it is not normally easy within this House to raise. I will not keep noble Lords very long.
First of all, I should like to refer to Class III. The noble Lord noted that there was a reduction of £3,000 in the amount of money for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. This decrease at this time causes surprise. I am sure my noble friend will find a very good answer; but the facts of the matter are that both the regular R.U.C. and the reserves are under strength. Could that extra £3,000 have been used in recruiting, or for some other
848
method to help to bring them up to strength? It is slightly ironic that at this time we hear of enormous pressures and calls from various communities to make the Royal Ulster Constabulary more acceptable to what is called "part of the minority"—that is, those who are of Roman Catholic faith. I should like to know what the Government are going to do about this fact: that up to three weeks ago the recruiting officers from the R.U.C. were not allowed into those schools which were controlled by Roman Catholic churches. I find it slightly ironic that the clerics of that Church should be appealing for a reorganisation to make the R.U.C. acceptable to their own community when, at the same time, they do not appear to me to be acting in order to help the R.U.C. recruit in that particular part of our community—the part in which it is stated that the R.U.C. are not acceptable. I find the decrease of £3,000 is rather surprising at this point.
I want to pay to the R.U.C. the most tremendous tribute that I could ever pay to any body of men. For five years they have been through an absolute war. When they go back to their homes at night every single one of them stands the risk of murder, even when they are not on patrol. My knowledge of them throughout the whole of the country leads me to have the greatest admiration for them. When I say that, it must not be taken that I have no admiration for our Army, because I have been out with our Army throughout the whole of Ulster and my admiration is great. But members of our Army get a medal when they have served one full term of four months in Northern Ireland. The R.U.C. has no recognition in the form of a service medal. I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Belstead whether he can recommend to somebody that this point be considered urgently. There are various incentives, one being money and another being recognition of public service.
The reserve of the R.U.C. should be built up as quickly as possible. I must declare an interest here, because my wife is a constable in the Royal Ulster Constabulary Women's Reserve and does her stint in every possible way on the Border, at road blocks and patrolling in the towns. The reserve constables are working out of patriotism. There is no promotion; there are no sergeants or

849
inspectors in the reserve. Out of this patriotism they should get the satisfaction of service, and this can be given in various ways. When reservists report for duty, having already done a full day's work, they go to the station and if the police station has a number of reservists on its books it is sometimes difficult to allocate to them vehicles and equipment, wireless sets, and the like, so that they are employed on a satisfactory job. I therefore ask my noble friend to make sure that there is a surplus of equipment at every station where reserve police, both female and male constables, are operating. There is nothing more killing to recruiting—and I have done an enormous amount of recruiting for the R.U.C.—than hearing of someone who has gone to a police station to do his duty, only to be told that he cannot be sent out on a job that gives job satisfaction. We have heard good sense talked in this House about sex equality. May I suggest, to the noble Lord that he should have absolute sex equality, in that the ladies should have the same equipment and protection as have the men?
I want now to move to Class IV, health and social services. I wish to make a completely new suggestion. My ideas are supported by a man called Professor Stewart, who has taken a great interest in Northern Ireland constitutional affairs, and a memorandum written by him on this subject was sent by my honourable friend the Member for Chigwell in another place and by an eminent surgeon in Belfast. Mr. Robb, to the Department of Education and Science.
I should like to see basically, an extension of the school leaving age, but the extended time used for conscripted service for the community. When I was in the Government at Stormont I was lucky enough to start an organisation called Enterprise Ulster, by which unskilled labour was taken and used for conservation and amenity jobs. It was taken out of areas where there was no work, and has been most successful. The noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal, who is not here, attributed this success largely to getting the organisation made a statutory body. It has been one of the success stories of the last two years. Sir Cecil Bateman, who was our Head of Civil Service, played an enormous part in getting
850
this project carried out. It was in fact a scaled-down Roosevelt C.C.C.—Civil Conservation Corps—and they have done an enormous amount in Northern Ireland to tidy it up; and not only to tidy it up but to give their own prestige a boost, because there is nothing more damning than to be unemployed. I should like to take part of the elements of that organisation, expand it and change it. I do not want my suggestion of a conscripted service to be confused with Enterprise Ulster, which is going extremely well.
One of the results of this enterprise is that people have been taken out of the areas where there have been community problems and are working in a very much better environment than they did before. At this moment there are discussions going on as to whether we can integrate or should integrate education. As noble Lords will know, unfortunately we have Roman Catholic schools, State schools and Protestant schools, and even this week the teacher training colleges were discussing whether they could combine and stop having denominational training. I believe that all these are matters which will take time.
