Sitting of 4 April 1974

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  GREENOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Status
    Mr. Jamesasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is satisfied with the assurances given by the Government of the Republic of Ireland over the status of the Province of Ulster.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): The status of Northern Ireland is set out in Section 1 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. In the Sunningdale communiqué the Irish Government fully accepted and solemnly declared that there could be no change in the status of Northern Ireland until a majority of the people of Northern Ireland desired a change in that status. Mr. Cosgrave has since made it clear that the Irish Government accept as a fact the status of Northern Ireland as set out in the Constitution Act. I am satisfied therefore that the Irish Government accept unequivocally that it is for the people of Northern Ireland themselves to decide their position, now and in the future.
    Mr. James: I share the Secretary of State's satisfaction with the forthright statement by the Taoiseach. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the one remaining bone of contention between North and South is the question of extradition? Will he try to ensure that the Law Enforcement Commission reports as soon as possible to get this matter settled before the Council of Ireland is set up?
    Mr. Rees: The question of the report of the Law Enforcement Commission is not in my command, as it were, but everybody is aware of the need to have the report as soon as possible.
    Mr. West: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how he reconciles his assurance on the status of Northern Ireland with the fact that the Dublin Government claim sovereignty over the whole of Ireland, which includes part of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Rees: That is the state of play as far as the constitution is concerned, but

    1419
    the important thing in Ireland is to deal not with matters of that kind but with the facts of today. The more people face up to the facts of today instead of the facts of yesterday, the more progress we shall make.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Surely the facts of today are quite clear. The High Court and the Supreme Court in Dublin were presented with arguments by the Dublin Government in a recent court case. Does the Secretary of State agree that evidence was presented to the two courts on behalf of the Eire Government which supported the argument that Northern Ireland lay within the jurisdiction of the Irish Republic and that it is because of that that there will be no extradition of terrorists from Southern Ireland to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Rees: The second part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question about extradition must wait. Aspiration is one thing; whatever is said on a bit of paper is not worth anything unless it faces up to the facts. The fact is that if everybody in the House said that the North must go into the South it would not happen, because it cannot happen. It is facts such as that which matter to me.

    Assembly
    Mr. Duffyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he is satisfied with the establishment and progress of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): Yes, Sir. Since legislative powers were devolved to it on 1st January, the Assembly has made important progress.
    Mr. Duffy: Will my hon. Friend confirm that one of the facts of life which he has discovered at Stormont is the harmonious way in which the three-sided Executive is working? It represents a majority in the Assembly and was sent there by the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, who voted for partnership rather than confrontation and for the realisation of the old dream of Protestants, Catholics, and dissenters working together. Will my hon. Friend and the Secretary of State give the highest priority
    1420
    to the continued existence of the Assembly?
    Mr. Orme: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said. The Executive is working exceedingly well, and more will probably be said about that matter later today. We welcome the fact that the Assembly, which is responsible to the people of Northern Ireland, is settling down to the important parliamentary work facing it, and we wish it well.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that one-third of the members of the Assembly do not take part in the business of the Assembly as set forth by the Executive? Does he not also agree that the majority of people in Northern Ireland at the last election voted overwhelmingly against the Assembly? Does he not consider that it would be better for the stability of Northern Ireland if there were new Assembly elections, so that the people themselves could declare whom they wanted in the Assembly?
    Mr. Orme: On the last point, my right hon. Friend has made it clear that there will be no elections until those provided for under the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, which will be in four years' time. Of course, those members who do not attend or who act in the manner in which they do must make their own decisions. They are responsible to the people whom they represent. I should have thought that they could have provided a worthwhile and positive Opposition in the Assembly, which is what is needed at present in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. McNamara: Does my hon. Friend agree that the majority of the people concerned in the last General Election voted in favour of the policies outlined by the previous Government and the present Government and, therefore, in favour of the continuation of the Assembly?
    Mr. Orme: If my hon. Friend is referring to the United Kingdom as a whole, that is a fact, but if we return to the issue of the Assembly, which was elected under the proportional representation system, the Executive represents a majority of the people in Northern Ireland.

    Westminster Parliament (Northern Ireland Representation)
    Mr. Biffenasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what consideration has been given to increasing the number of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament at Westminster in line with the recommendations of the Kilbrandon Report.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I would refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's statement in answer to a supplementary question on 19th March—[Vol. 870, c. 843.]—that he could give no undertaking that the Government would implement the recommendation in the Kilbrandon Commission's Report about increased representation of Northern Ireland in this House.
    Mr. Biffen: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the demand or the suggestion for increased representation has been made from a wide variety of sources, and that in the previous Parliament both Mr. John Mackintosh and Mr. Stratton Mills argued for this? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there may still be circumstances in which political initiatives will be required to try to bring some kind of peace to the unhappy Province of Northern Ireland, and in those circumstances will he at least say that his mind is not irrevocably closed on this topic?
    Mr. Rees: I am well aware of the need to consider anything that will bring peace in Northern Ireland, but I ask the hon. Gentleman to bear in mind that Northern Ireland is not Scotland or Wales. It is a split society, and has been so split in social and cultural terms for a long time. Many people in Northern Ireland, whatever we may think about it, look to the South and not to this country. The problem that we all face is to bring these two communities together. This is a fact of life that has shown itself in this House. To talk of increased representation in this House in that context is not facing up to the facts of life.
    Captain Orr: Surely what the right hon. Gentleman has said is highly inflammatory. It is suggesting that Northern Ireland should not be treated as a full component part of the United Kingdom. If it is the intention of Her Majesty's
    1422
    Government to accept the status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom, how can under-representation in this House conceivably be justified?
    Mr. Rees: I do not see any circumstances in which extra representation of Northern Ireland, with its history, would be a means of bringing the peace that we all want. It is facing up to the facts of the real problems in Northern Ireland that is needed. It is a fact that some people march with the flag of the South. In my view, if that is what they want to do, they are entitled to do it, however much one may disagree. [An HON. MEMBER: "They do that in Birmingham."] Yes, but for very different reasons. Northern Ireland is a split society. What we are engaged in doing is bringing the two parts of the population together.
    Mr. Fitt: Unlike Scotland and Wales, Northern Ireland now has an Assembly which to a large extent gives control of affairs into the hands of the Northern Ireland people. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in such circumstances it is quite unnecessary to have increased representation here?
    Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend is right. Another factor in the situation, and the reason why such a proposal was not in the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, is that there is an Assembly and an Executive in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

    Royal Ulster Constabulary
    Mr. Wm. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will pay a special allowance to members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    Mr. Orme: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to a Question from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) on 20th March.—[Vol. 870, c. 126.]
    Mr. Ross: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the hardship caused to members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary with regard to the premiums which they are charged for life assurance? Is he prepared to treat

    1423
    them on the same basis as members of the Royal Air Force on flying duties?
    Mr. Orme: I should need notice of that question. However, I met the Police Federation, representing the RUC, last week, when Mr. Stanage and his colleagues dealt with this type of problem, and in particular the pay problem. I advised him and his federation on the way in which they might pursue this matter.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the members of the RUC are doing their work in very grave circumstances? Do not they deserve special consideration? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that they were informed by the previous administration that it was phase 3 which was holding up the consideration of the case? Will he confirm that this is still so under the present administration?
    Mr. Orme: I discussed this very point with the Police Federation and I recommended that it should pursue this matter and make representations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment about the position if there is a special case to justify it. I fully understand the strength of the RUC case. But this is basically a trade union matter. I have advised the members of the RUC of the correct manner in which they may pursue it.
    Mr. Norman Fowlerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the present strength of the Royal Ulster Constabulary; how this figure compares with the figure at the comparable date in 1973, 1972 and 1971; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. Orme: The strength of the RUC on 31st March 1974 was 4,435. On 31st March in 1971, 1972 and 1973, respectively, the strength was 3,891, 4,110 and 4,285. In addition, 323 officers are at present serving full-time in the RUC Reserve. Every effort is being made by the Police Authority, the Chief Constable and Her Majesty's Government to encourage further recruitment from all sections of the community.
    Mr. Fowler: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he say whether the proportion of Roman Catholics recruited over that period has risen or fallen? Does he agree that few aims of policy are more important today than that a strong civil
    1424
    police force should be established in Ulster?
    Mr. Orme: Over the period, the recruitment of Roman Catholics rose and then fell. I am sorry to tell the House that the figure is now only about 8 per cent. In this regard, one would hope that when the Sunningdale agreement is concluded it will play a part in bringing all sections of the community into the police force.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Has the absence of a public inquiry into the shooting of two British soldiers in civilian clothes by members of the RUC had an effect on the decline in recruitment to the RUC?
    Mr. Orme: No, Sir.
    Mr. Kilfedderasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary have been murdered or wounded during the past five years.
    Mr. Orme: Since 1st August 1969, 49 members of the RUC have lost their lives as a result of terrorist activities. About 550 have been injured in civil disturbances since 1st July 1970. Figures of injuries before then are not available.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is the Minister aware that the police are gravely concerned that they are forced by regulations to carry revolvers in their holsters under their police tunics, which have four buttons, thereby putting them in a situation of grave disadvantage when they are attacked by terrorists or when they go to the aid of others who are so attacked? Will the hon. Gentleman consider allowing the police to wear their revolvers outside their tunics, even if that will mean giving up the impression that the police are an unarmed force, thereby annoying some Republicans?
    Mr. Orme: That is not a very helpful question. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has put this matter to the Chief Constable. During the meetings which my right hon. Friend and I had with the Chief Constable and his officers, and in the course of the meeting which I had last week with the Police Federation, this issue was never raised.
    Mr. Pym: Does the Minister have the figures to show how many of those responsible for these murders have been brought to book?
    Mr. Orme: I do not have the figures available.

    Armed Forces
    Mr. Clemitsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to withdraw troops from Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Wellbelovedasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will set a date for the withdrawal of British troops from Ireland.
    Mr. Orme: The number of troops required in Northern Ireland in aid of the civil power is kept under constant review. Her Majesty's Government have no intention of maintaining more troops there than is necessary to help maintain law and order.
    Mr. Clemitson: Will my hon. Friend give two assurances—first, that the total number of troops in Northern Ireland will not be increased, and second, that while troops remain in Northern Ireland they will not be used in such a way as to antagonise large sections of the population?
    Mr. Orme: On the second point, I can certainly give that assurance. On the first point, I ask my hon. Friend and the House to await the statement that will be made by my right hon. Friend later this afternoon.
    Mr. Biffen: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the inhabitants of Belfast or anywhere else in the Province have as much right to expect protection as the citizens of Luton?
    Mr. Orme: I fully accept that. It is how this protection is afforded and the manner in which it is carried out that is important.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Will my hon. Friend confirm that since 1969 over 1,200 British Service men have been injured in Northern Ireland and over 211 have been killed on duty there? Does not my hon. Friend recognise that since 1969 there has been an escalation of violence? Does not he also realise that in recent elections in Northern Ireland a majority have demonstrated their opposition to the political initiative of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and the Sunning-dale agreement? When will the Govern-
    1426
    ment accept that the only people who can solve the problems of Ireland are the people of Ireland? When will the Government set a date for British disengagement in Northern Ireland and the withdrawal of British troops from the soil of Ireland?
    Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend has asked quite a few questions arising out of this subject. The facts and figures that he has given are correct. It is the desire of the Government to withdraw the British Army from Northern Ireland in a proper manner as soon as that is practicable but we do not want to create a situation which would precipitate a civil war on a scale unheard of hitherto. It is on that basis that we are proceeding in the manner which my right hon. Friend will explain to the House later this afternoon.
    Mr. Pym: Following the increase in violence in recent days, will the Minister say whether there has been any change in force levels or whether any such change is contemplated in the immediate future?
    Mr. Orme: I ask the right hon. Gentleman to await my right hon. Friend's statement. He will be dealing with the matter in some detail.

    Security
    Mr. Matherasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Goodhartasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I made a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland in the House on Monday last, and I intend to refer to the subject in the debate later today.
    Mr. Mather: On Monday last the right hon. Gentleman said that he had no intention of increasing the present number of British troops in Northern Ireland. If that is true it will be difficult to step up security with that number of troops. Will he consider local resources of manpower and, in particular, the Ulster Defence Regiment? Will he consider whether it is possible to establish regular units or special units of the Ulster Defence Regiment and also

    1427
    an augmentation of the RUC special reserve?
    Mr. Rees: I shall be looking at all these matters in the way that the hon. Member has suggested and shall have something to say on some of these aspects later today.
    Mr. Stallard: Does the Secretary of State accept that the security situation in Northern Ireland is exacerbated by the continued existence of detention and internment without trial and by the refusal of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to send back to Northern Ireland the political prisoners who are in gaols in this country? Will he bring pressure to bear on his right hon. Friend to deal with the second point, and will he bear the first point in mind?
    Mr. Rees: On the latter point, and bearing in mind that my responsibilities are exclusively concerned with Northern Ireland and have no application at home, all these matters have to be looked at in the context of Northern Ireland. They must be considered not least in the context of my responsibility for the safety of prisons, prison officers and all those who would have to protect people of that nature, and other wider responsibilities that have to be taken into account. Of course, detention in the form set out under the emergency provisions legislation is a bone of contention in Northern Ireland. To explain this, however—as is my job—to the people who crowded round me in Belfast after a 500 lb. bomb had blown the city centre to bits is not easy. That sort of action makes it difficult for the Government to consider political moves forward.
    Mr. Goodhart: Will the Secretary of State bear in mind that certain recent court cases have created an unfortunate impression among some Service men that their actions are likely to be judged more harshly than those of the terrorists who are trying to destroy society? Will the Minister also bear in mind, in contemplating the release of further detainees, the effect that this might have on the morale of our security forces in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Rees: All these matters have to be considered in the round, and I hope to do that later. The military, security and political aspects have to be taken
    1428
    together. They often conflict, but in the long run the political aspect must prevail. In the short run I am not prepared—and the last month in Northern Ireland has reinforced my view on this—to let people die while we talk.
    Mr. Wellbeloved: Is not the policy of internment without trial pursued by the Governments of the Soviet Union, Chile, Portugal and Greece, and should we not now be giving serious consideration to ensuring that in Northern Ireland we do not follow the uncivilised policies which, as a party, we condemn when followed elsewhere in the world?
    Mr. Rees: It is possible for my hon. Friend to take that view. I invite him to visit Northern Ireland. If he thinks that in discharging my responsibilities I am acting in the way he suggests he will discover that he is very wrong.
    Mr. Kilfedder: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the morale of the security forces has been disastrously affected by the knowledge that the troops can be brought before the Diplock courts, which were brought in to deal with terrorists and not with those who are responsible for maintaining law and order, and that they often operate in areas where, if an incident takes place, the bystanders are hostile witnesses? On the point about the release of detainees, will the right hon. Gentleman make sure that every hon. Member realises that the security forces wonder whether it is worth while doing a job in Northern Ireland if the men who have been acting against them are to be released and will return to acts of terrorism?
    Mr. Rees: On the last part I do not believe that the hon. Member has any right to say that as a generality. I speak to the security commanders daily. I also visit the troops frequently. I ask the hon. Member not to cast doubts on the morale of the soldiers in Northern Ireland.
    On the first part of the hon. Member's question, there is a case which is sub judice and I do not want to discuss it. In the broader sense, it must be realised that the use of troops in this civil aid situation presents extreme difficulty. I would not want to put anyone at a disadvantage, particularly bearing in mind the background explained by the hon. Member. I believe that the courts are

    1429
    capable of judging all these issues, and it is something which must be borne in mind when the sub judice case is out of the way and we begin to consider the wider matter.
    Mr. Carsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the security situation in the city of Belfast.
    Mr. Orme: The security situation in Belfast continues to give rise to concern. In particular, the recent bombing outrages in the city centre have caused considerable disruption to the normal pattern of life. The security forces continue to use their best endeavours to prevent terrorist activities by every means at their disposal, but to achieve this end they are heavily dependent on the information and help forthcoming from shopkeepers and members of the public.
    Mr. Carson: Is the Minister aware that the security situation is vastly deteriorating, especially in the centre of Belfast, where in the past 21 days a member of the security force has been killed and Constable McClinton, who was patrolling a street by himself in a troubled area, was shot in the back of the head? Has the Minister given any directive to the police not to have these areas patrolled single-handed? Does he intend to take action so as to give proper protection to the RUC, especially in Belfast? What action has been taken to prevent large bombs being taken into the centre of Belfast?
    Mr. Orme: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I recently visited the centre of Belfast with both the Army and the RUC. I toured the Segment area and saw for myself what was happening on the ground.
    My right hon. Friend and I have discussed this question with the security forces. As the hon. Gentleman knows, on this issue there is often conflict between the security forces, the business community and the people who must use the Segment. We are examining the situation extremely seriously and we shall proceed, wherever possible, to improve it.
    Mr. Pym: Is the Minister satisfied that adequate attention is paid by firms and organisations to their own defences, for
    1430
    which they are responsible? It seems important that that aspect should not be left out of account. Is the Minister satisfied that firms are doing so adequately?
    Mr. Orme: I am afraid that I am not. There have been recent examples of major, nationally known companies whose premises have been destroyed and who have employed no security force or staff—for which they may receive special allowances. Some stores are not protected or guarded. Some firms make little or no protection arrangements themselves, while others do. There is an unevenness, and we are bringing the matter to the attention of the business community.

    Republic of Ireland
    Mr. Luceasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to meet Ministers in the Southern Irish Government in the near future.
    Mr. O'Halloranasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to meet the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have already had valuable discussions with the Irish Minister for Foreign Affairs on 7th March, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I will be meeting the Irish Prime Minister tomorrow.
    Mr. Luce: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that in these discussions, which I hope will take place regularly, the question of overriding mutual interest is the need to preserve law and order between our two countries? What further progress does the right hon. Gentleman hope for in joint law enforcement and security measures?
    Mr. Rees: These are important aspects which must be discussed. On the legal side the report of the Law Enforcement Commission is to come shortly. I am well aware that one of the great security problems is the border. Difficult as the border is, because of its length, and so forth, we should aim at closer co-operation to deal with the matter. However, that is not the only route which arms take into Northern Ireland. It is very difficult, even in this society, to deal with the problem. I am, of course, well aware

    1431
    of the problem of border security, and this will have to be discussed.
    Mr. Deedes: Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that at least one consequence of Sunningdale has been the greatly increased responsibilities and obligations of the Government of the Republic? Would it not be a good thing for that to be brought home by Ministers from time to time?
    Mr. Rees: The two Governments and the Executive are aware of what has to flow from the Sunningdale agreement. The right hon. Gentleman has raised a most important point.
    Mr. Marten: On the question of the border, will the righ hon. Gentleman look at the history of the resistance movements in the last war and study it deeply, bearing in mind the possibility of a joint and absolute closure of the border by Southern Ireland and Northern Ireland. In that way the security forces really could get to grips with the resistance movement—if we wish to call it that—in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Rees: I asked for a security review soon after taking office. I am sure that my advisers will report on that aspect. I would not pretend to set myself up as an expert in security and I am very much inclined to accept the advice of my security advisers. I know that they will consider the hon. Member's point and I prefer not to comment upon it until that has been done.

    European Economic Community
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement about Northern Ireland's representation at official level in Brussels; and whether he is satisfied that such representation is adequate to represent Northern Ireland's interests.
    Mr. Orme: Northern Ireland has no separate representation in Brussels. It is the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government to ensure that Northern Ireland's interests are adequately represented. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the present arrangements do this.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Does not the Minister agree that pending the fundamental renegotiation of the treaty and possible
    1432
    withdrawal from the EEC it is vital that Northern Ireland should have weightier representation within the context of United Kingdom representation, particularly with regard to agriculture and regional aid?
    Mr. Orme: The lion. Gentleman will acknowledge that Northern Ireland had some benefit from what my right lion. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries achieved recently. I am sure that the strong feelings on this issue in Northern Ireland will be represented during the renegotiations.

    Shooting Incident (County Armagh)
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he is in a position to announce the result of the investigation into procedures following the accidental shooting of two soldiers in County Armagh by patrols of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the night of 19th March; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action he has taken, since the shooting incidents at Shaw's Lake, to ensure adequate liaison and communication between the various branches of the security forces.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Procedures have been reviewed and measures introduced to try to prevent a similar accident in the future. For security reasons I cannot give details.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that answer, but will he say whether there is any question of the Army or police being responsible for movement of troops in and around an area? Who is responsible? Did the troops involved in the incident return any of the fire from the police? Does the right hon. Gentleman deny that the Provisional IRA created the confusion that resulted in the incident?
    Mr. Rees: The IRA did not create the confusion. Because of the involvement of the Director of Public Prosecutions I do not think that I should answer the hon. Gentleman's question. On the wider issue, although it would be wrong to talk about procedures, I will say that

    1433
    there are a large number of administrative movements, with 15,000-plus troops in the Province. In the incident in question people were coming off leave. There are other administrative movements, of supplies and so on, which should be considered, and there is the operational side. The RUC and the Army have looked afresh at the matter and have assured me that they have tightened the rules.
    Mr. McCusker: I fully accept the explanation that the right hon. Gentleman gave the House about the incident. I in no way criticise the security forces. However, will the right hon. Gentleman publicly acknowledge that I have given him other examples of a breakdown in liaison? How can he reconcile them with an answer, given me by his hon. Friend the Minister of State, that there is no need for standardisation between the Army and police patrols on details of operating practice, when we are faced with this sort of situation?
    Mr. Rees: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman fully accepts what I said. He has sent me examples of breakdown in liaison, which I shall examine. I have looked most carefully at the matter, with advice from those trained to do the job. As a politician, I am not trained in that respect. My job is to pick the brains of those who are. They assure me that because of the different operating methods of the RUC and the Army their decision is correct.

    Constitution
    Captain Orrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has any statement to make on the future of the present constitutional arrangements for Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: This Government fully endorse the constitutional arrangements which Parliament has provided for Northern Ireland.
    Captain Orr: We shall return to that answer during the course of the debate which is to follow, but will the Secretary of State say, in advance of it, whether, before he came to that hasty conclusion, he consulted any of the political parties in Northern Ireland—in particular, those representing the four political parties in the House, who have just been returned after the election?
    Mr. Rees: I am interested in the theological thought of four parties in another guise being one, which means that there is only one leader where there could be four—but I shall leave that matter on one side. We firmly support the Constitution Act passed under the previous Government. The Executive set up by the Act has been in being only since 1st January, which is not long enough to enable us to make a fair assessment of the situation. That administration and the Assembly receive our full support.
    Mr. Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman said earlier at Question Time that he would consider any proposal which would improve the tragic position in Northern Ireland. Does he not now think that it is perhaps time to examine the Constitution of Northern Ireland and amend the details relating to the Council of Ireland, as it might then receive more support from the majority of the people of Northern Ireland, who are very unhappy about it?
    Mr. Rees: The Council of Ireland is not part of the Constitution Act. It is distinct and separate. If the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Council of Ireland in the context of the Sunningdale communiqué—and developments and discussions on the council are taking place—I would say firmly that a means must be found whereby the two parts of Ireland work together, recognising the aspirations of people in the North and the South but facing up to the facts. Somewhere along the line aspirations may have to be forgotten. People have to face up to reality, and that means giving up some of their hopes. Many people have decided to do that; it is the only way in which the two parts can work together.

    North Antrim (Assembly By-Election)
    Rev. Ian Paisleyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will announce the intention of the Government about the date of the impending by-election for a seat in North Antrim for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
    Mr. Orme: The order enabling the by-election to be held was laid before

    1435
    Parliament on 2nd April. Polling day will be fixed by the Chief Electoral Officer in accordance with the timetable laid down in the order, but I understand that it is likely to be at the end of May or the beginning of June.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the Minister for his reply. Will he assure the House that in future, if by-elections are needed for the Assembly, the seats will not be kept vacant for almost a year? The last election was in May, and the Member appointed for North Antrim met with a tragic accident and died, having never taken his seat. We have been waiting for the election for a long time. Is the order subject to the negative or affirmative procedure?
    Mr. Orme: I shall have to check on the last point and let the hon. Gentleman know. With regard to the delay, other events have occurred, as the hon. Gentleman knows—he has participated in them himself—which have been responsible for some of it. When vacancies occur in future we should like to see them filled more quickly. We give that assurance. We should also like elected representatives, from whatever section of the community they come, to attend the Assembly when elected.

    Personal Injury and Property Damage
    Mr. Hardyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide an estimate of the cost of damage and destruction to property and injury to people in Northern Ireland during recent years; and if he will express this as an amount per person in that Province.
    Mr. Orme: On the basis of claims made for compensation since 1st April 1969 the estimate for damage to property is about £110 million and for personal injuries about £12·5 million. The total estimate of £122·5 million represents £79 per person in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Hardy: As the violence is continuing, will my hon. Friend emphasise the point that the population on this side of the water is bound to become more and more reluctant to provide both the finance and the human resources that are required to meet the horrors of Ulster?
    Mr. Orme: I understand my hon. Friend's strong feelings. We often have
    1436
    such representations made to us. It would be incorrect not to pursue the present policy, because as the basis of that policy we are seeking a political solution in Northern Ireland. We see no alternative to that. We shall continue to pursue that policy as long as the House allows us to do so.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: Will the Minister say what incentive is given to business firms and others concerned to provide their own security and protection? Further, what deterrent is employed against those which do not do so?
    Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question. I believe that the question of compensation will have to be considered when people do not employ self-help. Considerable help is given to the firms that help themselves. They are given 75 per cent. of the costs which they incur in employing security people. Other assistance is also given. The facilities are available and they should be properly used.

    CONFEDERATION OF BRITISH INDUSTRY
    Mr. Duffyasked the Prime Minister when he next expects to have talks with the Confederation of British Industry about industrial relations.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have no further meetings planned at present but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment met representatives of the CBI on Monday to discuss this matter, and I chaired yesterday's meeting of the National Economic Development Council.
    Mr. Duffy: In view of the TUC's promise yesterday to fulfil its part of the social contract, will my right hon. Friend now look to the CBI for a corresponding response in respect not only of price restraint but of workers' participation in management and control? Is my right hon. Friend aware that one reason for this country lagging behind some of the EEC countries in this regard is that employers are dragging their feet?
    The Prime Minister: All who attended the NEDC meeting yesterday felt that it was one of the most successful for a long time. Both the CBI and the TUC are

    1437
    anxious to start work on a bilateral basis to improve the climate of industrial relations and the existing machinery.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress being made towards a social contract? Does he not envisage the necessity for two versions—one for the TUC and the other for Mr. Hugh Scanlon?
    The Prime Minister: No. If the hon. Gentleman had been able to be present at NEDC yesterday he would not have put that question.

    MINISTER FOR GREATER LONDON
    Mr. Huntasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister for Greater London.
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir.
    Mr. Hunt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all I am asking for is to have someone on the Government Front Bench upon whom I can vent the anger and indignation of my constituents, and of millions of people throughout the Greater London area, following the 85 per cent. increase in the GLC rating demand—an anger which in Bromley has been intensified and accentuated by the Government's rate support grant proposals?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should be venting his wrath on the Opposition Front Bench and not on the Government. The hon. Gentleman will know that as a result of the Government's action there was an improvement in these matters. The hon. Gentleman's party did not vote against that action on any convincing scale.
    Mr. Wellbeloyed: Will my right hon. Friend note that the overwhelming majority of the people of London will join me in congratulating the Government on the prompt and just action which they took in redressing the unfair rate support grant, thereby relieving the ratepayers of London of the unfair burden which had been placed upon them?
    Further, will my hon. Friend note that the problems of London are now so immense, because of the breakdown of local government, the drift of staff and
    1438
    the shortage of teachers because of the London allowance, that there is urgent need for a Minister to deal with London's special problems?
    The Prime Minister: I would say that my hon. Friend is probably right in what he says about the reaction of the people of London. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment and I are meeting Sir Reginald Goodwin and other representatives of London government tomorrow.
    Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Does the Prime Minister realise that we want a Minister not for Greater London but for Greater Louth, and that we would like that Minister to explain to my constituents why the rates have gone up 10p in Louth but down 7p in Huyton?
    The Prime Minister: That is a very interesting question, and I should like to look into it. I was not aware of this consideration, but I shall consider the position of Louth, since the hon. Gentleman has made the comparison. But the situation generally was fully explained by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I do not recall a very convincing vote by the Opposition against his proposals.

    WELSH OFFICE (MINISTER OF STATE)
    Mr. Wigleyasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Minister of State at the Welsh Office in addition to the posts which he has already announced.
    The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 28th March to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Moonman).—[Vol. 871, c. 178.]
    Mr. Wigley: Is the Prime Minister aware of the considerable surprise in Wales that no appointment of a Minister of State at the Welsh Office has been announced, particularly since two Minis-terms of this rank were appointed for Scotland? Is the right hon. Gentleman further aware that in 1970, when the last Government left one rank vacant in the Welsh Office, hon. Members of the then Opposition felt that

    1439
    this was an indication of a lack of confidence in Welsh Members? Finally, is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the pressure of work on the Secretary of State for Wales at this time, which means considerable delay in making appointments for people who want to see him?
    The Prime Minister: That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and his two Under-Secretaries are working overtime. I hope that the hon. Gentleman does not take this matter too tragically. There are three Ministers for Wales in the Labour Government, compared with two in the last Government. In any case, it is manifest that an Under-Secretary of State in a Labour Government is worth any two Ministers of State in a Conservative Government.
    Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that we are one Minister short of the usual number in the Scottish Office, the reason being that he had already appointed the 30 Under-Secretaries that he was allowed before he realised that he was one short? What is he going to do about it?
    The Prime Minister: That explanation is not correct. Certainly I should have liked an extra Minister at the Scottish Office, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also bear in mind what I said just now about quality. The restriction was introduced in good faith by the last Government before the creation of a new Department. The matter is now under consideration.

    CLAY CROSS
    Mr. Adleyasked the Prime Minister if he will seek to pay an official visit to Clay Cross.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Adley: Why not?
    The Prime Minister: I think that it is not necessary. If the hon. Gentleman is really interested in what I think he is interested in, I shall be making a statement, by permission of the House, after Question Time.
    Mr. Swain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his welcome in Clay Cross will
    1440
    depend on his statement this afternoon, but that nevertheless he would be more welcome in Clay Cross at any time than the Leader of the Opposition would?
    The Prime Minister: It is not for me to judge that, but on my previous visits I have always had a warm welcome and I hope that that will always be the case in future. One reason why I need not go there often is that the citizens of Clay Cross have such confidence in their Member of Parliament.

    TRADES UNION COUNCIL
    Mr. Redmondasked the Prime Minister when he next plans to hold official consultations with the TUC.
    The Prime Minister: I have no immediate plans to do so but detailed discussions on different aspects of economic and social policy are being arranged by the responsible departmental Ministers.
    Mr. Redmond: Is the Prime Minister aware of the great anxiety that exists in the engineering industry at the threat of industrial action by the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers? In the light of that, how far can yesterday's promise by the TUC be relied on when Mr. Hugh Scanlon is a member of the committee which promised it?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman, quite understandably, could not have been at yesterday's meeting, which was private by long tradition. If he had been he would have been as gratified by it as were those who took part. I am not aware of such anxiety as he expresses, but I am aware that the engineering industry's biggest problem is still recovery from the three-day working week.

    SHILDON, COUNTY DURHAM
    Mr. Milneasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Shildon, County Durham.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Milne: Does the Prime Minister recollect that in a strongly worded speech in July last year he called for the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the Poulson affair in Shildon, County Durham? Will he look at

    1441
    this matter again, since the Redcliffe-Maud Committee deals only with the local government side of this problem and we want the Civil Service and parliamentary side of it to be examined as well?
    The Prime Minister: I well remember that speech. I said that I thought that a Royal Commission should be set up at once without even waiting for the results of the Poulson trials. I think that the action of my predecessor in setting up the Redcliffe-Maud Committee was a full response to the point I raised at that time, and I hope that we shall have the committee's report quickly. A lot of time has been saved by its appointment. On the other point in my statement—declarations of interest by Members of this House—there were discussions between the two Front Benches under the previous Government and considerable progress was made. There is already adequate machinery for dealing with the Civil Service aspect.
    Mr. Kenneth Baker: If the Prime Minister visits Durham and meets the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne), I hope that he will meet him with friendship, since the hon. Member is one of the few on the Government benches to speak out against the scandalous profits made by property speculators.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, and so have I spoken out. If the hon. Gentleman is trying to follow the smear by the Tory Press, I will say this to him: my hon. Friends from Durham know the difference between property speculation and land reclamation. [Laughter.] This is not a laughing matter. My hon. Friends know that if one buys land on which there is a slag heap 120 ft. high and it costs £100,000 to remove that slag, that is not land speculation in the sense that we condemn it. It is land reclamation.

    TYNESIDE
    Mr. Horamasked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to Tyneside.
    The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
    Mr. Horam: I thank my right hon. Friend for the decision to continue the
    1442
    regional employment premium, which was the subject of a long campaign by many of us in the last Parliament. In setting the Government's priorities, will he consider the need for providing a proper manpower and retraining policy, which is vital both nationally and regionally?
    The Prime Minister: The regional employment premium, which was introduced by the last Labour Government, is being continued for the present, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has stated. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment is giving very high priority to manpower and retraining policy.
    Mr. Beith: If the right hon. Gentleman should pay such a visit to Tyneside, will be also consider the problems of the rural areas of Northumberland outside the special development areas, because, although the retention of the regional employment premium is welcome, the problems of unemployment in such areas also need consideration?
    The Prime Minister: I shall certainly bear that point in mind. Rural unemployment or sheer lack of growth is as much a problem in many rural areas as in congested urban areas.

    COAL INDUSTRY
    Mr. Skinnerasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Departments of Energy, Employment and Industry regarding evaluation of the need to keep open the nation's coal mines.
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Skinner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that we applaud his decision, which he made just before the General Election, not to repeat the mistakes of the 1960s in closing down a considerable number of coal mines? Will he, on the basis of that declaration, make it clear to the National Coal Board that where it has coal mines with vast reserves of coal, as distinct from those which have no reserves, it should make it possible to keep such mines open—including Glapwell, in my constituency?
    The Prime Minister: I thought my hon. Friend had Glapwell in mind. He is right in what he said. Successive Governments

    1443
    in the late 1950s and the 1960s were wrong in their closure policy, as things have turned out. The policy has been changed. It is not for me to comment on what are really management responsibilities within the industry, which are subject to well understood procedures for consultation, but one of the things we are considering—and this may well come up in the tripartite inquiry into the industry—is whether there is not a case for a different attitude to pits which, even if uneconomic on a profit basis, may have something to contribute. At the moment, I cannot go further than that.
    Mr. Ridley: In the interests of increasing national coal production, is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to transfer the responsibility for licensing privately-owned mines from the National Coal Board to the Government in order to give them sufficient security to be able to open up new coal mines and seams?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir. I do not see that any change is necessary in this respect. I would say to the hon. Member, about whose untimely removal from office I have sympathised many times, that I seem to recall him on one occasion suggesting that we might not need a coal industry in this country because we could import coal.
    Mr. Evelyn King: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that electricity produced by coal is now more expensive than electricity produced by nuclear means?
    The Prime Minister: I do not know on what basis the hon. Member makes his nuclear calculations. The calculations have always been a matter of deep controversy, particularly on the question of the length of time for the write-off. I do not accept what the hon. Gentleman says. It is certainly true that generation by coal is now cheaper than generation by oil.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Finsberg: On a point of order. Have you received any notice from the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, that he wishes to answer orally my Written Question No. 107?
    Mr. Speaker: No.

CLAY CROSS
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, I should like to make a statement about Clay Cross.
The situation there and elsewhere has arisen from the entirely unprecedented situation created over the past two years by the fact that the measures in the Housing Finance Acts were forced upon local government with unreasonable speed—indeed, under the guillotine—and with considerable lack of understanding.
The House will be aware that this matter has greatly exercised those concerned with democracy in local government, particularly the national conference and the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. Because of our deep concern with the problem forced upon local authorities by the former Government's policies, decisions were taken by the Labour Party conference when we were in opposition about the question of the penalties involved for certain local councillors—financial liabilities and also penalties in terms of civic disqualification.
It was the view of the National Executive Committee and of the Labour Party conference that efforts should be made to secure a reimbursement to the councillors concerned, in the case of Clay Cross only, for the financial liabilities that they have suffered. At no time was any commitment given that this would involve a charge upon public funds, and we do not propose to do so. Indeed, this proviso was made clear when we were in opposition.
It will be a matter for those associated with the decisions taken at the relevant conferences to consider how funds, not involving a charge on the Revenue, can be raised for this purpose—[Interruption.] I am surprised that hon. Members who were responsible for this whole tragic situation should be laughing.
We are committed to removing the civic disqualification which the Conservative Housing Finance Acts have involved. On this question, we have to consider Clay Cross in a wider context, because Clay Cross and one or two other councils decided on the policy of total non-implementation. A number of other local authorities who finally implemented did so only after a considerable delay. Their

1445
accounts are, I understand, now being examined by the district auditors in the course of their annual audits and the result of this examination may lead, although possibly on a limited scale, to further problems in different parts of the country, which might involve the question of disqualification. Only when we see the full extent and magnitude of the problem will it be possible for us to make our recommendations to the House and this we shall do.
I must repeat this: my right hon. Friends and I have always made it clear that the law of the land, however unfair, however divisive, must be obeyed until it is repealed. My right hon. Friend who is now Lord President made this absolutely clear at the Labour Party conference—[Interruption.] If hon. Members cannot accept that, it must be because they cannot read. If any hon. Member who is barracking will write to me, I will send him the text and ask him for an apology.
Mr. Skinner: They cannot read either.
The Prime Minister: As I was saying, my right hon. Friend said:
"…the NEC could not possibly advise councillors to act unlawfully. We cannot…"
He went on to spell out the reasons why that could not be accepted.
The matter was taken further by my right hon. Friend who is now the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary when, as Chairman of the party, he opened the Labour Party Local Government Conference at Birmingham in January—a speech which also I heard. He said then:
"The Labour Party has always taken the view, and I still hold it, that the way to get a bad law changed is to change the Government."
That is what has happened.
The Government believe that the divisive effect on local democracy caused by the Housing Finance Acts should be resolved with fairness to all concerned, including fairness to those who reluctantly implemented the Act, and in a spirit which will diminish for the future the bitterness engendered by legislation whose repeal we shall shortly recommend to the House.
Mr. Heath: I thank the Prime Minister for coming to the House to make this statement. We recognise the dilemma of the Government and of the Prime Min-
1446
ister in view of the undertaking they gave to their party conference and the basis on which they fought the General Election. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman's statement would have come rather better from him if he had not tried to dress it up as he has done but had said frankly that the Government faced a dilemma and what they proposed to do about it.
I cannot accept, of course, the opening part of the statement, that the legislation was forced upon local government with unreasonable speed. I say that for the simple reason that the great mass of local government authorities, whether they agreed with the legislation or not, accepted it and were able to implement it—[An HON. MEMBER: "They had no alternative."] If they had no alternative, there would seem to be no reason for the Clay Cross affair to have arisen at all.
What the Government are now saying, I understand, is that they will carry out their undertaking that the fines should not he paid from public funds. At the same time, I hope that the Prime Minister will now agree that it is undesirable for a party, at its conference or elsewhere, to say that if local authorities defy the law the councillors will then have their fines paid for them by means arranged by that party or by the members of that party.
Second, as I understand it, the Government now wish to see what they say is a review of the effects on other local authorities. There were of course very few. At the Labour Party conference—I have read the speeches carefully—the present Leader of the House said that in fact Clay Cross was a special case. As I understand it, the Prime Minister is now saying that Clay Cross is not a special case but that it will be dealt with in accordance with the views on the proceedings in respect of other authorities.
I hope that the Prime Minister will accept what we understand to be the advice of his Law Officers and recognise that it would be scandalous to pass any Act which, by retrospective legislation, would remove these disabilities on councillors which arise from what the Master of the Rolls described as a "determined, wilful disobedience of the law"—[An HON. MEMBER: "Scandalous."] I agree. Would it not be scandalous for the Government to try to pass legislation which would remove those disabilities?
The Prime Minister: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman did not like the wording of my statement. It is difficult to please everyone in the House, at least on this subject. I thought that when he referred to local authorities who were opposed to the Act, who objected to it, but who nevertheless carried it through, as having been forced to do so by the Government, he was making our point. They were forced they were opposed to it but they felt that they had to do it because of the law that the right hon. Gentleman introduced.
In his little sermonette about the resolutions which party conferences should pass, I recognised his difficulty in not understanding the workings of a democratic party conference. But he will understand that this is indeed what happened, and in my statement I have made no bones about what happened. When my right hon. Friend the present Leader of the House—I am now referring to the right hon Gentleman's quotation from him—referred to Clay Cross as a special case—the right hon. Gentleman then said that I was not regarding it as such—he was saying that specifically in the context of whatever financial assistance could be given. That was in the financial context.
In relation to the re-enfranchisement of those who have lost their civic rights, I have said that we shall act in this matter. It is right that before we put a proposal before the House we should see the extent of the problem, how many people are involved and what is the best way to handle it.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we accept his confirmation that the Government intend to uphold the rule of law? Does he agree that if ambiguous statements had not been made in the past his statement of today would have been unnecessary?
The Prime Minister: Sir, I do not agree that the statements were ambiguous, but I agree that a difficult situation arose. The right hon. Gentleman may have learnt, or he may learn as he attends future conferences of his own party, that difficult situations arise when the party's constitution allows conference to take decisions
1448
of that kind. I do not agree that misleading statements have been made. The Leader of the Opposition referred to advice from the Law Officers. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—who has been most unfairly treated by the House on this matter—made that statement as the result of a meeting between the present Lord Chancellor—the then shadow Attorney-General—and myself, and we all agreed on the form of wording.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Skinner?
Mr. Swain: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. These are my constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and I are the best and dearest of friends, but Clay Cross—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Swain: Further to that point of order. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, that Clay Cross is in the constituency of Derbyshire, North-East? Many of the ignorant community on the Opposition side of the House may not be aware of this, but I hope and trust that you are. Is it not customary that, after a statement, the Member representing the constituency to which the statement refers is the first to be given an opportunity to ask a question?
Mr. Speaker: It certainly is my intention to call the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) to ask a question. Mr. Skinner.
Mr. Skinner: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Swain) will be asking a pertinent question. Is my right hon. Friend fully aware of the circumstances in which this case arose, inasmuch as there were several courses of action that could have been taken under the Housing Finance Act, but the then Secretary of State for Employment decided on a punitive course of action, namely, to use the public auditor to impose a surcharge on the elected councillors, when other measures were taken by the Secretary of State for Wales, and in other cases?
In view of the punitive action that was taken, will my right hon. Friend look again at this matter? Will he also consider the case of Conisbrough and all the

1449
other authorities that at the beginning failed to implement the Housing Finance Act? Bearing in mind those considerations, will my right hon. Friend come to an understanding that if the National Executive Committee passes on a message to the Cabinet—which includes seven National Executive Committee members—one body should act in accord with the other?
The Prime Minister: Yes, I am certainly aware of the circumstances which arose and of the many difficulties that were created by the legislation. I am aware of them because I have studied them and met delegations from the area. I have also met my hon. Friend's brother, who played a leading part in these matters. As my hon. Friend says, mistakes were made by the Government quite apart from the basic responsibilities of the Act. In the previous Parliament, my right hon. Friend now the Secretary of State for the Environment, once the House had passed the Act and the Government had set up the Housing Commissioner, criticised the Government for not sending the Housing Commissioner in earlier. If they had done so many of these difficulties might not have arisen.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of what the Prime Minister said about public funds, will he say what will be the position of Clydebank ratepayers who have been asked to pay through their rates public funds amounting to thousands of pounds for a fine imposed on the local authority because of its failure to implement the Act?
The Prime Minister: My statement refers to Clay Cross but, as I said in my concluding remarks, we need to know more about the position of other areas where there was either non-implementation or slow implementation before we can lay further proposals before the House.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Swain.
Mr. Swain: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) for asking my question. Is my right hon. Friend aware that Clay Cross is a special case for one reason, which is that the ex-members of the local authority are the only people in the country who are
1450
suffering the penalties of surcharge and disqualification? [An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"] I am asking the Prime Minister a question, not a bloody fool like you.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Member reflect upon that remark?
Mr. Swain: I apologise to all the fools in the country for bringing them down to the level of the hon. Gentleman.
Clay Cross is a special case for the reason I have stated. There are 54 other local authorities which may in the near future suffer the penalties of surcharge and disqualification. It is possible within the next fortnight that my friends at Clay Cross will be not only disqualified but taken to court on account of the surcharge. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the fund will be set up immediately, and that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a statement about when a start will he made on legislation to amend the Local Government Act 1933 and to remove all the penalties in accordance with the Labour Party conference composite resolution No. 191?
The Prime Minister: I have said, quoting my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, that Clay Cross is a special case in the context in which my right hon. Friend referred to it. It is for that reason that the National Executive Committee of the party—of course there is no ministerial responsibility for it here—agreed to treat it as a special case in the financial sense.
As I said, we intend to act in the matter of disqualification, but we want to see the extent of the problem. My hon. Friend referred to other councillors who may be affected. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will keep a close watch on this situation and in other parts of the country, although I cannot give an undertaking about legislation amending the 1933 Act, or the timing of it.
Mr. Rippon: Why does the Prime Minister say that the law of the land should be respected and yet give an undertaking to remove retrospectively the penalties for breaking it?
So far as the conduct of the then Secretary of State for the Environment

1451
is concerned, will the right hon. Gentleman beat in mind the judgment of Lord Denning in the Court of Appeal in the action against the Secretary of State for the Environment, when the Court of Appeal said that the proper procedures had been followed and that the councillors concerned had gravely embarrassed the conduct of good government, were not fit to hold office and ought to be removed?
The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the judgment. It is the duty of the courts to carry out the law as it stands—even the bad law—which the right hon. and learned Member for Hex-ham (Mr. Rippon) kept on commending to the House when he was most recently in office. I think that the right lion. Gentleman is a lawyer, but I cannot quite understand his argument, when he mentioned my reference to removing the civic disqualification by saying that this is to be done retrospectively. I am not clear how one removes retrospectively penalties of that kind. Financially it is possible to understand the situation If disqualification is removed, it will be removed from now on, not retrospectively.
Mr. Heath: I must press the Prime Minister on this matter. In my opening question I acknowledged the dilemma facing the Government. We all know about party conferences. The problem which the Prime Minister faces is due to the fact that the Lord President of the Council accepted the resolution passed by the Labour Party conference. Therefore, he is now in a position of responsibility in respect of that resolution.
The Prime Minister reaffirmed in his statement that the Government should maintain the rule of law, yet at the same time he apparently proposes to put legislation before the House to remove penalties imposed on the Clay Cross councillors because they had broken the rule of law. I must ask the right hon. Gentleman not to try to have it both ways. May I remind the Prime Minister of what the Master of the Rolls said? He said:
"Each of these councillors had deliberately broken the solemn promise he had given when accepting office. Each had flagrantly defied the law. Each was determined still to continue to defy it."
1452
The Master of the Rolls went on:
"The time had come when the councillors must be told quite firmly that the law had to be obeyed. Their disobedience could not be tolerated.…"
Any attempt by the Government to get through the House legislation to remove the penalties which were imposed, on a matter which went to the Court of Appeal and on which the Master of the Rolls adjudicated, would be abhorrent in a democracy.
The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman referred to my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council. I want to make it clear that the Lord President is no more responsible and no less responsible in this matter than I or my other right hon. Friends. I cannot accept the situation that when the Conservative Government were responsible for this whole business, those same Conservatives should now seek to pin the responsibility on my right hon. Friend the Lord President. We accept collective responsibility in this matter. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition quoted what was said in the Court of Appeal. I repeat that the Court of Appeal were construing the law which the right hon. Gentleman and his Government had enacted. He seems to be totally incapable of understanding the situation when he speaks as he does—and that was the hallmark of the Conservative Government which produced this Act of Parliament.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. This matter cannot be further debated now. Business Questions.
Mr. Crouch: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I suggest to you, Sir, that, quite apart from the rule of law, there is here a question of the authority of Parliament. I have done some research into what is said on this subject in Erskine May and, having read that publication, I believe that what we have heard this afternoon appears to constitute some form of indignity to this House. I quote from page 143 of Erskine May:
"Other acts besides words spoken or writings published reflecting upon either House or its proceedings which, though they do not tend directly to obstruct or impede either House in the performance of its functions, yet have a tendency to produce this result indirectly by

