Sitting of 22 November 1973

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

  ZETLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  To be considered upon Thursday next.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Food Prices
    Mr. Ashtonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in the price of bacon in the last 12 months, and the reason for its increase.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): Since the percentage increase may be given only in terms of the various cuts and contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate those in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    The reasons for the increases were the increased costs of pigmeat production caused by increased world prices for cereals and proteins and the competition bacon curers have met from other users of pigmeat in a strong world market for all meats.
    Mr. Ashton: Has the Minister seen the report in the Sunday Telegraph, which stated that farmers are making approximately 50p profit on a pig weighing 1 cwt. and that supermarkets are making 13p profit on a pound of bacon? What action will she take to stop this practice, or must we all have rolls and coffee for breakfast, as in the Common Market?
    Mrs. Fenner: A standing reference has now been made to the Price Commission to keep an eye on the whole range of fresh foods, and it is required to report to the Minister any details of the distribution margins on fresh foods which it wishes to draw to his attention.
    Mr. Body: While my hon. Friend will be aware that the Commission, under Mr. George Thomson, has claimed that only 5 per cent. of the increase in the price of food can be attributed to our entry to the Common Market and to the imposition of levies, his figures can be only an average. Can my hon. Friend say what effect the levies have had upon the percentage increase in the price of bacon?
    Mrs. Fenner: Bearing in mind that 80 per cent. of our bacon imports, which represent about half the bacon that we consume, comes from Denmark, and that the Danes are now receiving an EEC subsidy of £82 per ton, which is 20 per cent. more than the Danish national subsidies before 1st February 1973, my hon. Friend will see that the increases are due to the reasons I have given, which are world difficulties in regard to cereals and proteins, and are not attributable to the Common Market.
    Following is the information:
    The following table shows the percentage increases in the average retail prices of bacon as collected for the purposes of the Index of Retail Food Prices between 17th October 1972 and 16th October 1973.

    Collar*

    55·5

    Gammon*

    45·7

    Middle Cut, smoked*

    43·0

    Back, smoked

    40·6

    Back, unsmoked

    42·0

    Streaky, smoked

    53·4

    * or Scottish equivalent.

    Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in food prices since 1970.
    Mr. Carterasked the Minister of
    Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by how much the cost of food has risen since 18th June 1970.
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what has been the percentage increase in food prices since June 1970.
    Mr. William Priceasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food by what percentage food prices have risen since June 1970.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): Between 16th June 1970 and 16th October 1973, the latest date for which information is available, the food index rose by 44.8 per cent.
    Mr. Cox: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that those figures indicate the total collapse of any credibility for the Government's prices policy? Is he further aware that many families cannot afford to buy many items of food—and I do not mean luxury foods? As we are approaching Christmas, which is usually a time of heavy expense, will the right hon. Gentleman say what protection he can give housewives from the profiteering which evidence shows has already started?
    Mr. Godber: If the hon. Member has evidence of profiteering I shall be happy to have it looked at immediately by the Price Commission. I agree that the level of price rises is most regrettable, but they have occurred for reasons the House knows perfectly well, namely the rise in world food prices. These rises have been even greater in other countries. As for the point about Christmas, I remind the hon. Member that the Government are providing a special bonus for pensioners.
    Mr. Cox: You must be joking.
    Mr. Godber: The hon. Member says we must be joking, but the Labour Government never provided such a bonus.
    Mr. Carter: When will the right hon. Gentleman and the Government take food price rises seriously? In view of his remarks about the bonus for pensioners at Christmas, will he say that he wishes the £10 bonus to be increased to £20 in order to compensate for the grotesque price rises of the last 12 months?
    Mr. Godber: I should certainly not wish to minimise for one moment the seriousness of food price increases, but when the Opposition make comments such as we have heard this afternoon it is time to remind the House that the purchasing power of each section of the community is higher today than when we took office in June 1970. [Interruption.] Those are the facts. I gave the figure
    1528
    for the food price increase, which is 44·8 per cent. The earnings increase is 47 per cent. and the pensions increase is 55 per cent. What is much more significant—and is the only true comparison—is the retail price index as a whole. This has risen by 32·5 per cent., which must be compared with the rises in earnings and pensions. If what we have done is bad, what the Labour Government did was infinitely worse.
    Mr. John Wells: Will my right hon. Friend confirm my impression that the rise in price of home-produced food for consumption here is very much less, and will he confirm—I think I am right—that it is only 17·7 per cent. in the last year—[HON. MEMBERS: "Only?"]—and in particular that for British horticultural produce the rise has been very small?
    Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend is correct. The price rises he mentions are very much lower. I do not have before me the figure he quoted but it is of that order. However, the true comparison is that world food prices in the period since we came to office have risen by no less than 77 per cent., which is twice as much as food prices in this country.
    Mr. Skinner: When the right hon. Gentleman talks about the pensioners' purchasing power in 1970 or at any other date, is he not saying that, as is self-evident, pensioners' purchasing power has increased for several generations? However, does he not realise that one of the main reasons why food prices are rocketing concerns the returns we saw yesterday from Sainsbury's, for instance, of 18½ per cent.—a profit of nearly £7 million going into the well-lined pockets of the Sainsbury shareholders?
    Is not one of the main reasons also reflected by the NFU survey, which shows that more than half the people in this country believe the Common Market swindle also to be responsible for the price situation?
    Mr. Godber: First, on the specific point raised at the beginning of the hon. Member's question, it is clear that there has been a general rise in the standard of living of pensioners for many generations and I hope that it will continue. It is significant, however, that the rise is a great deal faster under a Conservative Government than under Labour. As for

    1529
    the profits of particular firms, the Price Commission has the right to look into all these matters and limitations are normally imposed by the code, which restricts the level of profits.
    Sir Harmar Nicholls: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when he announced from the Dispatch Box two weeks ago that price increases under the Labour Government were among the highest we had had, the Opposition immediately excused that by blaming it on the Korean war? Is not this proof that world forces influence prices? Is the refusal of the Opposition to recognise that fact due to their typical political hypocrisy?
    Mr. Godber: I must ask the Leader of the Opposition to answer that, but we can all draw our own conclusions. The electorate have drawn their conclusions in recent by-elections.
    Mr. William Price: Is not that the most disgraceful set of answers given in the House for many years? Is it not apparent that, on the basis of the October figures, with the increase running at nearly 40 per cent. a year, the Government have thrown in the towel? Does not the Minister understand that for millions of families this Christmas will be a sad joke and that the over-fed Scrooges on the Government Front Bench are responsible?
    Mr. Godber: When the hon. Gentleman says that Christmas will be a bad joke for those people, he is saying that when his own party was in power each Christmas was an even worse joke. It is impossible for him to claim that things are so bad now and ignore the conditions his party left for us to take over.
    Mr. Ralph Howell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we in this country spend only 19 per cent. of our income on food, the lowest percentage of any EEC country, and that the percentage is falling?
    Mr. Godber: I cannot say without notice that the figure my hon. Friend gave is exactly right, but certainly the implications are very clear. We undoubtedly spend a lower proportion of our income on food. It has been gradually decreasing over the years and is now at the lowest point at which it has ever been.
    Mr. David Clark: Does the Minister realise that people would be much more impressed if he tried to tackle the food problem instead of trying to make political points out of it? Does he agree that, in view of the massive percentage increases in food prices about which we have just heard, we shall find food prices in the early spring half as high again as they were when the Government took over? Does he realise that people are not impressed by his world food price argument in its entirety when we find that there are import duties and taxes on a variety of foods—beef, butter, cheese, bacon and cereals? It just does not add up.
    Mr. Godber: I do not wish to comment on precisely where the price levels will go. It is very rare for any Minister to do so. But I have never hesitated to warn hon. Members, as I did the last time the matter was discussed, that there would be further rises. I have never tried to hide the situation from the public. If the hon. Gentleman encourages his hon. Friends not to seek to make political points, I shall promise not to make them, but when I am speaking to the public at large I give them the facts. I have given the House the facts today, and it is on those facts that people must judge.
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make immediate announcements about food price increases as they arise.
    Mrs. Fenner: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Lady aware that the Government's clandestine approach in stopping the Price Commission making food price increases known to the electorate is causing grave dissatisfaction throughout the country? Does she agree that hon. Members are being placed in an impossible situation when they cannot communicate with their constituents about exorbitant price increases? How can we get in touch with the Minister to find out the situation, so that we may participate in the good government that the Prime Minister has told us about?
    Mrs. Fenner: It is for the manufacturers to announce their price increases.

    1531
    It is the task of the Price Commission to restrict or reject such increases if they are inconsistent with the code. There is no need to duplicate the administrative task of making the announcement.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: However frequently the hon. Lady's Department may seek to juggle with the figures, the plain fact is that for millions of less-well-off families there is now effective food rationing by price and that Britain faces becoming the worst-fed white nation in Western Europe.
    Mrs. Fenner: The Question related to the announcements of price increases. I have answered it by saying that making the announcements is a task for the manufacturers.

    Annual Farm Price Review
    Sir Robin Turtonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will advance the date of the annual price review so as to give earlier relief to the problem of the dairy farmer.
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will advance the date of the annual farm review.
    Mr. Godber: I have arranged to have the first plenary session leading up to the review on 6th December and a meeting to discuss the milk sector on 13th December. These preliminary meetings should help to ensure that we complete the first stage of the review process by the end of January. The Government will then do everything they can to complete and announce the determinations by about the end of February.
    Sir Robin Turton: While I appreciate the decision which my right hon. Friend has reached in the interests of the agriculture industry, may I ask whether he will pay very great attention to the problem of the milk farmer? Is he aware that, although others have endured unparalleled increases in the costs of production and in loan charges on their overdrafts, the milk farmer alone has had the price of his product frozen and can get no compensation for those increases?
    Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has made a perfectly valid point, which I accept. For the reasons which I have
    1532
    had to give on a number of occasions, however, it is not possible for the Government to take action now. But this matter is very much in mind, and I am endeavouring to bring forward the review so that we can get the determinations announced at an earlier date.
    Mr. Jay: If the Government are so worried about high feeding stuffs prices, why are they now imposing an import tax on barley imported into this country from outside the EEC?
    Mr. Godber: The main point is that we are importing these foods from outside the Community at a price which in some cases is higher than that within the Community. It is the world price conditions which control what happens, and not the position in regard to levies and import charges. That is the disturbing factor. At the moment, however, there are signs that the world market price of cereals is beginning to recede and I hope that this will soon be reflected in the price.
    Mr. Morrison: I know that what my right hon. Friend has said about the review will be welcomed. Is he aware, however, that, because of experience in the milk producing industry, confidence throughout the agriculture industry as a whole, and in particular in the livestock section, is hanging by a slightly thinner thread than it has been and that in consequence an early and generous review is necessary to reassure farmers? Secondly, will he take note of the National Farmers' Union survey, which shows that he will obtain support from townspeople as well as from country people in any measure he puts forward for the expansion of home agriculture?
    Mr. Godber: Yes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to the latter point, but I share his desire to ensure that confidence is maintained. Our farmers certainly have a good record of increased production over the last three years, and I want to see it continue and expand.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if world prices continue to rise, the revenue which is collected and sent back to the Common Market through the levy system will also increase? Is it the case that as world prices soar, so too do the levies,

    1533
    thus increasing prices far beyond what would otherwise have been necessary?
    Mr. Godber: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is on a false point. In many of these cases the levy is suspended when the price rises above a certain level. Thus, high prices do not in the main mean a higher payment to the Community. We accepted certain undertakings in the Treaty of Accession for the payment of levies, but the levies are not necessarily increased by the level of world prices.
    Mr. John Wellsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to make an unusually early price review in 1974 and, in view of the changed position of the price review itself, if he will seek to review horticultural items at the same time early in the spring in future years.
    Mr. Godber: We shall be starting the review discussions next month and hope to announce the determinations somewhat earlier than usual. The annual review was widened last year and now covers horticultural aspects over a wide field.
    Mr. Wells: Is my right hon. Friend aware that horticulturists will very much welcome his reply, particularly in view of his answer to an earlier Question, that British horticulturists have done less to create a rise in the price of food than any other section of food producers?
    Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. British horticulturists are playing and can continue to play an effective part in this. I am glad to see the way in which they are developing their production at the present time. I am sorry that they have had some disappointment over recent months in regard to the termination of the Horticulture Improvement Scheme, but the new scheme beginning in January will, I hope, encourage them further in the direction to which my hon. Friend referred.
    Mr. Mackie: Was it really necessary to stop the old scheme in the middle of the year when the new scheme will start in January, thereby upsetting so many horticulturists?
    Mr. Godber: While I sympathise with that point, I must point out that a strict limitation of £47 million was placed by
    1534
    Parliament on the total amount and that this had been reached by the very large increase in the number of applications which were made earlier this year. But I was glad to see those applications because they indicated the confidence which horticulturists have, despite the extra competition in the EEC. It would not have been practicable to extend the old scheme, and the important thing is to get the new one going as soon as possible.

    Feeding Stuff Prices
    Mr. Strangasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received about cereal prices; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Godber: I assume that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the price of cereals for animal feeding stuffs. Discussions with the farmers' unions on this question have been taking place since early August. I have made clear on a number of occasions that these matters will have to be dealt with at the forthcoming annual review.
    Mr. Strang: Will the Minister answer the question posed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and admit that there is a levy on some barley imports and that if world prices fall, as the Minister suggests is happening, the common agricultural policy will prevent us from getting anything like the benefit we should out of that reduction?
    Mr. Godber: As prices fall, so we shall get a direct benefit. Although the levies are having impact in some cases, it is a marginal impact on cereal prices. With cereal prices it is the level of world prices that matters. There has been some reduction, I understand, and I believe that one feeding stuff manufacturer has reduced the price of some of his products by between £2 and £4·50 a ton.
    Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: While we are discussing levies, may I suggest how to restore confidence to livestock farmers and prevent the fear of a repetition of what happened this year to feeding stuff prices? Will my right hon. Friend consider announcing now or in the near future that, if cereal prices rise as sharply

    1535
    next year, he will consider putting a levy on the sale of cereals in order to keep down the price of feeding stuffs and thus establish a fund for that purpose?
    Mr. Godber: That is an interesting proposal. I should be perfectly happy to discuss it with leaders of the NFU to see what their attitude would be towards it. However, I think there might be difficulty in getting unanimity of view on it.

    Fishing Limits
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals Her Majesty's Government are making about the expansion of British fishing limits.
    Mr. James Johnsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proposals Her Majesty's Government are making concerning the expansion of British fishing limits.
    The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): The question of fishery limits is one of the issues to be discussed at next year's Law of the Sea Conference. In the meantime we will continue to act in accordance with existing international law.
    Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that the announcement that the Government have no proposals concerning the limit is extremely disappointing, and that precisely because a conference is on the way it is essential that they should have some? Most of the maritime fishing nations are extending their limits, and it is essential that we have proposals at least for the inshore fleet. Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the grave danger to fishing stocks in the North Sea through extensive industrial fishing by foreign countries? Will he put forward proposals for limiting that?
    Mr. Stodart: With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I did not say that we had no proposals. I said that the question of limits would be discussed at next year's Law of the Sea Conference. As it does not start until next June, it would be unwise at this stage to tell the House what proposals we have. As to fishing in the North Sea, within the next three weeks there is to be a meeting of
    1536
    the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission here to discuss the problem.
    Mr. Johnson: Bearing in mind that the deep-sea fleet has dearly bought a two-year peace in the Icelandic waters dispute, is the hon. Gentleman aware that leaders of the industry, both owners and unions, believe that there will be a great deal of collective humbug at the United Nations conference, spoken by China in particular and, of course, the Latin American States? What contingency planning is he doing? Is he talking with his EEC neighbours about a change in the 12-mile limits here, perhaps?
    Mr. Stodart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman, whom I join in paying tribute to the attitude of the whole industry throughout the difficulties of the Icelandic dispute, that we are having frequent contacts with the industry and its views will be fully noted. We are also in contact with our EEC partners.

    Diseased Elm Logs
    Mr. Sydney Chapmanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he intends to take to prevent diseased elm logs being moved from infected areas to other parts of Great Britain where Dutch elm disease is not widespread.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: Although a workable compulsory scheme would pose considerable difficulties of enforcement, my right hon. Friend is considering seeking powers under the Plant Health Act 1967 to limit or prohibit the movement of diseased logs from one area to another.
    Mr. Chapman: I am grateful for that reply. As the Forestry Commission, the Association of Tree Surgeons, the Arboricultural Association and plant pathologists all agree that Dutch elm disease is being spread northwards by the movement of diseased elm logs, will my hon. Friend also consider insisting immediately that diseased logs are treated before movement? Surely that would be the best way of stopping the spread?
    Mr. Stodart: That is precisely the power that my right hon. Friend is considering seeking, but I warn my hon. Friend that it will not be easy to monitor it, nor to be certain that every load of

    1537
    logs has either had the bark stripped or been sprayed with an insecticide.

    Food Import Levies
    Mr. Martenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what levies or duties are now being imposed on the imports of butter from outside the EEC into the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Ormeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what import levies or duties are now charged on cheese imports into the United Kingdom from outside the EEC.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: After applying the monetary compensatory amounts, the present rates of levy applied to imports of butter and cheese from New Zealand under Protocol 18 are nil and £96·84 a ton respectively. From other countries outside the Community they are £195·38 a ton for butter and £255·05 a ton for cheddar cheese.
    Mr. Marten: Is my hon. Friend aware that I will do anything within reason to help the Government to keep prices down? Will he welcome opposition by many of my hon. Friends and myself to the orders which the Government are about to introduce and other measures when they come before the House? Does he agree that such action would greatly strengthen the Government's popularity?
    Mr. Stodart: I fully accept the sentiments which my hon. Friend has expressed, which I would fully expect from him. I do not think that the suggestion he has made would be acceptable to the Government.
    Mr. Orme: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the figures he has announced to the House relating to basic foods are terrifying? Does he realise that they are foods, for example, cheese—which older people buy and eat in considerable quantities because of their need for nourishment and because of the cost of other foods? What will the Government do about offsetting the levies? Will they introduce subsidies to take prices back to their previous level, or will they allow food prices to escalate in the present manner?
    Mr. Stodart: It may help the hon. Gentleman and the House if I say that New Zealand cheese is selling at the
    1538
    same price as it was 22 months ago and that butter is cheaper by 7p per lb than it was before accession in 1972.
    Mr. Powell: Would prices of these articles be lower today if the duties and levies were not applied by the EEC?
    Mr. Stodart: I do not think that that necessarily follows.
    Mr. Jay: If the Government want to keep down food prices, why do they not remove these taxes forthwith?
    Mr. Stodart: Perhaps I should remind the right hon. Gentleman that the system of levies is a basic part of the common agricultural policy, which the Opposition said was not negotiable. The CAP has shown its flexibility by subsidising prices to the effect which I have described.
    Mr. Shore: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's honesty. He has come clean. How can he reconcile what he has told the House—namely, that approximately £200 a ton is imposed by food taxes on imported food—with his previous statement and the statement of his right hon. Friend that the main or sole cause for rising prices in Britain is the rise in world prices?
    Mr. Stodart: I should not have thought' that there was the slightest discrepancy.
    Mr. Atkinsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what import duties or levies are now imposed on beef imports into the EEC.
    Mr. Alexander Wilsonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what import duties or levies are now imposed on beef imports into the EEC.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: As there are a large number of figures involved, I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Atkinson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that he has run away from his responsibility to give to the House accurate information for the purpose of questioning Ministers further? Will he confirm that there is a levy on beef at a time when most housewives are unable

    1539
    to purchase it? If we were not a member of the EEC, would the Government now be imposing a levy or a tax upon beef?
    Mr. Stodart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the answer to his Question is comprised of a large number of figures and that it would not be practicable to read the figures in an oral answer.
    At the moment the levy is so small that it hardly exists. The maximum levy is £0.5394 per cwt, which is slightly under a halfpenny a pound. The minimum levy is £0.0725 per cwt, which is almost incalculably small. Each of those figures is far smaller than the duty which was imposed before accession on nearly all beef imports—namely 5 per cent.
    Mr. Body: Is it the case that the levies do not necessarily affect the price of beef, butter and cheese? If that is so, what is the point of imposing the levies?
    Mr. Stodart: The levies are a part, as I have already told the House, of the common agricultural policy.
    Mr. Stallard: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm what a recent survey has suggested—namely, that we are eating less beef per head than in the last months of meat rationing? Will he accept that that suggestion, plus the fantastic price of cheese and bacon—bacon being 12s. 6d. per 1b in my constituency—means that many old people are finding it almost impossible to maintain a reasonably high protein diet that is necessary for their existence?
    Mr. Stodart: No. I think I am right in saying that the consumption of cheese is higher. [HON. MEMBERS: "Beef".] The hon. Gentleman mentioned cheese in his last sentence. He suggested that the consumption of beef was now lower than it was in the last stages of rationing. It is not if we take into account, as is only reasonable, the fact that so much more food is eaten away from home than it was at the end of rationing.
    Mr. Shore: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that a major cause of the rise in meat prices in Britain during the past year is the export of meat from Britain to the EEC, where prices are much higher? Is it not the case that the only exchange
    1540
    of commodities with the EEC on which our balance of trade has improved in the past 10 months is in the export of meat of which we are exporting so much more?
    Mr. Stodart: The right hon. Gentleman is being too disingenuous for words. He knows well that the habit has grown up, which I do not think is a bad habit, of people eating in canteens rather than going home for a midday meal.
    Following is the information:—
    EEC DUTIES AND LEVIES ON FRESH, CHILLED AND FROZEN BEEF IMPORTED FROM THIRD COUNTRIES
    Current duty and levy rates are as follows:

    Original EEC and Denmark

    Full Duty

    Levy

    20 per cent.

    Current rates listed below

    United Kingdom

    Full Duty

    Levy

    Bone-in: 4 per cent. plus £0·2488 per cwt.

    Nil

    Boned/Boneless: 8 per cent.

    —

    Irish Republic

    Full Duty

    Levy

    4 per cent. plus £4·4092 per 100 kgs.

    Nil

    Levy rates applied by original EEC and Denmark during the week beginning 19th November 1973:

    £ per cwt.

    Fresh/chilled Beef

    Carcases, sides and compensated quarters

    0·3145

    Forequarters

    0·2516

    Hindquarters

    0·3772

    Other cuts—unboned

    0·4715

    Other cuts—boned/boneless

    0·5394

    Frozen Beef

    Carcases, sides and compensated quarters

    0·0906

    Forequarters

    0·0725

    Hindquarters

    0·1134

    Unboned cuts

    0·1359

    Boned/boneless cuts:

    Specified forequarter cuts

    0·1134

    Crop, chuck, blade and brisket cuts

    0·1134*

    Other cuts

    0·1558

    * Entry under this heading is subject to the production of a certificate issued by exporting countries on conditions laid down by the EEC. The form of certification has not yet been agreed between the Commission and the supplying countries.

    Notes:
    (a)The duty and levy rates shown do not include preferential rates such as the United Kingdom duty of 4 per cent. on all beef from the Commonwealth Preference Area.
    (b)The amounts of duty chargeable on imports into the United Kingdom are mainly reduced to NIL under the monetary arrangements.

    Intervention Board Payments
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent by the Intervention Board in payments to take foodstuffs off the market in 1973.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: Up to 31st October £15,032,000 had been spent on intervention buying, £2,168,000 on aids to private storage and £441 in compensation to producer groups. For aids to private storage and payments to producer groups, the amount spent is provided from Community funds. The net cost of purchase into intervention is recovered from those funds when the product is sold.
    Mr. Deakins: Will not this make food dearer in Britain? When will the Government seek to alter this wholly immoral aspect of the common agricultural policy?
    Mr. Stodart: I must again repeat that this is one of the basic elements of the CAP, which the Opposition found was not negotiable. In any case, intervention buying is an alternative method of supporting agriculture, to which I believe every party agrees in principle. By intervention buying £15 million was spent solely on butter and skimmed milk powder and £2 million on private storage mainly to equal the cost of sugar storage which is recovered by levy from sugar manufacturers.
    Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: Are not the Opposition constantly asking for the subsidising of agriculture, and is not the Intervention Board providing just that?
    Mr. Stodart: Yes. That was a remark which was made by a distinguished Member on the back benches.

    Animals (Transportation)
    Miss Foxesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the conditions under which animals for slaughter are transported within the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement.
    Mrs. Fenner: Conditions for the transportation of farm animals within the United Kingdom are laid down in orders made under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950. They apply equally to animals for slaughter and those intended for other
    1542
    purposes. I am satisfied that these orders provide adequate welfare safeguards.
    Miss Fookes: Will my hon. Friend note that I find her answer distressingly complacent? What is the average distance travelled by animals from the point of production to the point of slaughter'?
    Mrs. Fenner: I cannot without due notice provide the exact figure for my hon. Friend. We do not regard distances in the United Kingdom as the vital factor. We regard the conditions and adequacy of care during transport as vital. I am sorry if my hon. Friend believes that I am being complacent. We are continually working on legislation concerning present-day practices. We will continue to consult the organisations which are concerned.
    Mr. Deakins: What powers does the Ministry have to control the movement of animals by sea, which is pertinent not only to exported animals but also to the traffic between Ireland and Britain?
    Mrs. Fenner: Farm animals landed from Ireland must be rested and examined in daylight by a veterinary officer before they continue their journey. Thereby they are examined after their journey and prior to their journey, when all the other safeguards operate.
    Mr. Burden: What steps have been taken to ensure that the regulations regarding transport and treatment of animals in transit have been met'? How many, if any, prosecutions or contraventions of the regulations have taken place in the past two years?
    Mrs. Fenner: In order to ensure that the safeguards in the legislation are adhered to, we have officers who are continuously monitoring the situation, and the RSPCA has inspectors at almost every market. I have not the figures for prosecutions at the moment, and I will write to my hon. Friend.

    Dairy Farming
    Mr. Ralph Howellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many inquiries have been received by divisional offices from dairy farmers regarding the grant for changing from dairy to beef production; and how many applications have been received by divisional offices regarding this grant to date.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: Some 5,000 inquirers asked for and were sent copies of the explanatory leaflet about this scheme by the end of its first week of operation, and 753 of these have completed and returned application forms.
    Mr. Howell: Is my hon. Friend aware that we have only six weeks' supply of butter in store and that stocks are falling? A similar position prevails in France, and the butter mountain is a myth. Many people connected with the dairy industry believe that these measures may lead very soon to a shortage of dairy produce.
    Mr. Stodart: I should point out that 753 applications from over 87,000 registered milk producers are only about 0·9 per cent. of the total. I have taken the opportunity to advise dairy farmers individually that they should consider very carefully the long-term results before going out of milk, in which considerable capital is locked up, and the taxation issues as well.
    Mr. Strang: Is this scheme not an illustration of monumental absurdity, even by the standards of the EEC bureaucracy? The scheme is an attempt to get people out of dairy farming while another scheme is actually paying them to stay in it.
    Mr. Stodart: If I interpret the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is referring to the hill directive, which, of course, deals solely with producing cheese in the mountain areas.

    Stubble Burning
    Mr. Gorstasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will introduce legislation containing stricter measures to deal with the burning of stubble; and if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT actual or estimated figures showing the cost of damage caused by such fires during the past five years.
    Mr. Anthony Stodart: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) and the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Mr. Thomas Cox) on 18th October.—[Vol. 861, c. 254–5.] I regret that the information requested in the second part of the Question is not available.
    Mr. Gorst: Will my hon. Friend take account of the fact that the incineration of the countryside and the destruction of hedges and trees is not declining but is increasing year by year and is a hazard not merely to the farming community but also to the environment as a whole?
    Mr. Stodart: I take the point. My information is that there have been fewer incidents this year, certainly as regards call-outs of fire brigades, than there were last year. But I attach great seriousness to the point which my hon. Friend has made.

  MINISTERIAL BROADCASTS
  Mr. Meacherasked the Prime Minister how many ministerial broadcasts he has made since June 1970.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) on 13th November.—[Vol. 864, c. 73.]
  Mr. Meacher: Since in a recent broadcast the Prime Minister rightly said that what is now at stake is Britain's rôle in the world, and since under the present policy it is virtually certain that the present Government cannot close the import-export gap or afford to devalue further, is it not now obvious that the country has voted with its feet for a different kind of society with less growth but more power-sharing and more fairness? Since the right hon. Gentleman is incapable of delivering it, ought he not to make way for those who can?
  The Prime Minister: How the hon. Gentleman can draw that conclusion from the last four by-elections, when the total Labour vote was behind our vote at Hove alone, I cannot imagine.
  Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very many people feel that there is nothing this country cannot do if Government policy gets the support of the whole country? Is there not every advantage in his going on television as often as possible to put this across? Is it not also the case that, even if the Leader of the Opposition goes on television after my right hon. Friend, there is still an advantage to the Government?
  The Prime Minister: I am greatly encouraged by my hon. Friend's request.
  Dr. Marshallasked the Prime Minister when he plans to make his next ministerial broadcast.
  The Prime Minister: The House should assume that, unless and until I make a statement to the contrary, I do not intend to make a further ministerial broadcast.
  Dr. Marshall: Will the Prime Minister seek to make a television appearance at an early date in order to explain to the nation the exclusion from the scope of the pensioners' bonus all those in receipt of invalidity and widows' pensions as well as an estimated 37,000 people who will become retirement pensioners by Christmas Day but will not reach pensionable age until after 2nd December?
  The Prime Minister: I understand the point made by the hon. Gentleman. Concerning those receiving pensions after the relevant date, this is bound to be so, whatever date is fixed. I can appreciate the particular difficulty about Christmas, but I know of no administrative way in which one can deal with such a matter. These arrangements were made, as the hon. Gentleman knows, after discussion with Post Office staffs. We chose the date most helpful to them. I am afraid that this is one of the anomalies that arise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has explained the other problems about going wider that the pensioners themselves. When one tries to carry out an operation of this kind, the administrative difficulties are very great.
  Sir Harmar Nicholls: Does my right hon. Friend agree that research will show that, in the first three years when his Government were in power, the Leader of the Opposition made eight or nine ministerial broadcasts, as against the three broadcasts of my right hon. Friend? I hope that my right hon. Friend will not pay attention to numbers but will maintain the quality, as he has done so far.
  The Prime Minister: I agree with what my hon. Friend has said.
  Mr. John Silkin: Returning to the question of invalidity pensions, does the Prime Minister recall that 12 months ago one of
  1546
  his hon. Friends gave almost the same reason for not paying invalidity pensioners last year as the Prime Minister has given this year? In other words, it was said that there was not enough time to do it before Christmas. Does this mean that the Government require over 12 months to make these administrative arrangements, or is there a change in Government policy?
  The Prime Minister: That is not really the point. When we had the discussions with the CBI and the TUC, the question was as to the best way in which we could then show that we wanted to give extra help to pensioners, additional to their annual uprating. We did a very substantial uprating, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, in the autumn, bringing the total payment to 55 per cent. above what pensioners were receiving in 1970. The additional amount which we were able to give was, I am afraid, limited only to pensioners.

  LAMBETH
  Mr. John Fraserasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Lambeth.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Fraser: If the right hon. Gentleman is not visiting Lambeth, will he acquaint himself with the dimensions of the housing crisis there? Is he aware that we have in Lambeth 15,000 families living like permanent refugees in their own borough? Has not the Prime Minister learnt that the problems of stress areas like Lambeth are quite insoluble within their own boundaries, that we need to build dwellings outside those boundaries and that improvement grants do not help? Why have the Government retrospectively cut reckonable expenditure on the maintenance of council dwellings, which leads in turn to an actual cut in housing subsidies?
  The Prime Minister: I am aware of the problems which Lambeth has been experiencing. As the hon. Gentleman will know, they are under discussion with the Department of the Environment. The particular problems have been in tendering, but I am told that half the current year's programme has already been approved.
  Mr. John Wells: Will my right hon. Friend change his mind about paying an official visit to Lambeth, go there as soon as possible, call on the Archbishop and explain why the Government are not providing heat in churches on Sundays?
  The Prime Minister: I lunched with the Archbishop a week ago but he did not ask that question.

  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  Mr. Ashtonasked the Prime Minister whether he will appoint Mr. Victor Feather to his Central Policy Review Staff.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. The House should assume that I do not intend to announce in advance appointments to the Central Policy Review Staff unless and until I make a statement to the contrary.
  Mr. Ashton: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the advice he gets from all the other experts merely gets him into a bigger and bigger mess? Any commonsense trade union leader will tell him that, if a miner can get £40 a week driving a lorry, he will not go down the pit for £35. This is why 600 men every week are leaving the coal mining industry. Do not the right hon. Gentlemen's experts know this?
  The Prime Minister: It is precisely because of this sort of problem that there has been established a prices and incomes policy, approved by Parliament, and why the offer which has been made to the miners is better than most other groups in the community are likely to receive. It would, therefore, improve the miners' position relative to others and, of course, there would not be leapfrogging under the code, which would enable them to maintain it.
  Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on the Government side of the House were disappointed that Conservative councillors on Bradford City Council felt unable to support the freedom of that city being granted to Mr. Victor Feather?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that many Members of the House would feel exactly the same as my hon. Friend has said. As the House realises, however,
  1548
  these are matters which the local authority representatives must decide.

  WANDSWORTH
  Mr. Thomas Coxasked the Prime Minister if he will visit the London borough of Wandsworth.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so.
  Mr. Cox: Is the Prime Minister aware that, following the collapse of his economic policy, some of those hardest hit will be local authorities, such as Wandsworth, which are trying to overcome social problems caused by, first, increased costs and, secondly, the private developers whom we are trying to fight off because they have no interest in the borough or the people? The private developers are interested solely in the money which they can make. Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that, instead of writing to Tory candidates in Wandsworth, he should come to the borough and meet the elected representatives who have to try to solve the problems?
  The Prime Minister: Housing is a matter for the local authority to organise. We have placed no restriction on its house building. [An HON. MEMBER: "Yardsticks."] Concerning the use of private developers, that again is a matter for local authorities. But I cannot help noticing that in many parts of London, Labour authorities are using private developers to the utmost.
  Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: If my right hon. Friend visits Wandsworth or any other Labour-controlled borough in London, will he point out to the local authority that the acquisition at almost any price of any house coming on to the market does not add any property to the housing stock?
  The Prime Minister: That is quite true.
  Mr. Pardoe: Are not the repeated assertions that the right hon. Gentleman's Government are putting nothing in the way of local authorities building houses totally misleading and not believed by anyone in local government? In the first six months of this year, as a result of Government policy, Cornish local authorities were able to start only 135 local

  1549
  authority houses compared with 435 in the same period last year. What will the right hon. Gentleman do about that?
  The Prime Minister: That is certainly not the result of Government restrictions on local authority building.

  URBAN RENEWAL
  Mr. Carterasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint to the Central Policy Review body a member with special responsibility for urban renewal.
  The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-West (Mr. Greville Janner) on 8th November.—[Vol. 863, c. 1165–6.]
  Mr. Carter: When will the Prime Minister and the Government take seriously the grave problems of our major cities? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, of every three people who now come to my advice bureau, two come about housing, or related matters? What specific proposals have he and his Government to deal with the quite appalling housing conditions in our major cities?
  The Prime Minister: These have been explained in the White Paper. Birmingham is one of the towns in the six town studies launched by my right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for the Environment. As I understand it, Birmingham is glad to be treated in this way.
  Mr. Ridley: Could not the answer to the problem raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) be to encourage the property developers instead of trying to blame them for all our economic problems?
  The Prime Minister: There are many areas of the country which have greatly benefited from them. There are certain new towns which have developed the technique of using property developers for very rapid development of housing in the new towns, and some of them that I have seen have certainly been comparable in price with what can be obtained outside, and in some cases cheaper.
  Mr. Stonehouse: If the so-called "think tank" is to have any value, is it not vital that it should be completely objective?
  1550
  What steps is the Prime Minister taking to ensure its independence of thought and action?
  The Prime Minister: It has complete independence of thought and action. It is part of the Cabinet Secretariat. It is, therefore, under the Estacode, which is the rules for the rest of the Civil Service; but otherwise it is completely free in thought and action.

  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT
  Mr. Bidwellasked the Prime Minister if he will discuss the working of the Industrial Relations Act when he next meets the CBI and the TUC.
  The Prime Minister: In my meetings with the CBI and TUC this year, I have made it clear that I am ready to discuss this matter with them on any appropriate occasion.
  Mr. Bidwell: Whether or not the right hon. Gentleman discusses the working of the Industrial Relations Act, does he not now realise that the sequestration of the political funds of the AUEW, which is really attacking the funds of the Labour Party, and the latest NIRC verdict on the Transport and General Workers' Union, arising from the dispute at Heathrow Airport, have turned back the clock by three-quarters of a century? Is it not even now dawning on the right hon. Gentleman that the Industrial Relations Act is utterly useless in bringing about the harmony in industry which the nation so desperately requires?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I cannot accept that. The two cases which the hon. Gentleman mentions had nothing in common. In the first case the union refused to take any part in the proceedings before the court and did not state its case, though it was perfectly open to the union to do so. In the second case the union did state its case, and the matter is still open to appeal.
  Mr. Wyn Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that no fewer than 15,000 cases of unfair dismissal have been dealt with under the Act?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I think that the figure now is rather larger than that. But this shows that individual trade

  1551
  unionists have had absolutely no doubt about resorting to the court where they thought that they had a grievance. A very large proportion of these cases has been settled by conciliation. Only in a minority of cases has a judgment been necessary.
  Mr. Skinner: Is the Prime Minister aware that only a few days ago he said from the Dispatch Box, in relation to the AEUW problem of the political fine, that the union would be well advised to follow the Transport and General Workers' Union in defending itself in court? Is that sound advice now?
  The Prime Minister: I have never made a reference in the House to a political fine. [Interruption.] I do not now see how right hon. and hon. Members of the Opposition can carry out what they claim to be observance of the law if they accuse one of the High Courts of this country of being a political institution.

  LANARKSHIRE
  Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Prime Minister when he next intends to visit Lanarkshire.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Hamilton: Since the right hon. Gentleman does not intend to visit Lanarkshire, may I remind him that, although the unemployment figures there have decreased, 4·7 per cent. of the insured population are still unemployed? Is he aware that in my constituency there are seven empty factories, two of which have recently been vacated by industrialists who came there, received all the grants and, after six years—in the last instance—packed up and left? Will he give his attention to this, with the Ministers at the Department of Trade and Industry, because it requires further investigation?
  The Prime Minister: I am prepared to ask my right hon. and hon. Friends at the DTI to look into the particular case of Lanarkshire, which I know well. The hon. Gentleman referred to the fall in unemployment. He will welcome the fact that it is down by more than 600. The
  1552
  rate now is down to 4·6 per cent. However, the last thing that one wants is that firms should leave factories, particularly Government factories, which they are at present occupying. But one can ensure the prosperity of a place like Lanarkshire only with an expanding economy.

  QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
  Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the answer to Question No. Q3, in which the Prime Minister intimated that he would not answer any more questions on the working of the Central Policy Review Staff? Over the last three years he has consistently narrowed the field in which he will accept Questions and on many occasions he has changed the practice of answering Questions. Is this one more step towards restricting the activities of back benchers in asking him Questions on this part of the Cabinet Secretariat?
  Mr. Speaker: I will read the OFFICIAL REPORT and consider the hon. Member's question to see whether it has anything to do with me.
  The Prime Minister: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I did not say that I refused to answer Questions about the CPRS; I said that I would not announce in advance appointments of a particular kind.
  Mr. Molloy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There are back benchers on both sides who now know full well that there is a sense of frustration with the Clerks in the Table Office, who, when we table Questions, particularly to the Prime Minister, have to dig out all sorts of reasons why they cannot accept a Question that a Member puts down, because of the connivance of the staff at 10 Downing Street, probably on the instruction of the Prime Minister, to shield the right hon. Gentleman because he has not the courage to face the Questions that hon. Members wish to put down.
  Mr. Speaker: I said that I would examine the answer to see whether there was anything in this matter to do with me. I do not think that the situation is helped by that kind of insinuation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Harold Wilson: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. James Prior): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 26TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Bill.
Motion relating to the Statement of Change in Immigration Rules for Control on Entry of EEC and other non-Commonwealth Nationals.
TUESDAY 27TH NOVEMBER—Debate on European Community affairs, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
WEDNESDAY 28TH NOVEMBER—Supply (2nd Allotted Day).
Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate on an Opposition Motion on teachers' pensions, and afterwards on an Opposition motion on Chile.
THURSDAY 29TH NOVEMBER—Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill.
Remaining stages of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Bill.
FRIDAY 30TH NOVEMBER—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 3RD DECEMBER—Supply (3rd Allotted Day).
Debate on a motion to take note of the eight reports from the Committee of Public Accounts in Session 1972–73, and the related departmental reports.
Mr. Wilson: On Tuesday's business, the right hon. Gentleman will know that we should have preferred a debate on an early day motion that we are tabling, although I gather from what he announced that it will not be possible for us to move it.
On an entirely separate question, on behalf of those of my right hon. and hon. Friends who will not this afternoon be seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, in the debate on Northern Ireland, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman to express to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on behalf of those of us who will not be speaking our congratulations
1554
and delight at what he was able to announce last night?
Mr. Prior: I think that the whole House will wish to join in the kind remarks of the right hon. Gentleman to my right hon. Friend. I am very grateful to him for those remarks.
The European Community affairs day has been arranged primarily to allow views to be expressed about regional policy before the Council meeting on 3rd and 4th December. However, the form of debate will also give an opportunity to those who wish to raise other issues, such as the common agricultural policy.
Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that I might require to ask him to let me have a debate on when an order will be laid for the Kielder Dam, since it is urgent that we should get such an order and I have seen two rather contradictory statements—one yesterday by the Secretary of State for the Environment, which differed considerably from something said by another Minister in his Department? As the order is needed to provide the water for industry, I may have to explode if I cannot get a satisfactory answer.
Mr. Prior: Anything to prevent that from happening. If I can help my hon. Friend to avoid that situation, I will get in touch with her.
Mr. Ford: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen Early Day Motion No. 49, calling for the setting up of a Select Committee to consider a petition? Will he provide Government time for a debate on the motion so as to stop further bitterness building up on the matter?
[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 operation of the Union, and thereby ensuring that the punishment was solely inflicted on the

1555
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: I notice that many hon. Members have signed the motion, and also that there is an amendment to it which says:
"this House recognises as a fundamental requisite of the rule of law in a democratic society that the judiciary is independent of all political pressure".
I certainly cannot find time for it in the next few weeks.
Mr. Powell: Will my right hon. Friend continue his search for an early opportunity to debate the recent report of the Select Committee on Immigration and Race Relations, especially in view of the disturbing evidence of grave under-enumeration by the Census?
Mr. Prior: Yes, I am continuing that search, and I know that the House will wish to debate that report at a reasonably early date.
Mr. McBride: Returning to Early Day Motion No. 49, would the right hon. Gentleman consider the serious legal position which arises in the sequestration of trade union funds which are protected by law? Is he aware that the motion, signed by 120 of my right hon. and hon. Friends, views with great concern the political attack on the Labour Party and its finances? We think that this attack is unjust and that a charge of incompetence against a judge of the High Court merits urgent and full discussion in the House.
Mr. Prior: I have nothing to add to the statement I have already made about finding time for this subject.
Mr. Money: Would my right hon. Friend have a look, as he said last Session he would, at the arrangements for organised delegations to the House, which are becoming totally impossible and verging on the farcical?
Mr. Prior: I am not quite certain what my hon. Friend is getting at. Could he explain a little further?
Mr. Money: Mass lobbying.
Mr. Prior: I should like to look at that. The problem in recent months, and particularly, of course, in recent weeks, has been security. However, if hon. Members have other views that they would like to put to me or through the Services Committee, then of course we can have a further look at this important matter.
Mr. Michael Foot: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the method of debate proposed for Tuesday is quite unsatisfactory. To have general, vague debates on matters of European economic policy, in which Ministers cannot be called to account for detailed actions and on detailed Votes, is no substitute for specific debates. We must have debates in which matters are specific. Does he not agree that it will have an even worse effect if the Government refuse to debate specific motions tabled by the Opposition and go ahead in taking action on that basis in Europe? Does he not think that the unsatisfactory character of this debate emphasises the urgent necessity for the Government to give their views on the report of the Select Committee which has examined this matter?
Mr. Prior: I do not regard the two matters as in any way related. I recognise that the House will want to come to an early decision on the Select Committee's report, and I shall arrange for this to take place. That is a totally separate matter from the debate which we have arranged for Tuesday next week—namely, a debate, in answer to a request from various sectors of the House, on Common Market affairs. If the form of the debate does not suit the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) and his hon. Friends, it is up to them to table a motion for a debate on another day in their own time. It appears to me that they want the best of every possible world: they want to be able to vote on a little issue of their own choosing, and at the same time they do not want to divide themselves on the main issue.
Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to Early Day Motion No. 24:
[That this House calls upon the British Airports Authority and British Airways to retain the check-in system at the Cromwell Road Terminal at least until the rail link to Heathrow is open for passenger use.]
In view of recent developments can my right hon. Friend find time for a short debate on that matter next week or in the near future?
Mr. Prior: My hon. Friend has asked me about that matter once or twice in recent weeks. I am afraid that I cannot give him any more satisfaction this week than I have in answer to earlier business questions. However, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to see whether there is anything further he can do.
Mr. David Watkins: May I press the Leader of the House on Early Day Motion No. 49? That motion relates to the unsuitability of Sir John Donaldson to be president of the Industrial Relations Court. May I remind the right hon. Gentleman that 132 Opposition Members have already signed that motion. In view of this unprecedented declaration by hon. Members of this House of no confidence in a High Court judge, should not the Leader of the House treat this as a matter of urgency to be resolved quickly?
Mr. Prior: I do not think necessarily the form of the motion makes it any more desirable that it should be debated in this House. I see no time available for debate of this nature. There is one course open to Labour Members on this matter. If they feel that a debate would not be very satisfactory—and I certainly think it would not be satisfactory—they could withdraw the motion.
Mr. John Wells: With reference to the debate on Wednesday on the subject of Chile, will my right hon. Friend say whether it will be in order to discuss the unpalatable rumour that a large number of Chilean "commie" anarchists are seeking refuge in this country, on which they have no claim whatever?
Mr. Prior: Luckily for me, it is not for me to say what will be in order for the debate on Wednesday, but I imagine
1558
that the motion will be drawn fairly widely.
Mr. Faulds: In view of the speculation as to where the new Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mrs. MacDonald) will sit, may I, through the Lord President of the Council, extend an invitation to her to join a fellow Scot and to sit right here beside me on the back benches?
Mr. Prior: I think that she will certainly do something to brighten up the Opposition benches.
Mr. Body: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the White Paper on public exenditure will be published and how soon afterwards we shall a debate upon it?
Mr. Prior: I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend the Chief Sectary said earlier in the week. It will be published within about a month. I do not think this will give us time for a debate before Christmas. However, I give an assurance that it will be debated as soon as we return after Christmas.
Mr. Ross: Can the right hon. Gentleman say when the Government intend to give the House an opportunity to have a full discussion of the Kilbrandon Report?
Mr. Prior: It is a little early yet to say. We have had the report for just under a month. This is a subject which the House will wish to debate, but I believe that we should carry out a few consultations before we reach that stage.
Mr. Dell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that among the reports to be discussed on Monday week will be the Public Accounts Committee report on North Sea oil and gas? In that connection, it would be useful to know in advance what the Government intend to do in their Bill about exploitation of the United Kingdom continental shelf. Can he arrange for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, perhaps next Monday, to make some announcement on the contents of that Bill—or do the Government not yet know what they propose to do?
Mr. Prior: I do not think my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will be ready by Monday next, or by the following week,

1559
to make the announcement which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) requests. The best thing to do is to allow the debate to go forward so that we may listen to the views expressed in the House.
Mr. Ashton: Is the Leader of the House aware that on only four occasions since 1805 has a motion been placed on the Order Paper attacking a High Court judge for political bias? On that occasion Judge McClennan resigned because of the stigma thus caused. This is a serious motion, signed by 132 Members of Parliament. Does not the right hon. Gentleman feel that in view of the rarity of this matter it should be debated by the House to put the judge either in the clear or out of his misery?
Mr. Prior: I do not think the rarity of a motion on the Order Paper necessarily makes it any more essential that it should be debated. This is not a matter which the House should take lightly. I can see no possibility of the Government providing time to debate a motion of this sort, and I wish to make no further comment on the matter.
Mr. Marten: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early Day Motion No. 48?
[That this House welcomes the assurance given by the Prime Minister on 13th November 1973 that consideration is being given to suspending the 8 per cent. tax on imported lamb; and, anxious to prevent any avoidable increase in food prices, urges Her Majesty's Government not to introduce those increases in tariffs and duties on imported foodstuffs arising out of Great Britain's membership of the Common Market, particularly those due to be introduced on or after 1st January 1974.]
That motion has been signed by a number of my hon. Friends and myself and is a genuine attempt to try to help the Government not to increase the price of food by putting on unnecessary taxes and tariffs. May we have a statement shortly on the success of the Government in their approach to the Common Market to stop these taxes being imposed?
Mr. Prior: No, Sir, but all these matters will be relevant in the debate on Tuesday. I know my hon. Friend's keen interest in helping the Government
1560
out of embarrassing situations over the Common Market.
Mr. James Johnson: What is the right hon. Gentleman's attitude towards giving hon. Members Government time in which to debate fisheries? Since there have been no subsidies, it appears that we are being given no opportunity to debate deep-sea fishing and other matters. Does this mean that we shall lose all official opportunities to debate the finances of the fishing industry?
Mr. Prior: Our old occasions for debates on the fishing industry seem to have gone. I shall consider whether we can make arrangements to debate this important issue. I can see no hope of an immediate debate, but it is a matter which shall bear in mind.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Godber—statement.
Mr. Orme: On a point of order. I wish to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, in regard to the exchanges which took place on Motion No. 49 in regard to Sir John Donaldson. It is an extremely serious matter when a motion of censure is held over the head of a High Court judge. As a consequence, particularly in view of the past associations of this judge with the Conservative Party, is it not incumbent on the Government to give time to allow the matter to be debated and cleared up. Furthermore—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows quite well that he is not raising a point of order. This matter is nothing to do with the Chair. I do not control either Government time or Opposition time. It has nothing to do with me.
Mr. Orme: Further to that point of Order, Mr. Speaker. I was coming to the point of asking for your guidance on the presentation of articles of charge in this House, which have now fallen into disuse. Is it possible for hon. Members to present articles of charge in regard to this issue? Would you allow this to be done in this House next week?
Mr. Speaker: I should like to consider that matter, but I shall give a preliminary answer. The procedure mentioned by the hon. Gentleman is antiquated. [Interruption.] Order. I must be allowed

1561
to answer a point of order without interruption, from wherever it comes. The article of charge procedure was before the time when the time of the House was appropriated in the way in which it is under our Standing Orders. However, I shall look at the point.
Mr. Eadie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to seek your assistance and guidance. At your discretion you decided to terminate questions to the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House proposes that in next week's business the remaining stages of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Bill shall be taken on Thursday after other business. That means that the remaining stages of this very important Bill, born out of the emergency situation, will inevitably be taken very late at night. I believe that this House should have the opportunity to—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) is trying to get round the fact that I suspended questions on the business statement when I did. This is not a point of order. I had to conclude business questions. We have a statement and we have a very important debate on Northern Ireland to come, and I have to safeguard the time of the House. If an hon. Member is not able to ask his supplementary question before I suspend questions, he cannot be allowed to do so by way of a point of order. I am very sorry.
Mr. Eadie: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I suggest that we are in a unique situation. The nation is in an emergency situation. I believe that, because of that, the people's representatives are entitled to put a proposition to the Leader of the House. Therefore—
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members must obey the rulings of the Chair and act within the rules of order.
Mr. Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—and it is a genuine point of order. You made a statement just now about articles of charge and you said that you would give your decision at a later date. As some of us might like to present arguments upon this and to bring along the appropriate law books, might we have some notice that this matter will be taken, say, next Tuesday
1562
or Wednesday so that we might prepare evidence on it?
Mr. Speaker: I am ready to have all the help that I can receive. Before making this ruling, certainly I shall receive any help that I can from anyone. I will not make the ruling in a hurry. I prefer to wait until I have received any submissions that anyone cares to make to me. However, I do not think that this is a point of order. It is a point of helpfulness, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton).