I therefore go to something entirely new. We should have a compulsory period for every school leaver so that he would leave the community in which he lives and serve either in Ulster or somewhere else in the United Kingdom, or, indeed, in voluntary overseas work. I foresee a minimal scheme. For some period of their service the school leavers should be living outside their own areas; they should not be living at home. This will present many problems, but these must be tackled because in community problems we have to take a risk and do something drastic. For four years we have had four levels of school leavers, and in some areas—and as noble Lords will know, the areas involved are not very large—they have never known proper law and order. I feel that we should take hold of these people at the earliest possible moment and show them how other people live.
In the area where I live we have no community problem at all; we are a 50/50 community. People in my area, particularly young people, find it difficult to understand the stresses and strains which people of their own age have to undergo

851
in confined areas like Ballymurphy and The Falls. When you talk to them you find that it is virtually impossible for them to conceive of the strains that those people are suffering. In East Belfast and other places, the form of community life has largely disappeared, and the first thing we must do is to make sure that the coming generation knows what the whole of Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom are like. This will create quite a number of problems when it comes to apprenticeship. Industries employing apprentices have problems with regard to the ages at which they may go into the industry, but I cannot believe that all these problems cannot be solved either by experiment or in some other way. I should like to feel that a large proportion of these people would opt to go into the Army, the Navy or the Air Force—I cannot think of anything better.
I should like to have a completely new approach. I should particularly like education to be integrated. I see enormous problems about this. Therefore, can we not get a new idea and have conscription? It is a horrible word which people do not like but, after all, all education is conscription in that everybody has to remain in schools until a certain age. All I am suggesting is that there should be an extensison of that age. We must do something, and this is my suggestion.
7.55 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, and to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough for speaking on this very wide-ranging Order. The difference between the last Order in 1972, and the Order which is under discussion, something like £75 million quarried out by the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, is mainly due to local government reorganisation. In other words, expenditure which was previously borne by local authorities is now falling on central Government funds. This sounds unusual when said at Westminster, but as the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, with his experience of local government will understand, the reforms that were carried out in Northern Ireland were not the same as in this country. Several of the functions of local government were switched to central Government organisations, and much of the balance is taken
852
up by salary and price increases. I would assure both my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, that there is not a decrease of £3,000 in regard to the Police Service. The income will be down by this amount, but in the "sums granted" column your Lordships will see an increase in expenditure under this head of £2,607,000.
My noble friend Lord Brookeborough put to me specifically the point about a medal for the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Anyone serving in Northern Ireland whose home happens to be in this country is perhaps as aware as noble Lords who come from the Province of the remarkable and outstanding and courageous service of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, particularly during the present campaign of terror in Northern Ireland. I wonder whether the award of a medal of the sort my noble friend has recommended would be appropriate in present circumstances. I say that bearing in mind that the R.U.C. are already eligible for awards for gallantry and distinguished service, and of course many such individual awards have been made. Understandably, living in an area where life is not always easy, my noble friend brought up the point about recruiting for the R.U.C. and the R.U.C. Reserve. I am sure that my noble friend would agree that to put the matter into perspective it should be said that recruitment to the R.U.C. is as good as to any police force in the United Kingdom and much better than most, but it has to be judged against the magnitude of the task and the peculiarities of the Northern Ireland situation at the present time. If my noble friend would forgive me, I would rather not pursue this question at the present time on this Order, except to say two things: first, that both my right honourable friend the previous Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the present Secretary of State have made, and are making, it their business to encourage those who serve in Northern Ireland to visit as often as possible the Royal Ulster Constabulary to see and hear at first hand what is going on. This we are energetically endeavouring to do. Secondly, I will draw to my right honourable friend's attention what my noble friend has said, because I think the point is important but, as I say, if my noble friend would forgive me, it is one that on this occasion on this Order should not be pursued further.

853
Finally, my noble friend brought up a most interesting and valuable suggestion for the extension of voluntary service in Northern Ireland. The noble Viscount will know better than I, because of his involvement in Enterprise Ulster at its inception, that the scheme is already providing employment for almost 1,000 people at the present time; and, with the Government's training brochure to which my noble friend also referred, it is playing a critically important role in identifying and developing the potential of the unemployed in ways which increase their attractiveness in the ordinary labour market. It is therefore a significant factor for providing a stronger basis for economic growth in Northern Ireland. However, my noble friend has made a specific suggestion, that Enterprise Ulster should be offered, and should be offered to young people, possibly on a compulsory basis.