1453
bringing such House into odium, contempt or ridicule or by lowering its authority may constitute contempts."
I suggest that what we have heard this afternoon has brought the House into contempt by lowering its authority.
Mr. Speaker: Is the hon. Gentleman raising this as a matter of privilege or contempt?
Mr. Swain: He does not know.
Mr. Crouch: I was asking you, Mr. Speaker, to consider that it was a matter of contempt.
Mr. Speaker: We have a rule laid down that if an hon. Gentleman raises a matter as a point of privilege or contempt it must be raised at a later stage in our proceedings, when I will consider it. But that time comes later. However, if the hon. Gentleman has finished, I will say here and now that I will consider what he has said and if necessary, rule on the point.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 8th April—Consideration of Private Members' motions, until seven o'clock.
Proceedings on the Representation of the People Bill.
At seven o'clock, Opposed Private Business.
TUESDAY 9th April—Second Reading of the Prices Bill.
Motions on the Orkney Islands Internal Shipping Services and on the National Health Service (Scotland).
WEDNESDAY 10th April—Proceedings on the National Insurance Bill.
THURSDAY 11th April—It will be proposed that the House should meet at 11 a.m., take Questions until 12 noon
1454
and adjourn at 5 p.m. until Monday 29th April.
Mr. Heath: The Leader of the House will be aware that in this Parliament so far the Opposition have had half of a Supply Day. Will he give an assurance that we shall be afforded a Supply Day very soon after the House returns from the Easter Recess? Secondly, although I agree that the situation is somewhat difficult for a Leader of the House to announce in advance, will the right hon. Gentleman say when the Adjournment motion will be taken? Since in this new Parliament we have so many new hon. Members, it would be most helpful to the House if he could say when the House can expect to take the Adjournment motion.
Mr. Short: In answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first question, I can tell him that we hope to make a Supply Day available in the week after the recess. In answer to his second point, I hope to invite the House to approve the Adjournment motion on Tuesday, but I shall safeguard the time of the House on the rest of the business.
Mr. Grimond: Although we have had, on the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), some debate on the Kilbrandon proposals, will the Government say when they propose to allot a full day to a discussion of the Kilbrandon Reports, initiated by a senior Minister who will give some outline of the Government's thinking, and will they also say how they propose to proceed on the matters involved?
Mr. Short: I have considered a debate on this subject, and there will be a debate but I cannot say when it will be. I very much hope that before then the consultations in Scotland and in Wales will have started.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Last week my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House promised to convey to the Secretary of State for Social Services my request for an early debate on the Sharp Report on disabled drivers. Has he approached the Secretary of State and, if so, has he been given an assurance that we shall have an early debate after Easter? If not, will he go back and press the right hon. Lady for me?
Mr. Short: I certainly conveyed the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Mr. Tuck) to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. There will be a debate on that subject at some time, but I am afraid that I cannot say when.
Mr. Waddington: Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Minister for Planning and Local Government to come to the House next week and give a civil and sensible reply to a question that is of great importance to North-East Lancashire and to which he refused to give any sort of reply yesterday? I refer to what is set out in yesterday's HANSARD, in column 376.
Mr. Short: I shall certainly look into that matter.
Mr. William Hamilton: In view of the allegations made by certain newspapers about land transactions, will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Prime Minister himself will make a statement on this matter before the recess, and that if there are any associates of himself or any other members of the Government involved in this transaction, they will be removed forthwith?
Mr. Short: I shall convey my hon. Friend's remarks to the Prime Minister. The House will be aware of a statement issued by my right hon. Friend outside the House this morning. That statement makes it abundantly clear that the whole campaign is a smear, based on a misrepresentation of the facts. However, all that apart, I shall convey those remarks to the Prime Minister, and I am sure that he will be willing to consider making a statement on the parliamentary aspects of the matter.
Mr. George Gardiner: In conveying to the Prime Minister the wishes expressed just now by the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) may I ask him at the same time to convey the feeling of the House that, even though the Prime Minister is seeking to muzzle the Press by throwing libel writs in all directions, this matter deserves a statement to Parliament on the real public issues involved?
Mr. Short: I dissociate myself entirely from the quite disgusting suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman. However, I
1456
will certainly convey his comments to the Prime Minister. As I have said, I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be willing to make a statement on the parliamentary aspects of the matter.
Mr. Tom Ellis: Will the Leader of the House impress through the usual channels, or on whomever he presses, the need for a debate on the steel industry in view of the Government's announcement that they are looking at this industry? We should like to know how it is to be tackled, how we can take part, and what the future will be in looking at the national plan for the steel industry that is being reorganised.
Mr. Short: There will not be time for a debate before Easter, but I will pass on to my right hon. Friend what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: In the last Parliament we were anticipating an early debate on the report of the Nugent Committee on Defence Lands. Will the Leader of the House tell us whether this matter will be debated in the near future?
Mr. Short: I cannot say when there will be a debate on this matter, but I will bear it in mind and write to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Dalyell: As considerable sectors of British industry are concerned about the decision on reactor choice, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend's promised debate on the choice of nuclear reactors will take place after Easter?
Mr. Short: There will certainly be a debate after Easter, as I have already promised. I will watch this matter very carefully and keep in touch with my hon. Friend about it.
Mr. Finsberg: Will the Leader of the House make arrangements to set up the Expenditure Committee next week?
Mr. Short: This is one Committee that we have not yet set up, but I hope to do something about it in the near future. We have been working very hard through the usual channels getting names for committees, and we have set up a number. I think that some are on the Order Paper today. We are proceeding as quickly as we can with this matter.
Mr. Michael Stewart: When will my right hon. Friend be able to find time for a debate on an early-day motion concerning the London allowance for teachers?
Mr. Short: Not next week. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said today, he is meeting the Leader of the GLC, and I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science will be meeting two panels of the Burnham Committee in the near future regarding this matter.
Mr. Iremonger: Will the right hon. Gentleman find time to debate the following early-day motions:
No. 42,
[That this House notes that the international postal regulations are unsatisfactory in their operation in that they do not ensure that Her Majesty's subjects are able to communicate without fail with the men and women of faith and courage in dissident Christian and Jewish minorities suffering persecution under red Nazi regimes in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and other socialist régimes in Eastern Europe and elsewhere; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government, despite its tenderness for its red Nazi comrades, to invoke the necessary international diplomatic machinery to amend the constitution of the International Postal Union to remedy this outrage against human rights.]
No. 43,
[That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government urgently to inquire into the fact that members of the 35 Group in North-West London and Ilford are experiencing difficulty in maintaining contact with friends in Russia and are discovering that the telephones of these friends are disconnected by the socialist regime there whenever it becomes apparent that they are receiving calls regularly from Her Majesty's subjects.]
No. 44,
[That this House takes note of the avowed intention of the Labour Government to close independent schools which are unrecognised because they do not have unnecessary fancy trimmings on large sites, irrespective of the fact that they provide, while saving public ex-
1458
pense, for the education of children (many of whom have special needs) in accordance with the wishes of their parents; further notes that the principals of Clark's Schools have felt obliged in the light of this avowed intention to anticipate compulsory closure by themselves closing down their excellent schools in Ilford and Romford in order to devote extra resources to providing unnecessary but compulsory trimmings for other Clark's Schools in larger sites elsewhere; sympathises with the parents and children victimised by this Government's vindictiveness towards private education; and respectfully suggests that any of those parents who did not vote Conservative in the last election reflect now on their plight.]
No. 45,
[That this House expresses its sympathy with the Redbridge Borough Council in its need to find places in its schools for some hundreds of children displaced through the vindictive policies of the Labour Government which has forced the closure of Clark's Schools; and further expresses the hope that these children taking O Levels next year and obliged now to switch at a highly awkward juncture to a new curriculum will not be unduly handicapped in the progress which their parents have been making great sacrifices to maintain.]
Mr. Short: No, Sir; I am afraid not.
Mrs. Renée Short: In view of the careful investigations and the important recommendations of the Lane Committee, may I ask my right hon. Friend when we shall have an opportunity to debate the Lane Report?
Mr. Short: The Lane Report, which is very important, has just been published. I hope that it will be debated in the House some time before the summer.
Mr. Burden: May I ask the Leader of the House to give an undertaking that there will be an early debate on the O'Brien Report and that, pending that debate in Parliament, his right hon. Friend will not reintroduce export licences for the export of live animals for slaughter?
Mr. Short: I cannot promise an early debate on this matter, but I will pass on to my right hon. Friend what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend desist from getting down into the gutter with the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Gardiner), who is well versed in writing scurrilous articles about Labour Members of Parliament? Indeed, it cost him £5,000 as a result. [Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. That sort of personal imputation is not worthy of the House.
Mr. Short: We recall some of the things written by the hon. Gentleman when he was in a higher place. His intervention today shows that he has not improved much since he came downstairs.
Mr. Kershaw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the custom of the House that personal allegations are not made during Question Time or Business Questions, even by the Leader of the House?
Mr. Speaker: I think that such personal imputations are certainly undesirable at any time.
Mr. Adley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for me to ask you to remind the Leader of the House that he is the Leader of the House, not the Leader of the Labour Party?
Mr. Peter Rees: In view of the Prime Minister's recent statement, may I ask whether time will be made available for a debate on tax reliefs and other forms of encouragement for land reclamation?
Mr. Short: I imagine that this matter can be discussed in Committee on the Finance Bill. Alternatively, as the Opposition have a lot of Supply Days, they could use one for that purpose.
Mr. Wellbeloved: May I ask my right hon. Friend to find time next week to make a statement to the House on the pay and conditions of members of the staff of the Refreshment Department? Will he do this as a matter of urgency because a growing number of hon. Members are concerned at the poor pay and disgraceful conditions that the staff of this House have to endure?
Mr. Short: I agree with my hon. Friend that there is a real and urgent problem here. I met staff representatives this week together with their union
1460
representative. The Services Committee has now been established. I understand that it is to meet early next week, and the Catering Sub-Committee will then be set up. I hope that the Catering Sub-Committee will be prepared to meet staff representatives immediately it is set up to try to reach a solution to the problem very quickly. I will give any help that I can in this matter.
Mr. Pym: Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to come to the House before Easter and make a statement about the real difficulties being faced by the glasshouse industry because of the rise in the price of oil? This is an urgent matter which requires an urgent statement by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Short: I know that my right hon. Friend is most concerned about this matter. He has spoken about it recently. I will certainly pass on to him what the right hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Cryer: Has the Leader of the House any plans to give time to debate the abolition of the Pay Code? I am receiving urgent representations from management in my constituency about the harmful effects that it is having on the export drive by industry in my constituency and presumably in the rest of the country.
Mr. Short: I cannot find time next week, Sir, but I will in due course.
Rev. Ian Paisley: When will the Leader of the House be in a position to make a statement regarding business for Northern Ireland being brought before the House? I am sure that he is aware that hon. Members from Northern Ireland do not like the Order in Council system as it does not leave them room for amending any legislation. How does he propose to bring Northern Ireland business before the House in future?
Mr. Short: There is to be a debate today. However, I will look at the procedural side as well.
Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: If the Prime Minister does come to the House to make a statement on the land deals in Ince, may I ask the Leader of the House to ask him to include in it a statement on the £180,000 grant made by Ince UDC

1461
towards an access road to that site? Will he also explain why my constituents, because of action by the Secretary of State for the Environment in changing the rate support grant order, are now paying an extra £98,000 in rates whereas the ratepayers of Wigan, which now includes Ince, are paying £500,000 less in rates, thus forcing my constituents to subsidise industrial competition against them?
Mr. Short: On the first point, I said that I would pass on the request for a statement to my right hon. Friend. I also said that I felt sure he would be willing to make a statement—I did not say either in the House or outside—on the parliamentary aspects of this matter. I promised to pass that request on to my right hon. Friend.
On the second part of the hon. Lady's question, I should point out that that matter has been fully debated and approved by the House.
Mr. Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend now in a position to tell us whether before Easter he will be able to bring forward the Government's proposals on a register of Members' interests? Irrespective of the heated exchanges on particular matters today, there is general
1462
concern about this matter. I think the whole House would wish it to be brought forward.
Mr. Short: I am afraid that it will not be next week, but I hope that it will be very soon. We have very nearly reached agreement on this matter. I hope that we can reach agreement on this and bring it before the House in the near future.
Mr. MacArthur: In view of the Prime Minister's extraordinary statement this afternoon, may I ask whether there will be a further statement next week on what action the Government propose to compensate the poorer tenants on Clydebank who have lost a great deal of money because they were denied rebates under the Housing Finance Act by local councillors who defied the law?
Mr. Short: An identical question was put to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. We have an important debate before us, and I have a long list of hon. Members who wish to speak.

NORTHERN IRELAND
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Pendry.]
Mr. Speaker: Before I call the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to open the debate, perhaps I should repeat to the House that I have a list of many, hon. Members who wish to take part in it. No fewer than six members of the United Ulster Unionist Party wish to catch my eye. How many do so will depend on the length of the speeches of those who succeed in catching my eye. We cannot have speeches of 30 to 35 minutes.
4.2 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): It is right that the House should today debate the affairs of Northern Ireland. The time is ripe for the new administration to assess the present prospects and put forward the policies required to lead us forward.
When we were in opposition we supported the previous administration in its policies. We had our differences, but on all matters of principle there was all-party support for the Government of the day. It is our aim to maintain this approach towards Northern Ireland in this Parliament. Our policies will be firmly based on those followed by our predecessors in office.
What, then, did we support in these policies? We thought it right that in devising a new constitution for Northern Ireland the views of the people of the Province should be taken fully into account, and we knew that the Northern Ireland Constitution Act was the outcome of extensive consultations. We agreed that there should be devolution of government functions to Northern Ireland, that Northern Ireland should have its own Assembly elected by means of proportional representation, and that the machinery of government should incorporate the important concept of power sharing. All this has now been achieved.
There followed lengthy talks, as a result of which practical effect was given to the concept of power sharing, and a Northern Ireland Executive representative of a wide range of opinion was formed. This was a great achievement,
1464
and particular credit must go to the Secretary of State at the time and the parties in Northern Ireland who agreed to recognise each other's aspiration and are working together in the Executive.
I do not believe that most people in Northern Ireland object to the sharing of power between representatives of the two communities. While there remains a wide divergence of ultimate aspirations, most people in Northern Ireland are increasingly accepting that power sharing is the only responsible and fair way of governing a country in which there is a divergence of views on basic issues.
The House will know that the Northern Ireland Constitution Act, passed by an overwhelming majority in this House, is founded in Section 27 on the basis of a four-year term for the Assembly. Of course, there are provisions for an earlier dissolution in certain circumstances, but the four-year term is the norm, and this House will, I am sure, wish that the new power-sharing Executive should have a proper chance to show to its electorate what it can achieve.
Democratic institutions need an Opposition if they are to work; the Northern Ireland Assembly is no exception. We all of us realise the difficulties of parties in opposition: of course, it is everybody's right to oppose peacefully and politically those things which they think wrong, but the problem is to be constructive. I hope that those parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly which are not represented on the Northern Ireland Executive will now face up to their proper rôle of constructive opposition. They owe it to the people of Northern Ireland to express their views within the framework of the constitution which the Parliament at Westminster has provided for them—a Parliament to which some members of the Opposition in the Northern Ireland Assembly now belong.
Then there is Sunningdale. In opposition we supported the Government in reaching this carefully balanced settlement. I would remind the House that what was agreed at Sunningdale was not, as one might suspect when listening to its critics, solely provision for a Council of Ireland. The settlement involved many aspects of the life of both North and South. There are provisions on the status of Northern Ireland which the Taioseach has recently clarified. There

1465
is the Law Enforcement Commission set up to make recommendations as a matter of extreme urgency about the most effective means of dealing with those who commit crimes of violence north or south of the border. Our hope is that on the basis of the report of this commission both Governments will be able to agree on a fully effective means of dealing with fugitive offenders which can be put into operation quickly. On the vital problem of border security, we are, in the spirit of the Sunningdale Agreement, in close touch with the Dublin Government to discuss how we can improve co-operation on both sides of the border, and we hope that we shall, in agreement with them, find the means of reducing terrorist activity in the border areas and preventing the use of the Republic as a base.
As far as the Council of Ireland is concerned, it is important to remember that the basic reason for establishing it is to provide a means of improving cooperation between the North and the South on a wide range of common interests; for example, how best to utilise scarce skills, to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort in the interests of economy and efficiency and to ensure complementary rather than competitive effort where this is to the advantage of agriculture, commerce and industry.
These are eminently sensible proposals, and the interests of Northern Ireland are more than protected by the vitally important unanimity rule which means that the council can only take action which has the wholehearted support of the Northern Ireland Executive. The settlement must be seen as a whole and not broken down into parts. We think that this settlement was right and fair, and we expect all parties fully to deliver their obligations. We will continue to play our part to give effect to it as a balanced package.
When dealing with Northern Ireland an overriding consideration must always be that of security. At the moment in Northern Ireland the security forces—the Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary—are trying to restore peace and law and order, but they do so on behalf of the community. Law and order can only be maintained by the community itself, and it is important to stress again and again that law and order can be brought back only if all—I repeat, all—
1466
the people of Northern Ireland whole-heartedly wish it and co-operate. The security forces have a vital rôle, and I want to place on record again our recognition of the skill and fortitude with which all members of the security forces, both Police and Army, carry out their duties. But their success depends upon the attitude of the community at large and the acceptance by the community of their activities.
I believe the cornerstone of security policy should be a progressive increase in the rôle of the civilian law enforcement agencies in Northern Ireland. So long as so much of the burden is being borne by the Army, it is altogether too tempting to many members of the community to undertake less than their share of responsibility and to feel that law and order is a matter for the United Kingdom Government rather than for them. This is not a situation which can be allowed to continue indefinitely.
Much will depend upon the RUC, which has operated in appalling conditions over the last few years. It has suffered many grievous losses of life and injury. Everything that we can do to help it must be done. I am, therefore, supporting the Chief Constable and the Police Authority in their plans to press ahead with a number of changes in the RUC which are designed to increase not only operational efficiency but the acceptability of the RUC within the community. I am also going ahead with the important decision of my predecessor, announced in the Sunningdale communiqué, to set up an all-party committee from the Assembly to examine how best to introduce effective policing throughout Northern Ireland. This is a problem which is immensely difficult and will require support of all men and women of good will.
I plan to make a number of arrangements aimed at associating members of the community in police matters. Some of them, like the all-party committee for the Assembly I have referred to, were part of the Sunningdale communique. Although some of these will depend upon the formal ratification of Sunningdale before they can be brought to full fruition, there is a good deal of progress that can be made in the meantime. For example, I propose shortly to lay before the House the necessary

1467
Order in Council providing for the reconstitution of the Police Authority. Among other things, this will provide for the inclusion of members of the Assembly in the Police Authority. I hope that it will soon be possible to make progress in setting up the proposed local police liaison committees.
Captain L. P. S. Orr: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that the laying of the Order in Council will depend upon the ratification of Sunningdale?
Mr. Rees: No, I have not said that.
The operational command structure of the RUC is being reorganised to provide assistant chief constables with operational commands for regions based on Londonderry, Belfast and the border areas. This should improve operational effectiveness. The administrative command structure is also being reorganised by the Chief Constable. In addition, other measures are being taken to help to bring Catholics into the RUC and the RUC Reserve and to increase their overall strength, including a new non-residential cadet scheme. There is also to be increased police effort on community relations. To sum up, we need to move as fast as possible in restoring the full responsibility for law and order to the RUC.
I am sure the whole House will warmly welcome a statement issued by the Northern Ireland Executive—an Executive which is composed of three parties—after its meeting on Tuesday this week, in the course of which it said this:
"We all want to see normality in Northern Ireland—a normality in which detention will have ended and in which law and order can be preserved by a civilian police force and not by the presence of heavily armed troops.
"We now call upon all those in Northern Ireland who are appalled and disgusted by the recurrent violence to recognise that there are practical steps which they can take to create that situation of normality. If reliance upon the Army is to be reduced, the locally recruited security forces must be in a position to take on further responsibilities. This they can only do when they have the support of the whole community. This is our objective.
"The best way to deal with men of violence is through the effective operation of the ordinary processes of the law. But the law cannot be effective until each citizen accepts a personal commitment to see to it that his area, his housing estate, his street is not used by the bomber or the gunman."
Rev. Ian Paisley: The right hon. Gentleman said that he had in mind a new non-residential cadet institution. What does he mean by "nonresidential"? Does he mean people from outside Northern Ireland?
Mr. Rees: I think that at present young men come over here to the Hendon Police College. What I have in mind is to use, on a non-residential basis, the resources of the technical institutions in Northern Ireland.
The statement issued by the Executive is an admirably forceful and concise summary of precisely the policy which the Government intend to pursue and to which they intend to give their maximum support.
This is one of the reasons why, with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, I have called for a security review. We are looking afresh at the rôle of the Army in the towns, in the rural areas and on the border. If I have separated them in that way, it is simply to emphasise that perhaps the rôle of the security forces is different in those three circumstances.
The question of the number of troops and the degree of flexibility we can produce are closely bound together. What we are aiming for is the minimum number of troops actually in Northern Ireland which the needs of the situation require, together with the maximum degree of flexibility and speed in response to any change in the situation. It will be possible in the next few weeks to withdraw one unit from Northern Ireland, and this will come from the Londonderry area. In preparation for this we have, with the Chief Constable, taken steps to ensure that there will be a consequential increase in civil policing in Londonderry.
At the same time we shall be mounting special operations as the situation may require—as, for example, the massive search operation in the Ormeau Road last week. Today a temporary reinforcement of two companies has been dispatched to Northern Ireland at the request of the GOC to assist the troops already there in a major operation designed to prevent movement of arms and explosives into the cities. If, as seems possible, we are able to develop this approach of increased flexibility in our military response, there will be further

1469
limited withdrawals of troops actually stationed in Northern Ireland in the course of the year. Let no one suppose that this implies any weakening in our determination to deal with terrorists. As I said in the House on Monday,
"I pledge this Government to act resolutely to deal with the terrorists from wherever they come."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 1st April 1974; Vol. 871, c. 881–82.]
The House will be interested in the successes of security operations. For example, in the year between 1st April 1973 and 1st April 1974 the security forces searched over 4 million cars and removed from terrorists' hands nearly 1.600 weapons and over 35 tons of explosives, 19 tons found before it was made into bombs and 16 tons found in made-up bombs. In the same period of a year, 1,292 terrorists have been charged with criminal offences, almost all of them of a very serious nature ranging from murder to armed robbery.
Let me say again quite clearly and categorically that sufficient numbers of the Army will remain in Northern Ireland to assist in maintaining law and order. But we believe that in the long term it must be the community itself and normal police activities, not military operations alone, which will finally defeat the terrorist.
Let me emphasise, as I indicated to the House in my statement on Monday, that there is a lot that can be done by self-help. I was very glad to learn that there was a recent meeting in Belfast between the security forces and the traders and their representative bodies in which a number of new ideas for improving security in the city centres were put forward. These are being assessed, and I hope that out of them may come definite measures to improve security against the bomber.
I recognise the difficulties, but there is no doubt that security in stores and shops in many parts of Northern Ireland could be more effective than it is. The hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) knows from practical experience what I mean by that. To take Lisburn, for example, which has suffered severe damage in the town centre, several months ago the security forces strongly recommended that the town centre should be closed to vehicular traffic, but the local
1470
traders felt that to do this would make it really difficult for them to earn a livelihood. Measures to prevent the destruction of city centres are bound to be inconvenient and may well reduce the volume of trade in some cases, but there is a limit to the risks which it is reasonable to run.
Tremendous problems would still remain even if the politically motivated violence on either side were to come to an end. Before the current emergency, armed robbery was an uncommon crime in Northern Ireland, but the total value of goods stolen by armed robbery over the last two years comes close to £11 million. Protection rackets and the other forms of intimidation proliferate. Publicans, hotel managers, small businessmen live under the threat of "pay up or be blown up".
The influence of parents, schools and Churches has given way to the influence of the terrorist and the gunman. Thus, a whole generation of young men and women is growing up in Northern Ireland who often lack not only the opportunity of honest employment, but also any desire or incentive to take it up. This indeed is a problem which calls for the united effort of the community as a whole, and, indeed, it is one which must be of deep concern to the United Kingdom as a whole. We must and will tackle it together, and I look to all the people in Northern Ireland to support me in this and to show that they have the will and determination to re-create a peaceful and orderly society.
I turn now to the question of the law and violence in the context of Northern Ireland. There is a special problem here. There are para-military forces in Northern Ireland. There is bombing. There are sectarian murders. I remind the House that 717 were killed in the last two years alone: the Army and the reserves, 195; the police and the reserves, 30; civilians, 492. It occurs to me every day as we talk here about political action that it is extremely difficult for some people with the memories of their families and friends and killings to concentrate their minds as we think that they should.
The extent of damage to property has been evidenced by the amount of compensation that has been claimed—about £110 million since 1969.

1471
Without going into the history of it all, it was to meet this situation that there is now on the statute book the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, which has two parts which deal with fundamental issues of justice—first, modification procedures in the courts and, secondly, the provisions for detention by Commissioners.
As I said in the House when the Bill was being debated, we did not deny the Government a Second Reading because of the peculiar situation in Northern Ireland, but we had grave criticisms and doubts about it. We shall therefore want to make some changes in the legislation. In the meantime, we have to face the fact that the Emergency Provisions Act will run out in July of this year. We cannot be ready with fresh legislation by then. I am not prepared to leave the security forces without any cover while we talk here in the House of Commons about the best way of providing changes in the law which we think necessary. I shall therefore, at an appropriate time, invite the support of the House for an order extending the duration of the Emergency Provisions Act for a further period.
As a Government we shall be thinking of what changes may be needed but, as the House may recall, I quoted here in December 1972 from a letter which I had written to the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) proposing that a commission should be set up which would examine the question of the maintenance of the rule of law in circumstances such as those which have prevailed in Northern Ireland in recent years. I think that there is still need for an inquiry on these lines.
I have therefore decided, in consultation with the Attorney-General, to set up a committee to undertake this task. Lord Gardiner has accepted the chairmanship, and the terms of reference are as follows:
"to consider what provisions and powers, consistent to the maximum extent practicable in the circumstances with the preservation of civil liberties and human rights, are required to deal with terrorism and subversion in Northern Ireland, including provisions for the administration of justice, and to examine the working of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. 1973; and to make recommendations."
1472
I will announce the other members as soon as possible but I can say now that Northern Ireland will be well represented.
I shall not, however, wait for the recommendations of that committee before beginning to deal with the difficult problem of detention. There was a clear statement in the Sunningdale communiqué of the policy of the then administration on detention. It was as follows:
"The conference took note of a reaffirmation by the British Government of their firm commitment to bring detention to an end in Northern Ireland for all sections of the community as soon as the security situation permits…"
This is our policy.
But I believe that we must try a fresh approach and one that engages the help of local communities as much as possible. Simply to release people without any assistance is not enough, and there is within Northern Ireland a fund of good will which can be used to help us to bring the released detainees back into the life of the community. I therefore propose to begin a phased programme for releasing detainees and I am considering whether they can be assigned to sponsors in their homes who will undertake at least a measure of responsibility for their good behaviour and help them to become assimilated once more in local life and to avoid becoming involved again in violence.
In all this I believe that the social service departments of the Northern Ireland Executive can make a major and constructive contribution, and I include in this the making use, where appropriate, of Government training centres, which could prove of great importance.
I have asked my hon. Friend the Minister of State to carry out an urgent study of all this in close consultation with members of the Executive. As well as the various Government agencies in Northern Ireland, there are voluntary organisations which I am sure would be willing and able to play a positive part in this vital work of resettlement.
Mr. James Kilfedder: It has been widely reported in the Press that the security forces have been gravely concerned about the Government's intention to release batches of detainees. Is

1473
the Secretary of State now saying to the House that the security forces feel it right in present circumstances to release detainees despite the fact that they are reported as saying that these men go back to violence or are training youngsters to plant bombs, to shoot and to destroy?
Mr. Rees: As far as I am concerned no matter where these people come from—whatever side of the community—they will be dealt with firmly. I advise the hon. Gentleman not to believe everything he reads in newspapers.
I have consulted everybody who has to be consulted about the proposals I am now making including, absolutely firmly, the security forces.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The studies which my right hon. Friend has mentioned are to be welcomed. However, as the composition of the committee to be chaired by Lord Gardiner has not been finalised, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of us would like to see on the Gardiner Committee an American, with some experience of Vietnam in the 1960s—a Frenchman with experience of Algeria in the 1950s, or one of our own people with experience of Palestine in the 1940s?
Mr. Rees: The appointments to the committee may not necessarily be on the judicial side, but people with experience of this kind are vital. It has not been a new discovery for me to find that situations in Palestine, Cyprus or Vietnam are rather different from those in a society in which the indigenous people are at each other's throats. This is the basic point, and so the situation in Northern Ireland is rather different from that in Vietnam, which involved people who were going into the country from elsewhere.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: How many of the detainees who have been released from detention since detention began have been recommitted to detention for further crimes which they have committed?
Mr. Rees: I have recommitted a small number who have gone back to their old activities. I have no doubt that there are some—
Mr. Killedder: Half of them.
Mr. Rees: That is not true. It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to throw out figures about which he cannot have any idea. That is not good enough in this situation. A small number of people have gone back to committing crime and have been picked up. This is one of the reasons why we are setting up the scheme that I have mentioned. What can one expect of a man from a ghetto area of Belfast when he goes back there from the Maze? He is returning to the environment from which he came, and against such a social background it would require an extremely strong character to resist the temptations which will arise.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend will be aware from the interventions so far that there are two groups of people wanting to keep detention going for their own particular purposes. He will also be aware that under the terms of the Emergency Provisions Act it is within the power of the Secretary of State at the end of a year to indicate those parts of the Act he will not reactivate. Is it his intention to reactivate the whole of the Act, bearing in mind criticism of the Act last year, and notwithstanding that there is to be a committee under Lord Gardiner? Can my right hon. Friend give more details of the sponsor scheme, which is imaginative and is to be welcomed?
Mr. Rees: More will be said about the sponsor scheme later. The point regarding the Emergency Provisions Act is most important. I have discussed this at great length with the Attorney-General and there will be an opportunity when we debate the order to look at these matters further. However, we have already looked at them most carefully and they are apposite to the situation.
Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Does not part of the problem lie inside detention centres where people who are, relatively speaking, not dangerous mix with those who are dangerous, and are thus being contaminated? Is this aspect of the matter receiving more attention, bearing in mind the difficulties of space and accommodation?
Mr. Rees: The hon. Gentleman is right and this is not the first time that this has happened. It is not just places such as

1475
Long Kesh which have become training areas for people who are inside. I hope the House will take it that this proposal to try to break away from that background is a positive means of dealing with the effect of detention or internment or whatever it may be called on the morale and attitude of people who are inside.
In considering future releases of detainees, one of the factors which I should take into account is the extent to which individuals are prepared to take advantage of such facilities as we can offer to help in their return to the ordinary community. At the same time I must make it quite clear—and I dealt with this earlier in reply to a question—that if released detainees return to violence there will be no hesitation in dealing with them.
I wish to deal now with those who have been convicted of terrorist offences by the criminal courts. I gave figures for this earlier—figures of those who had been through the courts and had not been detained. In this House, Governments of whatever party are urged to use the normal processes of the law to arrest people and to bring them to trial.
There is a widespread belief in many quarters that these sentences will not have to be served, and that early release can confidently be expected. I have no intention of introducing an amnesty for people who have been convicted by the due processes of the law of crimes of violence and terrorism in Northern Ireland—crimes of murder and of extreme bestility.
What we are trying to achieve is a restoration of normal political life in Northern Ireland, in which those who want changes are at liberty to argue for them and to try to persuade. As I said in the House on Monday, what I find impossible to understand is the motivation of those, from whichever side they come, who believe that political ends can be achieved by violence or who seek to destroy the Constitution Act and power sharing not by political action but by bombing and killing.
As the House knows, we have consistently expressed doubts about the effectiveness of the whole concept of proscription as laid down in the Emergency
1476
Provisions Act. But this did not and does not in any way imply a willingness to "go soft" on dealing with para-military organisations. The wider matter of proscription as such will be considered by the Committee under Lord Gardiner.
In my view there are signs that on both extreme wings there are people who, although at one time committed to violence, would now like to find a way back to political activity. It is right to encourage this as much as possible. It is the counterpart of our action against those who use violence. Republican Clubs were de-proscribed by the previous administration. I intend to move in the same direction and will bring forward the necessary order to take the Ulster Volunteer Force and Sinn Fein off the list. I make it clear that membership of a de-proscribed organisation is no protection for men of violence, and we fully support the statement in Paragraph 94 of the White Paper that no person
"can expect to be allowed to claim to be acting politically at one moment and then. given what appears a favourable opportunity, to turn to violence and subversion."
Anyone who acts violently, and hon. and right hon. Members know what I have in mind—irrespective of the organisation to which they belong—will be dealt with on the basis of the violence. This is the only way forward.
The Government proposals are based firmly on the policy we have supported in recent years. There is a balance to strike between the political and military action. We pledge our support for action against violence in co-operation with the community. Now is the time to try to make further political progress. Irish politics, like politics in other parts of the world that we know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is full of "maybes". It was W. B. Yeats who said:
"And there is a politician
That has read and thought,
And maybe what they say is true
Of war and war's alarms.…"
There is always the thought, "Maybe it will turn out this way".
I tell the House frankly that there is no simple way to success. In the face of 700 years of history there is no prospect of a simple solution. Such simplicity gets stronger the further from the scene that advocates get.

1477
My first full month in the Province has reinforced one belief I held before, namely that it is the people in Northern Ireland alone who must settle their future, Gael and Scot. Enough of this cry of "Scottish settlers" as if they are not Irish. They have been there for 300 to 400 years. It ill becomes people who have become settlers in other countries for much shorter periods to look down on Protestants in Northern Ireland. They are there, they are Irishmen, and they are proud of their background. What we have to do is to help, no more than that, to find a means of bringing the two communities together.
At the beginning of this Parliament I put our policies before the House. It is only with the overwhelming support of the House that we can maintain the way forward. I ask for such support.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Francis Pym: I begin by congratulating the right hon. Member upon his appointment as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and upon the manner in which he has set about his task. It is a daunting and exacting one. At the outset I can assure him that we on the Opposition benches will do all we can to contribute towards that more peaceful and settled situation in Northern Ireland which everyone so desperately wants to see.
No one can deny that the present period in Northern Ireland is crucially important. There is an intense struggle going on and it is necessary to understand its nature. There are three main elements in it—the IRA campaign which continues unabated, but with varying degrees of intensity, the scale of the political changes in Northern Ireland, which are something approaching a revolution in themselves and which are the outcome of direct rule and the Constitution Act, and, thirdly, the opposition to that Act and all that flows from it, including the Sunningdale agreement.
Everyone in the House knows the time and effort that went into the creation of the Act during the last Parliament. My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) played a key rôle in this and made Herculean efforts to establish a new system of government in the Province and to bring the short period of direct rule to an end. The
1478
heart and core of his achievement was the new power-sharing Executive, and it must be of satisfaction to him and the House to know that among the arguments and controversies that have raged in Northern Ireland recently there has been a remarkable degree of genuine acceptance of the good sense of this arrangement. Even the right hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West), although he wants a different method, supports the principle of power sharing.
Mr. Harry West: This is hardly correct. I have no objection to power sharing but I have a strong objection to the enforced power sharing which we have at the moment.
Mr. Pym: I said that the right hon. Gentleman favoured a different method. Since it took office on 1st January the Executive has been carrying out its work with an admirable determination and cohesion. It has been in existence for only three months. It needs not only time to show and prove its worth and gain the fullest confidence throughout the Province but also a period of calm, because with terrorism at its present level its work must be greatly hampered.
It may be that the establishment of the Executive and its evident success in setting aside the long-standing differences that have existed between different sections of the community is one of the contributory causes of the present upsurge of violence. The Constitution Act is experiencing a double challenge, a challenge from the IRA which must be dealt with ruthlessly and firmly by the security forces—with the help of everyone else—and a challenge from those who do not wish it to succeed because they would prefer to have their own, either sectarian or other political sytem in place of the Executive and the Assembly and appear to be willing to stop at nothing to criticise and occasionaly even abuse those who support the Act, regardless of the consequences.
I assure the House that after the agony and the struggle we have been through we on this side stand foursquare and resolutely behind the Act. We shall continue to give our fullest support and backing to the Executive and all the elements and aspects of the agreement that make power sharing and

1479
the devolution of power to the Executive possible. Let no one think that either bombs or those horrible sectarian killings or that abuse which is sometimes of an hysterical or theatrical and television-orientated nature will deter us from putting our weight behind those who are striving to put the Act into effect.
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has repeated what he said on Monday about the period of time available to the Executive. Four years is the period contained in the Act and time is required because the scale of change for Northern Ireland is very great. It is an error to under-estimate the magnitude of the change which has itself led to certain confusion and even fears about the future. One cannot help but sympathise with those who have been misled as a result. That is why time is needed. We know that in an ordinary Parliament where one party has an overall majority Governments need three or four years to do their work before the country is asked to go to the polls again. It is the same in Northern Ireland. I support what the Secretary of State said on this matter, which is what the House decided.
One of the reasons why emotions have been running high in Northern Ireland in recent weeks is the proposed Council of Ireland. Many wildly inaccurate descriptions of what has been proposed and intended have been—sometimes deliberately it seems—implanted and fostered in people's minds by those wishing to damage the decisions of this House. I understand, of course, that some people are against any Council of Ireland on any basis, and they are entitled to that view and to express it. But we have witnessed in recent months what seems to me to be nothing less than a campaign of exaggeration, if not misrepresentation, designed to create fear or hostility where none need exist. I regret this and believe that it has been positively harmful, because it has caused widespread political uncertainty when calmness and stability was what was required and could have been provided.
I should therefore like to state the position as I believe it to be. Last year the border poll was held to provide an opportunity for the people to make clear their wishes on the status of Northern
1480
Ireland. As expected, the vote was overwhelmingly in favour of Northern Ireland remaining inside the United Kingdom. We, then in Government, accepted that verdict which governed our whole approach to the arrangements eventually formulated.
At the same time, we recognise the reality of the need to assist closer relations between Northern Ireland and the Republic, to make possible much more effective action against terrorism and cooperation on social and economic matters. It was part of the agreement at Sunning-dale to set up a council to further these purposes.
Some people have spent much time in recent weeks peddling the misconception that this House is determined to use the council as a means of pushing the people of Northern Ireland into an Irish Republic. The House knows that there was and is no such intention. The council, as envisaged by all the parties at Sunningdale, provides a means for the discussion and expression of the conflicting aspirations which exist in Ireland—those who seek to aspire towards a united Ireland, and those who seek to retain British citizenship. This double, or split, allegiance, is one of the inherent features of the whole Irish situation.
The proposed council is not designed to make either of those aspirations more difficult or more easy to pursue. It provides a framework with numerous safeguards for the working out by consent of whatever co-operation the representatives of Northern Ireland and the Republic may find mutually beneficial. To underline this intention, consider the safeguards. There could be no decisions in the Council of Ministers without unanimity. No powers could be transferred to the council without the consent of the majority of the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland in the Assembly.
Those are very powerful safeguards, but there is even more than that. A precondition for the setting up of the council was the acceptance by the Irish Republic of the present status of Northern Ireland. That was written into the agreement and, as the Secretary of State said, has been publicly restated since by Mr. Cosgrave. Yet, despite these provisions, there are unionists who maintain that the council

1481
undermines their political aspirations, which, in some cases, seem to be simply to get back to where we were before, which I do not think this House will accept and which, in truth, Northern Ireland itself does not want.
I readily admit that there are some in Northern Ireland who have declared the council to be the vehicle by which a united Ireland will be created. They are fully entitled to hope to achieve that aim by persuasion, just as others are entitled to talk of an amalgamated Ireland, and some most carefully thought out proposals on these lines have come from surprising quarters lately. Yet others are entitled to take a different view of the future, but most certainly it is not in accord with the spirit or letter of the Sunningdale agreement to suggest that the council contains any design to bring about an all-Ireland republic. That is a matter for the people of Northern Ireland to decide. The safeguards speak for themselves and afford the very protection which I believe the unionists, very reasonably, want and are entitled to expect.
I have already said that the Constitution Act and the power-sharing Executive are widely accepted in Northern Ireland. During the election certain hon. Members concentrated their attack entirely on the Council of Ireland and made little criticism of the Executive, which is significant. Some hon. Members from Northern Ireland claim that they come here with a mandate to renegotiate the Constitution Act, but, as far as I am aware, they have put forward no constructive alternative policy; and a negative platform is not really a platform at all.
I confess that the people of Northern Ireland are highly skilled in the art of opposition; I think that that has been shown over the years. Besides, I understand that one of the parties to which a majority of hon. Members from Northern Ireland belong still has as its policy support for the establishment of a regional executive. We in this House realise that the people of Northern Ireland would be under an illusion were they to think that this House had any willingness to water down the Constitution Act and would be extraordinarily reluctant to begin all over again. We have been through too much. We share the longing of the great majority
1482
in Northern Ireland for a time of peace and calm.
Mr. Biggs-Davison: My right hon. Friend does not mean, does he, that the Constitution Act is incapable of improvement and can never be amended?
Mr. Pym: I did not say that. I said that I thought that the House would be extraordinarily reluctant to begin all over again. My hon. Friend is perfectly right.
The Constitution Act is a fair and reasonable framework for government, providing safeguards for the rights of all the people of Northern Ireland. No one need be excluded from a share of power under its provisions, except those who wish to exclude themselves. When some people talk of it as an "imposed" or "undemocratic" solution they sound as though they have forgotten the long hours of debate in this House. The Act has the overwhelming support of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It has the support of a substantial majority of the elected representatives of the Northern Ireland people in the Assembly. It has been formed only after lengthy consultations with all those prepared to play a constructive part.
It is a travesty to describe such a settlement as undemocratic. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and must recognise the decisions of the United Kingdom Parliament. It is worth quoting Mr. Faulkner's words in the Assembly on 19th March:
"I have a simple definition of a Unionist and for that matter a loyal citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He is a person who accepts that the laws of this realm are made by the Queen in Parliament."
I come to the question of violence. Recent experience has been an increased incidence of bombing of a dramatic and horrific kind. Even before that it was at an unacceptably high level. People's anger and dismay are understandable. How can it be, why is it, that these terrible events persist? Essentially they are the work of groups of fanatics into whose vicious mind it is impossible for any ordinary, decent person to enter. There is no logic about it except the expression of murderous hatred. No one can foretell from where or when the next explosion or shot will come, which is one reason why it is extremely difficult to deal with the matter.