AGRICULTURE (EEC MINISTERS' MEETING)
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Joseph Godber): I should like to make a statement on the meeting of the Council of Ministers in Brussels this week.
The Council of Agriculture Ministers at its meeting on 19th and 20th November held a first exchange of views on the Commission's proposals for the improvement of the common agricultural policy. There were, naturally, differences of emphasis and approach between Ministers, but substantial support for the general aims of the review—to contain expenditure and consumer prices; to improve the balance of supply and demand and reduce surpluses; and to simplify the support system and improve financial control. The Commission's proposals will now be the subject of detailed study in the Special Agricultural Committee followed by fuller consideration by the Council of Ministers.
The Council also agreed on the framework of a directive on aids for farming in mountain and other less favoured areas. The main lines of this directive follow broadly the forms of support covered by our own arrangements for help in the hill farming areas. As the House knows, these mainly take the form of subsidies for beef cattle and sheep production in the hills, and there are also special rates of capital grant for hill land improvement. These will be covered under the criteria of the new draft directive.
The directive also provides that dairy cattle in the true mountain areas shall

1563
receive aid on the same terms as beef cattle. In the lower hill and less favoured regions payments for dairy cows will be restricted to 10 cows in each herd and at a rate of not more than 80 per cent. of that given for beef cattle. All these aids will be applicable at the discretion of each member State. The specific areas in which it is proposed to apply them will be designated by the member States and will be subject to approval by the European Commission and the Council of Ministers.
These payments will be subject to a contribution from Community funds, the actual rate of which will be determined only after a clear indication of the total cost can be established once the areas have been defined. The intention, however, is that these contributions should be not less than 25 per cent. and not more than 50 per cent. for livestock and should be 25 per cent. of the cost of aid for improvements under development plans. The remaining cost will be borne by each individual member State. Final confirmation of the directive will only take place once the areas have been defined.
The general effect of these decisions is that they confirm the ability of the United Kingdom Government to continue paying grants and subsidies on the broad lines at present in force for hill areas, and when the directive has come into force the cost of these will be reimbursed in part from FEOGA funds. This is an important reassurance to our hill farmers and a confirmation of the undertaking which the Government have always given that we would seek freedom to continue within the Community to give a comparable degree of support to our hill farmers to that which has previously been provided.
The Council meeting, which was a lengthy one, also discussed a number of other matters ranging from olive oil to alcohol.
Mr. Shore: The Minister will know that we understand that this is only the preliminary or first exchange on the most important matter of the possible reform of the common agricultural policy. However, does he not agree that the opening statements really constitute a thoroughly bad start to this most important matter which has to be reviewed and, we hope,
1564
fundamentally reformed? Is it not the case that the basic features of the CAP—self-sufficiency, Community preference, and the mechanisms of the levy, other intervention buying and so on—are to be continued and that he and other Ministers on the Council have agreed to these fundamental features continuing? Is not the result that the framework of the discussions is pre-set by these continued assumptions and, therefore, that the possibilities of change are very small and very limited?
To bring the matter out more clearly, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether he himself has made any proposals at this stage for withdrawing certain commodities from the coverage of the CAP? Has he taken an initiative, for example, in the case of sugar and that of rice—which are two wholly inappropriate commodities to be covered by the CAP—to withdraw them in the future from the coverage of the CAP? Has he at this vital preliminary stage raised the question of the financing of the CAP which lays such a disproportionately heavy burden on the British taxpayer?
Turning to hill farming, on which there has been more progress, I think that we all share the right hon. Gentleman's sense of disappointment at his inability to get the Community to accept, as I understood was his objective, the Community financing of hill farming for beef cattle and so on, and his failure to limit the new scheme so that it excluded dairy cattle, which apparently it now does.
In relation to the hill farming scheme, can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there is any net benefit to Britain which will come to us arising out of these arrangements?
Mr. Godber: Dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's first points, I do not agree that this was a bad start to our discussions. The discussions will cover a very wide range and take a considerable time. It is much too early to say whether the result will be as good as some people hope or as bad as some people fear. I believe that there are reasonable prospects of getting significant changes of emphasis. We have always said that we accepted the principles of the CAP, as the Opposition did when they were in power. For that reason it is not appropriate to take the right hon. Gentleman's analysis as being correct.

1565
The withdrawal of particular commodities from the CAP certainly has not been raised. It would not be appropriate at this stage. But at any time when it would seem appropriate to consider any particular commodities in this way I shall not be opposed to doing so. However, I do not accept the right hon. Gentleman's definition regarding the two commodities that he mentioned.
I must correct the right hon. Gentleman on one point about hill farming. We never expected the full cost of our hill subsidies to be borne by FEOGA funds. It has always been accepted that the FEOGA contribution would be a percentage towards that cost. At the moment no decision has been taken except that the range will be between 25 and 50 per cent. The main anticipation is that it will be about 25 per cent. It will depend on the result of the final schemes put before the Commission and the total estimate of the cost. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that in this way the Council is keeping control over the cost so that it should not get out of hand.
In the fully mountain areas dairy cattle will be included, and there will be the inclusion of small herds in the lower hill areas. But for the mountain areas, in particular, practically all these cattle are not involved in FEOGA contributions because their milk is used for cheese production, which does not figure in the support arrangements.
Mr. Charles Morrison: My right hon. Friend's statement will be of great encouragement to hill farmers and should be welcome to consumers as well because they will benefit from the increased production which will result. When does he expect these arrangements to operate? Will he confirm that existing hill subsidies will continue in the meanwhile and that all the areas in the United Kingdom which are currently eligible for hill subsidy will be eligible in the EEC scheme?
Mr. Godber: Yes. I certainly confirm that there will be no gap between the continuation of our existing schemes and the provisions under the new draft directive when it comes into force. It is difficult to say precisely when it will come into force, because each country has to submit its own areas, which have to be
1566
approved by the Commission, and the Council then has to consider the total cost. Therefore, it would be unwise to attempt at this point to give a firm date. I assure my hon. Friend that the existing arrangements will continue in full until any Community arrangements are brought in. Our hill farmers may be assured that there will be continuing support for them whether provided from national funds or supported in part by Community funds.
Mr. English: The answer was "No".
Mr. Maclennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm, as has been reported, that the special position of crofting grants was considered and that it has been secured? Secondly, will the existing levels of upland grant be maintained? Is it likely, as a result of the decision that has been taken about milk, that the Government will review their policy of not enabling the winter keep scheme, for example, to apply to milk farmers?
Mr. Godber: Existing schemes, such as the winter keep scheme, will continue to apply to the types of farm which already benefit from them. Regarding any of our dairy herds which might conform to the new proposals, we shall have to look at particular aspects, like winter keep, to see the extent to which they could conform. Much will depend on the exact terms of the directive, which has not yet been finalised.
The crofters' position was specifically raised by me with the Council of Ministers. This matter is not directly covered in the terms of the directive, but my statement about it was accepted by the Community, so we can continue with our present arrangements. We shall continue grants for crofters, so there is no risk for them in this regard. No time limit has been set, but the review as a whole is normally done on a five-year basis, and we can continue thereafter. The totality of the areas concerned is subject to revision and consideration by the Commission, but there is no reason to suppose that the whole of our areas will not continue to qualify.
Mr. Body: Will my right hon. Friend correct the statement in today's newspapers that the British people will be called upon to help subsidise a stockpile

1567
of 75,000 tons of olive oil? Is not this a grotesque error by the Press?
Mr. Godber: I have not seen the report to which my hon. Friend refers. I mentioned that olive oil was discussed. The proposal is that out of a total Italian production of about 400,000 tons of olive oil arrangements should be made for stockpiling in the early part of the season. This is to ensure that a correct record is kept so that there can be no question of abuse of FEOGA funds. I hope that my hon. Friend will welcome that proposal.
Mr. Mackie: The Minister knows only too well the difficulty that was experienced in defining areas in this country. Are there to be any common criteria between countries on defining areas?
Mr. Godber: The criteria in general have been laid down for the types of animal which will qualify. Mountainous areas are specified as being above 600 metres. Other areas are laid down in general terms in the articles, but each country will submit areas which will be examined by the Commission according to the criteria. I understand that all our areas would properly come within those terms.
Mr. Marten: Was the proposal to tax farmers on surplus milk raised? If so, was my right hon. Friend's view expressed to the Council of Ministers?
Mr. Godber: This matter was mentioned, although only in general terms because we had what approximated to a First Reading debate on these matters. I
1568
made the United Kingdom Government's position quite clear; namely, that we thought that a general tax on all milk production was so similar to a reduction in price that it would be more straightforward to have a reduction in price. Concerning the proposal for a tax on milk products going from dairies into intervention, there is a strong case for some form of tax as a direct discouragement to the production of surpluses.
Mr. Jay: Which food commodities will be reduced in price in this country as a result of these latest deliberations?
Mr. Godber: I cannot give any particular figure to the right hon. Gentleman of the upward or downward effect on costs, but there will be no immediate effect of any kind as a result of these proposals. What is of importance is the longer-term position and I hope that this will be helpful.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
Mrs. Margo MacDonald, for Glasgow, Govan.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS FOR MONDAY 10TH DECEMBER
Members successful in the Ballot were:
Mr. David Stoddart.
Mr. Hugh D. Brown.
Mr. John Cordle.

NORTHERN IRELAND
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pym.]
4.10 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. William Whitelaw): This afternoon I intend to set out in detail the results of recent political developments and discussions. It is, however, important to see these in the correct perspective of the general situation in Northern Ireland. Serious acts of violence continue. Nor are these confined to any one group of terrorists or criminals. Our primary task, therefore, must be to eradicate violence from the community and, of course, the reasons behind the violence.
The eradication of violence is a major task for our security forces, police and Army. Their achievements in the pursuit of terrorists and criminals and in the detection of crime are impressive. But no one should be under any illusions. Still more has to be done. In this work our security forces deserve all the support that can he given to them. Certainly their bearing and morale are beyond praise. But, just as it is true that political actions on their own cannot cure violence, so it is equally certain that we owe it to our security forces to provide the best foundations for their work. That was the purpose of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, passed with the overwhelming support of this House, which provides the basis of what I have to say.
Now that the first stage of consultations leading to the establishment of devolved government in Northern Ireland have been brought to a conclusion it is right that I should report to the House the nature of the agreements which have so far been reached. The House should be the first to know the full nature of these agreements, and I am grateful to the Northern Ireland parties concerned for refraining from comment until I had the opportunity this afternoon to disclose the details of those agreements.
Over the past seven weeks I have had a series of intensive discussions in Northern Ireland with the Alliance Party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party and the Ulster Unionist Party. The
1570
Northern Ireland Labour Party, while supporting the principles of the Constitution Act, agreed that I should confine my substantive discussion to the three parties. All the other parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly had previously made it known to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and to me in discussion that they were not prepared to participate in an Executive.
The three parties with which I have been in discussion were, however, prepared to operate the Northern Ireland Constitution Act and had indicated their willingness to search for a basis upon which an Executive might be formed within the provisions of that Act. I am grateful to the House for its forbearance in accepting that it was essential that these talks should be conducted on the basis of confidentiality. I would also like to pay tribute to the spirit in which the party leaders and the delegations held to their initial agreement that confidentiality should be maintained.
It is now my duty to give the House an account of the talks and their conclusion. Throughout I have had three objectives in mind. The first is that any agreement reached must be within the terms of the Constitution Act, and the parties agreed from the outset that talks should be on this basis. The Act requires me in due course to bring before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council devolving powers to the Executive and Assembly.
To do so two requirements must be fulfilled. First, the Northern Ireland Assembly must have made satisfactory provision by its Standing Orders in accordance with Section 25 of the Act which lays down certain essentials about procedure. The first statutory requirement has been met in that the Standing Orders of the Northern Ireland Assembly have now been passed. I am satisfied that they conform with the requirement of Section 2(1)(a) of the Constitution Act. Some of the Standing Orders were the subjects of debate and disagreement. I am only required in considering the Standing Orders to satisfy myself that they contain the provisions specified in the Act.
There is, secondly, the requirement
"that a Northern Ireland Executive can be formed which, having regard to the support it commands in the Assembly and to the

1571
electorate on which that support is based, is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community."
Clearly, there must be a large measure of agreement between the parties on major policy issues. Those parties, having made known their position, must declare their willingness to work together and to bring about the practical arrangements necessary for that purpose. An aim of my talks, therefore, was to use my best endeavours to bring about the maximum possible measure of agreement between the parties.
Third, and most important, Her Majesty's Government have to keep in mind their continuing responsibilities to this House, if the devolution order is to be made, for those matters in Northern Ireland which continue for the time being to be reserved to Westminster. One of our purposes in dividing responsibility for government and administration in Northern Ireland between the Assembly and the Executive, on the one hand, and this Parliament and Her Majesty's Government, on the other, was to reduce as far as possible the number of contentious issues which might make it difficult for the parties in Northern Ireland to reach agreement.
I am glad to say that we have made a good start in achieving this object. All three parties have reached agreement on a statement of aims and policies in the social and economic sphere. This achievement should not be underrated, because there are big differences of approach and philosophy on some of these matters between the parties in Northern Ireland just as there are between the parties in this House. These differences have been resolved by good sense, a spirit of compromise and a willingness to put the welfare and prosperity of all the people of Northern Ireland in the forefront.
Her Majesty's Government have taken note of these economic and social aims, and, while our position must be reserved as to the financial or other support which we shall be prepared to give any particular element of the programme, it is the firm intention of Her Majesty's Government to afford significant assistance to Northern Ireland in its economic and social rehabilitation. It was this willingness to reach agreement that created a situation at the beginning of this week in
1572
which it was possible for the parties to consider both with me and among themselves the possibility of agreeing to form an Executive.
It has always been understood among the parties that it would be in no one's interest to form an Executive unless there was agreement on all the issues under discussion. The major matter outstanding is the Council of Ireland, which involves the Government of the Republic of Ireland. We hope soon that the parties which have signified their willingness to serve in the Northern Ireland Executive will meet representatives of Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Republic of Ireland to discuss how a Council of Ireland might be set up. I will say more about this later.
The intention is that this preliminary conference will lead to the formal appointment of a Northern Ireland Executive and, subject to the approval of Parliament, to the devolution of full powers to that Executive and to the Northern Ireland Assembly. The composition and nature of such an Executive has now been agreed. I reminded the House earlier of the nature of the support which the Act makes a pre-requisite to the formation of that Executive. Under a later section of the Act it is the responsibility of the Secretary of State to appoint persons to hold office under the new structure. Under Section 8 of the Act the Secretary of State is restricted to 12 such appointments, not all of which have to be within the Executive. When we came to these discussions we found this provision somewhat restrictive. There is no intention on my part or on the part of the parties concerned to increase the size of the Executive. On the contrary, it is proposed that the Executive should be confined, both now and for the future, to 11 persons. If this is so, there needs to be some flexibility in making additional appointments outside the Executive.
The agreement which has been reached will, if the House agrees, since further legislation would be required, involve an Executive of 11 and an Administration of 15. The Executive will comprise six members of the Ulster Unionist Party, four members of the Social Democratic and Labour Party and one member of the Alliance Party. Mr. Brian Faulkner,

1573
Ulster Unionist, will be the chief executive designate, and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), Social Democratic and Labour Party, will be the deputy chief executive officer designate. Mr. Oliver Napier, Alliance Party, will be the legal member and in charge of the Office of Law Reform. In regard to this appointment, I should make it clear that his duties will in no way conflict with the position of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, as the Attorney-General for Northern Ireland.
The further allocation in the Executive is as follows: head of the Department of Finance, Ulster Unionist; head of the Department of Commerce, Social Democratic and Labour Party; head of the Department of Health and Social Services, Social Democratic and Labour Party; head of the Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning, Social Democratic and Labour Party; head of the Department of Environment, Ulster Unionist; head of the Department of Education, Ulster Unionist; head of the Department of Agriculture, Ulster Unionist; and head of the Department of Information Services, Ulster Unionist. The four appointments outside the Executive will be the Chief Whip, Ulster Unionist; the Office of Manpower Services, Alliance Party; the Office of Community Relations, Social Democratic and Labour Party; and the Office of Executive Planning and Co-ordination, Social Democratic and Labour Party. This allocation was agreed between the parties, and the leaders of the parties will nominate those whom they propose will be appointed to these posts. There will, in addition, be a Deputy Chief Whip outside the administration, who will be an Assembly member of the Alliance Party.
Next I come to the Council of Ireland. In the White Paper which the Government published in March this year, we said that the United Kingdom favoured, and was prepared to facilitate, the formation of such a body.
Mr. James Kilfedder: Does the principal of collective responsibility apply to this Executive?
Mr. Whitelaw: Yes.
I come to the Council of Ireland.
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster (Belfast, East): Does this mean that there will be an amendment of Section 8 of the Act?
Mr. Whitelaw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I hope I made it clear that this proposal, which would reduce the Executive from 12 to 11 and would provide four other posts outside the Executive, would mean an amendment of Section 8 of the Constitution Act and, therefore, fresh legislation in this House.
Next I come to the Council of Ireland. In the White Paper which the Government published in March this year, we said that the United Kingdom favoured, rind was prepared to facilitate, the formation of such a body. We also pointed out that, if the Council of Ireland was to be more than a mere statutory concept and become a useful working mechanism in North-South relations, it must operate with the consent of both majority and minority opinion in Northern Ireland who have a right to prior consultation and involvement in the process of determining its form, functions and procedure. Because agreement in Northern Ireland itself is a necessary precondition to a successful Council of Ireland, Her Majesty's Government have up to now refrained from expressing a view on the form a Council might take. But, in the light of discussions which I have had, it seems to me now to be helpful to say what propositions about a Council of Ireland we would be prepared to agree to and support in discussions with the Government of the Republic which must shortly be undertaken.
It has become clear in my talks that there is a general wish that a Council of Ireland should be confined to representatives of the North and the South of Ireland—that is to say, that there should be no representatives of the United Kingdom Government on the Council. This is acceptable to Her Majesty's Government as regards devolved subjects, although arrangements will be necessary to safeguard Her Majesty's Government's interests in the areas of finance and other reserved subjects.
As to structure, Her Majesty's Government think that the Council should consist not only of representatives of the Government of the Republic and of the Northern Ireland Executive—that is, at governmental level—but also, on a

1575
separate advisory and consultative basis, of representatives from the parties from the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly. We also think that the Council should have its own secretariat.
In order that decisions of the Council should carry the greatest possible degree of support among the people of the North and the South, we think that its decisions at governmental level should be taken on a basis of unanimity.
In additon to those functions operating in the area of subjects which will be devolved to an Executive, we think that the Council should be able to play a useful rôle in relation to certain subjects reserved for the time being to the United Kingdom Government. If this were to happen, Her Majesty's Government would, of course, need to be represented on the Council, at least when these subjects were under discussion. What our rôle should be and how United Kingdom interests should be represented is a matter which needs to be agreed, but there is scope here which can bring great advantage to both North and South, particularly in the vital area of security.
There has been introduced in the talks the imaginative and important concept of a common law enforcement area, and we think that there should be discussions on this and on the question of extradition procedures and what rôle the Council might play in the law and order field. It will be a clear advantage to all sides if advances can be made in the law and order field which will bring to bear all the resources of the North and the South to deal with the problem of terrorism, and if imaginative arrangements can be made both of a judicial and an organisational kind. Now I must turn to what is being called a tripartite conference
Mr. Dick Douglas: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point of the Council of Ireland, which is very important indeed, can he give us some indication of what discussions he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland regarding their recognition of the constitutional position of Northern Ireland?
Mr. Whitelaw: That is a very important matter, which must be one of the
1576
subjects to be discussed at the talks when they take place.
Now I must turn to what is being called a tripartite conference. If we are to make the advances on a Council of Ireland to which I have referred, it is essential that there should now be urgent discussions between representatives of the Government of Ireland and those persons who will be members of the Northern Ireland Executive. This conference will be held as soon as possible, and will, I hope, reach a clear understanding. I also intend to invite the leaders of those parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly who have indicated that they are not prepared to participate in an Executive to discuss with me their views on a Council of Ireland, so that these will be known at the time of the conference. It will be necessary, thereafter, to hold a formal conference between Her Majesty's Government, the Government of the Republic and the Northern Ireland Executive, which will have been appointed by then.
My talks with the parties also covered other matters which are of interest to the people of Northern Ireland. So far as policing is concerned, Her Majesty's Government have made it clear that the Royal Ulster Constabulary will continue to provide the police service for Northern Ireland. The Government have also stated that their aim is to achieve the ending of politically motivated violence from whatever source, to ensure that there is effective policing throughout Northern Ireland so that the Army can be progressively withdrawn from its present rôle, and to bring about a situation in which public support for the police and identification with it are essential parts of effective policing. No single set of proposals is likely to achieve these aims overnight. Time will be necessary. The full co-operation of the Government of the Republic is essential in this task.
Another of these matters which we discussed was detention. In the summer of this year, Parliament passed the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act, which, as the House will remember, was based on the recommendations of the committee under Lord Diplock, which also had as members Professor Sir Rupert Cross, Mr. George Woodcock and Sir Kenneth Younger. These provisions are subject to annual review. It is under the provisions of that Act that people

1577
are detained in Northern Ireland by independent commissions. I have during the talks reaffirmed Her Majesty's Government's firm view, that they will bring detention for all sections of the community to an end as soon as the security situation permits, as part of their wish to bring about a lasting peace.
With the very real political progress of recent weeks and the desire of the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland for peace, we hope that the men of violence will be increasingly isolated and rejected and that the security situation will improve. The Emergency Provisions Act vests in the Secretary of State executive power to release detainees and I wish to see not only progress in the security situation but also, in parallel with it, a progressive reduction in the numbers detained. As an earnest of this, I hope to be able to bring into use my statutory powers of selective release. If the security situation permits, I intend to do so in time for a number to be released before Christmas. Those released may be required to give a suitable undertaking about their future conduct, but. I emphasise that executive decisions on releases must depend on the security situation. Continued progress will, therefore, clearly depend on further improvement in the security situation generally.
In the meantime, procedures for review provided by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 have already led to some releases. The reviews by the commissioners will continue. I should also stress that everything possible is being done to bring persons suspected of terrorist offences before the courts rather than have them detained under the Emergency Provisions Act. I can assure the House of the enormous amount of progress made in this respect.
I have also undertaken to consider compassionate cases on a wider basis than hitherto, and other preparatory measures are in hand, including the recruitment of more social workers to help with the administration of these arrangements and the introduction of various training schemes.
I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will feel that a start has been made in implementing the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, to which they gave such generous support. If, indeed, progress has been made, much of the credit must go
1578
to the wholehearted encouragement which Her Majesty's Government have received from all parts of this House and Parliament.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who said in his book that all-party co-operation in this House was vital to any successful solution to the desperately difficult problems of Northern Ireland. In particular, I should like to thank the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) and the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) for the understanding and the very proper and constructive criticism they have given to me on many occasions. However, we must be clear that this is not a time for self-congratulation in this House. We have set out upon a very difficult operation. There are those in this House and outside who are convinced and determined that we should fail. They are, clearly, entitled to pursue their aims by constitutional means. But let there be no illusions in this House or anywhere else, they are not entitled to blur that line between constitutional action and force.
We have made a good start, I believe. I applaud the statesmanship of those who, despite their differences of the past, are now turning to work together for the future good of the whole community. There are many people in Northern Ireland, in the rest of the United Kingdom and, indeed, throughout the world who will wish them success.
4.34 p.m.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: It seems a long time since we were in the rhythm of debates on the Green Paper, the White Paper and the legislation.
A summary of those debates, even in the context of the tragic statements of bombings and killings which seemed to punctuate the whole of the year—from what the Secretary of State said today and from what I was able to check before coming into the House I calculate that 905 people have been killed since the emergency began—is that a majority of this House supported the political approach, the elections by proportional representation, the power sharing and the acceptance of the Irish dimension along with the United Kingdom dimension.
The elections have been held, and that was a turning point; the power-sharing

1579
discussions seem to have gone on and on; the Secretary of State has now announced agreement between the three parties, the official Unionists, the SDLP and the Alliance on power sharing. The parties concerned, given the very strong feeling in Northern Ireland which enmeshed the communities deserve the praise of this House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) deserves congratulation as do Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Napier.
Above all, to the Secretary of State who played a vital part in these negotiations, I offer on behalf of the Opposition our unreserved congratulations. The fact that he has reported last night's events to the House this afternoon is an indication of his feeling for the House, and I wish that other Ministers would do the same. It is something to have the Press listening to what is said in the House rather than Members of Parliament finding out what the Press has learnt before them.
The Secretary of State shows an understanding of the Irish situation. He showed a realistic flexibility in all the negotiations he undertook. I observe that he is most fortunate not to be the Secretary of State for Employment in a Westminster Government, trammelled by the rigid rules of phase 3 trade union negotiations. I repeat the congratulations from this side of the House, and in so doing take up a point that he made when he expressed words of praise for this House for its handling of this problem, words of praise which are all the more worth while in view of the knocking of politics which is heard sometimes. This was an example of how a major and difficult problem should be sensibly discussed. He has said that the breakthrough is only the beginning and that it must not be allowed to develop into a false door.
It is to the current situation and the future steps that I must now turn. First, I deal with the Executive. What will be the timing of the order—I am not asking for a precise date—under Section 2(1)(b), since there will have to be an amendment to the Act? Do I take it that the amendment will have to be made before the order is made permitting the Executive to begin work officially? In that respect
1580
does it mean that the Executive, even though it has been formed, will not have to sit around waiting for the order and that at least to some degree, without being too formal, it can begin thinking about its work as a body? It would be silly, bearing in mind the power this House will have, if it has to sit around unable to even consider the problems.
There have been a number of statements from the talks, and the right hon. Gentleman referred today to the very real change in the agreement between the three parties with their different philosophies on social and economic affairs. I presume that we can await, and we would be right to await, what in effect will be the Queen's Speech to the Assembly in this respect. But what about the other Executive agreements on matters which are for this House? A statement was issued the other day by the Press office of the Northern Ireland Department. It contains three, if not four, things about which we should know more. In it the Secretary of State said.
"In particular, the White Paper provided that a Northern Ireland Executive would act as an Advisory Committee to the Secretary of State on all reserved matters; and that there should be democratic participation in restoring to all parts of Northern Ireland the full benefits of a normal police service."
What does this mean? How will it be done?
The Secretary of State continued in the statement:
"As the Prime Minister has already made clear, the RUC will continue to provide the police service for Northern Ireland."
The right hon. Gentleman repeated that today. The statement continued:
"Much has already been done to reorganise it. More is needed to expand the RUC and its Reserves in order to provide that policing becomes effective throughout Northern Ireland … The Government will welcome any constructive suggestions to these ends, and a group under the Minister of State, Mr. van Straubenzee, is now at work."
What is the status of the group? Is it a departmental committee or a Civil Service committee under the chairmanship of a Minister? We ought to know more about these matters.
The statement went on:
"The Government intends to reconstitute the Police Authority to introduce into it a number of elected representatives from the Assembly."

1581
What is happening on that matter? What proportion of the various groups in the Assembly will be on the police authority? Will it only be those who are on the Executive or will it comprise a wider grouping of members?
The statement continued:
"District Liaison Committees with elected representatives will be set up. …"
What is happening about that?
The statement went on to say, in regard to the Council of Ireland concept:
"The Government is in favour of such discussions"—
discussions at a tripartite conference—
"including the concept of a common law enforcement area and the question of extradition processes."
—which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned today—
"A study has been put in hand of these questions."
What does that mean? Is it a study by civil servants in Stormont Castle or a study carried out in co-operation with the Government of the South? This Press statement on law and order is very important. Law and order is very much under the control of this House, and we ought to know more about what is going on.
Mr. Kilfedder: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that all the papers which were put before those who took part in the conference with the Secretary of State should be placed in the Library so that all hon. Members may have the chance to study them before we debate the order?
Mr. Rees: I do not agree in that wide sense. The statement on law and order is a matter for the House, and we ought to know more about it. However, social and economic matters, for example, are questions for the Assembly, even though I and other hon. Members are extremely interested in them, and in my view would be appropriate for inclusion in the equivalent of a Queen's Speech.
Before turning to the question of the Irish dimension, which was the other major aspect in the right hon. Gentleman's statement, I wish to mention briefly internment. The Opposition have always made clear that society must act against the gunman, that this action must be taken through the process of law. The
1582
right hon. Gentleman spoke about this today and made a number of points which we shall wish to study.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a political break-through. It may be a major step, but it also may be that it will be a long time before we get that final settlement in Northern Ireland which we all desire. However, it is extremely important that at this time we do not forget a matter which strikes me every time I visit Long Kesh. Over 1,000 people, about a hundred of them juveniles, are imprisoned there. Some have been sentenced under the due processes of law, and not for terrorism, but a large number are held there under the Detention of Terrorists Order.
Each time I visit Northern Ireland and see the bombing and killing I realise what the situation is about, but we must not forget that it is not a long-term solution to the problem of Northern Ireland to keep a large number of men locked up in this way in Long Kesh, outside the due process of law. It is easier said than done. I am not suggesting an easy solution, but in the present euphoria it is something we must not forget.
There is no Bill of Rights, but various parts of a Charter of Human Rights are set out in the White Paper. I hope that very soon we shall know what the Government will do about the agency to investigate discrimination in employment and patterns of employment. As we move along on the approach of the White Paper, with its broken-up Charter of Human Rights, it is important to know more about that. I believe that the Minister of State is heavily involved in the setting up of that agency, or, at least, was involved in the initial work with the trade unions and employers.
As regards the Irish dimension, we can start with paragraph 112 of the White Paper, with its three parts about effective consultation and the provision of a firm basis for community action. There is there a point which many people in Northern Ireland ignore, and which is often ignored in this House, when it speaks of discussion on
"the acceptance of the present status of Northern Ireland, and of the possibility—which would have to be compatible with the principle of consent—of subsequent change in that status".

1583
We can start with that and end with the elaboration in more detail that the Secretary of State gave today in what he said about the discussions with the parties in Northern Ireland.
What legislation shall we in the House have to be ready for if there is movement on the All-Ireland Council, the Irish dimension? The magazine Fortnight, which discusses the problems of Northern Ireland, recently suggested that Section 2 of the Government of Ireland Act 1920 was still operative. It talked about 40 members for this, 40 for the other and so on. I made inquiries in the appropriate place and was told that that section had been repealed in 1925. Yet a magazine whose articles are always worth reading, whether one agrees or disagrees, argued that a piece of legislation amended 48 years ago was still the law of the land. If such errors can be made, it is important to get the matter right.
Is legislation necessary in forming the Council of Ireland? Would it come from London, Dublin and Northern Ireland or from London and Dublin? I am sure that I am telling the Government Front Bench what they already know, but it is important to get it on the record for the rest of us who will consider the necessary legislation. I understand that the formation of such a council will not require legislation at Westminster, that, although international relations, including treaties, are excepted matters under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, Section 12 of that Act empowers the Northern Ireland Executive to consult on any matter within the authority of the Republic of Ireland and enter into agreements or arrangements with any authority of the Republic in respect of any transferred matter. Therefore, it is up to the Assembly.
However, if a Council of Ireland is to assume powers in respect of reserved or excepted matters, legislation at Westminster will be necessary, and if it is in respect of transferred matters, legislation by the Assembly will be necessary.
If in the months ahead an all-Ireland institution is agreed by all those concerned, it seems as though the setting up of the Council—not what it does, but the actual institution—does not require legislation in this House. I am surprised at that. I can see that it would affect
1584
the Government in the South, and that they would require their legislation. Until I obtained the information, I had thought that we should be ready to have legislation of that kind, but I am advised not. I hope that the Government will put us right on the matter. It seems rather strange that, while we shall be consulted on the powers, we shall not have to say "Yea" or "Nay" or be consulted on the structure.
What is the purpose of the first conference? Is it to help consideration? I hope that this part of the agreement which deals with the Irish dimension will be published as a White Paper. It would be only a short one. In the past couple of years those of us who have been involved in discussions with people interested in the matter in both parts of the United Kingdom and in the South of Ireland have found that there is no starting point for discussion. The right hon. Gentleman has made a statement, which we can consider carefully, but on the issues which will be discussed at the one or two conferences I wish that the agreement with the political parties were available in some form.
There are many possibilities resulting from the information I obtained about the legislation that is required. One thing that seems to be sure is that, if it is simply a matter of powers which are in the control of the Assembly, the North and the South can talk together, but if there are matters reserved to this House the situation is different. It is important to have this information, even if a White Paper is inappropriate.
One of the reasons why the right hon. Gentleman managed as well as he did in the past 18 months to get people talking—at Darlington, for example—was the Green Paper, an excellent document which contained everything that one needs when trying to put one's mind to what can be done next. The White Paper before the Act was a development of that Green Paper. I hope that there is a way to make readily available the ideas which will now be the subject of discussion in the newspapers and so on about the possibility of a Council of Ireland, or whatever it will be called.
Of course, the Council must have teeth. Of course, it must be intergovernmental. It is important to bring in all the political parties in the North and

1585
the South, and not into the governmental side. We should perhaps consider means akin to the Council of Europe, where Members of this House and other assemblies meet. It would be extremely valuable for many elected representatives in the South and the North to meet their opposite numbers. They would be surprised at the differences of opinion. Sometimes it is put to me that some people in the South regard those differences of opinion as a figment of the imagination of people on this side of the water. It would be admirable if, for example, the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) could inflict—no, put—his views to some of those in the South who believe that parties over here, and not the hon. Gentleman, are a stumbling block to unification.
Mr. Kilfedder: In view of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, I am sure he will agree with me that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should meet the unpledged Unionist members of the Assembly who were backed by 50 per cent. of the delegates attending the recent meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council, to have discussions on the matter.
Mr. Rees: I do not know about meeting them all. I would not inflict everything on the hon. Gentleman. He might consider meeting the leaders. It would be an excellent idea for the elected representatives in the North to meet the elected representatives of the South. I am not suggesting that they should meet so as to get something done. That might mean that nothing would ever be done.
The concerns of the Assembly must be security, which I have mentioned, and extradition, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. Also to be considered is regional policy. To try to dampen down any euphoria there might be about economic policy, it might be important for all of us to have more information on the economic differences between North and South. It is so easy glibly to say that there should be more economic co-operation between the North and the South.
In "Towards a New Ireland" Mr. Garret Fitzgerald says:
"In all the North obtains about seven per cent. of its imports from the Republic, to which it ships four per cent. of its exports."
1586
I believe that Mr. Fitzgerald's book is now two years old, so those are probably 1968 or 1969 figures. He then says:
"As for the Republic, four per cent. of its imports come from the North and the North takes about 12 per cent. of its exports."
Mr. Fitzgerald raises another matter which is worth our consideration when we talk about economic co-operation between the North and the South. In pages 75 and 76 he says:
"It is clear in any event that the agricultural and industrial economies of the Republic and Northern Ireland despite their rather different structures are competitive rather than complementary."
He continues:
"Even though they have developed rather differently than they might have done had Ireland not been divided about 50 years ago, it does not seem probable that the re-unification of the country would have any very significant economic effect as a result of opening up new possibilities of internal trade."
When we talk about economic co-operation between the North and the South we must consider production. On the little investigation which I have made it seems that the small shipbuilding industry in the South would be severely knocked if the vast yards in Belfast unleashed in only a small way their production on the South. That is a small point. As Mr. Fitzgerald says, there is competition between North and South. I want co-operation, not just for economic reasons but because of regional development.
The events of yesterday are a step forward but they are only a beginning. Let us not ignore the fears of those who are not involved in the talks. Perhaps that is better said by the Opposition than by the Government. I realise how little ice we cut with the Protestant working class of the North. That applies to Liberals or anyone else. It is my view that the unfolding of the package over some months will reassure the Protestant working class that it is not to be sold down that mythical river. It needs no pledges and no Act of Parliament to tell Labour hon. Members that a united Ireland is not in our gift either directly or by sleight of hand.
The facts of life are that the people of the North are their own people and it is the people of the South and not us who will have to deal with them. We are, on the other hand, firmly against complete integration. It is important that a majority

1587
of the people in the North should recognise that. It is not an option that we have in the wings if all else fails. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, after his brief flirtation with the idea, said:
"I have never sought, nor do I now seek, to advocate the integration of Northern Ireland into the United Kingdom. I do not believe that that would be a solution to the troubles which have troubled Northern Ireland these last five years and longer."
In the end the right hon. Gentleman recognised the force of the objections which were present in the Green Paper. The Government are against complete integration.
Mr. John E. Maginnis: I am following the hon. Gentleman with interest. Does he agree that Northern Ireland is grossly under-represented in this Chamber? Does he not agree that in future, so as to get things harmonised, the number of representatives from Northern Ireland should be increased according to the Kilbrandon Report?
Mr. Rees: I hope that the Province will have a successful Executive which will be different from other parts of the United Kingdom. I do not agree with extra representation, for exactly the same reason as I am against complete integration. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) is present. Whether the hon. Member for Armagh (Mr. Maginnis) or I or anybody else likes it, the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone represents by his election the views of certain people in the Province. That is one of the facts of life that have led us to the present problem.
Mr. Douglas: Will my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) reconsider some of his remarks about the Protestant working class? If the Labour Party cannot speak meaningfully to either the Protestant or the Catholic working class of Northern Ireland or any other country, the ideals which I believe the Labour Party stands for and has stood for are not significant in the last quarter of the twentieth century.
Mr. Rees: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Douglas) is absolutely
1588
right. The matter which he mentioned is a matter which I recognise. That is why I was saying that the Protestant working class believes that the British Labour Party would sell it down the river. I am saying that the Labour Party would not. That was the point behind my remarks. To the unofficial and unpledged Unionists I would say that power sharing is not an attempt to force a coalition Government against our parliamentary traditions but an attempt to repair the ravages of a split society.
I hope that the "loyalist" opposition in Northern Ireland will now increasingly play its part in the new Assembly. There is so much to do, for example, in the areas of housing, trade and health. Perhaps it is hopeless to appeal to those in Northern Ireland who live by violence and the rule of the gun, but to them I say that it is the view of the majority of the British people that they will not drive, if that is the way they put it, any British Government out of Northern Ireland by the gun. They are wasting their time. All that is happening is death and destruction involving decent people on both sides, whether they be Proestant or Catholic. On behalf of the Labour Party I say "Give up the killing and the bombing. Use the Act which has just gone through the House of Commons, which is an attempt to bring Protestants and Catholics together."
Last night there was a breakthrough and the Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland are now in an Executive, with many problems in front of it, but in that there is hope. The Secretary of State's announcement is a significant step forward. It is the hope of the Labour Party that it will lead forward to further developments.
5.4 p.m.
Mr. Stanley R. McMaster: I welcome the statement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland made to the House. I congratulate Mr. Brian Faulkner and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) on coming to a conclusion and forming an Executive in Northern Ireland in spite of considerable obstacles.
Mr. Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have always thought that in any debate the speakers who are selected should represent not

1589
necessarily opposite sides of the House but opposite sides of the matter which is being debated. I regret that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has not been called.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): I have neither eyes to see nor ears to hear in this matter except as Mr. Speaker, whose servant I am here, directs me.
Mr. McMaster: I was saying that I welcome the statement which my right hon. Friend has made, and I offer congratulations to him and to all the members of the Unionist Party who have worked to achieve this settlement in Northern Ireland. I believe that the arrangements which have been elaborated by my right hon. Friend provide a workable basis for the establishment of the new Executive in Northern Ireland.
The Unionists have an overall majority. It appears that, although there are now to be 11 rather than 12 places on the Executive, the principle of collective responsibility will apply. As I understand that, majority decisions will be taken by the Executive and, therefore, the Unionists will be in a position to influence the Executive in a way which reflects the strength of the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, shown in the plebiscite and in the election of the Assembly earlier this year. In the election of the Assembly, the Unionist vote represented some 68 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Kilfedder: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. McMaster: No.
I should like an explanation of the powers of the wider Executive. If I counted correctly while this complex statement was being made, there will be some 16 members on the wider Executive. How will these additional members be involved in the decisions of the inner cabinet, as it were, of the Executive? What exactly are the functions of the additional members? How will they affect the balance in the Executive?
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Belfast, West is not in the House at the moment, because I would like him to comment on the intentions of the Social Democratic and Labour Party about the rent and rates strike. I believe that this is a serious obstacle to further progress
1590
in Northern Ireland. It is disgraceful that it should have continued for so long. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) has spoken against it, and I hope that it can soon be brought to an end.
I turn now to discussion of the security situation in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Leeds, South referred to control over the Royal Ulster Constabulary. This is an important point. With the present arrangements, control over the RUC appears to be left ultimately to this House, but I feel that in the end it will have to be controlled by the Executive in Northern Ireland. Only the members of the Executive will be able fully to understand the security situation in Northern Ireland, representing as they will do the wide spectrum of opinion, both Protestant and Catholic. Surely control of the RUC could be vested in the new Executive.
I ask my right hon. Friend also to consider whether the powers of the Ulster Defence Regiment could be widened. Recruiting for the RUC has been very disappointing since the Hunt Committee reforms. If security is to be restored in the unsettled state of affairs in Northern Ireland, the police and the reserve police need to be backed up by a militia in Northern Ireland, and I would see the UDR forming the basis of such a militia.
I speak particularly in view of the degree of preparedness of the IRA which was claimed, and so stated earlier this week in the Press. One is very apprehensive in Northern Ireland in view of the statements made by the IRA about the arming and training of members of the Provisional IRA—training with most modern weapons and even, it is claimed, in the use of aircraft. We saw how the Provisional IRA was able to "spring" several of its men from close confinement in Dublin by using a helicopter.
One must not underestimate the threat of the IRA. We have seen in recent months an increasing number of raids across the border into Northern Ireland. One RUC station near the border has been completely destroyed. It is only by using not only the police but the UDR in the additional rôle I envisage that proper control can be maintained over the border in conjunction with the security forces in the South of Ireland.
The police have suffered bitter casualties as a result of the IRA campaign.