VISCOUNT BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I am sorry if I said that. What I wanted to say was that one of the elements, a bonus, that came out of Enterprise Ulster was the effect on the community. I do not want Enterprise Ulster in any way confused with the other matter.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend. As my noble friend was speaking I thought that I ought in closing to draw to the attention of the House that we have operating in Belfast at the moment what is known as the Voluntary Services Bureau, which my noble friend will know of very well. Community Service Volunteers, started of course by a remarkable man, Alec Dixon, is now also offering its services in Belfast. There are examples which have been put to me at first hand, and to colleagues, of very valuable inter-school co-operation. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, might be interested to know that only about a week ago I was told at first hand of a holiday which had been arranged and concluded between two Roman Catholic schools, two Protestant schools and a mixture of boys' and girls' schools, and what an enormous success it had been. These are matters which at the moment are offering valuable services to young people, and offering them outlets to give service to other people as well.
854
I should like to study what my noble friend has said because it is important. The only thing that worries me about it is this. Even having listened to what my noble friend has just said, there is just the danger of making voluntary service compulsory. On those grounds, perhaps I might be able to leave this matter at the moment and say that I should like to look at it again; and ask your Lordships, unless there are any other points to be raised, that this Order might now be passed.
VISCOUNT BR OOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the courtesy of his reply, and other noble Lords for bearing with me in speaking on this Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY PROVISIONS) ACT PROSCRIBED ORGANISATIONS (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1973
8.12 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I beg to move the Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Order which we are asked to consider to-day is the first such Order to be made under the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973. The Order adds two organisations to the list of proscribed organisations set out in Schedule 2 to that Act. Many of your Lordships will remember the consideration in Committee of Schedule 2 on July 19 last, and the detailed discussion which took place in this House that evening on the subject matter of Schedule 2. On that occasion the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor stressed that any addition of names to the list of proscribed organisations set out in Schedule 2 must accord with the criteria set out in Section 19(4) of the Emergency Provisions Act. As noble Lords will be aware, Section 19(4) provides that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland may add to Schedule 2 any organisation that appears to him to be concerned in terrorism—that is the first criteria; or in promoting or in encouraging—that is the composite second criteria. These, then, are the criteria which must be satisfied;

855
namely, that an organisation, as distinct from a number of individuals using a name, exists, and that the organisation in question appears to the Secretary of State to be concerned in terrorism or in promoting or encouraging it.
During the course of that debate in July last some speakers urged the addition of the Ulster Freedom Fighters to the list of organisations set out in Schedule 2, but at that time my noble and learned friend pointed out that it was not clear whether the Ulster Freedom Fighters was an organisation or was simply a number of individuals using that name. It has now appeared to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that the Ulster Freedom Fighters is an organisation and one which as such is concerned in terrorism. Accordingly, being of that opinion he has added it to the list of proscribed organisations.
The other organisation which my right honourable friend has seen fit to proscribe is the Red Hand Commando. This is believed to be an organisation with its own command structure and which, whilst an independent body, acts in direct alignment with the policies and principles of the U.V.F. My Lords, as has already been shown in all our debates on Northern Ireland, it is the sincere desire of all Members of this House that every effort be made to restore peace and order to Northern Ireland; and I commend this Order as a step towards that goal. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act Proscribed Organisations (Amendment) Order 1973, laid before the House on November 13, be approved.—(Lord Belstead.)
8.15 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, this is the third Order which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has explained to us with his usual considerable courtesy and care, and I have the feeling that whenever he rises we are very well served indeed and could not wish for a better spokesman so long as this House has to be concerned with these matters. He has obviously gotten to grips with the job, and I think he knows that at all times he carries our good wishes with him. We are glad when he has the opportunity to come back and be with us, even if it requires Orders of this nature to bring
856
him. The Emergency Provisions Act became law on July 25 this year, and the noble Lord made reference to Schedule 2. Only six organisations have been proscribed in that Schedule to date. The effect of this Order is to bring the number up to eight by adding, as he said, the Ulster Freedom Fighters and the Red Hand Commandos. We do not oppose this Order.
There are a few questions I should like to put to the Minister, but before doing so may I restate what has been said so many times by my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition, Lord Shackleton. We on this side, with others, condemn violence in Northern Ireland, regardless of whose brains or hands are employed in the evil work. We welcome the cease-fire of the U.V.F., and hopefully express the wish that others may follow suit and maintain it indefinitely.