1483
The ending of violence is the paramount aim and objective. There was a time when political change was seen as the essential precondition to ending terrorism, and so it may be. But the one has not, at any rate so far, followed the other. The security forces have an appallingly difficult task and work exceptionally hard to give the maximum possible protection. That protection cannot be complete in the sense that the security forces cannot be everywhere all the time, no matter how numerous they are.
It is for that reason that I always took the view that the ending of violence was a task for every man and woman in the Province, and the Secretary of State has expressed himself as being in sympathy with that view. They have their part to play in rooting out the maniacs who bomb, who kill or, indeed, who riot. It is no use passing the buck. There is a need for more information on terrorist activity, and for people on both sides of the sectarian divide to take positive action to ostracise the men of violence in their community. I appreciate the difficulties, especially the intimidation, which is an appalling cruelty.
The people of Northern Ireland have an indespensable rôle to play in this campaign, and they can do it better than anyone else. This is one of the two main reasons why a strengthening of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the RUC Reserve is surely the most urgent and important single step to be taken now. I was very glad indeed to hear what the Secretary of State had to say about that. The problem that we are dealing with is one of policing. The people of Northern Ireland must give their wholehearted support to the force that is doing that work. In the conditions which prevail there, that wholehearted support is likely to be more readily forthcoming for a Northern Ireland force than for any other force.
The second main reason for a strengthening of the RUC and the Reserve is that the British Army cannot stay in Northern Ireland in its present numbers for ever, and at some stage it must reduce to more normal levels. I suppose that one cannot express the objective of our policy more starkly than by saying that it is to reduce the Army to its
1484
normal level. It follows that what we want to see—that is why I was glad to hear what the Secretary of State had to say—is the progressive transfer of what is called security from the Army to the police. We look forward now to seeing the police growing in strength and doing a job which they are designed and best fitted to do. We want to see a situation in which all sections of the community regard the RUC as genuinely their police force and provide recruits for it. After all, the people of Northern Ireland know the people of Northern Ireland better than anyone else. Anyone who wants to make his contribution to seeing the law enforced can best make it by joining the RUC, the RUC Reserve or, indeed, the Ulster Defence Regiment. This would be far more effective than threatening a private enterprise action, which would only give a new twist to violence itself.
There was much discussion at Sunning-dale and after about the need for complete public identification with the police. It was recognised that time would he needed, but it seems to be running out. I was very glad indeed to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he is about to set up the all-party committee referred to in paragraph 17 of the Sunningdale communiqué. I had, indeed, set the wheels in motion that he has now decided to complete. Equally, I am extremely glad to know that he is about to reconstitute the police authority and to include elected representatives from the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Before leaving the subject of violence, about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) will have other things to say when he concludes for the Opposition, I should like to express to the House now a very personal view on one aspect of this deeply disturbing campaign of violence. What I shall say is not a criticism of anyone or anything but is my own genuine opinion.
In the unique circumstances of the present troubles in Northern Ireland, my experience there, short though it was, left me with the inescapable impression that without the slightest intention whatever of doing so, the reporting and presentation of events contributed something however small, to the violence itself. It must be a daunting and often a dangerous

1485
task to be responsible for recording and reporting the frightening incidents which occur. A remarkably able and courageous corps of men bring to the world a factual, accurate and fair account of what is going on. They do a very professional job. But of course, rightly and properly, they go for the most newsworthy events and the most interesting or extraordinary occurrences. That is their job, their profession. But the nature of the most newsworthy incidents is their excitement, controversiality or horror. In the Northern Ireland context, that means that day after day and night after night there is a constant stream of news about all the frightful things that happen. It is accurate reporting, but the end result of the endless stream seems to be at best a flavour of the inevitability of violence and at worst almost a sort of competitive incitement to somebody to do something even more scarifying. In other words, I feel that the cumulative total effect upon people of the continuous presentation of these awful events contains an element of self-perpetuation.
If it were possible for every newspaper and every television and radio channel to base its presentation of events on the deliberate policy, and with the express purpose, of making the best contribution that it could to emphasise the ordinary, the good and the normal and to pay minimal attention to the violent, the mischievous and the theatrical, my belief is that they might have an influence for peace for which millions of people would be deeply thankful. I realise the difficulties of this line of thought, but we are dealing with peace and war, life and limb, and I would think it a sin of omission if any stone was left unturned in the search for peace in Northern Ireland.
The House will take very careful note of what the right hon. Gentleman said on the highly difficult subject of detention. It is so difficult, it seems to me, because the self-evident need to lock up murderers and terrorists who are hell-bent on destruction and disruption is in conflict with the aim of bringing detention to an end ultimately. It is a running sore in the community, but so are the people detained a running sore. They cannot have it both ways, and yet we
1486
have to have it both ways. There has been criticism of the releases. I bear my full responsibility for some of them. But the Sunningdale proposition seemed to me, as to all parties at the conference, sensible and sound. The right hon. Gentleman read it out, and it is a sound, right and wise policy
I welcome the announcement that the right hon. Gentleman made about a review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act. Certainly I give wholehearted support to what he said about his plans for taking trouble about those who are released at some stage or other, in some circumstance or other, to take part in work at Government training centres or through the help of voluntary organisations. I have no doubt that this is absolutely the right machinery to set up.
I should like to ask the Minister of State to say something about the courts in Northern Ireland. How many accused are awaiting trial? Can the manning of the courts be increased? Is not undue delay there damaging, and would it not be better if this could be accelerated? I am sure that the House would agree that the position of the courts and the judiciary is important. We should like to hear something about that.
I turn now to the Republic and the contribution that the Republic can make. There are those in Northern Ireland who can hardly bear to hear the word "Republic" mentioned. But it has a vital rôle to play not only in security but over a whole range of matters where cooperation on an all-Ireland basis is the only sensible way to proceed. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned a number of these matters. Electricity supply is obviously an example, but there are plenty of others. There is no justification for any political mistrust, especially if that mistrust is based on events of 50 years ago. Those of us who have met and talked with Mr. Cosgrave and his colleagues completely accept their good will and good intentions in the matter of North-South relations and the ending of terrorism.
There was a time, particularly after Sunningdale, when the magnitude and the urgency of the situation in the North did not appear or seem to be as fully appreciated in the South as it might have

1487
been. Perhaps there was a weakness in communication or expression of the real concern of the Government of the Republic, but at any rate there was an inadequate response to the doubts that were fostered and then allowed to grow. Strenuous efforts have been made to correct this impression and action has been taken in a number of ways. We have heard that an extra 500 men are to be recruited to the Gardai. There has been the first meeting for many decades between the Chief Constable of the RUC and the Commissioner of the Gardai. The Legal Commission has been hard at work. I am very glad to hear that its report will be ready soon. I am certain that much importance will attach to what it says about fugitive offenders. This is an area in which urgent action is needed.
Co-operation on security between North and South is fundamental to the whole situation to ensure that no part of Ireland provides a haven for terrorists. It has taken time for the will of the Republic Government to deal with terrorists to be translated into action on the ground at the border. The platoons each side of the border must co-operate no less than the generals. I hope that the best possible radio communications are being provided so that the local forces on each side can keep in the closest touch, and that there are regular meetings now at all levels of command. I was most interested to hear what the Secretary of State said about military reinforcements going to carry out an exercise either on the outskirts of Belfast or along the border.
We heard at the start that there are many right hon. and hon. Members who want to speak and I have therefore trespassed long enough on the time of the House. However, none of us can feel other than anxiety about the situation in the Province. There is tension in the community and a sense of frustration. Any attempt at analysis reveals the labyrinthine complexity of the emotions and the prejudices that go to make up the mixture that is Northern Ireland. We on these benches have spared no time or effort to contribute everything of which we are capable, regardless of cost, to try to restore peace and calm, and I know that the Government will do the same. Though now the Opposition, we shall
1488
continue our endeavours unabated. I believe that the influence of this House on Northern Ireland is very great and I urge every right hon. and hon. Member to use his influence and weight to help to bring peace back to this part of the kingdom.
5.11 p.m.
Captain L. P. S. Orr: The sense of unreality that anyone from Ulster feels in this debate is almost breathtaking. It passes belief. I wonder what some of the widows of those who have lost their lives in Ulster would think were they sitting in the Gallery now.
We had high hopes of the Secretary of State. We watched him during the long debates on the White Paper, the Constitution Act and the rest when he was leading for the Opposition and we took him for a sensible, sensitive, wise and reasonable man. It is astonishing to me, and I say this to him with all courtesy, that we should now hear reiterated, as if nothing whatever had happened, all the old arguments that were used by the previous Government when they were in office. It is the most extraordinary situation. It is simply to ignore the fact that there has been a General Election and it is to ignore totally and absolutely that the Ulster people have expressed their views about this matter in the most unmistakable manner. It is astounding to those of us who come from Ulster that both sides of the House appear to behave as if absolutely nothing had happened.
During those long debates I wearied not only the House but myself by arguing that the Constitution Act, the assumptions upon which it was based, and all the assumptions that lay behind the Sunningdale Agreement, were founded upon an illusion. One of the most important illusions was that they would command the assent and consent of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. I said repeatedly that they did not. I can well understand the House at that time and before the General Election thinking that my analysis was wrong. I can understand the House thinking, in the light of the advice that Ministers were getting then from other quarters, that I might be mistaken, but how anyone could assume that now, in the light of what has happened, is something which is impossible to understand.

1489
The Ulster people have used the election to express their opinion plainly about three matters. The first concerns the restoration of order. Secondly, they have emphatically and overwhelmingly rejected the assumptions that lie behind the Sunningdale Agreement. The third—and here I take issue with the Secretary of State—concerns the Constitution Act.
The right hon. Gentleman distinguished between Sunningdale and the formation of the Executive, but he will remember that one depended upon the other. It was not the Executive which went to Sunningdale, but the Executive-designate. If agreement had not been reached at Sunningdale it is doubtful whether the Executive would have come into being and it is doubtful whether the House would have passed the order in council devolving the powers. Thus the two are inextricably linked and must be taken together. If the Ulster people have rejected one they have rejected them both.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I regret that I shall he unable to stay for very much longer because I have had an urgent call. Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not suggesting that after eight weeks on an important issue of this kind a General Election for the Westminster Parliament could be taken as the deciding factor. Of course, the people of Ulster will have to decide. All we are arguing is that after eight weeks the General Election cannot possibly be regarded as the time to decide.
Captain Orr: The right hon. Gentle-man is quite wrong. It was the first opportunity that the Ulster people had to express their views about the Sunning-dale Agreement.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): After eight weeks?
Captain Orr: Is the hon. Member seriously arguing that it is necessary to wait a long period of years before this House can express its views about an international agreement which has been entered into? Is he telling his constituents that that is the right attitude to take about the EEC? An agreement was entered into at Sunningdale. That agreement was brought before the House. The Northern Ireland representatives here made it plain that they did not approve
1490
of it. The Northern Ireland electorate was asked whether it approved or not and decisively said it did not. The electorate rejects Sunningdale because the whole edifice of a Council of Ireland is totally and absolutely unnecessary.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has argued that many things contained in the agreement might have been necessary. It is certainly necessary to deal with the question of fugitive offenders. They could be very easily dealt with by an extradition treaty. There are certainly many economic matters which are of common concern to our part of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, but there is no need for the erection of an elaborate organisation with a Council of Ministers and an Assembly drawn from the two Parliaments in Ireland, and for the erection of a secretariat and everything that goes with it. They are unnecessary, and, therefore, there must have been another reason.
This edifice has been created to deceive someone. As I said during our previous debate on the matter, it is designed to deceive. It is designed either to enable the Government of the Irish Republic to deceive their people into thinking "Yes, we are moving towards a united Ireland", and to help the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) to deceive his supporters into thinking "Yes, we in the SDLP are making advances towards a United Ireland", or to deceive the Ulster people. It is one or the other. With the veto provisions and everything else built into it, it is an elaborate piece of deception. The people of Ulster, whichever side of the political fence they are on, are sufficiently mature to recognise deception when they see it.
It is not only unwise of the House. It is leading towards a major catastrophe if the House builds its political concepts and methods of dealing with such a situation upon that kind of illusion.
Mr. Ronald Bell: Is not this a familiar technique, saying, "By this you are committed to nothing", and then in a few years' time asking, "Do you want to reverse all of this process, which has become established and which was scarcely controversial at the time?" It is, first of all, too soon and then too late.
Captain Orr: My hon. and learned Friend's analysis is absolutely correct, as his analyses usually are. It is true, and the people of Ulster know that it is true. They know perfectly well that if they went forward, and were led, along those lines they would in clue course find themselves in the very trap that my hon. and learned Friend suggests. They know it, and they have expressed their view in the ballot box in no uncertain terms.
The other thing that the people of Ulster said was that the constitution was undemocratic. Here I must deal with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, the former Secretary of State. He says that it is nonsense to suggest that the constitution is undemocratic. But of course it is. One has only to think about it. The Parliament of Northern Ireland was removed, and in its place there has been put an Assembly elected by proportional representation. It does not have the same powers as the Parliament of Northern Ireland had. Major powers are reserved to this House—power of taxation, power over internal security and power over defence. The three major powers that any Government should have are reserved to this House, where Northern Ireland is grossly and unfairly under-represented. How could that conceivably be democratic by any yardstick that can be imagined?
One expects that kind of argument from the former Secretary of State, because he has to defend the policy. We understand that, because he was one of its architects. What we cannot understand is why the right hon. Gentleman who has just come into office should defend it so vehemently and adamantly, without proper consideration. What I object to, and think is so unwise of the Government, is that they do not say, "We will take a little time. We will look at the effect of the policies and consult people in Northern Ireland. Above all, we will take account of the clearly and unmistakably expressed view of the Ulster people." The new Secretary of State's decision is one of the greatest unwisdom, which I thought he would not take.
What is the answer to the situation in Northern Ireland? How on earth will anybody get out of the difficulty in which the House finds itself? The first thing the House must do is to rid itself of
1492
certain illusions. It must get out of the habit of thinking that it is possible to reconcile the irreconcilable. It cannot be done. One cannot at the same time say that one can support the people who ultimately believe in a united Ireland and those who believe in maintaining and strengthening the link that binds us to the rest of the United Kingdom. Those two ultimate aims cannot be reconciled. The House cannot base its policy upon trying to reconcile them, because it will not work.
I say to the House, "What you must do is to decide which of the ultimate aims you support". The House must decide whether it intends to support the union with Great Britain or to make its ultimate objective a united Ireland—one or the other. It cannot do something in between. It will mean endless bloodshed, endless murder, more widows and more anarchy, if the House does not come to a decision as to its ultimate aims.
If it is the intention of the House to support the union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland it must found its policy upon that basis. It must begin by seeing that Northern Ireland is represented in the House in the proper way, and it must make it plain that whatever constitution is ultimately evolved for Northern Ireland, whether a Kilbrandon-type assembly or whatever, it must be based upon the will of the majority and command the assent of the majority.
That is not to say that the House does not have the right to write in any kind of constitutional safeguard it thinks necessary for what is of necessity a permanent minority within the State. Certainly it has that right, and every fair-minded person would support that view, but the House cannot have it both ways. It cannot try to erect in Ireland a structure designed ultimately to facilitate a move towards an all-Ireland republic and at the same time tell the people of Northern Ireland "It is our intention to maintain the union as long as you wish" The two things are irreconcilable.
I tell the House solemnly—and it may well be the last chance for the House—that if it ignores the expressed will of the vast majority of the Unionist people of Northern Ireland, of the people who wish to maintain the union with Great Britain, and if it does not take note of

1493
their wishes, the House cannot lecture the people of Northern Ireland about acting in a political way. They have already acted in a political way: they have been to the ballot box. If the House ignores the freely expressed will of the majority of the people of Ulster, a will expressed in the ballot box, it is upon the hands of the House that future blood will lie.
We who represent Northern Ireland have asked our people constantly to act constitutionally. We have condemned the men of violence. We have done our best. If the House now rejects what we are saying, other men will do their worst.
5.19 p.m.
Sir Peter Rawlinson: The hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has made an impressive and eloquent speech. I fear that I am one of those whom the hon. and gallant Gentleman must naturally make his target, because I was one of the architects of the system about which he complains.
I fully understand the hon. and gallant Gentleman's comments. As an English Member, I learnt a great deal about Northern Ireland when I visited it practically every week in the two years in which I had a responsibility in Northern Ireland. The dangers and the difficulties were clear, but the difficulty came in trying to find a solution. It is so difficult in Ireland to find a solution which would solve or go towards solving the problems of the Province.
We have heard the impressive words of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South. Such a speech could equally be made—perhaps not such an impressive one—on behalf of the other faction in calling for the House of Commons to put right what it believes to be the wrongs which were imposed upon it.
I do not want to join in controversy with the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I have a purpose in speaking today—namely, to bring to the attention of the House a matter on which there is considerable feeling. I refer to the complaint which has been made by the Government of the Republic of Ireland to the European Commission of Human Rights which accuses the United Kingdom of being guilty of some of the gravest crimes ever alleged by one sovereign State against another. The
1494
accusations relate not only to what is said to have occurred before the United Kingdom took full and direct responsibility but to the months in which United Kingdom Ministers had responsibility.
Two main accusations have been made to the international forum to which I have referred. The first accusation was that the United Kingdom was guilty of the administrative practice of shooting civilians. That was peremptorily dismissed some 18 months ago. The second accusation is that the United Kingdom is guilty of the administrative practice of inhuman or degrading treatment, or torture, of persons held in custody. By the jurisprudence of the commission an administrative practice is defined as official tolerance of acts of torture in the sense that the superiors of those immediately responsible, though knowing about such acts, take no action to punish those responsible or to prevent repetition of such acts, or that higher authority, in the face of numerous allegations, manifests indifference.
The Republic alleges not only that torture takes place and took place hut that higher authority is indifferent to it. The Government of the Republic are thereby accusing in an international forum not only the senior ranks of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the British Army, the administrative service of the Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland civil servants, but United Kingdom Ministers of what I can only describe as the vilest conduct which could be alleged against other human beings.
At the same time Ministers of the Republic negotiate at Sunningdale, dine at Downing Street and call for friendly co-operation between the two States. The Republic should be well aware that since March 1972 the sternest instructions and orders have been given and that impartial machinery of prosecution has been established. There have been warnings that immediate prosecution will follow for assaults of persons in custody. The impartial machinery which has been established is headed by one of the most distinguished public servants in Northern Ireland who has the confidence of all sections of the community. Indeed, some prosecutions have followed.
In a country where there is a Bench and a Bar which is well recognised on both sides of the border to contain men

1495
of distinction and impartility, it should be recognised when wrong has been done that either a prosecution will follow or that a person brings, and has brought successfully, a claim in the High Court in Northern Ireland for remedy by way of damages. I do not believe that the Taoiseach, Mr. Cosgrave, of whom I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) saw much at Sunningdale, wishes to continue the ugly and protracted proceedings to which I have referred, which are now in their third year.
The jurisprudence of the convention calk for a method of providing an honourable settlement. That is what could and should happen. The continuation of these, proceedings bedevils the relationship between men of good will. The persistence of the Government of the Republic in pressing these accusations causes intense resentment to those who have had and who now have responsibility. That persistence has dismayed those who would normally be the friends of the Government of the Republic. It has increased the suspicion of moderates—and there are many moderates and decent people in Northern Ireland—of the rôle and motives of the Government or the Republic. All that it has done is to harden the attitudes of the extremists. Its persistence has been applauded only by the extremists on both sides in Northern Ireland.
There may be those around the Government of Northern Ireland who may he happy to see the present situation continue. There may be others who fear the political consequences of abandoning such proceeding. I suggest that now is the time when there is a need for political courage on the part of Ministers, the kind of courage which has been shown by Mr. Faulkner and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) I hope that when tomorrow the Prime Minister speaks with the Taoiseach he will refer to the proceedings which make such grave and unwarranted accusations against the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the British Army, British administrators and British Ministers. Such an attitude does disservice not so much to those who are accused as to Ireland itself.
5.38 p.m.
Mr. Robert J. Bradford: I believe that it is customary for an hon. Member making a maiden speech to indulge in some pleasantries, but such is the grave situation in Northern Ireland that I shall have to set aside those pleasantries and get down to the facts which unfortunately some hon. Members on both sides of the House will not face.
I am privileged to represent Belfast, South. It is a constituency in which there are two distinct groupings. It is largely a residential constituency. It contains many working-class people and a tremendous number of professional and managerial people. Many of those people are in positions of great trust and responsibility in the commercial and professional life of Belfast. I represent a constituency which is far from having a kind of backwoodsman mentality. It has a broad cross-section of the population of Northern Ireland.
There are some questions which I believe our people are asking themselves tonight. The first question is when this honourable House will give the British Army—our army—and the Royal Ulster Constabularly the freedom which they need to deal fully and completely with terrorism. We have been told of recent initiatives. One such initiative took place in my constituency. An Army search took place in the Ormeau Road but no such search was conducted in the Markets area, a renowned terrorist area from which bombs and terrorists exude. It is a well-known fact, which apparently is admitted by the security forces in Northern Ireland, that the bomb which created such havoc during the weekend in the centre of Belfast came from the Markets area.
The second question which our folk are asking is when the British Government will cease deliberately to miss the point. It is not enough to align the UDA and the UVF with the IRA. It is not enough to state that the Protestant extremists are as bad as the Republican extremists. We in the United Ulster Party deplore so-called Protestant Ulster extremists. We deplore any man who bombs, kills or shoots in our name. He does not fight our cause. He does not fight our battle. But we must remember

1497
that the violence and the terrorism began with the IRA. It continues under the clear auspices of that movement, and because of the ineptitude of this House and of the forces under strict political control there was reaction, and there still is reaction.
Another piece of casuistry can be found in the Secretary of State's continual references to the Ulster Freedom Fighters. It might interest the House to know that, when Senator Fox was murdered, within minutes the UFF claimed responsibility, but the security forces of the Republic are perfectly clear and aware that the IRA committed the murder. Not one single case involving the UFF has come forward to my knowledge for trial, and not one person claiming to be a member of the UFF has been brought before our courts. It really will not do for the issue to be clouded deliberately by such casuistry by the present Government.
We are always asked to accept democratic rule by a democratic body. We are prepared to accept the democratic ruling of this democratic House as long as the content of its legislation is democratic in itself. But that is not the case with the Constitution Act, which disgraces the very name and concept of democracy. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) has elaborated on that point, and I shall not take the time of this honourable House in reiterating his statement.
The Constitution Act bears no resemblance to democratic legislation. Indeed, it is interesting to note that this House refuses some of the things involved and included in the Act because they do not reflect the kind of traditions which obtain in the United Kingdom. For example, there was refusal to accept power sharing in this House but for the Ulster people it is regarded as being the only answer. We have in the Constitution Act a distortion and a freak of democracy. The great Lion of Judah has brought forth a subtle, slimy snake called Sunningdale, and we are asked to accept that this is British democracy.
I think that the root cause of the confusion is the fact that in Northern Ireland there is an attempt by aspirants and supporters of one sovereign State to disinherit another sovereign State. I do not care how far one goes back in history—whether
1498
it be three, four or seven centuries or even to William the Conqueror; the facts are simple. The people of Northern Ireland are citizens of the United Kingdom. They are under attack by the aspirants and the supporters of another sovereign State and there has been the deliberate confusion of a political issue with a religious issue.
This honourable House would never conceive of a time when, if there were enough of them, the Pakistanis here would declare that this island, because they had a majority, should become a colony of Pakistan. Morally, however, there is no difference in the situation in Ulster. Ulster is British. Ulster wishes to remain British. Ulster does not want to be disinherited and will not be disinherited.
I have not attempted today to rattle the sabre. I will not attempt at this stage to rattle the sabre. But I warn this honourable House, as my hon. and gallant Friend has done, that the people of Northern Ireland will not take for ever the rejection of their democratically expressed views and opinions.
I had hoped that the Labour Government would indulge in honest, open government. They made that claim at the beginning of the Session with reference to other parliamentary matters. They have promised the country, and rightly so, to look again at the EEC membership into which we were dragged without the consultation which had been promised. They have said that they will look for the mind of the United Kingdom on that issue.
Why, then, are the Government denying the Ulster people precisely the same right to express their opinion on a matter which is so very dear to our hearts—our continued membership of this wonderful and historic nation? We ask for nothing more than to be permitted to remain British and to have that status safeguarded, not by the devious document called the Constitution Act, but in clear, explicit terms which can and must and, I trust, will go from this honourable House. There are faithful sons and daughters in Ulster tonight who are waiting for the return of a prodigal mother.
5.48 p.m.
Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: The hon. Member for Belfast. South (Mr. Bradford) disclaimed at the

1499
outset of his maiden speech his intention to call in aid the courtesies and conventions of the House. I wish that I could call them in aid in following him. I think that you in your charity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would at least expect me to welcome him to this honourable House, but I hope you will accept that it would require a deranged sense of generosity, not only on my part but on the part of many other hon. Members, for me to compliment the hon. Member on his speech.
The hon. Gentleman may decide on reflection that his reference to Pakistanis was most uncalled for, not only because of its obvious connotation but also because it did his argument a disservice. It only requires a slight acquaintance with Irish history to recognise who would be the hon. Gentleman's Pakistanis in the Irish context. But I push the argument no further because I want to do all I can to reconcile both communities, not to apply the indigenous label to either community, and therefore to ascribe no more right to one community than to the other.
In all my speeches in this House about Ireland, I have tried to strike that kind of note. In the speech that I made when the House was recalled in September two years ago, I argued that a united Ireland, if it had any appeal, would provide a basis for constituents like those of the hon. Member and his colleagues who are here with him today to join forces with their fellow Irishmen elsewhere in Ireland and to work with them. This would give them a bigger stage on which they could really exercise their talents and not condemn them for ever to a constricted society, philosophically as well as physically.
So I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman used that argument. I welcomed his repudiation of so-called Protestant terrorists, although I was less prepared to accept his doubt whether the UFF actually exists. But I cannot accept his description of the Constitution Act or of the Sunningdale Agreement. I think he described it as a case of the British lion having brought forth a sullen and slimy snake called Sunningdale.
I value Sunningdale, for three reasons.
Mr. Carol Mather: Is it not customary to pull out the good things in
1500
a maiden speech and ignore those things with which one does not agree? Would not that be a more generous way of responding to a maiden speech?
Mr. Duffy: It is a little premature of the hon. Gentleman to make that kind of criticism. If it is to be made at all, it should surely come later. I am only just starting my speech and I may yet meet the hon. Gentleman's wishes.
I was saying that I value Sunningdale for three reasons. First, it forms a basis for rapprochement not only between the two communities in Northern Ireland but between the six counties of Ulster and the remaining 26 counties of the island of Ireland. Second, it acknowledges that the Northern Ireland crisis, with which Sunningdale dealt, is essentially an Irish problem that Ireland, North and South, will in the main have to resolve. Whitehall is, of course, vitally interested, militarily as well as financially, but the last administration and the present one take the same view—that the Northern Ireland crisis must be resolved finally between Irishmen. Third, the institutions proposed at Sunningdale, noticeably those providing for the Irish dimension, must have the capacity for growth, providing that the will is present.
Inevitably, there has been a reaction to Sunningdale. It could not have been otherwise. Sunningdale is not a facile solution. Given the structure of politics in Northern Ireland, historically it was only to be expected that there would be opposition. Too much significance, however, should not be attached to the return of the hon. Member for Belfast, South and the other 10 of his colleagues from those 11 of the 12 Ulster constituencies who have been treated in the Press as having returned anti-Sunningdale candidates to sit in this House.
After all—I am trying to be charitable —what do we see when we look at them? We see men who have no real philosophy of politics—
Mr. Bradford: Oh.
Mr. Duffy: Well, I have here the latest utterance of the hon. Member's leader, contained in a letter in yesterday's Daily Telegraph. That letter gives me no grounds for taking any other view or for believing that he and his colleagues have changed at all in outlook, that they

1501
have advanced one iota, despite all the events of recent years.
Without being offensive, they are men who have no real philosophy of politics, who no longer have any links with any party in this House—that could not be said in the previous Parliament or in any Parliament in the last 60 years—men whose insistent proclamations of loyalty to the Crown are increasingly embarrassing to everyone here who has to listen to them, men who appear to promise nothing more than a return to the plain old-style bigotry. Their exclusion from the Sunningdale talks was entirely their own fault and their recalcitrance has constituted a grave obstacle to the acceptance of the agreement.
Let them be in no doubt, however, that any success that they claim in recent weeks has been not against a particular party to the agreement in Ireland but rather against this House and against British policy, against the known wishes of more than 600 hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, we have had evidence in their public speeches in recent weeks that they aware of this. Their speeches are becoming increasingly directed against the British Government as well as against those of their former Unionist colleagues like the Assembly Unionists who accept and are courageously trying to implement the policy of this House.
I suggest that if the tactics in Stormont of hon. Members on that bench are any guide, they believe that they can succeed only by bullying, by persisting, that is to say, in tactics that they dare not introduce in this House. We know of their two faces, especially one of their number. We know that he is quite a different person here from what he is in Northern Ireland, judging by the reports that we read in the Press in the Library about his behaviour and tactics at Stormont.
I submit that these men will not succeed in the Assembly in Belfast if the Assembly Unionists, the SDLP and the Alliance keep their nerve. After all, the Assembly Unionists have a policy, even if they have to be stiffened in its application. They are also fortunate in their colleagues in the SDLP and the Alliance.
It was not the SDLP who were defeated by hon. Members opposite. It is not the SDLP who continually claim that they
1502
are being let down here or are disappointed there. It is not as if the SDLP had got all they wanted from Sunningdale. They still want the police reform and an end to internment, not to mention the Irish dimension. But this has not prevented them from getting down to the job of representation in the Assembly and of government on the Executive or from appearing before the people on all possible occasions to explain and justify.
That is the right attitude. As a result, new reputations are being won. Nothing has given me and some of my hon. Friends more satisfaction than to know that one or two members of the Executive are being remarkably successful in the discharge of their responsibilities.
I hope that the SDLP will continue in this way, however bitter the short-term disappointments, however rough the going. I hope, above all, that they will avoid any threats of withdrawal and simply put their heads down and get on with the job, working for the good of all the community. When they talk they should talk positively and straight, do it often and go on television and the radio as often as they can to tell the people of Northern Ireland just what is being done on the Executive by them and their colleagues.
That is the way to defeat hon. Members opposite. I recognise that there will be difficulties, but there are also opportunities. The old Unionist monolith has gone for ever. Real politics have burst openly on the scene and that explains some of the difficulties. Mr. Faulkner represents a body of Unionists, however, who recognise this change, this fundamental break with the past, who are facing up not only to the omissions of the past but also to the hopes of the future.
This policy, based on power sharing, is not only the best hope of peace in Northern Ireland, it is the only apparent hope of securing the consent of the two communities. There is no other way. Mr. Faulkner may have experienced disappointment, but that is not unknown in parliamentary life. He may have experienced defections, but parliamentary leaders elsewhere experience them. He may be in a minority, but so are we, yet we do not behave as though Parliament will end next week and we shall

1503
be out on our necks. There is a different climate in our party than there was a few weeks ago.
If Mr. Faulkner had seriously contested the recent election he must have increased the pro-Sunningdale vote. I ask the House to make a little analysis, to look at the constituencies, at the distribution of candidates and at the constituencies which were contested and to slot in a Mr. Faulkner candidate here and there. I ask hon. Members to make an assessment of the outcome, not of course of the success of the Faulkner candidates, but of the SDLP candidates and to have some regard for the aggregate vote at the end.
Mr. John Dunlop rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet addressing the House at one time. Mr. Duffy.
Hon. Members: Give way.
Mr. Duffy: I do not think that I have to give way. What I am saying is a matter of opinion. I am inviting hon. Members who disagree to make an analysis in the way I have suggested. They may then see that it is probable that there would have been a different outcome. There must have been a bigger pro-Sunningdale vote, and it is possible that more SDLP candidates would have been elected.
Captain Orr: If the hon. Gentleman is so confident of that, why does he oppose holding a general election for the Council of Ireland now?
Mr. Duffy: I will come to that. We must not ignore current realities. There are many Ulster Loyalists who oppose any institutional links with the Irish Republic, but the question must continually be posed: why do they do so? Few would deny the need for co-operation in economic and social spheres. Increasingly as time goes on we hear the call for cooperation on grounds of security, even by the military authorities. It is futile to argue any longer against the Irish dimension. The longer the crisis continues, the more it will be seen by people in Northern Ireland—as already it is seen by
1504
the majority of the people in this country —that the key to the crisis and its resolution is Southern Ireland. It is no longer London, it is Dublin.
Opposition to a Council of Ireland is not based on economic realism and other emergent realisms. It is based on a misguided notion of what the Council of Ireland purports to do, as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) recognised. That suits the book of hon. Gentlemen opposite well, and it can be met and contained only by public discussion, which means carrying the argument to them and, in short, doing what John Hume was obliged to do last week on Irish television.
There can be no going back. Any hon. Gentleman opposite who suffers from the delusion that we can go back to the drawing board, back to square one, should remember that we now have as Prime Minister a man who made a remarkable speech in November 1971 on Ireland and not merely on the crisis in the north of Ireland and put forward 15 points for reunification. I say that with the greatest respect to the Leader of the Opposition, for whom I have the greatest regard, when I consider his record in Northern Ireland, as well as that of his Secretary of State.
What of the future? However sombre the present scene, there are some hopeful aspects. Like some of my hon. Friends, I go to Northern Ireland as often as I can. I was there a few days ago, a few weeks before that and a few weeks before that. I have been going there all my adult life and I know Northern Ireland as well as do most hon. Gentlemen opposite—and some parts of it better than they do. I know just how depressing is the present scene, but there are some hopeful aspects.
The most notable aspect is the one I stressed this afternoon in Question Time, that is, the harmonious way in which the three-sided Executive is working. That is a triumph. The Executive represents a majority of the people in Northern Ireland who voted for it and, in doing so, voted for partnership rather than confrontation.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite have no such policy and no such appeal. Any appeal they might have must surely diminish as time goes on and as the Executive has

1505
time to show results. Time, therefore, is on the side of the Executive and of the Assembly. The Secretary of State assured the House this afternoon that he will ensure that both do have time. More than that, in his announcement he injected new elements into the situation and demonstrated his resolve to retain the initiative.
Today's debate and any vote that may follow are opportunities for the majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House to demonstrate their support for the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, just as we when we were in opposition were anxious to demonstrate our support for our predecessors. There is an opportunity tonight for hon. Members to reaffirm their support for our Northern Ireland Ministers, for their policies and, above all, for Sunningdale.
6.8 p.m.
Mr. W. F. Deedes: I am not sure that I share to the full the optimistic outlook expressed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy). May I first, however, unreservedly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) on surviving the ordeal of making a maiden speech. In contrast to the hon. Member for Attercliffe, I should like to say two things to him. First, the House is designed to accommodate widely differing opinions, and wide differences are obvious. Secondly, those who are tolerably familiar with the Northern Irish scene will acknowledge that my hon. Friend spoke bravely for a great number of his constituents.
I will follow closely, though in a different vein, the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir P. Rawlinson). I do so with a feeling that the situation in Northern Ireland, whatever we may wish to hope and feel, is almost certainly a little worse than we want to think. I will thus direct my remarks to one quarter—perhaps the quarter—which could decisively give us an important breathing space. I refer to tomorrow's meeting between the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, Mr. Cosgrave. That meeting could be of crucial importance and in some respects decisive. Unless Mr.
1506
Cosgrave can be persuaded of certain inexorable facts and to act upon them, I fear that some aspects of our affairs in Northern Ireland will be subject to increased peril.
My reflections will be couched in no spirit of hostility to the Republic. On the contrary, we need all our friends and it is well to be realistic. It is clear that there are some people there—and people of influence, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell said—who do not wish us well. But, alas, it could also be argued that at this moment as much active hostility is felt and expressed in Northern Ireland as in the Republic against this country and its régime. This is a new development in our relationships.
In what I propose to say I am not unaware of the political dilemma that faces Mr. Cosgrave. The plain fact is, and it must be accepted, that he cannot do all the things we have earnestly wished him to do and wish him to do now—things which might help considerably to move us back from the brink—without considerable political risk to himself and his Government. We in this country understand these things. After all, we too have our own political balances, imponderables and margins in this House. Nor is it fair to blame Mr. Cosgrave for any mistakes we have made. I believe—I express a personal opinion—that last year we made two miscalculations. The first was perhaps to hold the Sunningdale conference so soon after the Northern Ireland elections and the fragile experiment of power sharing. The second miscalculation—again, this is a personal view—was perhaps to give such definite form to the Council of Ireland before the Executive of Northern Ireland had found its feet. Some of us expressed this reservation at the time, and I think that one is now entitled to recall it.
I know the pressures involved at the time and I appreciate the reason for the timing. It is fair to say, however, that the risks inherent in that timetable of events could have been foreseen. Indeed, I well recall that there were those in the Republic who perceived those risks and acknowledged them. In the event we on this side left office, and although the timing of the General Election in Northern Ireland in February could not have been foreseen at the time of

1507
Sunningdale the result has heavily underlined the consequences.
In Northern Ireland our General Election only reflected and did not create what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) would call the revulsion of opinion in Northern Ireland. No one who is familiar with the state of mind and with any feeling for Northern Ireland can honestly feel surprised that the Sunning-dale communiqué produced such a result. To my mind it would be dishonest to conceal that awareness. Of course it can be right said that the Sunningdale communiqué was misrepresented, at least by some, in the course of the General Election campaign, but it was also foreseeable that it would be misrepresented because it lent itself to a degree of misrepresentation.
In reality the situation is not quite as simple as that since, in my view, extremism in Northern Ireland is directed against different things. The principal target of the Provisional IRA is power sharing, which spells exclusion of the IRA from relevant politics; it makes the IRA irrelevant. The principal target of the extreme Right, in my judgment is Sunningdale and the Council of Ireland which interpret as an embryo a Parliament of 32 counties. In one sense this marks a distinction from what confronted the previous Labour Government and now confronts the present Labour Government.
The previous Labour Government left office in conflict with the IRA. They resume office now with a reality of the two extremes—and all past experience in other countries suggests that it is a deadly formula. This is something to which I hope the Prime Minister will direct the attention of Mr. Cosgrave. We cannot rule out—nor should Mr. Cosgrave—the possibility of both extremes finding common cause in what at best can only be described as a marriage of extremes and what at worst could become a gangsters' federal Ireland.
Mr. A. W. Stallard: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the House or leave the wrong impression in his remarks about the Labour Gov-
1508
ernment having left office in conflict with the IRA. I think it is within the recollection of most of us that the Labour Government left office in June 1970 in confrontation with the Unionists rather than with the IRA. That is a very important distinction.
Mr. Deedes: It is a matter of interpretation. I was saying that the Labour Government left office at a time when the actions of the security forces were mainly directed at the activities of the IRA. Today the change in the situation since the Labour Government resumed office is in reality that there are now two extremes, and those are the two extremes of which I am speaking. I do not dismiss as idle speculation the possibility of those extremes coming together. If that came about, Mr. Cosgrave would find himself no less precariously situated than was Mr. Faulkner.
Mr. Cosgrave has been guilty, as we have been, of misjudgments. I do not think that he has totally misread the mood of the North, but I believe that he has failed properly to assess what he has read. Mr. Cosgrave's concern has been to avoid doing the needful things concerning extradition, law enforcement and action on the border to the point at which they would incur too large a political risk from his political opposition, namely Mr. Lynch's Fianna Fail.
I can well understand Mr. Cosgrave's anxiety and difficulties as a politician, but I believe that he has his priorities wrong. Bluntly, I believe that he secured very much what he sought at Sunningdale, but he has since hesitated to pay the required price for it. I hope that this will be said quite bluntly to him tomorrow by our Prime Minister, who now has as big a stake in the Sunningdale communiqué as anybody. Mr. Cosgrave has hopefully taken the view, as have many in the Republic and also in this country, that the intransigence of the Right, the Loyalists in the North, was a bluff, and a bluff that could be called. I do not think that that is now the case, but I believe that Mr. Cosgrave has been guilty of that kind of thinking in the past. He is now landed with the consequences of this error, we are landed with it, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is certainly landed with it.
I see no reason why some of us should sing small on this matter. I have made

1509
many misjudgments on this topic, as have most other people, but never since the Orange Day marches in the late 1960s have I underrated the potential of the Loyalists, and I have done my best to bring that into our reckoning.
The realities in Northern Ireland now pose for Mr. Cosgrave a similar dilemma to that which confronted my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) when he first became Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Mr. Cosgrave will have to display a similar capacity for compromise, and even for displeasing his friends—a capacity which my right hon. Friend was required to show in the earliest days of his office. It is not for the British Prime Minister, as it was not for my right hon. Friend, to reflect upon the timetable of the Sunningdale communiqué and in particular on the Council of Ireland. It is for Mr. Cosgrave to persuade the SDLP that a reconsideration of the timetable and the sequence of events may now be necessary.
It is for Mr. Cosgrave to read opinion in this country, which, for all the brave words of the Secretary of State, is in some quarters coming dangerously close to revulsion against involvement in Northern Ireland. This is not a danger of which we ought to make light or which we should too readily dismiss. It should be emphatically brought to the attention of Mr. Cosgrave. It is for him to decide that he must take political risks in the Republic, which have so far seemed totally unacceptable, if he is to avert the risk of possible disaster. I am uttering no reproaches about his failure, real or imagined, to fulfil certain obligations. I am, however, entitled to reproach Mr. Cosgrave with failing to grasp the obligations which Sunningdale imposed upon him.
I conclude by saying that no doubt Mr. Cosgrave, as he is entitled to do, weighs the political risks of certain courses of action. But has he also weighed the risks which are being taken on his behalf and on ours by those who now constitute the Northern Ireland Executive? Has he weighed the political risks taken by the deputy-leader of the Executive?
I think we should concede that some Republicans in the North, whether we
1510
accept their opinions or not, have at least acted like men, whereas other Republicans in the South have acted more like mice. That is an important distinction.
Mr. Cosgrave has so far adopted a slogan which was used by a former revered leader of my party, Stanley Baldwin, who went to the country on the slogan "Safety First". That led to his resounding defeat. My inclination is to warn Mr. Cosgrave that this same approach could lead to a similar defeat, not only for him but for the hopes and expectations of many of us.
6.22 p.m.
Mr. William Craig: My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) began his speech by reminding the House that in Northern Ireland's eyes the tone of the Secretary of State's remarks was one of unreality. I share that feeling completely.
In listening to speeches of hon. Members I have been filled with a sense of foreboding, because I have come to the conclusion that there is here a very poor appreciation of the awful collision that now confronts Northern Ireland. The persistence to fulfil policies that have failed is an invitation to destruction and civil war in Northern Ireland.
It seems to me that in this House the two larger parties find it difficult to enter into a coalition on other matters but they seem able to do it in terms of Northern Ireland. If the results are anything to go by, it is fortunate for the United Kingdom that they cannot enter into a coalition on other matters, because the consensus policy on Northern Ireland has destroyed the effectiveness of Parliament. This Parliament has been unable to look realistically at the problem in Northern Ireland.
Much that we have endured is due to the folly and inept policies of successive Governments here. It is easy to pin all the trouble or all the responsibility on the men of violence, but it is increasingly clear to me that the folly of Governments is more and more the cause of our troubles.
I am sure that we all echo the sentiment expressed by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he called for

1511
political action to deal with our problems. He resolutely declared that the men of violence will not alter the policies of the Government. We admire the declaration but, sadly, we do not believe it, because in Northern Ireland the men of violence have brought about political change. The men of violence caused the discarding of an efficient, impartial police force and they were responsible for the destruction of a democratic Parliament and for the discarding of the basic principles of democracy.
In this present grim situation in Northern Ireland, where security policies are so inept, I ask the Government—
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way, as I have responsibility for security in Northern Ireland? What security policies would he adopt in Northern Ireland if he has such clear ideas? To talk about ineptitude is not good enough. Everybody wants to know what the right hon. Gentleman, who has never had the courage to say that he would tell a Protestant extremist not to shoot at a British soldier, would do. Let him tell us. We want to hear.
Mr. Craig: If the right hon. Gentleman had cared to listen a little longer before interrupting, he would have got the answer. I do not believe that one can apportion any of the blame to the men who lead the security forces. The inadequacy of the security policies is due entirely to the political policies that prevail. We cannot ask either the Army or the men of the police force to deal with this situation unless the Government and politicians recognise its true nature. Something has to be defended in terms of security. It is not the rôle of the security forces to stand in between what is right and what is wrong, what is peace and what is disorder. I do not believe that any security policy can ever succeed until we have a political policy that declares itself fully as seeking to achieve a definite position.
The conflict in Northern Ireland is between two nations, between those who identify with the United Kingdom and those who identify with the Republic of Ireland. The answer to that conflict is not to decide that Northern Ireland should be governed jointly by the Republic of Ireland and by the United Kingdom.
1512
In effect, however, that is what is now being proposed, because the present policies do not in reality treat Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom. The security forces would have a much better chance if they were acting on directives that charged them with maintaining Northern Ireland as an integral part of the United Kingdom.
No solution is to be found in either the Constitution Act 1973 or the Sunningdale communiqué. It is an in-between, indefinite position which gives every incentive to those who seek to overthrow the constitution.
The Executive and the Northern Ireland Assembly are an affront to us. They are not, as some would maintain, democratic institutions. We are told that the Assembly may have some legislative function if it is prepared to agree that a Secretary of State here will appoint the Northern Ireland administration—an administration not to give effect to the will of the people expressed at the polls in the elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly or to give effect to policies approved by the people at the polls, but to give effect to a policy of the Government here and this Parliament for the joint administration of Northern Ireland between the Republicans and the British. That is why so many of us have refused to participate in the Northern Ireland Assembly. We are not prepared to pay that price for the exercise of a legislative function.
The present Northern Ireland Executive cannot claim to have any support in the community, because the last election for the Northern Ireland Assembly did not give support for the formation of such an Executive. Indeed it is astonishing that Mr. Faulkner today tries to claim that he had some endorsement for joining with the SDLP, bearing in mind that when he was Leader of the Unionist Party he said quite clearly that he would never share power with Republicans.
Mr. Orme: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Executive not having authority or a majority in the Assembly. Is it not a fact that Mr. Faulkner's Unionists, the SDLP and the Alliance Party, elected on proportional representation, represent a majority in Northern Ireland?
Mr. Craig: I was saying that they do not command the support of the majority of the electorate of Northern Ireland because none of them was elected on a mandate to take part in such an administration. Indeed, that is the lesson to be learned from the election to this Parliament. There were only two issues before the electorate at the election—Sunningdale and the power-sharing Executive—and 11 of the 12 constituencies, by sizeable majorities, rejected both. If the Secretary of State is to give any meaning to his appeal to solve our problems by political action, he must pay heed to the views that have been expressed at the polls.
Mr. McNamara: What is the right Gentleman's solution for Northern Ireland'? Would it be based upon a devolved Parliament or upon integration?
Mr. Craig: I shall endeavour to deal with that in due course.
If appeals for political action are to have any meaning, the political action of the people of Northern Ireland must be heeded. We are told in Section 2 of the Constitution Act that the Secretary of State may appoint an Executive if he is satisfied that it is likely to have widespread acceptance in the community to the point that it creates government by consent.
No one can pretend that the Executive which has been appointed has or is ever likely to have widespread acceptance in the community. I have asked previous Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland to tell me what we must do to demonstrate that there is no such acceptance. This is an important aspect of government. There must be consent, and consent from a sizeable majority. The old Parliament of Northern Ireland was abolished because it was alleged that 30 per cent. of the electorate were opposed to it. I am saying now that about 60 per cent. of the electorate of Northern Ireland are opposed to the Northern Ireland Assembly. There can be no pretence that the necessary degree of consent exists.
If the right hon. Gentleman has any doubts about that, he has an easy way of getting to the facts of the matter, and that is to have an early election for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Instead
1514
of a by-election in May for the vacant seat in North Antrim, there should be an election for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Perhaps we would then be able to say to our people that political action had some meaning.
We are frequently reminded that we owe a loyalty to this Parliament. Some of us would dispute that our loyalty lies to Parliament as such. Our loyalty lies to the Queen as Head of State, but we would concede that it is the duty of every citizen to owe respect and obedience to Parliament. But Parliament must earn that respect. Parliament must act fairly and justly if it is to ask for obedience. The tyranny of a Parliament is no different from the tyranny of a dictator.
Mr. Michael McGuire: Stormont was a good example.
Mr. Craig: The Secretary of State would do well to have proper regard for the opinion of the majority in Northern Ireland. One hopes that a political settlement can be found that will bring the conflict to an end. I believe that the present proposals are more likely to hinder than to advance a settlement. Certainly no settlement can ever be reached on the basis of divided loyalties. If there is to be any lasting settlement of the conflict in Northern Ireland, there has to be a common loyalty and a common allegiance.
I do not think that it is impossible to find a basis for that common loyalty. I believe that we can create the conditions in Northern Ireland in which everybody's first loyalty will be to Ulster. I do not purport to speak for those who owe their allegiance to the Republic, but I do purport to speak for those who owe their allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen and to the United Kingdom. We are certainly willing to think of a basis upon which our loyalty would be to Ulster, a loyalty that would not sacrifice our British birthright.
In this day and age a great variety of constitutional relationships are open to us. We can think in terms of a federal relationship, a confederal relationship or simply a political entity. Many people have become adjusted to the idea of the European Community. We in Ulster would like people to think in terms of a community of the British Isles. It is in

1515
that direction that one can see some possibility of a political settlement.
What happens if we do not find a settlement that is acceptable right across the board? One cannot leave the situation as it is now, a situation of war. If such a settlement cannot be found, one that enjoys the widest degree of support is the next best alternative.
Clearly the majority in Northern Ireland sees that alternative as maintaining Ulster as an integral part of the United Kingdom, governed exactly as any other part of the United Kingdom. Indeed we say that it is the duty of this honourable House to ensure that we are governed exactly the same as other parts of the United Kingdom are, save that if one departs from those standards and systems the consent of the people concerned must be obtained for any change.
There is not the necessary consent for the Northern Ireland Constitution Act. There is not the necessary consent for the surrender of sovereignty to a Council of Ireland. In the absence of any agreement on an alternative, it is the duty of this House to preserve the territory of Her Majesty the Queen, the territory known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and to govern on an equal and fair basis.
I was horrified when the Secretary of State apparently ruled out any possibility of increased representation for Ulster in this House, notwithstanding the fact that the Kilbrandon Report made such a recommendation. Every argument points to increased representation.
I was asked, what is the alternative? The alternative is to integrate Ulster into the United Kingdom unless an agreed form of devolution or an agreed form of federalism or any agreed form of independence is arrived at. It is our desire to bring this war to a speedy end, to see it brought to an end with the least possible bloodshed. I hope that those who are now in charge of our destiny will realise that they must do the job with the consent of the greatest possible majority. Present policies are alienating that majority.
I came to this honourable House freed of party tags in the acceptable British sense, resolving that I would take my decisions on what I thought to be the
1516
best interests of the United Kingdom. I would still like to be able to do so. If the present Government proceed to carry out the policies which have failed and the policies which have been refused the consent of the people in Northern Ireland, I shall have no alternative but to seek to bring this Government down at the earliest opportunity.
However, lest there be any misunderstanding I should not like the Conservatives to think that this means that my support would go to them, because if the Conservatives were to proceed with such policies I should with equal energy and determination seek to bring them down.
Mr. Mather: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that he will need the support of one party or the other to achieve his aim?
Mr. Craig: Of course I do, but I am aware that the Conservatives hope that some day they will be able to bring down the Labour Government, and in this Parliament they cannot do that without our assistance. If the Conservatives were to suceed in that task, the Labour Party would be seeking to bring them down. We are not as naive as we may look at times, and we know that in this Parliament our votes can be very useful, though we will not bargain. We shall seek to do what we believe to be right.
I have the feeling that the present Government have decided to go to the country at an early date, because their policy in Northern Ireland is capable of no other interpretation. We in Ulster will welcome another bout at the polls and those Labour Members opposite who think that there could be a better Sunningdale vote will see Mr. Faulkner get another chance and see him suffer another defeat.
6.44 p.m.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: One of the things of which I do not think anyone in the House would accuse the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) is naivety. One might say that the right hon. Gentleman had a native cunning, a certain shrewdness. One might employ a few other descriptive nouns which might not be parliamentary, but one would not accuse the right hon. Gentleman of being naive.