1591
They have had 41 police officers killed, and the Army and the UDR 237 killed since the troubles began in August 1969. This makes the total of security force deaths 278 in the past four years. On top of that, 627 civilians have been killed. In total, 905 people have been killed and some 10,000 or more seriously injured as a result of the incidents in Northern Ireland. There have, I believe, been more than 3,600 bomb incidents.
I regret the activities of extremists on the Protestant side in recent weeks and months, particularly the campaign of assassination. But one must remember that the 278 dead of the security forces have been claimed by the IRA as being the result of IRA activities. I firmly believe that, of the total casualties, between 90 and 95 per cent. were the result of the activities of the IRA. That is where the main threat lies, and I am very concerned about the prospect for the coming months. We know that the Ulster Volunteer Force has declared a truce, but the Provisional IRA has not.
I am most apprehensive and would like an assurance from the Government that the tightest and most stringent security measures will be taken in the coming months. I am apprehensive that the IRA will use its utmost force to try to overthrow the Executive and the new Assembly.
In turning briefly to the question of a Council of Ireland, I ask what representations have been made to the Government of the South of Ireland. I have here a copy of the Constitution of the South of Ireland. The very second article is repugnant, not only in Northern Ireland but, I hope, throughout the United Kingdom. It provides that:
"The national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and territorial seas."
I would hope that before any Council of Ireland is set up the Republican Constitution will be amended, that the South of Ireland will abandon its claim to represent the entire island of Ireland, and that it will recognise, not only de facto but also de jure, the existence of Northern Ireland and the right of its people to self-determination.
I welcome the setting up of a Council of Ireland, but its powers should be strictly defined. I would not like to see
1592
such a body backed up by some civil service of its own, with powers it could extend at its own wish. If that is the Government's intention, I warn them that it is a formula for disaster.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the fears of many people in Northern Ireland, on both sides of the political fence. I speak now about the Protestant side. There is a great fear of being sold down the river. Unless there is some strict definition of the powers of the Council of Ireland, fuel could be added to the fire, fuel which, in the hands of evilly disposed men, could be used to extend the violence in Northern Ireland.
I conclude by once again congratulating my right hon. Friend and the leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland on their foresight in being able to establish this Executive. Each side has made sacrifices in order to get it off the ground.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Russell Johnston: I shall not detain the House for long because many hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies are rightly anxious to contribute to the debate. Like the previous speakers, I begin by congratulating the Secretary of State. What he has achieved is quite remarkable. In very large degree it is due to his own personal character and persistence. It is a very pleasant thing from time to time to be in the position of saying that about someone of another political party. As the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, the degree of unanimity which has been demonstrated across party lines in the House has been one of the pleasing aspects of this long, terrible story with which we have had to wrestle.
As a Liberal, I am naturally particularly pleased to see ideas with which the Liberal Party has been associated being introduced; for example, the question of proportional representation, power sharing, the development of some protection of individual rights and the holding of security here in this House. I should like to refer briefly to Sheelagh Murnaghan, the former Liberal representative at Stormont. I think that the Secretary of State would acknowledge that in her way she has done a great deal

1593
to promote the very ideas for which the Secretary of State has worked so hard.
I associate myself with what the Secretary of State about the Army and the security forces. They have behaved quite splendidly in tremendously hard and hazardous conditions.
It has already been said that the establishment of the Executive last night by the three parties could not have occurred without considerable concessions on all sides. Putting the matter very simply and bluntly, it must have required very considerable statesmanship and personal restraint for the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to agree to serve under Mr. Faulkner, considering all that has occurred in the past. That level of willingness to co-operate must be recognised.
It is a revolutionary concept of power sharing. It is a great pity that the revolution should begin in a way which was not envisaged. It was not envisaged that the Executive, in a power-sharing situation, should have to operate against an opposition, even if it was an unofficial opposition. The concept was that all elements in the Northern Ireland political situation would be embodied in the Executive, and that thereafter it would be a question of the Executive operating in a personal relationship, as it were, with each member of the Assembly rather than with coherent groups in this way.
I very much regret the attitude adopted by Vanguard and certain elements of the Ulster Unionist Party. In the end this will not be constructive. I have quoted the example of the hon. Member for Belfast, West, who is doing something that he would not, perhaps, have chosen to do. But the refusal to participate, the boycotting of the Assembly last Monday, for example, when it was intended to debate unemployment in Northern Ireland—
Mr. Kilfedder: The Assembly does not meet on Mondays. It meets only on Wednesdays. I cannot answer for all my colleagues, but I came over here to take part in a Division and to attend a meeting yesterday. In fact, I have tabled an amendment in the Northern Ireland Assembly and I intend to take part in the debate next week on unemployment. Mr. John Taylor had to be in London yesterday. My hon. Friend the Member for
1594
Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) is in America. It is unfair of the hon. Gentleman to say that there is an organised boycott. I cannot answer for many people, but there were reasons for the absence of a number of people.
Mr. Johnston: I apologise for mixing up the days. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there was no organised boycott, I am glad to hear it. But certainly the hon. Gentleman will agree that it has been said in the Press very distinctly that there was such a boycott. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there was not, that is a welcome statement.
Mr. Kilfedder: I regard the Assembly as important.
Mr. Johnston: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman say so.
A new concept of this sort will take a long time to percolate down to the level at which ordinary people feel that this kind of experiment is working. It would be a great mistake to expect of it too much too quickly. It is a very revolutionary change in the way that we are doing things, certainly within the United Kingdom context and must be seen as such.
The Secretary of State was rightly cautious in what he said about the Council of Ireland. Nevertheless, what he did say was very hopeful. He did not refer to the Council of Ireland within, as it were, the European dimension, but that is an increasing factor with contact between the North and the South. I find with interest that this contact is often occurring in places such as Strasbourg. It does not do any harm to the inflow of ideas. In the end, the European dimension can only be of assistance.
Power sharing is one thing, but the solution to the deep scars in the Northern Ireland community will not be achieved unless there is, beyond that, a sharing of wealth and opportunity. I shall welcome the time when we can have debates on Northern Ireland without talking about politics or political solutions but talking about economics, jobs, housing and so on, to a greater extent than we have done in these last years. For me, as a Liberal, this must be one of the basic reasons for the deep persistence of division. I doubt whether the unemployment rate in Londonderry, for example, has dipped much below 12 per cent. at any time since

1595
the war. At times it has climbed much higher. It is the same sort of pattern in the north-west of Northern Ireland. This must not be allowed to continue in the future.
Those are matters for tomorrow. Today we must welcome the realism and the strength which has made the establishment of this Executive possible. Again I congratulate the Secretary of State on his courage and persistence in creating the conditions whereby it was established.
5.25 p.m.
Mr. W. F. Deedes: The spokesmen for the Labour Party and the Liberal Party have been generous in the praise which they have rightly accorded the Secretary of State. When it comes to a speech from my side of the House I must say "Me, too, only more so."
I regard it as an astonishing feat, and I know that hon. Members will agree with me. While I fully respect the reserve and caution with which my right hon. Friend concluded his speech, he is entitled to a moment of triumph. During recent months there were moments when we would have put long odds against the settlement. We do not like to think how long those odds were at times. However sceptical anybody wishes to be, it has been a triumph against the odds.
One owes a tribute also to those principals taking part in the negotiations. Anybody who knows anything about the Northern Ireland scene may best appreciate the sort of pressures which must have been on those principally concerned—indeed, the risks which were involved for them. One of the principals is a Member of this House, the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). I should certainly like to pay my tribute to him for his part. I know well the circumstances of the hon. Member's life in Northern Ireland. I sometimes ask myself whether in his place I would have had the courage to play the rôle that he has been prepared to play in recent weeks. When I ask myself that I do not get a clear or convincing answer.
This is a dimension with which we are mercifully unfamiliar here. We may take our time in negotiations, but at least we can do so in reasonable safety. We ought to acknowledge that. Those who sit in judgment of people who appear
1596
to drag their feet on negotiations like this should acknowledge that the circumstances in which these events occur in Northern Ireland are very different from what we know here. Nor will those risks be diminished by the settlement. Indeed, it may be otherwise.
The Secretary of State concluded by saying that it was an unhappy fact that there were substantial minorities on both sides who did not want a settlement and who have done all they could to prevent it—by perfectly constitutional means—and who will, still by constitutional means, do all in their power to destroy the settlement which has been achieved.
It would be agreeable to suppose that this development might lead to a cessation of violence. I do not take that for granted. Temporarily, it could have quite the opposite effect. In a sense, those who may have held their hand, hoping against hope that no settlement would be reached, did so in order to see what might happen, and they may now be inclined to enter their own kind of claim. Moreover, the pressures to which both sides have been heavily subjected during the negotiations are likely to increase rather than diminish as the Executive moves into action with the power to act and, we hope, increasingly to take over the reins from the Secretary of State.
One event in the past week—the meeting of the Unionist Council—has illustrated the pressures on one of the participants. It has illustrated also that at least half the party that he represents regards the solution being pursued as unconvincing. The next make-or-break point may well come over the tripartite talks and the Council of All Ireland. I sense that that will be a most difficult region. I think the talks will occur soon. I hope they will be taken at a reasonable pace. Speed may be all-important, but I understand that when my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made his celebrated visit to Dublin one of the points he was at pains to persuade the Prime Minister of the Republic to accept was that the Council of Northern Ireland must await the formation of the Executive in Belfast and that to hasten matters unduly could lead ultimately to failure and disaster. Having got this far, I hope that we shall not now be persuaded to

1597
go faster with the All-Ireland Council than the mood of the North is prepared to accept. If we do, this will be the first point at which the arrangement comes under pressure and risk.
Our best chance of success in avoiding a breakdown will depend on the awareness by the forces involved—I mean the rank and file of the parties engaged—of what the alternatives are to this course of action. The will to make a difficult settlement work can be fatally eroded if it is generally or too widely supposed that we have in waiting some preferable, workable alternative, a safety net, another solution, if this proposal fails.
There are many in the Unionist Party—I judge nearly half the party, if we are to take this week's vote seriously—who regard power sharing as second best and seriously prefer some alternative course. I know that that view is shared by some of my hon. Friends, and I respect their view. They genuinely believe that a better solution, and one which, if we were put to it, we should have to accept, is integration. I can only express a personal view, but I should like to do it now since it can affect thinking about the future. It is that those who believe that are living in cloud-cuckoo-land.
Integration is simply not a viable alternative. The first reason is that it would not be accepted by the House of Commons, either in its present shape or in any conceivable shape that it could get itself into. That is a formidable obstacle to such a move. It would certainly end the bipartisan arrangements that we enjoy with hon. Members opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "That would be no loss."] An hon. Friend of mine says that that would be no loss, but I disagree. But it would also end the era of co-operation with the Irish Republic and the security problems, of which the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) spoke, would then be greatly exacerbated. We should have given notice to the Republic and to its many friends all over the world that, far from seeking closer association between North and South, the two would draw further apart. The campaign to get the British Army out of Northern Ireland would then be translated into a campaign here, probably, to stop integration and to
1598
sever relations with the North. Finally, we should be moving in the reverse direction to that in which, I surmise—it is a difficult surmise to make—the Kilbrandon Commission has suggested we should be moving with regard to devolution.
For all these reasons, it is my positive view that those who talk of integration if things now go wrong are talking of a chimera. It simply would not happen. Yet there are many now campaigning against power sharing who believe that that is the likely alternative.
Of course, conversely, there are those who think that if there were now a breakdown we should simply hasten the unity of Ireland. In the light of the result of the border poll, which some of us attended, I would say that that is totally impossible also. If we tried to force that road too quickly, few of us with experience of the North would doubt that it would lead to civil war.
Then there are those who think that the alternative might be an independent Ulster. There are one or two hon. Members here who nurse that belief. The blunt fact is that by no conceivable means can Ulster become either economically or militarily independent. I would be the first to pay tribute to the way in which Ulster has sustained its industrial effort and productivity through four appalling years—it has been magnificent—but no one can be under any illusions about the extent to which we have underwritten this effort and the amount of money which has gone, and which I hope will continue to go, into the North, nor the degree to which we shall have to continue to sustain the security services with our manpower for a considerable time. So that cat will not jump.
So, after all these alternatives, what we are left with in the event of a breakdown is nothing better than a continuation of direct rule in some form. That is what we should be forced to if this arrangement broke down even at this stage. Such a continuation would not be under the benign auspices of my right hon. Friend—at least, for his sake, I hope that it would not. I know that there are some in Northern Ireland who, if they have not begun to see the attractions of direct rule, have at least found that the character and personality of my right hon. Friend have made it much

1599
less obnoxious than it might have been if conducted by someone else. I doubt whether he will be there to preside over its continuation.
If that is faced realistically, I cannot believe that it is the wish of the majority in Northern Ireland to lose this first and historic opportunity, however fragile, to get a working representative Government—because this is what it is all about. This is the first chance—we can go right back before 1922—of a representative Government for the North. Either they build on the foundations so patiently and painfully laid by my right hon. Friend or they face a future too bleak to contemplate.
5.36 p.m.
Mr. Frank McManus: There is a feeling abroad among the general public that Secretaries of State. Front Benchers and leading back benchers are staid and sober statesmen who are not easily swayed by emotion. These people would have been surprised to witness the extent of the euphoria which has obtained here today and has been carefully orchestrated so far in the debate—perhaps deliberately so.
It is, therefore, perhaps churlish of me to strike a discordant note, but I must say "Stop a minute and save your breath before the cheering breaks out; you will need it to cheer the next set of proposals which will inevitably come before the House when the present ones, as I believe, break down."
There has been a breakthrough, I suppose. The Secretary of State's statement was greeted as such. It is a propaganda breakthrough which has been carefully worked at and orchestrated up to this point. For the past several weeks the people, especially in Northern Ireland, have been fed a daily diet of talks, crunch issues, cliff-hangers, projections and numbers games now, finally, by some sort of wizardry, the thing is all fitted together and we have a breakthrough.
To garble the words of a former well-known Member of this House, never in recent history has so much been said by so many about so little. The whole thing has been organised, it appears, as a fanfare for the departure of the Secretary of State to another appointment. If he gets
1600
the one we think he is in line for, I hope that the miners will be much tougher negotiators than the people who met him in Stormont Castle.
I want to deal with these proposals from a minority point of view. If the principal party representing the minority point of view had achieved anything in these negotiations, I am ready to believe that it would have carried with it most of those on the minority side. But it achieved nothing substantial. In fact, it surrendered all along the line for what, again using a quotation, one might call a mess of pottage.
Let us consider what it gave and what it got. One could set up a table. It accepted the Constitution Act, thereby defining for itself a Unionist position because the Constitution Act lays down that there will be no change for at least 10 years. Therefore, for 10 years at least the SDLP will be Unionist. After 10 years it may become something else but only time will tell.
The SDLP members have accepted the RUC and have supported that as demanded by Mr. Faulkner. The House should be aware by now that there is something wrong with the RUC. It has been an accepted fact in Northern Ireland for years that the RUC is unacceptable in its present form as a police force. Indeed, the SDLP campaigned in the election on that issue and won votes on it.
The SDLP withdrew support from the rate and rent strike. It withdrew—and this was the most shameful act of all—all meaningful opposition to internment and detention without trial. In return for that the SDLP—and this received massive publicity over many weeks—received a share of the less important Executive jobs. One of those jobs involves a debt collection agency for those on rent and rate strike. I refer to the Minister of Health and Social Security, who, in effect, will be a debt collector in relation to the people who voted him into office. That will be an interesting exercise.
I ask the Minister when he replies to tell the House about the changes which have taken place in the administration of the Civil Service over the last few months. Will he tell the House whether a new section is being set up to deal with management and personnel and to group most appointments within the Finance

1601
Department so that, in effect, many—and certainly most of the major—appointments from now on will be made from that central body in the Ministry of Finance? Even on the portfolios given to the SDLP it appears to me—and I hope I shall be contradicted by the Minister in his reply—that the vital job of appointing senior civil servants will no longer be within its power. Many promises have been given about releases.
Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman is on an interesting and valid point. Has he any comment to make about the control of finance itself? As we know, in this House each Department must look to the Treasury—in other words, to the Ministry of Finance—for its money. No Department can put through a scheme without Treasury approval. Will he comment on that aspect of the matter?
Mr. McManus: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing that to my attention. I thought I said that the Ministry of Finance is the vital Ministry. It was part of the bargain that that would have to stay in Unionist hands—in other words, the system of appointing people still remains in the same hands. Therefore, the vicious circle of discrimination perpetuating itself cannot be broken for at least 20 or 25 years.
To return to the promises, I was saying that promises have been received about releases of internees hedged about in the same language as used on the day when internment was introduced have been told, "If and when security allows, people will be released"—but not until then. That was the position over two-and-a-half years ago, and it is still the position today.
The SDLP was also given promises about Army behaviour. It was given promises about a Council of Ireland. I waited with interest to hear what the Secretary of State had to say about that matter. He confirmed my worst fears. That idea from its inception has not been a matter of organic growth, because all decisions had to be unanimous. It is a crazy situation. If the Unionists or anyone else do not like what is going on, they will merely have to say "We do not agree with you" and out goes the Council of Ireland. The Council as at present conceived appears to be totally meaningless. I say with many of my
1602
colleagues: what powers and what sharing, indeed!
The package, wrapped up in glowing promises might find favour with certain people in the Catholic middle-class minority. These are the people who have never felt the lash of a biased judiciary, incessant harassment, internment and brutality in the last four years. Nor in the last 50 years have they had to endure the scourge of economic deprivation and systematic discrimination. This section of the Catholic community, who have been foremost among those who have propelled the SDLP towards acceptance of this Bill, is now examining the package with interest to see where lies the prospect of enhancement and profit.
At the same time as Milton would have said
"The hungry sheep look up and are not fed".
it must be said that in the proposals there is not even a crumb of comfort for the downtrodden working class—certainly on the minority side. I can speak only for working-class people on the minority side, but I think it can also be said that there are not many crumbs of comfort for the working-class on any side in the North of Ireland.
The SDLP from this moment on cannot, and will not, escape the logic of the situation which it now faces. Its members have become part of a Unionist administration defined by Act of Parliament. They have officially joined a military and political machine which was specifically designed to crush the aspirations of the people who voted them into their present positions. For how long, we ask, will people in the minority excuse boots on their neck because some of them happen to belong to the Catholics? I believe that they will not do so for very long.
The proposals will probably function, but most assuredly I believe they will not work in the sense of making a contribution to peace and stability in the North of Ireland. I find it hard ever to agree with Mr. Craig, who spends most of his time hate-mongering in a sectarian fashion, but he may be right when he described these proposals as a recipe for further violence. I wish it were not so, but I fear that he is possibly right. The proposals are so full of basic contradictions that they bear within themselves the seeds of their own destruction.

1603
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about one matter which I, too, wish to take up. Will the Minister in his reply make some definitive statement whether the Executive will operate on a basis of collective responsibility? For example, if the Minister of Commerce—an SDLP man—introduces a measure that is repugnant to Loyalists, as was the resolution to abolish the Mace and the Speaker's Chair, will the Loyalists vote en bloc as they did to restore the Mace and the Speaker's Chair and the old-established practices of Stormont? If they then defeat a measure introduced by a member of the SDLP, will that be taken as a vote of no confidence in the Executive and will the Executive resign? If it resigns, by what device is the Executive to be put together again, and on what basis can the SDLP or the official Unionists go to the country to seek an election back to the Executive?
This is a central point in the whole affair. There are a whole range of subjects which may be contentious. If a proposals is put forward by one side or the other and, following a vote of no confidence, the whole thing collapses, it seems to me that under the Act there is no method whereby it can be put back together again. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some guidance on that.
Finally, I remind hon. Members that the Constitution Act lays down that there must be widespread support in the community at large for the power-sharing Executive. It is clear that there is not widespread support for it. On the Unionist side, Mr. Faulkner got through on the narrowest of possible majorities, 12. I know that the Conservative Prime Minister got the United Kingdom into the Common Market on an equally slender majority, but we hope that we are more democratic in Northern Ireland. No one will suggest that a majority of 12 can be interpreted as widespread support for any proposition.
On the minority side, it is true that the SDLP got 19 of its members elected the Assembly and that no other minority representative was elected. On the face of it, it looks as if the SLDP speaks with one voice for the entire minority. But that is far from the
1604
case. The SDLP got a mandate on the strength of certain election promises, all of which have now gone out of the window. It is clear from the result today in a local government by-election, where a Republic Club candidate beat an SDLP candidate in a crunch election in Derry, that the tide is beginning to flow fiercely against the SDLP for the action that the party is now taking.
Mr. Stanley Orme: My hon. Friend should be accurate when he refers to this as an election defeat. Was not the seat already held by a Republican Club member? It was not a defeat for the SDLP.
Mrs. Bernadette McAliskey: Yes, it was.
Mr. McManus: The defence of the SDLP by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is extremely touching, but it is not accurate. The SDLP forced out the sitting member on a technicality, alleging that he did not qualify for his seat. The chief electoral officer recommended that he be allowed to retain his seat, but the SDLP saw an opening whereby it could snaffle all the seats, and it forced a by-election. However, the people of South Derry have given the SDLP their answer. I take that as a pointer that the tide is now flowing swiftly in the opposite direction.
I put it to the Secretary of State: there is a debate here, so why not put it to the test? The British system depends very much on elections. Apparently the Secretary of State can ordain an election at the stroke of a pen. I ask him to take up his pen and ordain another General Election in the North of Ireland on this issue to ask the people what they think about it. I am willing to bet that certainly those on the minority side would reject it. The minority population are not interested in sharing a modicum of power ordained by a British Minister. They are interested only in real power sharing with Irishmen in the conduct of their own affairs.
5.53 p.m.
Captain L. P. S. Orr: As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State very modestly denied himself any self-congratulation on what has just occurred. However, I agree that it would be churlish

1605
to deny that my right hon. Friend has shown great diplomatic skill and has had considerable success in timing the production of this achievement on the eve of today's debate. It is a remarkable feat. I am certain that my right hon. Friend will move on to the higher spheres that he is expected to attain with all our good wishes and our hope that he will use his considerable talents in whatever new appointment comes his way.
In the near future, following a fair gap since last July, it is clear that we have quite a number of debates to come. We shall have to debate the Council of Ireland proposition. We shall have to debate the new legislation concerned with the setting up of the administration. We shall have the Order in Council itself, which will give us the opportunity to express our views upon the package when the package is seen as a whole.
As my right hon. Friend and others know, I have been opposed throughout to the Constitution Act. I am opposed to the philosophy underlying Section 2 of that Act. Therefore, I cannot be expected to welcome what has occurred. I intend to reserve my main comments for when we see the package as a whole and we come to the substantive debates. At this stage, however, it is as well for this House of Commons to understand exactly what is taking place. The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) put his finger upon the real issues involved.
What we have done by the operation of this section and what the various negotiations have resulted in is the creation of a new political party by statute. It is significant that among the new appointments which are to be made there are to be a Chief Whip and other Whips. That is characteristic of a political party. Let us not be afraid to face the issue. If these proposals go forward, if the further hurdles which exist are overcome and if my right hon. Friend is able to bring forward his Order in Council saying that he considers that Section 2 has been met and the Executive is actually formed, a new political party has been formed in Ulster, the Unionist, Social Democratic and Labour Alliance.
Mr. Maginnis: Taking my hon. and gallant Friend's argument a little further,
1606
would it not be nonsensical to have further elections in Northern Ireland in the future?
Captain Orr: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for reminding me of that. I shall be coming to elections in a moment.
Let us be clear that we are creating a new political party. After the new political party has been elected we shall try to say that we will not have an election to test whether that new party has the consent of the people. As the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone pointed out, it is plain that it will not have the support of at least a substantial portion of the minority community. That has always been understood. But what is more important is that it will not have the support of the majority of the majority community. That is plain from the figures of the electorate.
Section 2 lays down specifically that the Secretary of State has to consider not only the position of the various political parties and their strengths in the Assembly but the electorates upon which they are based. There is no doubt that if one applies that criterion the majority of the majority community are opposed to the formation of this new political party.
Mr. A. W. Stallard: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is making a very interesting and logical assessment of this new Executive. For my benefit, will he take the matter a stage further and explain what he sees to be the duties of the new Chief Whip in the set-up?
Captain Orr: The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) asks me the question which I imagine will bewilder almost everyone. Presumably the new Executive will rest upon the votes of the people who, in a sense, join the new political party. They will consist of those Unionists who go with Mr. Faulkner together with those members of the SDLP who go with Mr. Fitt and one or two others. That will become the alliance. That will become the new political party. It is that group which the new Chief Whip and his deputy will supervise. If that is not the position, it is difficult to understand what will be the function of the new Chief Whip, and it will be very interesting to know what it is proposed to

1607
pay him. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North has asked a very sensible question.
Let us be plain. It is necessary to understand clearly what is happening. We are setting up a new political party by statute which does not command majority support among the electorate. I will not comment any further than to say that in my view that is not a recipe for peace, order and stability.
I welcome and emphasise what has been said by hon. Members on both sides about deeply deploring any suggestion that what is being done should be resisted by violence. It should not. I condemn in advance anyone who might seek to do so. However, I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that attempts will be made to bring about a violent reaction to what is taking place.
While these negotiations have been going on, and since Third Reading of the Constitution Act, there has been an air in the Press and everywhere else that things are getting better in Ulster. I have the figures of what has happened since we last discussed Northern Ireland in this House and I will put them on record.
There has been a total of 65 dead: one member of the RUC, two members of the RUC Reserves, nine soldiers, four members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and 49 civilians. There have been 379 explosions in which 253 people have been injured. So far this month there have been 97 explosions in which six people have died and the overall number of deaths is 20.
That is the background against which we are considering these proposals. It was thought, perhaps, on the passing of the Constitution Act, that things might get better. They have not got better.
I fear that there will be a recrudescence of violence on both sides of the political fence. I profoundly hope that I am wrong. I should be delighted to be proved wrong. But I sincerely believe that this is what we are about to face.
I cannot see that proceeding with something that is not, in a sense, government by consent will mitigate the situation. I have the gravest doubts about what is being done.
Mr. McMaster: Does my hon. and gallant Friend agree that of the 900 killed 614 have been killed in the last 20 months while we have had direct rule for Northern Ireland; that is, since March 1972, when Stormont was suspended? Clearly, direct rule does not reduce the numbers killed; it only increases them. The numbers killed were much smaller when there was some parliamentary body working in Northern Ireland.
Captain Orr: I completely fail to understand the relevance of my hon. Friend's interruption. I was talking about the background to the figures and what has happened since we passed the Constitution Act in this House. My hon. Friend may be right about what has happended since direct rule. I pray God that we never go back to direct rule. I should not wish to see that again.
There are alternatives. People have said to me "This is the only scheme that can work. The enforcing of a new political party not commanding majority support upon the community is the only solution. There is no alternative." It is a pathetic argument.
There must be alternatives. One simple alternative that commends itself to me—I realise it does not meet the wishes of other hon. Members—is to accept for Northern Ireland what Kilbrandon put forward and recommended as the right solution for Scotland. Kilbrandon recommended that we should have 17 Members in this House. I think we should have more. But that at least would be a contribution. We could then operate the Constitution Act if we wished. It requires very little modification to retain the Assembly provided that the people of Northern Ireland are properly represented, but at present it is neither one thing nor the other.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman agree that any alternative for Northern Ireland must be acceptable to the people not only of Northern Ireland but of Great Britain? Does he agree that if this proposal breaks down and a further proposition has to be put forward, the British as well as the Northern Irish people must be consulted?
Captain Orr: We have had this argument many times, as the hon. Gentleman

1609
well knows. I should accept the decisions of this House provided that every part of the kingdom is fairly represented here. I think that the decision of the people of Northern Ireland ought to be accepted. We are now proposing to set up an Executive Government based on a new political party, an enforced coalition, which does not have the wholehearted consent of the people of Northern Ireland.
Mr. Wellbeloved: Or of Britain.
Captain Orr: The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), in a very searching speech, put forward several points, some of which I had intended to raise. However, the hon. Gentleman omitted to ask about the cost of adding to the Executive the proposed new positions? What will be the precise relationship between these new Ministers, as it were, and the rest of the Executive? Will it be the kind of relationship that exists between the Cabinet and Ministers who are not in the Cabinet? Are they to be the same common ministerial responsibility? I think we are entitled to know what the position is likely to be.
There is almost bound to be a recrudescence or acceleration of violence. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will deal with this matter in more detail. Are the Government making any special preparations in advance? What is their thinking on this matter?
The hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone spoke of the number of people in detention. I am told that at the moment there are about 2,343 people in prisons of various kinds in Ulster. Some are awaiting trial. It is a huge number of people in a very small community. I know that my right hon. Friend and others are concerned about the position, but it looks, if the situation deteriorates, as though we shall have a serious problem. The Minister should tell us what he has in mind for the prisoners and the state of the prison service.
I am sorry to strike what may appear to be a note of gloom. I agree with the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone that euphoria in politics can be dangerous at times. It can mislead people into thinking that something is getting better. It can be a good thing if things really are getting better and some proposition
1610
is sensibly founded. But this proposition is not firmly founded in popular support. For that reason, euphoria about it carries a deadly danger.
6.12 p.m.
Mrs. Bernadette McAliskey: Judging by the tone of the debate and its development, it would appear that the statesmanlike Members of the House, the "moderates", the "responsibles", the "respectables", have as usual, gone before, and, if I may include myself so as not to be called to order, the rabble have followed after.
I want to follow the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) in adding my note but not of gloom or despondency. I do not feel that the Executive will work but I am not gloomy about it because I do not feel that it should work. I do not feel that it should be allowed to work, and I do not feel it should even be allowed to attempt to work.
This is because it has been set up in such haste, because it has been set up in such a manner of compromise. The only positive reason that seems to emerge for its setting up is that it enables the Secretary of State to depart with the flags waving and the trumpets blaring. At any time during his period of office, if he guarantees to go, I will blow the trumpets and wave the flags. I do not see any need to set up this elaborate farce simply to allow him to move with honour from a very difficult position to what looks like being an even more difficult position.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—whom I was once pleased to call an hon. Friend of mine—is not present. The basis of my criticism is not directed essentially against the British Government. I do not expect the British imperialist Government to behave like anything other than the British imperialist Government. But I certainly have a right to expect, as do the people who voted for the SDLP in the last election, to expect them to behave in the manner in which they pledged themselves to behave before the election.
We were told, while these crunch issues were incessantly coming up in the pages of the local newspapers, that there were three main, vital, principal issues

1611
at stake for the SDLP. I remember when there were many more. They were whittled down, everything given away, until three last vital issues remained. They were internment, the police and the Council of Ireland. The simple reason why those three issues existed as a bone of contention was that they were the last remaining links between the SDLP and its support in the Catholic working class. The SDLP from the outset claimed it had neither social nor economic disagreement with the Unionist Party. I have never in political history heard of a Social Democratic Party that had no social or economic differences with the Tory Party. That leaves both parties, in the wider political spectrum, in exactly the same position.
If the Executive works, consider the prospect of just one man, Mr. Paddy Devlin, a member of the SDLP, who is likely to become Minister of Health and Social Services. Will that one and the same Paddy Devlin who stood with me on the streets of Northern Ireland and exorted people not to pay their rent, rates, electricity bills or television licences—and I admit responsibility for it because I still do it—turn around to these people for whom he is responsible and out of their unemployment benefit, without their consent, out of their earnings-related supplement, without their consent, and out of their exceptional needs grant, their family allowances, their maternity benefits and allowance, without their consent take the arrears owed to the State by working-class families? Does the Minister believe that Paddy Devlin will retain one ounce of credibility in his own community when he plays debt collector to the British Government?
I come to the three main issues. Again I remember the hon. Member for Belfast, West and his cohorts of brothers in exile standing on the platform with me and other Members of Parliament and those who are now members of the Assembly. We pledged that there would be no move towards a final solution of the problem of Northern Ireland until the question of internment was solved. Now we have an Executive-designate. Now we have the hon. Member for Belfast, West—the flip-side of Mr. Faulkner—standing before us, and we have nothing on internment
1612
but a vague promise that if things get better the men will get out.
I ask the House to consider what the reaction will be in the prisons, where there are 2,000 men and women, and in the internment camps, particularly among the Catholic community, when they discover on their televisions tonight that the SDLP has agreed to set in motion the final solution in Northern Ireland and that there has not been one step taken on their behalf. Small wonder if they wreck the prisons and internment camps when they hear that.
What of the Council of Ireland? I remember Mr. John Hume, on his many personality appearances on television, telling us not only that it was to be a united Ireland or nothing, but, much more recently and more soberly, that we were to have a Council of Ireland with teeth. It is a weird Council of Ireland which not only has no teeth but has neither flesh nor bones. It requires only one member of the Unionist Party to register his disagreement over an issue to defeat this, and undoubtedly the Unionist Party will do this because it is not as stupid as the SDLP, I have discovered. Therefore, the Council of Ireland means nothing.
The SDLP has got nothing on internment, nothing on the Council of Ireland and nothing on the police, except that one or two of its members will be able to play chief dog and order a few policemen around their area. That brings us back to the question of where the SDLP always stood in the struggle against British imperialism. If we trace the party and its personalities back to the beginning, I am reminded of one quotation that will be familiar to people who will not consider it to be a mark of statesmanship to turn Quisling. There will be those who remember the quotation:
"Far better the grave and the prison alone by one patriot name
Than the glory of men who have risen on Liberty's ruin to fame."
Let the SDLP have its Executive, its positions, its Ministry of Health and Social Services. It has made one significant thing clear. As and from now it is part of British imperialism's plan for Ireland. As and from now it is part of the British establishment. As and from now it is the enemy of the Irish people.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Stratton Mills: The House has listened to an attack on the SDLP from the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey). It was a bitter, uncompromising attack which I think will bring home to Members in this House the sort of problems and pressures which have been faced by all the parties taking part in the discussions. I do not intend to enter into controversy with the hon. Lady except to say that it is easy for her to make a bitter, forget-nothing sort of speech but that there are many of us who recognise that we must compromise and try to create new political institutions for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland, not for some long forgotten Irish Republican dogma of the hon. Lady—
Mrs. McAliskey: I think it was quite clearly pointed out, both in what I said and in what previous speakers said, that the present Executive holds nothing for the ordinary people in Northern Ireland. It is self-admitted to be exactly the same, socially and economically, as what we had before. Politically it is Humpty Dumpty and it would be better if he had never got on the wall.
Mr. Mills: The hon. Lady has made her point and the House will note the pressures, from the two extremes on either side, upon the parties in the middle who are trying to create these new institutions.
I want to move to other matters and say that, for many of us who have lived through the last four or five years, this is a very important occasion. One recognises it as a very major step forward though, using the words of the Duke of Wellington, it seems at stages to have been a "damned close run thing".
Others have paid their tributes to the Secretary of State today. I merely wish to add mine by emphasising one quality which was of vital importance to Northern Ireland, and that is his patience in listening and in discussing. In addition to that, there is his capacity for sheer hard work. I would go further and say that I do not believe there is any other member of the Cabinet who could have brought us so far in reaching this agreement, as did my right hon. Friend.
I should also like to put on record the major achievement of the three political
1614
parties which took part in the negotiations because, unlike the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster, they were prepared to put Northern Ireland and the people of Northern Ireland before purely political considerations. They showed courage and determination to compromise in trying to create a new mould, and I agreed with a certain amount of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said in that respect.
The House will know that I have felt that the White Paper approach is the correct one. I freely admit that it cannot guarantee success, but I feel that it offers the best chance of some form of stability and the best chance of creating new political institutions in Northern Ireland. But I think the House will accept it from me more readily than from others if I say that we should not be carried away by euphoria. I cannot emphasise that too strongly, because there are very many hurdles and problems still to be overcome. This is a big step forward, but it is not the end of the journey.
Mr. McManus: Before the hon. Gentleman passes from that point, may I say that this House well knows that as a member of the Alliance Party he has all along been the principal supporter of the White Paper. For that reason I would ask him whether he thinks that his party has been very scantily rewarded for that loyal service, because his party is to be allocated the job of being in charge of legal reform. The Secretary of State made it quite clear that that job would not interfere in any way with the functions of the Attorney-General, so it appears to be a totally new and ill-defined job. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can tell me what he thinks will be the job with which his party has been rewarded.
Mr. Mills: I am deeply touched by, and appreciative of, the concern of the hon. Gentleman. What has been put together is a package of compromises, and I do not think it serves any useful purpose to start unwrapping each layer and examining every little piece. I acknowledge that this is a set of compromise proposals.
What I was saying before I was diverted by the hon. Gentleman was that

1615
there are still some very considerable hurdles to come. The biggest and most difficult of them, though it will not, I believe, be impossible, is in relation to the Council of Ireland and the tripartite talks. I was very glad that my right hon. Friend emphasised today that the Council of Ireland could operate only on the basis of the consent of the majority and minority in Northern Ireland. It is easy to build paper institutions but, as the Secretary of State stressed, they can operate only on the basis of consent and, in this case, unanimity. A pattern cannot be imposed.
My right hon. Friend stressed that the bodies to which he referred would have their own secretariat. One hopes that they will have a certain dynamic behind them and will not be of the purely Civil Service type, and that they will also include people from the universities, trade unions and industry and people with broad experience of public life. As I understand it, there are to be preliminary tripartite talks before the Executive is endorsed by this House, and I should like to know whether each of the three parties will go to those talks as individual parties rather than as a loose form of Executive. Also, what will be the procedure for decision making at these talks? I assume that there will have to be a basis of unanimity, but it is important to get this point clear.
It is important to stress that there are bound to be very considerable strains on the system during the first three, six or 12 months until the institutions start to operate effectively, and very considerable powers of statesmanship will be required of the parties concerned. Furthermore, they will have breathing down their necks the two extremes, one of which we have already heard today from the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster and the other we shall no doubt bear later in this debate. In addition the parties may well be operating against a pattern of violence inspired for political reasons, not by the political parties but by other elements, in order to try to destroy the Executive.
I assume that my right hon. Friend will very soon be moving to another
1616
post, but I beg the Prime Minister to recognise, as I am sure he will, that the job is not yet over. There is still a great deal of work to be done and it will be necessary to have a figure of major political significance in the post of Secretary of State. Hon. Members have referred to Section 8 of the Act, which deals with the requirement of "widespread consent" for the Executive. This is something of which one can only make one's own evaluation, but it is my belief that a very broad cross-section of the people of Northern Ireland want to give these institutions a chance. It is interesting to note that three parties comprising a total of 48 out of the 78 seats are endorsing these proposals. That is at least a base upon which to start.
There is, however, one problem I must pinpoint which is of great importance. The Loyalist coalition represents some 27 out of the 78 seats. Its support rests on the votes of many ordinary, decent Protestants throughout the community. I shall not comment on some of the leaders of those political parties because that would be irrelevant. These ordinary, decent Protestants have fears and anxieties. One of the lessons of Northern Ireland in the last 50 years is that we must not produce a system in which one section of the community is alienated, as was much of the Catholic community, because that would only create enormous problems.
I do not want those who are represented by the Loyalist coalition to be totally alienated from the system, because that would create a tremendous problem for the future. When the Executive comes into being, therefore, it must pay particular attention to this and to try to bind up the wounds over the next few years. I was pleased to hear what the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, that this was not a sell-out to a united Ireland, and that is my belief. It cannot be said too often. As the hon. Member said, a united Ireland is not this House's gift.
We have gone part of the way politically but there are still many problems. Although I have had my differences with Mr. Faulkner, I wish him well in his post as Chief Executive. I wish the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) well in his post as Deputy Chief Executive

1617
and I will give all the support and backing that I can to the new Executive when it is formed.
6.33 p.m.
Mr. James Wellbeloved: I intervene with reluctance and hesitancy in a debate of this nature on such grave matters, particularly since I represent an English constituency and I have no Irish ancestry. I have put forward in Irish debates a particular point of view which, though not shared by many hon. Members, is shared, I believe, by a considerable number of people in Britain.
Before I get on to the more controversial aspect of my remarks, I would like to say to the Secretary of State and to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) that I recognise the long and tortuous path they have had to tread in recent months in trying to bring about this move forward for their Constitution Act. I say "their Constitution Act" because it has been passed with bipartisan support with both my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman playing a formal and an informal rôle in the open and behind the scenes to bring about agreement. They have conducted themselves as they believe in the best interests of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.
Those politicians who are to form the Executive are. I believe, very brave men whatever their political views because they are on the ground and must accept the responsibility, and they know it. They are doing something which I say with great humility I do not know whether I would have the courage to do if I were living in the realities of Northern Ireland.
However, I must now return to my point of view. Like the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), I have not supported the Northern Ireland Constitution Act and have voted against the principle on each occasion that it has come before the House. I did so because I believed deeply, sincerely and passionately that it was based upon the fallacies and mistakes of the past. It is based upon the belief that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and shall remain so as long as the majority of the people in Northern Ireland so wish it.
1618
In my view, that cannot be the basis of any meaningful settlement of the tragedy of Ireland and the tragedy that Ireland has inflicted on my country. I had better retract that, because I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) will immediately challenge me because she sees it the other way. Let us therefore describe it as the tragedy of our entangled history over so many centuries which has brought nothing but misery and destruction on each side of the Irish Sea.
There is a state of euphoria among the people in Britain who believe that the Secretary of State has found a way to overcome the problem. I am certain that a fair body of opinion in Northern Ireland, sickened by the death and destruction, desperately hopes that the constitution will work and that the Executive and the power sharing will be successful. However, I cannot share their hope because I believe it to be based upon a fallacy. All we shall succeed in doing is to put off the crisis from this generation and this Parliament to some future generation—not to far distant—and some other Parliament which will have ultimately to recognise that the destiny of Ireland is a matter for the people of Ireland. I entirely share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South that we do not hold it as our gift in Britain to bring about the unification of Ireland even if we thought that desirable. That could come only from agreement among the Irish people themselves.
As I have said so many times, until Northern Ireland is freed from the shackles of Britain and is made an independent and separate State able to negotiate with the South, Irishman to Irishman, both representing independent identities, there will be no real solution.
Mr. Stallard: Is my hon. Friend recommending UDI for Northern Ireland?
Mr. Wellbeloved: This Parliament should have recognised these facts and should have set about transferring power peacefully and constitutionally as it has done throughout the old empire to the indigenous people of the territories and colonies. I do not suggest that Northern Ireland should follow the example of Rhodesia or anywhere else, but it should have been given the opportunity to create

1619
for itself the sort of State which it wishes to have.
Captain Orr: Surely the hon. Member recognises the difference between granting independence to indigenous people who want it and trying to force it upon those who do not.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I am not so certain that within a fairly short time there will not be a majority in Northern Ireland who share my view that independence is the best way forward, free from all the inhibitions that continued links with Britain create.
The right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) went through what he saw as the various alternatives facing Northern Ireland. He dismissed independence and said that what would happen if the constitution broke down or power sharing did not work would be a return to direct rule. If the constitution does not work and power sharing breaks down, the most likely reason for the breakdown will be a continuation or an escalation of violence. In such circumstances, to talk about the continuation of direct rule is to say that the right hon. Gentleman believes that the British people will for ever be prepared to see the British Army sent to die for a mistaken policy. That is what will happen if direct dule is considered as the only alternative. We would have to accept that for a long time ahead we would need to send soldiers to Northern Ireland to try to uphold an impossible policy.
Mr. David James: No sensible man would object to a united Ireland, whether it be in the short, medium or long term, but has the hon. Gentleman, in the speech he makes so often, contemplated the type of civil war which would break out if the policies he advocates were now adopted?
Mr. Wellbeloved: I do not accept the assessment that an elected Assembly in Northern Ireland, sitting at a round table with an item on the agenda for transferring power to Northern Ireland, would necessarily lead to the vast civil war that the hon. Gentleman, among others, foresees.
My assessment is different. I do not believe that there is any solution to Northern Ireland which does not contain
1620
grave difficulties and, I regret to say, bloodshed. But my solution of independence is no more likely to bring about bloodshed than the mistaken policies of successive British Governments. The toll of dead over many centuries, while we have tried to impose a British solution on Northern Ireland, would weigh low against what might happen if independence were granted.
It is a matter of individual assessment, and my assessment is as good as that the of the hon. Gentleman. Putting the lid back on the problem is not a proper course of action. We have missed an opportunity to bring finality to the continuing tragedy of our link over Northern Ireland. Time will tell whether those Catholics and Protestants, or those civilians and members of the security forces, who have recently lost their lives in Northern Ireland died in vain.
Regardless of whether there is a temporary period of peace, I am certain in my heart and mind that sooner or later there will be another upsurge of violence and that men will never rest in Northern Ireland as long as the link with Britain continues. The only basic solution is to recognise that fact and to begin to think along the lines of an independent Northern Ireland, which would continue to receive economic support from Britain until such time as the Irish people can co-operate among themselves to bring peace, harmony and prosperity to their land.
6.43 p.m.
Mr. David James: Strangely enough, I find that in the end I am more in agreement with the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved) than he might believe.
However, I first wish to join in the chorus of congratulation to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on his remarkable patience in achieving the situation now reached. Everyone agrees that it is a delicate plant that will need much nurturing, particularly in the first few months. I see some dangers, however, in the hardy growth of this new plant. These dangers lie under two sensitive heads, religion and violence. I put religion first because I have increasingly come to the conclusion that religion is the source of violence.

1621
In this situation there is the problem of the double minority. In the North of Ireland the Catholics are in a minority. They feel very exposed, and it is possible that they have been subjected to maltreatment over the past 50 years. They would like to be rejoined with the Republic.
On the other hand—I ask the hon. Gentleman to take particular note of this—there is in greater Ireland a minority of Protestants who are desperately afraid of a united Ireland because they would be outnumbered. The reason for their fear is simple. Seventy years ago there were 800,000 Protestants in the Republic of Ireland. At the latest count there were 132,000. It is true that more Protestants emigrated from the South because they did not like the 1920 Treaty, and that more have gone to America and elsewhere, but the underlying reason is that, whenever there has been a mixed marriage between Protestant and Catholic, the children of such a union, owing to the Papal decree Ne Temere, have been Catholic. Therefore, whenever the two communities meet in marriage the children are Catholic, and the Protestant culture and religion find themselves rigorously squeezed out. I say that as a Catholic.
Roman Catholic clerics in the Republic and the North see, and clerics in this country are beginning to see, that the entire character and nature of the Catholic Church has changed since the time when I became a convert nearly 30 years ago. In the old days, the logic was that, as the Catholic Church was the one purveyor of the whole truth and nothing but the truth, any reasonable man must bring up his children in that profession. Therefore, the Protestant partner in a mixed marriage was made to sign an undertaking, which under Republic law was binding until fairly recently, that the children would be brought up as Catholics.
However, ever since the days of Pope John, a different spirit has moved the Catholic Church. There is now a widespread belief that to impose one's views in that way is to infringe very deeply on the most fundamental personal liberty.
The practice in the Catholic Church which has grown un in that church since Vatican II is that, if there is a good reason why the marriage should take place in a Protestant church, perhaps
1622
because the bride wants to be married from the church round the corner, so be it, and that if the parents decide that they want to bring up their children in a different faith, they are fully entitled to do so. The wording used in the rest of the world is that parents should use their best endeavours under all circumstances to ensure that children have a proper religious upbringing—no more than that.
When I consider how the tension between the two communities can be lowered, the biggest breakthrough I can see is that the Catholic Church in Ireland, in both the North and the South, should relax the almost Victorian rigours which used to apply and use the modern criterion that parents are entitled to follow their own conscience in such matters, and that what they do with their children is their own affair, so that the Protestants have removed from their future the real fear of genocide, of being obliterated from the map in Ireland. I do not understate that.
Mr. Christopher Woodhouse: Would my hon. Friend seek to apply that principle to the education of children in Northern Ireland, so that their parents could choose what kind of school they should be sent to?
Mr. James: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for asking that question. I shall come to that very point as the second leg of my argument.
What I am suggesting is that the Catholic Church in Ireland should fall into line with Catholic practices throughout the greater part of the rest of the world, that it should relax the Papal decree Ne Temere, to the point where children of mixed marriages should be educated in the manner agreed by the parents, not in a manner imposed on them by an external body. One of the hopeful things in 1969 was that mixed marriages in Northern Ireland were about 30 per cent. of all marriages. Such a relaxation as I have suggested would do an enormous amount to relax tension and start to create the sort of circumstances in which the new constitution can work.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Woodhouse) rightly said, the Catholic Church must also make a move in education. In Northern Ireland there are two groups completely polarised, not only in terms of religion and race. One

1623
is undoubtedly Celt and the other is undoubtedly Anglo-Saxon. They are also polarised in the games they play at school and the history books they read. Everything is designed to separate the two cultures. I do not see any hope for a united Ireland, a united Britain or a united Northern Ireland until the parents and the children live together.
The recent settlement represents a great and well-deserved breakthrough for a Catholic community which has suffered many disabilities over the years, but it is in the moment of triumph that people should be generous. The Roman Catholic Church has a major obligation to show generosity at this time. It is no use clerics passing by on the other side of the street saying "This is a political problem. We leave it to you in Westminster." They have a major rôle to play.
Many of the parish and middle clergy see that quite clearly. It has not yet been brought home on the hierarchy either of Ireland or of England. But I cannot believe that in the twentieth century, after Vatican II, the hierarchy will continue to pass by on the other side when men are dying daily in the streets.
The other great difficulty for the new set-up is violence, which flows from the religious problem. I want to do my little bit to bring home more to people that the pathetic thing about violence is how abysmally counter-productive it is. Let us assume for the purpose of argument that all the men of violence are well-intentioned men who wish to see their world come true. I do not believe it for a minute, but let us assume it. One would have expected them to calculate the end product.
Historians are now prepared fully to admit that the one casualty of both 1916 and 1921–22 was any prospect of Irish unity. The Protestant community in the North were frightened away from any such project. I do not want to job back to the past other than to make the point, but I believe that in 1969, the time of the O'Neill-Lemass meeting and so on, relations between the North and South of Ireland were becoming so relaxed that, if the IRA had not come in on the coattails of a respectable and fully justified civil rights movement, there would have been de facto a united Ireland today,
1624
within the terms of our joint membership of the EEC.
The tragedy of the IRA, in so far as one can invest the IRA with any good intentions, is that its good intentions have been totally negatived by the predictable outcome of its own acts. By the same token, the recent outbursts of Protestant violence—designed, we are assured, to keep Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom—succeed only in making my constituents believe that they want no part with any of the people over there. Therefore, both sides' violence is directed against their own best interests.
Both sides suffer from one piece of shortsightedness. They have an emotional conviction that they are soldiers in the front line of battle in a great war, that the war will be over—as though that sort of war will lead to any victor—and the honourable prisoners of war will return in triumph to their villages and communities as heroes.
Like everyone else, I want to see internment ended at the earliest possible moment. But I would not like to feel that anyone who has been sentenced by the courts after a proper trial, whether with or without a jury, can look forward to any such possibility of returning as a hero. Anyone, whether Catholic or Protestant and whatever his motive, who has thrown a bomb or committed another crime should fully understand that he is a criminal and has no chance of remission as part of a general settlement. That has not been said often enough. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will spell it out clearly now.
I welcome the Dublin-London-Belfast meeting which will shortly take place. I have always felt that a lasting solution to the Northern Ireland problem lay in a much closer accord between London and Dublin. There has been a coolness between us for the last 50 years which has been unwarranted by our mutual friendship in other areas. I warmly welcome the visit of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Dublin earlier this year. It was a visit which should have taken place 30 years ago, but better late than never.
Recently there was an article in The Times entitled "How British is Ulster?". The conclusion was that it was not very British. It was not followed by another

1625
article entitled "How Irish is Ulster?". Many people would come to the conclusion that Ulster is neither British nor Irish and that the Catholics in Ulster tend to use the Republic for their own ends in the same way as the Protestants in Ulster tend to use the United Kingdom for their own ends. Perhaps we should consider the possibility that Ulstermen are first and foremost Ulstermen with substantial qualities of their own.
We should envisage an edging towards what I describe in shorthand terms as an English-speaking Benelux situation within the EEC. The Dutch-Belgian precedent is encouraging because the Walloon-Fleming rivalry is surprisingly similar. It was, of course, not totally but substantially resolved between 1825 and 1835. I wonder whether we are not on our way towards a situation in which a totally independent Ireland and a totally independent England, in the closest possible harmony, could be joint sponsors for what is in this situation Luxembourg—namely, Northern Ireland.
It is important that no one should do anything to upset the precarious balance which has been achieved. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and his team on their remarkable achievement over the past 18 months.
6.57 p.m.
Mr. A. W. Stallard: I shall not take up all the points that the hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James) has raised. I always follow his arguments with interest, and I was particularly interested when he referred to education. I am sure that there is unanimity in the House in that there is a need for more attention to be paid to that end of the spectrum in Northern Ireland, Southern Ireland and some parts of England. In the Six Counties it is a valid point.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Wellbeloved), I hesitated to participate in the debate. I represent an English constituency and, not being Irish, I felt that today's debate would be an occasion when all the Northern Ireland Members and anyone else with Irish connections would want to participate. It seemed to be almost an interference to participate, but the scene has shifted somewhat since previous debates. The arguments now are
1626
not what they were when we first discussed the matter some months ago.
It appears that we are still very much involved. Indeed, it seems that we are involved as much as ever. I have listened carefully to the debate and I presume to add my small contribution. It will be similar to what I have said many times before when speaking about Northern Ireland.
I do not wish to be churlish. I appreciate the tremendous amount of work which the Secretary of State and his staff have done in arriving at the present situation. I do not suppose that the right hon. Gentleman wishes to be churlish in not recognising the support which he has had from the whole House in support of his objective. Many of my hon. Friends, with differing points of view and differing shades of opinion, have tried as fat as possible to be constructive in their criticism. I have probably been at odds more often than most hon. Members. I must confess that I still am. Nevertheless I have tried to restrain my views in the interests of some kind of solution to the immediate problems, provided it was a solution resembling a permanent solution.
Far too often we have seen violence erupt in the Six Counties only to be damped down by one device or another and then to rise again, be it five, six, seven or eight years later. I hope that this time, because of the greater interest, understanding and involvement on the part of many more people, we will grasp the nettle once and for all, and arrive at a solution which at least resembles a permanent solution.
I have said before where my sympathies lie and I shall develop what I have said previously. The present solution does not lead me to believe that there is any permanency along the road on which we have embarked. I welcome it as an interim solution or a palliative, but I do not see it as the beginning of a permanent solution.
I accept that we all have our different understandings of Irish history. It seems that I have seen this solution before in a different context—namely, when Lord O'Neill of the Maine, as he now is, was trying many years ago to reach a similar kind of solution. He was trying, as I understood it, to bring the minority into government and to allow them more