The noble Lord has told us something about the Ulster Freedom Fighters and the Red Hand Commandos. I do not know whether he can tell us more than he has done about their aims, their activities and what is known of their membership. When were they formed, and what is the real reason for proscribing them now? Can the Minister tell us how many alleged members of the Ulster Freedom Fighters and the Red Hand Commandos have been detained by Security Forces since the proscription of these two organisations nearly four weeks ago? Further, how many are to be prosecuted in a normal court of law; and thirdly, how many have been released? I ask these questions because the answers may provide some indication of the value of proscribing these organisations, or indeed any other. What is accomplished that cannot be accomplished otherwise? —for there are normal procedures of the law and power to deal with suspected terrorists. It may be said, I suppose, that by proscribing these organisations, membership, where it can be established, provides good reason for detention and examination. I suppose a number of other things can be said as well. But I am asking that question specifically because it is important that we should know how many have been detained and what has happened by way of holding them, about the intention to prosecute, and how many have been released. It can also be said that proscription will

857
effectively curb propaganda activities. It will certainly drive it underground, and I should have thought that there was a greater possibility of membership becoming a very secret affair.
On the face of it, the Order gives an impression of activity and possibly may be regarded as a useful public relations exercise, but one doubts that proscription in itself achieves very much. On the other hand there is a danger that by proscribing some organisations it will be thought that others which are not proscribed are approved and that their actions are regarded as being legal. In fact we know of the excesses which have resulted in detention and some convictions for crimes as serious as murder committed by members of other organisations, and I think the Ulster Defence Association is a case in point. The lesson is surely that the law should be directed at individuals, and on that basis the policy of proscription does not appear to be very worth while. It may well be that the noble Lord can satisfy us that it is very important and that it produces outstandingly good results. We shall be interested to hear what he has to say, and, as I have indicated, we shall not oppose the Order.
8.20 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for the kind remarks he made about myself when speaking on this Order. May I just say that I remember very well when, on the Bill introducing the emergency provisions a long debate was taking place on an Amendment on proscription, the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, gave it as his opinion that the whole business of proscription was something which he looked at suspiciously and did not like at all. It gives no pleasure to anyone from this side of the House to be moving this Order this evening and adding two further organisations to Schedule 2 of that Act.
I am afraid I cannot answer the noble Lord's direct questions on detention and release for U.F.F. and the Red Hand Commando because we do not in fact gather our statistics in this way. We do so in a different manner, as I think probably the noble Lord will be aware from his scrutiny of Parliamentary Questions in another place, and indeed in your Lordships' House. However, I assure the noble Lord that if I had the informa-
858
tion I should give it to him. What I can tell him is that he is certainly on to a point in that there has been no straight prosecution of anyone known or believed to be in the U.F.F. or the Red Hand Commandos since proscription was announced by my right honourable friend, I think on November 12.
Having said that, before I conclude may I remind the House that there are certain reasons for proscription, although I think the record shows that my right honourable friend, although strongly urged by many Members of your Lordships' House to consider proscription of the U.F.F. in July, in fact did not make any such proscription until November of this year. None the less there are reasons for proscription, and without keeping your Lordships unduly may I simply enumerate them in capsule form. There are certain legal implications which, in the occasionally tragic situation of Northern Ireland, make it more possible to bring an offence home along the lines recommended by the Diplock Committee than would otherwise be the case. Offences to do with proscribed organisations are of course scheduled offences and are subject to trial by a single judge, and under the Emergency Provisions Bill documents in the possession of a person relating to proscribed organisations can be used, not as proof but in evidence. These are valuable legal implications from which I think both sides of your Lordships' House would, in normal circumstances, shrink, but implications which are very necessary in the situation in Northern Ireland, so that those who are involved in violence are not able to bring violence home.
Finally, there is behind that reasoning the general point that although, as I have said to the noble Lord, no straight prosecutions of the membership of these two organisations have been made since proscription was made, and it may therefore be said that the number of cases in which people are convicted of the sole charge of belonging to a proscribed organisation is small, none the less in general terms proscription does one thing: it serves notice on anyone who may he so misguided as to belong to a proscribed organisation that if he or she is really innocent and should not he in that organisation, now is the time to get out. That is one of the basic reasons why my right honourable friend keeps

859
a system which, as I said at the beginning, neither side of either House is attracted to but which in the present circumstances in Northern Ireland is considered to be necessary.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord has put forward the best case that he possibly can, but if I understood him aright these statistics do not break down and list the organisations to which detainees belong. I am surprised about this and I think it is a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs. I hope the noble Lord will take back to his right honourable friend the very firm suggestion that this, being not good enough, ought to be dealt with. It cannot be a difficult matter, and if we are going to judge—and we have a duty to scrutinise these matters—whether the Government are justified in maintaining organisations on the list or adding organisations to it, we ought to be able to obtain some information whereby we can assess the justification for doing so. I appreciate that the Government have a very difficult task on their hands, but we have a duty to perform and I think it is reasonable for us to have the information. I appreciate the position in which the noble Lord is placed but I press this matter because it seems to me to be quite significant.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord has every right to press this and indeed, if he wishes to do so, and if his colleagues on the Front Bench wish it, of course they will do so in the usual way. But let us not forget that my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State and my right honourable friend the present Secretary of State, have a policy to operate towards taking the best possible steps to move away from detention. This was one of the reasons for the Diplock Bill which, despite the controversies in it, attempted to set up a system by which we moved away from detention and towards trial—I admit by a single judge. This has now gone one stage further, and in a recent Statement by my right honourable friend and made by myself to your Lordships about a fortnight ago, we gave concrete examples of the way in which we now hope to move further away from detention.