1517
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well what he wants, but again he refused to spell it out in the House today. He talks in terms of "possibly this, possibly that, possibly the other". The right hon. Gentleman says, "If we cannot have an independent Ulster or a Stormont in our own way, we will integrate. If we cannot have any of those, we will have an independent Ulster." This seems to be the right hon. Gentleman's idea.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it is not only the policies of the men of violence but the follies of Governments that have caused this calamity in the Six Counties. When one remembers the right hon. Gentleman's rôle as Minister for Home Affairs, when people were asking for simple basic rights in the Six Counties and he denied them the democratic right of demonstrating for those rights, one is entitled to ask what sort of democratic Government the right hon. Gentleman was talking about in those days.
Mr. Craig: I have just listened to a sweeping general allegation. I should like the hon. Gentleman to be more specific and to tell me what democratic rights were denied to the minority in Northern Ireland. Will he tell me what rights the majority had which the minority did not have and what rights, in particular, I as Minister for Home Affairs denied them?
Mr. McNamara: Certainly. I will itemise one that springs to mind. First, let me say that one would be happy with the right hon. Gentleman's protestations on this point if he had appeared and given evidence at the time of the Cameron Inquiry. One thinks of the right hon. Gentleman's refusal to allow people to process and of the happy alliance that he happened to have with the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) who, whenever there was a civil rights march, suddenly popped up with one of his marches so that all the marches had then to be cancelled. This may well have been an accident, pure chance. However, it caused us a great deal of suspicion, and that is the sort of reputation which the right hon. Gentleman brings with him to the House. We on this side are not prepared to be deceived by the quietness of his tone and delivery and his apparent sweet reason.
1518
The right hon. Gentleman spoke of having had an efficient and impartial police force. He knows that was not so. He knows that this was the key to the whole situation in the six counties. The most important part of my right hon. Friend's speech today was his announcement of reforms in the administration and operational structure of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Unless we can have the police force respected by all sections of the community we shall never make any progress in Northern Ireland.
Mr. McCusker: The hon. Gentleman must acknowledge that some members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary are guarding the life of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). The vast majority of those members of the RUC that you are maligning are still members of the RUC. Those men did not kill, maim or shoot anything like the hundreds and thousands of people who have been killed by supporters of the hon. Member for Belfast, West.
Mr. McNamara: That last comment was one of the dirtiest comments I have ever heard in my life. No one more than my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) has in speeches in this House attacked men of violence from wherever they have come, right across the board, and at the risk of his own life.
Mr. McCusker: Too late.
Mr. McNamara: As the hon. Gentleman has made several points he should let me reply to them, and then perhaps I will give way. Certainly those gentlemen are at the moment defending my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West, but I can remember the skull of my hon. Friend gushing with blood from a baton blow delivered by those same gentlemen. What is needed—[Interruption.] Michael, keep quiet for a moment.
Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members from whichever side they speak, must address the Chair.
Mr. McNamara: The police need to be accepted throughout the whole of the community, and I mean not only the Catholic community but also the Protestant community. Till the police are accepted as impartial law enforcers there is no chance of getting rid of the British Army, or the problems in the Six

1519
Counties. Therefore, my right hon. Friend's insistence upon reforms in the RUC are most important.
My right hon. Friend speaks in terms of what are apparently to be three different county police forces based at Derry, at Belfast, and at the border, but can he spell out in more detail what is to be the rôle both of the regional police authorities and of the assembly members in the new police authority?
Mr. Merlyn Rees: I wish to make clear that there are not to be three separate police forces or three police authorities. The arrangements relate to operational control.
Mr. McNamara: If I said three police authorities I am prepared to be corrected. Perhaps I should say three police divisions based on Derry, Belfast and the border, which I understand are to have local groups acting as advisory committees—
Mr. Rees: Liaison committees.
Mr. McNamara: What is to be their rôle in trying to improve community relations, and what is to be their rôle in recruiting members of the minority into the police force, which will be of prime importance?
My right hon. Friend mentioned the Emergency Provisions Act, and the review which is to take place. This must be examined carefully, particularly as considerable disappointment could result from action taken in this regard. It seems that my right hon. Friend was in some ways ambiguous on this matter, judging from my earlier intervention. Will there be an indication, before the new order is laid, about those parts of the Act which are to be retained and those which are to lapse? Will the provisions of the Act be retained lock, stock and barrel?
Many of us would be unhappy to have such provisions imposed again. We recognise many of the problems involved in considering what provisions are to lapse. We also recognise the important rôle which Lord Gardiner is to play, and we remember his minority report on the security commission inquiry. We welcome his appointment. However, it is important that the Government are aware of the great distaste with which we on this side
1520
would regard the continued operation of the Act.
Mr. Rees: I am sure that my hon. Friend accepts that lengthy and new legislation cannot be passed by June. It would be impossible to do that.
Mr. McNamara: I accept that, but there are powers within the Act for many things to be dropped rather than to be reactivated, and these matters can be looked at more carefully.
When one looks at what has come as a result of both the creation of the Assembly and of power sharing, and when one considers the Sunningdale Agreement, one must recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) indicated, that Sunningdale is for many of us a watering down of the 15 points which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister originally made. It is very much a compromise between what may have been the aspirations of one part of the community and the fears on the other side. It is a compromise which allows the aspirations of those who wish to see a united Ireland. At the same time, it has safeguards for those who wish to maintain the link with the United Kingdom. Therefore, they have their guarantee and their right to have a plebiscite, and their veto so that only unanimous decisions of the Assembly can affect relations with the Council of Ireland. These are important. But, equally, the minority have a right to aspire to something which is no mean ideal, to have a united Ireland, and to hope they can persuade by democratic means a majority to accept their solution for the Ireland in which they live.
These are the terms of the present concordat between the two communities. These are the terms on which my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West and Mr. Faulkner and the Alliance Party are working. Not everybody is happy about this, but it is the best compromise in this most unhappy situation.
Therefore when the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) tends to suggest caution and a watering down of what is contained in the Sunningdale Agreement, as well as a slowing down of the pace of implementation in this regard, he is playing right into the hands of extremists from both sides. These extremists have an interest in maintaining

1521
a fluid situation, for in such a situation there can be permitted para-military marches, and pressures, leading to a vacuum in which as much trouble as possible can be stirred up—that is, if trouble can be stirred up in a vacuum.
Therefore, I urge upon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and upon the Prime Minister, who meets the Taoiseach tomorrow, to ensure an early, positive ratification of Sunningdale to close that gap and to give members of the Assembly an opportunity, in a period of relative political safety to work, to show that they can deliver the goods as a Government, and that the Opposition in the Assembly can behave as a responsible Opposition, should they seek to reorganise the situation in their own favour at the election, when it comes.
We must aim at this as a policy. If Sunningdale fails, as some people want, that will not necessarily mean the solution which has been advocated today from the Ulsterites. There are more people involved than merely the representatives of Northern Ireland in this House. There are people of all extremes who will not stand idly by and see created a situation in which their voices are the least heard. Suggestions of complete integration, of an independent Ulster, or of a federal solution, could mean that the aspirations of many Republicans and Nationalists would be thrown out of the window. People who say that such would bring a happy, contented society are living in cloud-cuckoo-land. It would do nothing of the sort.
Those who are Republican or nationally-minded know that they can merely walk down the road and be in the Republic. On the other hand, those people who think that they can shoot and bomb their way into the Republic must realise that there is a majority in the North who do not want it that way.
It will be tough and difficult if we do not adopt the positive policy of ensuring that Sunningdale works. We have to try to make it work. If we do not, the cost for us in this country as well as for the people of Northern Ireland will be immense.
To say that we must work for Sunning-dale is not to say that we must cast out
1522
every other political thought. It does not mean that Mr. Boal's ideas must be thrown out of court or that other ideas of an Eire Nua must be discarded. They have to be discussed and the people must be brought into that discussion. This is why the decision to lift the proscription on Sinn Fein is so important.
I welcome in part what my right hon. Friend has done today. I am disappointed about certain things. I particularly welcome his commitment to Sunningdale and to do something about the police. As he said, the key to the situation is the civilian policing. Getting this accepted will be the main part of his task, as it was for his predecessor and for the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw).
7.2 p.m.
Mr. Hugh Fraser: I am sure that everyone would wish to congratulate and welcome the right hon. Gentleman upon his appointment as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is a most important office and his accession comes at a time when, perhaps, Northern Ireland has a most difficult period ahead. I welcome the proposals contained in the right hon. Gentleman's speech dealing with the police authority and the de-proscription of Sinn Fein—what I would call the recognition of Sinn Fein as a legitimate party in the North.
I can address my mind to the Northern Ireland problem with only the deepest sense of humility. For five years we have seen the failure of policy to achieve results. This is the tragic situation in which we now find ourselves. A year or so ago I wrote a long article for The Times—which it was kind enough to publish—and spoke in this House about the great dangers of colonial rule.
Unfortunately and inevitably any Minister sent out from this country to Ulster, whether from the Front Bench of my party or of the Labour Party, has had to adopt a stance close to that of a colonial governor ruling in a colonial fashion. This, alas, is done with none of the advantages of a colonial régime, but with the police and the Armed Forces equally subject to the discipline of the law—which they need not be in a purely colonial system. The Forces are constrained by legislation and by the

1523
fact that they are acting before the whole world. At the same time there is the inevitable fact that, far from being merely in support of a civil power, the military becomes the civil power with all the deterioration, moral and otherwise, which that must mean for a nation. This is the problem facing us in Northern Ireland. It is a problem to which, within the present terms of reference, I see little solution.
Let us try to put ourselves for a moment in the position of those youths, some not even teenagers, who throw rocks at the military or at the police. Whether they be Catholic or Protestant they have not a pleasant political prospect. If it be a Catholic boy he sees south of the border a State which is not prepared to support his political aspirations and is not prepared to protect his brother Protestant by controlling the forces of disorder in the South. If he be a Protestant boy his father will tell him, "Once upon a time there were people who went to London to represent us and who were one with the great Conservative Party across the water. Now many of our representatives are regarded by the same Conservative Party as being almost political pariahs".
This is the change, when the great heart of Ulster, whether it be Catholic or Protestant, seems rejected by both homelands. This is the tragedy of the State which is being created—a colonial State with all the dangers and the destruction of morals and of will that follow. The way out of this situation requires not just a reappraisal of the military and police situation, which the right hon. Gentleman has rightly undertaken. It may need something more profound.
One thing has first to be made clear by the House. The tragedy of Ireland has often been due to a misunderstanding of Ireland by the House of Commons and to the illusions created of Ireland by the House of Commons. The one thing which we ought to make clear beyond peradventure both Front Benches and all three main political parties—is that the idea of the full integration of Northern Ireland into this country is not something which will come about. This is said frequently but without much authority. It is the thing which ought to be said with the maximum authority by
1524
all the political parties. Then the people of Ulster would know far better where they stood. This would bring about a new situation.
It is for the people of Ulster to decide their fate. I believe there would then be an argument for looking at the condition of the 1920 Treaty. There would be an argument for having an independent Ulster in the same way that there was a concept of an independent or semi-independent State in the south of Ireland. Persons belonging to such a State would have the chance to come here, to vote here. They would have the right to grants on a tapering basis. Perhaps that is a way in which the authority of the ordinary people could be restored.
If we pursue this colonial régime, with endless numbers of British troops, it will present to the young people of Northern Ireland an endless vista of British bayonets. That solution will not work. No country has suffered more than Northern Ireland. No people have suffered more. They must be the people to choose the way. We in this House must in great humility give them the opportunity to make that choice.
7.8 p.m.
Mr. A. J. Beith: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser), who, as usual, made a refreshing and intelligent speech. I cannot agree with all that he said. It is my view that the opportunity to choose a particular system has been placed before the people of Northern Ireland. The system must now be given the opportunity to be tried. I welcome some of the points made by the Secretary of State, including the developments in the police authority, and the setting up of the Gardiner Committee. There are other matters to which I shall refer. The position about the Emergency Provisions Act is understood, although we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look carefully at each provision before seeking to continue it.
One thing above all which must be stressed about what the Secretary of State said is the importance of the review of security. There is no getting away from the fact that there are large groups of people in both sections of the Northern Ireland community who will not be persuaded of the virtues of any political

1525
settlement until there is an improvement in the security situation. The confidence is simply not there. Indeed, quite wrongly, the constitutional changes themselves attract the blame for continued violence and they are associated with that violence in many people's minds. There is only one sense in which the constitutional changes are the cause of violence, and that is that those who desperately do not want them to work or do not want to see power sharing in Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland being reasonably governed are brought to more and more despicable measures of violence. It is to those people that there must be no surrender.
Until the rôle of the Armed Forces can be taken over completely by locally-based services, it is they who carry the burden of trying to create and maintain conditions in which the Sunningdale decisions can be given a fair trial. Anyone who speaks about Northern Ireland in this House must be conscious that it is easier to utter fine words than to cope with the dangers and horrors which are commonplace to the soldiers in Northern Ireland. Many hon. Members taking part in the debate will number among their constituents, as I do, soldiers who are serving in Northern Ireland and their families.
Many young men from the North-East of England and the Borders have served in Northern Ireland. Some of them have been among those killed and injured. We all owe it to them and to their families to spell out clearly to the British public the reason why British troops are there. I hope that the Government will lose no opportunity to get this across to the public and to make clear the purpose of and necessity for the policy on Northern Ireland which continues to be supported by the three main political parties in Britain.
That support would be more clearly seen if the Conservative Party could make clear whether its links are with those Unionists who support the principle of a power-sharing Executive rather than, as they still appear to be, with those who oppose it. If the Conservatives appear to be offering the party whip to the latter group, tripartisanship is put in doubt. The former Secretary of State spoke in a forthright manner earlier in the debate, but I hope that opportunity will be taken
1526
later in the debate to make this point a little clearer. The expression "hon. Friends" has been flying around the Chamber with a frequency which leaves me somewhat puzzled about who is allied to whom.
We also owe it to the soldiers and to their families to ensure that everything is done to back them up and to reduce their difficulties. I therefore ask the Government for assurances on certain points. First, what will be the effect of the Government's defence cuts on our troops in Northern Ireland and their backing? Are any further cuts contemplated which could affect them adversely? It is difficult to see how Northern Ireland can be totally shielded from the effect of any cuts, especially when they follow the £178 million cut by the previous Government, unless some other part of the national defence system is being jeopardised. Clarification of the defence cuts would be welcome.
Second, on a much smaller and personal matter, although it is related to expenditure, are there not ways, some of them quite small, in which the welfare of the forces could be improved? Are these matters under constant review? I should like to give one small example, which was raised by one of my constituents. I have come across several instances of young soldiers—some of them single, some married—whose relatives get very concerned about them, and the soldiers telephone their relatives at home as frequently as possible. Perhaps the relative is a widowed mother or wife who is on this side of the Irish Sea. There are often very few telephone boxes in military quarters. Often the families of soldiers do not have a private telephone. People therefore wait outside public call boxes for telephone calls informing them that their lad or husband in Ireland is safe. I wonder whether means can be found to make this kind of communication easier. Often in barracks there may be only a couple of public telephones and the soldiers form long queues. Improvements in little things like this could make a difference.
I hope also that we shall have no more of the delays, which have occasionally been lengthy, in the payment of pensions to soldiers disabled in Northern Ireland.

1527
I hope that the Government will not hesitate, if the evidence is presented to them, to make the necessary protests to countries from which it can be shown that arms have gone to Northern Ireland, whatever other considerations of foreign policy may be involved.
Mr. Orme: Perhaps I may briefly answer the two main points that the hon. Gentleman has raised before he moves on in his speech. On his second point regarding facilities for forces, I shall certainly look at the proposition about telephones. It has not been drawn to our attention as yet, but it can be looked at. Regarding the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the withdrawal of forces, this has been done in conjunction with the GOC and the Ministry of Defence and it is part of an overall policy which is acceptable to all the Ministries concerned.
Mr. Beith: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention. It has not escaped our notice that there are demands for still further defence cuts. I hope that Northern Ireland Ministers will be to the fore in making clear to their hon. Friends the continued needs of Northern Ireland if the question of defence expenditure is raised.
The power-sharing agreement and other conditions revealed at Sunningdale are our only hope. Some hon. Members have referred to them as being "in between". But they must perforce be "in between" because they are trying to reconcile the difference between two communities which are bitterly and inevitably divided. There must be some kind of bridge to enable them to live together. We cannot accept that criticism.
The Sunningdale Agreement is no easy subject for renegotiation. There was what could be called a "delicate balance of sacrifice" between the parties involved in the agreement. Despite the political storms, each party must recognise that it cannot go back on Sunningdale without driving wedges between the other parties and their supporters. The Government of the Republic must show that they realise this as well. We must look to tomorrow's meeting to see that the Republic clearly demonstrates that it can give backing to the things it said at Sunningdale.
1528
Last month's Westminster elections were no fair test of Sunningdale. First, it was too soon for any judgment to be made. The Council of Ireland can assume demon-like proportions in some people's imaginations because it is not yet in existence, no one has had an opportunity to see it operate and it can be portrayed in the worst possible manner. The Executive has not had time to prove that it can do an effective job. In both respects it is a premature kind of judgment.
The Westminster elections were not fought, as we Liberals know to our cost, under the proportional representation system, which is one of the foundations of power sharing. With proportional representation there would have been 10 times as many Liberals in this Parliament—all pledged to back Sunningdale—but there would have been only six or seven anti-Sunningdale Unionists. The fact remains that the substantial portion of the Northern Ireland electorate which voted for parties backing Sunningdale has also the backing of all three major parties in both Britain and the Republic of Ireland. Those who oppose Sunningdale should remember that the two different nations to which they each differently aspire have both made it clear that they want power sharing to continue.
Liberals have supported the common Northern Ireland policy, common between all three parties, because it was not only the best policy for the future but was based on principles, in which we firmly believe, of power sharing and proportional representation. Both of them, we believe, are also needed on this side of the Irish Sea as well.
There are points on which we have differed from the other parties, and I shall mention three. First we have pressed for a review with the object of ending internment without trial, which causes security problems as well as solving them. I believe that the Secretary of State will wish to see an end to internment and will be looking for means of bringing it about. The community disaffection brought about by internment must be studied in the balance sheet against the benefits which flow from it. The Secretary of State is aware of this and I have confidence in the fact that he will review this matter constantly and

1529
will be looking for a means of ending it. The sponsorship scheme appears to be an imaginative attempt to achieve something in this direction.
Secondly we do not believe that, following the abolition of Stormont, there is any case for the continuing under-representation of Northern Ireland in this House, and its representation should be increased forthwith. Kilbrandon has been cited as evidence. An hon. Member who spoke earlier referred to his desire to see all parts of the United Kingdom governed on the same basis, including Northern Ireland. That is one of the things in the Kilbrandon Report which we would support. We look to Kilbrandon for the development of Assemblies or Parliaments in the other parts of the United Kingdom as well as in Northern Ireland, and for proportional representation and a fair increase of representation at Westminster.
The Secretary of State talked about a divided society and said that this was one of the things which made him unwilling to support increased Northern Ireland representation here. In our submission there is no better way of representing a divided society than to increase its representation to a fair level and to make that representation proportional. We look to having proportional representation in the elections for the Westminster Parliament as well.
The Northern Ireland Ministers in the Government here must also look to some of their hon. Friends to be a little more understanding on the EEC dimension of the Northern Ireland situation, because the kind of co-operation between neighbouring countries which the EEC will bring about will begin to make some of the arguments put forward about cooperation between North and South look past and academic. However, with these qualifications, about which we hope that the Government will do something, we have no hesitation in supporting the new Secretary of State, whose appointment I personally welcome, and his hon. Friend. The right hon. Gentleman's task and that of the members of the Northern Ireland Executive is as difficult and fraught with dangers as anyone's task could be, but both the Secretary of State and the members of the Executive have shown
1530
that they have the courage to carry it through.
7.22 p.m.
Mr. Ronald Bell: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) on an outstanding maiden speech in which he expressed himself with knowledge, clarity and a vehemence which entirely suited the subject of the debate. I do not think the House would in any way expect a Member coming here from a place with a history of murder, violence and explosions, and taking part in a debate on Northern Ireland, to express himself in any light or facetious manner. Rather we expect him to give expression to strong feelings in strong words. That my hon. Friend did admirably. I hope that we shall hear from him again on many occasions. There will be some who will say that in order that they may interrupt him to challenge his opinions, but I, who share so many of those opinions, do not put it in that way.
Some of the troubles that we are discussing today spring from the fact that we are imposing upon Northern Ireland solutions devised in London. Our critical faculties have been almost drowned in a wash of self-congratulation and complacency. When all parties at Westminster agree, it is time for deep anxiety. We do best when we are a little bit more critical of ourselves than we have been over the solutions we have propounded for Ulster. In those solutions I find particularly what I would call an arrogant metropolitanism in which to seek to impose upon others the standards which commend themselves to a rather cosmopolitan metropolis—the almost inverted self-consciousness, pot-bound self-consciousness of politicians and parties, especially in the South-East of this country.
That is particularly shown in the condemnation which is so often made of the people of Ulster for taking issue on matters of religious differences. That is condemned. I shall explain in a moment that I do not believe that this is a true description of what happens in Northern Ireland, but even if it were I would not condemn it as easily as that. People expect and require others to argue about the sort of things that they themselves

1531
want to argue about. In this country we differ, I suppose, primarily upon economic and social policy. When I say "this country" I mean the island of Britain. We take it for granted, therefore, that those are the only respectable subjects upon which politicians and people should divide. However, people divide on those things they care most about. Labour Members care enormously about distribution of wealth and think it is an entirely legitimate subject for political controversy even though it occasionally leads to strong emotions and great bitterness.
In Ireland there are many people who care tremendously about religion and the denominations in which religion is formulated, and that is just as legitimate a matter of controversy, argument and difference as any secular, economic or social matter of the kind we so often discuss at Westminster. Therefore I dissociate myself from those who complain about the apparent religious polarisation of politics.
This country, not with my acquiescence, is sticking its head into the haybag of the European Community, a Community in which a great many of the political parties have a denominational base. It is fairly common in those countries to have Christian Democrats, parties which are primarily Protestant and those which are primarily Catholic. That is one of the reasons I have alleged in the past why we would never attain any significant and useful political integration with them. However, I shall not go into that wider subject now. I merely point out that denominational politics are not to be so lightly and facilely condemned as they have been.
However, in Northern Ireland there is far less of the politics of denomination than is generally thought. There are, admittedly, politics of community. There are discernible differences of standards and preferences between the Protestant community of Northern Ireland and the Catholic community, not because they are Protestant and Catholic but because those communities have different origins. Primarily the Protestants are Scots or English and primarily the Catholics are—I was about to say of Celtic origin but some of my fellow Scots are that—they are of Irish origin. One does not
1532
need much acquaintance with Ireland to realise that there are differences of attitude and standards in matters such as cleanness and neatness—
Mr. Fitt: Where did the hon. Member get that from?
Mr. Bell: —on which I pass no value judgment. I merely assert that these things are so and they are things which matter a great deal to those who live there.
Mr. Fitt rose—
Mr. Bell: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) need not get so excited. There are different standards of approach, different attitudes as to what matters most in life and what matters less and I do not pass value judgments upon them. I merely state my belief that it is things like those which govern—
Mr. Fitt rose—
Mr. Stallard rose—
Mr. Bell: —some of the attitudes which prevail in Northern Ireland today.
Mr. Fitt: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman explain what he means by saying there are different standards of cleanness and neatness? Does he believe that one section of the community is better than the other in those respects?
Mr. Stallard: Give us some examples?
Mr. Bell: If the hon. Member will just consider it he will understand what I mean. The hon. Member for Belfast, West is certainly familiar with Ireland. Consider the general appearance of a small Scottish village—he knows what I mean—and the general appearance of a small village south of the border in Ireland. He will see exemplified what I mean. I pass no value judgment on that. I assert that it has nothing to do with religious denomination—[interruption.] These are not matters of religion but matters of community. They are things which one ignores at one's peril in assessing events in Northern Ireland. The basic fact we have to take account of is that the majority community of Northern Ireland, for whatever reasons it may be, and whether they be reasons we approve of or not, are at present determined not to be ruled from Dublin

1533
nor to form part of a single Irish nation. Unless we accept that, we shall plough along in error for as far ahead as we can see.
The Secretary of State said repeatedly the other day at Question Time that he did not want to talk with the men of violence. I agree with him about that. He said that he was always willing to talk with those who spoke politics, and that he wanted these matters regulated by those who spoke politics.
That is admirable. But I should like to put two thoughts in the right hon. Gentleman's mind. First, if Northern Ireland is to be governed by institutions which are decided here in this Parliament as the right hon. Gentleman emphasised it, at Westminster and nowhere else, is it not essential that Northern Ireland should be fully represented here at Westminster?
Secondly, if indeed it is the political expression of the public of which account is to be taken, how can the Secretary of State ignore the expression of public opinion which took place in the General Election? The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed talked about proportional representation. I remind him of the enormous majorities by which the hon. Members who represent Ulster came into the House at the General Election. My hon. Friends the Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux), I think, each received, and certainly between them received, more than twice as many votes as all their opponents put together. There cannot be a more emphatic expression of public opinion than that.
While in this country we were talking about the miners' strike, which, thank goodness, we are no longer talking about, they were talking and voting in Northern Ireland about Sunningdale. That is what the election was about there. Some may regret it, but it is true. The people of Northern Ireland voted with the greatest emphasis, sometimes putting aside long loyalties to other representatives of the Unionist Party, some of whom we knew here. There must have been a great wrenching of personal affections. In spite of that, 11 out of the 12 Ulster constituencies returned Members opposed to Sunningdale, in some cases by enormous majorities.
Mr. Beith: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that although 11 Members were returned here, 37 per cent. voted for candidates in favour of the Sunningdale Agreement? They are admittedly a minority, but their votes are not reflected in the number of seats.
Mr. Bell: If 37 per cent. voted one way, 63 per cent. voted the other. I took Antrim, with its more than two to one against all the others together, but those figures show that in the Northern Ireland constituencies in total the proportion was not far from two to one against the Sunningdale Agreement.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: Surely it is true that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) was opposed only by a member of the SDLP? It is surely possible that voters who were Unionists and believed in power sharing but supported Conservatism and the other policies believed in by my hon. and gallant Friend decided to vote for my hon. and gallant Friend and against the SDLP? It surely cannot be said that the whole of my hon. and gallant Friend's vote was cast against power sharing?
Mr. Bell: We must not get too deep in psephological analysis. If we do, I shall have to allow my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr) to intervene in the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour), and then I do not know where we shall be. But I think that I know where you would be, Mr. Speaker, if that began to happen. I shall content myself with stating the broad fact that a large majority of those who voted in Northern Ireland were against the Sunningdale Agreement.
Captain Orr: It is relevant to my hon. and learned Friend's argument to say that in the 37 per cent. are included all those who favour a united Ireland anyway.
Mr. Bell: My hon. and gallant Friend is undoubtedly right about that. That 37 per cent. is a composite quantity, which includes a considerable range. However, I think that it would be wise to content myself with the broad point that the public spoke with an emphatic voice in the recent elections.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Bell: Gladly, but it must be the last time.
Rev. Ian Paisley: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that Mr. Faulkner called on his people not to cast their votes in Down, South, so that if they obeyed Mr. Faulkner they did not vote for my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr)?
Mr. Bell: That just shows the complications of all these matters. If I have learned one thing from them, it is that Irish politics are very special, and that the English should venture into them with more humility than I have detected in recent months.
If the public have spoken as they have, how can it be logical to ignore them and apparently, according to the right hon. Gentleman, to ignore them for four years? In other parts of the world the Labour Party is most jealous of, and insistent upon, the rights of public expression. It has little quarrels running with Chile, Greece, Portugal, South Africa and Rhodesia. It has a little cliché about NIBMAR—no independence before majority rule. Yet majority rule is precisely what it is not willing to give to the public of Northern Ireland. Majority rule must be restored to Northern Ireland if the problems of that Province are to be solved.
It seems to me that there are only two ways in which those problems can be solved. One is by total integration into the United Kingdom, with full representation at Westminster. The other, and I think the more difficult, is the restoration of a real Parliament at Stormont. The Sunningdale Assembly survives only as a monument to the obstinacy of politicians. Disowned by the people it is supposed to represent, it is despised and ignored by all.
The Secretary of State's attitude that the people of Ulster shall have a constitution decided for them by the Parliament at Westminster is the typical attitude of the British to Ireland, which has led to endless trouble and will lead to endless trouble in the future.
While there has been much talk of bi-partisanship and tri-partisanship, I
1536
find that the Labour Party has been much to blame for the development of this trouble. Some Labour Members in the last Parliament and the one before it were—unconsciously, I have no doubt —responsible for inflaming the issue to a degree to which it would never have been inflamed if they had left it alone.
Somehow or other, we must now build up the police force in Ulster. We cannot bring the B Specials back out of limbo, but in retrospect one can see that their disbandment was the cardinal error in the whole handling of this episode. I remember—I thought of it at Question Time today, when some Labour Members were pressing for the Army to be brought out of Ulster—how it was the Labour Party which pressed four years ago for the Army to go into Ulster. I remember the cheer which greeted the announcement that British forces were going in substantial numbers to take over the running of the Province. I think that we all recognise with hindsight that it must be a police operation and that it must stop being a military operation. The troops do a magnificent job, but they are there for perhaps only six months and they are anxious to get out —who would blame them? Just when they are beginning to get to know the country and to know the people of the area, to know who is who, it is mercifully time for them to return to Britain.
The whole point about the police is that they know one person from another and they are able to stop controversy before it gets to the shooting stage. The police know their neighbourhood. They can act as policemen. They do not have to sit in sandbag emplacements. They are able to mix with the local population in a way that the best soldier cannot do. I am convinced that until we withdraw the Army progressively as we build up the police force we shall not solve the problem. And lastly, the Labour Party must be cured of its inveterate habit of fishing in troubled waters. The Irish will live happily together again, as they did before, a life that is turbulent and sometimes violent by our English standards. I think that they like it a bit that way. I believe that they will return to a way of life in which violence will be contained within understood and accepted limits.
Violence will never for long exceed those limits provided that we in the

1537
larger island can control our meddlesome fingers and do not vaingloriously assume that the compromising and anaemic standards currently prevailing in our overcrowded, over-governed and over-sophisticated society, are superior to those in the more distant and robust parts of the Kingdom.
7.42 p.m.
Mr. A. W. Stallard: I did not intend to participate in this debate, but having listened to a few of the speeches I have been moved to intervene if only to try to air some views that I doubt will be aired by Opposition Members.
The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) will forgive me, I hope, if I do not follow his remarks. I found some of them about different standards to be repulsive, pompous and arrogant in the extreme. I suggest that much of the trouble in communities in Northern Ireland or anywhere else is caused by that kind of remark. I hope we have all come to realise in the past few years from the debates which have take place on the Six Counties that that kind of remark is best left unsaid.
Mr. Bell: I am not interested in whether an expression of opinion is repulsive. What is important is whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that such an expression is wrong.
Mr. Stallard: I am happy to say that not only in my opinion is it wrong but that in fact it is wrong. I venture to suggest that I know as much about Southern Ireland, Western Scotland and South-East England as the hon. and learned Gentleman ever did or ever will know. I am willing to match my knowledge of the situation against his knowledge any time and anywhere. I suggest that he is entirely wrong. I believe that he was mischievous in the remarks he made and that they can do no one any good.
I listened with extreme interest as I always do, to the right hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes). He speaks frequently and knowledgeably in these debates. I have been in his company in the Six Counties on a number of occasions. I was saddened to hear him make certain remarks about the situation in the Six Counties which would
1538
have been better left unsaid. On reflection I do not believe that he thinks we can now absolve ourselves from all responsibility by blaming the Taoiseach. It will not help in a political situation to say that Mr. Cosgrave in the South is responsible because he has not not done this or that and that he has not even tried to understand the situation. The right hon. Gentleman over-simplified the the difficulties that have emerged in the South.
I do not want to go hack over history, as we constantly do in these debates. It has been said repeatedly that we rewrite history every time we have a debate on the Northern Ireland problem. It seemed to me that the right hon. Member for Ashford was trying to blame Mr. Cosgrave for erecting the border and for all the troubles that have since ensued. He suggested that the responsibility was on Mr. Cosgrave and the Southern Ireland Government to get rid of the problem on our behalf. I do not think that was a very helpful suggestion. It would lead the right hon. Gentleman to speak against the very things which I know he would support and has supported in the House.
I welcome the remarks that were made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I especially welcome his remarks about those issues for which I have campaigned and will continue to campaign relating to the problems of Northern Ireland. I welcome his statement about legalising Sinn Fein. I do so because I have always firmly believed that the solution to the problems in the Six Counties is and must be political. If we believe that, we must set up various organisations and create an atmosphere in which political discussion can take place.
That means that discussion can take place not only on one side of the divide but on all sides. That is an omission that could have been rectified some time ago. However, I shall be delighted to see it rectified with the legalising of Sinn Fein. That would bring into political discussion many of the people who have hitherto been outside and rejected. They have had to use other means to get their points of view across. I hope that early discussions between the various parties will be encouraged.

1539
I welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance regarding the ending of detention and internment without trial, which is another matter which hon. Members on both sides of the House have opposed. The House will remember that we recalled Parliament in 1971 to discuss the introduction of internment. Many of us said at that time that it would be a disaster. I still believe that it was a disaster and that as long as it continues it will be disastrous. I see my right hon. Friend's assurance regarding the ending of internment, provided that it is carried out as speedily as possible, as another step in the right direction in a bid to create an atmosphere in which people can have political discussion.
We must get rid of the oppressive measures that have so far hindered people getting together to talk about the need for a permanent political solution. Another issue which my right hon. Friend raised is one which I have raised on a number of occasions—namely, the Bill of Rights. It appeared in one form or another in the previous Government's White Paper. There was some reference in the White Paper to a kind of Bill of Rights along the lines which some of us have campaigned for in the past three or four years. At the end of the debate I should like to hear what steps my right hon. Friend intends to take or can take to implement the remaining parts of the Bill of Rights which were left outstanding.
I also welcomed my right hon. Friend's reference to training. That is something about which I am interested for a number of reasons. Even during the days of Stormont and immediately afterwards, some areas have always paid a great deal of attention to industrial training and have had a very good industrial training set-up, albeit that it did not get across to the entire population.
I have always had great respect for that approach. My criticism in those days was that it should have been extended. My criticism today is still that it should be extended to cover a wider spectrum of the population. I welcome this new approach to training and I hope that it might be possible now to interest voluntary organisations, if necessary setting up training organisations separately in the two communities. Youngsters would, I
1540
hope, be encouraged to take part in training. For example, if it were in the construction industry they would have a vested interest in putting up property rather than pulling it down.
I realise that at first these facilities would probably have to be separate to each community, but I believe that it would be possible to foster such organisations for training to encourage youngsters, who at present have nothing else to do but to get into mischief, to take up instructional and recreational pursuits.
Continuing my theme about creating an atmosphere in which people can have political discussion, I recently visited again the internment camp, prison or detention camp—call it what one will—at Long Kesh, or the Maze. Having spoken to many of the detainees incarcerated there, I felt and still feel a growing awareness among them on both sides that they should discuss with each other first their common problems in the camp and then perhaps other issues affecting people on a broader scale outside the camp.
Certainly those men could exercise considerable influence outside, given some kind of encouragement. Whatever machinery were to be set up for the formation of joint groups within the camp for rehabilitation as well as release, those people could play a great part both inside and outside the camp in creating an atmosphere in which many more of their fellows could join in discussion of issues of the day. I feel that there is room for that kind of approach within the camp, because otherwise we are simply polarising people within the camp and in other prisons. We should take advantage of the opportunity to bring these people together in discussion groups. Such a project would initially be on a modest basis with a modest agenda, but this is the sort of spirit we have to aim for. Both communities have to get together at some time. Whenever there is a chance to bring them together, we should take it.
I welcome my right hon. Friend's reference to the reform of the police. Many of us have said that this is probably the most crucial area of reform still outstanding. But it is the one point which seems to have defeated all of us in our approach to the problems of the Six Counties. The main point is how

1541
we are to police the area if we withdraw the troops, as some of my hon. Friends have suggested we should. By keeping them there we would be ignoring at our peril the growing demand, for a whole number of reasons, from our people in the rest of the United Kingdom for a complete withdrawal of our troops from Northern Ireland. We must therefore exercise our minds about what we would replace the troops with if we were to withdraw them. Indeed, I hope that we shall be able very soon to announce withdrawal of the troops.
We might not be able to do better than to start on a modest level by having individual street patrols or even patrols simply for individual blocks of flats, recognising that they would have to be separate for the communities but hoping to bring them together eventually. This is the sort of move in the right direction that I welcome.
Finally on the theme of creating the atmosphere for political discussion, I hope the House will agree that every obstacle should be removed from the scene. One of the obstacles is the continuation of detention and forced feeding of prisoners on this side of the Channel. While, for good reasons, prisoners are freely transferred from Northern Ireland to this country, we still refuse to transfer prisoners from this country back to Northern Ireland for the same kind of good reasons. But undoubtedly this constitutes a flashpoint and when the forced feeding is added it worsens the political and medical dangers. The situation is in danger of creating more martyrs and worsening an already dangerous problem.
Mr. Kilfedder: The hon. Gentleman feels concerned about the Price sisters. I disagree with him on the matter, and I remind him that it was put to the test in Belfast, West, whose people gave very few votes to Mr. Price, the father of the two girls. This would seem to indicate that the voters in Belfast, West have no strong wish to have the Price sisters brought back to Northern Ireland and that they feel, on the contrary, that the law should be fulfilled here in Great Britain.
Mr. Stallard: I do not want to get into an argument about who voted for whom, because it could be argued that the votes cast for Mr. Price, the abstensions, the
1542
boycotts, and the rest, were greater in total than the votes actually counted. The main issue in the election was Sunning-dale. In any event, the number of votes cast for Mr. Price is not the test that I apply in judging whether this type of situation, with its danger of martyrdom, is necessary and whether transfer in both directions is being conducted fairly.
I have always argued that the only ultimate solution for Ireland is reunification. I have opposed everything that does not lead in that direction. For that reason I welcome reservedly the Sunningdale agreement because it included the Council of Ireland and seemed to be another step in the direction which I support. I continue to support Sunningdale for that reason, just as I shall continue to oppose those who want to go in another direction. I shall resist any attempt to water down that one point, because I believe that it is the one point which gives credence to Sunningdale.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: I rise to speak for the first time for the constituency and the city and county of Londonderry—and that is a heavy responsibility for any hon. Member, because Londonderry is no ordinary constituency. Londonderry is the place where it all began and it is still the place where murder and arson continue.
The constituency is large in area but by Northern Ireland standards its numbers are only average. There are only about 93,000 electors. The main centres of population are the city itself and the town of Coleraine. There are also within the constituency several smaller towns and many villages and hamlets. My constituency is split in two by the Sperrin Mountains. The principal industry is farming and there is a number of factories producing mainly man-made fibres, as well as a number of more traditional industries.
It is an area in which the inhabitants have a great pride, and I am proud to represent them. My predecessor, who represented Londonderry for many years, was Mr. Robin Chichester-Clark, who has, I know, many friends in the House. No doubt he would still be its representative if it were not for the fact that he supported in this House policies regarding Northern Ireland which the majority

1543
of his electors rejected. The view of the constituency was democratically demonstrated on 28th February, and the general view of the inhabitants will now be expressed in this honourable House.
Practically every town and village in the county of Londonderry has felt the icy fear that stalks the whole province. The small town of Kilrea, for instance, is reputed to have had more bombs per head of the population than any other town in Ulster. A walk or a drive through it by any hon. Member will soon convince him of the accuracy of this statement.
At the other end of the constituency is Londonderry City itself, which many of us call the maiden city. It is, I fear, a maiden no longer, because it has been ravaged by murder, by arson, by bomb and by bullet, by violence of every description. Death and terror have been constant companions in its streets. The London companies built the city of Londonderry in centuries past. The city in which we now sit is the mother of Londonderry; I fear that it is the mother of a badly battered baby. The citizens of Londonderry hold the Members of this House and them alone responsible for the conditions in their city, because this is the House that made the policies that brought these things to pass.
I was appalled to hear the Secretary of State talk of withdrawing troops from that town. Last week Londonderry had several major incidents of terror that were carried out with an awsome ferocity and inhumanity that the Members here cannot understand or refuse to understand. Londonderry needs not less protection, but more; the border can be easily crossed. One of my constituents told me recently of crossing the border to Eire and returning. His car was searched by the Army as he entered the South but not when he returned. I was not aware that the IRA was carting explosives out of Northern Ireland. My constituent and I would like to know the reason for this difference in searching.
Within the city there has always been and still is a strong IRA element, and a lowering of troop numbers means that this body of evil men can say that their actions against this Government are succeeding; some people will believe them,
1544
and the murderers' strength will grow apace. At the end of the day the situation will be worse than it was at the start. I view the further changes in the police with dismay and consider them no more than another sop to the enemies of that force. All earlier acts of appeasement have failed. Why should this one succeed?
This House over the years has proceeded with a course of action with regard to Northern Ireland which finally produced the present government arrangements. Throughout the gestation, the Members here were continual in their cry that it was for the people of Northern Ireland to settle their own affairs. This has been repeated today by many hon. Members. In one respect the Ulster folk have settled their own problems. They have rejected your decisions, and they have rejected them by the democratic process on 28th February.
Much play has also been made today with the border poll and the Assembly election results. The border poll did not support or reject any system of government in Northern Ireland. It simply stated a general principle. The Assembly elections were fought before the shape of Sunningdale became clear, and the election was the first chance that Ulster people had to declare their will—and they did so loud and clear. No matter how steadfastly the Members of this House look the other way, facts are facts and they will some day have to face them. Talk of support for the Assembly is hollow when the people have spoken against it.
We have been told today that a Government need three or four years to do their work and bring their policies into practice. Are we to understand that the main Opposition party here will not try to remove the present Government from office for at least three years? Yet this should be their line of action if that reasoning were correct. It was admitted today that the parents, churches and schools no longer control the young in Northern Ireland. If that is not an admission of policy failure, in God's name what is?
I was a farmer. I was happy in my work and I would have been glad to remain one of those unknown men in muddy boots who feed this kingdom, but

1545
a minority of my neighbours wanted to take away my birthright as a Briton and to that action I objected. My objections have brought me here to speak for a slandered people, for a slandered country, for a slandered policy, to express the anger of the people whose views have been far too often ignored, to tell this House of the bitter fury I have often felt as I walked with broken glass crunching under by feet to watch a close friend's house flame like a great open fire. Have hon. Members of this House ever seen that? [An hon. Member: "Yes."] I have seen my own property go up in flames. Have hon. Members ever seen that? It is even worse to watch the grave-digger shovel dirt and muck on a good man's coffin. I cannot say shovelled on his face, because a shotgun does not leave a face at 10 yards.
I am a farmer. I am an honest and a blunt man. I heard a friend of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) say today that he saw another hon. Member with blood streaming down his face. My constituents in Londonderry have often told me that it was one of the hon. Member's own supporters who was the cause of the blood. And that same hon. Member to whom I refer was the very man who called the mobs on to the streets of Belfast to take the pressure off the rebels in Londonderry. That is something that we will neither forgive nor forget, for we hold him and his friends largely responsible for the murder and the terror in our streets and our villages and the blood that runs in every gutter in Ulster.
This honourable House in its wisdom cheered Chamberlain many years ago when he came back from Munich. It rejected him a few years later. It cheered also, in more recent times, a dear little girl from Cookstown. When I mention her name to hon. Members today, I am met with nothing but the shuffling feet and downcast eyes like village urchins caught in the farmer's orchard.
I say: "Gentleman, you are not invincible. You are not beyond reproach. You are not repository of all the wisdom in this nation." We have heard talk today of the transfer of the political prisoners. I know no political prisoners. I know the Price sisters as people who took part in the murder of the citizens
1546
of this nation, and for them I have neither respect nor sympathy.
In accord with the traditions of this place, I have not been too controversial in what I have said. No doubt I shall rise to speak again and I shall speak more bitterly and more vehemently. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker and hon. Members, for your tolerance of me.
8.10 p.m.
Mr. Carol Mather: The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) in his maiden speech described himself as a blunt and honest person. He certainly made a blunt and forthright speech, as perhaps one might expect from someone who comes from Londonderry. He perhaps realises, when he says that he blames this House for everything that has happened in Northern Ireland, that from now on he must accept his share of blame or praise for what goes on in the House of Commons.
I have been to Londonderry on several occasions and I first entered the no-go area five days after Operation Motorman. I have also seen the appalling destruction in the centre of Londonderry city, which horrified me, as it did everyone who visited it at that time. It compared with what has happened recently in Belfast and elsewhere.
I was interested in some of the Secretary of State's proposals, particularly the proposal to enlist the support of local people. Many people have argued that we cannot defeat terrorists who engage in guerilla warfare without enlisting the support of local people. We have not done so until now, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is in earnest when he says that he intends to do it.
I have great anxiety when the right hon. Gentleman announces that he will withdraw troops and thin them out as from this moment. He is right to enlist the support of the local people and to reorganise and expand the RUC to make it increasingly responsible for law and order, but that must happen first, before we begin to think of withdrawing troops from Northern Ireland. We have just been through some of the worst security situations that have occurred in the past two years. It is a strange moment at which to make an announcement about the immediate withdrawal of troops. We read in the newspapers today that

1547
reinforcements have arrived, so it seems to be somewhat rash to talk about the withdrawal of troops.
Mr. Orme: The hon. Gentleman, with his background, will know that the security forces operate in different ways. The troops arriving today are on a Ministry of Defence exercise to show the capabilities of forces that do not necessarily have to be there permanently. Surely the hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are advantages in rephasing the number of visits which troops have to make to Northern Ireland. Some regiments are going back there for the fifth or sixth time over a short period. These visits must be recycled, and that recommendation comes strongly from the military authorities.
Mr. Mather: I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said. I am in favour of flexibility, which is what we tried to achieve when the Conservatives had responsibility in Northern Ireland. What I was criticising was the announcement of a policy of gradual withdrawal. It is a strange time to make such an announcement, although I am as keen as is the hon. Gentleman to withdraw as many troops as possible as soon as we can.
During the course of this sad story we have never tried to train a force to take the place of the British Army when it is eventually pulled out. If the police and the RUC are to take over this rôle, we must see that the RUC is equipped and armed to enable its members to defend themselves, other people and property. The members of the RUC will be able to play this part only if they are formed into a gendarmerie.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider other sources of manpower in Northern Ireland which have so far been untapped. One finds as one goes round visiting UDR regiments that there is a great need for extra capability, particularly for operations in the daytime. Most of the UDR volunteers are available only at night. Some time ago it was suggested that there should be a regular battalion of UDR, but there was an immediate outcry against that, not least from many of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider this suggestion, particularly if the organisation could be such that each bat-
1548
talion had a regular company with a capability of operating not only at night but also in the daytime
If it is a question of economising with British troops there is a territorial army in Northern Ireland consisting of about 3,000 men. There are special circumstances in which that territorial army can be called out. It is unwise entirely to ignore this body of trained and organised men which could be called up if the need arose.
In considering the rôle of the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland we must put ourselves in the position of the ordinary common soldier who goes out on night patrol.
There is a case of a soldier serving in Northern Ireland which is sub judice, and I mention it only in general terms. Few of us were aware that the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act was not aimed merely at terrorists but could include British soldiers. It puts British soldiers in a false position. They are not on active service in Northern Ireland because it is part of the United Kingdom, but I am sure British soldiers would feel much happier if they could be put on that basis.
At Question Time one or two requests were made for the complete withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland. We must be clear that under present conditions, and without having anything to put in their place, that is quite out of the question. To do this would be to make a fatal mistake. We should in effect be saying to the terrorists, "If you attack us hard enough we shall be prepared eventually to go." It may be said that we have moved out in face of terrorist attacks in other parts of the world, but, with a threat of this kind, we have to decide exactly where the buck stops and, so far as I am concerned, the buck stops in Northern Ireland.
8.18 p.m.
Mr. Peter Hardy: I view the suggestion of the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Mather) that an alternative force should be established before our troops are withdrawn with a certain amount of suspicion and reservation. The history of Ireland and of other parts of the world suggests that para-military organisations are not necessarily a useful solution.