1627
participation. We know the lack of success which met his efforts and we saw the kind of opposition which was mounted. Many of the men who are now in a different situation mounted fierce opposition. I suppose that we must be grateful for their change of heart. However, I do not believe that the leopard ever changes its spots to that extent. I am wary of such a sudden change from complete intransigence and non-co-operation. I believe that there are inherent dangers.
The hon. and gallant Member for Down. South (Captain Orr) mentioned the haste with which events have moved. I know that it is necessary to make haste slowly in Irish affairs. I have felt in the past few days that matters have been rushed unnecessarily. That may be because the Secretary of State felt that he should present some kind of solution.
There are all sorts of moves and motives afoot. God knows that the Government need a success story more than anything else. Perhaps this is not the story, but they certainly need the Secretary of State's talents in other directions. It is almost as though the Prime Minister was saying to him "Come on, hurry up, let us get out of this. We need you over here. Wrap this thing up. Whatever you have to do, wrap it up in some fashion and get back here. We are in real trouble." I fear that a cabinet of men of the calibre of the Secretary of State would not get the Prime Minister out of his present trouble. I do not blame him for trying.
The Prime Minister has landed us with a hotch-potch that few people in the Six Counties will understand or accept when we begin to delve into it. What duties does the Minister see the Chief Whip exercising in this kind of set-up? What is the Chief Whip to do in this kind of enforced, legalised statute-imposed coalition? I think that many people will be misled or will not understand the functions of the Chief Whip, as we know the post, in the new set-up. We are far from the beginning of a permanent solution. This is a good attempt but we have by no means seen the end of the problems in Northern Ireland, and I hope that there will be no attempt by the Government to claim any such thing.
I was disappointed by the Secretary of State's references to the Council of
1628
Ireland. I make no apologies for the fact that I have pinned some hopes on the Council of Ireland because I see it as part of a long-term move towards a permanent solution. I mentioned it months ago when arguing for a bill of rights, a Council of Ireland and the beginning of the end of partition. I have not shifted from that position. The Council of Ireland, therefore, is more important to me than it appears to be to the Secretary of State. I do not think that it has been given the kind of powers, teeth and importance that many of us hoped for when we read the White Paper. The council was envisaged as long ago as 1920 and many of us hoped that it would be a much more powerful body than is envisaged now.
For example, it does not seem that the Council of Ireland is to be given the power to make any kind of major decision. I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman would at least be able to say that he could foresee the council having, for example, overall supervision over the police forces, North and South. It is something that he might have thought about and suggested as one of the functions of the Council of Ireland, amongst others. But that would have needed some initiative from the right hon. Gentleman himself. It would have needed him to say that that was how he envisaged the Council of Ireland. But he has not said it. He has left the Council of Ireland up in the air, as it were, with no apparent powers.
Little has been said in the debate about partition. I have not shifted from my view that partition caused the problem. Partition has kept it going for 50 years, and I do not see a permanent solution while the border remains. I am perhaps in a small minority of Members of this House, but I firmly believe that there is no permanent solution outside the ultimate reunification of the 32 countries, despite all the difficulties. I had hoped that we would be firm, even with all the difficulties and troubles, and would have said "Any road which does not lead to the ultimate reunification of Ireland is not on, but we will discuss all the access roads, the slip roads and the rest which will lead to it."
Mr. Wellbeloved: In trying to achieve that, does not my hon. Friend accept, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Leeds,

1629
South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) said, that it does not lie within the gift of the British Parliament but that reunification can come only by the will of the people of Ireland as a whole? Does not my hon. Friend also accept that what I am advocating—two independent Irelands—is much more likely to create the circumstances in which Irishmen speak to Irishmen and would be more likely in the end to lead to some understanding than if Northern Ireland continued in some form or other as part of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Stallard: I recognise and accept my hon. Friend's argument. He has put it many times before. I cannot however, accept his phraseology about "our gift". Such phrases, especially in the Irish context, serve only to stir up antagonisms, because there is far too much talk of making gifts and concessions to a very proud and independent people. I opposed the holding of the referendum for these reasons, and I believe that this is where my hon. Friend makes his mistake. In that referendum we did not consult the people of Ireland. We consulted only a few. Had we consulted the people of all Ireland, we would no doubt have had a different result. It is not true to say that it is within our gift to give reunification. I would like to consult the people of all Ireland to see what they wish to do.
Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend could also consult Great Britain about it.
Mr. Stallard: However, I am convinced that, until the border disappears by agreement or by arrangement—I have not given up hope—there will be no permanent solution. But people sometimes say "Why keep on talking about partition? Why bother when the people of the Six Counties have said that they want to remain part of the United Kingdom?" One has to look deeply to find whether they have any allegiance to the United Kingdom.
Mr. McMaster: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider that last remark. It was at very great cost in the last two world wars that Northern Ireland remained in the United Kingdom. We provided our men for the Armed Forces of the Crown and we provided vital bases for Britain. Indeed, it is doubtful whether Britain would have remained free if she had not the Ulster bases available in the Battle of the Atlantic.
Mr. Stallard: I accept the hon. Gentleman's censure. I most certainly did not mean that the people of the Six Counties did not contribute to our victory. I remind him, however, that hundreds of thousands of people from the Republic also took part in the struggle and made sacrifices. But that kind of numbers game does not get us anywhere. There was universal sacrifice by Irishmen of both North and South in the two world wars and we are all very grateful to them.
One can go on and on with this argument. Winston Churchill said that he never thought of Ireland and her problems without remembering people, and he mentioned particularly Paddy Finucane, who played so heroic a part in the Battle of Britain. Therefore, as I have said, I do not think that a numbers game really produces any positive result, but I accept completely and without reservation the tribute to the part played by the people of Northern Ireland.
As I was saying, people sometimes say to me "Why talk about partition?" At a recent discussion in which I took part, it was wrapped up quite well by a person who said "It is almost like saying' Why talk about Socialism?" We know that capitalism will be with us after the next election, so why talk about Socialism at this stage?"
The answer is, of course, nearly the same in both cases. I said to that gentleman that, as a Socialist, I believed that capitalism was the cause of my problems and complaints against society. While capitalism is still with us, I strive to change those parts of society that I can manage to change right now. But it is not forgotten that the main cause of these problems is the system itself.
The same is broadly true of partition. I believe that it was the cause of the problem of Ireland and is still a contributory factor. I think that it will remain. But that does not mean to say that I shall not strive to change those parts of it which can be changed now until the ultimate complete end of partition comes about.
My complaint is that we have not given any firm declaration of intent that one day partition will be ended. We have rather gone in the other direction and kidded a lot of people that we do not seem to think that partition will ever be ended. But I believe that it will be

1631
ended. I believe that that is the only practical solution and the only permanent solution. It was for that reason that I voted against the provision of the new constitution of Northern Ireland which seemed to perpetuate partition of the 32 counties.
I come to another serious bone of contention. Without some real movement on the question of internment, there can be no progress. During a recess in 1971 I spent some time, with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran), trying to have Parliament recalled when Mr. Faulkner, the new Chief Executive, introduced internment. Internment was wrong then and it is still wrong. On many occasions I have said that were we discussing prisoners in Santiago, Guatemala, Rhodesia or South Africa, or in any other part of the world which was far enough away to be safe, we would be having mass demonstrations, debates, early-day motions, and so on, to try to secure their release. But because it is in Britain that hundreds of people are in gaol without trial, there is hardly a whimper. It is to our discredit that we have allowed this to continue for so long.
I have spoken to people who have not participated directly in the troubles but who have been "lifted" every time there have been moves towards internment. I am told that some people have spent up to 15 years, over a period, in gaol or in camps because they were openly self-confessed Republicans. We would not tolerate that if it happened anywhere else. But we have tolerated it and it is happening here. There can be no beginnings of a solution until that is ended.
I have discussed that matter recently with people who are directly involved in the problems arising from internment and harassment, in the minority areas at least. There can be no move towards a permanent solution until we have given a firm commitment that internment will be ended, a commitment unlike that given by the Secretary of State today, which was the same commitment as we have had previously, and following the decision to introduce internment. It is "if and when", and perhaps "but". But it must be much more definite than that. We must say that we intend to end internment, detention or imprisonment,
1632
whatever fancy word is used for it. People are incarcerated without charge or trial, and that must cease. There must be a definite date for the end of that kind of thing.
I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Crayford in his thesis about withdrawing troops now.
Mr. Wellbeloved: I did not say that. I must correct my hon. Friend. I have not said today, nor have I said on any other occasion, that Britain should withdraw her troops immediately. I have always said that certain things must be done first.
Mr. Stallard: I accept what my hon. Friend said. I must have misunderstood him.
Mr. Wellbeloved: My hon. Friend did misunderstand.
Mr. Stallard: I have always believed him to be an advocate of the complete withdrawal of British troops. I do not agree with that at present. I certainly agree that we ought to be in a position immediately to withdraw troops from those stress areas where they have caused much harassment, hardship and distress, particularly in Belfast and Londonderry. Firmer commitments could have been given in that respect. It should have been said that we intend to withdraw troops, perhaps putting a date on final withdrawal, and that we intended to replace them immediately with, perhaps, people's police. There are people in the stress areas who would be prepared to take on that job. Hon. Members may smile—"She smiled sweetly and that is all she said".
There is something to be said for asking people to take responsibility, in their neighbourhood, for the kind of law and order which they can implement immediately. This ought to have happened long ago. From my visits and discussions there, I have learned that this idea is not so far-fetched as some hon. Members may think. It could apply in both communities. Perhaps then the forces of both communities could be brought together, because we would have nurtured that kind of responsibility in the streets. We ought to have been able to say that we would withdraw the troops from those areas on that basis, perhaps putting them

1633
in barracks pending total withdrawal, and putting a date on that.
The Secretary of State failed to mention that factor as deliberately as I should have liked, but I had hoped that he would say much more about the ultimate withdrawal and the withdrawal of troops immediately from the stress areas.
I was disappointed about the Bill of Rights which we tried to introduce some time ago by a Private Member's Bill. The Government have now lost that completely. Although there was a time when they even mouthed the phrase "Bill of Rights", they have now watered it down to such an extent that it almost no longer exists. It should be revived. I had hoped that the Secretary of State could have announced the date for the end of internment and the withdrawal of troops. Had he done so, we should have been at the beginning of the road to a solution.
7.21 p.m.
Mr. James Kilfedder: I agree with one thing that was said by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). That was the way in which he described the constitutional proposals enunciated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North used the term "palliative". That is the right word. A palliative deadens pain and hides the real trouble which is not therefore cured. That is what is happening, and will happen, as a result of these proposals.
Some political commentators forecast that the Secretary of State would return to the House today to be given a hero's welcome. But my right hon. Friend reminds me—I say this kindly—of a Roman general returning to the capital from some outpost during the declining days of the Roman Empire, with a small band of captives—in this case the members of the Northern Ireland Executive—as evidence of the success of his venture but keeping hidden a situation fraught with the most dreadful dangers. But the Secretary of State returns here, if the Press is to be believed—as the saviour of Britain, industrially and economically. However, my right hon. Friend will find that the trade unionists will not be bought off by his charm and affability, as were the political leaders of the law-abiding majority in Northern Ireland.
1634
I look forward with interest to the day when the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland cements together, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the militant trade unionists and the land speculators in one happy body. Somehow I do not think he will succeed in achieving that.
We are all agreed that there should not be a feeling of euphoria as a result of what the Secretary of State had to say. That is right. We all hope that the enforced power-sharing Executive will lead to harmony. But I fear that it will introduce an era of political instability in Northern Ireland and will result in the renewal of violence to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) referred, a renewal of violence by the IRA, which has made it perfectly clear that it will maintain the struggle to achieve a united Ireland. I pray that the campaign of terror does not escalate. I condemn, as I have always condemned, violence from any quarter, irrespective of the reasons which promote it.
I deplore one innovation introduced by the Secretary of State in recent months. That is the way in which the religion of those arrested is announced and the religious convictions of convicted persons are made public. That only helps further to divide the community. This practice should be stopped. I hope that the Minister of State will take note of that and persuade the Secretary of State to abandon such a bad practice.
The Secretary of State's announcement has revealed the deliberate creation of twice the number of Departments which formerly existed as being necessary for the proper administration of Northern Ireland. This is being done to provide political largesse to enforce power sharing, and it is hardly an auspicious beginning for the Executive. Obviously, it was necessary in the juggling act which the Secretary of State has performed, but when the responsibilities of some of the additional departments are examined it will be found that previously their work was largely undertaken by civil servants. For example, the work of the Department of Law Reform was undertaken by a civil servant.
The last holder of that office was Dr. A. J. Donaldson, who is highly esteemed and is a foremost constitutional lawyer.

1635
While he was the director of law reform, political considerations in the reform of law were kept apart. If this Department is created it will become a talking point in the Assembly. It is wrong that controversy over law reform should be introduced in this way into the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The work of the Department of Information Services was also previously undertaken by civil servants, but here is a new Department created in order to give a job to one of the boys. I do not know whether the holder of this and the other additional posts will be paid, and how much. Certainly the Unionists will occupy posts which are relatively unimportant, such as the Department of Information Services. Nobody can say that it ranks as a major department. So, while on the surface it appears that there is a majority of posts in the hands of Unionists, that majority merely has charge of three important posts—the Chief Executive, the Department of Education and the Department of Agriculture.
With regard to the Department of Finance, which the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) mentioned, that Department will be continually under the surveillance and control of the Treasury at Westminster. It will not be able to spend a single penny without Treasury approval. So, though it is an all-important post and other Departments are subject to it, the person holding it will have to come here with cap in hand to get his money.
It is interesting to remember that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that the Northern Ireland Constitution Act was the law of the land and could not be changed and was not negotiable. But the Secretary of State has a proposal to change that Act to create the additional departments.
As part of the package deal, we have to have a Department dealing with housing. Is not this a bad and retrograde step? The Northern Ireland Housing Executive was established at the request of the Government, the then Labour Government, to take housing out of the political arena. Support for that approach, which is a sensible approach, was contained—I am not certain about this—in the Cameron report, which
1636
backed up the decision of the Labour Government. Therefore, the decision to create a Department of Housing brings housing back into political controversy. This is the saddest victory for political convenience that the Secretary of State has been able to arrange.
There is one other post which the Unionists will hold—that of the Department of the Environment. It has merely been hived off the important Ministry of Development, which is in the hands of the SDLP. What it will do I do not know but certainly housing is in the hands of the SDLP along with local government and planning. I do not think that the Department of the Environment is all that important, although I agree that pollution, which must be one of its concerns, is something that we should all avoid and I am sure the person looking after the department will have a busy time. But I do not regard it as a post of consequence in the new Executive.
I fear that we shall face a winter of violence. I hope that it will not happen, but we have to be realists and face the fact that it may happen.
The Conservative Party has traditionally stood for the maintenance of law and order. I have refreshed my mind by reading the old campaign guide for the last General Election. It reminded me, if I needed reminding, that the Conservative Party prides itself in taking a stand against the manifestations of disorder. But it was this Conservative Government which gave way to the men of violence in Northern Ireland and showed the law-abiding majority that violence paid substantial dividends.
Concessions were wrung from the Secretary of State even by those men who were arrested, charged and convicted in the ordinary courts of the land for acts of violence. He took the disastrous course of creating a special category of political prisoners, so that we have the extraordinary situation that a so-called political prisoner, convicted of a serious charge, enjoys privileges not given to an ordinary prisoner who may be guilty of a similar or less serious offence.
This is a sad situation, but it is not the only achievement of this Government in Northern Ireland. It was not the Labour Party, which is well know to have

1637
a romantic attachment to the concept of a united Ireland, and which draws much of its support from the 1 million registered voters of the Republic living in Great Britain, which destroyed people's faith in political pledges. It was left to this Government to sow the seeds which may destroy the Unionist Party as we know it—although I am confident that there will emerge a new, progressive Unionist Party which will again benefit Northern Ireland.
Certainly, the Government have helped permanently to undermine the faith of the Ulster majority in the honour and probity of a Conservative administration. I have to say these things, because this is what the ordinary men and women in Northern Ireland think those who were and are strong members and supporters of the Unionist Party.
In March 1972—that is not very far back in Irish history—after a most painstaking and careful analysis by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of the Ulster situation, they came to the considered conclusion that all that was required was for the Stormont Government to hand over control of law and order to Westminster. There was no suggestion at that time that there was a need to wipe out the Stormont Parliament or Government, to send the Queen's representative packing with a pension or to insist upon a compulsory coalition between Unionists and Republicans. At that time. Mr. Faulkner said categorically that he could not remain in office if he had to hand over responsibility for law and order. That is why we had direct rule.
But what has happened since March 1972, under the direct supervision of Her Majesty's Government, to make the Government change their minds so fundamentally? When I asked in the House for one example of discriminatory legislation passed by Stormont, the Secretary of State had to admit that there was non. What happened was that the IRA enormously stepped up and intensified its campaign of terror and destruction, so that hardly a town or village in the Province has not been visited by these evil men. The Secretary of State, the epitome of law and order, felt that he had to treat personally and directly with the IRA on one occasion.
During this period, the SDLP—I am glad to see that the hon. Member for
1638
Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has returned; I thought that he was at the Palace and that perhaps he might have been detained there—was continually upping its demands with every new and frightful excess of savagery by the IRA. New demands came thick and fast, and it seemed that every demand was met with concessions by the Secretary of State.
No wonder Mr. Austin Currie, with his eloquence, when addressing one great SDLP gathering, told the people "Why stop now, when we are winning?". They did not stop. Certainly they have won, but they won because of IRA violence. That is the message that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone conveyed to the House, along with the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey)—that the SDLP got in on this wave of violence. But, once returned to power, it has kicked those who raised it to power.
The Ulster people clamour for the ordinary rights of British citizenship enjoyed in other parts of the United Kingdom. They wish for nothing more than to live in peace and harmony with their neighbours, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic. But, as time goes on, they find themselves treated less favourably than English, Welsh and Scottish citizens.
Much has been made—the Secretary of State referred to it today—of the amount of money—which has been poured into Northern Ireland, much of it to pay for damage wrought by terrorism. Of course we are grateful for this financial relief, and a vast and expensive programme of reconstruction will clearly be necessary to set the Province on the road to recovery. But money alone is not enough. What we want is peace and trust in Northern Ireland between the communities. We want reconciliation, and that is what must come. But it cannot come while there is violence, and I do not believe that the Secretary of State's announcement will bring it about.
The Government must think carefully before they force the majority to abandon the basic rights of British citizens and accept constitutional arrangements which will create deeper divisions and greater bitterness and ill-will among the majority. The lasting effect of this cannot be assessed. However should the attempt to establish or maintain a new

1639
power-sharing Executive with Republicans fail—there are many reasons why this proposed coalition of irreconcilables may not succeed—I can only pray that the feelings of betrayal and frustration which would then engulf the Roman Catholic minority will not produce a holocaust of inter-communal strife on a scale far greater than anything that we have experienced so far.
If this happens, it will not be the responsibility of people like myself, who have sought to show that the system is unworkable and inherently dangerous. It is wrong for the Secretary of State or any of his hon. Friends to condemn us for expressing these feelings. It is our duty, as public representatives, to convey to Members of this House and to this Government what people in Northern Ireland are thinking and what they fear for the future.
There is no question of a refusal to share power with a religious minority. A broadcast by Independent Television News immediately after the meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council said that the unpledged Unionists were opposed to power sharing with Roman Catholics. After the meeting of the Ulster Unionists' Standing Committee, the BBC nationally broadcast the same statement. But it is a complete distortion of the truth.
We are opposed to power sharing not with Roman Catholics but with those whose aim is a united Ireland. We would not expect to see in this House at any time those on the extreme Right being forced to share power with those on the extreme Left. That is a very slight analogy of the enforced power-sharing Executive which the Secretary of State has announced.
I want to see in Northern Ireland an administration which will allow the representatives of all political parties to play their part in the formulation of policy. Already the Northern Ireland Constitution Act provides an interesting development, with the suggestion of departmental committees. This could be developed and amended to provide opportunities for good, constructive work by those who wish to participate in the process of Government.
The proposed Executive will not be able to put forward controversial legislation. The 1968 Education Act would never
1640
have got through this Executive because the SDLP and the Roman Catholic Church were bitterly opposed to it, yet that is an Act of the Northern Ireland Parliament which has benefited all children throughout the Province. It would not get through the present Executive. Therefore, I fear the Executive will be reduced to producing the lowest common factor of legislation which is acceptable to the Right, to the Left, to the Unionists and to the Republicans. This is not a recipe for the progress we all want to see.
There is no future for Northern Ireland except as a totally integrated part of the United Kingdom with increased representation in this House. Only in this way can we create a fair system acceptable to the majority and the minority, safeguarding the living standards of the whole community. It would diminish the all-too-frequent opportunities for parochial animosities which dominated most debates in the old Stormont Parliament and which we are already beginning, to see in the new Assembly. The system which I envisage would provide greater opportunities for the development of good will and trust in the Assembly and, through the machinery of consultative committees, among the people in the country. It would restore faith in the political process among people in the Province. There is neither trust nor faith anywhere in Northern Ireland today, and both are essential if we are to make progress.
In my judgment, a compulsory power-sharing Executive re-created at least every four years, and perhaps even more often, with border polls and the stresses and strains which this will lead to, will not establish the conditions of trust, confidence, security and harmony so essential to the growth of democratic institutions. For that reason, I cannot greet with any pleasure the speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
7.42 p.m.
Mr. Rafton Pounder: This is the first time I have spoken in a debate, under you, Mr. Murton, as Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I take the opportunity of expressing to you my personal congratulations and good wishes on your elevation.
The formation of an Executive-designate represents a remarkable

1641
personal success for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I genuinely join with others in expressing my congratulations for what has been achieved. Before going further into the important statement which the Secretary of State made this afternoon, I wish to make one comment about the speech by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard). The hon. Gentleman said that during his speech a Conservative Member smiled. I was not smiling—I was wincing. If ever I heard a recipe for total disaster in Northern Ireland, it was in the argument that the hon. Gentleman was advocating.
There are some questions arising out of the Secretary of State's statement which must be asked and some observations which must be made. In making them, I must assure my right hon. Friend that I do not seek to probe the issue in any sense of churlishness, but I am motivated by two considerations. I refer to my high personal regard for my right hon. Friend and my deep concern over the future of Northern Ireland.
For five years the province of my birth, upbringing and home has been mercilessly bruised and battered politically and physically. The Ulster people have endured and suffered a tragedy on a scale never to be forgotten. A growing and relentless mood of understandable despair has characterised public attitudes.
Politically speaking, as a Unionist I have seen the sad spectacle of a powerful party rent asunder not electorally but from within. There has been the unedifying sight of policies being personalised and personalities relentlessly vying with one another for the popular limelight. There was nobody more blindingly angry and embittered than I when in March 1972 Stormont was destroyed. I believe that the decision was wrong-headed and misguided, but Parliament, by a massive majority thought otherwise. I admit that even at that unfortunate time I maintained a conviction which I held ever since I first entered politics.
I have a deep commitment to the concept of regional political devolution. For that reason I supported the Second Reading of the Constitution Bill in this House earlier this year. Although I welcomed what happened on that occasion, I did so with considerable reservations. That Act
1642
is far from perfect and contains an element of contrived artificiality which I found somewhat repugnant. Nevertheless both sides of the House by a vast majority considered that it offered a possible solution. Indeed, it may offer a solution despite its grave inbuilt weaknesses. Some four or five years of agony in Northern Ireland have passed. Even half a solution is well worth trying rather than seeking to contrive a variety of arguments on the lines that, unless one gets the whole cake, one does not want anything.
I believe that that Act represents all that is currently on offer. This has been the argument advanced by the British Government through the summer. Although this may be a small point, I personally regret the need for any amendment of that legislation. I say this not because I believe that 11 Executive members are enough or more than enough, and indeed there may be a strong argument for the additional five persons. What is causing me anxiety is that at the first test some form of alteration is required. No matter how obvious or uncontroversial that alteration may be, it is a bad start. I say this in no aggressive sense.
Mr. Orme: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that these proposals on the question of numbers should have been "permed" one from the other?
Mr. Pounder: I would not disagree with that argument. But there is always a danger in putting in a fixed figure. It can appear to be good, but any flexibility has gone and one finds at the first test that one is up against a legislative situation which requires amendment.
In an emotion-charged situation in Ulster today it is easy to side with the felings of emotion. Indeed, it is politically popular so to do. But is it in the best interests of Northern Ireland for emotionalism to dictate the course of politics? At the end of the day it is cold, hard reasoning and logic, and that alone, which offers the best solution. As in any society emotion has its place, but we must seek to curb and control it. For that reason, despite, all the pressures on those who feel emotionally, we must do our utmost to subordinate those feelings to arguments based on reason and logic. The Constitution Act may prove to be

1643
unworkable, as may the Assembly and the Executive, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said, integration is not on offer. To me UDI is as repugnant a concept as is the continuance of direct rule with all the problems that inevitably stem from it.
Mr. Kilfedder: I missed hearing the speech made by the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) but I remember reading a speech made by him not very long ago in which he said that total integration was the last resort. I am not certain about that, but that was what I read in the Press.
Mr. Pounder: My hon. Friend is a much more avid newspaper reader than I am and I must admit that I was not aware of any feeling on the part of my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford either for or against integration. I was seeking to take up his argument that integration was not on offer.
UDI is as utterly repugnant as is the continuance of direct rule. We are left, therefore, with only one other course, which is to see whether a local Assembly can be made to work. In my view it is totally wrong to approach a situation, merely because one does not like it 100 per cent., by saying "I do not like it 100 per cent., so I do not like it at all." This is the black-and-white type of argument which has motivated so many discussions in Northern Ireland. The legislation may be seriously deficient, but that can only be determined conclusively after it has been tried.
There are many people who share the view that the Assembly should and must be given an opportunity to get off the ground. I do not believe that this is motivated necessarily by a sense of war weariness. I think it is more the desire to see a local Assembly in existence and operating with all the limitations that it will suffer initially. Once it is in operation and has had a chance to prove itself, let a judgment be made.
Accepting as I do the overwhelming priority to be the eradication of violence in all its varied and hideous forms and of those who perpetrate it, the only way that this can be accomplished is by the vigilance of the security forces, who deserve high praise for their courage and
1644
determination, and by the revulsion of public opinion against violence and its perpetrators. In a democracy the only effective outlet for public opinion is through its elected representatives. As a consequence, back we come again to the need for the new Assembly and the need to give it a chance.
Entrenched positions cemented over many decades of history, and sometimes a turbulent history at that, will not be changed merely by ministerial exhortations. It has been my experience during the 20 months of direct rule that a major cause of political distress at home has been the apparent unevenness of Westminster pressure on the two main political parties in Northern Ireland. The feeling existed that the Unionist Party made many concessions but that they were not matched by corresponding concessions by other political parties. If anyone takes the trouble even cursorily to study my right hon. Friend's speech today, it is clear that very real concessions and compromises have been reached by the two main participants. I do not exclude the Alliance Party out of any sense of unkindness. It was not in a position to make concessions of the kind likely to be required of both the Unionist and the Social Democratic and Labour Parties.
Those people who have felt so strongly in the past about a spirit of compromise which they have felt to be a one sided operation will realise, I hope, in the light of what they have heard today from the Secretary of State, that there has been a genuine concession. I believe that this will do much to alleviate the sense of public suspicion which existed prior to today's announcement.
As a pledged Unionist, in Assembly terms, I must confess that the package looks to me to be attractive, reasonable and workable. But if the Executive is to have any chance of success the compromise must not exist just for today, on day one. It must be able to withstand the stresses and strains which inevitably will be placed upon it, in what form one does not know and at what time one does not know. But nothing is more sure than that there will be immense pressures, possibly in a few weeks from now. It is clear that infinite patience will be required.
For a variety of reasons, Her Majesty's Government have wanted to get the

1645
Executive and the Assembly off the ground. But there is a danger in excessive speed. As a result of fatigue people may reach agreements which in the cold light of the following day appear much less attractive. That is one of the dangers of haste and, although this important start has been made, I hope that the rest of the package will not be put together at a galloping speed.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) made a great deal of play about the creation of a new party, and the rôle of the Chief Whip and who he is to be. But if one accepts that in a crisis situation there is a case for some form of coalition of people whose views are very different, it can be justified if—and it is an "if" to which the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will no doubt provide an answer in due course—there is a common will towards a common goal. That is the essence of any coalition, and I should like to know what the approach will be because of the pressures which inevitably will be put on the Assembly and the Executive.
I apologise if my remarks reflect a sense of anxiety. They are not made in any spirit of doom or criticism. We have been through five years of this, and as a result we are slightly apprehensive. After a long and hard winter it is easy to imagine that the sudden appearance of a swallow means that summer is approaching. However, the poor swallow may have lost its way or may have fallen out of the nest. That may be the situation with which we are now confronted.
In the re-creation of a regional political structure in Northern Ireland, I believe that the Executive and the Assembly will succeed. But only a gambler would make a firm prediction at this stage. I wish them well.
7.57 p.m.
Mr. Richard Luce: I understand and sympathise with many of the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder).
I give a warm welcome, but with caution, to the announcement which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made today. I say "with caution" because it is clear that this is only the
1646
beginning of what must be a very long and hard road for those who are to take part in this power-sharing Executive. I say "with caution" too because whenever I speak in Irish debates I do so with trepidation and humility as an Englishman with no Irish blood. It is well known and well said in many parts that the English do not understand the Irish question but that as soon as they begin to come near to doing so the Irish change the question. That may have been the case, but I hope that it is not on this occasion.
It must be the overwhelming interest of all of us to see progress towards peace and stability in Ireland. But, as is the case so often, perhaps tragically so, it takes a catalyst to produce new opportunities for progress. This has been the case recently in the Middle East, and it seems to me that the melting pot of the turbulent history of Ireland produces a catalyst with dangers and disasters but also with new opportunities. As I see it, it is our task to find new opportunities to seek progress.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) set out one or two of the options that this Government have faced over the past few months, and I want to say how much I agree with my right hon. Friend. The first one is to consider a commitment to unity between the North and the South. The hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) suggested that this should be a firm commitment. However, I believe that it would be totally disastrous in the present situation.
The second option was some form of UDI or independence for the North. Again, I believe that that would lead to a lowering in the standards of living of the people of the North, and that could be disastrous.
The third option might be some form of total integration with Great Britain. I believe that, too, would be utterly disastrous, for obvious reasons.
Therefore, we have a fourth option, which is the present course or a variation of it. That is the right policy to pursue. I take that view for two reasons. First, most of us by now recognise that the Northern Ireland situation is unique and that we must, therefore, find a unique formula to sort it out. Secondly, in view

1647
of the different interests and aspirations of both the minority and the majority in Northern Ireland, the only way to seek peace is by compromise and moderation.
We all have our own ideas how in the long term this may evolve, but one thing above all else required to reach the agreement that was reached last night was courage on the part of the leaders of all three parties who have agreed to take part in this Executive. Often it requires more courage to pursue the policy of moderation than to take extreme views.
I believe that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has shown outstanding courage and deserves success and credit. I hope that the people who support the hon. Gentleman and his party will follow him through thick and thin in making this power-sharing Executive work.
I say precisely the same about Mr. Faulkner. He, too, has shown great courage in leading moderate and sensible Unionists. We wish him well.
The leaders of the Alliance Party—this is no disrespect to them—although they have not had to show quite so much by way of concessions to join the Executive, have also shown courage, and I wish them well.
I cannot make all these comments without referring to the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees), who, in my view, has shown the greatest degree of statesmanship in this House. One of the crucial aspects in the development of the Irish situation has been the bipartisan approach by both the Government and the Opposition. I believe that all credit should go to the hon. Member for Leeds, South for the leadership that he has shown in this respect.
On the security side, the record of the British Army in Northern Ireland is quite outstanding. I do not believe that any other army in the world could have achieved success with the patience and perseverance that the British Army has shown.
I should like to see a positive effort on the part of the British Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Southern Republican Government towards a more effective policy in terms of joint security—for example, joint law enforcement and co-operation between
1648
the police and the armies of the North and of the South. For all those in the North and in the South who want peace and stability—that is the majority of the people—a co-ordinated effort must be demanded.
I turn now to the Council of Ireland. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford that we must approach this matter slowly, carefully and cautiously. The first and most important priority is to get the Executive working effectively. Following that, we can get the members of the Council of Ireland to meet and work together. I hope that at the top of its agenda will be the maintenance of security and law and order in the North and, secondly, the possibility of functional agreements in the industrial and commercial spheres which would be of mutual benefit both to the North and to the South.
My last point concerns the response of the Southern Republican Government to the announcement of the agreement this week. I hope that they will respond not only in terms of closer co-operation on security, but by examining certain articles of their Constitution and making a firm gesture to both Great Britain and Northern Ireland which will help the situation. The biggest gesture would be to drop that part of their constitution which lays claim to the whole of Northern Ireland. That would not only ease the political situation but would be a statesmanlike response to the situation in the North. I should like that to happen as soon as possible.
Everyone who believes in peace prays that all those in the three parties who are taking a lead and showing so much courage will persevere and make this proposal work. The Northern Ireland situation in the last four years has been eating like a cancer into the health and confidence of the United Kingdom. If we can make this proposal succeed we in the United Kingdom and in Ireland can again hold our heads on high with the rest of the world.
8.6 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: Over many years now I have engaged in debates in this House on Northern Ireland. Indeed, since 1968, 1969 and 1970 many watersheds, as they were called, have appeared in the debates. I honestly

1649
believe that this is the greatest watershed we have had since the recent outbreak of violence in Northern Ireland in 1969 and 1970.
Many solutions have been tried and many possible permutations of victory have been put forward by various people involved in the struggle.
The Secretary of State has put forward a proposal which has been arrived at by the leaders of the Northern Ireland political parties freely and without cornpuction. But, again, the problem of Northern Ireland must be faced by the Northern Irish people. No solution can be imposed by any source outside the island of Ireland.
The dramatic developments which have taken place since the elections in June in Northern Ireland are a clear indication of a desperate yearning for peace and an end to violence by the vast majority of the people in Northern Ireland — Unionists. Nationalists, Republicans and others. We have seen so much death, tragedy and destruction rent in our land by the men of violence, and I believe that the Northern Ireland community as a whole is now prepared to make concessions which in the past would have been unthinkable.
I understand that during my unavoidable absence this evening bitter speeches were made from this side of the House by the hon. Members for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey) and Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus). Indeed, since my return I have heard the speech by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and a snatch of the speech by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McMaster). I believe that, having expressed their sentiments, those hon. Members must be asked one question to which an answer is demanded. That question is: what is the alternative to the present Executive? What would they do to stop the killing and the murders in Northern Ireland? What are they prepared to concede? Are they prepared to continue with their demands, and not to see the arguments or point of view of their political opponents? Do they want to claim total victory over those whom they regard as their opponents?
The first criticism following the announcement last night about the Executive came from the Provisional IRA. I
1650
believe that I and my party were called arch-collaborators and traitors. I ask myself now in all conscience: with whom am I collaborating? Am I collaborating against the interests of the Northern Irish people? Am I collaborating against the interests of the men and women, boys and girls who live in my area of Belfast and are absolutely terrified out of their lives at present? Even I, as an elected representative, do not want my young daughters to go out into the streets on these dark winter evenings for fear that a car may come along and mow them down with shotgun bullets, as has happened to others so often in the past.
Mr. McMaster: The hon. Gentleman said that he had heard the snatches of a bitter speech by the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) and myself. I think he has made a mistake, because, had he heard my speech, he would have realised that I welcomed this proposal. Perhaps he can tell me what is his attitude towards the rent and rate strike.
Mr. Fitt: I apologise if I have misrepresented what was said by the hon. Member. I will certainly answer the question. In the recent election in June, held under the terms of the Constitution Act, the people of Northern Ireland were given the chance to say whether they wanted to bring into operation a new political system whereby it would be possible for all people in Northern Ireland, majority and minority, to participate in the elected Government of their own State. This was well known before a single vote was cast in those elections. My own party made it clear during the contest that we wanted to participate in a form of administration in Northern Ireland which would be acting not in any partisan way but in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
Mrs. McAliskey: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Will he not admit that his party, in fighting that election, not only said that it wanted to take part in a non-partisan administration but said quite clearly that it would not do so until there was an end to internment?
Mr. Fitt: The election manifesto of the SDLP can he had quite easily. What we said was that we wanted to bring to an end the disaster of internment. We said we wanted to bring into being in Northern Ireland an acceptable police force

1651
with which the whole community could identify. We said that we wanted to bring into operation a Council of Ireland, some means or institution whereby the people of the whole island of Ireland, North and South, would begin to get to know each other in the 32 counties. What we said was that, given a favourable development and an end to violence, we would call for an amnesty for political prisoners.
We recognised that many young boys and girls had been caught up in the wave of violence which has hit Northern Ireland. We said clearly to our electors that this was our policy. The Unionist Party under the leadership of Mr. Faulkner also said that it wanted to see worthwhile political institutions coming into being in Northern Ireland and that it was prepared to work within the framework of the Constitution. The Alliance Party said it would do the same.
Everyone knows that the word "democratic" in Northern Ireland is much-bandied about and much misunderstood. When the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) or Down, North say that something is undemocratic in Northern Ireland, we know what they mean. They mean that they do not like it; it does not fall in with their way of political thinking. Mr. Faulkner's Unionist Party was returned with 21 seats, the SDLP 19 and the Alliance Party eight. After much misgiving and thought, and deep consideration for all the feelings of our electorate, we decided that we would take this courageous step.
I have no hesitation in saying that it was courageous. I am not being unduly modest about this, and I am not terribly concerned about the criticism which could be levelled at me by those who are determined to wreck this. I think it was courageous, because I did not find it very easy to sit down and talk to Mr. Faulkner, a Unionist, and I am certain that Mr. Brian Faulkner, as a Unionist, did not find it very easy or palatable to talk to me.
We are all prisoners of our past. The situation in Northern Ireland was not brought about over a short period. We are all prisoners of three or four centuries of Irish history. Since the partitioning of Ireland in 1920 there has existed a one-party State. One party was in
1652
government for 50 years, and there was never any possibility that that Government could be removed by the wishes of the electorate. That was because the very basis on which the Northern Ireland State was founded was in itself anti-democratic.
For the first time in European history a State was set up on the basis of majority and minority populations. Throughout those years there was arrogance and contempt from the Unionist Party towards its political opponents. The minority suffered deep distress and oppression. Throughout my political career, since I first began to understand what politics was about, it was my constant endeavour to try to change the one-party State of Northern Ireland and bring to an end the oppression and the distress which had been suffered by the minority population.
But in doing this I never at any time placed myself in the rôle of a minority representative; in other words, a Catholic representative. I have always claimed, and will claim until the day I leave politics, to be a Socialist. When I came to this House and allied myself with the Socialists represented here the battle began.
Both Governments are entitled to some credit for at last trying to grapple with the problems brought about by Britain interfering in Ireland in the first instance. After the elections it was decided that we would try to bring about a form of community government, a form of government which could enlist the active support of the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland who want peace.
Over the last few years, and particularly during last year and this year, a massive wave of revulsion has engulfed the Northern Ireland people in their opposition to the violence that has been going on. I cannot draw any distinction between murders committed in differing circumstances. Those who knifed and cruelly butchered my colleague Senator Paddy Wilson because of his political beliefs are just as bad as those members of the Provisional IRA who blew the brains out of a 15-year-old boy on the slopes of the Cavehill in Belfast. Nothing that has happened in Northern Ireland, or that will happen in the future, can justify such actions.
Mrs. McAliskey: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is equal revulsion for the members of the British Army who shot John Paddy Mullan in the back?
Mr. Fitt: I have always been opposed to killing and violence in Northern Ireland. It is only rarely that we see the hon. Lady in this House. It is only rarely that we hear her speak in this Chamber. It is rarely that we see the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone in the Chamber. If they were representing their constituents as they should be doing, they would attend this House and take part in the various activities in which public representatives must engage if they are doing their job of representing their constituents.
Mrs. McAliskey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Fitt: No. I have given way too often. The hon. Lady attends here at intervals of five, six or seven months, and when she does come to the House she makes a destructive speech. She utters not one sentence or syllable that could in any way bring peace to Northern Ireland or end the killings.
Mrs. McAliskey: The hon. Gentleman was not here to hear my speech.
Mr. Fitt: I do not need to be in the House to hear what the hon. Lady has to say.
Mrs. McAliskey: How does the hon. Gentleman know what I said?
Mr. Fitt: I have heard other speeches made by the hon. Lady, and I have read the speeches that she has made in Northern Ireland.
Mrs. McAliskey: The speech that I made today has not yet been printed.
Mr. Fitt: I state without fear of contradiction that the hon. Lady is a total and absolute irrelevancy in Northern Ireland. All that she has sought to do during the last two years in this House—
Mrs. McAliskey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Whitelaw: It is not a point of order.
Mrs. McAliskey: Despite what the right hon. Gentleman says, I shall abide by the decision of the Chair.
1654
Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for an hon. Member to attack me personally and then not allow me the right to reply? I should have given the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene during my speech but, unfortunately, he was not in the Chamber then.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): It is usual for an hon. Member who attacks another hon. Member to allow that hon. Member to reply at some stage, but it is for the hon. Member who has the Floor to say when.
Mr. Fitt: I give way to the hon. Lady.
Mrs. McAliskey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has attacked me and, in his absence, my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus), for not attending the House more often. In days gone by the hon. Gentleman did not regard attendance at this House as the right way to represent his constituents. That was once his idea, and it remains mine. The interests of my constituents are served by my fighting British imperialism, and I consider that I do that adequately without presenting myself here.
Mr. Orme: With British taxpayers' money.
Mrs. McAliskey: As much as it takes to defeat British imperialism.
Mr. Fitt: If that is to be taken as the hon. Lady's defence of her neglect of her constituents, I believe that the best people to judge are those who live in the Mid-Ulster constituency.
Mrs. McAliskey: The hon. Gentleman will find out at the next election.
Mr. Fitt: I state without fear of contradiction that the hon. Lady has yet to put forward a constructive idea or policy that will bring an end to the violence in Northern Ireland.
Mrs. McAliskey: Cancellation of the housing debt.
Mr. Fitt: I understand that in my absence the hon. Lady referred to a colleague of mine who is now to be on the Executive, Mr. Paddy Devlin, as a debt collector for the British forces. I resent that—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Lady to refrain from making comments while seated. She has had her opportunity to make a speech.
Mr. Fitt: In one day Paddy Devlin helped more people who needed his help and sought it than the hon. Lady will ever do in her lifetime. The hon. Lady comes here and makes speeches that are bitterly destructive, yet she wants to continue to represent her constituency. The days of the charisma of Bernadette Devlin have gone. We have discovered who the little girl is and what she is capable of doing, and now the electors of Mid-Ulster will be ashamed of her.
Perhaps I may now forget about the hon. Lady—and it is very easy to do that at this point in our proceedings—and come back to the debate. The three parties which received a majority of votes at the recent election—Mr. Faulkner's Unionist Party, the SDLP and the Alliance Party—after much misgiving decided, against a background from which they could gain no confidence whatever, to enter into talks to try to bring about a form of administration in Northern Ireland which could be accepted by all the Northern Ireland people. I believe that we have done that. I believe that we have at last begun to think about politics in Northern Ireland.
I have heard criticism from the UVF, the UFF, the Official IRA, the Provisional IRA, the hon. Member for Antrim, North—from the far reaches of the Bible belt in America where he is now—and from the hon. Member for Down, North. It does not surprise me in the least. It was inevitable that criticism would come from such sources. Notwithstanding that, I am determined, and the party that I lead is determined, to continue with the negotiations that have begun with the other political parties.
There is not as yet an Executive in Northern Ireland. There is an Executive-designate, because we recognise that some of the more difficult problems, such as the Council of Ireland, an acceptable police force, and the bitter, burning question of internment, have to be settled to the satisfaction of those three parties before the Executive can come into operation.
1656
So, although I say that, given favourable circumstances, there will be an Executive, I am not prepared to say that the coming into being of that Executive is an absolute certainty. But the SDLP, the party which I lead, is prepared at all times to put the interests of the people of Northern Ireland above their own party political position. If the political parties involved in these discussions had been thinking only of their own parties, the discussions would never have begun.
Last Tuesday when the result of the Unionist Standing Committee meeting was made known from Glengall Street, when it was announced that Mr. Faulkner's Unionists had won by the slim majority of 10, there were people on the Republican side of the community who were inclined to laugh and sneer and say "Ha, ha. He got through by only 10 votes and he will never succeed in another contest such as that". I am glad that Brian Faulkner was successful in that contest.
I ask hon. Members to look at what happened at that meeting. For the first time in Northern Ireland's history 379 Unionists stood up and voted for the policy of Mr. Faulkner, who said "I am prepared to share power with the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland as represented by the SDLP" For the very first time we had Unionists from a Protestant background, people from the majority party, people who had given, and who were even at that time giving, their allegiance to a party which had complete and absolute control of everything in Northern Ireland: yet because of the bitterness and revulsion that has swept the country, because of the killings and the violence, those 379 Unionists were prepared to make this concession—and I recognise that it was a concession—and said that they were prepared to share power with other political forces in Northern Ireland.
But the people who were not prepared to make any concessions were those led by the hon. Member for Antrim, North, who, I repeat, is in the Bible belt getting a few more converts, and by the member of the Vanguard Party, Mr. Craig. It would pay us at some time to analyse the speeches made by so-called Unionist representatives in this House. I believe that there are some people here who are still members of the Unionist Party but

1657
are bitterly opposed to everything that the Unionist Party, as led by Brian Faulkner, is trying to do at this moment.
I ask them the same question as I have already asked the hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster. What is their alternative? Their alternative has been repeatedly stated, and it is "Get the British Army, get the RUC. Arm them to the teeth. Send them into minority areas. Shoot as many people as you can. Intern as many people as you can. Detain as many people as you can. And, in so doing, give us the right to restore a Protestant ascendancy Parliament in Northern Ireland. Bring us back to the days of 1920 and right up to 1968, 1969 and 1970." That is their answer to the problems of Northern Ireland. I ask this House: can anyone in his senses believe that that is an honest alternative to the problems which now beset our land?
I believe that the three political parties in Northern Ireland which have engaged in these discussions have opened up a new era in Northern Irish politics. For the first time, we have people of different political allegiances beginning to say "In the interests of this whole community, let us think not of party but of people." I still have a lot of suspicions about many members of the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, and it would be less than human to say that I have forgotten the misdeeds committed by the Unionist Party throughout my lifetime; they will be hard to forget but, I hope, much easier to forgive. But this step has been taken in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
Let me say this, but let it not be taken as claiming a victory for my own political party. For many years the minority in Northern Ireland claimed that they were being discriminated against in the allocation of houses and jobs. That was indeed so, because on many occasions I had to bring their grievances to the Floor of this House. I said that people in Derry, Newry, Strabane and other areas of Northern Ireland—I may be proved wrong, and if I am I shall be man enough to admit it—were deliberately isolated industrially by the policies of the Unionist Government. The Government did not want to attract industries to those areas, because those areas were anti-Unionist.
1658
Now we have a chance of proving it, because the Minister for Commerce in Northern Ireland, and I announce it on the Floor of the House this evening, will be John Hume. Let us see whether John Hume can direct industry into the city. Let him take the onus upon himself to see whether he can direct industry to Newry, Strabane and all the other areas which have suffered grievous unemployment. Austin Currie will be in charge of development, housing and local government. He will certainly accept the responsibility for creating more houses in Northern Ireland, and creating them on a non-sectarian basis. He will not want to see more houses built purely and exclusively for Catholics; he will want to see them built for people who need them.
Paddy Devlin will be the Minister of Health and Social Security. I know of no man of greater humanity and compassion in the Northern Ireland political arena. I have the greatest faith that Paddy Devlin will also act in the interests of all the people who can benefit from his Ministry. But this could never have happened if there had not been a power-sharing Executive. We could have sulked and said that we would have nothing to do with Faulknerite Unionists and nothing to do with the Alliance. The Faulknerite Unionists could have said that they would have nothing to do with the SDLP, and we should have been back in the trenches with absolutely no hope of progress in helping the people in Northern Ireland.
Now we have been given a chance. The SDLP is in control of three major Ministries and I have the utmost confidence in my colleagues that they will act in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. By so doing it may be possible—or it may be impossible, but I hope it will be possible—to break down the barriers created over so many centuries by the political situation in Northern Ireland. If my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster wants to query me again, let me state now, as I stated when I made my maiden speech in this House, that I am an Irishman and I do not believe there will ever be true and lasting peace in the island of Ireland until Ireland is united.
It is my honest ambition to do everything I can to convince all the Irish