860
I must just add that there is a difficult practicality in what the noble Lord is asking for. I realise that Parliament has every right to ask for and to expect, if possible, to get information, but I would assure the noble Lord that one of the difficulties in Northern Ireland of keeping people in detention, or indeed in prison is the practical matter of accommodation and of staffing, and if one were to follow the collection of statistics broken down into different organisations by constantly keeping those who are detained in different areas, the situation in detention centres and also in prisons in Northern Ireland really would become impossible.
I will not take the matter any further, and I should be grateful if the noble Lord would agree in that respect. May I put on record, first, the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to detention and, secondly, indicate that there is a practical difficulty behind what the noble Lord is asking.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, we will not press it further, but if the noble Lord will take the matter back, some purpose may be served. I should be surprised if it is not pressed in another place as well.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMPANIES (FEES) REGULATIONS 1973
8.30 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK) rose to move, That the Draft Companies (Fees) Regulations 1973, laid before the House on November 29 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I feel it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to introduce these Regulations briefly. I might add that I am fairly formidably briefed, and will gladly respond to any questions that your Lordships may wish to ask. As will be known to Members of this House who regularly use the facilities of the Companies Registration Office, some of its fees are of considerable antiquity. The fee paid by a member of the public to search a company's records remains at the level of 5p, the level it has

861
been since Mr. Gladstone, as President of the Board of Trade, established it in 1844. The fees with which this Motion is concerned are not of such antiquity. They were fixed at their present levels by the Companies Act 1967, and the purpose of the increases now proposed is to deal with a narrow and specific problem which has been for some years adversely affecting the efficiency of Companies House and the service it gives to the public. The Jenkins Report drew attention to the growth in the annual numbers of new incorporations, and the dangers of abuse through the incorporation with limited liability of very small, under-capitalised businesses. The Jenkins Committee recommended that the fee for new registration should be increased, and this was done in the Companies Act of 1967. Despite this, the rate of new incorporations has increased from just over 19,000 in 1968, to nearly 54,000 in 1972. and is expected to attain 65,000 in 1973. Against this background, the Government have decided that further steps must be taken to discourage what the Jenkins Report described as frivolous incorporations. The new companies legislation which will shortly be introduced into Parliament contains measures to that end.
The Order now before this House is intended to deal with the interim period until the new legislation has been enacted, provided it receives the support of both Houses. Its primary purpose, therefore, is to increase the minimum fees to a level which will act as a deterrent to new incorporations ahead of the commercial need. The Order introduces one flat fee of £50 for all new incorporations. By fixing a flat fee, instead of the present range from a minimum of £20 to a maximum of £68, we are abolishing the 522 intermediate steps, according to the amount of the nominal capital, on the present scale. We are also eliminating the 64 steps in the current scale of fees for the registration of a company not having share capital, and for the regis-
862
tration and re-registration of a company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital. The fee for registering a change of name is increased from £10 to £40. The fees for the re-registration of a company, and for the registration of annual returns, are unchanged at £5 and £3, respectively. I commend the Motion to the House, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Companies (Fees) Regulations 1973 laid before the House on November 29 be approved.—(The Earl of Limerick.)
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Jacques had been here, he would probably have spoken at greater length than I shall. The House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, for his explanation, and will appreciate his brevity. He told us he would be brief; I shall be more so. We on this side of the House regard this as a generally useful Order. I have no comment on the first two articles. The increase from £10 to £40 seems a very substantial increase. One wonders why it is so great. We have no intention of opposing the Order.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy. I think I can answer him in this way. I myself raised the same question when I saw the proposal. We looked carefully at the work which is actually involved, and it is surprising, but nevertheless true, that the work involved in a change of name is, as nearly as can be ascertained, 80 per cent. of the work involved in registering a new company. This is the basis of the £40 as against the £50 for registering a new company.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before nine o'clock.