1549
I feel I am entitled to speak in this debate because a considerable number of young men from my constituency have served, are serving and will serve in Northern Ireland for a substantial period ahead. Although I am a Protestant Yorkshireman and not particularly well-versed in the complications of Irish politics, I feel that some of us from the provinces of England should pass on the comments which are made to us by our constituents who witness the procession of young men going for a four-months' or 12-months' tour of duty in Northern Ireland.
Another justification for my speaking in the debate is that my constituents are taxpayers. In addition to the demands on our young men, there are heavy demands upon the British taxpayers to ensure security and allow hope for the future in Northern Ireland.
The British taxpayer will have to pay increased attention to the problems involved in the Northern Ireland situation. The province places a heavy economic burden on the United Kingdom. It is a pity that in financial terms the political situation in Northern Ireland seems to mean that for every step forward, we take one backward step within a very short time. It is a pity that this is not fully realised in Northern Ireland. It is also a pity that the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland this afternoon was not greeted with general approval in Northern Ireland. A short time ago I was in the television studios and heard the response to my right hon. Friend's speech by some Northern Irish leaders. It was no more encouraging than has been their response to every other initiative taken by successive Governments in the last four or five years.
I am not very familiar with Northern Ireland, but I have visited the Province. What appals me is that, in an age of increasing leisure and greater mobility, opportunities seem to have been ignored by the people of the Province. It is an attractive Province with great tourist potential, but because of the troubles revenue from tourism has dropped by a third in the last five years. In real terms the loss is very much more bitter and cruel.
The loss of revenue has occurred despite the increasing assistance given to
1550
tourism in the Province. Hotel developments attract 40 per cent. grants, there is good fishing round the Northern Irish coasts, and there are adequate and generous grants to encourage and promote fishing. There has been a tremendous amount of expenditure on roads to assist both commerce and tourism in Northern Ireland. It is possible to travel about Northern Ireland by car much more easily and more comfortably than in most areas of Britain.
In addition to expenditure on communications and tourism, there has been a vast promotion of economic activity. The Northern Ireland Finance Corporation received a grant of £50 million, and many millions of pounds have been earmarked to attempt to deal with poverty in the area.
It has been suggested that a question I asked in the House this afternoon lacked compassion in that it was concerned with damage to property and should have been directed to loss of life. Those of us who have had a large number of troops sent from our constituencies to Northern Ireland need not ask questions in the House about the number of people killed and injured in the province. We know the toll in human life and limb in Northern Ireland.
We hope that the people of Northern Ireland are equally concerned about death and destruction in Northern Ireland. Certainly in many small villages and towns in Britain many people who have not set foot in Ireland have good reason to mourn and feel bitter about the casualties among our troops in the Province. Perhaps some of the anxieties over Sunningdale and the Council of Ireland are justified and many people of Northern Ireland may find those proposals to be somewhat indigestible, but they must begin to realise that the alternatives are bound to be very much less palatable.
In statistical terms the year 1973 in Ireland was a good deal better than was the year 1972. It is clear that less property was destroyed in 1973 than in the previous year, fewer lives were lost, and a greater number of people were apprehended for firearms offences. We can only hope that the year 1974 will see an improvement in the situation.

1551
Unfortunately, the events of the last few weeks seem to suggest that the pattern of improvement in 1973 must be taken as in isolation. I am not competent to give the answers to the situation for I feel that the answers to a large extent lie in the hands of the Northern Ireland politicians. They cannot expect solutions to be imposed by this country. The solution may come as a result of the fact that sucessive British administrations have bought valuable time to enable the politicians of Northern Ireland to arrive at a solution. Unfortunately, the events of recent months do not give much grounds for hope that the politicians in the Province are determined to achieve a solution.
What grieved me during a visit to Northern Ireland was to see Army units posted outside schools. As a former teacher I am aware that it is easy to be over-sensitive about the effects of television, cowboy films and all the rest on young minds, which are remarkably resilient. However, I am concerned at the effect of a daily dose of military presence and weekly doses of violence, which surely in the end must disfigure the minds of the children. I hope that my right hon. Friend's initiatives today will be considered a little more carefully than has been obvious from the hasty response which they have drawn so far in Northern Ireland. It is time that the politicians and people of Northern Ireland began to think a little more about my right hon. Friend's proposals and to respond to them. I hope that we shall get a different reaction from that which was displayed today by some in Northern Ireland, who have responded without very much thought or good sense. I hope that sort of attitude is not typical in view of the steps that Northern Ireland should be taking both now and in the future.
8.26 p.m.
Mr. Gerard Fitt: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland today took the first tentative steps to make certain that politics begin to work again in Northern Ireland. Throughout the past two months, particularly since the announcement of the General Election, politics in Northern Ireland have remained static. I do not blame this on the Conservative Govern-
1552
meat, but I blame it on the voices of dissent to Sunningdale which we have heard so strongly this afternoon.
It is evident that a substantial number of people in Northern Ireland oppose the Sunningdale Agreement. When we look closely at the figures, we see that they represent a third of the total electorate in Northern Ireland. Nobody can say with any accuracy in what way other votes would have been cast, had they been cast. We know that the SDLP, which was party to the Sunningdale Agreement, increased its vote in Northern Ireland. Because of particular reasons, it can be said that the constituencies of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and also Mid-Ulster could not be classified as being anti-Sunningdale.
We must analyse the position in which we find ourselves. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has taken positive action to try to make politics begin to work and to bring about the total rejection of the men of violence in Northern Ireland.
We must be clear who the opponents of Sunningdale are. There are the members of the Provisional IRA who set off the bombs and use the guns to murder. They are using violence to defeat the Sunningdale Agreement.
There are others in Northern Ireland who, whilst they may not prime a bomb or fire a revolver or a rifle, by their every utterance incite men to violence. I include within their ranks members of the United Ulster Unionist Committee in this House. Clearly over the past few weeks their whole stock in trade has been to build up fear and suspicion in the minds of the Protestant majority in Northern Ireland that they are to be dragooned and coerced against their will into an Irish Republic.
Anyone who has knowledge of what happened at Sunningdale will know that that is contrary to the facts stated there. Sunningdale recognised that there were two traditions in Northern Ireland: one, the Protestant majority who wish to maintain their links with the United Kingdom; two, the minority community who at some time in the future, by peaceful means, not by coercion, aspire to live in a united Ireland. Those are two legitimate aspirations. The majority cannot

1553
claim total victory over the minority and the minority cannot claim total victory over the majority.
Northern Ireland has had four centuries, if not more, of direct open confrontation between those two communities, particularly since the institution of the first Government in Northern Ireland in 1920. In every decade—in the 1920s, the 1930s, the 1940s, the 1960s and the 1970s—we have had outbreaks of sectarian trouble because of the political situation in Northern Ireland. We have had a one-party ascendancy Government which there was no possible hope of defeating. That Government, sure in the knowledge that they could not be defeated at the polls, became completely arrogant to every honest plea made to them by the then very small Opposition. Consequently, that situation built up frustrations in the minority community who saw themselves being deliberately excluded from any legitimate attempt that they were making to participate in the everyday running of their affairs. We had almost a caste system.
I bitterly resent the racialist speech by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) in which he referred to cleanliness and other standards. This is the master race mentality of someone who would seek to divide the people of Northern Ireland on those grounds. I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has ever been to Northern Ireland or to Southern Ireland. If so, he has learned very little. It would be better if he were to sit in this House and keep his mouth shut instead of trying to add flames to the fires that are now raging so furiously in Northern Ireland.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on lifting the proscriptions from the Provisional Sinn Fein and the Ulster Volunteer Force. I recognise that this is a calculated political chance. It may or may not be a success. I sincerely hope that it will allow the Provisional Sinn Fein to participate in any future elections that may take place in Northern Ireland and that it will then seek to go for the success of the ballot rather than of the bullet. I also hope that the Ulster Volunteer Force will begin to engage in politics rather than to resort to violence.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford) on his
1554
maiden speech. I am sure that we shall hear more from him in future. He said that the IRA first began the troubles in Northern Ireland. It was not the IRA which first began the troubles. It is not so long since 1969—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his hon. Friend the Minister of State will recall when the matter was first raised in this House—when the UVF caused explosions in water pipes and water mains in Dunadry with the specific intention of defeating the then Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, Captain Terence O'Neill. They began the present campaign of violence in 1969 because of what was happening politically when there was such a clamant demand for the institution of civil rights and social justice in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend has lifted the proscription from the Provisional Sinn Fein and the UVF, but there is another sinister organisation operating there, and that is the UDA. Only recently, one of its members, a Mr. Baker, was convicted in a court in Northern Ireland of four brutal and callous murders. Many people thought that more murders were involved, but no evidence could be obtained about them.
Here was a member of an organisation proclaiming his membership of it and giving sordid details to the court about how brual murders were carried out, yet this organisation has never been proscribed. One hopes that it, too, will desist from the campaign of violence in which it has been engaging and will instead engage in political action.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South referred to the brutal murder of Senator Fox in the Republic and said that immediately afterwards a claim was made that the murder had been carried out by the UFF. I think the hon. Gentleman was trying to imply that there is no such organisation as the UFF. Be that as it may, many people in Northern Ireland believe that there is such an organisation and that it has been responsible for the carryying out of many brutal murders. I am thinking particularly of the murder of my own election agent, Senator Patrick Wilson.
Mr. Bradford: I do not doubt that there is such an organisation as the UFF. What I doubt is whether it is a so-called Protestant organisation. I think that we

1555
could perhaps get more information about this mysterious organisation from Whitehall or O'Connell Street than from the Protestant areas of Belfast.
Mr. Fitt: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman admit that there is such an organisation in Northern Ireland. I believe that it is composed of various sections of the UVF and the UDA. It is a breakaway group from those organisations, and it has been responsible for many murders. The Secretary of State has lifted the proscription from other organisations. The UFF is dealing in death, destruction and murder, and I urge the Secretary of State to take every step to bring its members before the courts.
The debate is about whether one supports or rejects the Sunningdale Agreement. It may be right to say that in the circumstances which then prevailed a majority of people in Northern Ireland voted against the Sunningdale proposal, but I am sure it will be freely admitted by everyone in the House that the election did not take place at the best time for Northern Ireland. The new Executive had been in operation for only five or six weeks and it had not had an opportunity to prove that it was acting in the interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.
Considerable hysteria was quite deliberately created by, in particular, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and those associated with him. It is understandable that because of all the fears and suspicions a majority of the people seemed to be rejecting Sunning-dale, but one has to consider the matter in another way.
Captain Orr: That is a myth.
Mr. Fitt: It was no myth. The election took place in a political atmosphere similar to that in which Hitler and the National Socialist Party were elected to power in what subsequently became Nazi Germany. At that time the figures of hate in Germany were the Jews. The figures of hate created and fostered by UCC candidates were the Catholics and so-called Republicans. There is no doubt about that.
In recent weeks, the right hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West) has said quite clearly that
1556
he rejects Sunningdale and power sharing. He will not have power sharing with Republicans, and he likes to designate them. He will have nothing whatever to do with the SDLP. As it happens, the SDLP is at present the authentic voice of the Catholic minority in Northern Ireland. It proved to be so in the Assembly elections and also in the recent elections to the House of Commons.
Mr. Dalyell: Will my hon. Friend accept it from me that Members like my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Hardy) and myself who have had to comfort widows become pretty impatient and depressed at Irish Members harking back to the past the whole time?
Mr. Fitt: I accept that. My hon. Friend is not the only Member who has had to comfort widows either in his constituency or in any other. I have had to comfort many widows and I have had to attend the funerals of many innocent people who lost their lives in the city of Belfast and throughout Northern Ireland. So when sympathy is extended to widows this should be right across the board and Northern Ireland must be included. The past has created this situation and it was in an effort to change the politics of the situation that the Sunningdale Agreement was arrived at.
In Northern Ireland there is a deliberate attempt by the Provisional IRA to bring about the unity of Ireland against the will of the majority of the people of Northern Ireland. On the other hand, there are Members of the UUUC—one needs to be almost a Patrick Campbell to pronounce that correctly—whose only alternative to the present situation is to defeat the power-sharing Executive and the Sunningdale Agreement and to restore a one-party ascendancy in Northern Ireland as existed in 1968 and 1969.
I believe that those days are long gone and that this Government and the present Opposition will not in any circumstances tolerate a return to a one-party Unionist Government in Northern Ireland. I also believe that they will not allow themselves to be blackmailed or intimidated by men of violence into departing from the Sunningdale Agreement—and I support them in that.
What is left in between? I hear hon. Members, particularly in the Northern

1557
Ireland Assembly and their spokesmen here, calling for a renegotiation of the Sunningdale Agreement. What do they mean by a renegotiation of that agreement? They mean to scrap it. The right hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone has already said that he will not talk to the SDLP representatives. To whom will he talk? Whom does he regard as being the authentic voice of the minority in Northern Ireland? With whom is he prepared to sit down and negotiate in an attempt to bring about an acceptable form of Government in Northern Ireland which will represent all its people? I believe that the SDLP is the only political organisation that can speak with the voice of authenticity in this situation.
Again, the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) spoke about the tyranny of Parliament. He should be an absolute expert on the tyranny of Parliament, because he was the Minister for Home Affairs in Northern Ireland when under the old Unionist ascendancy there was real tyranny in Northern Ireland, tyranny to an extent which forced the then British administration in 1968 and 1969 to take effective steps against it and which effectively forced a Conservative Government to abolish that citadel of unionism in Northern Ireland, Stormont. The lesson should be made very clear to its spokesmen here this evening that this Parliament and this Government will decide that there will be no return to the old Stormont.
We have heard from the Secretary of State that a new system is to be brought into operation which will be headed by Lord Gardiner and which will look into the whole question of detention and internment in Northern Ireland. I welcome that announcement by my right hon. Friend because I personally—I know that here I speak for many people in Northern Ireland—have a great deal of faith and trust in the integrity of Lord Gardiner. I remember very well when he wrote that dissenting report from one of the numerous reports which emanated from Northern Ireland a few years ago.
We have felt—I speak for the minority community here; I know that this also involved the majority community—that detention without trial in Northern Ireland must be ended as speedily as possible, because whilst there is internment
1558
without trial there is no hope of making politics work. The raw nerve of internment will make it impossible for many Catholics and Protestants fully to participate in a return to normal politics.
Since I entered the House—I do not think anyone can question my bona fides on this—I have at all times voted with the Labour Party, in government and in opposition. I hope to be able to continue to do that. If, however, there is any intention—I believe that there will be, from what was stated this afternoon—by the Government to replace or continue in its present form the Emergency Provisions Act, I shall reluctantly and sadly find myself in the Lobby against the Government. My conscience would never allow me to go into a Lobby to support the unjust system of detention and internment.
Mr. Orme: My hon. Friend knows that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set in train a committee and proposals—which I have been given the job of looking into—relating to the phasing-out of internment. It is the Government's intention to do this. My hon. Friend will agree that some of the violence at the moment, particularly from the Provisional IRA, is intended to prevent the ending of internment. It ought to be known that there are certain people in Northern Ireland, of both extremes, who see in violence the advantage of maintaining internment, while the Government want to get rid of it.
Mr. Fitt: My hon. Friend has confirmed what I have said on many occasions since the outbreak of the present violence. There are elements in the Provisional IRA who want to keep internment in operation. They realise that it is an emotional issue which gets them sympathetic support from sources from which they would not otherwise get support. I have said for many years that there are elements in the Provisional IRA who are prepared to sacrifice many innocent people in Long Kesh and the Maze because they believe that this will help to gain them political sympathy.
I now make a specific call, as I did recently in the Assembly, to all who supported the SDLP in the past. I appreciate that it takes courage for people to go to a polling station and put a cross

1559
on a ballot slip and I ask all those who have had the courage to support the party in the past—the party which I have the honour to lead—to take whatever steps are necessary to isolate the men of violence from the community.
A man may be told by the Provisional IRA—at the point of a gun—to take a bomb, perhaps a 500 lb or 600 lb bomb, into the centre of Royal Avenue, causing a terrible explosion. I recognise the feelings of frustration in the minds not only of Protestants in Belfast but of all citizens in Belfast about this. This action, in turn, leads to the assassination of many innocent Catholics, merely because extremists from the Unionist majority community cannot get the men who perpetrate the bombing in the first place. The number of innocent Catholics who have been assassinated through the actions of the Provisional IRA results in a scar on the hearts and minds of many people in Northern Ireland.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposes to take steps in relation to the RUC. I have repeatedly spoken about the RUC in the past. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) says that we should not talk about the past, but we must talk about it if we are trying to create a future.
The RUC always seemed to be identified with the Unionist Party, with one-party Government in Northern Ireland. Many of its actions made this clear. At Sunningdale we tried, without compulsion or coercion, to reach an agreement whereby an acceptable police force could be created, one which would be accepted and defended by the whole population in Northern Ireland. The only way to do this is through the Council of Ireland. That link must be established to allow the minority community there to identify itself with the police force.
We hear hysterical shouts now from people who say that they do not like the Sunningdale Agreement and who say that we ought to scrap the piece dealing with the Council of Ireland. That agreement was arrived at quite freely. Every part of it must be fulfilled before there can be any hope of party politics becoming operational once more in Northern Ireland. At present power sharing,
1560
despite what has been said by dissident voices today, is accepted by the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, Protestant or Catholic. They recognise that John Hume has as much ability and integrity as any Minister of Commerce in Northern Ireland ever had and that Austin Currie has as much ability and integrity—
Mr. David James: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that power sharing was enacted by the Queen in Parliament? The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) has raised this point about loyalty. Does the hon. Member agree that it is not possible to be loyal to the Crown without being loyal to Parliament, because they are one and the same thing?
Mr. Fitt: This is what we hear repeatedly from the Unionist Members in Northern Ireland. They say that they owe their loyalty to the Queen but do not owe any loyalty to the Parliament in Northern Ireland. A member of this Parliament may disagree with the laws that are enacted but he is part of the decision-making process. There are at least two men now sitting on the UUC benches who should be sitting on the Labour benches because at heart they are Labour men. Because of the historical divide in Northern Ireland they find themselves sitting with the Conservative Party.
From what we have heard from the right hon. Member for Belfast, East, it seems that he will vote against this Government if he does not like what they do, then against the Conservative Government for the same reason. There will be an election every six weeks and shortly the hon. Member will be supporting the Scottish National Party and everyone will be happy.
Some of my hon. Friends will not agree with what I am about to say I was perturbed when the former Attorney-General appeared to be castigating the Irish Government for proceeding with their case at Strasbourg. He appeared to be asking for a withdrawal of the charges. I do not think that is fair. The charges are well founded. One of the affidavits used by the Irish Government was made by myself and I have no intention of withdrawing any allegations I made. I recognise the emotional issues involved with the

1561
British Army. Hon. Members from all parts of the House represent constituencies from which soldiers have gone to Northern Ireland, some to be killed.
But it would be less than honest to say that every soldier in Northern Ireland is an angel. I had discussions with the Northern Ireland Office this morning about a serious case in my constituency. An inquiry is to be conducted. Therefore, I shall say nothing about that. But the soldiers, acting in a very dangerous and difficult situation, sometimes do things which should not be done by anyone in those situations.
The right hon. Member for Belfast, East said that other types of constitutional settlements will be possible if the Sunningdale proposals fail and if the power-sharing Executive does not get an opportunity to prove itself. Every sentiment that the right hon. Gentleman uttered leads clearly in one direction. He is saying, "If we do not have a return of the old Stormont and if we proceed with the proposals for a Council of Ireland, we shall declare UDI." That is what the right hon. Gentleman has been saying for many years. That is what he was implying. If that is his intention, supported as he is by his colleagues, I can clearly see that this is the road to disaster in Northern Ireland.
I accept what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State —that Sunningdale at present is the only possible direction which can be taken. Those opposed to it have no alternative. I hope that the present Government and Opposition will not allow themselves to be deflected, intimidated or blackmailed by those who want to return to the old system, which has proved to be such a disaster.
8.57 p.m.
Rev. Ian Paisley: We in this House today have been discussing matters that affect the well-being of the people of Northern Ireland. Perhaps hon. Members who do not come from Northern Ireland might have thought that there was reality in this debate. I am afraid, however, that the debate will have no crumbs of comfort for the people of Northern Ireland who at present have one great matter before them. It is not the matter of political institutions and whether or not they work. It is the
1562
matter of their peace and safety. It is the matter of the peace and safety of their children going to and from school, the peace of the workman going to his place of business and seeking to earn a livelihood for his family and the peace of the community at night, so that people can indulge in the things in which they want to indulge after their day's work.
I ask the House to reflect upon how the people of Northern Ireland, who are anxious for peace and tranquillity in their homes and anxious to carry on with their work, will react to the statement that has been made by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the statement made by the Opposition today. Is there anything in those statements that will help the people of Northern Ireland towards peace and prosperity?
Today we have had the announcement that certain troops are to be withdrawn from the city of Londonderry. Those of us in Northern Ireland who know the situation are quite aware, as I am sure the Secretary of State is aware, that the police force is not up to the total strength that the Chief Constable had in mind and that recruiting for the police has not been as rapid as one would have liked. Is police manpower available so that when the troops are withdrawn from the city of Londonderry there will be enough men to give some sort of protection to the people there?
Lord Richard Cecil, who served in the city, told the people of Northern Ireland that he found his hands as an officer tied and that political considerations entered into the military operations. That has never been adequately repudiated by anyone. As long as political considerations enter into the campaign against terrorism, there will be no defeat of terrorism. The hands of those in charge of the security operation should be untied and they should take the necessary action to defeat the terrorists.
Mr. Merlyn Rees: Any advice for anything I have done has been taken from the security authorities. I am not an expert in these matters. I take advice from the security authorities, and I want to make that abundantly clear. Lord Richard Cecil, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all, it does not matter. I take advice from those who are skilled to know,

1563
not from a captain of the Army who is leaving the Service.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not believe that the Secretary of State has understood my point. I was trying to argue the view of the people in the city of Londonderry, the view of the man and woman sitting at their fireside. Those of us who have been in the city know the tremendous pounding it has received. Its centre is almost destroyed. This House has already taken a decision about removing the defences of Ulster. Ulster had an armed police force that was trained to combat terrorism Ulster had the B Specials, which for 50 years kept the IRA at bay. The British Army was then brought in, but before the defences of Ulster can be re-erected the troops are to be withdrawn from the city of Londonderry. The people of the city will certainly feel strongly about this move. The important question is whether the men are available in the RUC to take the place of the troops. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) to make noises, but he does not sit for the city of Londonderry and he has not been burned or bombed.
One of the important questions is who represents whom and who can speak for whom. In opposition the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State used to put that question forcefully to the House. There has been an election. Whichever way the results of it are read, the hard facts are that 11 out of the 12 Ulster Members were returned by an electorate which said that it did not want enforced power sharing with the Republicans and it did not want the Sunningdale Agreement. Those policies were clearly set out in the election addresses of all 11, as well as the election address of one unsuccessful candidate. The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was returned on a minority vote. Let us make that perfectly clear. If the hon. Gentleman thinks he can tell the House that he is representing people on that matter, the House can draw it own conclusions.
It is very difficult under the British electoral system, with one vote being cast for one candidate, to obtain a complete majority in any part of the community. We know that the Labour
1564
Party does not have an entire majority in the country. But on that system the total votes in Northern Ireland provided a clear overall majority. If the House wants to reject the ballot box it can do it, but in so doing those who have advocated that the Northern Ireland people should settle their differences by the ballot box are now taking away the power to persuade the people to stick to the ballot box.
There has been a reference to Mr. John Hume, who heads the Department of Commerce. The hon. Member for Belfast, West said that Mr. Hume was a man of integrity. But Mr. Hume released a pamphlet in the city of Londonderry in which he called on the people to take part in a rent strike and said "You will never be asked to pay back your rents." Now the same gentleman is telling people to pay up, after promising them in that leaflet that they would never have to pay their rents. Those are the facts, and the House needs to be told the facts.
I should like the Minister of State when replying to the debate to enlarge on the question of the release of detainees. My position on the matter has always been clear. I have opposed internment without trial, and I opposed the emergency provisions, both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. [Interruption.] I have a few other things to say in a minute or two that the hon. Gentleman will not like. We have heard of two organisations that are coming off the proscription list. One is the Ulster Volunteer Force and the other is Sinn Fein. I understand that there are Protestants in Long Kesh who, on being charged before the commissioner, were told that they were there because they were members of the UVF. I do not think that anybody is in Long Kesh because he is a member of Sinn Fein. [An HON. MEMBER: "Not yet."]
I asked Questions about the release of detainees, but the Minister was not forthcoming. He would not answer. After detainees have been released the security forces have been told of their release, with the statement that the men concerned hold office in the IRA. Some are listed as officers commanding battalions, brigades and so on. If a man is a member of the Provisional IRA and the authorities know that he is a member,

1565
why is he released from detention without trial? Why is he not brought to a court and charged with membership of that organisation?
It is dangerous to tell men "You are put into Long Kesh because you are members of proscribed organisations", to keep a proscription on certain organisations and then to let out those men, with the security forces being told that they are out and that they are leaders of the IRA, instead of dealing with them before the courts.
What we need in Northern Ireland is a return to the proper courts system, a return to jury trials and British justice in our courts. Until we have that, there will be no confidence among any section of the community on the law and order issue. That is an important matter and one to which the House should bend its will.
I know that time is limited because the hon. Member for Belfast, West took a lot of time, as he did in the Assembly recently, much to the confusion of the Assembly. I shall keep to the time limit which you have given me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We have been told that the RUC is to be divided into three sections—Londonderry, the border area and Belfast. Apparently an assistant chief constable will preside over those areas. Is this the beginning of the end of the Royal Ulster Constabulary as it is presently organised? Is the new section of the RUC on the border a preliminary to a joint border police force? That is what the people of Northern Ireland want to know.
The people of Northern Ireland did not enter freely into the Sunningdale negotiations. The representatives of the majority community were not invited to be full members of the Sunningdale conference. Indeed, Mr. West was not invited to take part in Sunningdale. We must realise that we cannot force on 60 per cent. of the population something that they do not want.
Some former Opposition Members have talked about loyalty and the laws which Parliament has enacted. They have agitated against the Industrial Relations Act and they are now to do away with it. It was not so long ago that the hon. Member for Belfast, West was
1566
elected to the Belfast Corporation. He raised a row about the visit of Princess Margaret. He said that she should not be allowed in the streets of Belfast. They are now talking about loyalty to the Queen.
We in Northern Ireland intend to use the ballot box and not the bomb. We believe that truth will prevail and that our people will eventually get a settlement in which all people will be able to take part.
9.22 p.m.
Mr. Ian Gilmour: Every debate on Northern Ireland seems to take place against a sombre background, and the background to the present debate is even more sombre than usual. IRA terrorism in recent days has been more than usually appalling. The several hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland who have spoken today have left us in no doubt about the seriousness of the present situation in Ulster. Despite that, it is my pleasant task to begin by extending my congratulations and the congratulations of the House to those hon. Members who have today made their maiden speeches.
The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford), for reasons which I am sure the House will understand and appreciate, did not fear to be controversial. He spoke with a quiet sincerity which was highly impressive however much one may have disagreed with what he said.
The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Ross) spoke his mind without reserve and without fear of controversy for equally valid reasons. He spoke eloquently of his constituency and the horrors that it has suffered. He left no doubt of the passion that he feels. The House will look forward to hearing both hon. Members speak often in future. I am sure that they will do so.
I shall talk chiefly about the security forces. However much many people inside and outside the House would like to see the Army withdraw, no one could deny its importance in the Province. The security forces have not had as much attention today as might have been expected. I hope the House will agree that in the last five years the Army has had a most onerous, disagreeable and dangerous task and has carried it out superbly well. Unfortunately, the

1567
security forces are always being criticised from one side or the other, occasionally from both. Over the years from time to time, the Army has been strongly criticised by some newspapers and on television.
Although I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) that the impact of television on the troubles in Ulster has not always been happy or helpful in some of the things it has done, it has been very beneficial in at least one respect. The British people have been able to see the Army in action and some of the very nasty things the soldiers have had to do and some of the very nasty treatment they have received. But above all, the British people have been able to see British soldiers appear on television describing and explaining what they have been doing. The British people have been able to see soldiers of all ranks giving an account of themselves, often under very hostile questioning. They have been able to see the essential decency of the British soldier and the restraint, magnanimity and courage he has shown.
Having seen the British soldier on television, the British people have rejected conclusively the horror stories, the atrocity stories, the hate propaganda put around by the IRA and its lackeys. Since, fortunately, the public often influence the media more than the media influence the public, the Army has lately received much better treatment from the media than it used to receive.
The Army, of course, is also involved in the accusations of the Irish Government at Strasbourg, about which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir P. Rawlinson) spoke so strongly and effectively. As he said, the Irish Government have made accusations of the vilest conduct against soldiers and many other people as well. I am sure that we all—except the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)—share my right hon. and learned Friend's hope that the Irish Government will withdraw these allegations forthwith.
Then, of course, verbal as well as real sniping is still carried on by the IRA. It often picks on a new unit and says that it is discriminating against the Catholic population, or behaving with lack of humanity or with brutality, or is behav-
1568
ing like Attila the Hun or the SS, and so forth. But the Army has got used to that sort of thing. Allegations are made that the Army is opposed only to Catholic terrorism and treats Protestants and hard men on the Protestant side with kid gloves and excuses their illegal and dangerous activities. These allegations do no harm over here because we know that they are untrue, but they may do some harm in Ireland.
Then there is the opposite propaganda which sometimes come from extreme Protestants. This alleges not that the Army has been too harsh or too brutal to the Catholics but that it has been weak or negligent and has been guilty of appeasement of the enemies of the State. I must admit that I find this Protestant propaganda every bit as ungracious, ill-conditioned, unbecoming, inaccurate and false as the propaganda of the IRA and its contemptible front organisation—except for one thing. While the Army is completely under civilian and political control, as it always has been in this country, and therefore accusations of brutality and inhumanity against soldiers are ultimately the responsibility of the British Government, the Protestant allegations of so-called weakness and appeasement are even more directly pointed against the politicians in this House. However untrue the propaganda, I find it preferable that it should be directed against us as politicians sitting comfortably and safely in this House than against soldiers who are living in great danger in Northern Ireland, under conditions of considerable rigour and strain—against soldiers, many of whom have given their lives or been severely wounded in their efforts to bring peace to Northern Ireland.
There have been some allegations this afternoon. The hon. Member for Belfast, South talked about the ineptitude of the forces. Unless I understood him wrongly, I think that the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) made similar allegations. But the best example of the sort of thing to which I am referring occurred in a letter in the Daily Telegraph yesterday from the right hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. West). In that letter, the leader of the official Unionist Party said:
"But five years of appeasement of our enemies and careless throwing away of young

1569
soldiers' lives has exhibited Britain's sick inability to meet its responsibilities."
The hon. Member made similar remarks at greater length but with no greater proof in an article in The Times today.
I find that allegation peculiarly repulsive and very hard to forgive. Nothing whatever could be better calculated to lower the morale of the Army in Northern Ireland. Luckily, that morale is so good—
Mr. West rose—
Mr. Gilmour: I have not quite finished with the right hon. Member yet. If he will forgive me, I should like to deploy the full case against him.
Luckily, that morale is so good that the right hon. Member's allegations will have no more effect than similar allegations by the IRA. No one, even before this debate, and certainly not after, would deny that the Protestant community, indeed the whole community in Northern Ireland, has been under appalling strain, or that the overwhelming majority of the population, who are law abiding, have conducted themselves with the most admirable fortitude, patience and restraint.
Equally, nobody would claim that the British Government or the British Army have always got it right. We obviously have not always judged every situation correctly. We have not always decided on the best dispositions. We have not always made the right predictions or decided on the right course of action. Of course not—such perfection is obviously impossible.
But the suggestion that the British Government and the British Army have not at all times been determined to do whatever was possible to stamp out terrorism without making the situation worse or that they have wantonly thrown away the lives of young soldiers out of political cowardice or in the pursuit of some ulterior political aim is utterly false and is on the same sort of level as the opposite allegations of the IRA.
Mr. West: I resent the right hon. Gentleman using the phrase "extreme Protestants" and then looking in our direction as if implying that we are extreme Protestants. We are proud to
1570
be Protestants, but we do not deserve the title "extreme".
The right hon. Gentleman could hardly dispute that the policy has not been successful over the last four years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Could he dispute that the policy of the British Government in Northern Ireland has not been successful over the last four years? Is he aware that I asked a former Secretary of State in Northern Ireland to repudiate a letter which Lord Richard Cecil had written and which appeared in a paper there saying that he had resigned his commission because there were political restrictions on the activities of British soldiers in Ulster?
Mr. Gilmour: If the hon. Gentleman is a moderate, I am very glad to hear it. No doubt he will show that by his conduct, and no one will describe him again as an extremist, but his journalistic activities will have to alter before our description of him is likely to alter.
Throughout the period of the previous Government I was at the Ministry of Defence. My colleagues and I made frequent visits to Northern Ireland. We always talked to soldiers of all ranks and asked whether they were lacking anything. Some of the questions raised related to welfare matters and we tried to improve conditions wherever possible. We could not do as much as we would have liked to do, but that is in the nature of things. My colleagues and I always followed up those questions by asking whether there was anything more that the troops would like to do militarily. We asked whether they thought they were being stopped—as the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) said—by higher authority from doing things that they thought would help to stamp out terrorism.
There were occasional complaints about certain people being released from detention, but the soldiers always understood the political reasons for the releases. Apart from that, my colleagues and I found that the soldiers did not believe that they had the answer to terrorism and that they were prevented from giving it by weak or cowardly politicians. The idea that the Army has been shackled by politicians and that left to itself it could have eliminated

1571
terrorism is totally false and is certainly not held by the soldiers themselves.
The Army in Northern Ireland is politically sophisticated and appears to have a much better understanding of political and military loyalties than has the leader of the Official Unionist Party and his colleagues. If the hon. Gentleman and his friends think that they have the answer to terrorism, they have had plenty of opportunities to give it, either to the previous Secretary of State or the present one. They have come up with nothing of any use. It is no good pretending that for the Army to go in and shoot up a lot of people will help the Northern Ireland situation in any way.
I reassure the right hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone that the one thing the Army in Northern Ireland wants is peace so that it can return to its normal duties. The one thing, except for terrorism, that the Army dislikes most in Northern Ireland is the activity of politicians that makes the attainment of peace and normal life more distant and difficult than it would otherwise be. If, by chance the hon. Gentleman wants to help the security forces, instead of criticising them, I hope that he will remember that it is the activities of the extremists, the activities of those who are not prepared to compromise, which are responsible for the continued involvement of the security forces in Northern Ireland and the continued killings of our young soldiers.
The Secretary of State announced this afternoon some reduction in our forces in Northern Ireland, a reduction to which the hon. Member for Londonderry expressed strong opposition and on which the hon. Member for Antrim, North expressed considerable doubt. The Government have been keeping this difficult subject under continual review, just as did the Conservative Government. The question of overstrain and turbulence in the Army, the separation of soldiers from their families and other welfare and management problems are relevant considerations, as are the fears and hopes and the welfare of the population of Northern Ireland. A balance has to be struck, and I am sure that the Secretary of State will strike it.
One other aspect to be borne in mind is that it is not true that the more troops
1572
there are in the Province the more security one necessarily has. No less an authority on this subject than General Grivas laid down that in a guerrilla or terrorist situation there was an optimum of troops that should be deployed, but his view was that the optimum was not necessarily the highest number. It is possible to have too many troops. This is quite apart from any considerations advanced by my right hon. Friend this afternoon about wanting to take the Army out of security duties. It is a matter which I am sure the Secretary of State and the House will bear in mind.
We all know, as has been emphasised today, that the Sunningdale Agreement has caused much opposition and alarm in Ulster. The hon. Member for Belfast, South spoke of the slimy snake of Sunningdale and the right hon. Member for Belfast, East talked about a surrender of sovereignty to the Council of Ireland. I find it difficult, looking at the Sunningdale communiqué, to understand how people find the communiqué so frightening. It contains a phrase which should set all fears at rest:
"The Council of Ministers would act by unanimity."
It is difficult to think of a greater safeguard than that. I doubt whether there has been anything like this since the old Polish Diet where the liberum veto operated and one solitary Polish noble was enough to block a measure.
Mr. Craig: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there is no surrender of sovereignty in the transfer of executive powers to the Council of Ireland? Is he also saying that there is no surrender of sovereignty to the European Economic Community?
Mr. Gilmour: I am saying that there is no surrender of sovereignty, because the Council of Ireland can act only by unanimity. Unless the right hon. Gentleman seriously imagines a situation in which all the members of the Northern Ireland Executive are not Unionists but are all members of the SDLP—which is rather unlikely—there can be no surrender of sovereignty. Therefore, fears about Sunningdale cannot be justified. I was hoping to enter into a philosophical exercise with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Down, South (Captain Orr), but because of the shortage of

1573
time we shall have to postpone that to another occasion.
I end, as I began, by saying that we all recognise the appalling terrorist situation in Northen Ireland. We all know that the greatest amount of damage, murder and terrorism has been caused by the Provisional IRA. It is principally against that body that the Army has to direct its forces. Unfortunately it is also true that there has been some Protestant terrorism and sectarian murders, although not directed against the security forces. It is the duty of the security forces to act against terrorism from wherever it comes at any time. I am sure the House will agree that the security forces have opposed all forms of terrorism with total and exemplary impartiality, bravery and skill. The House will continue to give them our full and wholehearted support.
9.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): This has been a debate of major political significance for this House and for Northern Ireland. I shall do my best to answer many of the points which have been raised in the debate.
The right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) in a sense attempted to lecture the House about the responsibilities of the rest of the United Kingdom to Northern Ireland. He made several attempts to underline the responsibility of the rest of the United Kingdom for Northern Ireland and he put his points clearly to the House. It is only fair to say to the right hon. Gentleman that the rest of the United Kingdom has some points to raise about Northern Ireland. These points are being increasingly pressed on us and must be taken into account.
The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) referred to the letter written by the right hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West) and sought to deal with the role of the security forces. He referred to the economic factors affecting Northern Ireland. When considering the responsibilities of the rest of the United Kingdom, certain figures should be taken into account. In 1971–72 net payments to Northern Ireland from the rest of the United Kingdom amounted to £181 million. In 1973–74 that figure had risen
1574
to £315 million. The forecast for 1974–75 takes that figure close to £400 million. Included in that figure is the subvention since reorganisation to Harland and Wolff of about £65 million. The figure for compensation—not claimed but paid —for property damage is £61 million and for personal damage £7 million. All these figures exclude military expenditure in Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about Northern Ireland's contribution in return to the United Kingdom. We welcome the fact that commercial enterprises have kept going and I shall be referring to some of the industries in Northern Ireland at a later stage. Nevertheless there is an imbalance between exports and imports with respect to Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.
I am not in any sense making threats or suggesting that the Government want to change the policy regarding assistance to Northern Ireland. I think that the British people, despite their economic troubles, will willingly continue to pay this money in future, but they ask in return that there should be a genuine desire for a political settlement in Northern Ireland. We have a right to ask for that.
People glibly talk about pulling down the Assembly and the power-sharing arrangements. I remind them that the patience of certain people in Northern Ireland is reaching the limit. I welcome the fact that views have been frankly and freely expressed in this House, but it must be understood that other people in this country in all political parties who have been very quiet on this issue might, if the political solutions fought for so hard by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side and others are destroyed, be roused to anger which will more than match the anger which has been expressed in Northern Ireland. These facts must be stated, and I believe that the House would wish me to speak frankly.
I turn now to the question of detention and the action that is to be taken. Irrespective of the provocation that has been used against the Government, it is our intention to phase out internment and detention, as promised in the Sunningdale Agreement. To achieve that end, I ask for the co-operation of hon. Members on

1575
both sides of the House. The question of Protestant detainees at the Maze was raised by one hon. Gentleman. I believe that his assistance would be as invaluable as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) in getting this matter resolved.
I have been asked for details of what we are attempting. A working party of officials from the Northern Ireland Office, the Department of Manpower Services, the Department of Housing, Local Government and Planning, the Department of Health and Social Security and the Department of Community Relations has already been set up, and the first report is before me.
The working party will consider the whole question of detainees, their background, the problems that exist, whether they need training, whether they would be prepared to co-operate, the problems affecting their families and the problems which they themselves would face if they were to return to what might be difficult communities. I shall consult the full Executive to try to get its assistance in dealing with the problems affecting detainees.
Perhaps the most important help that we could receive would be for courageous men and women in the hard-line ghetto communities to come forward with offers of help in resettling detainees. We need that kind of help, and I know that members of the SDLP and other parties in Northern Ireland have offered to give such assistance. It is in what one might perhaps describe as the grey area of resettlement that the most difficult problems will arise.
We do not underestimate the problems, nor do we underestimate the difficulties arising from the violence in Northern Ireland, but if violence were ended tomorrow by those who are said to be motivated by political ends, would that bring an end to the violence? What about the young people who have almost been brought up on violence?
There are difficult problems, and they will have to be dealt with by the community in Northern Ireland as a whole as well as by the United Kingdom as a whole. We all have a responsibility in this matter, and I therefore urge my hon. Friends to let us have any suggestions
1576
that they think will help the Government to carry out their policy of phasing out detention. We need this help, because detention is a problem in the way of obtaining a political settlement. I noted what was said by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), who has made his views known to the House on many occasions. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman and to his hon. Friends, just as I do to the hon. Member for Belfast, West and his hon. Friends, to help the Government.
The work of phasing out detention is going ahead and a pilot scheme is already in operation. I know that the House will not want me to go into more detail about that. This work is of major importance and I am pleased that the Government are pursuing the matter. My right hon. Friend has asked me to tackle what could be an extremely difficult job but one that is worth while and important.
Much of the debate has centred on the Sunningdale Agreement. This comes back to what I said about the rest of the United Kingdom. We can play about with figures and prove all sorts of things. It has been said that the vote in Northern Ireland was on Sunningdale and that the settlement was overwhelmingly rejected. I recognise the strength of feeling on this matter, and it has been put clearly to the House this evening, but I think one is entitled to say that the election was called at a most unfortunate time. The Executive had only just started its work. It is true that many people in Northern Ireland expressed a view by their votes, but we do not accept that as the ultimate rejection of Sunningdale. While the rest of the people of the United Kingdom were perhaps voting on very different issues, we might even ask them what their views are on Sunningdale at some future date.
Mr. Craig: Will the Minister tell me what we must do to show him our total rejection?
Mr. Orme: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would like to show the House tonight what he feels about this. Does he reject the proposals that are coming forward and the reaffirmation that has come from right hon. Members opposite —it certainly comes from us—not to be deflected from Sunningdale? We intend

1577
to see that that policy, which was freely and readily agreed, is implemented together with the acceptance of all the parties concerned. It is the job of the House to advocate to the people of Northern Ireland, if necessary alongside the right hon. Gentleman, the values of the Sunningdale Agreement and the safeguards contained therein, which are not fully understood in Northern Ireland.
I cannot understand why Members like the right hon. Members for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. West) and for Belfast, East and the hon. Member for Antrim, North, who come here and fight for a point of view, do not join in the proceedings of the Assembly and seek to ensure, as is written into the Sunning-dale Agreement, that the interests of every section of the community in Northern Ireland are put forward and prevail.
Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure the Minister of State is aware that in the Government White Paper it was stated that leaders and elected representatives were to be at the Sunningdale conference. It is no use the hon. Gentleman asking why we do not go and fight our corner when the present Leader of the Opposition refused us the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Orme: That is not true. The hon. Gentleman was invited to go and put his point of view, but he refused to go.
We welcome the general acceptance that there should be a political initiative, which we believe is essential to fill the vacuum created by the General Election, which occurred at a somewhat unfortunate time for Northern Ireland. Unfortunately this vacuum was, so to speak, filled by violence—bombings on one side and assassinations on the other. We welcome the moves to end this situation with the de-proscription of Sinn Fein and the UVF.
I was asked by the hon. Member for Antrim, North about our proposals for Londonderry following the withdrawal of British troops. I emphasise that this withdrawal will be taken with the concurrence of the GOC in Northern Ireland. I believe that even if the whole place were to be saturated with troops unfortunate events could still occur. I was in Bangor last Sunday and saw the shattered shops. A ring of steel could
1578
not have prevented a young woman from carrying in a packet of conflakes and putting it on to the shelf of a shop and destroying the place.
The argument was raised in a rather muted sense tonight that the hands of the Army should be untied. I do not know what was meant by that. Is it meant that the Army should go into certain areas and blast people out? That is what people imply when they talk about untying the hands of the Army. Is that a substitute for political action? I believe that it is a recipe for disaster. This Government are not prepared to accept such an approach.
Of course there must be security. There must also be political initiatives. Every military commander to whom one speaks says that there can be no military victory and that there must be a political solution.
Questions have been asked about policing and the RUC. The head of the RUC is drafting extra people into Londonderry. This has been agreed. He is satisfied with the proposals. Positive steps have been taken.
I did not hear the speech by the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) but I am informed that it was an impressive one in which he raised the question of withdrawal of the British Army. This was also raised by Mr. Marks in the Daily Express the other day. I advise the House that to avoid a holocaust in Northern Ireland we should not advocate an immediate withdrawal of the Army.
To do so would be a disaster for both communities. I warn the House that if the Army were withdrawn the disaster would not necessarily be confined to Northern Ireland or the Republic. We would perhaps all bear the brunt of what could be a bloody civil war. Certainly we want to see the British Army withdrawn ultimately. The reduction of forces is a positive step in this direction.
Questions have been raised about prisoners awaiting trial. At the end of last month 526 prisoners were awaiting trial. The normal waiting period is four months, which is too long. All speed is being used in this regard, hut we cannot necessarily speed up the judicial process by the wave of a hand. However, 56 cases were heard during last week.