1659
people, both North and South of the border, that the ending of that disastrous border is in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland. I know this will not happen tomorrow, next week or next month. I do not believe that seeking to fulfil that ambition in any way justifies the killing, the shooting, the bombing and the murders that have taken place. It must be brought about by consent, and that is my intention for however many years I may remain in political life. I intend to bring about a process of reconciliation in Northern Ireland.
The first step must be to do away with the terrible polarisation that has been created over these past years. I do not believe that the Unionist Party and its supporters, who are in the majority in Northern Ireland, are so unseeing and unthinking as never to accept the inevitability that Ireland will one day be united. I do not believe that those who cling tenaciously to the Republican ideal believe that they can gun and shoot a million of their fellow countrymen into a united Ireland overnight. There must be an intermediate stage, and that stage has begun. The greatest division in Ireland was not the border. The greatest division existed between the two communities on the grounds of religion and of ancestry. But Northern Ireland over these last three or four years has suffered so much, both the majority and minority, that we should be prepared at least to let this Executive begin with God's blessing.
8.40 p.m.
Mr. John E. Maginnis: I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) on having the courage to come over here and make a speech after all the deliberations he has been entering into during the past weekend and the weeks past. I wish him well in his new post. I want to be magnanimous, and I wish him all the best. Whether or not he succeeds is another matter, but he has my best wishes for the future.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State not merely on the setting up of the Executive but on surviving so long in Irish politics, an achievement which I think will never be emulated in this House.
Like all Ulster debates, this has an air of illogicality about it, which must be confusing for most people. Many
1660
points of view have been expressed about the new Assembly. I shall not go around the country condemning it at every street corner. I am prepared to give it a chance and judge it on its results. That is the fairest way to do it.
I shall say no more about that, but this is the first time I can remember in British history that we have departed from the democratic principle so stubbornly upheld in the rest of the United Kingdom. It remains to be seen how it will work out.
I take up next something that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) said about elections. It would be extremely interesting to discover what will be the position if another election is held for the Assembly. Will the majority party leader after the next election, if it takes place, automatically become the chief executive? I ask the question because it is quite likely that someone other than Mr. Faulkner or the hon. Member for Belfast, West will lead the minority party. There are all sorts of possible permutations
With regard to the Council of Ireland, I have always maintained that some form of co-operation between North and South was absolutely necessary, especially with regard to security. I am not prepared to go so far as to say that interference by Northern Ireland in the affairs of the Republic or vice versa is desirable. We must approach the matter with great caution, but I am prepared to back what I have always maintained was necessary, a British Isles security committee.
A common law enforcement area must include the whole United Kingdom, because I have been convinced, not only during the past four or five years but in various past IRA campaigns, that unless concerted action is taken simultaneously in this country, Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, it is very difficult to defeat the anarchists. I hope that a step will be taken in that direction so that if any IRA or other trouble breaks out in Southern Ireland, Northern Ireland or Great Britain concurrent action will be taken to stamp it out. It is only if that is done that the forces of anarchy can be defeated.
I turn to the immediate situation regarding security in Northern Ireland. I

1661
pay tribute to the Army for its endurance during the past four or five years. It has had a hard task. I plead with the Minister to take a long, hard look at the security of the border. It is a sad reflection on the House that we in the United Kingdom have failed to secure the borders of our own territory. I am convinced that the trouble will continue for a long time unless we can stop the supply of arms across the border and unless we can give security to the people living along the border.
I hope that before long the IRA stationed at Crossmaglen will be obliterated. That is a running sore. It is an area of the United Kingdom which is controlled exclusively by the Irish Republican Army. The Army post at Crossmaglen cannot be serviced by road transport. Servicing has to be done by helicopter. Nightly the IRA is carrying out road checks which should be done by the UDR or the Army. It is a frustrating situation. The IRA maintains that the area no longer belongs to the United Kingdom but to Ireland. It says that it has assumed the influence of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and that it will not stop until it has cleared the last of the Army from the area. That is an important matter which should be considered with all speed.
A matter which has occupied the minds of most hon. Members and most citizens is the shortage of fuel. I understand that the Government are guaranteeing full fuel supplies to Southern Ireland. At the same time I have read in the Press that the reciprocal arrangements whereby we can exchange electricity between North and South have been cancelled during the present emergency. I understand that most of the electricity which would normally have been exchanged is made from the Shannon scheme. I may be wrong about that.
Is it not odd that during the past weekend I was inundated with pleas from the ministers of various churches to see whether anything could be done to enable them to use the central heating in their churches for Sunday services? It is odd that various congregations in Northern Ireland have now to go around picking up gas cylinders and gas fires to try to heat their premises for Sunday services while their normal supplies for
1662
central heating are in existence. That matter should be dealt with speedily and a solution should soon be found. It is a frustrating situation.
We all await with interest the formation of the Executive. As the hon. Member for Belfast, West said, many pitfalls remain to be overcome. I am sure that most people in Northern Ireland will refrain from undue criticism. I do not mean that there will be no criticism. However, I am sure that they will give the Assembly and its Executive a chance of showing what it can do.
I must be honest with myself. I will still campaign for full representation for Northern Ireland in this House as well as at the Assembly. That has always been my intention. If that comes about, the Assembly and the Executive will work. In those circumstances it will be accepted by all shades of opinion in Northern Ireland. If we alienate a large body of loyalist opinion in Northern Ireland from the scheme of things now envisaged, we shall be sowing the seeds of grave discontent for the future. I hope that the British Government will consider the matter sympathetically and, perhaps within the confines of the Kilbrandon Report, reach a solution which will be acceptable to everyone in future.
8.49 p.m.
Mr. Dick Douglas: It is not my intention to detain the House unduly at this time of night. I apologise for missing a considerable part of the debate. However, I heard the two opening speeches and many others.
Now is not the time to rake over old ashes. Nor do I consider, to mix metaphors, that it is the time to heap new coals on the fire of religious and political divisions in Northern Ireland. This is the time for hope and the time when individuals in this House and in Northern Ireland ought to be more cautiously optimistic about the future. We have heard today a remarkable speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). It must be quite unique to have heard the portfolios for an Executive-designate announced on the Floor of the House. While we were fortunate to hear that speech from the Social Democratic and Labour Party's leader, we should be mindful also that

1663
the leader of the Unionist Party in Northern Ireland, Mr. Brian Faulkner, is not here but that he himself is due a great deal of gratitude for the courageous stand he took in negotiating with his party and with others to get the Executive formed.
I said in a debate a long time ago that, once the individual leaders of the political parties in Northern Ireland came together across the political and religious divide and saw the merits in each other, three was hope. I take the view that John Hume, if he could get himself into a bigger circle of affairs and events and be given real responsibility, is the type of man who could play a great part not only in Northern Ireland and Irish affairs but in European affairs.
In the economic circumstances in which we find ourselves, both Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland are competitive. But it is a diminishing competitive rôle in terms of the EEC. The border will continuously lose its significance and therefore, if it loses its economic significance, we should be looking to a council of the United Kingdom and Ireland and not just to the Council of Ireland. In this atmosphere the United Kingdom cannot somehow or other stand back.
I will illustrate what I mean. Large explorations are going on in what we call the Celtic Sea. Other explorations are going on in the Republic of Ireland's part of the Continental Shelf. Here is an area for co-operation. There are also massive opportunities for co-operation in agricultural and regional policies. These are the sort of purposeful areas where the United Kingdom and the whole of Ireland can come together in meaningful discussion.
I want to say something directly to the Protestant working class because at this time it is among them that feelings will be most sensitive, and if we are to get—although I hope we will not get it—a dying gasp of hostility to this political settlement it can come initially from them. They may feel at this point alienated in terms of not having a direct political voice. I hope that the remarks of the leader of the SLDP will be taken to heart on both sides of the political and religious divide. He has stated that his representative in the Executive will
1664
hope and seek to do good for all the people of Northern Ireland. I am sure and I hope that similar statements will be made by Mr. Faulkner and the leader of the Alliance Party. It is only in an atmosphere of what we might call real politics that the Northern Ireland Labour Party stands a chance of coming through in terms of its representation and its political ethos.
I wish well to the endeavours of the Secretary of State, and I add my congratulations to him. I hope that political events elsewhere and possible political changes will not remove him too hastily from the Northern Ireland scene. Time is needed for people to settle down and to work with each other.
I hope that this is the last occasion on which we shall discuss this activity in constitutional terms. There are likely to be some amendments, but I am sure that they will not be opposed. The bipartisan approach has at times been difficult for the Labour Party and for me personally. But it has been in this atmosphere that people in the United Kingdom have seen that we have had an opportunity to say to the urban guerrilla in Northern Ireland "You will not win." We have the courage in terms of the feelings of the British people. We have had the troops and security forces to withstand the urban guerrilla. We have now created a situation in Northern Ireland where the urban guerrilla cannot succeed.
8.56 p.m.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I am very grateful for the opportunity provided by the debate to discuss matters of great importance to Northern Ireland, particularly those subjects on which I have been invited to concentrate; namely, agriculture, local government and the health and social services.
Experimental policies of the kind that we have been discussion for the greater part of the day should not in any way distract us from the other matters in which the House has acquired an interest, which will be a continuing interest for the House. With consequent involvement, and all that that implies, in matters of detail, it is hoped that Parliament will accept the natural justice of the recommendation of the Kilbrandon Report to increase the number of those

1665
of us who will continue to bear these burdens, thus ensuring that Northern Ireland has fair and adequate parliamentary representation. This would be more profitable than the hypothetical type of exercise in which we have engaged today.
We have heard statements by various Ministers that agriculture in the United Kingdom is doing extremely well. No one would quarrel with that statement if he related it solely to Great Britain. But when one includes Northern Ireland the position is seen to be very different. In Great Britain it is true that the high prices paid for cereals produced have undoubtedly boosted average farm incomes. The position in Northern Ireland is very different. In Northern Ireland livestock represents 80 per cent. of the volume of agricultural activity. To feed that livestock it is necessary to import 80 per cent. of the feeding stuffs required. It follows, therefore, that Northern Ireland farmers are far more seriously affected than their counterparts in Great Britain by the rise in feeding stuff costs. When one combines that fact with all the other handicaps, such as remoteness and transport costs, one realises that we are at a serious disadvantage.
We are grateful for the understanding which has been shown in such matters by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. We hope that his representations on behalf of Northern Ireland farmers will be heeded and acted upon by the various Departments in Whitehall. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be convinced of the necessity to expand beef production. I hope that he will be supported in his efforts to ensure, for example, that the breeding cow and calf subsidies are maintained.
We should also welcome the Under-Secreary's support in securing a more liberal interpretation of the EEC directive on the problem areas, areas which are at a special disadvantage because of climatic conditions, quality of soil, the growing season and so on. The extension of the definition of marginal land in this respect would encourage those farmers, particularly in the west of the Province, who are trying to make the most of their limited natural resources.
Turning to milk production, there is concern that Her Majesty's Government
1666
may allow themselves to be unnecessarily inhibited by EEC limitations on increases in the price of milk. For example, a permitted increase of 1·6p per gallon would be quite inadequate to meet the increased costs: three times that amount would be much more realistic. I trust that the House can be assured that this factor will be taken into account in the annual price review.
The Ulster Farmers' Union and farmers generally will be heartened by the hopes expressed earlier today by the Minister of Agriculture that the earlier start to the price review negotiations will in turn enable him to make a much earlier announcement. Farmers generally would welcome such an announcement, because it would allow them to plan ahead with confidence, knowing what was in store for them, even if there were some delay in obtaining the ready cash involved.
Turning to the Ministry of Development—I am not sure that it will go under that title in the new cabinet-making processes—I want to mention particularly the problems of Aldergrove Airport. Mainly through the generosity of Governments of both parties in the past, the airport has been brought up to international standards. The runway extension has made it possible to operate and accommodate direct transatlantic flights, and the proposed terminal extension will undoubtedly provide greatly increased facilities for travellers.
But, with this in mind, I am very disturbed by reports that the transatlantic section of British Airways is not making the fullest use of these facilities. It is apparently placing undue emphasis on the attractions of Prestwick and Heathrow, to the detriment of Aldergrove. There is also a suspicion that Aer Lingus, by using various front organisations, is siphoning off traffic which properly belongs to our own State airlines. This appears to be a violation of agreements.
It might help to have some indication of the progress of the plans for the terminal extension and perhaps of the Government's thinking on what might be called the rather more controversial proposals and suggestions for developing the Aldergrove area. Hitherto, it has been the planning policy that there should be no great development, either industrial or housing, in the area lying between the growth centres of Antrim and Craigavon. It would be a mistake to clutter the rural

1667
area of Aldergrove with factories or even service industries, and I hope that it will not be done.
One realises that thinking for the future is bound to be affected by security considerations. We have to face the fact that this violence will continue for a considerable time. I am afraid that the superstition still exists in this House that somehow that problem is related to what we have spent most of today discussing. We have to adjust ourselves to that uncomfortable fact of life.
In that regard, most people would accept the need for fairly tight security at Aldergrove, but sound judgment should be shown to ensure that the security arrangements do not do the job of the IRA by making life hell for travellers and airport staff and the unfortunate local residents, who are inevitably treated as potential terrorists as they go about their daily business.
I wish to pay a sincere tribute to the airport staff and the staff of the various airlines that operate from Aldergrove who cheerfully perform their duties under trying conditions. I suggest that their courage and devotion should be an example to some of the spokesmen for the pilots, whose hysterical reactions to minor incidents cause a great deal of the panic measures, which in turn cause much frustration.
I share the fears and disappointment expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder), who thought it a retrograde step that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive should now revert to some kind of political control. But at least this will not happen in the foreseeable future.
I wish now to refer to the problem of repairs and maintenance. I am glad to see the Minister of State on the Government Front Bench, because when I recently questioned him about this matter I was asking about the entire area of repairs and maintenance. I believe that the Minister perhaps misunderstood me and assumed that I was dealing with one specific case. This was not so.
There is a shortage of skilled manpower throughout the whole of the Province in the sectors of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive responsible
1668
for repairs and maintenance. The position is that, although private building contractors can use a great deal of flexibility in interpreting Government pay policy, the Housing Executive has no such discretion. It must go strictly by the book. Therefore, the Housing Executive finds itself in something approaching a straitjacket. Repairs and maintenance are falling very much into arrear, and some measures are called for. I hope that the Ministry of Development will take an earlier initiative in this matter.
Another difficult and worrying problem involves the sale of houses by the Housing Executive to tenants. In many cases before councils' powers were taken over by the Executive agreements had been reached about transactions on the basis of fair valuations arrived at by Ministry of Finance valuers. When the Executive assumed responsibility for housing, area officers did their best to preserve and maintain some degree of continuity, but the plain truth is that little or no progress was made. The problem has now been passed to a higher level, and a special unit has been formed at the headquarters of the Executive. It now looks as though the whole operation may become bogged down. This creates an intolerable problem for tenants who would be happy to improve houses if they were sure of the future. I hope that my hon. Friend will look into that aspect of the problem.
My final point relates to improvement grants. This is a temporary problem and is not a matter in which we would be creating any precedent from which we might suffer later. The problem is that before the transfer of housing functions many people had applied to local councils for improvement grants. In the friendly, informal way in which these things are done in local areas, in many cases verbal approval was given and owners were assured that work would attract the full grant. Now that the Executive has taken over, it would appear that some obscure official somewhere in the citadel occupied by the Housing Executive has decided that this is a discretionary grant and has said "No, you cannot have the full grant." This has left owners in a most difficult situation because they have embarked on a good deal of expenditure. In some cases schemes have been completed and owners are now being told that they do not

1669
qualify for grant. Unfortunately, they have incurred large overdrafts and are being burdened with increased interest rates and so forth. I beg my hon. Friend to assure us that he will do his best to see that a more humane attitude is taken by the Housing Executive to what is purely a short-term problem affecting only this limited number of people who were caught on the wrong side of the changeover of responsibility.
Whatever the structural defects of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, and whatever rethinking may be necessary in the future, it can be said that, with very few exceptions, the officers and staff at all levels of the Executive are doing their best to provide for the housing needs of the community.
I return finally to the point which has been made about changes in the Northern Ireland team of Ministers. It is important for the team to be maintained at its full strength. Knowing the burdens which fall upon me as a mere person shadowing three Stormont Ministries, I can appreciate what it must be like for one Minister to run three Stormont Ministries.
For the time being, we have a provisional Executive. I shall not change my view about it, which I do not need to reiterate tonight. I hope that I am proved wrong. I hope, too, that the Westminster Government will fall in with the recommendations of the Kilbrandon Report by giving us the number of representatives and the full parliamentary Government to which we are entitled.
9.10 p.m.
Mr. Stanley Orme: This has been an unusual Irish debate. I concede immediately that all Irish debates in this House are unusual, because they have a special connotation and we all know the problems that exist. But it is unusual in the sense that for the first time we are not discussing proposals which will be put into legislation. In effect, we are discussing the decisions which have been arrived at and the positive proposals which have come out of the agreement reached between the Secretary of State and the three political parties in Northern Ireland.
Much has been said about a bipartisan approach. On behalf of the Labour Party, I can say that what we have done is to support the policies that we believe to be right for Northern Ireland. We have
1670
done that when the Government have agreed, as they have with many of them, and when they have not agreed we have opposed them.
I believe that we have been right in our general approach in wanting to see a new political start in Northern Ireland. This debate has been about starting from scratch with a new concept, a new Executive and Assembly and the possibility of real power sharing.
There have been major changes in Northern Ireland. I know that some of the pessimism which exists has been reflected in a number of speeches today. In my opinion, however, that pessimism is not borne out by the facts.
One of the most significant events in recent days was the vote at the Unionist Council. By that I do not mean the majority vote which Mr. Faulkner obtained. What was really astounding was that nearly 400 Unionists put up their hands in public in favour of working with Roman Catholics on a genuine power-sharing basis. That could not have happened or, indeed, have been thought of 18 months or two years ago. But it did happen in the face of all the pressures and difficulties.
We all know that to be involved in Irish politics is not to gain in the sense of plaudits and bouquets. Brickbats come regularly, and one's integrity and honesty are challenged from all sides. But it is astounding that the Unionists—still divided, I concede—could place their crosses on ballot papers or put up their hands saying "Yes, we want power sharing; we want to work with the Roman Catholic community." It is a question not of having a Castle Catholic in an administration, but of having Catholics in on the basis of genuine power-sharing.
The hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) suggested that all the best portfolios had been given to the SDLP and that the Unionists had got nothing. My hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus) said exactly the opposite. Therefore, that comes out just about right.
I accept that we are not home and dry. We are still on a knife edge in many instances. But the critics on both sides of the House—the hon. Members

1671
for Mid-Ulster (Mrs. McAliskey), Fermanagh and South Tyrone and Conservative Members who are opposed to this concept—have not put forward any tangible alternatives. Each puts forward a concept in which he or she can believe. Each puts forward a policy that a section of the community could support. But can they put forward anything which in the interim can cross the divide between the two communities? These proposals have done just that. I challenge those hon. Members to say that they have put forward any constructive proposals. I believe that the agreement that has been arrived at is the best that can be achieved in the circumstances, and that flowing from it positive results will develop.
Mrs. McAliskey: I have on several occasions put forward constructive policies, as my hon. Friend will find if he cares to go through previous debates. I am interested not so much in this sharing of power as in what power is shared and on what basis. I have put forward constructive proposals on innumerable occasions. For example, if there is anything to be pleased about, I am pleased that Mr. Austin Currie will be responsible for housing.
One constructive proposal that I have consistently put forward in this House is that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive, which as a central body was a good idea, not only replacing 73 local councils but amalgamating the debts of those 73 local councils—the debt in my area was about £5 million—should have its debt cancelled. I have consistently asked the Government, and presumably will now have to ask the Executive, to cancel the Housing Executive's debt as the debts of the airlines and railways were cancelled in the past. That would allow the Housing Executive to start its policy anew. I have put forward that policy and a policy for employment. I have, in fact, put forward several constructive policies which are based not on who carries them out but on the underlying politics. I am against the policy when I cannot see how it can possibly be carried out in a power-sharing Executive when half the Executive is composed of Tories.
Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend wants not only to keep her cake but to eat it. She
1672
now comes forward with proposals that she is ready to put to the new Executive. She even welcomes a certain appointment. She speaks of excellent proposals that she has put forward in the past on economic issues, but she has not answered the question I posed: what is the basic proposal that she makes to bridge the two communities? That is the key issue.
Mrs. McAliskey: Socialism.
Mr. Orme: I put the same question to hon. Gentlemen opposite, not least to the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), who gave credit to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I realise that hon. Members do not want an increase in the violence; they want a solution. However, they do not come forward with an alternative. Surely the proposal that the Unionists have accepted, under great duress and pressure, to work with the Alliance Party and the SDLP is the only possible development at this time.
Captain Orr: No.
Mr. Orme: The hon. and gallant Gentleman says "No." But the answers are not forthcoming.
This is the same sort of argument as we have had within our parties. I say quite frankly that our critics in the Labour Party and at our conference have said this. We were asked at our conference why we were not discussing Ireland. From 630 constituency parties and something like 150 trade unions, not one resolution was submitted dealing with the Irish policy or an alternative policy. That is because there is no alternative policy at the moment. Everyone knows that, if this policy fails, we will have to return to direct rule. The other alternatives such as total integration, UDI or an immediate united Ireland are not capable of achievement now. We have to face this fact, and it was faced by the SDLP and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in a courageous speech earlier today.
My hon. Friend has had to move a long way. He and Mr. Brian Faulkner are now to sit down in the same office. That is something that would have been spoken of as a figment of the imagination only a short while ago.
Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman has repeatedly said that we had not put forward any alternative proposals. I have constantly put forward various alternative proposals. I put forward a simple one this afternoon—that we should accept what Kilbrandon has said and increase Northern Ireland representation in this House. It is no use the hon. Gentleman saying that it is impossible. Neither I nor my party would agree with that view.
Mr. Orme: The hon. and gallant Gentleman agrees with that proposal, and some of his hon. Friends would want increased representation. But would the minority accept it? Of course not. He knows that that is divisive. What we are looking for is something that will unite us.
Captain Orr: The hon. Gentleman is making the point that something is unacceptable because a minority will not accept it, yet he is forcing upon Northern Ireland an Executive which is opposed by at least 36 per cent. of the electorate.
Mr. Orme: The hon. and gallant Gentleman's party has accepted it. It has not been forced upon it. Those who set out to wreck the Assembly or the Executive by constitutional or violent means—they are entitled to use the former—have to be extremely careful. If they wreck them, they could impoverish those whom they represent. If we were to lose our way now and go back to square one, it would not be quite the same as when we left square one. There will be increasing difficulties. The pressures and the violence will return.
Mr. Stallard: My difficulty is that the Government have embarked on a course which seems for ever to rule out a united Ireland. I say that that is the only ultimate solution.
Mr. Orme: The concept of the Executive has alongside it a Council of Ireland. I could say that I believe in a united Ireland, but I would have to carry a million Protestants with me to implement the policy. We have to convince the people in Northern Ireland on both sides of the argument that this is capable of achievement. I believe it is, but not by violence, threats or trying to push the Protestants into something they are not prepared to accept. We concede that.
1674
I hope that the new Executive—when it becomes possible for it to start, which may be in the New Year—will get down to tackling some of the social and economic problems. The hon. Member for Antrim, South made an interesting constituency speech. He dealt with the bread-and-butter issues in Northern Ireland and set out many of the things which he said needed to be done.
There is now an opportunity for the three parties to fashion policies. Sometimes they may be in conflict with the Government at Westminster. I hope that they will come forward with Socialist proposals. The Secretary of State and his hon. Friends might not agree with what is put forward, but I hope that the three parties will nevertheless have an opportunity to put forward proposals which they think should be carried out. The test of the Executive will be not fine words and declarations but achievements. Its success will depend upon whether the right roads are built, whether it decides to cancel the ring road at Belfast and whether jobs are brought to Belfast and to the area west of the River Bann.
Mrs. McAliskey rose—
Mr. Orme: I hope that the hon. Lady will excuse my not giving way, but time is rather short.
The problem of employment at Harland and Wolff must be tackled, as must the whole question of employment in Northern Ireland. The chairman of the new committees and the members of the Executive are not going into a cushy job. They will be answerable to the people amongst whom they live. The hon. Lady the Member for Mid-Ulster and others who are opposed to the Executive know how things operate in Irish politics. They say that they are opposed to the Executive, but the next minute they are on the doorstep demanding that the Minister does various things.
The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) criticised the fact that housing was going back into the political arena. In the past it was under the control of the Stormont administration. I welcome its return to the political arena, because it means that it will no longer be dealt with on a one-sided basis. The hon. Member for Belfast, West will have responsibility for housing. He will have a heavy responsibility on his shoulders,

1675
and he will be expected to produce results. People from all communities will want houses, and they will have a right to ask for them.
Perhaps the most important problems in Northern Ireland are those connected with housing, the environment and the provision of jobs. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is running at a rate of 5·3 per cent. Too often in the past people have had to leave in order to find jobs. They have solved their individual problems by leaving the area, but their problems should have been solved for them by the introduction of sound economic and social policies.
Mrs. McAliskey: The hon. Gentleman criticises those who, he says, oppose something and at the same time demand something from it. The Labour Party continually demands from the Government things which it opposes. It is therefore right to oppose the Executive and at the same time demand that certain rights be given to the people.
Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that the new Minister-designate for Health and Social Services should not extract rent arrears from the supplementary benefits and family allowances paid to people on rent strike, since it was that individual who called for the strike?
Mr. Orme: That last point is a matter for the Executive and the Assembly. It is not for us in this House to dictate their policies. They would resent it if the Secretary of State dictated their future social and economic policies, and they must resolve them. But I shall let my last words stand against what the hon. Lady said. I think that my criticisms were justified.
I want to come to the question of internment, which is a serious issue which has taxed the minds of those of us on this side of the House since its inception. What we are concerned about is that internment should not be with us for so long that it becomes accepted as part of the machinery of State. Internment must be brought to an end. Although it can be discussed in the Executive and the Assembly, we recognise that security is an exempted matter and is therefore the responsibility of this House. But it is wrong that internment should continue alongside the Diplock proposals,
1676
the Act, the amendments—some of which we did not agree with—and the new tribunals and courts.
We have made it very clear in the past that we want to see internment ended; in fact, we voted against internment in this House and we think we were right in doing so. We want to see a drastic change, and I am hoping that with the coming of the Executive there will be a reduction in violence which in itself will lead to the ending of internment. We know about what is going on at Long Kesh and about the conditions there. The present position is unsatisfactory and puts us at odds with other Western European countries. Therefore, something must be done fairly soon.
In the Council of Ireland I see one of the real chances for open development within both Northern Ireland and the Republic. The right hon. Gentleman intends that there shall be consultations prior to the setting up of the council, and I presume that there may be meetings with parties in the Republic. He said that he wanted to meet the parties, even those that were opposed to the Executive and to the concept of a Council of Ireland. Reference was made by one of my hon. Friends to a Council of Europe where people could meet. I do not see why the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) should not make his views known to the politicians in the Republic, and vice versa. I believe that there is unlimited scope for the Council of Ireland, although there is a restriction in the fact that decisions will have to be unanimous.
The final question is, will it work? We do not know. If the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West are anything to go by, it will work. But it will not be easy, and there are all sorts of hurdles and plenty of critics and opponents. However, if this idea begins to work and economic and social benefits start to flow, it will give a new vigour to Northern Ireland and a new feeling of confidence. We on this side want to see working-class Protestants and Roman Catholics coming together on the social and economic issues which do not divide them—they are divided only by sectarian differences which have been bred over the generations—and there is a real chance for that to happen.

1677
Therefore, we welcome this step. We in the Labour Party feel that we have played some part in it, but we do not wish to detract from the Secretary of State's ability and achievement in bringing about the formation of the Executive. It would be churlish to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman other than fully. Now, however, the matter is moving away from him and the Government into the hands of the people of Northern Ireland. That is how the problems in Northern Ireland will finally be resolved. We wish the people well. There will be criticisms and problems, but this might be the first step in recent years in securing a real achievement in Northern Ireland.
9.36 p.m.
The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I do not think it can be said that this has been a euphoric debate. This House and those who attend our debates on Northern Ireland are far too familiar with the pattern of events there, and with the ups and downs, to get swept away by euphoria. There has been no euphoria, nor should there have been.
No one has ever believed that the future and the threat of violence can be met by politics alone. Of course they cannot. There is always the danger of violence, there are always the threats and there is always the need to provide every conceivable backing for the security forces to be at readiness against the fears and threat of violence. But, at the same time, if there has been no euphoria it is right to say, as many have done, that this could be a good start, that the possibilities for a better future are there and that what has been brought forward today as a proposed agreement on the Executive-designate provides possibilities on which we can and must build.
I should like to take up a number of points that have been made and elaborate a little on the aspect which began to come through at the end of our debate concerning what seemed to be the bread and butter issues. Yet, basically they are the most important issues, the issues of a roof over one's head, the food on one's table and the kind of life and surroundings that the people of Northern Ireland will have, deserve to have and have a right to in the future. The hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr.
1678
Merlyn Rees) asked about the timing and the various ways in which the pattern of things may develop in the future. Now that agreement has been reached on an Executive-designate, obviously we want to go ahead as soon as possible, and we wish to arrange a conference with those in the Executive who will take part and with the Government of the Republic. We hope that will be in early December. Thereafter, if this House and another place approve the necessary amendments to the Constitution Act, there may be—again if this House approves—the necessary devolution of powers, and it would be our hope that the whole of this process could be completed early in the New Year. That is how we see the future shaping up as of now.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Just as I think we were helpful over the date of 28th June, if the Government wish to move even faster in that timetable, bearing in mind there will be a recess, we would expedite any move the Government made.
Mr. Howell: I am sure that my right hon. Friend has noted that point.
The hon. Member asked about the economic and social document which he said could be treated as a Queen's Speech by the Executive if and when it comes about. That is right. The document of economic and social aims has been put together by, and in a sense is the property of, the three parties to the agreement. It is for them to decide how they wish to use and present it once the administration of the Executive gets under way.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the status of the committee under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). It has no statutory function. Its rôle is simply to help the chief constable and the police authority. It reflects the Government's belief that urgent attention should be paid to recruitment and the place of the RUC in the community. For example, thought has been given to the rôle of district police liaison committees in improving links between the community and local police commanders.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the study of law enforcement. This is a preliminary study at official level. But, as my right hon. Friend said, it is a

1679
matter for detailed discussion in the future.
No legislation would be needed for the formation of a Council of Ireland. A different question arises over its functions. If it is to assume powers which are reserved or excepted, legislation will be required here at Westminster, and if it is to assume powers and functions on transferred matters, legislation will be required in the Assembly in Belfast. But there is no obligation for legislation on its formation, although the Assembly might feel that it wished to pass a motion to mark its formation.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Because of the time, I shall not pursue the matter now, but we understood that the Council of Ireland did need legislation, and we find the situation a little odd.
Mr. Howell: The formation is a different thing.
The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members asked what was the purpose of the first tripartite conference. It is to discuss the general aspect of the Council of Ireland, to formulate clear views about it in a general sense and to reach the kind of agreement which, together with the agreement on the Executive-designate, could provide the whole package for the process to go forward to the formal conference.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the consultative and advisory level body which my right hon. Friend mentioned, and asked who could be in it. It is very much a matter for discussion in the Assembly and the Executive, and with other interested parties, as to who would go to the second-level body and what form it would take.
As for economic policy in the North and the South, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that the trade between the two is fairly small. In a way that is not surprising, because the North has for a long time been geared to the rest of the United Kingdom economy and the South has been geared in a different way. Trade is governed by the Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement and other international agreements between the Republic and ourselves. The tariffs have come down rapidly. I believe that those between Northern Ireland and the Republic on
1680
everything are due to be eliminated next year. That is rather faster than their elimination on trade between the rest of the United Kingdom and the Republic. It can be seen that there are no barriers to trade Perhaps we shall see trade expand as the prosperity of Northern Ireland increases, as it is increasing now, and that of the rest of the United Kingdom increases.
I must correct one point made by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. McManus), who seemed to think that civil servants were appointed by the Minister of Finance. Appointment does not work like that. It is done by the head of the Civil Service, subject for the most senior appointments to the political head of the Department concerned. The hon. Gentleman's rather Machiavellian idea that the Minister of Finance or the head of the Department of Finance under the Executive would pick out all the civil servants can be dismissed as complete rubbish.
Mr. McManus: The hon. Gentleman dos me an injustice, and the Secretary of State does me an even greater injustice by muttering "Complete rubbish". I do not believe that it is. I did not speak of the Minister of Finance. I said that in the Ministry of Finance a section has been established. Can the Minister confirm or deny that a section dealing with the management of personnel has been set up?
Mr. Howell: That is not quite what the hon. Gentleman said. There is a Civil Service management division which comes under the Ministry of Finance. It is concerned with the administration of the Civil Service. It is similar to the Civil Service Department here. That is a far cry from what the hon. Gentleman suggested.
Mr. McManus: That is exactly what I said.
Mr. Howell: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) asked "What about the Chief Whip?" He asked what the Chief Whip will do. I do not find any difficulty with that matter. The Chief Whip will whip in the supporters of the Executive. I should have thought that that was obvious. If I have missed anything in the point raised by my hon. and gallant

1681
Friend, I cannot see it. He asked what the non-Executive members will be paid. I cannot give an answer. The matter is still being considered.
My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Stratton Mills) asked for more information on the tripartite talks. He asked who would be the parties to the talks and what their capacity would be I can only repeat what my right hon. Friend said—namely, that the parties who are not prepared to assent to power sharing and the propositions of the Constitution Act will have their views taken by my right hon. Friend in consultation with those parties who will consent to power sharing. Therefore, the parties are the parties to the Executive and to the tripartite talks with the Government of the Republic and the British Government. The purpose will be, as I said earlier, to discuss the broad shape of the future Council of Ireland and other arrangements, and to provide, or assist in determining whether, a basis can be reached which satisfies all those in the Executive, which completes the package and which allows the Executive to go forward.
Mr. Stratton Mills: Do I understand that in the preliminary round of talks the parties will go as individual parties rather than as a preliminary Executive?
Mr. Howell: By definition the Executive does not exist in a legal form. The parties must go as parties to the preliminary talks.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) raised an interesting number of matters. I hope that he will not regard me as dismissing them if I refer to them as bread and butter issues. I shall consider them all in detail.
My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South referred, as did the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) to the broader issue behind all the political agreements and the determination to hunt down the men of violence and the extremists on both sides. Behind my right hon. Friend's herculean and patient efforts there is the aim to provide prosperity and a decent life for the people of Northern Ireland. I fully recognise that there is a tremendous amount to do. There are appalling black spots in Northern Ireland.
1682
We have spent much time in the stewardship of the last 20 months in attempting to beam on to the black spots the full efforts and resources of the Government in lowering the appallingly high unemployment rates. At the same time, it is fair to say that on the economic front there has been an almost continuous stream of good news which has been in direct contradiction to the pessimism and gloom of people who have taken a different view of Northern Ireland. It has been in complete contradiction to the efforts and the declared aims of terrorists to destroy the economic fabric of Northern Ireland.
That has been the declared aim of some. What has been the answer? It has been a powerful and continuing surge forward in the Northern Ireland economy. There has been rapid expansion. For example, in the past year the growth rate in manufacturing was 14 per cent. That is by no means a small performance. It seems that 1973 will be the best year for industrial development in Northern Ireland for many years. While there are black spots, and while there is a need for development, the picture is by no means one of complete gloom.
The one area of life in Northern Ireland in which there has been a slump in the figure is in the unemployment total. The figures published today show a fall of 5·2 per cent. The trend is still downward. It is not just a 5·2 per cent. fall in some places because the trend has been downwards right across the board. There are 30 local employment offices in Northern Ireland and every one shows a fall in unemployment. That is not the sort of picture to be expected in a community which is breaking up or edging towards the verge of destruction. It is an even spread of prosperity which is extremely encouraging.
One of the greatest burdens of the past has been the appalling unevenness of job opportunities, with labour shortage existing side by side with areas of appallingly high and persistent unemployment. We all know that a heavy social and political price has been paid for this. It has been one of our central aims to alter this state of affairs and to attempt to bring more help to places like Londonderry, the Newry area and West Belfast, not just West of the Bann. I am sure that if and when the Executive is formed

1683
and moves into gear, it will want to push ahead from here in concentrating on reducing the appalling disparities in employment opportunities and employment resources in different parts of Northern Ireland.
I do not think that those who have kept closely in touch with Northern Ireland's economic affairs will be greatly surprised by the fact that, despite all the bad news, there has always been the good news of the economic performance. I think—and perhaps this is an opinion I can give after 20 months of close involvement—that there is, first, a real quality of drive and ingeniousness in Ulster businessmen and work people in overcoming the challenges that they have had to face. Secondly, if I can put in a word from our side, we in the Government have sought to match those qualities with a pretty imaginative approach specially devised to meet Northern Ireland's special regional needs, and I hope that the future Executive would want to develop this approach. Thirdly, I think that there are remarkable achievements by the trade unions and managements in industrial relations.
When one looks at these three elements, one sees that they are the ingredients of economic success which provide that in the future, unless things go very wrong, the prospects of building Northern Ireland's prosperity on a really secure basis are extremely good. I think that that should be recognised in everything we have tried to do so far and in all that I hope that we and the Executive will seek to do in the future.
In industrial development, this year, up to the end of September, 53 new projects have been promoted by the present Ministry of Commerce. Eleven of these are new plants, including six from outside the United Kingdom—from the United States, Scandinavia and Western Europe. This is a question not just of local investment but of people from outside the United Kingdom putting their money in Northern Ireland in very large quantities, thus registering a vote of confidence in the future of Northern Ireland and its people. The continued confidence of firms like Courtaulds, which alone has this year announced its intention to spend over £40 million in Northern Ireland, is a reflection of the amazing
1684
ability of Northern Ireland to compete against an appallingly difficult background. This is the economic picture for the present, and it provides a very sound basis for the future, although I am the first to admit that much remains to be done.
I turn now to housing. Our housing performance has not been good enough, and there are problems. We have to pick these up with the Housing Executive. It has had very great difficulties and has fought against appalling odds in getting its housing programme forward. But I recognise that, when all is said and done, the Northern Ireland administration and the Civil Service have performed extremely well against a background of political instability and violence to achieve very great things in Northern Ireland in carrying forward the basis and framework for a better life for its people.
That is the picture now. The simple question remains: if we can move on from here to sustained peace and a stable political settlement, if the people of Northern Ireland have done that well under present conditions, how much better will they do when peace and political stability are fully realised? These goals are not beyond Northern Ireland's reach.
The pessimists have told us in the House over the last 20 months that none of these things could be done. We were told that it was not possible to have elections. Elections were held. We were told that it was not possible to create an Assembly. The Assembly was created. My right hon. Friend was told that it was flatly impossible to reach any agreement in principle on an Executive. But an agreement in principle for an Executive-designate has been reached.
Therefore, when one hears that these things are not possible and will not work, the time comes when the pessimists have to be answered and we have to say that these things can be reached and that the prospects for Northern Ireland's economic, social and political future can be realised in a satisfactory way.
On the security side we know, as I have said, that the danger of violence is always there. But let us not forget that the security forces' efforts are a constant and continuous success. Again and again they score enormous successes in searches, finds and arrests and whittling down by

1685
erosion of terrorism, from both sides. Let us not for a moment forget that success has increasingly marked the efforts of the security forces. That deals with the moves towards peace.
As to the political front, we now have the agreement for the Executive-designate. It is vitally important that there has been agreement between political leaders. But perhaps even more important was something put into my mind by the very moving and brave speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). That is that, aside from the political leaders, more and more people in Northern Ireland are recognising one simple, central reality; that this is not just a fancy way forward, not just a gimmick, not just a choice of something that can be picked up and thrown down. This is the only way. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) said, there is no alternative, no soft option, no other way. He was entirely right, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South was entirely and tragically wrong.
This is increasingly understood by the people of Northern Ireland. That is what lies behind and gives substance to this start, this agreement for an Executive-designate which my right hon. Friend has achieved.
The truth is that words, arguments and views are slowly but inevitably replacing the violence and gunfire, though the pessimists may deny it. We are beginning to hear in Northern Ireland something that I thought we would never hear—someone listening to the other person's point of view. This is beginning to come through in the currency of debate. We never heard that previously.
There is some way to go yet. Perhaps we can say, at the end of this debate, that the first shoots of true reconciliation are beginning to show through the ice-black earth of Ulster's recent past. If we can move on from here—as I believe the whole House, with one or two sad exceptions, thinks we can, the economic and social vitality of Ulster can be permanently sustained on a basis of peace and prosperity in this corner of the United Kingdom and of Europe.
Mr. A. G. F. Hall-Davis: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 66 (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  Question agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS BILL
    ADJOURNMENT
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hall-Davis.]

  WASTE MATERIAL (RECYCLING)
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Trew: I welcome this opportunity of raising the subject of the recycling of waste materials. We are beset on all sides by a shortage of materials. The world's natural resources are limited and are gradually becoming depleted. There is, however, one resource which is not only growing but growing at an alarming rate. That resource is waste material, of all descriptions. Rubbish is the world's only growing resource. In this country each year we produce 20 million tons of municipal waste, and a great deal of what we throw away could be used.
  I say immediately that a great deal of waste material is already recovered. The materials reclamation industry is in its own right a substantial industry, with a turnover of more than £1,000 million a year. But a great deal more could be done.
  There are three good reasons why we should reclaim and recycle waste materials. First, they provide us with materials which are in short supply. Second—
  It being Ten o'clock, the notion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jopling.]
  Mr. Trew: Second, they result in a substantial saving in imports, because many of the materials that they replace we import from abroad. Third, they provide a partial solution to the disposal of refuse, which is potentially such a great blight of the environment.
  There are two main groups of activities in recycling. The first comprises those well-established recycling activities—the collection and recovery of paper, glass, scrap metal and rubber—which have been going on for a long time on a large scale but which still have considerable scope for improvement. The second group is still at an experimental stage but has considerable potential—for example, the treatment of refuse to extract fuel oil, protein and certain types of sugar for conversion into industrial alcohol.
  Waste paper is an important raw material for the paper and board industry. About two-thirds of our paper mills now use a high percentage of waste paper as a raw material, and their total requirement this year will be about 2 million tons, representing an import saving of £100 million. The need for waste paper is increasing. Indeed, unless we can solve the problem of recycling newsprint, we may well find it difficult to continue having newspapers of the size and volume that we enjoy today.
  The greatest scope for new supplies of waste paper is municipal refuse, which includes each year about 6 million to 7 million tons of waste paper, of which at present we process only about 300,000 tons. Municipal waste provides only about one-fifth of the paper industry's requirements.
  The shortage of bottles is something with which every housewife is familiar. We are being warned about the shortage of milk bottles and soft drink bottles. There are two problems here. First, people are not returning enough bottles; and second, too many manufacturers are changing over to non-returnable bottles. But if the problems of collection can be resolved, there is considerable scope for re-using waste bottles and glass.
  I am told that one obstacle which will have to be overcome is the housewife's insistence on crystal-clear bottles for her
  1688
  milk. If she were prepared to accept cloudy bottles, I am told that waste glass of all sorts could be a valuable source of new bottles. There are other potential uses for waste glass—non-skid surfaces for floors and roads, aggregate in concrete and the manufacture of glass fibre.
  Scrap metal is already a sophisticated industry. Over 50 per cent. of our requirements of iron and steel come from scrap, as well as a substantial proportion of lead, copper, aluminium and zinc. But a great deal more could be done in this respect too. The most promising sources are municipal refuse and the processing of industrial effluent to recover metals.
  Rubber tyres account for 300,000 tons of waste each year. We could be making far more use of that. It is possible, I believe, to increase the proportion of reclaimed rubber in new tyres. Rubber when ground and mixed with bitumen can provide a useful road surface.
  Those are the existing recycling activities, and there is a great deal that can be done to get more use out of them. I shall come shortly to what I believe the Government can do to assist the situation. Before I do so I wish to say something about the experimental activities.
  First there is a process called pyrolysis, by which refuse is burnt in the absence of oxygen to yield a wide range of fuels from gas to solid combustibles. There is an American process which can yield up to a barrel of oil per ton of refuse. That will not solve the present oil crisis, but in future it could prove to be a small but significant source of oil fuel. Then there are the processes by which there can be extracted from organic waste proteins and certain types of sugar which can be converted into industrial alcohols. An important technique which is still at an experimental stage is solving the problem of what to do about plastics, which appears to be an intractable problem. One use to which plastics can be put is that they can be shredded and used instead of sand in paving stones. Those are the main activities. I realise that I have left out many activities which are all-important in their own way.
  Having given a brief account of the problem, I should like to consider what the Government could do to encourage the use of waster material. There are

  1689
  four areas in which the Government can act. The first relates to research. The Government are already carrying out valuable technological research at the Warren Spring Laboratory, near Steven age. One welcomes that and would like to see more of it, but there is also a need for a great deal of statistical research. We need to know precisely how much refuse is being produced, where it is, what is its content, what is its potential for re-use and what is the demand for it by industrial users.
  The Government can do a great deal in the way of publicity. For example, local authorities are potentially the most important collectors and processors of refuse. However, the Government cannot leave the matter to local authorities to decide what commercially they should do and how they should exploit refuse. The Government must go out and sell the idea to local authorities. The Government must make the public more aware of the need to recycle waste material and of the benefits to be gained. If local authorities are to be active in this matter, they will need to have the public's co-operation. The ordinary householder will have to separate out his refuse—put his newspapers on one side and his bottles on the other—if this process is to be economic.
  The next thing the Government can do is to take power to control packaging and containers. I am delighted to see in the Chamber my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack), who earlier this year introduced a Ten-Minute Bill on this subject. I understand that he hopes to have an opportunity to take part in this debate. It is important that the Government take powers to control packaging so that it is in a form that is easy to reprocess. For instance, paper coated with plastic is difficult to recycle. The Government must also take steps to reduce the use of non-returnable or one-trip bottles as they are called in recycling jargon.
  Finally, the Government can take action by giving financial incentives. By this I do not mean subsidies. It is too easy to say that the Government should encourage recycling by giving subsidies. I am reluctant to suggest Government subsidies for anything. But what the Government can do is to consider whether local authorities which invest in recycling or reprocessing plant can qualify for investment
  1690
  grants. I should like to see these grants linked to a share of the profits when the processes become profitable.
  The Government might also provide tax incentives to encourage the use of recycling materials. This might be done through the mechanism of value added tax.
  This has been a very brief sketch of the potentialities of recycling and of what the Government can do. But I believe that the economic and efficient use of our waste materials is one of the great challenges of the next decade. It is one in which the Government have to become very much more involved.
  10.10 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) for allowing me the opportunity to say a few words and I congratulate him on his initiative in choosing this subject for an Adjournment debate. It is one of the most important subjects to which we can turn our attention. What is needed in this context more than anything else is a positive war on waste.
  Wherever we turn we find an enormous amount of waste. I was recently in America where it is taken to extremes. The Americans talk about conservation and they lament shortages while they drive around in cars which go only nine miles to the gallon and they take Sunday newspapers containing 500 pages. This is to reduce things to absurdity. We have not yet reached that stage here.
  There are three matters which cause me concern and which prompted me earlier this year to introduce a Bill which, though deficient in drafting, was, I hope, reasonable in its intentions. The first of my concerns is the superfluous packaging which my hon. Friend mentioned in his wide-ranging speech. For the housewife this inflates the cost of many articles that she buys. Packaging can account for 33 per cent. of the price of many articles. This is wasteful and contributes to inflation. On that level alone therefore, it deserves to be stemmed, and manufacturers should seek to stem it in enlightened self-interest alone.
  Then there is the sheer waste of resources to which my hon. Friend also referred. Resources are being squandered on an increasingly prodigal scale, and it

  1691
  does not or should not need present critical circumstances to remind us that we cannot go on in this way and hope to leave a society and a country fit to live in for future generations.
  My third concern is the pollution problem, and it is one which occasions a great deal of anxiety. Packages, trash cans, aerosol sprays and all the other items that one can think of are dumped in the countryside with no proper attempt at reclamation. How important it was that my hon. Friend should underline the need for a concerted attack upon this and for proper recycling for all the materials which go into packaging and which otherwise go straight into the dustbin—an enormous mouth which is daily fed at greater and greater cost and to less and less effect.
  I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he has done. I endorse what he said, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will be able at least to indicate that the Government have been thinking deeply on these subjects and have some solutions to propose.
  10.14 p.m.
  Mr. Cecil Parkinson: I wish to join my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) on his choice of subject.
  My interest in the subject was first aroused when I was invited to lunch by a group called the Reclamation Industries Council. Like many other people in the country, I suspect, having received an invitation of that kind from a person whom I knew, I thought that I was going to meet a group of people engaged in an interesting but subsidiary activity. To my surprise, I found myself among representatives of an industry which currently turns over more than £2,000 million a year. It is a huge industry and one which is growing enormously.
  My interest aroused, I began to look into the question of the world's resources and our rate of consumption. I use just one statistic which I found quite staggering when I began looking into the subject. It is estimated that by the year 2000 there will be 7,000 million people in the world compared with an approximate population at the moment of 3,700 million.
  1692
  We have heard a great deal about growth over the last year or two. If the world were to aim for an economic growth rate of 3 per cent. and the population expanded as expected, within 25 years we would be consuming the world's resources at twice our present rate. When we consider how long it has taken to get to our present rate of consumption and realise that within 23 years that would be doubled, we must take a deep breath and begin to understand that the world might be careering headlong on a course which could lead to its own destruction. One thing which I have subsequently discovered which makes me feel easier is that it is possible for the world to continue to grow at that rate provided that it accepts that, instead of just using up resources, it might have to start reclaiming and recycling.
  My hon. Friend mentioned aluminium. At the moment approximately 80 per cent. of the world's aluminium is produced from ore and 20 per cent. from reclaimed aluminium. Those percentages could quite easily be reversed. It requires a conscious decision on our part to stop consuming and to start reclaiming.
  My hon. Friend, who is gaining a reputation for himself in this House, has hit on a most important subject. Reclamation and recycling sound trendy and unimportant. But if we are to continue to grow they will have to play an absolutely vital part in any Government's future planning.
  10.17 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I join my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock (Mr. Cormack) and Enfield, West (Mr. Parkinson) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Trew) on his choice of topic and his succinct and eloquent disquisition in a House which deserves to be better attended.
  My hon. Friend has indeed chosen to speak on an important topic. I am grateful for the contributions that have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock rightly said that there could become a need for a war on waste. My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West evidently had a most interesting lunch. It would appear that during the first course he received one or two