1579
I have dealt with some of the major points raised, but we are left at the end of the day with having to find a political solution to the problems in Northern Ireland. I do not accept the philosophy of the hon. and gallant Member for Down, South (Capt. Orr) or the right hon. Member for Belfast, East that it is impossible in 1974 for Protestants and Catholics to live together.
Captain Orr rose—
Mr. Orme: I do not accept that negative policy, that there is a divided nation that can not be brought together.
Mr. Bradford: Nobody said that.
Mr. Orme: I do not accept that philosophy. Since I have been dealing with Northern Ireland with my right hon. Friend 1 have tried to look at the human side of the problem, and during the past month I have had meetings with all sections of the community. I have been well received by all sections, without hesitation—
Mr. Bradford: Not in the streets of Belfast.
Mr. Orme: I have been in the Belfast segment. I walked last Sunday through the streets of Lisburn and Bangor. I accepted the feelings of anger which people expressed to me.
Mr. Bradford: You caused it.
Mr. Orme: I shall leave the House to judge that point of view. I understand the feeling of frustration and anger and I do not resent people putting their points to me. I have in my mind the situation in the streets of Bangor surrounded by angry people, but I must point out that there is no military solution to the problem, only a political one. Everyone in Northern Ireland, without exception, must accept that. I have spent some time with the Northern Ireland committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, with Billy Blease and officials, who have been helpful and co-operative.
Following a meeting of the Ministers of Commerce and Manpower, Mr. Hume and Mr. Bob Cooper, I called a meeting of the senior shop stewards from Harland and Wolff at Stormont Castle. Thirty-five shop stewards sat round the confer-
1580
ence table together with full-time officials. We discussed the industrial problem of Harland and Wolff and the economic and political problems of Northern Ireland. We had a strong exchange of views, and a further meeting was requested so that the dialogue could continue. That meeting is to be arranged.
I am having a meeting next week with representatives of trade unions throughout the whole of Northern Ireland. I have met representatives of the RUC and its trade union, the Police Federation. I am shortly to meet officials of the Fire Brigades Union. I have met and will be meeting again shortly representatives of employers' organisations.
I invited Mr. Bill Hull and a group of engine-shop stewards from Harland's for a drink the other night to talk over the problem. They talked with pride about the engines they produce. They were prepared to see their own conditions stand still so that retooling and modernisation could take place. I have been discussing these issues freely with the men in terms which we can both understand. I refuse to give up on political issues when a dialogue of that kind can be conducted on other matters.
It is a difficult problem but I intend, with my right hon. Friend, to continue that dialogue with all sections of the community, to go out and to explain power sharing, the Executive and Sunningdale. We will explain that the United Kingdom will maintain its economic and political support of Northern Ireland. We will explain that what we want is a real political movement, an endeavour in which people may have to alter their views and to compromise. We can achieve these aims while at the same time leaving unaffected the aspirations of those who want a united Ireland and those who wish to remain within the United Kingdom.
I do not see this as being a contradictory position. Those aspirations are there. It is the people of Northern Ireland who will decide when any changes should be made. There is no threat to that position. If Opposition Members do not like our proposals, let them use the vote which they have been given from Northern Ireland. I urge the House to support the political proposals which my right hon. Friend has put forward today. I urge the House to say that no

1581
matter how difficult the problem may be we will not be deflected from trying to achieve a political settlement.
Mr. Thomas Cox: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
Question accordingly negatived.
Hon. Members: No.
Question put, That this House do now adjourn:
The House divided: Ayes 9, Noes 190.

Division No. 7.]

AYES

[10.0 p.m.

Bell, Ronald

McCusker, H.

Bradford, Rev. R.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Carson, John

Ross, Wm. (Londonderry)

Mr. James Kilfedder and

Craig, Rt. Hn. William (Belfast, W.)

West, Rt. Hn. Harry

Rev. Ian Paisley.

Dunlop, John

NOES

Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)

Garrett, John (Norwich, S.)

Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

Armstrong, Ernest

George, Bruce

Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)

Atkins, Rt.Hn.Humphrey (Spelthorne)

Gilmour, Rt.Hn. Ian (Ch'sh'&Amsh'm)

Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)

Golding, John

Moyle, Roland

Atkinson, Norman

Graham, Ted

Murray, Ronald King

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)

Newton, Tony (Braintree)

Beith, Alan

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Oakes, Gordon

Bennett, Andrew F. (Stockport, N.)

Grylls, Michael

O'Malley, Brian

Benyon, W.

Hall-Davis, A. G. F.

Onslow, Cranley

Bidwell, Sydney

Hamilton, William (Fife, C.)

Orbach, Maurice

Bishop, E. S.

Hamling, William

Orme, Stanley

Blenkinsop, Arthur

Hardy, Peter

Ovenden, John

Booth, Albert

Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

Owen, Dr. David

Boothroyd, Miss Betty

Hattersley, Roy

Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)

Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur

Havers, Sir Michael

Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)

Bray, Ronald

Hawkins, Paul

Pavitt, Laurie

Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher

Hayhoe, Barney

Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred

Brown,Bob(Newcastle upon Tyne.W.)

Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward

Pendry, Tom

Brown, Ronald (H'kney,S.& Sh'ditch)

Heffer, Eric S.

Prior, Rt. Hn. James

Budgen, Nick

Higgins, Terence

Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis

Butler, Adam (Bosworth)

Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)

Raison, Timothy

Butler, Mrs.Joyce (H'gey, WoodGreen)

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)

Rathbone, Tim

Carmichael, Neil

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, North)

Rees, Rt. Hn. Merlyn (Leeds, S.)

Carter, Ray

Hunter, Adam

Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Jackson, Colin

Rees-Davies, W. R.

Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara

James, David

Richardson, Miss Jo

Chalker, Mrs. Lynda

Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Channon, Paul

John, Brynmor

Rodgers, William (Teesside, St'ckton)

Clark, William (Croydon, S.)

Jopling, Michael

Roper, John

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith

Sandelson, Neville

Clegg, Walter

Judd, Frank

Sedgemore, Bryan

Cocks, Michael

Kerr, Russell

Shaw, Arnold (Redbridge, Ilford, S.)

Cohen, Stanley

Knox, David

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Coleman, Donald

Lamborn, Harry

Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (L'sham, D'ford)

Concannon, J. D.

Lamond, James

Silverman, Julius

Cope, John

Lamont, Norman

Silvester, Fred

Cormack, Patrick

Latham Arthur(CityofW'minsterP'ton)

Small, William

Costain, A. P.

Lawrence, Ivan

Spicer, Michael (Worcestershire, S.)

Cryer, G R.

Lawson, George (Motherwell&Wishaw)

Stallard, A. W.

Cunningham,G.(Islington,S&F'sb'ry)

Leadbitter, Ted

Stanley, John

Dalyell, Tarn

Lee, John

Stewart, Rt. Hn. M. (H'sth, Fulh'm)

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Le Marchant, Spencer

Stodart, Rt. Hn. A. (Edinburgh, W.)

Davis, Clinton, (Hackney, C.)

Luce, Richard

Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John

Deakins, Eric

Macfarlane Neil

Stradling Thomas, John

Dean, Joseph (Leeds, W.)

McGuire, Michael

Thomas, Rt. Hn. P. (B'net, H'dn S.)

de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey

Mackenzie, Gregor

Townsend, C. D.

Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund

MacLennan, Robert

Tuck, Raphael

Dodsworth, Geoffrey

McNamara, Kevin

Tyler, Paul

Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec

Madden, M. O. F.

Urwin, T. W.

du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward

Madel, David

van Straubenzee, W. R.

Duffy, A E. P.

Mallalieu, J. P. W.

Varley, Rt. Hn. Eric G.

Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

Marquand, David

Vaughan, Dr. Gerard

Durant, Tony

Marshall, Dr. Edmund (Goole)

Waddington, David

Eadie, Alex

Mason Rt. Hn. Roy

Weatherill, Bernard

Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John

Mayhew, Christopher (G'wh, W'wch, E)

Whitehead, Phillip

Ellis, John (Brigg & Scunthorpe)

Mayhew, Patrick (RoyalT'bridgeWells)

Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. Frederick

Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

Meacher, Michael

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

English, Michael

Mikardo, Ian

Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)

Fairgrieve, Russell

Millan, Bruce

Wilson, William (Coventry, S.E.)

Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.

Millan, Bruce

Woodall, Alec

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Miller, Dr. M. S. (E. Kilbride)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)

Miscampbell, Norman

Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)

Money, Ernie

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Fox, Marcus

Monro, Hector

Mr. Thomas Cox and

Freeson, Reginald

Moore, J. E. M. (Croydon, C.)

Mr. Joseph Harper.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) be amended as follows:—
  Paragraph 1, line 4, leave out 'petitions'.[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  NO DEBATE ON PRESENTATION OF PETITION
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 100 (No debate on presentation of petition) be amended as follows:—
  Line 1, leave out 'such'.
  Line 1, after 'petition', insert' presented under Standing Order No. 99 (Presentation of petitions)'.
  Line 4, after 'shall', insert 'on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays'.
  Line 5, leave out 'by the direction of' and insert 'after a member of the Government shall have signified his intention to move, That this House do now adjourn, for the purpose of bringing the Sitting to a conclusion, or after a Minister of the Crown shall have signified his intention to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 2 (Business of the House (Suspended sittings)), That the proceedings of this day's Sitting be suspended, and proceedings under this order shall not be interrupted at Ten o'clock, and'.
  Line 6, leave out 'who'.—[Mr. Waller Harrison.]

  PETITION AS TO PRESENT PERSONAL GRIEVANCE
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 101 (Petition as to present personal grievance) be amended as follows:—
  Line 1, leave out 'such' and insert 'a'; after 'petition', insert 'presented under Standing Order No. 99 (Presentation of petitions) and'.
  Line 6, at end add 'and proceedings under this Order shall not be interrupted at Ten o'clock and may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.' '.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  PRINTING OF PETITIONS AND OF MINISTERIAL REPLIES
  Ordered,
  That all petitions presented under Standing Order No. 99 (Presentation of petitions), and not proceeded with under Standing Order No. 101 (Petition as to present personal grievance), shall be ordered to lie upon the Table and
  1584
  to be printed, and the Clerk of the House shall transmit all such petitions to a Minister of the Crown and any observations made by a Minister or Ministers in reply to such petitions shall be laid upon the Table by the Clerk of the House and shall be ordered to be printed:
  Ordered,
  That this Order be a Standing Order of the House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PETITIONS
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 102 (Reference of petitions to Committee on Public Petitions) be repealed.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Science and Technology and to report thereon from time to time.
The Committee was nominated of Mr. Ronald Brown, Mr. Ray Carter, Dr. John Cunningham, Mr. Neil Macfarlane, Mr. Alex Fletcher, Mr. David Ginsburg, Mr. Frank Hooley, Mr. Ted Leadbitter, Mr. Ian Lloyd, Mr. Airey Neave, Mr. Arthur Palmer, Mr. Norman Tebbit, Mr. Christopher Tugendhat, and Mr. Kenneth Warren.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time.
Ordered,
That Five be the Quorum of the Committee.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-committees and to refer to such Subcommittees any of the matters referred to the Committee.
Ordered,
That every such Sub-committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any Adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report to the Committee from time to time.
Ordered,
That Three be the Quorum of every such Sub-committee.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to report from time to time the Minutes of Evidence taken before such Sub-Committee.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with technical or scientific knowledge for the purpose of particular inquiries, either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]
Mr. Walter Harrison (Treasurer of Her Majesty's Household): Hon Members will see that the next paragraph of the motion on the Order Paper reads:
That the Minutes of the Evidence taken before the Select Committee on Science and Technology and before the Sub-committee appointed by that Committee in the last Session of the last Parliament, together with Appendices, be referred to the Committee:
These words should be omitted. They are a repeat of an order from last Session's terms of reference, and are no longer appropriate.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That seems a reasonable request, and I expect that the House will agree that the motion be carried with the deletion of those words.
Ordered,
That the Minutes of the Evidence taken before Sub-committees of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in the last Session of the last Parliament, together with the Minutes of the Evidence taken before Sub-Committee D of the Select Committee on Science and Technology in Session 1972–73 be referred to the Committee.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

  PRIVILEGES
  Ordered,
  That the Committee of Privileges do consist of Seventeen Members.
  The Committee was accordingly nominated of The Attorney-General, Mr. Arthur Bottomley, Mr. Edward du Cann, Mr. William Deedes, Mr. Hugh Fraser, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, Mr. Sydney Irving, Mr. Angus Maude, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Sir David Renton, Mr. Edward Short, Mr. Michael Stewart, Mr. George Strauss, Mr. Jeremy Thorpe, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, Mr. William Whitelaw and Mr. Frederick Willey.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
  That Six be the Quorum of the Committee. —[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  NOMINATION OF STANDING COMMITTEES
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 62 (Nomination of Standing Committees) be amended as follows:
  Line 31, leave out 'and Monmouthshire'.
  Line 34, leave out 'and Monmouthshire'.[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  WELSH GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 72 (Welsh Grand Committee) be amended as follows:—
  Line 4, leave out 'and Monmouthshire'.
  Line 7, leave out 'and Monmouthshire'.
  Line 17, leave out 'and Monmouthshire'.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]

FILM INDUSTRY
10.13 p.m.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: One of the joys of being able to speak about the communications industry in this Adjournment debate is to have one of my own nationality in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If any nation knows how to communicate, I believe that it is my own.
One of the problems we face in the film industry is that it seems impossible for the House to treat the entire industry seriously. We have one piece of evidence of that in the arrangements made in the recent Government changes for control of broadcasting, which is one of the most important of the communicating industries. We believe that in Whitehall there should be a small but powerful Department covering a wide group of industries—broadcasting, television, films and most certainly those of the media concerned with the newspapers and copyright. Although it is a great pleasure to me to have my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade answering the debate, I am concerned that he has responsibility for only a small sector of an important industry.

1587
I address myself tonight very firmly to an immediate and worrying situation. The film industry in this country has existed for a long time. We have had many talented people in it. We produce not only directors and actors but producers and craftsmen capable of turning out a high quality product.
My own previous Government produced an imaginative plan for a National Film School and allowed us to take part of its moneys from the levy to train people for the film industry There is hardly any point in attempting to create a pool of skilled workers, writers, actors and directors if we are not to be able to find them at least some employment in their own country. We realise as an industry, that we must look beyond our own borders for sales for our product, but there is no doubt that we are facing a great crisis.
It is difficult with the fluctuations of such a temperamental industry to quote specific figures, but I shall indicate some of the problems that we are facing. In 1968 50 films were commenced by members of my association with an estimated total investment of £22 million. The average budget per film at that time was about £450,000. In 1969 73 films were commenced. The estimated total investment was £23 million and the average budget per film was £320,000. In other words, the budgets were coming down and the industry was getting more efficient. Although we were making a greater number of films we were beginning to see a fall in overall investment. In 1972 we commenced 68 productions with a total investment of £21 million and the budget was £312,000 per film. In 1973 we commenced only 57 productions and the estimated total investment had fallen to £18,200,000. The average budget was £319,000.
We are seeing not just a fluctuating investment situation but a decline in overall investment. Perhaps that is not a 100 per cent. accurate guide, but we have only to see the changed employment situation to realise that many people who once were able to find work in the industry are now finding it increasingly difficult to do so. We have always said that the studio pattern in Great Britain was one of the reasons that enabled us to mantain con-
1588
stant production. Our studios, whether they be large or small, continue to run—so much so that they attract a number of films from other countries. However, in the year ending September 1968 the studios—I am now talking about the major studios—employed 3,790 people—I am including in that figure the old MGM studio which subsequently shut down—but by the end of July 1973 the figure had fallen to 1,679 people. That gives a clear indication that it is a contracting industry.
I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that more and more people see films every night. The difference is that they do not pay to see them. The little box in the corner of most homes, which can be a great friend and educator, is transmitting more and more film material. It is possible to see about six feature films over a weekend. Most of those films have been bought for quite small amounts and most are several years old. Such films are now transmitted in colour and they attract large audiences.
The crisis from the industry's point of view is very real. The industry would like to see some strong measures taken to assist it. It does not suggest that it is the sort of industry that should be subsidised because it is a special case. It merely points out that it has been a great earner of overseas currency. It does a good job in terms of public relations. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is increasingly finding that many countries abroad are asking for and specifying British films with not only British actors and directors but with films made in this country which show something of our way of life. We believe that therefore we have a continuing role to play.
We are so anxious that the industry itself has played a large part in promoting co-production treaties. The Department of Trade has been very active in concluding co-production treaties in the past. We are looking forward to the signing of an Anglo-German co-production treaty as soon as possible because we believe that Britain has a great deal to offer to European film makers. We can attract them here not just because of the use of the English language, which opens up worldwide market, but because of the efficiency and standards of our studios.

1589
What, then, is to be done? My hon. Friend will be asked by many people on many occasions, representing as he does one of the most important Government Departments, to spend money he has not got on things he does not want and in ways he cannot defend. But I am asking for something much more important—for his influence, because there are ways in which the film industry could be assisted to continue in being in this country. That is the situation we are facing.
If we are to continue to project so many films on television, should it not be possible for a levy on the showing of each film to be paid to a production board, either the Eadie levy fund or some other form of production board set up under the aegis of the National Film Finance Corporation? This would be either a percentage of the levy which is at present being put by the Government on the television companies, or it could be an extra amount which would be capable of regenerating finance and encouraging people to make even more films.
There are other ways in which we would like my hon. Friend to take urgent action. A dangerous situation is developing in relation to the studios. The Shepperton studios are once more at considerable risk. We would like my hon. Friend to consider calling together the heads of all the studios complexes, asking them what their views are on rationalisation and seeking ways of making one of the major studios which could be fully employed really viable to be used for the whole of the industry.
It is time we stopped talking about television and films as being separate industries. The television studios are not capable of producing full-length films in the way it is essential for them to do if they are to capture and hold the audience they find every night. That is demonstrated plainly by the fact that the American industry is increasingly making films specially for television—films which can be readily seen on television here. This is a market we ourselves ought to be considering, and when one thinks that original material in Britain can cost about £300,000 for half an hour, one realises that it is not necessarily lack of money which is affecting
1590
the production programme. It is the feeling that television and films are two totally unrelated worlds.
Of the films commenced in 1973, a total of 63 per cent. were based in studios compared with 69 per cent. in 1972. There is a substantial under-use of studio space and facilities, however, and the continued maintenance of the three major studios is probably not viable. It does not follow, however, that if one of them closed this would reduce film production overall, because many people make their films on location and base them on studio facilities. Indeed, the studio facilities themselves attract a great deal of post-production work.
Film makers from abroad still continue to come here in order to use the facilities and the skills we provide. However, we cannot continue to have a properly-based film industry unless some of the problems we face are tackled right at the moment. We are having to decide on the future of the fourth television channel. We are faced with the problem of cassettes. Tape is being used increasingly and production facilities should be expanded, not contracted. This cannot be done without imaginative guidance from the Government. It should come from a Government like mine, who understand that communication is the art of talking to all the people all the time. It is not good enough to remember communications just before a General Election and then forget them firmly in the next five years.
We in the film industry ask for the Minister's help. He should encourage us by doing something about the levy on films, he should intervene on studios, but more than anything else now is the time for him to call together the heads of the studios, the unions and all of us concerned with the industry to decide how we are to continue in being. We believe that we have a part to play. I hope that he will help us to play it.
10.26 p.m.
Mr. Anthony Grant: Of all the myriad industries for which I was responsible in the last Government, the film industry was one of the most fascinating. I reveal myself as being in an unholy alliance with the hon. Lady the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody).

1591
Shepperton and its future are a matter of great anxiety to the residents there and the workers and to those who have seen the remarkable work that has come out of the studio. I will not say more since negotiations are going on and I would not wish to rock the boat.
It was wise of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition when President of the Board of Trade to make the arrangements whereby the National Film Finance Corporation had a say in the future of the studio. I agree that in present circumstances, three major studios, with more and more work on location, are probably too many. There is overcapacity in the studios and gross overmanning in many of them.
I agree with the hon. Lady about finance. Britain produces some of the best films in the world. They are a form of flag which adds to our prestige and repute in many countries with which we trade. We must keep the industry going in our national interest, but there is a grave shortage of money. Merely to pump taxpayers' money into an industry which embodies the spirit of free enterprise is not the proper answer. But there is a solution on hand, and it lies in television. It is absurd that when we see a film in the cinema part of our ticket money goes back into film production but that when we watch the same film on television not a penny goes the same way. To remedy that would be the most practical solution to film production finance.
If the Minister wants further ideas he should consider the similar scheme which West Germany either has adopted or is about to adopt. Television companies should beware, if not killing of the goose that lays the golden eggs, of allowing it to die for want of finance.
10.29 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Eric Deakins): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe (Mrs. Dunwoody) for providing the opportunity this early in the life of a new Parliament to discuss the problems and future prospects of the film industry. From her own experience she will know how concerned a Labour Government are about these matters.
I am also glad to see the hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant)
1592
present tonight and am grateful to him for his few remarks. Like my hon. Friend he acquired a very considerable knowledge of the problems of the industry in the period in which he exercised the responsibilities which I now hold in relation to the film industry.
I am pleased to be speaking on behalf of the Government tonight on a subject which is so close to my own heart. I happen to be one of the small band of people who still go to the cinema frequently, having been a member of the British Film Institute for the past 18 years. During that time there have been some radical changes in the size and structure of the industry. The number of cinemas has fallen by almost two-thirds from the 4,483 which there were in this country in 1955. By 1973 this number had dwindled to just under 1,600, which figure includes the growing numbers of premises where two, three or more small cinemas now exist where previously there was only one large one.
Despite the success of that policy of twinning and tripling cinemas, admissions over the same period fell by more than seven-eighths from 1,182 million to 142 million. At the same time, and despite the fall in the value of money, gross box office receipts fell from £106 million to no more than £62 million. The situation over the past four years shows no significant improvement. During this period admissions have fallen by more than one-third from 215 million, while gross box office receipts have remained fairly constant at around £60 million.
The drastic fall in receipts has coincided with a fall in production. The number of British feature films registered fell from 122 in 1955 to 89 in 1973. The forecast for 1974 indicates that the number is likely to be reduced very substantially. The number of big budget films has also fallen, with far-reaching consequences for employment in the production side of the industry. This means a falling investment situation as mentioned by my hon. Friend.
Significant cost reductions have been made possible by the revolution in production techniques. There was a time when films were made in studios even in countries where the sun always shines. The electronic age has altered all that.

1593
Cameras and lighting equipment weigh one-tenth of what they did, and although many films are still based on a studio much of the action is shot on location.
It is against that sombre background that one must view the difficulties of Lion International at Shepperton. There was a period in the late 1960s when the degree of American investment in this country was substantial and when it seemed likely that there would be sufficient work to sustain four large studios. The difficulties which overtook the United States industry, however, forced the companies concerned to retreat and this led first to the closure of Borehamwood in May 1970 and then to a 50 per cent. reduction of the workforce at Elstree.
It is no secret that Pinewood, Elstree and Shepperton have been making heavy losses and that as matters stand there is little prospect of all three returning to profitability in the foreseeable future. I know that for many people Shepperton has been the most treasured jewel in the crown of the British film industry, and I recognise the strength of feelings which have been aroused by Lion International's difficulties. This point was alluded to by the hon. Member for Harrow, Central.
As hon. Members will know, the NFFC has a preference share in British Lion giving it a right to veto certain actions except in defined circumstances. One defined circumstance was that the veto would be lifted if it could be shown to NFFC's satisfaction that the Shepperton Studios could be operated only at a critical loss and that there was no reasonable prospect of their being operated as studios for cinematograph film production on a profitable basis in the foreseeable future.
As my hon. Friend will know, however, discussions took place between the NFFC and British Lion in 1972 in response to the company's claim that this condition of critical loss and no reasonable prospect of future profitable operation had been met. Those discussions resulted in agreement to a revised studio complex occupying an area of about 20 acres, to which NFFC veto restrictions would continue to apply.
In the light of a further serious decline in the volume of production being handled by the major studios, NFFC has recognised that British Lion and Shepperton
1594
Studios will no longer be able to fulfil the conditions attached to the arrangements previously agreed and the NFFC therefore announced two days ago, on 2nd April, that the area of 40 acres referred to is now released from these veto restrictions unconditionally. I emphasise that the restriction will continue to apply, however, within the boundaries of the revised studio complex.
Various suggestions for economies which might help to keep the studios going have been considered, including their operation on a "four-walls" basis. The problem, however, is that the company has been making substantial losses over the past few months and this cannot continue.
There is an important secondary consideration to the question of spending money in keeping a studio going at a time when there is little or no output. British Lion Films Limited is in business to produce films and the company has told me that it would prefer to invest in film production, which might be profitable and which would provide employment in the industry, rather than commit the same money to unprofitable inactivity at the studios. The parent company has advanced a very considerable sum of money to Shepperton Studios during the past two years for very little return, and it feels that it cannot reasonably be expected to go on doing this for very much longer.
My hon. Friend suggests that to stem the losses incurred on studio operation, the number of fully-equipped and fully-manned studios should be rationalised and perhaps reduced from three to two, or even to one. I can see the attractions of such a course, provided the risks of a monopoly situation can be avoided, but I should like to reflect further on the suggestions which have been made before commenting further. I hope that the parties concerned, especially studio heads, will also reflect on the possibilities, because one thing I am already clear about is that such rationalisation, even if desirable, could not be secured unless the will to achieve it is there.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I do not mean to be discourteous to my hon. Friend, but reflection is the luxury of those who can pay the bills. I say firmly to my hon. Friend that, unless he takes action to

1595
call together the relevant interested parties, we shall be facing the difficulties of a monopoly situation. It is possible now to do something about the situation. Within the next year it may not be possible to do anything.
Mr. Deakins: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I am not yet convinced, in the four weeks I have been in this Department, that there is a danger that if one studio unhappily should close, one of the others will also close and there will be a monopoly situation. However, I take my hon. Friend's point about the need for urgent action.
I do not leave the subject of studio capacity if I turn now to the future of film production, because the developments at Shepperton are of course symptomatic of the many disappointments and difficulties with which the industry is struggling today. The case for rationalisation will rest not merely on what view is taken of how future production will be staged, but also on the future levels of film production, including production for television and cassettes as well as for the cinema.
Forecasts for 1974 suggest that the number of feature films likely to be produced will be very substantially less than in previous years, but even if this proves wrong it is uncertain whether the demand for studio space will return to what it was a few years ago. I am confident that the wealth of talent available in this country will not long remain idle, but the emphasis in future is more likely to be on the employment of specialist firms and freelance workers and so the demand for a fully-equipped and fully-manned studio could continue to fall.
The overriding need is to stimulate investment in the production of new films. This is a matter to which I shall give attention. Many people feel that more finance would be forthcoming if there were more good scripts. This is one of the problems which the Cinematograph Films Council has been examining in its review of the prospects of the film industry. It has today put forward certain recommendations to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade.
The council has also recommended that money should be made available to help finance pre-production. This is an
1596
interesting idea which I should like to consider and on which I should like to consult the industry. There are problems involved though I am sure that the House would not wish me to go into them now. These schemes would be financed from the British Film Fund. There are a number of ideas and suggestions floating around for reallocating the money in the fund. I do not want to go into the details now because there is not sufficient time, but it is the view of most people in the industry that a radical change in the present system would not necessarily be in the interests of the industry at the present time.
An alternative is to look for a means of expanding the resources available. Here I come to my hon. Friend's point about a levy being imposed on cinematograph films shown on television similar in effect to that applied to cinema admissions.
In 1973 there were more than 900 showings of cinematograph films on television in Great Britain. A levy of £3,000 per showing in that year would have yielded approximately £2·7 million. Other countries have already recognised that cinematograph films play such a major part in television programmes that television should help the cinematograph film production industry rather than the other way round.
The advice of the Cinematograph Films Council is that the price paid for the right to show a film on television is usually but a fraction of the cost of producing an original programme covering the same playing time.
I know that the hon. Member for Harrow, Central was considering the question of the levy before the election, and I assume that he was aware of the difficulties, including the need for legislation. These are matters which I shall need to discuss with my colleagues and with the various interests concerned.
The Cinematograph Film Council is considering a number of other matters on which it expects to make recommendations shortly. Not all of these will involve the Government. One that does, however, involve the Government in the first instance is co-production agreements. I am pleased that the recent Anglo-German co-production agreement looks like being successfully launched.

1597
What is above all required at the present time, in the film industry more than almost anywhere else, is for the industry to have more confidence in itself. The decline in cinema audiences has been arrested in the United States and in a number of countries in Europe. What is needed is enthusiasm properly directed, good management and a willingness to accept that costs have to be reduced to the minimum if the industry is to survive against competition from every side. The film industry still has a great part to play in our national life and in presenting a picture of this country overseas, but in the final analysis the industry's success must depend to a great extent on its own exertions.
1598
I cannot end my reply without paying tribute to the Cinematograph Films Council, which has painstakingly advised successive Governments, over a period of more than 30 years, on many matters affecting this fascinating but complicated industry. Tonight's debate has shown that members of the present council, no less than their forebears, have given great attention to their task—
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

NORTHERN IRELAND
  Security Forces
  Security Forces
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Irish Republican Army
  Irish Republican Army
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Nutrition
  Nutrition
  Pig Industry
  Pig Industry
  Feeding Stuffs
  Feeding Stuffs
  Feed Additives
  Feed Additives
  Beef
  Beef
  Food Additives and Contaminants
  Food Additives and Contaminants
  Glasshouse Producers
  Glasshouse Producers
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Barley and Pig Prices
  Barley and Pig Prices
  Wheat
  Wheat
  Agricultural Earnings
  Agricultural Earnings
  Breeding Cattle Imports
  Breeding Cattle Imports
  Animal Exports
  Animal Exports
  Potato Exports
  Potato Exports
  Calf Subsidy
  Calf Subsidy
  Trawlers (Grants)
  Trawlers (Grants)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Bread
  Bread
  Subsidies
  Subsidies
  Price Controls
  Price Controls
  Davy International Limited—British Rollmakers Corporation Limited (Merger)
  Davy International Limited—British Rollmakers Corporation Limited (Merger)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Revenue Sources
  Revenue Sources
  Retail Prices
  Retail Prices
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Review Board for Government Contracts
  Review Board for Government Contracts
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  European Union
  European Union
  Financial Statement and Budget Report
  Financial Statement and Budget Report
  Housing Corporation
  Housing Corporation
  War Loan
  War Loan
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
EMPLOYMENT
  Trades Union Congress (Social Contract)
  Trades Union Congress (Social Contract)
  Steel Industry
  Steel Industry
  Industrial Disputes
  Industrial Disputes
  May Day
  May Day
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Disabled Drivers
  Disabled Drivers
  Elderly and Sick Persons (Coal Certificates)
  Elderly and Sick Persons (Coal Certificates)
  Battered Wives
  Battered Wives
  Health Centre (Bishop Auckland)
  Health Centre (Bishop Auckland)
  Northampton Hospital
  Northampton Hospital
  Elderly Persons (Telephones)
  Elderly Persons (Telephones)
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Broadmoor (Films)
  Broadmoor (Films)
  Operating Theatres (Croydon)
  Operating Theatres (Croydon)
  Emergency Services (Hampshire-Dorset Border)
  Emergency Services (Hampshire-Dorset Border)
  Glucon Diet
  Glucon Diet
  Abortion
  Abortion
ENVIRONMENT
  Itinerant Camping
  Itinerant Camping
  Driving Tests
  Driving Tests
  Motor Cyclists (Helmets)
  Motor Cyclists (Helmets)
  Road Improvements (South Mimms)
  Road Improvements (South Mimms)
  Railways (Concessionary Fares)
  Railways (Concessionary Fares)
  Ringway 3
  Ringway 3
  Tree Planting
  Tree Planting
  Landlords (Services Costs)
  Landlords (Services Costs)
  House of Lords (Costs)
  House of Lords (Costs)
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
  Roads (Doncaster)
  Roads (Doncaster)
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Maplin
  Maplin
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Icelandic Fisheries
  Libya
  Libya
  Geneva Conventions, 1949
  Geneva Conventions, 1949
  MAPLIN
  MAPLIN
  INCOME AND WEALTH
  INCOME AND WEALTH
  UNITED NATIONS
  UNITED NATIONS
  ELDERLY PERSONS
  ELDERLY PERSONS
  PRESIDENT NIXON
  PRESIDENT NIXON
  MONARCHY
  MONARCHY
  CLAY CROSS
  CLAY CROSS
  FIRE BRIGADES UNION
  FIRE BRIGADES UNION
  HEINEMANN FOUNDATION
  HEINEMANN FOUNDATION
  HONG KONG
  HONG KONG
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  MINISTERIAL VISITS
  MINISTERIAL VISITS
  EGYPTIAN AMBASSADOR
  EGYPTIAN AMBASSADOR
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Advertising
  Government Advertising
  Scientists' Pay
  Scientists' Pay
DEFENCE
  Submarine Escape Training (Seaman's Death)
  Submarine Escape Training (Seaman's Death)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  School Building Programme
  School Building Programme
ENERGY
  National Coal Board (Scottish Brick Works)
  National Coal Board (Scottish Brick Works)
  Departmental Organisation
  Departmental Organisation
  Electricity Charges
  Electricity Charges
  Petrol Prices
  Petrol Prices
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
  Poisons Control (Cosmetics)
  Poisons Control (Cosmetics)
  Vandalism
  Vandalism
  Metropolitan Police (Recruitment)
  Metropolitan Police (Recruitment)
  Alien Husbands' Dependants
  Alien Husbands' Dependants
INDUSTRY
  Shipbuilding and Repairing
  Shipbuilding and Repairing
SCOTLAND
  Social Work Training
  Social Work Training
  Scottish Association of Boys' Clubs
  Scottish Association of Boys' Clubs
  Martyrs School
  Martyrs School
  Family Planning
  Family Planning
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
  Mentally Handicapped Persons
TRADE
  DC10 Aircraft
  DC10 Aircraft
  Export Credits
  Export Credits
  Exports
  Exports

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The Lord Boyle of Handsworth—Affirmed.

COAL BOARD POLICY ON SMALL MINES
LORD KILMANY: 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 the recent change in National Coal Board policy from refusing licences for small mines to a policy of considering proposals from suitable applicants for new licences to work readily saleable coal has led to any such licences being granted; and, if so, how many and in what part of the country.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (LORD BALOGH): My Lords, this is a matter which is within the day-to-day responsibility of the National Coal Board, but I understand that a change in policy was made in mid-December, 1973. Since then, 16 applications have been received, as follows:

Scotland

2

Northumberland

1

Durham

3

North West

4

Staffordshire

1

South Wales

5

These applications are still being considered by the National Coal Board.
LORD KILMANY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply stating how many applications are at present in the pipeline, may I ask whether it may be taken that any have yet been granted, or are they still all in a state of examination?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, they are all in a state of examination as yet.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, can the Minister say whether these applications will be subject to the Mines and Quarries Act, under which no licences can be given where the number employed in a private mine is less than 25?
LORD BALOGH: More than 30, my Lords.

B.B.C. EXTERNAL SERVICES
3.9 p.m.
LORD BETHELL: 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 truth there is in recent reports that they intend to make a further substantial reduction in funds available to the external services of the B.B.C.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, no such decisions bearing on the B.B.C. External Services have been taken. Her Majesty's Government are very conscious of the importance of these services. They have, of course, to keep their cost under review, like all other items of public expenditure.
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that somewhat reassuring reply. Can he further assure me that, before any decision is made which could quite possibly emasculate the External Services of the B.B.C., proper information will be collected and considered about the huge audiences which these broadcasts enjoy abroad, the extent to which they provide reliable information in countries where the media are censored and where information is restricted, and the great contribution they make to knowledge of British industry and, consequently, to British exports?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I can certainly give that assurance. We are very conscious of the points which the noble Lord has raised.
LORD HILL OF LUTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord and his right honourable friend, in considering any recommendations of officials on this subject, take into account that in the financial year now beginning there are modest but appreciable cuts already determined, resulting in the end of the Caribbean Service and a reduction in the English to Africa Service; secondly, that a cut of 10 per cent., which I understand is being considered, would, because of the difficulty of reducing overheads, result in a 30 to 40 per cent. cut in the output of the Services; and thirdly, that a severe cut in such Services would give pleasure only to those dictatorships of the Right and Left which resent the impartial and thruthful character of the B.B.C.'s Services which is an important element in maintaining this country's prestige overseas?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I entirely and warmly agree with what the noble Lord, who speaks from a position of considerable experience, has said about the value to this country, and indeed to the Free World and beyond the Free World, of these Services. I can assure him that all the considerations he has advanced will be borne very fully in mind by the Government if and when they consider any proposals for reduction.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, especially after what has come from the mouth of my noble friend, Lord Hill of Luton, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that those of us who travel abroad know how deep and precious is the impact of the B.B.C.'s Services on the world to-day, as it was during the Second World War?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, many noble Lords and noble Baronesses will share with my noble friend the experience of having seen and heard for themselves how this Service has contributed to sanity and decency throughout the world because it has adhered always to a high standard of truth.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, the noble Lord may not recall but perhaps he would check that in this House over the last year it has been asked several times that expenditure on the Overseas Services should not be cut but should be increased. Further, do the Government
1024
appreciate that there are many people in this country with old colleagues, old comrades, old friends and old pensioners in India who greatly appreciate news from Bellati on the Urdu and Gujurati broadcasts?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, however attractive, that is quite another question.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, will the noble Lord, viewing the matter from a slightly different aspect, urge upon his colleagues that they should act in splendid contrast to all previous Governments and remember that it is very easy to destroy institutions and very difficult to establish them? Nothing is more damaging to the morale of the staff employed than the notion that they may be employed one day and dismissed the next because something on which they have expended dedication, devotion and endless time is whizzed away because the Government of the day decide on a change of financial policy.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I certainly take the point raised by the noble Lord.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether the cuts which have been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hill of Luton, have been initiated in the past four or five weeks, since the present Government came into office, or were they initiated prior to that?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the reductions to which I take it the noble Lord is referring were in fact made by the last Administration in consultation with the B.B.C. and amount to something like £730,000. These will be operative after to-morrow; that is to say, in the 1974–75 financial year.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, can the Minister clear my mind on one point? I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Hill, that cuts had already been made, whereas I understand from the Minister that cuts are not being made. Which of these points of view represent the actual fact?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, cuts were agreed by the last Administration, in consultation with the

1025
B.B.C., and are applicable to the forthcoming financial year, 1974–75. I said that no proposals had yet been decided on by us in regard to any further cuts.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, following the excellent precedent of the Government's action in regard to museum charges, overturning the decision of the previous Administration, will the noble Lord bear in mind and report to his colleagues that this is a matter on which quite clearly the whole of your Lordships' House feels strongly?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD SHACKLETON: This is something on which any Government, including the previous Government, would find it necessary to take account of the opinions of your Lordships.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am quite sure that the feelings and views expressed on this matter, both here and in another place, will be very carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, has my noble friend observed the silence on the Opposition Front Bench, and can be account for it?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is impossible to resist the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, and that one has great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, because when Governments ask for cuts in expenditure it is nearly always information services which people think are not important, and many of us fight quite hard to keep these information services in being? Therefore, may I ask the noble Lord whether in any future consideration he will, in consultation with the B.B.C., consider the possibility of a further streamlining of overheads?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I reciprocate the expression of sympathy extended by the noble Baroness. I think I know what she went through earlier this year when, in consultation with the B.B.C., she agreed to a reduction of £730,000 for the next fin-
1026
ancial year. I hope to do at least as well by the B.B.C. as she did.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I suspect that the message your Lordships wish to convey to Her Majesty's Government has been well and truly expressed and therefore I suggest we move to another Question.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to ask a final question—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am entirely in the hands of the House. I made a suggestion, but if the noble Lord wishes to pursue his question I think he will need again the agreement of your Lordships' House. However, I hope he will accept that we have pursued this matter, the message is now loud and clear and we should proceed to the next Question.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I just wanted to ask—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think the noble Lord should bear in mind what I apprehend are the wishes of your Lordships' House. I am very sorry; I am equally embarrassed with the noble Lord, because if I had been on the other side of the House I should have wished to pursue the matter. But I feel I must bear in mind the interests of the House. The other day we spent some 27 minutes on Questions, and I am afraid we are running the risk of doing so again this afternoon.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would not agree that, if the House proceeds in this way at Question Time, we are getting closer and closer to what occurs in another place, which has found it necessary to have a Speaker, and therefore it is in the interests of every one of us that we should take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I hope it would be over all our dead bodies that we should ever have to proceed to such a position. Therefore I hope that we may now proceed to the next Question.

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT: TESTS AND SERVICES
3.19 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: 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 why Concorde cannot enter service in 1975.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, before Concorde can start airline services, the aircraft must be granted a certificate of airworthiness for carrying passengers, and British Airways and Air France must have enough aircraft to establish a reliable service. The programme of flight and ground safety testing necessary to satisfy the airworthiness authorities to grant a certificate of airworthiness is not likely to be completed before the end of 1975. On the latest delivery dates, British Airways and Air France are not due to have three aircraft each until April, 1976. Urgent examination is being given by the manufacturers to advancing these delivery dates. This assessment has not as yet been completed.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, while I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord, is he aware that it has been reported in the Press, and particularly in Flight, that the certificate of airworthiness is likely to be granted earlier rather than late in 1975, and will it be possible for British Airways and Air France to start even a limited service in that year, bearing in mind the great importance that that may have on the project as a whole?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I said, manufacturers are endeavouring to advance the date by which they would get a certificate of airworthiness and it is possible that everyone will be delighted. With regard to the second part of the question, it would be inadvisable to attempt a service before there has been adequate time for crew training. If the aircraft are delivered earlier, it is possible that those preparations also could be advanced.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that almost daily articles are being written about the future of Concorde? Tens of thousands of jobs in the West country and in subsidiary companies all over Britain are at stake. For the sake of all concerned, will the Government consider having an early debate in either or both Houses to get the matter clarified?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I would not dispute anything the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury, has said. Possibly more than anyone in this House I am aware of the truth in what he says. As to a debate, I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Kings Norton, has a Question down that will give rise to something of a debate next Wednesday.
LORD BRAYE: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any indication when British Airways are likely, or should be likely, to receive the first Concorde?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I did say that the first aircraft will be delivered in October, 1975, and the third in April, 1976.
LORD THOMAS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that no greater disservice can be done to the British aircraft industry than to try and get Concorde into passenger service before intending passengers are satisfied that all possible testing has been done to secure the safe performance of the aircraft?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, is quite right. That is what I have been trying to say, but as I indicated before, if that certificate of airworthiness could be obtained more quickly, the necessary preparations before the scheduled service is begun could, of course, be advanced.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord explain something he said in his original Answer? Does one understand that an airline would not be given a certificate to operate Concorde unless that airline had three aircraft in service?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, seems always to try to find some sort of flaw in my answer, no matter what I say. What I said was quite straightforward; the aircraft as a type has to have a certificate of airworthiness before

1029
it can operate in service. The airline, as an operating company, requires three aircraft before it can have an adequate backup service, and operate a sufficiently attractive schedule.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, since we are to have a debate on the subject, can the noble Lord give us some indication of the revised cost of cancellation as compared with the cost of £115 million for completing 16 of these aircraft? This would help the House and those who wish to take part in the debate, when we have it.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I said earlier, the figure of £18 million first announced is being reconsidered in the light of representations which have been made. It is impossible as yet to give a revised figure.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, as a further supplementary question arising out of the original reply, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will examine the possibility of crew training being carried out by the British Aircraft Corporation prior to delivery of the first aircraft, possibly under cover of a private category of certificate of airworthiness?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I used the phrase "crew training", but there are a number of other preparations which have to be made. These preparations can only be made, the training of crews can only take place and the general passenger services laid on by the airline and the operating company. As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, said, it would be inadvisable to try to rush that process.

THE OPEN UNIVERSITY: STUDENT TOTALS
3.23 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: 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 plans they have to enable the Open University to provide an increased number of places in view of the sharp increase in the number of applicants.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the grant settlement for the Open University for the years 1974 to 1976 provides for between 36,000 and 42,000 undergraduate students. The University has recently written to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science, asking for an increase in grant for the years 1975 and 1976 so that a greater number of students may be admitted. My right honourable friend is considering this request, but he has made it clear to the University that he must do so in the light of other educational priorities and in the context of Government expenditure generally.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Will he keep in mind that we have reached the ridiculous and wasteful situation whereby only 3,000 of more than 40,000 applicants for courses in 1975 can be accepted unless there is a further Government grant? May I say that I have sufficient faith in the Minister and his colleagues to believe that they will not allow this ridiculous situation to continue.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her expression of confidence. I am sure what she has said will be noted by my right honourable friend.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will Her Majesty's Government bear in mind that the cuts now made in higher education are having a crippling effect on the universities and polytechnics, and that if the Open University (which has the enormous advantage that it takes in mature students who are prepared to work and know what they want to do) does not have the permission and the money to go ahead, then the future for our civilisation will be very grave indeed?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am sure my right honourable friend will note what has been said. I am certain that within the context in which he has to operate he will do his best to satisfy all whose claims have priority.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, surely this matter should be considered in

1031
conjunction with that of the money that is to be spent not only on higher education but in other areas of education also? Some of us think too much money is being spent at the moment on university education, while the secondary and primary areas of education do not get enough money.
Loan GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I would draw the attention of the noble Baroness to the last part of my original reply.
LORD GOODMAN: My Lords, supplementary to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, would the Minister ask the Government to view this matter against the belief held by many that the Open University is the most exciting and imaginative educational concept of this century?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I think that is generally accepted. I think my right honourable friend needs little reminder about that.