  1693
  shocks but that all was well because, towards the end of this entertaining meal, he at least had returned to a measure of optimism about the world's future.
  I should like to give two statistics at the outset which indicate the dimensions of the problem in this country. Each year we produce in household waste approximately 14 million tons. That is growing at a rate of about 1 per cent. in weight but at a greater speed in volume due to the increase of packaging every year. Therefore, in 10 years it will be approximately 50 per cent. greater. At the same time, discounting colliery and electricity power station ash, we have 20 million tons of industrial waste which is also rapidly increasing.
  Because of the increase in the sheer volume, complexity and, in some instances, toxicity of waste we have made arrangements, in the Protection of the Environment Bill now before Parliament, which the rules of Adjournment debates prevent my discussing, for a radical reorganisation of the whole of the waste collection and disposal business in this country. I assure the House that within the arrangements it will certainly be possible and, I am sure, desirable that more attention is given to the recovery of materials for re-use, for recycling where it is economically sensible to do that, and for the use of waste for reclamation purposes of all kinds.
  I think that we need to be quite sure about our terminology. Words such as "recycling", "reclamation" and "reuse" cover a very broad area and sometimes mean different things to different people. They can mean the use of waste as a source of heat or in land reclamation. They can mean the salvaging of material for use again in its existing form, as with bottles, or the extraction of material from waste for use as a secondary material as with mixed waste paper or mixed ferrous scrap. They can also cover conversion into some other material, as with compost made from house refuse or aggregates made from incinerator clinker.
  It is not possible in 10 minutes to do justice to all these aspects so I shall concentrate, as my hon. Friends have done, on one or two aspects of the problem. May I first attempt to put into perspective the substantial amount of
  1694
  material of various sorts that is at present being reclaimed by industry. The reclamation industry embraces more than 1,000 firms, mainly of small and medium size. I am glad to say that there is a Reclamation Industries Council which was formally constituted in 1971 and is now discussing a number of the industry's problems with the Department of Trade and Industry. We welcome this council because it provides a focal point of contact between the Government and industry.
  My Department has a twofold interest in recycling. It stems first from our concern for the local authorities which involves us indirectly in waste collection and dispersal. Secondly, we have within the Department a general responsibility for the control and reduction of pollution, including the treatment of wastes before disposal. My Department is committed to achieving faster progress in all these areas. It is worth recording some of the facts. The amount of ferrous scrap recycled by industry is worth about £120 million a year. Rather more than half the ferrous scrap consumed in steel furnaces is now derived from reclaimed and recycled material.
  Non-ferrous metals recycled by the industry contribute about £230 million to £300 million a year to our balance of payments. This is a substantial amount. About 42 per cent. of our total consumption of copper is made up from secondary copper. The proportion of secondary lead has increased from 62 per cent. five years ago to over 64 per cent. today. The main source of secondary lead is storage batteries which have a limited life. In view of the growth in the number of motor vehicles, there can be little doubt that the proportion of recycled lead from this source will rapidly increase. The proportion of secondary tin his increased from about 10 per cent. in 1972 to about 18 per cent. today of our total refined tin production. The United Kingdom production of aluminium is about one-third of our total consumption.
  Turning to other products, the amount of glass cullet—a technical term which will be familiar to my hon. Friends—that can be used in the manufacture of new glass is restricted by a number of technical considerations. I note what was said about "cloudy" glass, which is of some importance. The present figure of

  1695
  glass cullet is about 20 per cent. and this could be appreciably improved. The difficulty here is that uncontaminated cullet of the necessary quality is not easy to find.
  The United Kingdom consumption of new rubber, natural and synthetic, is now running at about 450,000 tons a year, so there is no shortage of potential scrap. A large part of that will come from vehicle tyres. I have not been able to get any final figures, because the industry is fragmented, but I understand that about 70,000 tons of scrap are now used to produce about 25,000 tons of reclaim. It is plain that the industry is already recycling and reclaiming a great deal of material. We would all agree that we want to see more and I can assure the House that, through research and other ways of Government encouragement, we wish to see greater progress in this direction for the many good reasons my hon. Friend has given.
  I now turn to the more difficult problem of the handling of local authority wastes. Here the central difficulty is segregation. Local authority wastes, almost by definition, consist of a large variety of putrescibles—tin, paper, ash, and so on—thrown together in a dustbin. The problem is difficult, but a great deal could be done if we could persuade the housewife to segregate her rubbish, or if councils could afford to pay their manual workers a proper price to separate the tins, bottles, plastic and paper. That involves a great deal of manual labour, and it is an unpleasant task in many respects. It is financially a formidable—indeed, daunting—proposition for any local council to take on.
  Moreover, as our working party on refuse disposal said, however far we may progress with schemes of recovery, a considerable proportion of potentially reusable materials in our dustbins will always remain to be disposed of as refuse, because, while we are considering the merits of any reclamation proposal, we ought not to forget that salvaging material is not an end it in itself. The secondary materials that one salvages must be wanted, and they must be able to be produced at an economic price to those to whom they go.
  In some cases manufacturers are reluctant to use reclaimed material because of
  1696
  the impurities which could prevent their products from achieving the required standard of performance or purity. In addition, there are other difficulties, such as the uncertainty of supplies which depend on someone else's output of wastes.
  Then there is the question of costs. It is not always just a matter of providing money to subsidise a recycling process. The reclamation of a scarce material may in some cases require a greater use of other natural resources, such as energy, which are as scarce, and, in fact, are a positive drawback to what is sought to be achieved. The question whether reclamation should be carried out is a complex matter which needs to be assessed very carefully.
  My hon. Friends will know of the various working parties on the disposal of plastics, glass, paper and tin boxes. If my hon. Friends have not had an opportunity to study the reports that are available in some cases—and others will be available shortly—I shall be glad to send them copies.
  May I now try briefly to deal with some of the specific points which my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford recommended to the House. He wants to see a great deal more research. A lot of research is under way at both Government and industrial establishments. I was interested to hear what he said about the need for more statistical compilation. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right. I assure him that the new county councils, with their new responsibilities under the Local Government Act and with the new powers contained in the Bill for the protection of the environment, will be able to do a much better statistical job in the future than has been done in the past.
  We have also almost completed a review of all tips in the country. It is a most extensive review, and it will provide the Government with a very much better statistical base on which to make our judgment. We shall make the information available to local authorities.
  My hon. Friend spoke about publicity. I think that he has tonight contributed to that by launching this debate. He also spoke about financial incentives, but I was grateful for his moderation in not proposing additional expenditure. I assure my hon. Friend that my officials

  1697
  and I shall study what he said. He will understand that this is not an easy matter. In the end, ways of recycling must have a commercially viable purpose, and I believe that industry and the Government working together can do a
  1698
  much better job in the future than has been done in the past.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Butter Stocks
  Butter Stocks
  Commonwealth Sugar
  Commonwealth Sugar
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Oyster Beds
  Oyster Beds
  Dairy Farming
  Dairy Farming
  Intervention Prices
  Intervention Prices
  Horticulture
  Horticulture
  Guaranteed Prices
  Guaranteed Prices
  Food Import Levies
  Food Import Levies
  Cereals (Denaturing)
  Cereals (Denaturing)
  Preservatives
  Preservatives
  Intervention Board
  Intervention Board
  Milk and Meat
  Milk and Meat
  World Food Supplies
  World Food Supplies
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Market Intelligence Service
  Market Intelligence Service
  Artificial Proteins
  Artificial Proteins
  Butter Imports
  Butter Imports
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Hartlepool
  Hartlepool
  Pig and Poultry Producers
  Pig and Poultry Producers
  Soft Fruit Growers
  Soft Fruit Growers
  FEOGA
  FEOGA
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Unprofitable Commercial Activities
  Unprofitable Commercial Activities
  Inland Revenue
  Inland Revenue
  Small Deposits (Interest)
  Small Deposits (Interest)
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Balance of Payments
  Balance of Payments
  National Debt
  National Debt
  Company Cars
  Company Cars
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Corporation Tax
  Money Supply
  Money Supply
  Companies (Government Participation)
  Companies (Government Participation)
  Customs and Excise
  Customs and Excise
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Police ("Black List")
  Police ("Black List")
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
  Obscene Advertising Leaflets
  Obscene Advertising Leaflets
  State of Emergency
  State of Emergency
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
EMPLOYMENT
  Salary Increases
  Salary Increases
  Woollen and Worsted Industries
  Woollen and Worsted Industries
  Civil Service Scientific Staff
  Civil Service Scientific Staff
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Yorkshire and Humberside
  Assembly Line Working
  Assembly Line Working
  Holidays
  Holidays
  Contract Labour Agencies
  Contract Labour Agencies
  Living and Working Conditions
  Living and Working Conditions
  Social Action Programme
  Social Action Programme
  Caravan Industry
  Caravan Industry
  Nationalised Industries
  Nationalised Industries
  Industrial Relations Legislation
  Industrial Relations Legislation
DEFENCE
  Equipment
  Equipment
SCOTLAND
  Dundee
  Dundee
  Radioactive Waste
  Radioactive Waste
  Disabled Persons (Car Badge Scheme)
  Disabled Persons (Car Badge Scheme)
  Secondary Schools
  Secondary Schools
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
  St. Cross Hospital, Rugby
  St. Cross Hospital, Rugby
  Pensions and Benefits
  Pensions and Benefits
  Alcoholism
  Alcoholism
  Benefits (EEC)
  Benefits (EEC)
  Children (Death and Injury)
  Children (Death and Injury)
  Family Limitation
  Family Limitation
  Health Visitors
  Health Visitors
  Mentally-Ill Persons
  Mentally-Ill Persons
  South Ockendon Hospital (Inquiry)
  South Ockendon Hospital (Inquiry)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Fuel Policy
  Fuel Policy
  Industry Act
  Industry Act
  Shipping (Safety Inspections)
  Shipping (Safety Inspections)
  International Price Mechanism
  International Price Mechanism
  Departmental Information Officers
  Departmental Information Officers
  Chile
  Chile
  Food (French Imports)
  Food (French Imports)
  Retail Establishments (Weighing Machines)
  Retail Establishments (Weighing Machines)
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
  Imported Foods
  Imported Foods
  Caravans
  Caravans
  Petrol (Farm Vehicles)
  Petrol (Farm Vehicles)
  Finance Houses (Lending Rates)
  Finance Houses (Lending Rates)
  Import Duties
  Import Duties
  OIL SUPPLIES
  OIL SUPPLIES
  LAW (ADMINISTRATION)
  LAW (ADMINISTRATION)
  PRESIDENT NIXON
  PRESIDENT NIXON
  NEASDEN
  NEASDEN
  MUNICH
  MUNICH
  LONDON WEIGHTING ALLOWANCE
  LONDON WEIGHTING ALLOWANCE
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  GOVERNMENT POLICY (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  DRUGS (ANTE-NATAL INJURIES)
  DRUGS (ANTE-NATAL INJURIES)
CIVIL SERVICE
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Handicapped Children
  Handicapped Children
  Textbooks
  Textbooks
  St. Luke's School, Holbeck
  St. Luke's School, Holbeck
  Direct Grannt Schools
  Direct Grannt Schools
  NRDC 143 Insecticide
  NRDC 143 Insecticide
  Havant
  Havant
  Child Abuse
  Child Abuse
  Child Health
  Child Health
ENVIRONMENT
  Traffic Light Crossings (Accidents)
  Traffic Light Crossings (Accidents)
  Housing (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Housing (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  British Rail
  British Rail
  Bristol
  Bristol
  A6, Northamptonshire
  A6, Northamptonshire
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Chile
  Chile
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
  Middle East (Arms Supplies)
  Middle East (Arms Supplies)
  Middle East
  Middle East
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Proscribed Organisations
  Proscribed Organisations
WALES
  M4
  M4
  Roads
  Roads

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

NORTHERN IRELAND CHILDREN'S OPINION POLL
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: 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 approved the questions in the children's opinion poll conducted last July by the Community Relations Committee of Northern Ireland.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD BELSTEAD): No, my Lords. The Northern Ireland Community Relations Commission is an independent statutory body. It did not consult the Ministry of Community Relations about the opinion poll.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he would not agree that this particular opinion poll is inducive to stirring up trouble between the races, of which there is enough already? Secondly, while I concede that the Northern Ireland Community Relations Board have done much to contribute to good feelings in that country, will he make sure that questions of a similar sort are not asked again?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the questions which are understandably troubling my noble friend were some of a whole series, and I am sure he would accept that to take only the questions which are troubling him, in isolation, is perhaps not to give the whole picture of the undertaking, which was to try to find out from the point of view of the Community Relations Commission how these holidays away from Northern Ireland affected young people. On my noble friend's second question, I should like to
1190
say that his concern in this matter has already been drawn to the attention of the Community Relations Committee. I propose also in due course to reiterate this by drawing the attention of the Commission to the OFFICIAL REPORT Of these proceedings.
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: My Lords, while I again thank my noble friend for that helpful reply, can he possibly arrange for some form of publication of the other questions to redress the balance that he says has been put out by my concern on this matter?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to make it clear that an undertaking was given that the answers would be treated in complete confidence. The questionnaire included a long list of questions of a general nature; and the leaders of the holidays received a form of pretty general questionnaire about how they saw the holidays unfolding. I will certainly undertake to write to my noble friend to try to amplify this information somewhat, but I do not think I can undertake that the questions will actually be published.

BOXING IN SCHOOLS
3.8 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how they propose to follow up the pamphlet issued by the Ministry of Education urging schools to ban boxing owing to the danger of brain damage following blows to the head.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, the pamphlet does not urge schools to ban boxing. It was published only a month ago and my right honourable friend and I do not intend to issue further formal advice on boxing at present.
BARONESS SUM MER SKILL: My Lords, may I say that I am surprised at the Minister's Answer. I have the pamphlet here. Is it not a fact that the

1191
pamphlet says that schools should not allow boys to participate in boxing, but if a boy desires to do so the approval of the parents must be sought; and in seeking that approval the parents must be told of the brain damage which the Royal College of Physicians say may follow blows to the head?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the pamphlet certainly gives guidance on the conditions under which boxing should be conducted in schools; namely, not unless the boys want to take part; not without the parents' approval; not without warning of the risks; only under competent supervision; and only if the competitors are carefully matched.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as that is very comprehensive guidance, how can the noble Lord say that the pamphlet does not say that boxing should take place in schools as usual? It specifically says here that boys should not participate in boxing. It mentions the chronic brain damage which the Royal College of Physicians have pointed out, and it says that no boy should take part without the approval of the parents. How can the noble Lord treat this matter so lightly? Was he a boxer himself?
LORD SANDFORD: Not since my prep. school days, my Lords. But the conditions are as I have stated, and my right honourable friend and I think that that is going far enough at the present time.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that before he came to this House—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will remember this clearly—I tried to ban boxing by introducing a Bill? The House was very sympathetic, but the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack suggested that the Royal College of Physicians should examine the whole matter. The Royal College of Physicians have sat for three years, and they have come down clearly on my side. They having come down on my side, the Government are digging their toes in and, like little boys, are saying: "Over my dead body"
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I am not quite sure why this subject always gives rise to so much humour, because there
1192
is no doubt whatever from the report of the Royal College of Physicians, and from what we knew before, that very serious brain damage can occur. I beg your Lordships' pardon: I should have put that in the form of a question.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, it is true that the Royal College of Physicians published in 1969 a report which clearly shows that there is some risk in boxing, though they were chiefly concerned with professional boxing. It is because of this risk that, even in regard to boxing between schoolboys, this advice has been given.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, has the noble Lord read this report by the Royal College of Physicians? Is he aware that the doctors have said that there will be chronic brain damage as a result of repeated blows to the head? Therefore is he not prepared to take the advice given in the pamphlet by the Government; namely, that boys should no longer be allowed to participate in boxing in schools unless the parents approve, and before giving their approval they must be told what the Royal College of Physicians have said about chronic brain damage? Would the noble Lord give me a more specific answer and assure me that the Government are taking this matter seriously, as my noble colleague suggested they should?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I think I have assured the noble Baroness already that the Government have taken note of this report, and this advice is based upon it.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government look upon boxing as a harmless pastime, in the same sort of way as rugby football is regarded? After all, anyone may take part in that sport. Would my noble friend not agree that, just as 100 or 150 years ago we abolished duelling, because we then decided that it was a harmful pastime, though at one time it had been regarded as harmless, the time has now come when we should realise (though we have not realised it in the past) that boxing is not a harmless pastime and that perhaps something should be done?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not think so. As I have said, it is recognised that there is an element of risk, and that is why guidance has been given setting out very clear terms and conditions under which boxing should take place, if it takes place at all. But I agree with my noble friend that there are a whole lot of other activities—for example, mountaineering, canoeing, sailing and so on—which are very much in favour at the moment, while boxing is waning somewhat in favour.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, without imposing an actual ban, could not the Government issue a directive that would seek to discourage boxing in schools?
LORD SANDFORD: No, my Lords. My right honourable friend has no powers of direction in this field. She can give, and has given, guidance.
LORD SOMERS: But, my Lords, is it not possible also to suffer brain damage from being kicked on the head in rugger, or through having a cricket ball strike one on the head? Would not the noble Lord think that his right honourable friend might consider the banning of all sports, with the possible exception of tiddly-winks?
LORD HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord telling this House that his right honourable friend has no powers whatever to issue directives as to the nature of sporting activities in schools, or as to the conditions under which they are played, or concerning the amount of protection that is provided, or whether a gymnasium should be constructed in such a way as not to give rise to risk of serious accidents? While I agree with every word said by the noble Baroness, would the Government look into boxing, taking into consideration that all the recent exhibitions of adult boxing have involved no danger to the combatants but only a serious danger of thrombosis to the spectators?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, would not my noble friend think it would be a good idea to apply the blows to young boys' bottoms, where there are no brains?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that it is far better to have controlled boxing? Since young boys often fight at school, would it not be better to have them boxing in controlled conditions, wearing heavy gloves?
LORD SANDFORD: That may be so, my Lords, provided that a boxing competition does not automatically stop other forms of activity.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government accept that there is a very big difference between a sport carrying risk and danger with it, such as sailing, and canoeing and Rugby football, and a sport the object of which is to do damage to somebody's head?
LORD SANDFORD: No. my Lords, I would not agree with that.

INSURANCE OF FOREIGN LORRIES
3.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what the insurance arrangements are in this country for foreign lorries which are too big or too heavy by English law.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, foreign lorries entering the United Kingdom are required to comply with our law on size and weight. Similarly, our law on compulsory motor insurance applies to all motor vehicles including lorries, whatever their country of origin, their size or weight.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but I should like to ask whether he is aware that I must have been wrongly informed, since I was informed that certain heavy vehicles entering this country were not covered for third party insurance. I must have been misinformed.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, says that the laws of this country

1195
apply to foreign lorries exactly as they do to vehicles of the United Kingdom, does he mean also that restrictions on fuel are being applied to foreign lorries? May I further ask what advice has been given to the oil companies about supplying them?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, will put that down as a Question, I will answer it another time.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, are the Government aware that under present arrangements there is an effective bar on the entry into this country of foreign lorries of a weight in excess of that permitted in this country in size and weight? I read some time ago that the arrangements at the ports were adequate for dealing with them, and I believe we passed special legislation for dealing with the matter. Is the position reasonably satisfactory now?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the Question is really concerned with insurance, but I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that we are recruiting extra staff at the ports. One or two overweight lorries have been slipping in, but we are stopping that, so far as we are able, and we are now getting very much better results than we have done in the past.

EGG STANDARDS AND POULTRY FEEDS
3.20 p.m.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: 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 Government what action they intend to take over the widespread sale of sub-standard eggs and the malnutrition of poultry which is the cause of these eggs being produced.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, there is no evidence that sub-standard eggs are on widespread sale in this country, nor that poultry here are suffering from malnutrition.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend
1196
for what I must say was an extraordinarily surprising reply—it leaves me almost speechless—may I ask whether he would agree that if he were shut up in a cage and carried into your Lordships' House on particular occasions to give Answers to Parliamentary Questions his customary excellent standard at the Despatch Box would be slightly less good than it is now? Would my noble friend extend some sympathy to the unfortunate hens who are in the same position as he would be if we treated him in that way?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend has a vivid imagination. I have never thought of myself as being a hen, and I do not see that has very much bearing on a Question regarding substandard eggs.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that though he is very unlike a hen the fact is that if a hen is properly treated and fed, which is not happening on many farms, the hen will produce a good egg? My noble friend is properly treated and fed so he produces good Answers.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I take my noble friend's point, which is that he is concerned that the hens are not properly looked after; but I would remind him that there are codes of practice to which farmers are obliged to adhere. A survey by veterinary staff of some 1,400 poultry units in 1970 showed that welfare conditions were generally satisfactory and there was no evidence of unnecessary pain or distress among the hens in the units that were visited.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, has the noble Earl ever tasted a battery egg? If he has not, will he give the House an assurance that he will do so at the earliest opportunity?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I have tasted a battery egg and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Somers, that one of the advantages of this type of production is that it produces eggs for people to buy in sufficiently large quantities, and if it were not for this rate of production there would be far fewer eggs than there are now.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am asking a serious question and I have myself produced eggs?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, having said that, is my noble friend aware that hens need grit, and that the feed merchants are at present producing meal in which they say there is grit? They are advising poultry producers not to give the hens extra grit because they say that there is grit in the meal. Is my noble friend aware that, in spite of all this, there is not enough grit in this meal and that in consequence, in my experience, 50 per cent. of eggs break when they are being boiled?
LORD SHEPHERD: Question!
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: I am sorry, my Lords. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who does not like my going on about this. But is it not time that a higher standard is insisted upon for the production of eggs, because people who live in towns cannot buy decent eggs nowadays?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the quality of poultry feed has never been better than it is at the moment. There is no evidence of which I am aware that the point which my noble friend made is correct or substantiated. If he has any evidence which he cares to bring to my attention I will certainly look at it.
LORD ALLERTON: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to tell us for the guidance of the House, what exactly is a "sub-standard" egg?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my noble friend has asked a very pertinent question, because eggs are graded by weight and then they are graded by quality; and there is no such egg as one called a sub-standard egg.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, is an egg which cracks when it boils—which applies to the greater part of eggs one uses—a sub-standard egg or is it not a sub-standard egg?
EARL FERRERS: It depends upon the quality and grade of the egg.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Ferrers will be making a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 on the recent meeting of the Council of Agricultural Ministers. This will be followed by a Statement by my noble friend Lord Belstead on Northern Ireland.

LEGAL AID BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to legal aid and legal advice and assistance. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1ª, —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read lª, and to be printed.

ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1973
3.25 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON)THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON) rose to move, That the Draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1973, laid before the House on October 30, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the custom in your Lordships' House on these occasions is to debate Service personnel matters, and perhaps I may start off by saying a few brief words on those cornerstones of service man-management—discipline and morale. I should then like to touch briefly on the related problems of recruiting, retention and pay.
Your Lordships will, I am sure, be pleased to know that discipline throughout Her Majesty's Forces continues to be very good indeed and morale is as high as ever. It is perhaps worth emphasising that nowhere is this more evident than in Northern Ireland, as I saw on Monday and Tuesday of this week. In maintaining morale in Northern Ireland we are particularly conscious of the effects of turbulence and separation caused by the

1199
movement of units to, and the provision of individual reinforcements for, the Province. We are doing all we can to alleviate the problems that have arisen, both by providing good conditions of service and welfare facilities in Northern Ireland and by looking after the well-being of the families separated from the Servicemen. To the many improvements made since the emergency started we have recently introduced an additional four days leave with free travel to Great Britain or to B.A.O.R. to allow those on emergency tours to take a period of rest and recuperation during their mid-tour breaks.
My Lords, I should like now to turn to the question of recruiting. I forecast in the spring that the Services would face problems of recruitment in 1973, and indeed for the next few years; and our experience so far has certainly borne this out. We knew that raising the school leaving age to 16, and the resulting shrinkage of the recruiting pool, would cause particular difficulties this year. For example, the ending of the Junior "U" entry to the Royal Navy has simply chopped off a supply of about 2,000 boys a year, and the Army loss of juniors from this cause alone has also been very severe. However, there have been other factors, too, which have combined to depress re-cruiting. Your Lordships will have noticed, from the figures we published last week, that the number of Servicemen entered for all three Services in the twelve months up to the end of September this year was a little over 28,000, compared with nearly 44,000 in the twelve month before that. The number of officers entered is also down. Clearly, we cannot afford to allow such a situation to continue for very long.
What then are the causes, in addition to the raising of the school leaving age, and what can we do to cure them? First, I should explain that we must distinguish to some extent between the position of officers and of Servicemen, and between the three Services. All are affected to some degree, but the problem is most severe in the case of soldier recruitment. The problems of officer recruiting are on a relatively smaller scale, though they give us some awkward moments. The Royal Navy are not yet suffering as steep a drop in entries as the Army, but experience suggests that they follow the
1200
same course after a time-lag, while the R.A.F. are getting fewer recruits than they need even though there are now no restrictions on R.A.F. recruiting.
Thy Army's difficulties can be put most bluntly if I say that compared to a "steady state" requirement of about 26,000 soldier entries a year—that is the number we need to maintain trained strengths at about the present level—our current forecast of entries for 1973–74 is about 13,000. If, as we suspect, the loss of juniors as a result of the raising of the school-leaving age accounts for about one-half of that shortfall, the rest of the loss must be attributed to various other factors. It is not possible to list all the many factors which affect recruiting in a precise order of importance, but there are clearly several which head the list. The economy has continued to grow, and there are many opportunities for young people, to compete with the attractions of Service life—and I am not going to grumble about that.
Another cause of our problems is, without doubt, that Armed Forces' pay has fallen away from the standards of comparability with civilian earnings which were established in 1970 and confirmed by us in 1971 and 1972. The Armed Forces Pay Review Body in 1973 recommended increases of the maximum amount consistent with Stage 2 of the incomes policy, and we accepted their recommendations. The Review Body are currently considering what ought to be done at the regular, biennial review which is due next April, against the background of Stage 3 of the policy. May I say that it has been a great help to the Services (I know that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, would agree with this) to have the benefit of the expert, and indeed the sympathetic, advice of the Review Body during the past two years, and we look forward to their next recommendations.
I have already spoken about the good work of the Army in Northern Ireland, but from the point of view of recruitment there is some evidence to suggest that the emergency, which was at first a mild stimulus to recruiting, is now no longer so, and that it may also be causing more soldiers to leave the Army. If this is so, I can only regret it, and endorse what my right honourable friend

1201
the Prime Minister said recently: that everyone in the Army can justly feel proud about what has been done to keep the peace in the most trying circumstances a soldier can encounter. The long history of voluntary recruiting has been one of ups and downs, and when one is on the downward slope it is a little nerve-wracking to wait for signs of the next improvement. I take a little comfort from the fact that the decline in Army adult and young soldier enlistments, at least, was less severe in July to September than in the previous quarter, even though intakes were still at about two-thirds of last year's level; it is also reasonable to expect some improvement in junior recruiting for all three Services, once the pattern of school leaving returns to normal next year. In the meantime, I intend to see to it that whatever good management suggests, is done. We shall be increasing the amount of money to be spent this year on our recruiting advertising, and the man management of the Services, which in my view compares pretty well with anything found in civilian life, will continue to make the best use of this rare and expensive commodity.
In this context, it is clearly important to encourage the men we want to stay in the Armed Forces. Your Lordships will be glad to hear that prolongation rates among senior men continue to be very satisfactory. Indeed, for the Army and the Royal Navy they were generally even better during the twelve months up to June, 1973, than in the previous twelve months. In the RAF, we have to place limits on the numbers we let prolong their service even from the 9-year point. However, I am concerned that nearly half of soldier recruits enter on 3-year engagements, and of these only about half reengage, which would mean that about a quarter of the total strength will consist of 3-year men. Another doubtful factor is that we shall not be able to start to assess until early next year the effect of the introduction, in May. 1972, of the "notice engagement" Over the next couple of years, these two points will be almost as critical for Army manpower as the trend in new recruitment.
The third critical factor, besides recruitment and prolongation, is wastage: that is, failure to complete the engagement to which the Serviceman has com
1202
mitted himself. Wastage at the recruit stage continues to run at about 25 per cent. This sounds high—though it is broadly in line with current experience in civilian occupations; for instance, the Merchant Navy—but then this is the stage of a young man's career when he has to decide whether lie likes the Services, and the Services have to decide whether they like him. I am sure it is right that there should be ample opportunity for both parties to decide that a mistake may have been made; and though one is always sorry to lose recruits so soon after joining, there is much less waste of training and other resources than if the parting were longer delayed. Nevertheless, we are examining very urgently the underlying causes of this wastage to see whether it can be reduced. After six months, the rate of wastage drops to around 5 per cent. This is manageable, and there are plenty of employers who would be delighted to have the same figure, but of course I should like to reduce it still further, and we are looking for means to achieve this.
My Lords, if I may sum up on the manpower situation, the difficulties we foresaw have certainly come upon us, and they are likely to be with us for some time before they can be put right.
But I should not like to leave your Lordships with the impression of grave deficiencies in strength. Remember that we recruited very well indeed, better than planned, for a couple of years before the lean period started; perhaps one might say we even overfished the pool and now we are paying for it. But the trained strengths of the Services are not depleted and I do not intend that there should be any serious deficit. We are seeking ways to make even more effective use of the men we have. My Lords, let us remember that the Armed Forces of Britain have been manned by volunteers for a very long time. We have always managed to look after ourselves in the past, and I am quite sure that we shall be able to continue to do so. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1973, laid before the House on October 30, be approved.(Lord Corrington.)
3.38 p.m.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we are today indulging in a pleasant convention by which we are keeping the Armed Forces in being for one more year. I am certain that this is something for which our fellow countrymen should be grateful. While we are touching on pleasant conventions, may I ask the Secretary of State—and he need not answer this important question in the House—why the Navy has been degraded to the last position in the Motion, instead of taking its traditional order of precedence? I think this brief discussion is always pleasant and useful. We had the recruiting figures presented to us about a week ago and this discussion enables us to have an autumn review of the state of play within the Armed Forces. The Secretary of State is quite correct: we knew that we were, or might be, coming on lean times in recruitment. It is good news to know that the actual effective strength is not affected, but of course we have to think further ahead than one year.
May I make one or two points in relation to recruiting? Perhaps the Secretary of State and the House will forgive me if I ride two favourite hobby horses of mine in a few minutes. May I first turn to the problem of pay which the Secretary of State mentioned. It is perfectly true that the principle of comparability was established between the Armed Forces and life in the outside world, but we must not forget that there is an x factor. I have never been able to define the x factor except as an intelligent guess as to what an individual might accept as recompense for loss of his civil liberties. It has always been my view that the x factor was anything you like to make it. If you were not getting the recruits you wanted you "upped" the x factor—the unknown quantity. I do not know what Phase 3 does about the x factor if pay is unsatisfactory, but if the x factor is as important as I believe it to be then perhaps—what is the phrase?—unsocial operations—
A NOBLE LORD: Hours.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: Yes, unsocial hours might also apply to the x factor. If this is any help to the Secretary of State I, for one, would certainly support it.
1204
Then there is the question of service in Northern Ireland. I do not think the difficulty arises from the troops concerned; I think it is from their wives. The wives stay at home and it is not a happy position. May I ask the Secretary of State to tell us, when he winds up, something about a subject which I raised last year, which was about a form of insurance equivalent to the insurance which backs the police forces in this country and covers the individual policeman who may suffer injury or death in the course of his duty. What are the details of the insurance scheme that, in a fleeting moment, reading the papers, I saw had been introduced? I suggested that some such scheme should be introduced, and in the course of my journey I saw that something had been done. I should be grateful if the Secretary of State would tell us what has been done. I think this matter is of prime importance. I know that young Air Force officers often cripple themselves with insurance to cover themselves against death in the course of their duties, and there are special policies available. I feel that if the wives felt more secure, perhaps their nerves might be somewhat steadier. A young soldier killed in Northern Ireland often leaves his wife in a very difficult situation. I should like to know what has been done to counter this.
May I for a moment ride my two hobby horses? The first is the problem of the recruitment of juniors—again, I think I raised this last year when the Secretary of State mentioned the subject. I suggested then that an additional year of education for young soldiers, airmen and sailors should take place within one of the Army training schools. We all know of the excellence of these schools. At that time, the Secretary of State said that this was administratively difficult, but I feel that because of these figures it is worth a second inspection. The second point is my favourite one of the role of women in the Armed Forces. I made a speech last week on the Equal Opportunties Bill and the Commission, but I wish that people would organise their military affairs to suit my convenience in debate and not their own because reading my Times I see that within the lase week a conference has been held in Brussels of the Women's Armed Forces within NATO, where a very distinguished

1205
body of women got together to talk about the role of women in the Armed Forces in the defence of the West. What really pleased me was the resolution that was passed at the end of the conference which said:
"Representatives from the women's military services and nursing services agree that women should share fully the obligations to defend their countries."
I suggested in my speech on the Equal Opportuntities Commission that the opportunity to suffer the discomforts and dangers of a military career might not be considered as an opportunity, but I argued that most women—in fact all women—were as concerned about the defence of this country as were their men-folk and I am very glad to see that the women serving officers at the Armed Forces of NATO meeting in Brussels have said this in very clear terms.
The only other point I want to make now—and I think this is something that is coming anyway—is that equality of treatment should be applied to the Women's Services immediately. The Americans have reached the point of equal pay and two-star rank for women and I believe that we should at least match them. I believe that in that way a suitable number of women could be recruited who could in part replace men. I do not think it is a total panacea, but if one remembers that there are seventeen individuals behind one man at the sharp end, then there is obviously a good opportunity for the role of women in the support functions.
My Lords, that is all I have to say to-day. This debate is usually short and to the point, but I should like to feel, as I know the Secretary of State feels, that the Armed Forces of this country are serving their fellow countrymen as well now as ever they have done, and if the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is going to announce some good news later to-day it is very much due to the steadiness of the Armed Forces in that part of the United Kingdom.
3.46 p.m.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, may I ask the Secretary of State three questions of which I have not given him notice but about which he knows? First, why do not the Forces in Northern Ireland get overseas pay as they do when serving in Germany? They
1206
are in much greater danger in Northern Ireland than they are in Germany and yet they do not get (I do not know what it is called) danger pay or overseas pay. My second question concerns the wives of troops who are moved from, say, Germany to, say, Northern Ireland and the difficulties they suffer in getting their allowances. The Secretary of State knows about this because I put a question to him in June and again later in October. They have the greatest difficulty in getting their allowances. They have to fill up forms and it takes a long time. Thirdly, what is the position of the recruitment for the Women's Services at the moment? I should like to know whether it is going up or is steady.
3.47 p.m.
LORD BRAYLEY: My Lords, I am told that your Lordships regard with indulgence the first occasion on which a newcomer to your Lordships' House makes his maiden speech. This is a tradition for which I am particularly grateful, because the path of life which led me to become a Member of your Lordships' House started more than 40 years ago when, a lad of 17, I joined the ranks of the Regular Army. I had the honour and good fortune to join the Royal Regiment of Artillery, and being something of an athlete I reached non- commissioned rank as an Army physical training instructor. My Service experience in the ranks instilled in me the respect for discipline and comradeship which are such ennobling features of service in all ranks of the Regular Army. My interest in the Army has continued to the present day, and I have been honoured by being appointed an honorary Colonel Commandant of the Royal Regiment of Artillery. I dare say that I can claim, with modesty, that I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who has become art honorary Colonel Commandant having risen from the ranks. I hark back to my service life because it leads me to the subject to which I venture to refer in this my maiden speech.
I recollect, in a defence and foreign affairs debate at the beginning of this Session, speeches calling for the need for a European defence policy. I listened to many speeches referring to the essential need for such a policy, but no speaker whom I can recall went into the details

1207
of how a policy could be brought into being and how it could be sustained. This reminded me of the hoary wartime story which I have no doubt everyone in your Lordships' House has heard, when Generalissimo Stalin was being talked to about the influence of His Holiness the Pope, and his remark was, "Well, how many divisions has he got?" Surely to-day those who talk about European defence should ask themselves the question, "How many divisions can Europe put in the field? How many in six months? In a year's time? In three years' time? And what kind of divisions would they be?" I am sure that the planners in the Pentagon, as indeed the planners in the Kremlin, will ask themselves, "How many divisions can Europe put in the field and what will be the quality of these divisions?"
So far as Britain is concerned, her capacity to make a contribution to the manpower needs of Europe was decided more than a decade ago when, for political reasons, all three Parties in the State decided to rely upon voluntary recruitment. The figures for recruitment are published every month, and they demonstrate very clearly that Britain, at least so far as the Army is concerned, lacks the necessary manpower to meet her current commitments, and to talk of our making a contribution in terms of conventional strength to stand up to the Warsaw Pact countries is not a very convincing exercise. However, this is only part of the story. If we have not the manpower, neither have our Allies. The point I seek to make is that it is no good our talking about a European defence system, nor can we expect the Americans to listen to us, unless we are prepared not only to put our hands in our pockets to provide the finance necessary for an effective defence system but also, somehow or other, to find the manpower. Or do we expect our NATO allies to impose conscription upon their young men while, we comfortably jog along, hoping that our awkward recruiting figures will change for the better?
To turn to the question of equipment, we have recently witnessed a conflict in the Middle East which was basically a battle of electronics. Sam 2, Sam 3 and Sam 4, supplied by the Russians to the Arab countries, were neutralised by the
1208
Americans during the Vietnam conflict. Sam 6 was a surprise and it inflicted losses on the Israelis, for there was no current answer to it. I have no doubt, now that the Americans have obtained a complete set of Sam 6 equipment, that the answer will be found. But we have to take note that the Russians produced Sam 6, and if this particular box of tricks could inflict unacceptable losses on the Israelis it calls into question the possible efficacy of the counter-measures possessed by ourselves and our NATO allies.
We also need to remind ourselves that if Sam 6 was a surprise it is more than likely that the Russians anticipated that sooner or later the Americans would find an answer. But we should remember—and well—that the Russians still have Sam 9 and Sam 10 coming along; and I believe there may well be other surprises in store. The Middle East War, like the Spanish Civil War, was a testbed for military technology. In the Spanish Civil War Hitler tested weapons for his blitzkrieg. In the Middle East the Kremlin and the Pentagon tried out their most modern weapons, and they are still evaluating the results. But there is one conclusion that it is not too early to draw: a new demonstration, a new dimension, the power of the missile. We in Britain, if our defence policy is to be meaningful, must learn this lesson.
My Lords, I have one urgent proposal to put to the Secretary of State for Defence, which I hope he will study. I believe that the Government should seriously consider the establishment of a Missile Command. The Russians have organised their defence on this basis, and their resources are infinitely greater than ours. We and our NATO allies need to study the recent conflict and try to learn from it. We certainly cannot afford to spread our scientific resources, or indeed our financial resources, in such a way that we produce separate missile systems for each of the Services, on the basis that each must have something. We cannot afford three missile policies in Britain, any more than we can afford several missile policies inside NATO. I believe that our need is urgent. We certainly cannot go on spending £3,500 million a year on defence which, at the end of the day, does not contribute to our overall defence needs. So my plea is that if we are going

1209
to have defence it must be adequate; it must be looked at in the light of British needs in relation to our financial and scientific capacity and to our capacity to provide the manpower. This needs to be done, of course, in the light of our NATO commitments, although our shortage of troops is a great embarrassment.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to pay a tribute to our troops in Northern Ireland, who are fighting a war for which no Army was ever trained: to fight the unseen urban guerrilla where any bullet can kill anyone, anywhere, any time—even a child. Yesterday, questions were asked about Britain's contributing to a peace-keeping force in the Middle East. From where would these troops come? From Ireland? From our NATO forces? Or by withdrawal from some of our other commitments? This is a very serious problem. My Lords, I have wearied you with thoughts which I have been turning over in my mind for a long time, but I have done no more than underline one or two rather obvious facts. I hope your Lordships will not feel that in so doing I have trespassed on your indulgence. If I have, I shall be only too ready to apologise.
3.57 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brayley, on a quite admirable maiden speech. I have heard several in this House but I have not heard a more constructive or better informed speech, and I think we should all like to congratulate him and hope that he will add to our debates from time to time. I rushed to Who's Who when I learned from the "batting order" that I was to follow a maiden speaker and I notice that with becoming modesty, in spite of everything he has told us, he never mentioned the fact that he won a most gallant M.C. during his service in the Regular Army. We know that he has a deep knowledge of industry, and that knowledge also will be most valuable to this House. His recreations I found most entertaining. I doubt whether anyone has previously put down ten recreations in Who's Who. I could not find anyone; he is right in a field of his own. He starts with politics—well, it's great that he is here. He goes on with books, letters, charities, flying—and he is a qualified pilot; yachting, shooting, fishing, horse racing—that will please
1210
the next noble Lord who is going to speak —and last of all, though it will not be universally acclaimed on the Benches opposite I am afraid, boxing. It was appropriate that on this very day we should have had a Question about that sport because he was an international boxing champion in his early twenties. It is quite clear that he certainly has not suffered any softening of the brain, as the noble Baroness suggested is a possibility.
I merely want to add two small points. I am very much in tune with what the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, said; he and I made similar speeches last year. I ask my noble friend, in view of the really alarming recruitment figures for the Army, in view of the extension of the school-leaving age and the result this has had with regard to young recruits, to examine whether some of these boys would not be more usefully employed and would not in the end become better citizens if they were allowed to spend their extra year of education in a Service establishment—of course with the agreement of their parents.
When I was coming to work I listened to the car radio, as many of us do in traffic jams, and heard a schoolmaster complaining that he had gone into a classroom and found thirteen-year-old and fifteen-year-old boys now compelled to stay on at school, playing cards. This is not a very constructive occupation in the extra year of education, and proves the point that there are much better things to do for boys who are restless and who would like to accept the challenge of a Services career. It would be wholly admirable both for them and for the nation if they were allowed to do it. I cannot believe it is right to compel young people to stay on at school for an extra year when they could well benefit from doing other things.
I have another plea in accord with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Winter-bottom, on the increasingly valuable part that women can play in our Armed Forces. I spent the whole of my war career in radar. In this country more than 90 per cent. of our radar stations were operated by dedicated women who were so conscientious and efficient that they not only startled the men-folk, but all our allies as well when they saw the

1211
extent of the perfection of the job the women were undertaking. To-day, there are many sophisticated jobs women could do, and do rather better than some men. I refer to intelligence work, photographic reconnaissance interpretation, in which they were outstanding, and as the noble Lord, Lord Brayley mentioned, electronic warfare. They could well apply their basic expertise and dedication to these activities, and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will look most seriously at these points. There are many willing people who would gain immeasurably from that extra year being spent in the Armed Forces, and not necessarily at school.

E.E.C.: AGRICULTURE MINISTERS MEETING
4.2 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if I may intervene in the debate, I should like to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. The Statement is as follows:
"The Council of Agriculture Ministers at their meeting on November 19/20 held a first exchange of views on the Commission's proposals for the improvement of the Common Agricultural Policy. There were naturally differences of emphasis and approach between Ministers, but substantial support for the general aims of the review —to contain expenditure and consumer prices; to improve the balance of supply and demand and reduce surpluses; and to simplify the support system and improve financial control. The Commission's proposals will now be the subject of detailed study in the Special Agricultural Committee followed by fuller consideration in the Council of Ministers.
"The Council also agreed on the framework of a Directive on aids for farming in mountain, and other less favoured areas. The main lines of this Directive follow broadly the forms of support covered by our own arrangements for help in the hill farming areas. As the House knows, these mainly take the form of subsidies for beef cattle and sheep production in the hills and there are also special rates of capital grant for hill land improvement. These will
1212
be covered under the criteria of the new draft Directive.
"The Directive also provides that dairy cattle in the true mountain areas, such as those in steep alpine land, shall receive aid on the same terms as beef cattle. In the lower hill and less favoured regions payments for dairy cows will be restricted to 10 cows in each herd and at a rate of not more than 80 per cent. of that given for beef cattle. All these aids will be applicable at the discretion of each Member State. The specific areas in which it is proposed to apply them will be designated by the Member State and will be subject to approval by the European Commission and the Council of Ministers.
"These payments will be subject to a contribution from Community funds, the actual rate of which will be determined only after a clear indication of the total cost can be established once the areas have been defined. The intention, however, is that these contributions should not be less than 25 per cent. and not more than 50 per cent. for the hill livestock subsidies and should be 25 per cent of the cost of aid for improvements under development plans. The remaining cost will be borne by each individual Member State. Final confirmation of the Directive will only take place once the areas have been defined.
The general effect of these decisions is that they confirm the ability of the United Kingdom Government to continue paying grants and subsidies on the broad lines at present in force for hill areas and when the Directive has come into force the cost of these will be reimbursed in part from FEOGA funds. This is an important reassurance to our hill farmers and a confirmation of the undertaking which the Government have always given that we would seek freedom to continue within the Community to give a comparable degree of support to our hill farmers to that which has previously been provided.
The Council Meeting — which was a lengthy one—also discussed a range of other matters ranging from olive oil to alcohol."
4.6 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl

1213
for repeating the Statement which, on the face of it, appears to be satisfactory. Since, clearly, the amount that will be due to farmers will be available only when the Directive has been confirmed—and presumably there can be no confirmation until all the nine countries have dealt with their areas designated and have the approval by the Commission—can the noble Earl give any indication of when we may expect the amount to be made available to Parliament for distribution to the farmers? I think that is the main crux of the Statement—how much, and when?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I also congratulate the Government on the successful efforts made on behalf of our hill farmers? May I say that in our opinion what has happened has dispelled a great many of the fears expressed by the opponents to our entry into the European Economic Community during the long debate we had last year.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and the Lord Gladwyn, for the welcome they have given to the Statement I have made. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that all this is bound to take some time because, of course, the individual countries have to put forward their submissions to the Community as to where the line should be drawn for the less favoured areas, and then the Community will have the right to agree or otherwise to their suggestion. With regard to the cost, at present our hill cow, hill sheep and beef cattle subsidies are running at the rate of £30 million a year which we have always paid as subsidy. Once this comes into operation, the grant from the Community from FEOGA funds will vary from 25 per cent. to 50 per cent. of the sum which at the moment we pay to hill farmers.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, does that mean that our present subsidy will continue in the meantime?
EARL FERRERS: Our present subsidy will continue in the meantime.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, we have a very frank Minister in Mr. Godber at the European Economic Community. He never puts a gloss on the results of his negotiations. When I heard him, I was not very clear as to how well
1214
we have come out of these particular negotiations on agriculture in the high hill areas. Have we really come out very well?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I would endeavour to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, that we have in fact come out extremely well, because there was always an element of doubt that the subsidies we pay to hill farmers might be a contravention of the Community Regulations. Because this has now been agreed, we are able to continue the support to hill farmers which previously we had been able to give them.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for the Statement and out of fairness congratulating the Minister on the almighty effort made in a difficult matter, without putting a gloss on it may I ask a simple question? What is a "hill farming area" under the Community Regulations? My information is that they will subsidise up to 2,000 feet. Does that apply in Britain so far as concerns the Welsh and the Scottish hills? Secondly, the dairy subsidy will apply only to ten cows. That will be at 80 per cent. of the rate for beef cattle. Before we can have that in Britain it will have to be confirmed by the Community. How long will these transitional decisions take before a hill farmer (in the market place when he is buying cattle, or when he is rearing cattle) will know when he is going to get the subsidy? Lastly—and this is of paramount importance to the good old British brewing industry—what is the Community policy with regard to hops? Are we going to have to brew beer which suits European man rather than continuing with British brewing, which is the finest in the world?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the last point in the question of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek. The future brewing of beer, whether for English or European consumption, does not arise out of the Statement, and therefore I think it would be inapproprate to comment on that at this juncture.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I raised the question because I thought it was relevant in so far as one talked of olive oil and alcohol, and I thought brewing was alcoholic.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly correct. These were the kind of things which were also discussed at the meeting, but the conclusions which were arrived at at the meeting were the ones which the Statement adumbrated.
With regard to the noble Lord's first point, about mountainous areas, I think I am correct in saying that they are above a line of 600 metres, some 1,800 feet, which in fact would not apply in this country because animals are not kept at that height here. Even if they were—and this is the answer to the noble Lord's second point—the matter would be subject to this country bringing in its own regulations to determine that these people should have the benefits which the Community say they may have.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, coming from Scotland, where we have been very anxious about these particular negotiations, I should like to congratulate the Minister on the result of these talks. This result will bring great comfort to hill farmers, of which I am one. So long as there is no break during the changeover from the subsidies coming from the Ministry of Agriculture and those that will come from the E.E.C. we shall be happy, but we shall be very distressed if we are told that we are to get £x but that it will be six months before it is made up from somewhere else. The total figure should remain the same whether it comes from Europe or from our own Ministry of Agriculture. May I say again how grateful I am, on behalf of all those who are hill farmers, for the fact that this matter has now come to such an extremely satisfactory conclusion.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for that observation, because I know she has been concerned, as have others, as to the position of hill farmers under Community regulations. The fact that my right honourable friend was able to discuss this particular problem with his colleagues in Europe and achieve this solution is something about which we can be pleased. I would only say to her that I think it would be a pity to look too much into the future. The principle is there; we can continue these subsidies.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, further to the alcohol point, could my noble friend give me some idea what was under discussion, even though no decisions were reached? In other words, what is brewing?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think my noble friend would do better to wait to see what emanates from this rather than what is actually brewing.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether any consideration was given to the question of island farming? We have in Britain many islands which are at a similar disadvantage to the high ground farming on the Continent, the mountainous farming on the Continent. The question has been asked before by the industry, whether island farming could be equated with mountain farming.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the Statement refers to the mountainous areas. I will ceratiniy look into the point my noble friend has made and, if I may, I will write to him about it.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I certainly have no objection to what the noble Earl has said and I think he and the Government deserve thanks for it. But would he not agree that this is essentially a social rather than an economic payment, in that it is done to preserve the wellbeing of people rather than to encourage a certain form of production which is needed; and in that case, would it not be more reasonable and less misleading if this payment were made from some social or regional fund of the Community, rather than from FEOGA?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not think that would be so, because we have always regarded hill farming as desirable, for one reason or another, and I take the noble Lord's point as to which reason he would have. We have always supported this farming under agricultural subsidies. It might well have been that we would have contravened the regulations if these had continued. Now that authority has been agreed within the Community, I think that we should be pleased that we have this ability to continue these subsidies. Of course we will now be subsidised ourselves for continuing these subsidies, from FEOGA

1217
funds. I think that is a point about which many noble Lords who have criticised FEOGA and our payments will be glad.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, will the noble Earl bear in mind that beer brewed in Munich is very much better than beer brewed in this country, and perhaps he could arrange for some kind of transference between the two?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it would certainly be very indelicate of me to arrange any form of transference on that scale, but no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, will have his own methods of obtaining what he likes.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, hill farming and hill farming regulations have nothing at all to do with altitude; they are really to do with marginal land. My noble friend asked about islands. Of course, islands come under hill farming regulations because they are marginal land. Hill farming has got nothing to do with altitude in this country.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I dare say that is so, but where, at the moment, farmers are farming land on which they can claim hill farm subsidies they will be able to continue to do so.
LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON: My Lords, I ask this question for illumination, because I have been hill farming myself over the last two years. As the price of beef and mutton and meat of all sorts has at least doubled, in all humility I ask my noble friend, is it still necessary to have subsidies for this production at all? I think it may be, but I think many people would like to know.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think that is the very kind of point which will be argued during the forthcoming Annual Review of farm prices.

NORTHERN IRELAND: EXECUTIVE DESIGNATE
4.17 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I will, with permission, make a Statement. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has over the last seven weeks had a series of discussions in Northern Ireland with the
1218
Alliance Party, the Social Democratic and Labour Party and the Ulster Unionist Party in order to determine whether the basis existed for the formation of an Executive as provided for in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. These Parties had signified to him their willingness to try to form an Executive; the other Parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly had made it known to my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland that they were not prepared to participate in an Executive.
Before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can ask Parliament to devolve powers to a Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, he must be satisfied on two issues. First, the Northern Ireland Assembly must have made satisfactory provision by its Standing Orders in accordance with Section 25 of that Act, which lays down certain essentials about procedure. Those Standing Orders have been passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly and, while some were not unanimously agreed, my right honourable friend is satisfied that they meet the statutory criteria.
Secondly, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland must be satisfied that a,
"Northern Ireland Executive can he formed which, having regard to the support it commands in the Assembly and to the electorate on which that support is based, is likely to be widely accepted throughout the community."
Agreement has been reached on the composition and nature of such an Executive. It is proposed that both now and for the future there should be an Executive of 11 persons and that the Administration should consist of 15 persons. For this to be done an amendment will be required to Section 8 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, and legislation will in due course be brought before Parliament. Subject to the approval of that legislation, it is proposed that the Executive should comprise 6 members of the Ulster Unionist Party, 4 members of the Social Democratic and Labour Party and I member of the Alliance Party.
Mr. Brian Faulkner is the chief executive designate and Mr. Fitt is the deputy chief executive member designate. Mr. Oliver Napier will be the legal member

1219
and in charge of the Office of Law Reform.
The further allocation is as follows:
Head of Department of Finance—Unionist Party;
Head of Department Commerce—S.D.L.P.;
Head of Department of Health and Social Services—S.D.L.P.
Head of Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning—S.D.L.P.;
Head of Department of Environment—Unionist Party;
Head of Department of Education—Unionist Party;
Head of Department of Agriculture—Unionist Party;
Department of Information Services—Unionist Party;
Chief Whip—Unionist Party;
Office of Manpower Services—Alliance Party;
Office of Community Relations—S.D.L.P.;
Office of the Executive Planning and Co-ordination—S.D.L.P.
The leaders of the Parties will nominate those whom they propose will be appointed to these posts. There will in addition he a Deputy Chief Whip outside the Administration who will be an Assembly member of the Alliance Party.
My right honourable friend's discussions covered a number of other matters, including the question of a Council of Ireland. In the White Paper on Northern Ireland Constitutional Proposals published in March this year, Her Majesty's Government said that they favoured and were prepared to facilitate the formation of such a body. My right honourable friend has now thought it helpful to say that Her Majesty's Government are prepared to agree to the following propositions about a Council of Ireland which will have to be discussed with the Government of the Republic. A Council of Ireland can be confined to representatives of the North and South of Ireland with proper safeguards for Her Majesty's Government's financial and other interests; it should consist not only of representatives of the Government of the Republic and of the Northern Ireland
1220
Executive but also, on a separate advisory and consultative level, of representatives from the Parties in the Dail and the Northern Ireland Assembly. The Council should have a secretariat of its own. In order that decisions of the Council should carry the greatest possible degree of support, they should be taken at governmental level on a basis of unanimity. Her Majesty's Government are prepared to discuss what role a Council might play in relation to certain subjects reserved for the time being to the United Kingdom Government. This would include consideration of the imaginative and important concept of a common law enforcement area, the question of extradition processes and what role the Council might play in the law and order field.
My right honourable friend also indicated that Her Majesty's Government will be prepared to invite representatives of the Government of the Republic and those persons who will be members of the Northern Ireland Executive to a conference to discuss a Council of Ireland. This conference will be held as soon as possible. Thereafter, the Executive would be formally appointed. There would then need to be a tripartite conference between Her Majesty's Government, the Government of the Republic, and the Northern Ireland Executive.
The view of Her Majesty's Government on the question of detention was also indicated to the parties. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland reaffirmed Her Majesty's Government's firm commitment that they will bring detention for all sections of the communnity to an end as soon as the security situation permits and as part of their wish to bring about a lasting peace. The procedure for review provided by the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 has already led to some releases. These reviews will continue. In addition, my right honourable friend hopes to be able to bring into use his statutory powers of selective release. If the security situation permits, he intends to do so in time for a number of detainees to be released before Christmas. Those releases may be required to give a suitable undertaking about their future conduct.
It must again be emphasised that executive decisions on release must depend upon the security situation. Continued

1221
progress will obviously depend on further improvements in the situation generally. Everythings possible will continue to be done to bring persons suspected of terrorist offences before the Courts rather than to detain them under the Emergency Provisions Act. My right honourable friend has also undertaken to consider compassionate cases on a wider basis than hitherto and other preparatory measures are in hand, including the recruitment of more social workers to help with the administration of all these arrangements and the introduction of various training schemes. I hope that the House will feel that a good start has been made in implementing the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. I am sure that we all wish to offer our support to those who are prepared to turn from the past to the work of the future.
4.26 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I would first of all thank both the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for arranging for this Statement to be made in this House. As noble Lords know there is no statement as such being made in another place, and I take it that what the noble Lord has told us forms part of the speech of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I assure the noble Lord the Leader of the House that this is something that your Lordships appreciate.
Secondly, I would say that I offer my congratulations to the Government, and especially to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and those Ministers such as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and now the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, and others who have been coping with such extraordinary patience with this very difficult situation. It is not that I wish to make my remarks only in a congratulatory form, for I think that this appears to be, against very severe odds, as the noble Lord indicated, a promising beginning. There is, of course, a great deal more that has to be done. I suppose their achievement must be shared with that of the Leaders of the Northern Ireland Parties, and I particularly have in mind both Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Fitt. It must have been immensely difficult for them, with the entrenched positions, to have made the undoubted concessions which all Parties
1222
have made. Practically every sentence, and certainly every paragraph, represents a concession by someone in Northern Ireland. This is a measure of the realisation by people of responsibility that this is perhaps the last hope for a peaceful solution.
From what I understand of a complicated Statement, I must say that the solution with regard to the Executive strikes me as an ingenious one. As I understand it, it is a sort of two-tier system. it reminds me of the ill-fated attempts to reform your Lordships' House. If I understand it, the Executive consists of 11 Members, on a basis of 6:4:1, and the addition of four others who I presume are Ministers or junior Ministers. I take it that they are Ministers of Cabinet rank not in the Cabinet, which was an expression that was once used. As I understand it, this proposal will give the Ulster Unionists seven, the S.D.L.P. six and the Alliance Party two. I am not sure whether the Alliance Party Deputy Chief Whip is included or not. I shall not go any further than say that this flexibility has obviously contributed to the solution that we have so far in front of us. If I understand the noble Lord correctly, we are likely to see some legislation. I would be inclined to ask him, though I will not press him to-day, how soon that will be. Clearly, as in all matters in regard to Northern Ireland, the House would wish to be co-operative and to expedite the new legislation.
It seems that there are some particularly interesting proposals. For instance, I am glad that, in relation to the Council of Ireland, there is the suggestion which had been made in your Lordships' House that there should be representatives from the Parties and not just from the Governments involved in this. I do not wish to read too much into this, but I notice that the Government said that certain subjects reserved for the time being could he considered, including the question of law enforcement throughout the whole of Ireland. I do not think any of us would ourselves wish to anticipate too much what may emerge, but there is the progress towards a Council of Ireland, which I understand (and perhaps the noble Lord can confirm this) will follow, first of all, a conference in the United Kingdom that it is only after the meeting

1223
of that conference that the Executive-Designate will be fully established, and that although it will participate it is still designate.
My Lords, I would only say that if this course meets the wishes of the majority of people of Northern Ireland then we must welcome it wholeheartedly; and, implicit in this Statement is an acceptance, if I understand it aright, by all the Parties in the Executive. There can be no question of, so to speak, hijacking the unwilling Protestant majority into Union with the South until such moment as the passage of time may lead to a united Ireland. And whereas we have always said that no one should give up hope of this, it is a fact that it is now very much up to the Protestants, and the Protestant ultras, to ensure that this works, because this is their best protection in the short run.
As is customary in your Lordships' House, we are particularly careful, in dealing with Northern Ireland, not to say anything that might inflame feelings or lead to further difficulties, bearing in mind that, if our speeches are not reported in the British Press, at least they usually are reported, if they are on Northern Irish matters, in the Northern Irish Press. In this connection it would be helpful if either the noble Lord the Leader of the House or the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, could give some indication as to the possibility of our holding a debate on this subject. I am not pressing, for it today, but at some stage there is no doubt—and I am looking sternly at the Government Chief Whip—we shall insist on it.
4.33 p.m.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, there are simply two points I should like to make on behalf of my colleagues on these Benches. We wish to express our warmest congratulations to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and others associated with him, and indeed to Mr. Faulkner and Mr. Fitt, for what I believe to be an astonishingly hopeful solution to the problem of Northern Ireland, for the time being anyhow. We know it is only a beginning, but there is now, at any rate, considerable light at the end of the tunnel. I have only one question to ask, and that is with regard
1224
to the Council of Ireland, which seems to me to be one of the most constructive and hopeful elements in the whole situation. As I understand it, the Council of Ireland is going to consist of representatives of the Executive, once it is formed, and of the Dublin Government, and it is going to take its decisions by unanimity. That means, I take it, that all members of the Council of Ireland from Northern Ireland and all members of the Council from Southern Ireland must agree on anything before it is decided. I should just like to ask whether that is the case. The others present—the representatives of the Parties—are, as I understand it, in a purely advisory capacity and are to have no say in the vote. I should just like to be assured that that is the case.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, along with everyone else I should like to congratulate the Government. It was in March of last year, I think, on the introduction of direct rule, that I had the honour to congratulate the Government on their choice of Secretary of State, Mr. Whitelaw, and also of his then deputy, the present Leader of this House. I suggested to the House that this choice was a brilliant choice, and so it has turned out to be. How human were the words of the Secretary of State to the Press on the steps of Stormont Castle last night, when he said:
"We should not be human if we were not pleased with this result".
I also think that great wisdom has been shown in setting up an Executive Designate. Anybody who knows anything about Ireland knows that there is more than one slip between the cup and the lip. It occurs to me that if difficulties arise about the formation of the Council of Ireland after the conference has been held, then the Government can say, "Well, we are not in a position to continue with this Executive". I am not suggesting that that will happen, but am just pointing out the wisdom of not setting up an Executive but rather setting up an Executive Designate.
May I add to the tributes which have been paid to the leaders in Northern Ireland for coming to this agreement a tribute to the Alliance Party, because Mr. Oliver Napier was obviously hoping for two seats on the Executive, and the fact that that number has been reduced to one (I am talking about the first-class

1225
seats; I am not talking about the ones to which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition referred) shows that the Alliance Party, which, after all, is the only Party which really straddles both sections of the community, have had to make sacrifices as well as the Unionist Party and the S.D.L.P.
This is a happy day for all of us, and we must all hope that it will turn out well. But, as I said on the telephone this morning to a Dublin paper that rang me up, to follow Mr. Faulkner's horsey expression of having "won by half a neck" at a meeting of the Ulster Unionist Council the other day, there are still many hurdles which lie in front of the Government. Therefore, while we must all be delighted with the out-turn of events, we should not be too euphoric; we should realise that many difficulties lie ahead. But, despite that fact, we can do nothing but pay tribute, and once more may I say what I said in March of last year: the selection of Mr. Whitelaw to undertake this job was quite brilliant. If ever a personality was required for a particular job, in my view Mr. Whitelaw and his excellent deputy at that time—and I am paying tribute to the noble Lord. Lord Belstead, as well—had that quality, and that has produced the result.
4.38 p.m.
Loan BELSTEAD: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be your Lordships' wish that I should try to reply to some of the points which have been made. I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Gladwyn, from the two Front Benches for the way in which they have received the Statement. The Statement forms part of my right honourable friend's speech. It is not in exactly the same words, and the Statement was in fact designed for your Lordships' House. I would also agree, if I may, with the noble Lord, Lord Shackle-ton, that the Parties in Northern Ireland are to be most warmly congratulated, not only for the position achieved so far, as the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine, has so rightly said, but also for the way in which the talks were conducted, which allowed those talks to keep going on a reasonable basis of confidentiality and not to be broken into while they were under way.
I can confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is correct: the Execu
1226
tive is on a 6:4:1 basis, with four more appointments outside the Executive. As to the legislative timetable, although the timetable in this House is of course entirely in the hands of your Lordships, it appears to me that if we are amending the Constitution Act and taking a devolution Order under Section 2 of that Act, the probability is that it will be agreed between the Parties and through all the usual channels that those pieces of legislation will come from the Commons to your Lordships. Therefore we are to some extent dependent on the House of Commons' timetable and at this moment I am not aware what that is.
Despite the questions asked by both the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, whom I believe I can satisfy in a moment, I do not think that the House will expect me to prejudge matters on the Council of Ireland before the Conference referred to in the Statement. It is the fact that as a result of the Statement the British Government are making the suggestion and therefore in that sense are to be the hosts; but I am afraid that at this stage I cannot tell the House either where or when the preliminary conference would be held. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, asked me the direct question: would unanimity mean, in fact, what it says? The answer to that is, Yes. This is given in the Statement as the view of Her Majesty's Government; and we do, of course, still stick by the three objectives which are to be found in Paragraph 112 of the White Paper.
May I thank the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, for being here to-day, for supporting the Executive Designate and for giving us his reasons for doing so. I think it is fair to say that this is a "package" and for that reason it is wise (and here I would agree with my noble friend) that the Executive is designate; and that it depends on Westminster approval of the devolution order. To that extent it is important that it is an Executive Designate. The Alliance Party have only one seat on the Executive proper, but they also have the most important position of the Office of Manpower Services, which is an appointment outside the Executive, as well as the Deputy Chief Whip appointment. I agree with my noble friend that there are still difficulties ahead. I think that

1227
all of your Lordships with your experience will know better than I that one of those difficulties is going to he how the security situation unfolds. All we can do on that matter is to hope and to keep our eyes firmly fixed on this important point.
4.42 p.m.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, as one who has known Mr. Whitelaw intimately and who had the privilege of speaking off the Record some years ago to the old Stormont, may I first utter my sincere congratulations to Mr. Whitelaw and his colleagues on their patience during the critical days of negotions. May I ask the Minister whether he is aware that everybody in this country admires the way in which the Catholic community and the Protestant community have reached a compromise on the structure of the new Stormont and that they would appeal to the extreme Catholics and the extreme Protestants to come into this great venture of creating a new and real Stormont for Northern Ireland, a Stormont which will reach out its hands to friendly co-operation with the Government of Eire? I congratulate Mr. Whitelaw and his colleagues on what they have done.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My. Lords, may I record my own conviction, bearing in mind the warning against euphoria from the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, that this is the best bit of news to come out of Northern Ireland in my lifetime and, I think, in the lifetime of the oldest here. I simply add to the heartfelt thanks in which I join all the other speakers, a tribute to all those who had anything to do with this whether in Ireland, North or South, or in this country. In particular, we cannot sufficiently express our admiration for the Secretary of State, Mr. Whitelaw, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and, now, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to Her Majesty's Government for this Statement and say how particularly pleased I am about the proposals for a Council of Ireland. I have always spoken up for such a Council. I hope that these proposals will be put into practice. It is extremely pleasing to hear that
1228
the suggestion has been made that Members will be drawn from all Parties of both Governments. I should like also to take up the point made by the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that this Council, if it comes to power, should not be used, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, to "press gang" the majority of Protestant opinion in Northern Ireland to Union if they do not so wish it. I hope myself that through this Council, both sides will get to know each other and like each other, and that over the passage of the years, it may be 20, or 30 or 50 years, this will come to pass.
I should like to mention something about the Executive, this 6-4-1 structure, because I consider that Mr. Faulkner is the man to lead this. He certainly has great talents and he will need them all. It is so evenly balanced that one is rather inclined to think there may be a danger that one may not get government at all, but stalemate. I hope that with Mr. Faulkner's leadership and tact this will be overcome and that the Council will be a great success.
LORD GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, speaking from the Opposition Benches in this matter and having just returned from Northern Ireland, may I echo what has been said by other noble Lords. In particular, may I echo what was said so pertinently by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill, about the human approach to this problem. So much of past tragedy has been a case of reasonable Englishmen trying, without success, to cope with the sensitivities of Irishmen who feel and think in a somewhat different way. For that reason, this country and Ireland have the greatest reason to be eternally grateful to the Secretary of State and to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. If I may, I will make one other observation. In my recent visit to Ireland, it was touching to hear from people of all types the admiration and gratitude they felt, particularly to the Leader of your Lordships' House, for the sensitive understanding of what they were all trying to say and do.
VISCOUNT BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, may I add my congratulations to those already expressed, not only to the Secretary of State but to the whole of his team. I hope they will be conveyed to him. I should like to add my word of

1229
caution because this is very much a beginning and there is still much to be done. Will the Government make clear that what they are asking the politicians of Northern Ireland to do—and I am proud to be one of them—is to mix oil and water?—because within the Parties and especially within the S.D.L.P. there is not only a range of opinion from extreme nationalist and extreme unionist but also, above all that, a very Left-wing element and a very Right-wing nationalist element. We are not only dealing with the problems of Left and Right but of nationalists and unionists. This is asking for an enormous amount of give and take.
Will the Government also make clear that political activity is no solution to the security problem that will be pursued with maximum intensity. Speaking as one living right on the Border, it is my opinion, from the feelings of the people there, that we are bound to be in for a period of very great activity of a very nasty kind; because it is in the interests of both factions that this Executive should not take effect. Would the noble Lord agree that the Secretary of State has, within the terms of the Act, got the only possible solution in the formation and balance of this Executive and that this has been supported by the Border poll results? I should like to ask the noble Lord this vital question on collective responsibility. Once the Cabinet or the Executive has made a decision—not only in the Council of Ireland (and this is vital) but outside—the Executive must go forward with executive responsibility in the same way as they would have done had they been a Cabinet, because without that this Government simply could not take place, in my opinion.
I should like to ask the noble Lord to convey to the Secretary of State the satisfaction about the unanimity over the Council of Ireland being necessary before any further development. Noble Lords may not be aware how much the Unionist people of the country fear a Council of Ireland with representatives as opposed to Members of Government because automatically, since part of the representation from the North of Ireland will be wishing a united Ireland. the Unionist opinion will be in the minority, and therefore this is of vital importance. In order to help those of us who have considerable doubts (I support to the maximum what is being done) about the effectiveness of
1230
the eventual outcome, could the noble Lord consider the announcement of extra Members of Parliament in another place, because once that is done, under the recommendation of Lord Kilbrandon, people like myself would be fully and absolutely determined at all costs to see that this matter is done. If we had fair representation, there is no ground whatsoever for doing anything but going full blast for this solution.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I be permitted to say a word, and perhaps repair an omission, and express on behalf of all of us our thanks to the British Army for having held the ring for so many weary and long years. I think that probably it is as much due to the Army as anybody that we have arrived, temporarily perhaps, at a successful solution to this problem.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, as I listened to the Statement being made I was impressed by its modesty. It was almost entirely an explanation of facts. I regard what has happened as an achievement and Her Majesty's Government would have been justified in claiming success. They did not do so, and I think that is an expression of the recognition by all of us that, although these-great changes have been made, the situation in Ireland is still of a critical, evolving character. Nevertheless, my Lords, having said that, one must say that this is quite an historic decision. In Northern Ireland, after 50 years, there is to be, for the first time, an association of the two communities in an Executive, and that is a tremendous fact in the history of Ireland.
Secondly, after 300 years of conflict in Ireland there is now, for the first time, to be a Council of the whole of Ireland. Though some of us hope that ultimately there will be a united Ireland, none of us wants that to take place without the consent of peoples of Northern and Southern Ireland. The establishment of this Council, beginning on rather restricted issues but inevitably developing, seems to me to be a course by which ultimate co-operation and union can be obtained.
I want to say frankly, my Lords, that, generally speaking, I am against coalitions because they cause a compromise of principle, and disillusionment. In this case I think the coalition is

1231
absolutely justified because it brings the two communities together. May I make a suggestion to the Minister that I hope will be considered? I hope that the coalition will not be too rigid. I hope that it will not be so rigid that members of the National Assembly and the Parties will be unable to reflect views which are different from the decisions of the Executive. What is happening now in Northern Ireland is deeper than some of us recognise. The ultra-Protestant sections, which are largely working-class, having overthrown a landlord leadership, are now in protest against a capitalist leadership. There are working-class demands from the shop floor about wages and working conditions, unemployment and housing, which are exactly the same as those of the Catholic workers on the other side, though they are divided over the Border issue. In this National Assembly, if the Border issue could be postponed for a time, I want to see a coming together of those on the Protestant and on the Catholic side who are concerned about social and economic issues. If the coalition is not made too rigid; if Members of the Parties have liberty to reflect and vote on those social and economic issues, the National Assembly could create a real hope for the development of democracy in Northern Ireland.
4.54 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, at the end of a fairly considerable discussion on this Statement, for which I know my right honourable friend will be grateful to your Lordships, I do not think you will expect me to say very much more, except to thank the noble Lords, Lord Maybray-King and Lord Longford, and my noble friends Lord Massereene and Ferrard and Lord Gore-Booth, for what they have said. If I may, I will quickly take up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and my noble friend Lord Brookeborough who, of course, has been a valuable and loyal supporter of the Chief Executive Designate, Mr. Brian Faulkner. The noble Lord opposite and my noble friend have enunciated two rather different principles about collective responsibility, and I cannot comment on that at all, except to say that Schedule 4 of the Constitution Act, which allows for the oath for those who are to form the
1232
Executive, remains. My noble friend made the point that the coalition is mixing oil and water. That may be, my Lords, but the Parties have agreed a statement of economic and social aims which will no doubt be revealed by the Parties to the Executive Designate when they see fit. The Executive Designate has been formed, which is a considerable step forward. I agree with my noble friend that it is the fact that political activity is no solution to the security problem, and we are grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, paid tribute to the work of the Army.
My Lords, I think my right honourable friend would wish me to say that you cannot blur the distinction between those who seek by lawful means to oppose what the Constitution Act has been trying to do and those who have been seeking by unlawful means to oppose what the Constitution Act has been trying to do. The former have every right to do what they have been doing; the latter are leading us only to more and more violence. May I conclude by saying that I know that during the past twenty months the Administration of Northern Ireland has been enormously supported from both sides of your Lordships' House who have given advice during the debate. I think that whatever the future might hold, and certainly a lot remains to be done, and however the new Executive faces its task—and in that we wish them well—this Statement could certainly never have been made to-day without the twenty months work of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

ARMY, AIR FORCE AND NAVAL DISCIPLINE ACTS (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1973.
4.58 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, may I crave the indulgence of the Leader of the House for a moment? He knows in what regard I hold him, but I wonder whether, between now and the Christmas Recess, he could find five minutes to explain to me the Rules of Order of the House as they have been working in the last hour or so, bearing in mind the rebuke which he handed out to me on a previous occasion when I was advancing unpopular views and when, being conditioned by

1233
the years I spent in the other place, I did not on every occasion pose my problem in an interrogatory form. I am completely mystified.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and to other noble Lords who have been taking part in the debate on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order. I know only too well what an inconvenience it is when a debate is interrupted, and particularly when the discussion following a Statement takes as long as has been the case with the Northern Ireland Statement. It is quite exceptional that the interruption is as long, but I should like to apologise to the noble Lord and to other noble Lords who have been taking part in the debate on the Order.
LoRD WIGG: The noble Lord humiliates me. I am not seeking an apology; I am seeking to understand. I have a simple rule: I will abide by the rules if everybody else abides by the rules; but I am not having a set of rules made for Wigg, and another set of rules made for everybody else. This is what has been happening. On a previous occasion, which your Lordships will remember, I sought the advice of the Clerks of the House as to where I had gone wrong, and I tried to learn. But the Rules in this House are applied to some, but not to others. It is a fact here that speeches are read by Ministers, every single word of them. This is a place of debate, but we have had speech after speech, and no attempt whatsoever to put them in interrogatory form. But I am not complaining. All I really want to do is to learn, so that what the others have I can have, too. I do not mean to be rebuked and interrupted at every sentence I try to utter while everyone else here has free reign, including the reactionary Lord at the back of the House who is trying to do his best to sabotage the Government.
Having tried to strike an uncontroversial note in my opening paragraph, may I say how glad I am to have the opportunity in this debate to speak after my noble friend Lord Brayley? He and I are old friends. We shared a common experience. It was many years ago when I met him. Indeed, we were both in the ranks of the Regular Army when he was
1234
fighting as a very good heavyweight boxer —rather above my weight, if I may say so, and certainly above my abilities in that particular field. But to-day he made a contribution which I think added to our deliberations by the weight of thought behind it. I hope very much that he will continue to speak as he thinks, and to express himself with the same forceful clarity as he did to-day. I certainly congratulate him.
My Lords, when this debate came on the Order Paper I regretted greately that it coincided with the death of a servant of your Lordships' House and a Member of your Lordships' House, Lord Spens, a public servant of great wisdom, who guided us over a period of some three years in framing the measures which your Lordships are considering today. I undertook the discipline of reading what was said on the Continuation Order a year ago, both in this place and another place, because I was abroad a year ago and could not take part. I went back to the first Contivation Order in 1957, and then back to the Select Committee Report, the Select Committee of which I was a member and laboured for three years—many time working through the Recess in order to produce the Report. What strikes me is that a year ago in another place they got in a terrible tangle as to what was or what was not in order. It had been laid down in the 1957 debate by the then Speaker that, broadly speaking the debate—a novel experience—the annual debate on the Affirmative Order, followed for a period of four years, and then followed by a Select Committee, would be related to what were regarded as A. and Q. problems, questions which were norm ally regarded as operational foreign policy for practical purposes. But in another place the complaint was that Members of your Lordships House went far wider than Members of the other place were allowed to go.
That situation arose in part because the Government—for reasons which I think we all understand; at least I try to understand—have the debate on the Continuation Order in this House before it takes place in the House of Commons. I think that is unfortunate, although I understand the reasons. That is not a criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. I should think it is probably because the Secretary of State happens

1235
to be here that the debate is held here first. But I notice that when he was speaking a year ago he said that it was a tradition of this House to speak on personal questions, and in the other place (this is what we are really arguing about) that they should be speaking on personal questions as well.
I want to remind your Lordships—and I think it is particularly appropriate that we should remind ourselves at this titne—of this debate in its historical setting. I wrote a memorandum for the Select Committee, memorandum No. 38, which was considered by the Select Committee on the 4th May, 1954. I opened it by using these words:
"The Bill of Rights lays down that the raising or keeping of a standing Army within the Kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is against the law."
And so it was over the years. The Army Act itself was fantastically Out of date because all the Government of the day was concerned with was that by April 30 it had a Motion of the House of Commons limiting the number of men that might be borne on the strength of the Army. The reasons for that were tied up with our liberties. A King lost his head because in fact he spent money voted for rations. on pay. He kept a bigger Army than Parliament wanted him to, and that led to the conflict between Parliament and Charles. A century or more later, another King lost his Throne. That is how the Bill of Rights came into being. That number must not be exceeded. And the debates which take place on the Continuation Order in this form (I am not reading the rest of my memorandum) were worked out in order that Parliament should keep control over this vital question of numbers: and must get the Affirmative Order before April 30 each year to maintain. in some form. Parliamentary control over the Armed Forces.
For three centuries that has never been a question in this country: but in many other countries it is a question. Country after country is falling under the dominance of the armed forces, or is influenced by forces that exist inside the forces of particular countries. With, I think, not wholly beneficial results. That situation has not arisen in this country. From time to time serving soldiers have
1236
made statements, have written books, have been questioned and so on and so forth; but basically the tradition has been to keep politics and the Army wide apart. That is absolutely right. It is in order to maintain civilian control that Parliament—both Houses—should maintain control over the Executive. That is what the noble Lord, Lord Brayley, was underlining this afternoon.
We see the results of a very great and expensive bill. I have not checked it, but the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, in a debate a few weeks ago, gave a figure of £40,000 million. I suppose he reached that figure by adding up all the Estimates —which is not the same thing as the amount that was spent. But, taken as a rough. figure, £40,000 million has been spent on Defence, and the public see the result every year. Trooping the Colour —they saw it last Wednesday; and the Military Tattoo in Edinburgh. But what beyond that? Our influence in the world can he measured by the treatment we recently received at the hands of the Americans. We can see just how much we count in the negotiations which are going on currently about the reduction of the Armed Forces in NATO in relation to the Warsaw Pact. Here I must be critical of my own Party. I listened last night to a Party political broadcast by Mr. Callaghan. Mr. Callaghan advocated cutting the Defence bill by £500 million. This is the equivalent, to my mind, of my doctor—or the man who tries to look after me—telling me that I must reduce my weight and, "The best thing you can do is to cut your fingers off, or cut your toes off." It is just about as sensible.
The £3,500 million which is being misspent at the present time stems, of course, from the 1957 White Paper. Over the years I have blamed Mr. Sandvs for that White Paper. Having read the last of Mr. Macmillan's hooks, I have reached the conclusion that that is wrong. The person who will take his place in history alongside Mr. Stanley Baldwin, as having put his Party before his country, his class before his duty, is Mr. Macmillan. This can be traced out through his speeches. The 1957 White Paper, the dependence upon an atomic nuclear defence policy; the decision to get rid of conscription—and accompanied, I may say, at that time by the abolition of the three-year engagement because of the difficulties

1237
about recruiting—all that has led us into our present position.
I saw with some amusement yesterday that the understudy of the Secretary of State for Defence in the other place said that our missiles were comparable in quality with the missiles possessed by the Soviet Union. How does he know that? None of them has been fired in anger. But if anybody seriously thinks that we have any weapon capable of doing what the Sam 6 has done, then he is living in Cloud Cuckoo-land. Indeed, the point was made yesterday, and has been made again to-day by Lord Brayley, that if we were asked to put in the field a balanced force—not a force such as that in Northern Ireland, carrying out not a soldier's job but a policeman's job—we should be hard pat to do it.
Since that time, of course, the Government have returned to the three-year engagement. The three-year engagement, when Mr. Healey introduced it, was attractive in the short run. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, thought that this was a good step. He overlooks the fact of the simple multiplication sum that it took years to teach the House of Commons: that if your recruiting figure is 100 and you have a three-year engagement, you will get an Army of 300; if it is seven years, you will get 700; and if you have a high wastage, as you now have, and your re-engagement figure, based upon the net figure, is 50 per cent., it is not very satisfactory never mind what the Secretary of State says. Then there is some thing else. If you have a short-service engagement, where in the long run do you get your warrant officers and your senior N.C.O.s? They are the hones and the anatomy of the Army, and are what it is built around.
The search for the long-service N.C.O. and warrant officer killed democracy in Kaiser's Germany. It produced a capitulant class. It meant that in order to get them they had to give a guarantee that every man who undertook a long-service engagement would be given a job. Noble Lords who remember seeing All Quiet on the Western Front will remember Himmelkop, the easy-going postman, who was a top rebel when he got a uniform on. He was a product of the capitulant class. One of the reasons why Israel at the moment is in the throes in terms of the civilian administration, on
1238
the one hand, and its soldiers, on the other, is that they have gone two steps beyond the Germans. Their officers, their N.C.O.s and warrant officers are given jobs which are as economically satisfactory in civilian life as they were in military life, which leads insidiously, almost without your knowing it, into a military approach.
My ways, like Lord Brayley's ways, have been cast along different paths from those of many of the Members of the Labour Party. I joined the Labour Party before I joined the Regular Army: I joined before I was 18, and I joined the Regular Army when I was 18. One of the reasons why I never found any culty (and I still find no difficulty) in staying in the Labour Party was because basically its instincts take it into the ways of peace, co-operation and conciliation, rather than into the paths of aggression and division. I am sure that, in the kind of world in which we live, that approach is fundamentally correct. I am not suggesting for one moment that noble Lords opposite are very far away from that position themselves, although historically the Conservative Party have tended from time to time to "wave the flag".
What I say to the Government is that they are spending £3,500 million on Defence. They are forced, as a result of their own policy, to spend an ever-increasing ratio on pay, allowances and non-effective services: they cannot help it. There is a ceiling of £3,500 million, even allowing for the deterioration in the value of money. That figure cannot rise very much. The Secretary of State has said that he has been conscious of the problem of recruiting for a long time, and he is looking to the pay review next year in the hope that pay increases inside Phase 3 will help him to redress that balance. What does it mean? It means that the ratio of pay and allowances will rise, because the country is in no mood for an increase in the total. That, in turn, means that there will be less money to spend on equipment. That situation faces us. It also faces the ever-rich United States. They have switched, because of the weakness of the Nixon Administration, to a voluntary system. Of course they are helped because of the different standards of life in the South of America and in the North, and they can draw on the recruiting grounds in the

1239
South, particularly among the black population, for fruitful recruitment. But they, too, are finding that the ever-rising costs of pay, rations, accommodation, and the need to look after wives and children, is reaching a point when they are having to limit what they can spend on equipment.
In my view, the noble Lord, Lord Brayley, is right. If you are going to have defence, then have adequate defence. But at least be under no illusions about it yourself: because the one thing you can be certain about is that your potential enemy will have no illusions, and when war comes, as it has come in the Middle East, or the threat of war comes, as it has now, the deficiencies in your Defence policy are revealed for all to see, and in a flash £40,000 million spent on Defence in this country, and amounts not so far off that sum spent by our NATO Allies, reveal when the chips were down that, so far as the United States are concerned, that we did not count "tuppence".
What is the political result? I am sure that with an attenuated attendance, the majority of noble Lords present to-day were in favour of a Common Market, a united Europe and a Common European Defence Policy. What does our military weakness reveal but the bulkanisation of Europe? At the present moment, neither singly nor collectively, does Europe amount to "tuppence". We have four nuclear submarines armed with A3. All they are is a provocation, and no more. Their military significance, except posthumously, is nil. If we were called upon to put, say, a division into the Middle East and to keep it there, it would be beyond our capacity. Yet there is the bill. We should be far safer not to do what Mr. Callaghan suggested. That is a fatal policy. To chop £500 million off the bill and think that you have effective Defence is really "conning" yourself. That is not the way to do it. Either have adequate defence, and be prepared to make the sacrifices for an adequate defence, or, better still, have no defence at all. Do as the Swiss do. Although they spend a little bit, I may say that they spend it on a high degree of citizenship. Far better to open all the frontiers and have nothing at all,
1240
because at least we should not be as we are to-night: while having half a sting with four Polaris submarines, we could well be the target for to-night. So my reasons for wearying your Lordships are, first of all, the great pleasure that I have in following the noble Lord, Lord Brayley, and to some extent underlining what he has said, and, secondly, pleading for this.
That Select Committee in 1952 was born of a bitter Party squabble. It put the Conservative Government of the day the spot. I well remember the conversations between the then Mr. Eden and Mr. Attlee which led to the setting up of the Committee, but the memorable thing about it was the wise and firm leadership of Lord Spens. From the time the doors were closed on that Committee, which was composed of bitter antagonists from both Parties. for a period of the next three years, the battle was forgotten and what we fought for was just to do the best we could for the Army as a whole. I think that to some extent we succeeded. The evidence is there for any noble Lord to see. The divisions that took place—and there were divisions—were never on a Party basis; they were not vertical but horizontal. All through my political life I have pleaded—and I make the plea again to-day although I do not think anyone will take any notice—that this country of ours, after two devastating World Wars and even though speaking from a weakening world position, still has something to give to the world. But if it is to give it, it must spend the little that it has to give wisely and well, and basically on a non-Party political basis. Of course, there will be political differences. So long as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and I live we shall disagree on almost every question, because our outlooks are quite different; and there is the same difference between myself and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough. Nevertheless, so far as this question is concerned, what is needed above all is honesty, and if we can achieve that we shall succeed. It will be a long and hard road to get back to that kind of basis, and I have tried to-night not to make a Party political speech, because I am perhaps nearer to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. than I am to Mr. Callaghan on the provision of an adequate Defence.
5.23 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Brayley, on his maiden speech. I do so with some trepidation since I, too, was a Regular soldier but after some years had only reached the rank of acting, temporary, unpaid, local major, while he is a Colonel-Commandant. Nevertheless, I congratulate him most sincerely on his speech, and particularly since I believe this is the first maiden speech made in your Lordships' House for a great many years on the subject of Defence. One of the things that bothers me as much as it bothers the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is the lack of interest in Parliament, as indeed outside it, on defence matters. Consequently, to have someone who joins your Lordships' House and feels strongly enough about the defence of this country to make his maiden speech on that subject is something that I greatly welcome. The noble Lord will certainly add good sense and lustre to our debates on Defence in this House, and we look forward to hearing him on a great many occasions.
I thought I would confine myself, in the few remarks that I want to make in winding-up, to answering the questions that have been put to me. I did not know the reason why we were debating the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts, and so I inquired—because when it was pointed out to me by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, it did seem rather odd. It is in fact because there are three separate Acts: the Army Act in 1955; the Air Force Act in 1955; and the Navy Act in 1957. The Parliamentary draftsman had obviously thought that order to be more important than the traditional order of the three Services—I expect he knows better by now! The noble Lord asked me about the X= factor and about Phase 3. I would tell him that it certainly is my intention to use whatever possibilties are available under Phase 3 to get as much money as possible for the Services, whether it be on the basis of unsocial hours or the X = factor. However, I do not think I can go into the details of that at the present time.
If the noble Lord was responsible (he may very well have been) for the idea of an insurance scheme, we are very grateful to him. I should like to say just a little about this subject, because I think there
1242
is a misunderstanding about what is available now to the families of Servicemen killed in Northern Ireland. We have recently introduced some very important improvements into the occupational pensions scheme as regards provisions for invaliding and for the widows and dependants of officers and Servicemen. Thus. the widow of a soldier killed in Northern Ireland, or dying anywhere for reasons attributed to service, now stands to receive the following: her husband's pay for three months; then an attributable Forces family pension at the rate of 90 per cent. of the full career pension appropriate to her husband's rank; a lump sum payment of three times the annual rate of her husband's invaliding pension (or twice his full career pension, whichever is the greater); an additional widow's gratuity worth 50 per cent. of the husband's full career pension for a year; and 20 per cent. of the full career pension for each dependent child up to a maximum of four. In addition to those benefits from the Ministry of Defence, the widow stands to get the appropriate pension and attributable allowances from the war pensions scheme administered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security.
All in all, I think the Regular provisions for widows and dependent children are now pretty good, but for those in the Army who would like to make some extra private provision we have recently introduced the scheme to which the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, referred—a life assurance scheme, arranged by a firm of brokers, under which a weekly contribution of 30p buys a pension of £10 a week upon death from any cause up to the time the soldier would have reached the age of 55. This is payable either to the widow or to nominated beneficiaries; for example, the parents. My noble friend Lord Brookeborough—I do not see him in the Chamber at the moment—asked me whether this scheme would apply to the U.D.R. in Ireland. As of now, it does not apply to them, but my Ministry is making inquiries of the trustees of the scheme to see whether or not they will be able to extend the provisions to members of the U.D.R.
Both my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing and the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, talked about the results of raising the school-leaving age and the education of

1243
young men, suggesting that it might be possible for the Services to educate them rather than that they should do their last year at school. I am sure it will come as no surprise to both noble Lords to hear that this is not a scheme I view with great displeasure; but I think one must be careful about it. One does not want to underestimate the cost difficulties involved in a scheme of this kind. Generally speaking, the Services have never recruited boys below the minimum school age. To integrate the final year of schooling with initial training for a military career and also to integrate the education which the boy has already received would, I am sure, impose quite new demands on the Service; I do not think we should consider starting a scheme of that kind unless first, we were satisfied that it would make a significant contribution to solving the problem, and secondly, that the 15-year-olds who were recruited could really expect to be educated to the same standard as they would be at school. In any event, I do not think that at the moment we ought to draw conclusions until we have seen the results of the first year; but certainly my mind is not closed on the subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, my noble friend behind me and my noble friend Lady Ruthven of Freeland, raised the question of women in the Services. Incidentally, I am looking at what the noble Lord said the other day in a debate, and I hope to be able to write to him. We place a high value on the use of women in the Armed Forces. At present there are about 15,000 in the Services, which puts us, as a matter of interest, second in the NATO league after the United States. There is a problem which the noble Lord knows: they unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, get married very quickly. To maintain a strength of 15,000, we have to enter 6,000 every year. This is not much of a problem so far as recruiting goes—there is not much difficulty in getting the 6,000–but it means that as we expect only a short service from them we cannot afford to give expensive training. That makes the suggestion of my noble friend behind me a little more difficult to deal with. We are examining this and I hope we shall be able to do something about it.
1244
My noble friend Lady Ruthven asked about local overseas allowance and why it is not paid in Northern Ireland. I think she misunderstands the object of local overseas allowance. It is intended to compensate for the difference in living costs between an overseas station and the United Kingdom. Since Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom it would not be appropriate for local overseas allowance to be paid to Servicemen there. The noble Lady and I have been having a correspondence about allowances generally, and I have just written her another letter on the subject of family allowances when soldiers move from one station to another. If my noble friend is not satisfied with that letter I hope she will write again and I will see what I can do.
Those were the questions that were asked. I will not go into Lord Wigg's speech, though one could have a good debate on it. Though he and I have the same approach, we come to different conclusions at the end. But whatever one may say about the noble Lord, Lord Wigg—and I have said some awful things in my time about him—there is one thing one can say and that is that he really is interested in defence, and for that I am grateful. I am also grateful that he attends the House and makes speeches of the kind he has made this evening. Equally I am grateful to noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and who have made constructive suggestions. I will examine them and, as usual, I hope profit and learn from what they have said. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1973, laid before the House on October 30, be approved.—(Lord Carrington.)
On question, Motion agreed to.

RABIES BILL [H.L.]
5.33 p.m.
EARL. FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill he now read a second time. The main objective of the Bill is to provide the powers necessary for the effective handling of rabies outbreaks outside quarantine. Rabies is a disease to which most mammals ore sus-

1245
ceptible. It is caused by a virus affecting the central nervous system and is most commonly transmitted by a bite. Once the disease has developed in humans it has almost without exception proved fatal. Humans who have been bitten by infected animals can be vaccinated after the incident. This may prevent the development of the disease, but involves a highly unpleasant series of injections which, even if rabies does not develop, can have serious side-effects. The incubation period of the disease can be a long one—even up to 12 months. So that any person exposed to infection faces at the very least a long period of extreme worry.
Apart from two cases in dogs in 1969 and 1970, Great Britain has been free of the disease outside quarantine since 1922. Following these two cases, and in the light of the spread of rabies across the Continent of Europe, a Committee of Inquiry on Rabies, with Mr. Ronald Waterhouse, Q.C., as Chairman, was appointed in April, 1970, by the then Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and Secretary of State for Scotland. The Committee's terms of reference were:
"To review the policy and precautions against rabies in Great Britain and to make recommendations."
The Committee's excellent Final Report was submitted to Ministers in May, 1971.
In their introduction to the Report the Committee drew attention to the rabies situation on the Continent and to the apparent inevitability that the disease would reach the Channel coast. The official French forecasts then indicated that wildlife rabies spread by foxes could be close to the Channel coast by 1980. The Committee pointed to the fact that, whereas there had always been grave risk of introduction of the disease through dogs and cats imported from countries with urban rabies, the risk had become increasingly serious from dogs and cats imported from Europe. They also drew attention to the risk of introducing the disease through other imported species of mammal, many of which were not at that time subject to quarantine control. In short, the Report opened with a clear message that the risk that any dog, cat, or other mammal entering this country might be infected with rabies was steadily increasing.
1246
Since the Committee reported, the situation in France has deteriorated. The spread of the disease has continued. Total recorded cases of rabies in France in 1970 were 512, of which 297 were cases of rabies in foxes. In 1971 the figure rose to 883 cases, of which 533 were in foxes. In 1972 the figure rose to 1,008, of which 722 were foxes. In the first eight months of 1973 the figures were 1,440, of which 1,226 were in foxes, indicating that the incidence of the disease in 1973 is running at about twice the level it was in 1972. The French authorities estimate that the number of actual deaths from rabies in wild animals has probably exceeded the number of deaths recorded by at least five times— the majority simply dying unobserved in the wild.
The Waterhouse Committee's consideration of the problem and their recommendations fell into two parts. First, they looked at the adequacy, in the face of the increasing risk, of our existing safeguards against entry of the disease. Secondly, accepting the unpalatable fact that, no matter what measures they recommended as desirable to strengthen existing safeguards, the risk of entry could not be eliminated, they considered the measures needed to deal with rabies outbreaks if they occurred, and particularly if they occurred in the wildlife.
Since the Committee reported, quarantine controls have been applied to a much wider range of mammals; new conditions have been introduced for authorised quarantine premises, and controls over the carrying of quarantine animals have been tightened. I think that reviewing and revising our quarantine regulations and import controls will inevitably be a continuing process to take account of increased knowledge and changing conditions and that we shall never reach the stage of being wholly satisfied with the degree of protection we have achieved. But with few exceptions the Waterhouse recommendations concerning the strengthening of existing safeguards have been implemented, and this Bill is intended to pave the way for implementation of the second group of recommendations for dealing with outbreaks outside quarantine.
As can be seen from the figures I have already given, the animal mainly responsible for the spread of the disease on the

1247
Continent has been the fox. It is highly susceptible and has the ability both to spread the disease and to act as a reservoir of it. The Waterhouse Committee expressed the view that, whatever the original source of an outbreak of rabies in Great Britain, the fox would probably become the main reservoir of the disease if it once became established in the wildlife. Events since the Committee reported have added strength to this view. The probability is, therefore, that, to have any hopes of being effective, measures to eradicate the disease from wildlife would have to he based on the reduction of the fox population in and around the area of infection. Any Government would be seriously inhibited if they had to attempt to tackle such a task within the confines of the powers at present available to them under existing diseases of animals legislation. This is the gap we are trying to fill with the Bill.
It may be helpful if I now outline the main provisions in the Bill and explain its relationship with the Diseases of Animals Act 1950. This Act provides extensive powers for the protection of our animal health and many of the measures that would be needed to deal with a rabies outbreak are already covered by it. But it was clearly drafted with farm animals and farm diseases uppermost in mind and, in so far as rabies was concerned, with urban rabies in domestic dogs and cats. Not surprisingly therefore among its main provisions for dealing with outbreaks, there is no provision for the entry on to land to destroy wildlife, nor does it cover fully other necessary actions for dealing with the type of rabies problem we might encounter here if we experienced similar outbreaks to those in France and other parts of the Continent.
Each clause in the new Bill relates to a corresponding section of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950 and supplements the general Order-making powers in that section for the purpose of dealing with rabies. The Bill is enabling legislation only and will require Orders to put it into effect. Such Orders would be made under the Diseases of Animals Act as extended by the powers in this Bill.
Clauses 1 and 2 of the Pill contain the main additional provisions needed for handling rabies outbreaks. Clause I enables the destruction of foxes and, if
1248
necessary, other wild mammals not in captivity to be provided for in an Order declaring an infected area; also for an Order to include powers to enter land to carry out such destruction. Foxes are specified in the Bill as the most likely species against which action would be necessary. Although all mammals are believed to be susceptible, overseas experience, particularly in Denmark, where measures along the lines of those to be provided in this Bill have been successfully operated, has been that if the fox population in and around a rabies infected area can be reduced to below a certain threshold, the disease tends to burn itself out altogether. In describing the methods of destruction necessary to deal with the fox population—mainly the gassing of fox-holes and the use of poison baits—the Waterhouse Committee draw attention to the statutory controls over the use of poisons which would need to be overriden for an effective campaign to be mounted. They also referred to the possibility, in exceptional circumstances (for example, in mountainous regions) that the use of gin traps, normally prohibited, might be necessary to deal effectively with foxes, despite the obvious humanitarian objections. This provision is based on the view, not disputed by anyone who commented on the Waterhouse Committee's Report, that such measures would be justifiable for the protection of our wildlife, our domestic animal population and our human population against the threat of rabies.
There should be no need to make a direct target of other species of wild animal in the area, although it has to be recognised that some would inevitably be destroyed along with the foxes. It also has to be borne in mind that powers can be taken under existing legislation to destroy animals infected with rabies, suspected of being infected or which have been in direct contact with infected animals. In different parts of the world, species other than foxes have demonstrated a capacity to hold and spread the disease—for example, bats and skunks—. and the behaviour of the rabies virus and its ability to transfer from one species to another is by no means predictable. The powers available to those dealing with an outbreak, therefore, need to be flexible enough to enable them to deal urgently with both the expected and the unexpected situation.