THE EASTER RECESS
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, last week I indicated that the House would rise for the Easter Recess on Wednesday, April 10, or Thursday, April II. I am now happy to inform your Lordships that, subject to the progress of Business, the House will rise on Wednesday, April 10. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships we shall return on Tuesday, April 30.
BARCLAYS BANK INTERNATIONAL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That paragraph (3) of Standing Order 22 (Leave of Absence) be dispensed with for this Session, and that all
1032
Lords who had leave of Absence at the Dissolution of Parliament may be granted Leave of Absence until the end of this Session, unless they notify the Clerk of the Parliaments to the contrary.—(Lord Shepherd.),
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GLASGOW CORPORATION (CONTROL OF PARKING, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL GLASGOW CORPORATION (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL GREENOCK CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

STATUTE LAW REPEALS BILL [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will recollect that a similar Bill, based on the Law Commissions' Fifth Report on Statute Law Revision, was given a Second Reading in the House on January 24, but shortly afterwards the Bill fell with the Dissolution of Parliament. I need not, therefore, describe its contents in any detail, though I will, of course, endeavour to answer any questions your Lordships may address to me with regard to it.
The Bill marks a further stage in the continuing process of Statute Law revision resulting from the systematic review of the Statute Book by both Law Commissions. It does not include quite as many exotic Statutes as some of the earlier repeal Bills, but your Lordships will observe that among others it includes an Act of Parliament of Scotland, the Dovecots Act 1617; but I understand that this will not have an adverse effect on the existing dovecotes in Scotland. A

1033
detailed explanation of the Bill will be found, as before, in the Law Commissions' Report, subject to one change which I will mention.
There is one substantial difference between this Bill and its predecessor, which has the effect of reducing its size by three pages of print, an event which in itself will, I suspect, not meet with any displeasure in the House. The explanation of the fact that the Bill is shorter is that it no longer repeals the financial enactments which made up Part II of the Schedule to the previous Bill. Those enactments related to certain taxes, such as the special contribution of 1948, the excess profits levy and excess profits tax, which have not been in force for many years. It is, however, still possible for assessments to be made for the years when they were in force, if liability has been concealed over the years by fraud or by wilful default, and the Schedule to the previous Bill contained a saving provision to that effect.
When this matter came before the Joint Committee, which held its first meeting on the Bill just before the Dissolution, the Committee doubted whether it was right to include those provisions in a Bill of this kind. In the circumstances I have described, with an abundance of caution, the Committee hesitated to classify those provisions as being "of no practical utility", as the Long Title requires, even with the specific saving I have mentioned. The Law Commission have since reconsidered the matter and their advice, with which I agree, is that those provisions should be omitted from the Bill. There is one exception for Section 45(8) of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1915, which relates to a profits duty of the First War. This is wholly spent and reappears in Part II of the Schedule to this Bill. Otherwise the other taxing provisions remain. It may be possible to deal with the rest on some other appropriate occasion, but not in a Statute Law Repeals Bill.
I know that some of your Lordships will share the interest in the statistical result of this operation which was reflected by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. The effect of this Bill is that it now repeals 54 whole Acts and 310 parts of Acts which were passed into law between 1581 and 1972. It will bring the total of the statute repeals covered by the
1034
Law Commissions' programme up to 369 whole Acts of Parliament and 692 parts of Acts, so that 1,061 statutes are affected in all. But your Lordships may or may not be gratified to know that the Statute Book is not exactly denuded. There were approximately 3,480 statutes on the Statute Book on January 1, 1974; in 1964 there were 3,680. To have reduced the total number by 200 over a period of ten years which has seen so much new legislation is a commendable achievement, for which our thanks are due to the Law Commissions. The Bill continues the process of pruning the Statute Book which, as my predecessor pointed out, is far from finished yet. Indeed it may well prove to be a perpetual exercise.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, may I just say that, exotic or not, the House should, I think, take this opportunity of saying a word of thanks to the Joint Committee, which has already had one meeting on this Bill and it will have some more. It is a very laborious task in fact to go through the long list of repeals in the Schedule. The substantive part of this Bill is very short; it is all in the Repeals Schedule. Each of them has to be checked to see whether or not it is justified for repeal. I am glad that the teeth of the Joint Committee have been bared in the case of the financial provisions and its judgment has been proved right; it growled correctly in the night, and the noble and learned Lord has now dropped those provisions.
The only other point I should like to make is that I hope the noble and learned Lord would agree with me in this proposition, that although at this stage of the Bill we need not be particularly concerned whether or not the "doocots" in Scotland will be denuded by the repeal of the 1617 Act, it is open to any noble Lord on the recommittal of this Bill to raise that or any other repeal on merits, so that we can discuss it, even if it is passed through the Joint Committee. That is the procedure which applies to these Bills, and a very salutary one it has proved to be in the past. If that is right, it might be of interest to noble Lords to know that they all have a chance to take part in this process, if they wish.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Viscount for that guidance and information, and I am grateful to him for the pronunciation of "dovecotes" in a fashion unfamiliar to a Welshman, if I may say so. Our thanks are also due, as the noble Viscount pointed out, to the Joint Committee, and indeed it is a great relief to me, if I may say so, that it will fall to them to consider the minutiae of the various appeals.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CLAY CROSS COUNCILLORS AND HOUSING FINANCE ACTS
3.40 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will now repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in reference to Clay Cross. I will use his own words:
"The situation there and elsewhere has arisen from the entirely unprecedented situation created over the past two years by the fact that the measures in the Housing Finance Acts were forced upon local government with unreasonable speed—indeed under the guillotine—and considerable lack of understanding.
"The House will be aware that this matter has greatly exercised those concerned with democracy in local government, particularly the national Conference and the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party.
"Because of our deep concern with the problem forced upon local authorities by the former Government's policies, decisions were taken by the Labour Party Conference when we were in Opposition about the question of the penalties involved for certain local councillors—financial liabilities, and penalties in terms of civic disqualification.
"It was the view of the National Executive Committee, and of the Labour Party Conference that efforts should be made to secure a reimbursement to the councillors concerned, in the case of Clay Cross only, for the financial liabilities that they have
1036
suffered. At no time was any commitment given that this would involve a charge upon public funds and we do not propose to do so. Indeed this proviso was made clear when we were in Opposition.
"It will be a matter for those associated with the decisions taken at the relevant conferences to consider how funds, not involving a charge on the revenue, can be raised for this purpose.
"We are committed to removing the civic disqualification which the Conservative Housing Finance Acts have involved. On this question we have to consider Clay Cross in a wider context.
"Clay Cross and one or two other councils decided on the policy of total non-implementation. A number of other local authorities, who finally implemented, did so only after a considerable delay. Their accounts are, I understand, now being examined by the district auditors in the course of their annual audits. The result of this examination may lead, though possibly on a limited scale, to further problems in different parts of the country which might involve the question of disqualification. Only when we see the full extent and magnitude of the problem will it be possible to make recommendations to the House. This we shall do.
"I and my right honourable friends have always made it clear that the law of the land, however unfair, however divisive, must be obeyed until it is repealed. My right honourable friend, who is now Lord President, made it absolutely clear at the Labour Party Conference last year. He said that,
'… the N.E.C. could not possibly advise councillors to act unlawfully. We cannot …'
And he went on to spell out the reasons why this could not be accepted.
"The matter was taken further by my right honourable friend who is now the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, when, as Chairman of the Party, he opened the Labour Party Local Government Conference at Birmingham in January. He said then:
'The Labour Party has always taken the view, and I still hold it, that the way to get a bad law changed is to change the Government.'
"The Government believe that the divisive effect on local democracy

1037
caused by the Housing Finance Acts should be resolved with fairness to all concerned, including those who reluctantly implemented the Act, and in a spirit which will diminish for the future the bitterness engendered by legislation whose repeal we shall shortly recommend to the House."
My Lords, that concludes the Prime Minister's Statement.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am sure that we are very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for repeating that Statement. I wonder whether I may make one comment and then ask a few questions. The noble Lord has repeated a Statement which seems to be almost entirely concerned with internal disputes among the Labour Party, and which says at an early stage:
"The House will be aware that this matter has greatly exercised those concerned with democracy in local government, particularly the national Conference and the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party."
Does the noble Lord realise that this has probably exercised other Parties and other people in the country as much as, if not more than, those in the Labour Party, and particularly those who are concerned with the rule of law and the requirement that people should obey Acts of Parliament until they are properly repealed?
I would go on to ask a few questions. First, does the noble Lord's promise later in the Statement about the commitment to remove the civic disqualification mean that there will be legislation? Or is this a promise to act administratively under either the 1933 or 1972 Local Government Acts; and, if so, which? Will the Government make a further Statement, when they have decided whether they are going to act administratively, on what they have decided? If they are going to act administratively, will they bear in mind that where a surcharge bringing disqualification is to be, as it were, set aside by the Secretary of State, it can be done only if the Secretary of State thinks that the surcharge was incurred by somebody acting reasonably, or in the belief that his actions were authorised by law? We hope that there will be full reasons given if any disqualification is removed on that account.
Finally, if there is to be any reimbursement by individual members of the Labour Party, or by the Labour Party as
1038
a whole, would the noble Lord care to remind those who are minded to contribute of what the noble and learned Lord the Master of the Rolls said about Clay Cross? So far, his remarks have been reported only in The Times of February 1 of this year. He is reported to have said that each councillor had deliberately broken the solemn declaration that he had made on taking office to fulfil his duties faithfully as a councillor; each councillor had persisted in defying the law; they told officials to take no steps to put the Act into operation. He said that the result of this was to benefit the well-to-do tenants whose rents were not increased and injure the poor tenants who therefore did not get rebates, that their disqualification was automatic and that they were not fit to be councillors, and the sooner they were disqualified the better.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for repeating this Statement. It would seem to me that there are two general principles underlying the Statement, and, as I understand it, the two principles are being observed. The first is that the law, however much certain persons may object to it, must be obeyed until it is altered. The second principle relates to penalties. There are many cases from the past where individuals, as a matter of conscience, have objected to particular laws and have become liable to penalties, but they have recognised that they must meet those penalties. On the second principle, that where penalties are payable because certain individuals as a matter of conscience object to certain laws, it has always been understood that those penalties would not be recoverable from public funds. The only question I wish to ask is whether anything that the noble Lord has said in the latter part of his Statement departs in any way from, or erodes, the two principles that I have just stated.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I acknowledge what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, have said. In regard to the noble Lord's specific question, what is in the latter part of the Statement in no way erodes the former part that there is no intention at all to recompense these councillors out of public funds. The

1039
noble Viscount referred to what was said at the Labour Party Conference and to what my honourable friends have said on a number of occasions. It was considered right to include these words as a consequence of the attacks that have been made, particularly on the Lord President and on his role in winding up a very emotional debate at the Labour Party Conference of last year—an emotional debate arising out of the sense of grievance of the Housing Finance Acts.
My Lords, in regard to civic disqualification, my understanding is that it could not be done under Section 2(30) of the 1933 Act. I took part in the Housing Finance Act of 1972. I cannot recall any provision by which this could be done administratively, but this has still to be considered. As I said in the Statement, we need to see what the general position is before a decision is made, and when it is made clearly we shall have to come to Parliament.
My Lords, in regard to the final remarks of the noble Viscount, warning, or seeking to warn, members of the Labour Party or any other organisation or individual who might wish to make a contribution, I would not defend any man for breaking the law; but there are many men and women of this country who break the law every day of the week and who receive a very small fraction of the penalty which these men will incur as a consequence of what they consider a conscientious act in Clay Cross. One needs also to consider that around that area there is high unemployment, low pay and deep poverty, and one needs to consider, without in any way approving or condoning the act of these councillors, the general circumstances under which they acted.

RACE RELATIONS BILL [H.L.]
3.52 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. My Lords, last night I was reading a book, Race and the Law, written by Anthony Lester and Geoffrey Bindman—I suppose the authoritative work on this subject. I was surprised to learn that the British Parliament carried
1040
its first legislation against race discrimination as far back as 1833, in the course of a discussion on the Government of India Act, when Section 87 prohibited racial and religious discrimination in the public service in India. This was at a time of resurgence in the Liberal Party and Lord Bentinck was able to carry that first legislative step against discrimination in that Parliament.
My Lords, I have referred to this because it causes some disarray to the first argument which I was going to put to the House. I was going to say that legislation against racial discrimination had been comparatively recent, that it was a new venture, that it was inevitably experimental and exploratory. In recent times, the first Act was in 1965 and it prohibited discrimination in public places. When that Act was applied it was found that it did not deal with discrimination in two major spheres, housing and employment. As a result of that experience a second measure was introduced in 1968 to extend unlawful discrimination to housing and to employment. My Lords, we are still passing through the period where we are feeling our way in regard to legislation which deals with racial discrimination and I think I shall be able to show that the experience of the second Act and of the Race Relations Board show now the need for further adjustment.
The Bill which I am submitting to the House for Second Reading is based on recommendations of the Race Relations Board and of the Street Committee. That Committee was presided over by Professor Harry Street, and among its members who endorsed these particular recommendations was Sir Geoffrey Howe who was Attorney General in the late Government. The recommendations of the Race Relations Board and the Street Committee have been reinforced by experience of legislation in this sphere in many parts of the world, and especially in the United States of America.
I think the most disturbing factor at the present time is the scepticism and disillusionment which exist in the immigrant community about the effectiveness of our legislation concerning racial discrimination. This has been expressed by Sir Geoffrey Wilson, Chairman of the Race Relations Board, particularly after certain

1041
decisions by the Law Lords of this House. If, after our experience, there is to be confidence among the immigrant community in our legislation, changes must be introduced. The Board recognises that its functions must be extended if it is to fulfil its purpose effectively. In saying that I do not underestimate the work it has done. It has changed the climate of conduct in this country regarding racial discrimination and it has achieved conciliation and co-operation where previously there was a sense of grievance and confrontation. But the powers of the Race Relations Board to-day are limited in a way which makes it incapable of dealing with our present problems. It acts only in individual cases—I emphasise that. Its main procedure is to consider personal complaints reaching it through the ten regional committees. It has had great success in conciliation in those cases. When they arise in industry they are considered by a joint committee of the C.B.I. and the T.U.C., but no one with knowledge suggests that this is a measure of the discrimination which exists in the country. Fewer than 1,000 individual complaints are made and considered each year—913 in 1972, 901 in 1971. The present procedure leaves untouched the great field of racial discrimination.
My Lords, there is another channel of action by the Race Relations Board than that of individual complaints received through its regional committees. Under Section 17 of the Act the Board can investigate individual cases when it suspects unlawful discrimination. Although this has been a secondary feature of the Board's work—there were only 68 occurrences in 1972—it has proved the most promising. The Board stated in its 1972 Report:
"In our experience, Section 17 investigations are generally more fruitful in serving the purposes of the Act than the investigation of complaints."
I have no doubt that that practical experience has contributed to the conclusion which is the basic change in the Bill that I am now presenting to the House.
Experience has shown the necessity for two changes: first, to remedy the limited effectiveness of dealing with individual cases only; and, secondly, to remove the restrictive effects of the limitations on investigation, which is of value. We thus come to the essence of the Bill which
1042
I am presenting to the House, which is that the powers of the Board should be extended to enable it to investigate situations liable to discrimination, without the need to suspect that any individual unlawful act has been committed; and that it should be able to call the attention of those concerned to circumstances in which discrimination is likely to occur and to make recommendations for a change. In other words, the Board would become positive, constructive and preventive. Its sphere would be enlarged from action in individual cases to action in a social context. It would be able to look at situations where there was a danger of discrimination, to discuss the position with those concerned and to advise changes which might avoid discrimination.
In its 1971–72 Report the Board stated:
"We consider that the granting of such powers would increase considerably the ability of the Board to engage in work of a preventive character. The Factory Acts are an example of legislation where the agency responsible for securing compliance does so more by prevention than by dealing with individual breaches. The mere existence of such powers would stimulate steps to promote equal opportunity."
That is the fundamental change proposed in this Bill. Perhaps second in importance is the provision that would give the Board the right to call for evidence and to summon witnesses. This is necessary to make both conciliation and investigation effective. I am encouraged by the fact that so many members of the present Government, including members of the Cabinet, urged this view when the 1968 Act was under consideration. This provision is recommended by both the Board and the Street Committee, and is the key to the whole working of the Race Relations Act.
The third proposal in the Bill is that the scope of discrimination should be extended to nationality. This was clearly the intention of the then Home Secretary, Sir Frank Soskice, who is now my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill. He then observed (OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 16/7/65, col. 972) that the word "national" in "national origin",
"… would bring to the mind of the ordinary person the idea of a particular country; a person, for example, who is a German is one regarded as having German as his nationality and, if he lived here, he and his grouping would have the protection of the Bill."

1043
The Law Lords of this House ruled in the case of the London Borough of Ealing v. Race Relations Board that Section 1 of the Act had not been intended to cover alien nationality. We thus have this illogical position. While a person cannot discriminate lawfully against anyone because he is brown or black, he can discriminate against him because he is an Indian or a Jamaican. The illogicality is emphasised in view of the fact that under the provisions of the Treaty of Rome, incorporated in British law by the European Communities Act 1972, one cannot discriminate against a national of a country belonging to the European Economic Community.
On previous occasions when we have discussed this subject there has been some controversy about the application of the Act to clubs and voluntary associations. I think your Lordships will find that the clauses in this Bill which refer to this matter deal with it satisfactorily. There would be a general exemption for private social clubs and associations of persons of particular ethnic or national origins, such as Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Jewish or Commonwealth associations, though in these, too, discrimination would not be permitted on grounds of colour. A Jew could not be excluded because he was brown. An Indian could not be excluded because he was white. As I am a white who was born in India, perhaps I have an interest in that aspect. The need for this amendment again arose from a ruling made by the Law Lords of this House who were concerned with the exclusion of a coloured person from a Conservative Club in East London. The Bill accepts the right of such a club to exclusive Conservative membership, but not to exclude a Conservative on the grounds of his racial origin or colour.
Time does not allow me to deal in greater detail with the whole of the Bill, but there are three provisions which I should mention briefly. The Bill would amend the Act in relation to the accommodation of crews on ships. Strangely, the present Act against discrimination actually legalises discrimination in this sphere. Since the Act was passed there has been a considerable growth of integration among the crews of ships.
An important change is the permission given to individuals to take proceedings in
1044
a court of law if a complaint has been turned down by the Board or if a decision has been delayed unreasonably. At present, only the Board has the right to take proceedings. I believe it is unique that a person who feels aggrieved in consequence of what he holds to be a breach of the civil law should not have the right to take a case to court. This proposal represents a personal civil right against the privileges of bureaucracy. Damages would be limited to £500.
This clause also extends the remedies which may be granted in legal proceedings by the courts. These include the important provision which empowers the courts to grant positive orders, either to take steps to establish to the Boards satisfaction that the defendant will comply in future with the Race Relations Act, or to provide any benefit to the victim which he might reasonably have been expected to have but for the unlawful discrimination. At present the Act does not require any affirmative action to provide equal opportunity following the ending of a case of discrimination.
My Lords, one more amendment should be mentioned because of the attention aroused by a particular case. The Bill would give the Board the right to decline to act when a complaint appears to be frivolous or trivial. At present, the Board must investigate against its better judgment. The case of the advertisement for a Scottish cook to prepare Scotch porrridge was an example of this. The amendment would save the Board from ridicule.
Those, then, are the main provisions of the Bill, which I regret is so largely an instance of legislation by reference, probably inevitable in an amending Bill. I hope that the Explanatory Memorandum made available through the Printed Paper Office was useful to your Lordships. I should like to pay a public tribute to the barrister who drafted the Bill, but legal etiquette does not allow me to mention his name. I will only say that he has served me in his private capacity, but he is also a counsel of the Race Relations Board.
My Lords, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading. While certain clauses may not be acceptable, they will be open to consideration in Committee. The crucial change involved is the power which the Bill would give to the Race Relations Board to prevent

1045
and not merely to correct. It is for that principle that I ask the support of your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Brockway.)
4.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am sure that it is valuable that we should have our annual debate on race relations. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will long be spared to make this a hardy annual event. I remember that in a short debate just over a year ago I set out the then Government's position, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will be doing the same for the present Government at the end of to-day's debate.
I venture to think that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, must be a little premature in expecting final decisions from the new Government within a month of their taking office. I am sure that they are very rapid but some of these matters are difficult. The noble Lord himself said, "We are feeling our way", and I agree with him. I would, if I may dare do so, counsel a little caution to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, before he pledges himself wholeheartedly to some of these reforms. I need hardly remind the House that this subject is the other side of the coin of the immigration control issues that we were discussing last week, and equally important; and a balance on this, as on immigration, is an important thing to aim at and to achieve.
My Lords, examining the Bill (I do not propose to go through all the measures in it on Second Reading) it seems to me that there are two main objectives: first, to reverse what appears to have been thought was the decision in the club case, Charter v. The Race Relations Board; and, secondly, the extension of authority providing the preventive powers which were asked for, as the noble Lord reminded us, in the 1971–72 Report of the Race Relations Board and again, I think, in the most recent Report. I am not saying that the 1965 and 1968 Acts together are a perfect code and need no amendment. But I would say that many changes, including I think a number of those set out in the present Bill, are likely to be controversial, not only in Parliament but in the country, and we therefore need to be sure that the changes
1046
proposed in a fairly important extension of the sort which the Bill contains would actively assist in improving race relations. Part of the judgment on that question must be the net effect of actually trying at this particular moment to legislate on controversial points in Parliament, and in discussing them opening up possible disagreements and discrepancies.
Further, I am a little dubious about the Bill because, first, I believe that at least the active and considered support of the Government, of whichever Party, should accompany a Bill on this subject. I will go further and suggest that it should in any event be a Government Bill. Secondly, I say that because the type of issues to which I have been referring require a fine judgment which I believe a Government alone can form, after full advice from their own advisers and full consultation with all those who are equipped to give sound views on the subject.
Going on from there, I doubt whether at this particular moment counsel and advice can be fully given to the Government because there are still a number of important reports, inquiries and investigations into the fairly fundamental aspects of the workings of the Race Relations Code which are nearly ready, or possibly even available to Government, and which will have to be studied—and I think published and considered—before action is taken. If the noble Lord, Lord Harris, can give us any news about some of these matters it will be of interest to us all. Perhaps he can tell us what progress is being made.
I will pick up some of those points as I look at a number of details of the Bill. I shall not take up the point about the nationality that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, mentioned. That was, of course, the case of a Pole who could not get on to the housing list. Although I have not studied that case, I have looked at the questions raised by Clause 2, which attempts to deal with the clubs that were the subject of Opinions and speeches in this House, sitting judicially, in the Charter case. I am afraid that, looking at the new section which Clause 2 seeks to insert into the 1968 Act, it seems to me to go miles too far.
The principles on the question of clubs that were enunciated by this House in

1047
the Charter case were concerned first with the definition of the words in Section 2(1) of the 1968 Act, "the public or a section of the public", which were held to be words of limitation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, said—and I would have thought that it would have been pleasing to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and those who agree with him:
"I would infer from the Act as a whole that the legislature thought all discrimination on racial grounds to be deplorable but thought it unwise or impracticable to apply legal sanctions in situations of a purely private character."
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said:
"Some clubs may be sections of the public. The dividing line lies in the personal selection of members with a view to their common acceptability."
There were a number of references to bogus clubs which were plainly not private and would fall within the provisions of the Race Relations Act as they stand.
I should like to know from the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, whether, if Clause 2 of his Bill were on the Statute Book, there could be any form of club or organisation, however small or informal, that would escape the strictures of this law. Is it possible to have any regular darts team or bridge four which could not be impugned under the provisions of this clause as it stands? If it is as I think, and this is a very wide and sweeping provision, I believe that it would be widely resented and would do great harm to the cause of race relations. I am not saying that there should not be a dividing line of the type the noble and learned Law Lords were talking about, but I think this clause would prevent there being any line at all and that it goes much too far.
The noble Lord referred to the excellent work of his draftsmen, and I am sure that that tribute is fully justified; but for the life of me I cannot understand what is the meaning of the word "association" as used in this clause. It has no ordinary legal meaning whatever and I considered—perhaps idly, but I did consider—how this drafting could possibly fit in with the express exemptions in Section 9 of the 1968 Act in relation to charities: because it seems to me that every charity must, under the definition in Clause 2, be an association. Therefore we have in
1048
this draft an absolutely direct conflict whereby one thing is made legal and illegal in the same Bill. The noble Lord cannot possibly wish that to happen. It is the result, I am afraid, of dubious drafting and the use of this word "association if I am right. That points the finger to another very good reason why I believe that legislation of this sort should be Government legislation—or that we should not have it at all—because only the Parliamentary draftsman can get these things right and only Government can provide a parliamentary draftsman, or at any rate lend his services to a private Member of either House who wishes to introduce legislation.
Then I am a little dubious about the provisions of Clause 5 which according to the rubric deals with, "Retaliation and obstruction". Can the noble Lord tell me why this is to occur only in the annals of the law in the race relations field? There is always the risk of this sort of thing happening whenever civil or criminal action is taken in the courts. The person who loses is liable to be a little sore and is liable to seek retaliation. But there is no protection in any other branch of the law for this sort of thing, and I cannot understand why the race relations field should be picked out and a special right as suggested in Clause 5 given. Indeed, this is just the sort of thing that brings race relations into ill-repute because it gives people greater rights under this particular code than under any other one known to the law.
My Lords, I come then to Part II of the Bill which contains what the noble Lord has described as the "essence". There are a number of practical matters of administration and procedure here where changes are suggested. Here, above all, I believe we need to be convinced that these changes in detail are required. I suggest that the Government should at least be sure that the existing law creates mischiefs or contains hiatuses, lacunae, which need a remedy, and the Government need to have actual examples of cases that have gone wrong for the lack of legal powers. Why, for instance, does the noble Lord suggest there is the need for an extension of time for investigation in Clause 7(i)? Are there cases which have been shown to be out of time? On the contrary, is it not the criticism that investigation takes far too long already with the rather short time

1049
limit that exists? Despite the remarks made by the Board in their 1971–72 Report, how much time is really wasted on frivolous complaints which would justify the formal provisions of Clause 7(ii)? I know about the Scottish porridge case, but is this a major issue which wastes hours and hours or days and days of the time of the Board and the courts? If not, why do we have to clutter up the Statute Book with legislation on it?
The noble Lord is quite right in drawing attention to Clauses 8 and 9 as being of major importance. The power to carry out independent investigations, and to subpoena persons and documents for the purpose, must be controversial. I know that the Board has asked for them and I know that a comparison has been made in the most recent Report with a suggested anti-discrimination machinery in Northern Ireland. I think that is to deal with discrimination between Catholics and Protestants in that Province. We have had the Factories Act analogy quoted earlier, in the debate last year. If there is one thing I know about enforcement machinery for this sort of thing it is that it needs careful tailoring to the needs and susceptibilities which are involved in the activities under review. One thing may be necessary for discrimination in Northern Ireland; another form of machinery for discrimination on grounds of sex; yet another for race relations; and for all I know one has a different sort again for the Factories Acts. Merely because you can find a parallel in terms of words does not mean that it is apt in terms of operation. Surely—and again the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will know more about this than I do—the P.E.P. Report, the work of the C.P.R.S. and the Community Relations Committee's own work on homelessness and joblessness, will all have to be studied before any decision can be taken that these preventive powers of investigation are desirable and necessary. We shall also have to see whether this will do more good than harm, bearing in mind the inevitable suspicions about poking, prying and spying that are likely to be aroused by boards having these powers of vague investigation into suspected complaints or areas of abuse. I am not saying that this is necessarily wrong, but we must bear in mind that these dangers
1050
exist to counter the enthusiasm of those who put forward such a reform.
While we are on this subject, since the Board says—and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, quoted this remark—that Section 17, covering investigations, is perhaps the most useful activity with which they occupy themselves, what actual cases have occurred where their existing powers have been found to be inadequate? I should have thought, and I seem to remember that I said this last year, that the powers under Section 17 are themselves fairly wide and I looked with some care at the drafting of Clause 8 to see how much wider that clause would make the powers of the Board. It is very much a matter of argument, and the noble Lord is right, I am certain, in being very careful about the drafting. But I should have suspected that if you read the existing Section 17 and the proposed new Section 17A, the latter does not add a great deal to what is already available under the former. Therefore, again one wants to look carefully at this to see whether we are doing anything which is worth while, because we shall certainly be involved in controversy on the grounds that I have just suggested, and if we are going to be involved in controversy let us at least get the wording right so that if something is to be done we do it with adequate drafting in the Bill.
The noble Lord, in a few words, referred to the repeals in Clause 19, which are wide and extensive in the employment field. He referred to the shipping provisions, and I think my noble friend Lord Runciman of Doxford may have a word to say on that matter. But there are a number of others, and the noble Lord has done nothing to justify the repeal of those copious provisions which were specifically set out in the 1968 Act. I really have no idea why he says that these are now wrong and should never have been incorporated in the original Act or passed by Parliament. This is again an area of great delicacy, and one where we should tread gently.
Finally, I should think that punitive damages, to which the noble Lord referred as something which could be obtained by the private citizen—this appears, I think, in Clause 14—is a very dubious legal innovation. In what other civil actions does one have punitive

1051
damages? There has been a great deal of controversy recently about this matter in the field of defamation. There was a book about a convoy which went to Russia around the North of Norway. This was the subject of bitter legal dispute; and the noble Lord should realise that he is dealing with an issue with wide legal implications when he specifically brings into the race relations field punitive damages, which do not apply, so far as I know, in many other areas of tort, where perhaps a case could be made out on the same sort of grounds as those which the noble Lord has used in this case. So certainly this is not something which should be slipped into a Private Member's Bill, I would suggest to the House, without a good deal more justification.
My Lords, I am sorry to be rather critical about this, but I think one has to be careful on this subject. I hope that in his reply the noble Lord, Lord Harris, will be able to deal with some of these points; and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will perhaps do me the credit of considering them as well. They are not intended to be carping: I am trying to pick out things which I see as genuinely doubtful. Certainly when the noble Lord, Lord Harris, rises to speak I hope that he will say things which are as generously quoted in the 1973 Report of the Race Relations Board as was my last speech on the 1972 Report. I am sorry I did not altogether please the Board in everything I said, but at least my speech was like the curate's egg—they liked some of it. I do not wish to suggest that there is no room for improvement or advance in this, but I am bound to look with a critical eye at some of the specific suggestions in this Bill, to see if the case for a change has been made, and whether the changes will actually help race relations; because if there is one thing that I am sure we are all determined to do it is to legislate, if we legislate at all, in a way which will be positively helpful and constructive to those who are carrying out this important duty.
4.34 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, introduced this Bill with his usual clarity and persuasiveness. After his opening sentence he will not, I hope, be surprised that
1052
from these Benches we are very glad to support the Bill which he has brought to us. As he rightly says, anything that can be done to extend the confidence of the immigrant population in the basic justice of our laws and the effectiveness with which they can be administered is to the good. And not only, if I may suggest it, do we want to extend the confidence of the immigrant population, but also that of their descendants. We must not forget that there is an increasing number of people in this country who are descendants of immigrants. That is why, with the very greatest respect, I differed a little from what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, said when he implied that the Race Relations Act is, I think he said, the other side of the coin of the Immigration Act. It seems to me that the handling of race relations is not necessarily anything at all to do with immigration. It is dealing with people who are already here, and it is trying, as we all wish to try, to make them feel at home.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, may I just say this to the noble Viscount? I did not say that it was the reverse of the coin of the Immigration Act: I said it was the reverse of the coin of immigration control.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount. I think I see the point, though I thought that Immigration Acts were mainly concerned with immigration control. The question which the noble Viscount put to us, I think not quite directly but by implication, is the very important one: is this a suitable field for legislation? I confess to your Lordships that when the 1968 Bill was being discussed in your Lordships' House before it became an Act, I was myself rather doubtful and I think occasionally critical on these very grounds: because social attitudes cannot really be governed by legislation. At the same time, Parliament agreed to pass the last two Race Relations Acts, and they agreed because they thought that there ought to be some sort of framework within which public opinion and public attitudes could be encouraged to grow in the right direction. Now, after about six years, I do not feel myself that it is too early to consider, in the light of our experience, whether some amendments to the existing Race Relations Act ought not to be introduced.

1053
I take the point made by the noble Viscount that it might be much better for this to be a Government Bill, just as the last Acts were; and if at the end of the day the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is going to tell us that the Government accept the principles that lie behind the Bill and will at the earliest opportunity be introducing something of the same kind, then I for one would feel very happy and I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would feel happy, too. But in the meantime there is no harm, I suggest, in giving Parliament a nudge, and that is what this Bill is designed to do.
I shall not attempt to discuss the legal matters which the noble Viscount, with his legal knowledge, has brought up, because I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, will have plenty to say about them. I would rather refer to one or two of the broad ideas which the noble Lord has included in the Bill. First, Clause 2 and the clubs. I myself felt some of the difficulties about the clubs which I think have affected the noble Viscount. It is difficult to see just where the line is to be drawn, though if I may say so I thought he quoted a rather curious case in support of his view. He referred to a darts team. My Lords, if the "Red Cow" is putting a darts team into a local public house competition and one of the most skilful dart throwers is a coloured man, surely it would be right that he should be included in the team and not excluded merely because the others would rather have someone of their own colour in the team. I think that is a perfectly good example of a case where it would be wrong to discriminate against the coloured darts player even if he has not got a full command of the King's English.
I feel myself that this is a very important issue and I should have thought the intention from the start was that discrimination in this field should be made unlawful. I am sure that many of your Lordships can think of clubs to which they belong where they meet people who are perhaps more familiar to them and I should not think that that point arises on this clause. There are clubs which require a large number of names to be put in a candidate's book in order to secure his election. If that applies equally to people of all races and nationality—
1054
and as nationality is being introduced here we need not introduce colour into the argument at all—that would seem to me perfectly all right. Nobody can explore the reasons why people do or do not put their names down in support of a particular candidate. They put them down because they know them and think that they would be suitable club members. In that case I do not think the terms of the Bill, if it became an Act, would apply. I was intending to say a word about Clause 5 and the subject of victimisation; but the noble Viscount has pointed out that this raises important legal issues and I would rather leave that point to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner.
Clause 8 is absolutely fundamental to the Bill. I recognise that it might look as though it opened the door to possible "snooping", but it need not do so it the law is sensibly administered. It merely gives the Race Relations Board the power to inquire into circumstances where it has no direct evidence of discrimination but where practices are enforced which might lead to discrimination. I thought that the analogy of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, with the Factories Act was a very good one. What we want to do is to prevent offences arising rather than to pursue them after they have arisen, and the only way to prevent them arising is to investigate cases where there may appear to be a tendency which, unless checked, could lead to offences.
I was going to say something about Clause 14 and damages; but I realise that this again raises important issues of law. It is a new development in this field, and I confess that it would appear to be very difficult for any court to assess the value (if that is the word) of damage by discrimination. But at the same time the fact that there should be in the background some ability to award damages of this nature would be psychologically a great uplift for people who feel themselves in a position to be discriminated against. I hope that when we come to examine the Bill in detail the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will be able to satisfy us all about that.
As the noble Lord particularly referred to the position on ships, I was going to say something about that—largely because in my youth I had something to

1055
do with operating ships which carried a very large number of people of all kinds of races, religions and colours. I know from my experience then the real difficulty that exists in mixing people up in places where they have to share sleeping quarters, eating-messes and sanitary appliances. Different races have different ideas, and the practices of some are definitely unpleasant to others. So I think there is a great deal to be said, if we are to preserve harmony in a ship which has on board people who are rather closely confined for long periods of time, for doing something to keep apart people who are perhaps mutually not very attractive. However, I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, will be saying something more to us about that when he speaks.
In conclusion, I should like to say, in support of the Bill, that in my view it is time we took further steps to improve the present law in the light of criticisms that have been made by the Race Relations Board, because after all the members of the Board have been closer to this problem than any of us. They have put out some excellent reports. I agree with the noble Viscount that one wishes to know something of the actual cases that have come to light, but there must have been specific cases to cause the Board to put forward its comments. I believe that the time has come for Parliament to take further steps to improve the law, and I sincerely hope that, in doing so, it will do what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said—that is, to extend and enlarge the confidence of the immigrant population in the rightness of our laws.
4.46 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I rise to support the Second Reading of this Bill, on two grounds. First, I want to pay my tribute to the Race Relations Board. Some of its members are very familiar to us in the field of law. They have, I think, done an extremely good job, which is not necessarily any the worse for the fact that there have not been clouds of sensational cases and that so much of their work has been done on the footing of conciliation. When a public-spirited body of that kind, after some years' experience of this work, makes a report saying that experience has shown
1056
that some amendments ought to be made to the Act, I think—and this is the first ground on which I support the Second Reading of this Bill—that the least Parliament can do is to consider what the Board says. It is now nearly two years since the Board reported. The last Government showed no interest in this, and never made any move towards implementing any one of the respects in which the Board suggested that the Act ought to be amended. So I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brockway, because now at last we have an opportunity of considering what the Board has said.
The second reason why I wanted to say something is because the list of speakers on this Bill does not include the names of any other members of the Select Committee of this House that dealt with the Sex Discrimination Bill. A number of amendments proposed by the Race Relations Board received our careful consideration, and we adopted quite a number of them. Although, when that Bill was recommitted to this House, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, said everything against it that he could, I do not think that he objected to a number of these points. For example, Clause 7 says that the Board should not be bound to hear frivolous complaints. The noble Viscount asked whether that had led to a lot of wasted time. In a memorandum to the Select Committee, Sir Roy Wilson, who was then acting Chairman of the Board and also chairman of their employment committee (and many of us know him also as a lawyer of great distinction and as President of the Industrial Court to which, in the old days, employers and employees alike were very happy to go), said this:
"We have always found that the absence of any discretion in the Board allowing us not to investigate complaints which are frivolous or vexatious, or complaints the investigation of which would in our opinion serve no useful purpose in the public interest, has been very regrettable indeed. In the result we have been compelled to spend a lot of time on quite hopeless complaints (to the detriment of our work on complaints which well merited investigation); and we have also been compelled to take up and pronounce upon complaints which may have been technically well founded but which served no good purpose at all and were for the most part put forward by ill-wishers who wished to bring the Act and the Board into discredit."

1057
Sir Roy Wilson was also good enough to give oral evidence before us on July 4, 1972, and he said then:
"… in the Race Relations Board we have been plagued with complaints which may fall into one or other of two categories…"
and he spelt out the categories. Later he said they had some complainants who had put in 30 or 40 separate complaints. Most people in public life know that since the policy of the Mental Health Act was adopted—I have no doubt quite rightly—anybody who is not dangerous to the public should if possible be released from institutions, however hard that may be on the family. There are an awful lot of crackpots about.
We considered all that and, accordingly, in the Sex Discrimination Bill, after explaining our reasons, we set out in Clause 9(2) the following:
"The Board shall not be required to receive any such complaint made after the expiration of six months from the date of the act complained of unless it appears to them that special circumstances warrant its exception, nor any complaint which appears to them to be trivial, frivolous or vexatious."
I do not think any complaint was made, even by the noble Viscount, when the Bill was recommitted to the House, that your Lordships' Select Committee had come to that conclusion.
Then there is the question of whether the Board should be able to investigate although there is no individual complaint which is dealt with in Clause 6, and more particularly Clause 8, of this Bill. Sir Roy Wilson, in his memorandum, said:
"I observe that the Bill"—
he was referring to the Bill the Select Committee were considering—
"contains no provision corresponding to Section 17 of the Act. There are undoubtedly cases where the Board have had knowledge that discrimination is going on, but nobody wants to come forward."
In our Report to this House, at paragraph 119, we said:
"The Committee were convinced by the experience of the Race Relations Board and by American experience that discrimination could not be eradicated if all actions depended on the initiative of the individual complainant, even if a case could be brought on his or her behalf by a third party. The Committee therefore decided that if the Board had reason to suspect than an act of discrimination had taken place in contravention of the Act, it could initiate an investigation without any individual complaint."
1058
With regard to damages, we discussed this with Sir Roy Wilson. This is now covered by Clause 14 of the present Bill. The Race Relations Board, in their Annual Report, referred to it at some length in paragraph 89. We dealt with it in our Report to this House, and provided accordingly in Clause 12(4) of our Bill.
It is not my intention to detain the House while going through all the clauses of the Bill now before us. The question is: has a prima facie case been made out for saying that there ought to be a Bill making at least some amendments to the Race Relations Act of the various kinds which the Race Relations Board have put forward in their Report? Non constat that there may be objection to this clause or that clause, that surely is a matter for the Committee stage of the House. Nobody has suggested that none of the amendments proposed by the Race Relations Board ought to be made, and if some of them ought to be made then the rest is a matter for the consideration of this House.
There is one further matter to which I should like to refer, if only so that the powers that be can bear it in mind. In the Report of the Select Committee on the Sex Discrimination Bill we pointed out that we had considered whether it might be a good idea for us to suggest that there should be a joint Act dealing with both race relations and sex discrimination. We said in paragraph 101:
"A number of witnesses suggested that the most appropriate way to legislate against discrimination on grounds of sex would be to amend the Race Relations Act 1968 by adding sex to the characteristics already listed in that Act for protection against discrimination. It was pointed out that in the United States one general anti-discrimination Act had been introduced and that this appeared to work well."
Then we said in paragraph 102:
"The Committee were initially attracted by these arguments, but eventually decided to reject them for a number of reasons. They considered that the nature of discrimination on grounds of sex was in many ways different from discrimination on grounds of race; that the scale and location of the two problems were different since immigrants are a very small proportion of the total population and are concentrated in a few areas only, while women are the majority of the population and are spread over the whole country. The Committee also thought that the Race Relations Act, despite its many undoubted achievements, failed to provide fully effective machinery for enforcement. While impressed

1059
by the success claimed for the United States legislation the Committee held that the differences in the origins and extent of the American problem in comparison with the British meant that United States experience provided a useful source of ideas rather than a model for imitation. The Committee, therefore, decided that amendment of the Race Relations Act would not be the most suitable means at the present time to deal with sex discrimination and that a separate Act was required. It will, however, be noticed that several of the new Clauses inserted into the Bill are modelled on sections of the Act of 1968;"
When we asked Sir Roy Wilson whether he thought it would be a good idea to amalgamate the two, he said he thought not and his main reason—which partly also influenced us—was that we had seen, as he had, reports from America of the extent to which the two halves of their Equal Opportunities Commission constantly quarrelled with each other. He said:
"I have read last week a report on the working of the Equal Opportunity Commission in the United States, and the squabbles which have taken place between those who are mainly concerned with sex discrimination. Each faction has accused the other of nobbling, and of stealing all the limelight, and the result I would have thought was not a happy one.… From page 50 onwards in this book it deals with the working of the Equal Opportunity Commission in the United States and devotes quite an amount of space to this dissension that broke out as to which of the forms of discrimination was getting a better deal".
If anybody thinks of having one Act to deal with both, I hope that he will take those observations into account.
I support the Second Reading; it is clear that at least in some of these matters the Board were right. If one looks at damages, for example, as they point out in their Report, most of the people who were concerned to complain to them are not financially interested. There have been many cases where people have not come forward to be complainants because they say: "I may put myself at some risk. If everything is found in my favour, I can never recover any of the financial loss that I have suffered." Therefore, there is a case for a clause providing for the very moderate amount of damages for which this Bill provides.
5.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: My Lords, this Bill raises an area in which I think it behoves any-
1060
one to tread very warily, and perhaps the more so since it has been the subject of a great deal of discussion in your Lordships' House, in the other place and in the public at large. I would, however, risk one general observation, which is that in this, perhaps even more than in a good many other facets of life, there is always the danger of the better being the enemy of the good. When one talks about the "better", it is well to remember also that what is better in theory is not necessarily better in practice. It is that which moves me to speak on a matter which your Lordships know, from what you have heard, that I might be likely to address you; that is, the subject of the treatment of crews of varying races and nationalities in British ships. There is a significant number of varying nationalities, races, religions and general backgrounds employed in these ships.
The relevant provisions of the 1968 Act, which are contained in Section 8, were devised with some care to meet this difficult situation. I will try to explain why it is difficult in a moment or two. We are now faced with a clause in the noble Lord's Bill, to which he himself has referred, which simply repeals these provisions without, so far as I can see, attempting to put anything whatever in their place. The only comment which, if I heard him correctly, he made about this was that under the present procedure considerable progress has been made. This seems to me, if I may say so with respect, a rather odd reason for wishing to change it. I believe that to throw away (because that is what it amounts to) not only the provisions in the 1968 Act, but the good that has resulted from them, is not only wrong in principle but is likely in practice to hinder racial harmony rather than promote it, not only on shipboard, but also, because since seamen are apt to have families ashore and are apt to recount their grievances and difficulties to those families, trouble on shipboard can also extend to trouble ashore.
Seafarers tend to live in a rather different atmosphere in some ways from those who work ashore. For the seaman, his ship at sea is not only his place of work, it is also his place of recreation; and is also, for the time being, his home. There is no escape from it or

1061
from the company which it contains. In close quarters tensions can build up very rapidly and often for reasons which in a more spacious atmosphere they would have been dissipated before they came to anything that mattererd. To attempt, therefore, to compel seafarers, who wish to remain separate, to share living, eating and sanitary accommodation is in practice to ask for trouble, and every time this sort of trouble occurs, the cause of good race relations suffers.
For this reason, during 1968, at the instance of the seafarers' organisations, no less than the organisations of the ship-owners, provisions were made in the 1968 Act under which, inter alia, it is:
"… not … unlawful … to discriminate against any person in respect of employment on a ship, if …"—
otherwise the result would be to compel—
"… persons of different colour, race or ethnic or national origins … to share sleeping rooms, mess rooms or sanitary accommodation."
Since that time these provisions have worked well, and have helped progress in the direction which I am sure all your Lordships desire. Because that progress has been voluntary, it is, I submit, more effective and more durable than if an attempt had been made to force it with unnatural speed by Act of Parliament. At home, for instance, coloured boys bred and educated in this country are, and have for some time, been taken into the National Sea Training School at Gravesend where they are readily accepted on an equality with those of British descent, and who share their accommodation and the like so that no question of this sort arises. Similarly, gradually, one can see a happy acceptance of this kind of mixture developing on shipboard.
But it cannot be hurried. Seamen are perhaps slower to change their habits (or if you will, overcome their prejudices) than those who live in wider communities ashore. Many of them are drawn from communities whose history, religion and tradition, of which they are often justly proud, differ widely. You may, for example, find Christians, Mohammedans and Hindus serving on the same ship. To put one aspect of it a bit crudely, you really cannot expect successfully to compel Mohammedans to eat pork or Hindus to eat beef in a common mess room.
1062
It is for that kind of reason that if this Bill in its present form were to become law, I fear that the results, at least so far as the seafarer is concerned, would not promote racial harmony, but would tend, in this respect, to retard it. If the Bill should reach the Committee stage, I hope that this part will be subject to the most rigorous examination.
5.7 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, we have just listened with great interest to the remarks of my noble friend Lord Runciman of Doxford who speaks with such exceptional authority on maritime matters. My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, in his powerful examination of the Bill pointed out, among other things, that it was difficult to sub-divide the racial questions from the whole question of immigration. He also expressed his expectation and hope that it would be a matter for a Government Bill. Here may I interject my felicitations to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, on joining our House and on replying to the debate on this Bill this afternoon. I took the trouble to read the Bill with care, though I must admit that I did not do enough homework to embrace the documentation connecting it with the main Act of 1968.
I come to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. In the persuasive eloquence that we are habituated in this House to expect, the noble Lord put forward this Bill, I imagine, more with the purpose of drawing the attention of the Government to it than expecting much further progress. I want to record at once my hope that it will not progress. However, it gives one the opportunity for the first time with the new Government (apart from the day before yesterday when the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, had a good go at aspects of immigration) to deal with the main points or varied points of reflection with regard to immigration as a whole.
The House perhaps will know that I have been a consistent advocate of very drastically restricted immigration of nonwhites into this country. So I will speak for these reasons, rather than go into the particular clauses of the Bill. While the Bill, as Lord Brockway said, will achieve changes which have become necessary since the Act was passed, it also