1249
Clause 1 deals with wild animals not in captivity and is complemented by Clause 2 which provides powers for dealing with domestic animals, either confined or stray, and wild species held in captivity—in zoos and safari parks, for example. It extends the powers at present available for applying controls to the domestic animal population and wild animals in captivity in rabies-infected areas. It would enable Orders to be made to confine, control and require vaccination of such animals. It would also enable stray animals to be dealt with. This clause also enables an Order to be made to provide for infected areas to be divided into zones and for different measures to be applied in different zones. This is necessary because the existing legislation as supplemented by the new powers would provide for a battery of measures to deal with different situations and the controllers of an anti-rabies campaign would obviously need the maximum flexibility to contain any measures taken strictly to the areas where they were considered necessary.
Clause 4 is the other provision in the Bill concerned with the handling of outbreaks and places an obligation on any person who knows or suspects that an animal is affected with rabies to report the fact. Present legislation places the obligation to notify only on the owner or person in charge of such an animal and, as the measures in the Bill are largely concerned with wild animals not owned or in anybody's charge, any person might be the first or only person to see an animal at large showing rabies symptoms. The earliest possible notification of cases would, of course, be a critical factor in the success of a rabies eradication campaign.
I mentioned that the majority of the Waterhouse Committee recommendations concerning preventive measures against entry of the disease had been implemented under existing legislation. The opportunity is, however, being taken in the Bill to deal with two weaknesses in our rabies defences and these are dealt with in Clauses 3 and 5. The main intention of Clause 3 (not a Waterhouse recommendation) is to enable us to control the keeping and importation of rabies virus and to provide for similar quarantine arrangements to be required for native animals used in experimental
1250
work involving rabies virus, as are applied to imported rabies-susceptible animals. The Ministry of Agriculture has had consultations with research institutes handling rabies virus and they are, of course, fully aware of the hazards involved and already take precautions in the handling of the materials. Nevertheless, it is an inconsistency in the context of our overall rabies controls and a potential threat to security that institutes handling the virus are not presently subject to any statutory controls. We are confident that adequate controls can be applied without inhibiting necessary research in any way.
Clause 5 provides for the destruction of animals illegally landed in Great Britain. I think it is generally accepted that the illegal landing of animals, whether deliberately or unknowingly, represents the biggest threat to our rabies security. The Waterhouse Committee recommended that such animals should be confined immediately for possible destruction or re-export, and allowed into quarantine only if owners furnished a satisfactory reason for the non-observance of the regulations. At present, owners or carriers of such animals are offered the alternatives of re-export, destruction, or direction to quarantine premises. But immediate re-export is not generally feasible and if quarantine accommodation is not available, which is frequently the case, destruction of the animal is the only alternative. Existing legislation, however, does not empower the responsible authorities to destroy such animals, other than with the owner's consent.
After the Waterhouse Committee Report was published, all persons and organisations who had given evidence to the Committee were asked to comment. These organisations included virtually all the leading bodies concerned with animal health, welfare, conservation and related matters. The comments received by the Ministry were overwhelmingly in favour of the Report and few qualifications were made about even the most drastic measures that the Committee thought necessary.
My Lords, I would not wish to underestimate the serious nature of certain of the powers which Her Majesty's Government are seeking to take in this Bill. In almost any other context than rabies

1251
control they would be totally unacceptable. But I think that everybody with knowledge of the subject recognises the high priority that should be accorded to preserving the rabies-free status which this country has enjoyed for so long and to providing the powers necessary to stamp out this terrible disease, if it ever occurs, as quickly as possible. Further research and preparation will be necessary to formulate the detailed orders which will be needed to implement the powers in the Bill, and the views of interests concerned or affected will be sought.
There are those who say that because of the Continental situation it is inevitable that the disease will in due course establish itself in this country and that rabies outbreaks will become part of our way of life. The quarantine controls and the other safeguards which we have applied so successfully over the years have restricted the number of outbreaks outside quarantine to two since 1922. These controls have been strengthened in many respects since the Waterhouse Committee reported to counter the increasing risks. While it is only prudent to take the powers set out in this Bill as an insurance against our defences being breached, I certainly hope that our vigilance and the co-operation of the vast majority of our citizens will continue to be rewarded with freedom from the disease. If it should penetrate our first line of defence then, provided that we can act quickly and effectively, we can stamp it out. Denmark has twice managed to do this by methods similar to those which we are proposing. While I would emphasise the need to take the powers proposed in this Bill, I sincerely hope that we shall not have any immediate need to use them. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(Earl Ferrers.)
5.52 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hoy, who normally speaks for us on this side of the House on agricultural matters, has unfortunately had to leave your Lordships' House and proceed North, but he has asked me to extend a very warm welcome to this Bill. I am not a farmer, nor have I any
1252
medical knowledge, but I perhaps may be the only one in your Lordships' House who has had some close contact with rabies. Many years ago in Bangkok a friend of mine was bitten by a dog, and I took that young man to the hospital and saw the first of the medical inoculations—one of the most unpleasant forms of medical treatment I can imagine. But during that short period at the hospital I saw a person in the last throes, the last hours prior to death, through rabies. That is many years ago, and I can say to your Lordships that I shall never forget the circumstances in which that death occurred.
I have no sympathy with anyone, whatever may be the circumstances, who endangers the health of this country by illegally bringing into this country animals that have not gone through the proper form of quarantine and check. If I were a magistrate I would have no mercy. I would look up the maximum penalty that was provided and would administer it, whatever the circumstances. Perhaps I might ask the noble Lord, since we are dealing with a Bill which has a parent Act, whether the penalties set cut in the Act, since it was passed in 1950, are to-day adequate as a deterrent, taking into account the seriousness of the disease and of the many things that flow from it. One must recognise that if rabies is brought here very considerable expense is incurred. Again, when I was living in Singapore some stupid woman brought in a dog from Malaya. Singapore, like ourselves, had been relatively free from rabies. This person brought the dog over the causeway hidden in the boot of a car. The cost of dealing with the rabies epidemic that flowed from it was very considerable. Apart from the whole system of checks, the medical examinations and the veterinary work, there was also the bringing in of the inoculation serum and the like. Therefore, apart from the disease and its effect on animals and individuals, one has to take into account what could be a heavy cost.
The figures which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has given have clearly shown how free we have been—two cases since 1922. This shows that our present defences are adequate, and we should do all we can to make those defences even

1253
stronger in order to maintain this high degree of immunity. Unfortunately, I have not been able to look at the principal Act, but Clause 4 of the Bill refers to the principal Act, and reads—
"(1A) Any person who knows or suspects that an animal (whether in captivity or not) is affected with rabies shall give notice of that fact to a constable…
I think that is very satisfactory. It then goes on—
"unless—
(a) he believes on reasonable grounds that another person has given notice under this section in respect of that animal…"
I personally have a feeling that in the light of the seriousness of this matter it is the duty of any individual who suspects that there is rabies, either in an animal that is wild or in an animal that is in captivity, to report it before other animals have been infected. The new subsection (1A) goes on:
"and, if the animal is in his possession or under his charge, shall as far as practicable keep the animal separate from other animals."
I have a feeling that this rather weakens the earlier words of the subsection. I may be wrong, but I would ask the noble Earl to look at this. I believe that we should make these rules as tight as possible so that there can be no misunderstanding or loophole in the notification where a person suspects rabies is in existence.
At the end of the Bill, as is customary we read:
"This Act does not extend to Northern Ireland."
I am not quite certain of the regulations and the legislation in terms of Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland, and I can see difficulties here. But I wonder whether the noble Lord can give any indication of our control of animals moving from Northern Ireland into Britain, and whether the Government intend to see that in Northern Ireland similar legislation will be enacted. My Lords, I may have spoken rather strongly on this matter, but I believe that everything possible should be done to keep this country immune from this terrible disease no matter what the expense or what people may feel about the hardships arising perhaps from the loss of their favourite animal.
5.59 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd,
1254
has spoken in such firm tones and I hope that attention will be paid to his recommendations about intimating to the police. I welcome the Bill and I think the whole veterinary profession welcomes it. There is an increasing danger of infection from the Continent and we must congratulate the Government upon taking time by the forelock.
There is a point in Clause I about which I should like some illumination. Line 10 at the end of the first paragraph reads:
"—such other wild mammals as may be prescribed by the order (not in either case being animals held in captivity)."
I should like a definition of "captivity". I have been unable to find it in the Diseases of Animals Act or in the previous Rabies Order. I think it could arise very acutely in relation to safari parks. In safari parks, the only animal in captivity is the human in his car. The other animals are roaming and there are holes in the fences which small animals can get through. It conjures up in my mind the vision of a rabid lion in a safari park attacking a car. I do not think the captive would live very long—certainly no longer than they did in the old Roman days. Incidentally, certain zoos in which the animals are kept captive can be infected because they have parts which are open to access to the outside world. In the Edinburgh Zoo, for example, foxes pass in and out freely, so I think we should look at this point again at the Committee stage.
Another mammal which could cause considerable trouble in the event of rabies getting into the country is the bat. The bat is able to fly over the fences of the safari parks, and if there was an infection there might be great difficulty in containing it. It might well be advisable to slaughter animals in safari parks if it was not possible to arrange for them to he put into absolute captivity during an outbreak of rabies. There is a particular species of bat which is not bred in this country but which certain people try to import. It rejoices in the name of the vampire bat, and if the vampire bat got into the country there could be a great deal of trouble. At the present moment, according to the Statutory Instrument 1971 vampire bats must go into quarantine. If it is possible, I should like to know whether there have been any attempts to import vampire

1255
bats, and, if so, how many vampire bats there are in quarantine at this present moment.
With regard to authorising the use of any illegal methods of destruction, I am glad that the rigid provision has been put in the Bill, and I hope it will also include permission to shoot the fox. Again, my Lords, I congratulate the Government on their foresight and I should like to apologise to the House because I have an urgent desire to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, to Scotland as quickly as possible, and that may prevent me from attending the end of this debate.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, may I crave your indulgence to make one remark?
EARL FERRERS: No, I am afraid not.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: I beg your pardon, my Lords.
6.3 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I want to make only a brief intervention in this debate, but I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for introducing this extremely valuable little Bill, which I am quite sure nobody could object to at all. There is not a great deal I want to say which has not already been said. I admired what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has said and I agree with the doubts that he has expressed. The vampire bat is a curious carrier of rabies because it bites when it is hungry but not when it is rabid, so what may appear to be a perfectly normal vampire hat can in fact infect you with rabies if it bites you.
Before beginning our debate on the Bill I was hoping to get an assurance from the Government, first, that they would not even think about relaxing quarantine regulations for animals which are being imported into this country. My doubts have been greatly diminished by what the noble Earl has said, so I no longer think that that is a possibility. Second, there has been a great deal of talk about the value of vaccines, particularly with dogs that are imported into this country. One of the dogs which developed rabies when it came into this country, and was taken to Newmarket in 1970, was supposed to have been vaccinated three times in Pakistan before it came here. It was in quarantine
1256
for the proper period of six months but it developed rabies about a fortnight after it came out of quarantine, which shows that although vaccination may be a valuable thing to do it does not afford complete protection. If somebody tried to argue that there was no need for quarantine because the animal which had been imported had been vaccinated, I think that argument would not go down very well.
I have two other points that I should like to raise. One is that a great many more rare and exotic animals are now being imported as pets, and I suppose for experimental work also, but I trust that, if anything, the powers of quarantine will be extended rather than restricted. One reason I have for saying that is that I remember that quite a long time ago there was a disease of parrots called psittacosis. It was made difficult to import a parrot, and parrots which died of this disease had to be sent to a special laboratory for examination because the disease could be caught by human beings and was sometimes fatal: it was a form of pneumonia. These regulations were relaxed some time after the War, but I have seen reports in the Press recently that there have been cases of psittacosis arising among people in this country, and one wonders whether it was a good thing to have made that relaxation in favour of people bringing parrots into this country if it is going to bring back that unpleasant disease. My Lords, I have been greatly comforted by what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has said in introducing this Bill and I trust the Government will continue along these lines.
6.7 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I should like to join other noble Lords in welcoming this Bill. My only query is as to whether it goes far enough. In Clause 1(2)(a) powers for entering on land are giver but they specifically exclude dwelling houses. I think it is well known that foxes, in particular, if they are being hunted or in any way chased, are quite liable to go into any place where they think they can obtain shelter. Many have been known to go into dwelling houses and into barns and buildings adjoining dwelling houses. Perhaps the Government can tell us why these have been excluded.
Another query I should like to raise is about the provision to use gin traps,

1257
poisons and so on. Could some words be written into the Bill to provide that when these uses are made of such things the utmost publicity should be given in the area, because many people have animals, such as cats, which roam, and it would be most unfortunate if some pet was caught in a gin trap. I know these traps will be used only in extreme cases, and I am not objecting to their use, but I should like to have an assurance that the widest possible publicity will be given to their use in any particular area. In Clause 2(1)(e) again, dwelling houses have been omitted. I think dwelling houses might well be included in this clause. I believe the noble Earl said that in fact the right existed. The other aim was the power to destroy animals which could have been in contact with other rabid animals. This would mainly apply to the domestic dog or cat which might roam; but could the noble Earl give some indication as to where that power is, because I have been unable to see under which part of the Act it applies.
My Lords, I must join with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in inquiring whether the noble Earl considers that the penalties under the main Act, drafted in past years, are really sufficient. This is a terrible disease, and anybody who tries to thwart any purpose of the Act deserves very heavy penalty under the law. May I again welcome this Bill? I think it is a very good thing.
6.11 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, may I apologise for my previous error in trying to intervene? May I say to noble Lords present, in particular to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that I came across a young American professor in Leeds who has actually cured a boy of rabies, so I feel there is hope that there will not be a repetition of the circumstances that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, related to us. With regard to Scotland, we hope that rabies has not yet arrived there. With the exception of my noble friend Lord Balerno, we are very short of sufficient unspeakable to chase the uneatable. As the matter seems to rest on fox destruction, we shall obviously need much more encouragement given to fox destruction societies, and, as has been indicated by a noble Lord, we must have a much more efficient kind of trap. We
1258
shall have to invite the Forestry Commission to kill even more foxes in their vast forests.
6.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, I welcome this Bill. We cannot have tight enough regulations on the import of animals into this country. I have a slight connection with this Bill. Many of your Lordships think that it is a brand new Bill. I do not want to he pompous, but in 1895, under the new Government of Lord Salisbury, my ancestor, Walter Long, became the President of the Board of Agriculture. It was soon after that that a dog ran amok and bit four children in a playground, and those four children subsequently died. As your Lordships can imagine, there was a furore in the country about it. My grandfather went on a visit to his doctor in Warminster, and the doctor said to him, "Mr. Walter, there is only one way to cure rabies, or hydrophobia". My grandfather asked him, "What may that be?", and the doctor replied, "There should be quarantines for imported dogs, and muzzling of dogs in this country". My grandfather turned to the doctor and, in modern terms, said, "You must be joking. You will lose me my Cabinet seat and everything else." But the doctor said, "That is the way you will cure this disease".
My grandfather came back to the Cabinet and told its members what he was going to do, and he did it. He was extremely unpopular. This was in the Victorian era, when women went around with little dogs, with blue and red ribbons tied to them, under their arms, and those women refused to speak to my grandfather. A large petition was raised, with many thousands of names, and it was sent to him. He felt that the canine breed would be fairly secure from then on. However, after five years of being very unpopular, he did, in fact, put a stop to rabies in this country. I do not want to boast about it, but I felt your Lordships would like to know the background. This Bill is not absolutely new. It comes from the period of one of my ancestors.
My Lords, we have heard that this disease of hydrophobia, or rabies as we know it, is moving slowly from Eastern

1259
Europe to Western Europe. It is extraordinary how quickly the disease moves. I want to ask my noble friend Lord Ferrers whether we have really broached this subject fairly and squarely to our Common Market partners. Do they know our regulations correctly? Do we know how their veterinary surgeons and their medical world act on this matter in their own countries? Would it not be possible to warn them of our anxieties over this disease?—because we simply and utterly do not want it in this country, having stamped it out from the beginning of the century. That is all I want to say. I am proud that this matter has been brought up, and glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has insinuated that the penalty must be severe for everyone. The noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, has also said the same thing. It is extremely important that there should be penalties for this offence. I am not a veterinary surgeon, nor am I in the medical profession, but I know that the disease is vile, and the cure is equally vile. Through this Bill we are on our guard so that rabies shall not be allowed to come from Europe to this country.
6.18 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed for the welcome that this Bill has received. I think that every noble Lord who has spoken has emphasised the vileness of this disease. I am more than grateful to know that from all sides of the House there is support for the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd described, in I thought a quite graphic fashion, his personal experience of having seen a person with this disease. I quite understood it when he said that he would never forget the sight; indeed, it must have been perfectly horrible. Having seen that disease in a human being, he was concerned, quite rightly, as to whether the disease could be imported into this country by, as he explained, dogs in cars, like the instance in Singapore, and whether the penalties are adequate. The Diseases of Animals Act, 1950, which covers the penalties, provides for a fine of £400 for a first offence. The Waterhouse Committee drew attention to the fact that the average fine imposed at the time they reported had been £30, as compared with the cost of £75 for quarantining a dog. They said that substantially increased
1260
fines would be necessary in future if prosecution was to be an effective deterrent, since the average cost of quarantining a dog had risen to about £150 but the average fine imposed had risen to only about £50. Here we come to the point where Parliament can say what the fines are. It is up to Parliament to say what the level of fines should be, and I hope that magistrates reading reports of this debate may be inclined to impose heavier fines than previously. Some magistrates have recently taken a more serious view of this offence. Two people were fined £200 at Folkestone a short while ago for smuggling in a dog. There was a Scottish case of dog-smuggling which drew a fine of only £20. The general level of fines does remain disappointingly low. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was in favour of the clause which enforces upon people the duty to report the fact that they have seen a rabid animal. Exclusions which are put into this Bill are really twofold. One is that if a number of people see a rabid dog it is incumbent upon only one to report it. To take the example of a rabid dog seen in a village by a number of people who were rushing out of its way, if one reported the fact it would be absurd to suggest that all the others were contravening the law if they too did not report it. We will certainly look at the point again and take note of it before the next stage of the Bill. With regard to Northern Ireland, they have been kept in touch wtih the proposals in this legislation and they are considering whether there should be any additional legislation there.
It is always fascinating to listen to my noble friend Lord Balerno, even when he has not referred back to Scotland. He always produces something not only witty and humorous, but extremely pithy. I am bound to say that it had never occurred to me that the only person in captivity in a safari park would be the visitor in his motor car. It was certainly not the intention that he should be covered by this Bill, and I do not believe that he would be, but we will certainly look again at the point to make certain that there is no slip-up there. Safari park animals would be in captivity for the purposes of this Bill, and they could be subject to such additional controls and

1261
refinements as are considered necessary under Clause 2. Because of the conditions applying in those kinds of park, one would expect a pretty early diagnosis of the disease and the ability to segregate infected animals. We will certainly ensure that the point to which my noble friend referred is covered.
My noble friend also referred to bats. Of course indigenous bats do not pose any particular dangers, as there is no rabies in this country. My noble friend was concerned with vampire bats. I can assure him that no vampire bats have been imported since these restrictions have been in force and strengthened. It is possible that some were imported earlier, but, of course, as he knows very well, these are tropical animals; they cannot be just imported and allowed to fly around, because they would not survive. They would only be imported for places where they were kept in captivity. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, also referred to exotic animals, and I can assure him that as a result of the Waterhouse Committee recommendations the requirements for quarantine have been extended to a very wide range of these animals.
My noble friend Lord de Clifford was worried about dwelling houses not being incorporated in this Bill. I understand his concern, but I can assure him there is no need to put this power in the Bill, because the diseases of animals inspectors already have power under Section 73 of the Diseases of Animals Act to enter any building where they have reasonable grounds for suspecting rabies exist. So the power my noble friend would like to see in the Bill is already in the hands of the inspectors.
I was interested by the remarks of my noble friend Lord Long about his grandfather's first encounter with this subject. Of course, that was a very unpopular measure because people did not like leashing their animals. But in fact it worked, and it was as a result of that measure that we were able to get rid of rabies, which at that time was endemic in this country.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I was most interested in the figures with regard to penalties and as to those that some magistrates have recently imposed. I must say I find them quite startling having regard to the severity and viru
1262
lence of this particular disease and its increasing prevalence in Europe. I wonder whether the noble Earl would have conversations with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, to see whether it would not be right and proper in the light of circumstances to have a mandatory sentence, to make it quite clear that there is now a severe deterrent to anyone bringing animals into this country unlawfully.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I shall certainly see that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is informed of the noble Lord's views. I am very grateful to those who have spoken and for the welcome that has been given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and commited to a Committee of the Whole House.

DUMPING AT SEA BILL [H.L.]
6.26 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Dumping at Sea Bill be now read a second time. This Bill represents the culmination of about two years' work and discussion on the subject. If it is approved by Parliament, the Bill will underline the conviction of the United Kingdom that everything possible should be done to preserve and improve the marine environment. It would enable the Government to ratify the Oslo and London Conventions, which are designed to ensure that adequate control is exercised on an international basis over dumping at sea.
Since 1966 the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and, on a smaller scale, the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland, have operated voluntary arrangements, with the cooperation of industry and others, to control dumping of waste at sea. Under this system Departments agree with applicants suitable methods for the disposal of waste materials and the areas of disposal, in the light of criteria which have regard to the characteristics, degree of toxicity and general effect of the wastes upon the sea. The former Minister of Agriculture made it clear when announcing our signature of the Oslo Convention, which is called the Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by

1263
Dumping from Ships and Aircraft, that we have kept the operation of the voluntary arrangements under examination in consultation with representatives of industry and others. All the indications are that the arrangements have been successful in protecting both the fisheries and the sea itself around our coasts.
The legislation proposed in this Bill would enable control to be exercised over loading in the United Kingdom and its territorial eaters of any substance or material for dumping at sea, and it would regulate dumping by United Kingdom vessels or aircraft anywhere in the world. Our proposals would, of course, have the greatest effect in the North-East Atlantic, to which United Kingdom dumping is largely confined, and where we also happen to have major fishing interests. The controlled waters for dumping purposes will be regarded as bounded on the landward side by high water mark. Of course only a small proportion of the total wastes find their way into the sea by dumping. Broadly speaking, one can say that wastes which our society produces can be burned, with emission to the atmosphere, or treated in some way, or deposited on land, or discharged to inland or coastal waters, or dumped at sea. Each of these methods may have its advantages or disadvantages for different types of waste; but what is becoming increasingly clear is that we cannot allow waste to be disposed of in any of these ways without proper planning or control of undesirable pollution. As the gracious Speech indicated, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will be bringing forward separate legislation for the protection of the environment, which will, among other things, lay on the waste disposal authorities the duty of surveying the wastes which arise in their areas and of preparing comprehensive plans for their disposal.
Where it is appropriate sea disposal may feature in such plans as one of the methods to be employed. This Bill is not designed to cover such matters as oil discharges, the disposal of garbage or the tank washings of bulk carriers, all of which are covered by the new IMCO Convention. Indeed, careful attention has been given to avoiding the possibility of the overlapping of functions and responsi
1264
bilities between different organisations. On the other hand, the Bill covers the operations of vessels which are specifically designed to dispose of waste at sea as part of their normal operations; for example, dredgers and incinerator vessels.
The two dumping Conventions to which I referred set out in some detail the obligations which each country that signs then accepts. Under the Bill there will be a general prohibition on dumping into the sea, except by licence, from British ships. Provision is also made for prohibiting loading in the United Kingdom of any substance or material for dumping at sea without licence into ships or aircraft of other States. The United Kingdom authority would, however, be able to recognise licences issued by the licensing authorities of other Convention States in respect of substances or articles loaded in those States into British ships or aircraft. There will also be a general prohibition, except by licence, upon the dumping into United Kingdom territorial waters of substances or articles wherever they are loaded. The licensing authority, as it refers to the United Kingdom, means the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for waste loaded in England and Wales; the Secretary of State for Scotland for waste loaded in Scotland; the Ministry of Development, Northern Ireland, for waste loaded in Northern Ireland; and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for waste loaded outside the United Kingdom into British vessels.
It is our intention to make the arrangements as flexible as possible. Therefore, the Bill will permit the granting of a licence to an applicant if he is a vessel owner, probably working as a dumping contractor, or if he is a company whose activities lead to the production of waste. As your Lordships will know, it is seldom appropriate for measures applicable to civilian vessels or aircraft to be applied to military aircraft or warships, but it is our intention that the prohibitions on harmful dumping will be applicable to military vessels and aircraft through administrative means as far as that is possible.
I do not think it is necessary to go into great detail on how examinations of substances will be conducted before a licence is granted. I should like to assure your Lordships, however, that, as under

1265
the present voluntary arrangements, before a licence is issued the materials concerned will be examined or considered by scientists and, if necessary, laboratory tests will be carried out to ensure that no harm to fish would arise, or that persistent substances which might find their way into the food chain would not be dumped.
The Bill provides that licences will be given by the licensing authorities having regard to the need to protect the marine environment and the living resources which it supports from any adverse consequences of dumping. Clearly, the principal means by which we shall be enabled to determine the effects of granting a licence for the disposal of any particular cargo or substances into the sea will be through monitoring. This is essentially of two different sorts. First, there is what may be termed background monitoring—that is, regular measurement of pollutant concentrations so that a view can be taken of trends over any given period. Secondly, there is monitoring to ascertain pollutant levels, frequently against a given standard, to judge the effectiveness of a system of control. There are also the short-term studies, which probably should not be regarded as monitoring in the broadest sense, which are designed to identify the effects of a particular disposal or set of disposals.
Both the Oslo and London Conventions provided specifically for work of this nature to be undertaken. There is no need for the Bill to make specific provision for monitoring since it is undertaken under general powers, but I can assure your Lordships that we shall continue, through the appropriate laboratories, to play our full part in both national and regional monitoring programmes as we have done in the past. It will be by these means that we shall obtain the necessary guidelines for our actions in granting licences to dispose of waste.
The working of the voluntary arrangements to which I have referred has satisfied us that there have been very few significant attempts at evasion of the terms of the administrative provisions. On the other hand, now that these arrangements are to become subject to a Statute we must obviously provide for enforcement. The Bill proposes, therefore, that the inspectors who are author
1266
ised by the Ministers will be given power to secure the necessary information about materials and vessels, or premises, so that the terms of any "dumping" licences will be seen to be observed. I should like to explain one point which may have occurred to some of your Lordships, and that is that the Oslo Convention provides that contracting parties will promote, within the appropriate international bodies, measures to protect the sea against oil, other noxious cargoes, and radioactive substances. There is a comparable article in the London Convention which is coupled with a prohibition on the disposal at sea of high level radioactive matter. Disposal of radioactive wastes is covered by the Radioactive Substances Act 1960, under which licences to dump are agreed jointly between the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The United Kingdom also plays a major part in international discussions in the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Energy Agency, which make recommendation on these matters. Nevertheless, a licence would be required under this Bill to ensure that the substance or article was eligible for dumping at sea in accordance with the annexes of the Conventions irrespective of its radioactive content. I hasten to add that we have in fact never disposed of high level radioactive wastes in the sea.
There is another point which I should like to mention, and it refers to the question of confidentiality of information about the dumping of materials. As the Royal: Commission on Environmental Pollution has said, it is important to do everything possible to ensure that the public is in a position to know what is being done on its behalf by those authorities responsible for waste disposal. Under the arrangements envisaged by the Preparatory Committee for the Oslo Commission, regular reports would be made by contracting parties to the Commission on the licences which have been granted for disposal of wastes by dumping. We will make available to the public on request the same information. We shall also work very closely with waste disposal authorities whose main task will be to maintain an oversight of disposals on land. We shall also maintain our existing liaison with local sea fisheries committees where their interests are affected by the issue of

1267
a licence under the arrangements proposed in the Bill.
May I now turn to the Bill itself. Clauses 1 and 2 are extremely important. Clause 1 provides that without a licence no material can be dumped, by any means, in our territorial waters; all dumping from British ships and aircraft into the sea is prohibited except for discharges which are incidental to their normal operation; and no vessel, of any nationality, can load waste in the United Kingdom for its disposal in the sea. The penalties for breach of these conditions are also described in the clause. There is provision for exemption for disposal of ships' cargoes where that is necessary to safeguard the safety of a ship or people's lives. Clause 2 would allow the granting of licences where the substances in effect conform to the provisions set out in the annexes to the two Conventions. The responsibilities for granting of licences are shared between the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Development, Northern Ireland. Licences will only be granted subject to such conditions as are adjudged necessary in the light of the best scientific advice to ensure that the resources of the sea are not put at risk. The clause would also empower the authorities to charge a fee for the administrative costs of giving a licence.
Clause 3 enables those who apply for licences to dump, but who are aggrieved either by a proposed refusal or by the conditions which are to be imposed, to be heard by an independent committee. This would also apply if a licence were to be revoked. This committee would give the appropriate Minister its advice, so that he could reach a final decision. Our experience in the operation of the voluntary control arrangements suggests that it is possible for a licensing authority to negotiate arrangements which are acceptable to the would-be dumper and which would not harm the marine environment. But if the situation were to arise where such an agreement could not be achieved, then this clause would ensure that an independent view would be obtained.
Clause 4 provides for the appointment by licensing authorities of enforcement officers, and it describes their powers of inspection to enforce the Act. Clause
1268
is an enabling clause, and it is designed to empower the United Kingdom to participate in any procedures which may be agreed by contracting parties to a convention for joint enforcement and inspection. The reciprocal arrangements which might be negotiated could well follow the lines of those which have been successfully operated in relation, for instance, to fishing vessels by members of the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention. Under this, inspecting vessels fly a specific flag which depicts their internationally recognised authority to board and inspect fishing vessels of countries which are parties to the Convention. Under Clause 5 Ministers would set out in Orders to be laid before Parliament details of any procedures which had been negotiated, the country or countries who would be parties to any such arrangement, and the foreign officers who would be empowered to enforce the arrangements on British vessels.
The Government regard this enabling power as important if we are to be able to play our part in any future arrangements which might be agreed with other countries for additional enforcement measures to be taken. Of course, before we negotiated any such procedures we should undertake consultations with United. Kingdom shipping interests and any others who might be affected. I should like to emphasise that the clause is designed to enable the United Kingdom to play its full part in the development of the reciprocal procedures in the Conventions. There is no implication that we consider flag States themselves incapable of enforcing the Conventions—indeed, we have every confidence that this will be the basic method of enforcement—but we see the clause as providing the necessary ability to play our part in any supplementary arrangements which may come about. If these are developed, they would constitute a useful means by which those countries which have agreed the procedures would, as it were, pool their resources for a specific purpose. This seems to us to be a sensible and practicable arrangement, and we believe it is right to make provision for it.
Clause 6 provides for penalties where an inspector is obstructed in attempting to carry out his duties. Clause 9 provides for the application of the enforcement powers to Crown land which is in the possession of third parties. Clause 10 deals with the financial arrangements

1269
in the Bill, and it will enable the United Kingdom to meet the relatively small costs arising from payment of membership fees of international conventions dealing with dumping and the cost of fees for the representations committees and salaries of staff engaged upon work arising from this legislation. Clause 12 provides that the power of Ministers to make Orders under the Bill is to be exercised by Statutory Instrument. Clause 13 makes the important provision to enable the legislation to be applied by Order in Council to the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man or any colony should the authorities there so wish.
My Lords, I trust that this description of the major parts of the Bill will make clear the Government's intentions behind it, and I trust that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 23. —(Earl Ferrers.)
6.45 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I think the noble Earl is having a pretty long innings this afternoon, but at least he is bringing before your Lordships' House matters which are generally welcome in so far as the legislation is concerned. Certainly we on this side of the House warmly welcome this particular Bill. I think perhaps it would be appropriate for me to say how glad we were to see, in the final act in the London Convention, the very proper compliments paid to the Government of the United Kingdom for taking the initiative in calling this large international conference, and perhaps in particular to Dr. Holgate, who was chosen as chairman of the conference and who undoubtedly contributed greatly to its success. It followed, of course, the Oslo Convention, which was on a narrower geographical basis, and from which we would naturally look to benefit; but it is encouraging that, at long last, many other nations in the world are taking seriously this matter of the pollution of the marine environment. As the noble Earl mentioned, there has recently been concluded in London another conference on the prevention of pollution by ships, under the aegis of IMCO and I would suppose that this is to be followed in due course by another Bill; so we shall certainly have ample
1270
opportunities to consider these matters in legislative form.
I was particularly glad that the noble Earl emphasised Clause 5, because what worries one somewhat is that, apart from the reciprocal arrangements which we are able to make with certain of our neighbouring territories, there is no real provision, I think, for international supervision of these matters; and while we can control not only our own territorial waters but British vessels and all other vessels loaded in this country, of course, the moment one gets outside the territorial waters, theoretically, at least, we have far less ability to control it. As I said, geographically we are fortunately placed, but there are other countries in the world for which this may be a quite serious problem, and I would assume that when the time comes to discuss the law of the sea one may come up against some very tricky questions, not only over fisheries but over dumping limits as well.
As the noble Earl rightly said, one cannot read the Bill intelligently without reading the Convention. I am, I must admit, disturbed by the fact that the Convention makes it plain that the term "dumping" does not include the disposal of sea wastes or other matter incidental to the normal operations of ships. That will in fact be dealt with under the new IMCO Convention. However, there is another omission which I think many of us find disturbing, and that is that the Convention does not cover the disposal of waste or other matter related to the exploration, exploitation and associated off-shore processing of sea-bed mineral resources. This may be regarded as looking ahead. I recognise this is not dumping, but if one is concerned for the marine environment it is a problem which has begun to disturb many of us greatly, and I think it is not unfair to refer to the matter on this occasion. I am advised that the impact of seabed exploitation on the question of pollution could be very serious indeed. I do not know whether there is any likelihood of it happening within the vicinity of the United Kingdom—what one hears of it at the moment, of course, is taking place in other parts of the world—but I am advised that very highly toxic chemicals can easily be released in such circumstances. It would be comforting to know

1271
that some action is being taken to deal with this matter, which, as I say, is specifically excluded from the provisions of the London Convention.
I should like to ask the noble Earl one or two questions about the administration which is proposed. In Scotland one has a combined administration and the Secretary of State is the source of authority; but in England and Wales I understand that it will be the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries. One can appreciate that historically this is a natural evolution; but I was looking at a transcription of a speech made at Lancaster House a year ago by Mr. Peter Walker, then Minister of the Environment, in which he said:
"We must have a total approach to waste disposal. If we do not put waste in the sea it has to go somewhere else—somewhere on or under land. For this reason a nation needs comprehensive controls and an integrated management policy."
The Department of the Environment provides the opportunity for the latter in Britain; but the provisions of this Bill are not going to be enforced by the Department of the Environment. I was wondering whether adequate thought had been given to this point. One can perfectly understand the historical progression whereby it would remain with the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries which has been responsible for the voluntary arrangements which seem to have worked satisfactorily since 1966. Nevertheless, as we are undertaking legislation it will be interesting to know what consideration has been given to this aspect of it.
I should like to know also about the situation in Wales where the Secretary of State for Wales has certain functions even in relation to agriculture. But it is not included in any generic term of "Secretary of State"; it is the Minister who is specifically referred to. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to tell us something of the Government's thinking on this matter. Another point worries me. It is the provision in Clause 3, which is understandable enough as far as it goes, that the licensing authority has the duty to notify an applicant or a holder of a licence who, if he feels aggrieved, has the opportunity to make representations, and there will be advice from an independent committee. That
1272
is fine so far as it goes. I should like to know what would be the position of any authority that might conceivably be concerned.
I was thinking of this when looking at the Report, graphically named Out of Sight, Out of Mind, which is the Report on the disposal of sludge in Liverpool Bay. It was very encouraging to those of us acquainted with the areas bordering on Liverpool Bay to be told that the dangers that some of us apprehended are far less than we thought possible. It seems to me that there are circumstances in which a local authority might feel they had an interest in the dumping of materials which might conceivably, through the action of tide or current, affect the shore, and that the authority ought to be in a position to make some representations if so desired. It is just conceivable that an amenity society might wish to make representations. I am not clear what would be the position of such persons and I should be grateful if the noble Earl could enlighten me. There is probably a simple explanation but I was not too sure about it.
May I return for a moment to the Convention itself. The noble Earl referred in passing to the fact that there are various categories of substances, some of which, those under Annexe 1, I am happy to learn are not in any circumstances to be dumped at sea. These include such materials as mercury, cadmium and, particularly, persistent plastics and other persistent materials as well as the high-level radioactive waste to which the noble Earl referred. This I find extremely reassuring. There is also a prohibition on the dumping of any material produced for biological or chemical warfare. Then there is the next category, the less toxic one, for which nevertheless a special permit is required, and there is a third category where general permission may be given and where the effects are not likely to be seriously deleterious.
I wonder whether there is any substance not included in Annex 1 but referred to in Article IV which, under our arrangements, may addtionally be prohibited. May I remind the noble Earl that Article IV, paragraph 3, reads:
"No provision of this Convention is to be interpreted as preventing a Contracting Party

1273
from prohibiting, insofar as that Party is concerned, the dumping of wastes or other matter not mentioned in Annexe I."
I have to refer to this now although it may seem to be a Committee point, because the convention itself is not part of the Bill. Therefore it seems to me appropriate to ask this question at this stage rather than later. If the noble Earl does not have the information immediately to hand, perhaps he may care to write to me about it.
I have put some questions which come to mind in studying this Bill, but I would repeat that in general terms we warmly welcome it. We feel that this is really an important step in the right direction and that it should help us and the other contracting parties to ensure, in the terms of the Convention itself, that we can effectively control sources of pollution and that we will
"take all practicable steps to prevent the pollution of the sea by the dumping of waste and other matter that is liable to create hazards to human health, to harm living resources and marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the sea."
I should not wish to delay any longer the successful passage of this legislation.
6.58 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the welcome she has given to this Bill and for all that she said about it. I think it is a positive step forward in an area with which we as a nation are only just begining to become involved. Suddenly we have discovered that there are many toxic substances which must be disposed of. Some of these are manufactured; some of them are deposited naturally in the environment anyway. The quantity of lead and mercury already in the sea is absolutely enormous; it is only in concentrated quantities that they become dangerous and even lethal. This Bill, which is the result of the two Conventions we have been discussing, is really a major step forward in deciding what shall be dumped and where. The noble Baroness rightly asked about the application of the Bill to minerals on the sea bed. This is something of a far wider nature that almost certainly will be discussed at the Law of the Sea Conference. It is possible that matters emanating from that Conference may give rise to legislation. The noble Baroness was also concerned about Clause 5 which is the enabling
1274
clause. The sole purpose of this particular clause is to enable us in consultation with other Convention States to agree upon, for instance, a method by which international ships could be inspected. Ships may be able to fly a specific flag giving them international recognition. This kind of thing does not arise immediately out of the Bill or the Convention, but if in the course of conversations and discussions over the next year it is found that this is desirable, it could be put into effect without having to bring a Bill before Parliament.
The noble Baroness posed the query why the Department of the Environment was not particularly involved. This Bill comes under the auspices of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, because it is the protection of the marine environment and all that that conjures up. There is close liaison with the Department of the Environment which will be involved with more general legislation over the disposal of waste.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? He may not feel able to say more at this stage, but he will appreciate that we shall shortly be coming to a Bill dealing, for example, with estuaries and tidal waters. In the Bill now before us we are going far beyond safeguarding fish and therefore it seemed to me that there was quite a strong case for having what Mr. Peter Walker was himself asking for, which was centralised control.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I accept that entirely, but I feel that the real point is that although there is general concern over the disposal of waste, in this instance it is what is dumped into the sea and what will affect the animals therein which comes under the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I take the point of the noble Baroness that there is, or should be, overall consultation and agreement. I can assure her that there is this full consultation between both Departments. The noble Baroness said that she would have liked a little explanation about Clause 3 in case local authorities might wish to complain about a licence, or make representations. The whole purpose of this clause is that if a dumper, or a proposed dumper, wished to get a licence and the licensing authority determined that he should not have one, or that there should be certain restrictions

1275
on the licence which aggrieve the dumper, he should have the right to go before a committee—consisting, probably, of three people, one of whom will he a scientist —to put his case; the committee may then report to the Minister and guide him on his final decision. That is the purpose of the clause, in order to try to give some kind of protection to any party who may feel aggrieved.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, does that mean that the clause, which refers to representations being made, refers only to representations to be made by a person to whom a licence has been refused? Does it mean that there is no possibility of anyone else making a representation? Surely there may be cases where a local authority or some other body would wish to make representations against a licence being granted.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is absolutely correct. This committee would consider objections only from the proposed dumper. At the moment there is close liaison between the fisheries people, the people who dump into the sea and the Ministry. As I explained earlier, there are voluntary arrangements which have worked well and satisfactorily. If the local authorities have any desire to put forward a point of view to the Ministry and the enforcement officers, they are at liberty to do so. What we are proposing is that the principle which has gone behind the voluntary arrangements should be put into legal form. If someone feels that he has been unfairly refused a licence or unfair restrictions will be put on him, then he may complain. It is not the purpose of Clause 3 to allow a licence to be proposed and then to be subject to complaint or interference from outside parties. My Lords, I will look at the various points which the noble Baroness has made. I am grateful for what she has said and the welcome which she has given to the Bill. I hope that I have answered the majority of the points that she made.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, may I ask him this? In the Preamble it is stated that the total cost is likely to be less than £10,000 a year. Does that mean that the whole of the Inspectorate is already in existence? Will there be no
1276
additional Inspectorate? Because £10,000 will not go very far for an Inspectorate.
EARL FERRERS: The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, was not in his place when explained that there will be a fee charged for licences and the fees are designed to cover the cost.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EDINBURGH CORPORATION (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2ª and reported from the Committee.

IRON AND STEEL ACT 1969 (CONTINUANCE OF PROVISIONS) ORDER 1973
7.8 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN) rose to move, That the Draft Iron and Steel Act 1969 (Continuance of Provisions) Order 1973, laid before the House on November 1, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a very short Order and the Explanatory Note is equally brief. As the Note says, the Order will continue in force permanently the provisions of the Iron and Steel Act 1969 relating to public dividend capital, the notional capitalisation of the reserves as public dividend capital and the financial duties of the Corporation. Without this Order those provisions would expire on March 30 next.
May I as briefly as I can explain the reason why the Government have taken the decisions to which the Order would give effect. Public dividend capital, as noble Lords will recall—in particular the noble Lord. Lord Diamond—was introduced into the capital structure of the Corporation in the 1969 Act. As public dividend capital for the British Steel Corporation was something of an experiment, its life was limited to five years but could be extended under Section 6 by Order subject to Affirmative Resolution either for a further period of time or permanently. Section 5 deals with the Corporation's financial duties and could be similarly extended. By next

1277
March, my Lords, we shall be five years older than in 1969 and so will 'the British Steel Corporation and the Act. It is opportune, therefore, that earlier this year the Select Committee on nationalised industries should have published its Report, following a thorough and valuable examination of the reports and accounts of the British Steel Corporation. In its Report the Committee pointed to the difference between public dividend capital and equity capital and stated its view that the inability to pay dividends had stemmed less from the cyclical nature of the industry than from successive Government interference with its profitability and from the Corporation's lack of a reserve. The Committee recommended that the operation of public dividend capital should be reviewed.
My Lords, the Government undertook the review, carefully considered the Committee's Report, and replied to it in the White Paper in August. The review is Command 5399. The review covered public dividend provision. In fact no dividend has so far been paid by British Steel Corporation. Nevertheless, the Government concluded that public dividend capital should not be discarded; that the guiding consideration as regards its use in a nationalised industry should continue to be that the industry concerned is one that is basically profitable but subject to fluctuating returns; and that since the British Steel Corporation fulfils this criterion, and since it now has a financial objective requiring an adequate rate of return on all its capital, public dividend capital should continue for the Corporation.
My Lords, I mentioned the financial objective. Section 5 of the 1969 Act, which is also continued in force by this Order, provides the power to lay down such an objective as a statutory duty. To have a financial objective is particularly important for a nationalised industry with public dividend capital. The objective which the Corporation has been set is to earn over the 4 years, 1973/74 to 1976/77. an average return on net assets of 8 per cent. after charging depreciation but before charging interest, taxation and exceptional costs arising from closures. As the Minister for Industry said when announcing this objective in August, 1972, higher average returns will be expected after this period,
1278
when the Corporation will be getting the full benefit from its investment programme. He also recognised that it was unlikely that the objective could be reached in the first year.
My Lords, in the light of all these considerations the Government agree with the British Steel Corporation that the continuation of public dividend capital for the Corporation is justified. The Government intend that a proportion of future advances to the Corporation will be issued sufficient to maintain a reasonable balance in its capital structure between fixed interest bearing loans on the one hand and public dividend capital and reserves on the other.
Section 4 of the 1969 Act would also be continued in force by the Order. This complements the provision for public dividend capital in Section 2, and enables the Secretary of State after consulting the Corporation and with Treasury approval, to direct that sums from the reserve should be converted into public dividend capital. As yet, of course there has been no occasion under the Iron and Steel Act 1969 to use this power, which is complementary to the power under Section 17(4) to give directions relating to the establishment and use of the reserve. Industries are expected to finance some part of this new investment from profits in addition to normal depreciation. As and when the Corporation becomes fully profitable, there may well be an occasion when it would he appropriate to capitalise part of any retained profits as public dividend capital.
My Lords, I have explained why we have concluded that these various provisions of the 1969 Act should remain in force. Section 6(2) provides for them to be continued in force permanently or for a specified period. To extend them for a limited period would prolong the Corporation's uncertainty about its future capital structure by making its public dividend capital—as well as the powers to determine a financial duty—dependent on fresh legislation at the end of the period. It is the very core of the case for public dividend capital that a long term view should be taken. The division is very much in line with the 10-year strategy for modernisation and expansion of the British Steel Industry announced last December. My Lords, the draft Order

1279
therefore extends these provisions permanently. I commend it to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Iron and Steel Act 1969 (Continuance of Provisions) Order 1973, laid before the House on November I, be approved.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
7.17 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for explaining, if I may say so, very fully, ably and adequately the purpose of this Order. I agree, if I do not embarrass him by saying so, with a good deal of what he has said. I agree in particular that we are both five years older than we were five years ago, and having regard to the amount of work that he has been called upon to do the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, may feel it, but I can assure him that he does not look it.
There will always be two points of view about public dividend capital. There will be those who take the view that this is, as it were, a soft option for management, and might therefore lead to some tendency towards inefficiency. There will be those who take the opposite view that for a nationalised industry to have entirely loan capital puts upon them too harsh a burden in those years when fluctuation of profits means that they are not making profits, and causes, as a result, some diminution in morale. When those concerned with management see the results published, that in turn leads to some falling-off in overall efficiency. Those are the two points of view. But having regard to the fact that the gearing, as I understand it, between loan capital and public dividend capital is going to be very carefully watched and therefore you will have both arguments applying, and having regard to the fact that the targets will, as I understand, be increasingly (what shall I say?) challenging targets—I am referring to the profit targets—I think we can happily accept that the continuation of the provision of public dividend capital is appropriate in the case of the iron and steel industry, which is subject to fluctuating profits.
My Lords, there is one further word I would like to say. Although the hour is
1280
late and although the House is not overcrowded, there are no doubt many who will read Hansard—at least the Editor and the printers will, I take it. I wanted to say that it is interesting to note the other aspect of the Order which is to make these arrangements permanent. As the noble Lord said, he had option in the original Bill to bring in an Order either for extending these provisions for a temporary period or extending them permanently. He has wisely chosen the latter.
What I want, therefore, is to remind your Lordships that the 1964 to 1966 Labour Government had not sufficient power or strength, to nationalise steel. It was in the following Labour Government of 1966 to 1970 that the Labour Government nationalised steel against very severe opposition in the other place with the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Barber—either in opening or in winding-up, I forget which—muttering the usual threats that when the Conservative Party returned to power, one of the first things they would do of course would be to free steel. That was only in 1967. It is a little more than six years ago, and we are all six years older and we are all six years wiser. To-day the Government are showing, as was made perfectly clear by the Under-Secretary of State in the other place last night, their determination that this shall be a permanent and successful operation. The Under-Secretary of State said:
"I want the B.S.C. to be one of the most sucessfully operated and producing steel manufacturers in the world, and I hope that this reconstruction will help."
That is precisely our view, and therefore we accept the Order.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank the noble Lord 'or taking the perhaps predictable line on this occasion and supporting the Government on this Order. I would only say to him that what we are doing here is in line with our philosophy; that is, to seek to make a success of everything we do.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past seven o'clock.