1063
inevitably embraces aspects of immigration as a whole. I repeat that I have consistently held the view that we have been too generous in our acceptance of non-white immigration, up to, in recent years, 60,000 in one year—which is far too many, whatever may be the estimate of those who are already in this country; and we know that there are estimates which put the figure very high. I watch carefully the size of immigration because I am not ashamed of being British and I am proud to be among those who feel they want the purity of the British race. It is not an extreme thing to emphasise this, even though there is ridicule from some quarters for the suggestion that the non-white population in this country will within a relatively small number of years be a very high figure.
The points which I am going to make may be disconnected, but they are made because this is the first time this subject has been discussed in the early days of the new Government, and it is not improper or out of place to put before the Minister certain thoughts of those who take the same view as I do. There are undoubtedly a very large number of people in the country who feel that we should be a happier country with fewer non-whites in it. Those who urge the inflow of this non-white immigration say: "We must have complete integration". But of course a large number of the immigrants do not want integration; they want to be left alone to be with their own kind, with their own social habits, religions and customs. But if you are going to have complete integration, as I understand the language of it, it means physical integration too, sexual integration, and that develops mulattoes. Those countries such as the United States or South Africa, the Caribbean or Brazil, which have a large proportion of mulattoes, are no better for it; and certainly, from the examples we see, the happiness of the mulattoes themselves is not greater.
Indeed, we have a lot of bad whites, and there are a great many very brilliant negroes—Washington in the States is always quoted as a case. But a proportion of people who urge that we should have large-scale non-white immigration say: "We need them. We need them for our public transport. We
1064
need them for our hospitals." Maybe. But for a great number of years those jobs were always filled by whites. Why should not they be filled now by whites? The reason is they are the jobs that are least attractive and least well paid. But, my Lords, the second generation of immigrants, who have received the benefit of our education, hygiene and habitual outlook on life, are not going to be the ones to accept those jobs. They will be competing with the natives for employment; for housing; for education, and all the privileges associated with those who come into our country. One of the reasons why they come into this country must be that there are advantages here which they receive from our wonderful social welfare services—much greater than they get anywhere else. They are a great attraction to people to come here. The reason for the Bill the noble Lord has introduced is surely to make better the conditions under which they live here. I do not deny it would be a good thing to do it, but it is still aimed to make this country a haven of greater attraction than anywhere else and to encourage the inflow of immigrants
I am always puzzled as to why there is objection to the word "Negro", or "nigger" for that matter. Surely it is no more offensive than to use the word "Jap" against a Japanese; or, in the States, the use of the word "Wop" against an Italian, or "Polack" against a Pole, or "Greaser" against an American. Why all this sensitiveness? After all, do we not read in the financial Press every day of the Kaffir Market? Is "Kaffir" not more derogatory than the word "Bantu" or "coloured" in South Africa? I am puzzled about the sensitiveness that exists. But I emphasise that this question of competition with our native population in employment and in housing, and the complications in education, should be considered.
I see one noble Lord who may speak after me and who would be able to say much more about education than I could attempt to do. However, the health services are strained, and I often wonder what is the extent or the situation. What if we had—pray God we never shall have!—massive unemployment in this country again, or the situation that existed between the two World

1065
Wars when every mouth we had to feed was a strain on our maritime resources? Surely that reflection emphasises that we should be very parsimonious; and I hope that the new Government will be in the way in which they permit licences of entry. And how silly to call them licences for one, when each licence gives a permit for four! Why not be honest and say, instead of 3,500, four times 3,500?—I cannot do the arithmetic in my head.
Lastly, I have a paper here which says: "75,000 migrants in Britain illegally". The numbers one does not know, but one is shocked weekly, almost, by the Press reporting discoveries of the most intricate methods pursued to enable people to get into this country. The fact that people are prepared to pay so much money and to go to such lengths to enter this country shows what a haven it must be in terms of attraction to many other parts of the world. It is for this reason, my Lords, that I hope that the new Government will be far more successful than even the Conservative Government were in clamping down on these illegal immigrants.
5.20 p.m.
LORD BOYLE OF HANDSWORTH: My Lords, I apologise to your Lordships for the fact that I did not put my name down to speak this afternoon, but I was not sure whether I should be able to arrive in time to hand in my Writ of Summons. But I should like to speak for a few minutes because I am at present chairman of one of the regional conciliation committees to whom the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred when moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I can say to your Lordships that there would be a very considerable measure of sympathy for the proposals contained in this Bill, not only among the members of my committee, but also among chief conciliation officers in Yorkshire and the North-East.
I should like to join with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in the tribute which he paid to the Race Relations Board, and in particular to its present chairman, Sir Geoffrey Wilson. It is my belief that since the setting up of the Race Relations Board the Board and its advisers have done even more valuable work than is generally realised in this
1066
country. I think much of the credit should go to successive Chairmen of the Board, and I personally would very much agree with the noble and learned Lord's estimate of the annual reports that we have had from the Board during recent years. The only point on which I would slightly differ from him was his suggestion that the previous Government had been inactive in this field. I recall what I thought was a really splendid Party Conference speech by an old friend of mine, Mr. Robert Carr, repelling attacks over the decision to admit our obligations to the Uganda Asians, and I am bound to say that he is not somebody—and I try these days to take an impartial view of these matters—against whom I would care to make the accusation of having been an inactive Minister or one lacking in courage.
May I secondly say that of course I accept the view expressed by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, that it is a big decision to bring in fresh legislation. We have to remember that as soon as we bring in new legislation on this subject there is always the possibility, not only of Amendments being tabled by those who are, as it were, well affected in this field, but also some rather more damaging Amendments being tabled. I personally have always felt that it would be a big decision to bring in a new Bill, and I certainly agree with the view that this must be Government legislation.
None the less, as I shall report again at the end of the few remarks I wish to make, I believe that the time is soon coming when we should have some amending legislation in this field. And if I may say so with great respect, I thought that in just two respects the noble Viscount was a little slighting in his comments on the Bill before us. First, while I take his point that immigration policy and race relations policy must be thought of as a whole, surely in all conscience we do have a tough immigration policy at the present time. With regard to the notion, as it were, that we could "sell" new race relations legislation only on condition that we had a further turn of the screw on immigration policy, I would say merely that I hope those days have now gone for good.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I did not say that.
LORD BOYLE OF HANDSWORTH: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount did not mean that, but it seems to me we can say to the British public to-day that we have an extremely tough immigration policy. Indeed, Mr. Carr himself suggested that, in his view, what happened with regard to the Uganda Asians could not easily be repeated again. Secondly, in regard to the Scotch porridge case, I can see the objection to appearing to load the Statute Book with what may seem to be secondary or unimportant matters, but even so there is still a section of opinion in this country which never misses any opportunity to deride the Act and the Board, and I personally believe that if we are to have new legislation this is one matter that ought to be included in the Bill.
However, I entirely agree with those noble Lords who have said that it is of course Clause 8 of this Bill—the extension of the provisions of Section 17 of the 1968 Act—that is the really important clause, and for my part I should like to see legislation on these lines. I believe that this alone is something which Parliament ought to tackle, very much for the reasons—although I would go slightly beyond them—given by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. I believe this is an area where prevention is important, and I also believe that legislation on the lines of Clause 8 would be a great encouragement to that considerable element in younger management which wants to encourage the best existing practice in industry. As we all know, industrial management is not an easy subject in all kinds of ways. Undoubtedly there are younger people in industry who want to modernise management, and who want to be as fair as possible in the conduct of industry over such matters as promotion and ensuring fairness between all workers. I have little doubt that legislation on these lines would encourage fairness and would be a great help to those younger managers—and I do not speak here just in an academic sense, because I have discussed this issue with some of them at conferences in Harrogate.
The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, whose vigour as a speaker, as he knows, I greatly admire, even when he and I cannot completely agree, spoke about those who do not want to integrate. I would
1068
ask the noble Lord to believe me when I say that there are large numbers in the minority communities today who are concerned about such matters as fairness in promotion; and this is something which is becoming more and more a real issue in industry. What we should have in mind is trying to raise the general standard of industrial practice—of course, if the noble Lord wishes to intervene I will willingly allow him to do so.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to ask, on the question of integration, whether he overlooks the fact that in religious matters it is very difficult to get integration? I have in mind the island of Hawaii, in the centre of the Pacific; there are five different denominations there. Can they all agree?
LORD BOYLE OF HANDSWORTH: My Lords, I would say to the noble Lord that of course there may be religious difficulties here, but I am speaking about promotion, and about ensuring fairness, not indeed just in private industry but in public industry as well. One matter which happens to have concerned me recently concerns promotions to the rank of inspector where public transport is concerned. There are large numbers of cases where I believe we cannot be satisfied with the present position.
I should also like to make a further point to the noble Lord. We should surely remember that, despite all difficulties of religion, culture and everything else, a very large number of members of minority communities have settled into our society remarkably well. Let us think for instance of the number of Sikh women who now go out to work. Let us remember, particularly where women are concerned, just how many have in fact adapted themselves to our English customs.
I am sure we all want to take great note of what the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, said about particular areas of industry of which he has special knowledge. But when he speaks as he did at the commencement of his speech, about "not making the better the enemy of the good," I hope we realise that while the Board have real achievements to their credit, and while the 1968 Act has proved itself worth while, none the less not all

1069
is as good as we could wish where employment is concerned; nor indeed, where housing and services are concerned. Discrimination still goes on. I believe in fact, if Yorkshire is anything to go by, that the case-load is a little on the increase at the present time, and we simply cannot afford to underrate the importance of giving encouragement to those employers who wish their practice to be as good as possible. For those reasons I agree with those who say that this is an important area of legislative decision for any Government. I do not think this can be just a matter for any private Members of your Lordships' House, although I am sure we all admire the vigour and persistence with which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has championed this cause over many years. I hope very much that we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that there is the prospect of new legislation very soon, because I believe, six years after the 1968 Act, that we have been able pretty clearly to identify specific areas where some amendment of the 1968 Act is needed. If this Bill has done no more than draw the attention of your Lordships to the very important issue raised in Clause 8, then for that reason alone this debate, and the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will have proved well worth while.
5.30 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, the first thing I have to say is to express my thanks, and I am sure those of all Members of your Lordships' House, to my noble friend, Lord Brockway, for having given us the opportunity to debate this vital subject of racial discrimination this afternoon. I know that I speak for the whole House in saying that his deep concern for justice and equal rights is something we all respect and admire. As we all know, he was in the vanguard of those who have worked towards race relations legislation in the past.
As I have said, the subject of racial discrimination is vital. I should like to expand on that for a few moments before turning to the more detailed propositions we have been discussing this afternoon. The basic fact from which policy in this country must flow is that our immigrant communities are still of fairly recent
1070
arrival. Of course, over the centuries we have received and absorbed many groups of people from overseas. Our readiness to give them a new home has always been something of which we as a nation have been justifiably proud. In the present circumstances it is particularly important not to play with words. When we speak of "immigrant communities" now, we primarily think of immigrants from the new Commonwealth. These new groups present significantly different characteristics from the earlier incoming communities in that they are of a different colour from the indigenous population. In the case of many of these groups, they bring with them a culture that is different from the traditions of Western Europe.
My Lords, we are this afternoon talking primarily about the simple issue of colour. Like my noble friend Lord Brockway, I believe that a man is entitled to fair and equal treatment in all respects in our public life, regardless of whatever colour his skin may happen to be. Equally, it is quite clear that our society is still a very considerable way from achieving this objective. Yet this question of racial equality is absolutely vital. There is probably nothing at all in the social life of this country that will have a greater influence on the sort of society in which our children are going to live. In a number of ways this country has responded well indeed to this new test of our traditional tolerance, but we must be quite clear that in other respects our record has not been quite so good. Because of this, I want to make it clear from the outset that the Government are not satisfied that enough is being done to promote equal opportunity, and that we are determined to introduce new proposals for further action.
The difficulties which face these new immigrant communities are attributable to what one might call "settler disadvantage". To some extent, this problem inevitably faces any newly incoming group to a new environment, but the present difficulties are intensified for these newcomers by the particular effect of the whole range of disadvantages that we now call "urban deprivation". I trust that I shall have some other opportunity to tell your Lordships' House about the work of analysing the problems of urban deprivation which was begun under the

1071
previous Administration, and which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is now vigorously pursuing. But that would go beyond the scope of to-day's debate. The only point I want to make in this context is that progress on measures to combat discrimination is only one part, albeit an extremely important one, of the progress needed on a much wider front if we are to pursue our objective of equal opportunity in a meaningful way. I should now like to turn to the proposals of my noble friend Lord Brockway.
My Lords, the substance of the Bill is concentrated on Clauses 8 and 9. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, said about this. These clauses would, in effect, establish a Race Relations Board of a rather different nature from the present one. It would be equipped with much stronger investigatory powers than at present, not only to pursue investigations when, as under the present legislation, the Board has reason to suspect, whether by reason of a complaint or otherwise, that an unlawful act has taken place, but also to investigate a much more general type of situation in which the Board considered that practices or courses of conduct were contrary to the spirit of the legislation.
As my noble friend Lord Brockway said in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, these particular proposals have their root in the recommendations of the Race Relations Board. They were put forward (the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, alluded to this) in their Annual Report for 1971–72, to which I believe the noble Viscount also referred in a speech which took place in your Lordships' House last year. In particular, there is a key passage of the Annual Report, which occurs in paragraph 74. It says:
"It appears to us increasingly that the question of racial discrimination in employment needs to be seen primarily not in terms of active discrimination against individuals, but in terms of an exceptance or tolerance by everybody, including coloured workers, of employment situations in which equality of opportunity is consciously or unconsciously denied."
The Annual Report then goes on to ask next for greater investigatory powers and concludes, in paragraph 82, that
"… the granting of such powers would increase considerably the ability of the Board to engage in work of a preventive character".
1072
In other words, the Board considers that it needs further investigatory powers, partly to increase its efficiency in its present role, but also to enable it to make an impact in the wider area of actively encouraging the adoption of positive policies of equal opportunity, going wider than the essentially negative requirements of the 1968 Act. I have indicated that in making these proposals, the Board has particularly in mind the field of employment. This is the essence of the proposals of the Board, and it is this that is embodied in Clauses 8 and 9 of the Bill before us to-day.
No one who studies the situation, either in this country or the United States, will deny that employment lies at the heart of this particular problem. The most vivid single example I can give is the much publicised dispute at Mansfield Hosiery Mills, which I believe was discussed when this matter was last debated in this House. This was a case in which the employer recruited coloured workers. The issue at stake was their promotion prospects, the precise point referred to a moment or two ago by the noble Lord, Lord Boyle. This sort of case is only the overt expression of much more diffuse patterns which, by their nature, are hard to exemplify in detail. What of those firms who employ no coloured workers because the word has gone round that they are not welcome at all and, therefore, coloured workers do not even bother to apply? We must accept—and this is the essence of what the Board are telling us—that there is an immense problem in this more loose and vague sort of passive discrimination which is not so blatant and immediately offensive as the notice which says, "No coloured workers need apply here." It is not a problem that will simply go away of its own accord. The Government have no doubt that the development of positive policies for equal opportunity, particularly in employment, must be at the core of our strategy on race relations. The work by Political and Economic Planning, which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, announced on February 21 last year, and which he referred to this afternoon, will be published fairly shortly. The noble Viscount asked about this. I hope that before the summer we shall have a report

1073
from P.E.P. on this particularly crucial matter.
I also understand that the Community Relations Commission's Report on Homelessness and Unemployment Amongst Adolescents from Ethnic Minority Groups will be submitted within a relatively few weeks. But even in advance of these particular reports, and particularly the one on employment, it is clear already that swifter progress is vital. I hope, however, that the House will understand if I say that while the Government accept this objective without reservation, we should like a little more time in which to consider the best way of working towards it. The essential question is, perhaps, the relationship between the investigation of complaints—what one would loosely call "enforcement"—and wider promotional work. This kind of work is, of course, concerned not so much with legalistic matters as with giving advice and encouragement for the adoption of enlightened practices involving, in the field of employment, both sides of industry. The proposals put forward by the Board, which would aggregate the two functions, are, I know, based on experience in the United States. But the Government would like rather more time than the relatively few weeks they have had since the last General Election to consider whether this is the most appropriate way of now proceeding. And in considering the right pattern of institutions for our problems, we need to bear in mind that the Race Relations Act established a body, the Community Relations Commission, which stands charged with promotional activity.
As I have tried to indicate, all concerned in this field have come to see clearly that the next step forward must be in the area of positively encouraging good practices, in doing all we can to ensure that grievances do not arise, rather than in remedying those that hive arisen. The question is quite simply how this objective is best pursued. The Board's proposals certainly represent one method of proceeding, and it may well be that they are wholly right. I would however, offer the single tentative suggestion, that if one is to think in terms of the sort of model embodied in my noble friend's Bill, then we should perhaps take our thinking rather further
1074
and consider whether this sort of approach should not be accompanied by a clearer indication of the sort of positive steps that we want to be taken, and indeed the sort of recommendations that the investigating body might consequently be expected to make. In the Government's view, these points are of such importance that they need the most detailed examination before it would be right to legislate. They are not points of detail that could be put straight in committee: they are fundamental to the structure of the legislation.
There is one further point that I must bring to the attention of the House (this was referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner), that is, that the Government are under a commitment to introduce proposals on the equal status of women before the end of the year and are currently giving close attention to the formulation of policy in this area. I would prefer to-day to avoid discussing—particularly after what my noble and learned friend said—the differences or similarities between discrimination on grounds of sex and of race.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Hear, hear!
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: I am even more delighted to carry the noble Viscount with me. In particular, I am not at the moment in a position to discuss whether the institutions to deal with the two types of discrimination should themselves be similar in all respects or whether they should differ. I put it to the House, however, that it is highly desirable that the formulation of policy on the two issues should be kept in step.
To conclude, I can give the House a firm assurance that the Government intend to carry out a thorough review of the effectiveness of the Race Relations Act and will introduce proposals for action. As my noble friend is aware, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was responsible, when he last held his present office, for announcing the then Government's decision to put before Parliament the series of proposals that became the Race Relations Act of 1968. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary is determined to bring forward new proposals for early action as

1075
soon as the present review is concluded. In this review, which will proceed in step with our formulation of proposals on the equal status of women, we will most certainly take full account of the proposals that have been put forward by the Race Relations Board, and indeed by noble Lords who have spoken to-day. In view of the fact that the Government entirely share my noble friend's basic position on this crucial area of policy, I very much hope that he will feel it appropriate not to proceed further with his Bill at this particular moment.
5.45 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I first express my appreciation to all those who have taken part in this debate, and that extends to those who are critical of the Bill as well as to those who have supported it. The value of discussions, perhaps particularly in this House, is that we seek from all sides of the House to express our views, and ultimately out of that kind of discussion I think probably the truth emerges. I will refer to the contribution of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, a little later, as it raised very definite points, but I should just like to say a word or two in recognition of other contributions.
I was delighted to hear the noble Viscount. Lord Simon. He indicated that this Bill and its objectives would have the support of the Liberal Party, and that I greatly appreciated. May I make this personal observation. I was so happy that he spoke in this debate. His distinguished father, before the First World War and during the war itself, gave me personal help which I shall always remember, and it is a delight that his son should be speaking in support of this Bill to-day. We had from my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner the support which one expected; he has always stood for these things throughout a long life, and the evidence which he gave on what had been stated to the Select Committee on Sex Discrimination was extraordinarily relevant. Before I conclude I shall be saying a word or two about the relationship in legislation between sex discrimination and racial discrimination.
The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, also bears a very distinguished name which brings back to me memories from the past. He raised particularly the case
1076
of crews on ships and whether they should be segregated. I would say only this to him, that I think in 1968, when the last Bill was introduced, the difficulties of bringing about common accommodation and other facilities for the crews of ships were considerable, and I understood at that time the need for the particular clause in the Bill by which the Act did not extend to them. I think he himself indicated that since that date very great progress has been made, and without being dogmatic about this I think it might possibly be that we have now reached a stage where the existing segregation might be discontinued. I was just delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, was able to speak. I was aware of his support of the Bill, but I did not expect him to be here in time to contribute towards the debate; all of us appreciated it. The debate would have been unreal if we had not had the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Barnby. He and I are rivals as to whom is the youngest Member of this House and we are also rivals in nearly every attitude which we express. Nevertheless, the contribution which he made was characteristic and effectively put his point of view.
I turn to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, which immediately followed my presentation of the Bill. First, I should like to express my appreciation of the tone in which he spoke. I recognise that his contribution was towards seeking to find the best method of ending racial discrimination. He had one advantage over me in that he has had legal training whilst I have not, and therefore I am not able to meet all the legal points that he raised. Perhaps the most important point was the question of clubs and associations. I recognise at once that that is extraordinarily difficult. I should have hoped that the clause in this Bill which gives exemption to private social clubs and to ethnic clubs would largely have dealt with the problems. However, I have an open mind on this, and I dare-say that further discussion is necessary. He also raised the need for some definition of associations new in legal terms. I imagine that it means broad, voluntary associations, generally open to the public. He raised the question of retaliation and of extra time, and of punitive damages. I am not going to respond to his criticisms on those points as I think it possible that by the time I conclude my

1077
speech it will be unnecessary to do so on this occasion.
I turn now to the speech of my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich. May I say to him, and indeed to the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, as well, that I recognise that a Government Bill is necessary. I say only that I have the personal precedent that I introduced in nine successive years a Bill to end racial discrimination in public places, and it was only after I had persisted and converted a growing number of people that the Government introduced a Bill. Therefore, I think that some action by a Private Member may be beneficial. Then, when that Act was proving ineffective, I introduced in this House an amending Bill to extend the powers of the Race Relations Board to housing and unemployment. Again the Government subsequently introduced a Bill covering the areas that I had in mind.
I am happy tonight, having introduced this Bill and raised this debate on Second Reading, that we now have a fairly definite promise from the Government that they will introduce a Bill which has the same objectives and the same aims as the Bill that I have introduced and which is now before the House. The noble Lord said that the Government accept the objectives of my Bill without reservation. He has said that they will review the whole situation and themselves introduce a Bill. I think that my only question would be as to the time they have in mind for the introduction of that Bill.
The last point that I want to make—and again this arose not only in the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner but from the speech of my noble friend Lord Harris—concerns whether we want something even more imaginative and more constructive than the proposals in this Bill and the recommendations which the Race Relations Board has so far made. I want that; I was being a little modest in the proposals that I made in the Bill. I should like to see a Human Equality Bill applying equal rights to all human beings of whatever sex, race, or colour, whatever it may be, and giving recognition to the principle that the important service we have to give is to personality, not the colour of the skin or the sex of the individual. I recognise that there would be difficulties in having that much bigger
1078
Bill for broad human equality. There might be some conflict (which I have experienced) from those who are most concerned about sex discrimination and those who are most concerned about racial discrimination; but I should have thought that it would be possible to bring all discrimination together within one measure as something of which we must rid our society, and that it might be possible, within that one measure, to have separate associations, and yet co-ordinated with the two forms of discrimination.
I believe that the Government have an open mind about these things and they are going to make a review. I hope that that review will not be too long delayed and that they will, at an early date, be able to introduce their Bill. My Lords, in view of that promise, I ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Motion and the Bill.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, by leave, withdrawn.

CONTROL OF ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS BILL [H.L.]
5.57 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Janner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD MAYBRAY-KING in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Inspection of zoological gardens]:
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 42, at end insert ("and the Council shall, within fourteen days of the receipt by them of such report, send a copy thereof to the owner of the zoological garden").
The noble Viscount said: For the convenience of the Committee I will take the first two Amendments together because the second Amendment is consequential on the first. I think that Amendment No. 1 contains a most reasonable request, because all I am asking is that when the inspection team to be set up by the Council to inspect a zoological garden makes

1079
its report, the zoological garden concerned should receive a copy of the report within 14 days.
If the owner of the zoological garden does not receive a copy of the report in which he is criticised, how can he possibly make the improvements to his zoological garden that the report may suggest? Supposing the report is very unfavourable and even, for instance, recommends his removal from the register, it is surely in the interests of natural justice that he should be acquainted with the sins he is supposed to have committed. How otherwise can he defend himself and answer the accusations? I quite agree that under Clause 6(3) it is true enough that if the council tells him his name is to be removed from the register he will then be told the reasons why. But that will be too late for him. It would be much fairer if he could have a copy of the report. He would then have an opportunity to pull his socks up and put things right. This smacks rather of the Star Chamber procedure.
I have never associated the noble Lord, Lord Janner, with the Star Chamber or the Kremlin. I should hope that the accused would know of what he is accused. I quite agree that if you are dealing with hardened criminals, for example, in espionage—not that I have any knowledge of espionage—it would be wise to withhold the reasons because you have to protect witnesses and do not want everything that has been reported to go back to the criminal. But you are not dealing with criminals here; you are dealing with perfectly innocent owners of zoological gardens, so I cannot see the reason for this secrecy. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, will see my point and will be agreeable to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD JANNER: The Amendment sounds innocent enough, but unfortunately in practice it would not be as innocent as its sounds. I would ask the noble Viscount who is moving these Amendments to take into consideration the fact that he is advocating a course for a section of people who are running zoological gardens and who are making profits out of them. There is nothing in the Bill which prevents a person who is accused of an offence from having that
1080
offence brought to his notice and being given the reasons for the decision for which the council has decided to call upon him to put matters right.
There is a legal difficulty here, and perhaps the noble Viscount does not understand this. A report by a body, no matter how conscientious it may be, can be subject to actions for libel by people who want to take those actions and consequently it would not be fair to a council to have to give a report in the way that the noble Viscount is suggesting. Secondly, fancy speaking about innocent charming people and all the rest of it. While I admit that, in the main, those who run zoological gardens for profit are gentlemen and ladies who can be respected, there are exceptions, and the exceptions can use a report, if it is a favourable one, for advertising purposes. These are matters which have to be taken into consideration. We have given careful consideration to this Amendment and I am sorry that in the circumstances I cannot accept it.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I do not know whether it would be helpful at this stage if I attempted to indicate something of the view of the Government on this. Although this is a Private Member's Bill, if we are to have legislation the Government are naturally anxious that it should be workable. I should like to say at the outset that any contribution I shall be making to our discussion on the various Amendments is intended to be helpful to that end.
Clause 5 provides for the inspection of zoological gardens which are registered, and subsection (2) obliges the council to require the inspecting team to make a report on the adequacy, at any zoo so inspected, of the provisions made to comply with the requirements specified in Clause 4. The effect of this Amendment would be to impose an obligation on the council to send a copy of the report to the owner of the zoo to which the report relates. My noble friend Lord Janner has suggested that it would be very unfair to expect the council to do this with the risk of libel and other difficulties that may be involved. In other words it could be claimed that if a copy of the report was to be seen by the owner of the zoo reported on, the inspector may be less candid in his remarks. On the other

1081
hand, since the report would be a major factor in determining whether or not the zoo remains on the register, it does not seem to be unreasonable to provide for the owner to see the report on his zoo. I can say that the attitude of the Government is one of complete neutrality. I do not altogether follow the suggestion of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that Amendment 2 is consequential on this one. It would appear to me that if this Amendment is carried his second Amendment would not be necessary.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I do not believe that the noble Viscount has quite comprehended what is intended by the provisions of this Bill. He will remember his own Bill (if I may call it his own), the Riding Establishments Act, which provided for exactly similar inspection before the local authority considered whether or not to grant a licence. There was no provision whatsoever in that Bill for any person owning a riding establishment to have any reason given to him in writing if the local authority, on receipt of the report, refused him a licence. That has been the position hitherto in practically every Act dealing with places at which animals are kept. It is the position in the Act dealing with pet stores and the Act dealing with boarding establishments for animals.
This is a vast improvement on those previous Acts and in fact follows the sort of advice which the Council on Tribunals has been given so far as the machinery of tribunals is concerned in making quite certain that any person who is aggrieved, in a way that undoubtedly the owner of a zoo would be aggrieved if the Council refused him a licence, gets the reasons given to him at the same time as the proposal is made not to grant a licence. What is more, if the noble Viscount will turn to Clause 12 he will see that it is stronger than any of these other Acts, and stronger than a great many others due to the fact that giving a notice means giving a notice in writing. If that provision were not in the Bill, I think we should all agree with the noble Viscount that it would be iniquitous that a man's livelihood could possibly be taken away, without his being given the whole reasons
1082
in writing which led the judging body to take that decision. I think, too, that the noble Viscount was wrong when he said that by the time a person received the reasons under Clause 6(3) it would be too late, because of course it would not be too late. Subsection (2) of that clause states:
"… after affording to the owner a reasonable opportunity to comply with those requirements"
The position is that an owner will get in writing the full reasons which led the Council to reach a certain conclusion, and he is bound by law to be given sufficient time to correct any deficiencies found. I cannot believe that natural justice demands anything more.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: In view of what noble Lords have said, I shall make no further comment. But if the noble Lord, Lord Janner, could do anything to assuage the fears of the owners of zoological gardens that they will be dealt with summarily and that a report will simply state "You are out", it would be a great help. I do not know whether "arrogant" is the right word to use here, but I know that owners are frightened that they will not be dealt with completely fairly. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Removal of registration in certain cases]:
6.13 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 19, at end insert—
("Provided that the Council shall not remove the name of any zoological garden from the register by reason of any failure by the owner to comply with paragraphs (a), (b) or (f) of section 4 of this Act unless the veterinary surgeon referred to in section 5(1) of this Act has stated in his report referred to in section 5(2) of this Act that in his opinion the provisions of any of the said respective paragraphs have not been complied with.")
The noble Viscount said: Although this Amendment seems rather complicated, it is really very simple. Its purpose is to ensure that an owner will not have to run the risk of his zoo being removed from the register for veterinary reasons, unless a vet—or vets—issues a report stating that the care and welfare

1083
of the animals leaves much to be desired. A veterinary surgeon may be the only member of the Council inspection team who has any qualifications relating to the keeping of exotic animals in captivity, and we want to be sure that a zoological garden cannot be removed from the register unless he states categorically that the health and welfare of the animals is not up to standard. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (f) should be completely under the jurisdiction of a veterinary surgeon, and if the noble Lord, Lord Janner, can inform me that they will be I shall be quite satisfied. I beg to move.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: May I first declare an interest in that I am the honorary secretary of the Zoological Society of London, which looks after the national collection of animals both in London and in Whipsnade. I do not quite understand the purpose of the noble Viscount's Amendment. The purpose of this Bill, and the reason why I have got up on several occasions to support the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is to protect first the animals and then the public—not the proprietors of zoos. I do not want to find the Council of the Zoological Society protected by an Act of Parliament. I do not want our various committees to be protected.
It seems to me that the purpose of the Bill is to see that zoological gardens where exotic animals are kept will not incur the criticism of people who are knowledgeable about animals, and about what constitutes the security of the public. The Amendment states, in effect, that responsibility should be given to a veterinary officer alone. We have a Gardens and Parks Committee of distinguished people who know something about the amenities which the public require, and which the nation demands, and we have several veterinary committees. But to give to one veterinary officer the responsibility for looking after all the items referred to in the Amendment seems to me to be imposing upon him a duty which he could never discharge. For that reason I am afraid, although I have the same interest as the noble Viscount, I should not be prepared to support this Amendment.
LORD JANNER: I naturally accept the opinion of my noble friend Lord Zuckerman, although I am not relying
1084
entirely upon that. In view of the nature of this Amendment, I thought it necessary to consult the veterinary surgeons and I was informed by the Secretary of the British Veterinary Zoological Society, which is composed of veterinary surgeons who work in, or with, the zoological world, that they do not want this responsibility in view of the fact that there are other aspects to be considered, as my noble friend Lord Zuckerman has pointed out. I am afraid that in the circumstances, and as the professional world of the veterinary surgeons is against a proposal of this sort for reasons similar to those put forward by my noble friend—and I cannot go against their decision as I do not consider myself so great an authority as they are—I cannot accept the Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I do not think either the noble Lord, Lord Janner, or the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, have understood what I said, which I am sure was my fault. What I tried to say was that the opinion of a veterinary surgeon should be paramount in regard to paragraph (a) which deals with the health and welfare of animals, to paragraph (b) which covers the provision of adequate veterinary care, and to paragraph (f) which covers proper records of births, acquisitions, deaths and disposals.
We only wanted to be sure that the veterinary surgeon's advice was borne in mind in that respect. The question is not that an adequate number of keepers are available, but about the health and welfare of the animals.
LORD JANNER: If the noble Viscount will forgive me, what he is alleging is that the people who will be called upon to conduct the examination would not be responsible people. Obviously, if a veterinary surgeon is one of their number they will take the opinion of that veterinary surgeon in respect of matters which lie within his particular province; but others, too, have experience which is, even in those respects and in those matters, of importance, and as the veterinary surgeons themselves do not want it I cannot see why the noble Viscount should persist in his Amendment. I hope that he will see fit to withdraw it.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: Perhaps I may contribute a little more here

1085
because for some years I was chairman of the Zoo Federation which had exactly this problem of deciding the type of inspection team we were to send round to zoos which had applied to enter the Federation. I found there was more or less unanimity among all the people connected with the zoos in line with the provisions laid down in Clause 4. They represent the objectives which every zoo should aim at and on which there was unanimity. But what I found interesting, and did not expect to find, was that a large number of people responsible for keeping zoological gardens felt that if there was to be an inspection it should be carried out by the layman assisted by the vet or by the layman, who had been trained in a good zoo, without a vet. There were an equal number of people on the other side who felt that the vet should be the one man to make the inspection, with the layman accompanying him but being regarded as unnecessary as, indeed, other people thought that the veterinary surgeon's attendance was unnecessary. The conclusion to which I came was that such a system would satisfy neither, and the effect would be to confine making one's team to both laymen and veterinary surgeons, as indeed does the Bill. The noble Viscount is one who feels that inspections should be the responsibility of the veterinary surgeon; others feel exactly the opposite and, in the circumstances, the best thing is to do what the Bill proposes and have both.
But again I remind the noble Viscount that we are always thinking of making provision to ensure fairness so that a man whose livelihood is taken away has ever) opportunity of meeting the charges against him. We want to ensure that he can appeal to the courts and then subpoena the veterinary surgeon concerned. In cases where the veterinary surgeon has reported any contraventions the Council will have to give reasons in writing which the man concerned will be entitled to refute and argue in the courts. No injustice would be done by this procedure and most people in the zoo world would be satisfied by it. Perhaps when the noble Viscount realises there are others inside the zoo world holding other opinions than the one he has put forward, he may well feel that it is better to meet them in the middle by having
1086
both the veterinary surgeon and the layman in the inspection team.
One of the more important subjects concerns whether or not existing records are adequate. The noble Viscount knows as well as I that he and I could make up our minds as well as any veterinary surgeon about whether records are adequate.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: In view of what my noble friend has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Supplementary provisions as to the register and fees]:
6.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 4, after ("fee") insert ("which shall not exceed £15)")
The noble Viscount said: In order to save time I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 together. I will not say much about them; they are not of great importance, but one of the aspects in the Bill that I find unsatisfactory is that we can get no effective response about the cost of the various proposals which are made. In the two Amendments I have tabled, the scale of fees for registration and for restoration to the register are solely administrative matters and the fees I have suggested in Amendment No. 4 are
"shall not exceed £15"
for registration, and in Amendment No. 5
"shall not exceed £5"
for restoration. These are completely administrative matters and I do not think any more should be charged.
I should like to try to draw the noble Lord, Lord Janner, on the financial implications of the Bill because we are asked to pass the Bill without being told anything about the financial implications.
LORD JANNER: I hope that the noble Viscount will agree that we should speak on Amendments Nos. 6 and 13 together, because they appear to hang on the same tag. The noble Viscount has asked me a direct question and I propose to answer him in a direct manner. I am afraid that

1087
he has been badly misled. I hope he will forgive me if I speak perfectly plainly. In this country zoological gardens have to be conducted in such a way that the public as a whole, as well as the individuals attending them and the animals in the zoos, shall have complete protection so that there can be no question about whether animals are being properly treated, irrespective of any commercial interests. I wish to underline that fact. It appears from the kind of Amendments now being put forward that the concern of these zoological gardens, which are carried on for profit, is how much profit they can make and how little they are prepared to spend in order that the animals should be properly looked after.
It is a very strange thing and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I deal with the matter in the way that has been suggested by the noble Viscount. The fact of the matter is that since I introduced the Bill on the first occasion, unhappily it has not managed to get through to the Statute Book—not because your Lordships did not want it, they passed it, and not because the other place were against it, because the Second Reading was passed there on the nod. What in fact happened is that now, at the eleventh hour, when they see that there is a probability of the Bill passing, they want to see to it that as little as possible shall come out of their pockets in order to have the public and the animals in the zoos protected.
I am sure that the noble Viscount has been led up the garden path here by the Association which was formed after we had introduced the first Bill—after, not before. Before it was not their concern. The papers were full of shocking incidents that had happened in some of the zoological gardens which were run for commercial reasons. I did not see any libel action taken against the people who made those allegations against specific commercial enterprises. Far be it from me to make any suggestion that all the zoological gardens which are run for profit are not run properly, but the fact of the matter is that in some cases, even if they attempt to run them properly they are misguided in the manner in which they carry out the supervision of the animals.
1088
The noble Viscount has raised the question of cost. The Federation of Zoological Societies which was founded years ago and against which there has been no accusation of mismanagement in any way, are behind this Bill because they feel that everybody should be properly supervised, and indeed it should appear that they are properly supervised. There are two million people per annum alone who attend their zoological gardens.
A few days ago we saw on television the life of a very highly respected Member of this House. He spoke about the 1½ or 2 million people visiting his safari park and of people being prepared to pay as much as £10 to have a meal there. Frankly, and when we come to the next Amendments we will see what kind of charges are suggested, I think it is a monstrous idea—and I speak in strong language—that an attempt should be made to bring before this House the kind of charges it is literally impossible to believe. No, the cost of protecting the animals and of protecting the public and ensuring that the animals are so housed and looked after and—though not specifically stated in the Bill—in order to preserve their species in the future, will not be a very heavy one; but it will be sufficient for a Council which is constituted of people of standing, to decide what is reasonable to serve the purpose.
I am sure that the noble Viscount does not want to have inadequate supervision and in my view he can trust the Council. People trust other professional Councils not to exceed a reasonable sum in the amounts that they spend. I can assure him that with the millions of people who attend the zoological gardens and the safari parks, only a very small amount will be required from each person who is admitted. Consequently, we have investigated what it is likely to cost, but much will depend on the staff and accommodation that is necessary. The important point here is the staff and accommodation that is necessary in order to protect the animals and the public. The zoological gardens themselves, if there was no such set-up as a Council, and if they were honest and reasonable people and cared as much for the public as they cared for their profits, would have to spend this money. I want the noble Viscount to realise that he is not dealing with unreasonable people, with thugs; he

1089
is not dealing with people who want to make a profit out of this venture. He is dealing with a respectable set of people who want to ensure that the public will be satisfied in a reasonable way and that the fears that they have—unhappily, many of them founded on previous experience—will be dispelled. In the circumstances I am very sorry that the noble Viscount has seen fit to move these Amendments.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I wonder whether I might intervene at this stage, with some advantage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, that it would be as well if we could deal with Amendments Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 13 at the same time. The noble Lord, Lord Janner, has made it quite clear that he is unwilling to accept these Amendments. He has spoken with a depth of feeling that leaves no doubt at all. I have to say that the Government also find these Amendments undesirable. I should like to think that the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, having made his point will not press the Amendments. If they were pressed I should have to say that the Government would hope that they would not be accepted by the Committee.
Nevertheless, having said that, these Amendments underline the reservations that have been expressed in some quarters about the anticipated cost of running the Council, and the understandable desire of some zoo proprietors to see an upper limit placed on the fees they may be called upon to pay. But as I have indicated, these Amendments are, in the Government's view, open to criticism on two main fronts. In the first place, the levels at which the maxima have been set seem far too low to produce the money the Council will need to function in the way it is required to do under the provisions of the Bill. Secondly, even if the fees were adequate to meet the Council's present day financial requirements at a time of increasing costs and rising prices, they would soon be out of date and in need of upward revision. That is something for which the Amendment does not provide.
I could give some figures but perhaps it will not be necessary in the light of the way our consideration is going. The figures cover the sums that would be raised if the proposals of the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard,
1090
were accepted. They would be totally inadequate. I would put it this way: it must be recognised that the cost of operation, the system of registration and inspection required by the Bill would require payments by registered zoos substantially higher than those specified in this series of Amendments. To lay down maximum fees of the sort that are given us here would in the Government's view serve only to frustrate the proper operation of the structure which the Bill seeks to set up. I hope the noble Viscount will appreciate that this matter has been gone into in some depth and that in the advice I am tendering I take into account all the consideration which has been given to it.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I spoke at length on the Second Reading of this Bill in the last Parliament and I do not want to repeat all that I said then; but with due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, so far as I am aware he has no experience of zoological gardens, whereas I have a certain experience of exotic animals in captivity, and I cannot agree with a great deal of what he has said. But I have not yet spoken on Amendment No. 13. I was speaking only on Amendments 4 and 5—fees for registration and restoration to the register. That is only a question of administrative expense; just a question of a pen and some ink. I was not in fact speaking on Amendment No. 13, but as noble Lords have now brought it up, I am quite prepared to discuss it with Amendments 4 and 5, and with Amendment 6. As I intimated, this first Amendment and Amendment No. 13 are probing Amendments. I am trying to draw from the noble Lord what this Council will cost. I quite agree that the fees I have suggested, which would bring in only about £10,000, are too low, but I was trying to get some figure from the noble Lord as to how much it is going to cost. Is it going to cost £100,000 a year, £50,000 a year, or what? I can get no figure out of him.
Of course, we have the proviso in Clause 8(5):
"All fees prescribed under this section shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of State".
But that does not necessarily inspire great confidence in those whose pockets are to

1091
be raided. When the noble Lord spoke about £1½ million gross a year—I presume he was referring to Woburn—I think he was exaggerating. I understand it is just about £1 million, but, anyway, only about a third or a quarter of that is in connection with the game park, so the noble Lord was really exaggerating there. We ought also to remember that the Council can come along to the Secretary of State and say, "Look: we have not got enough money, so we must raise the fees", and the Secretary of State would find it very hard to refuse. I would far prefer to have a set scale of fees which could automatically go up with the rate of inflation each year. I have put down rather wide brackets here but, as I say, this suggestion has the advantage of there being fixed fees calculated on admissions. I do not agree with the Bill where, in Clause 8(1)(b), it says,
"… such sum to be calculated on the number of"—
I agree with it so far; that is all right—
"or the amount of money received from paid admissions …"
I do not agree with that. I think that any scale of fees must be based on the number of admissions, not on the amount of money received, because I doubt very much whether it would be workable otherwise, and it is a private matter. You have to divulge the figure to the Inland Revenue or to the Customs and Excise, but I do not see why you should have to divulge it to the Council. It is a private matter.
I suppose there is no hope of having this Amendment accepted so I will have to withdraw it, but I should just like to say that there is disquiet over this. A large number of us with zoological gardens have not been consulted at all. We are really being rather pressurised into this; and if you do not get co-operation among the owners of zoological gardens then the Council may not be a very effective instrument. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
In the Schedule [Constitution of the Council and Supplementary Provisions]:
6.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 7, leave out lines 7 to 16 and insert:

("(a) 5 members appointed by the Secretary of State following nominations made to him by the National Zoological Association of Great Britain;

(b) 4 members appointed by the Secretary of State following nominations made to him by the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland;

(c) 2 members appointed by the Secretary of State.")

The noble Viscount said: This Amendment seeks to revise the constitution of the Council. I mentioned just before I sat down earlier that if this Council is to succeed the co-operation of the industry is essential. In fact, when we had the Second Reading debate on this Bill in the last Parliament my noble friend Lord Colville emphasised this—because, after all, the industry is providing 100 per cent. of the cost of this Council. I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Janner, that the industry has two societies. One is the National Zoological Association of Great Britain, which represents about sixty members. I understand that they have just had to throw out one member because his premises were not up to the required standdards. The National Zoological Association have regular inspections carried out. They have their premises, their universal zoological gardens, inspected by the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. The other society, as we have heard, is of course the Federation of Zoological Gardens of Great Britain and Ireland, of which the London Zoo are the chief members. As I say, if there is not co-operation between these two bodies, I rather fear for the future of the Council.
In my Amendment I have suggested that the Council should be divided as to five members for the National Zoological Association, because they have more members than the Federation of Zoological Gardens, and four members for the Federation of Zoological Gardens, and that the other two members should be appointed by the Secretary of State from whatever quarter he wishes. Under the Bill, of course, the Secretary of State has to appoint all the members any way,

1093
even those from the Association and from the Federation. I should like to have two members appointed from outside the zoological associations by the Secretary of State, who would then hold the balance of power, because if that were done neither of the two zoological associations could dominate the other. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Janner, will agree that the Council, as I have suggested, would be fairly constituted, with the Secretary of State holding the balance of power in this way. I beg to move.
LORD JANNER: I am really sorry to have to speak in the way that I do, but I find it absolutely impossible to agree to what I consider to be impertinent Amendments which are brought forward by commercial organisations and which indicate quite clearly that they are more concerned with the commercial aspect of the matter than with what the Bill purports to do. This is a Bill for protecting the animals and there is no question of the Association, the Federation, or anybody else, having a personal interest in this matter. They must drop their personal interest and think of the animals and the public. They must not think about how much profit they are going to make. I do not know whether they consider it an honour to be a member of the Council, but they ought not to think of that. What is needed is to have people who are prepared voluntarily to serve on the Council—people of the highest standard. What a shocking thing to suggest! I hope the noble Viscount will go back to the people who have misled him—because they have misled him and they have no right to do so. The noble Viscount is a reasonable person, and these people have no right to lead him up the garden path, if I may say so.
Just imagine what he is saying. He wants the Association, because it is a commercial association with 60 members, to have a say as to whether the animals should be properly protected or not. Clearly, in both Houses of Parliament we are asked to declare an interest before we venture to give opinions. But here the interest is obvious. The Federation does not ask for it. Fancy casting a slur on—of all people—the Royal Society and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons! It is really too much for anyone to stomach. Perhaps I should not use that expression, but it is certainly hard
1094
for anyone to accept. I hope that the noble Viscount will go back to his people and tell them that no sensible, reasonable body could possibly accept proposals such as have been made and that it is an insult to very reputable organisations—organisations which should be the primary organisations to be consulted on these matters. I certainly could not accept this Amendmtnt. I do not know whether any other Member of this Committee could do so.
LORD FISHER: I apologise for having entered this discussion at such a late stage of the Bill's progress; and I have to declare an interest in that during the past two years I have been setting up my own wildlife park. I have taken my seat on a Back-Bench here hoping that I might be in the background, and fortunately I find two very distinguished Members, both on my right and on my left, who are also in the background. My own wildlife park combines open space with gardens and country, a deer park and a zoo. During the past two years I have visited seven wildlife parks, 15 zoos, six bird gardens and five safari parks. In studying this Bill I wondered just how necessary it is, since the great majority of these parks are well run and the public themselves have a very strong control through their attendance figures and indeed through the criticisms they give to the people running the parks.
Your Lordships, however, have given this Bill three Second Readings and are undoubtedly of the opinion that statutory control is necessary. Therefore this Bill must be as good as we can make it. I do not think we should accept this Amendment because we ought not to have the Council loaded on either side. There is no doubt, as has been said this evening—and I have no interest at the moment since I am neither a member of the Association nor of the Federation—that the members of the Association are on the whole zoos or leisure industry zoos, generally managed by companies, whereas the members of the Federation are preponderantly bodies dedicated to the entertainment of the public interested in wild animals, and in many cases are trusts or associations. I feel that neither body should have a preponderance in this Council and I hope that the Council will not only control zoos, as designated in Clause

1095
4 of the Bill, but also look a little further into the future and promote the wellbeing of this industry. I myself have an axe to grind. There are certain counties in this country which consider that institutions of this kind should be kept secret and that no signs should be allowed to show where they are—in fact my own opening publicity was largely to the effect of "Can you keep a secret?", and it produced quite a crowd of people on the opening day.
Perhaps I should mention a further point: I was unable to attend the earlier Second Reading debate on January 28 because I happened then to be in Peru. I deal largely in Latin American animals, and Peru is one of the Latin American countries which has, as no doubt some of your Lordships from the opposite side of the Chamber will be pleased to hear, nationalised its wild animals. As a result, they will not allow the export of wild animals. Here, Peru is in company with Colombia, Brazil and shortly, I think, Ecuador. Those wild animals which are caught—and obviously some are caught by the Indians in the jungle, because they do not know about the rules—are confiscated when it is sought to export them and the State bodies looking after these animals want to get rid of them abroad. The Council which it is suggested should be set up is just the sort of body with which a State organisation concerned with the exporting of wild animals can deal in this country.
I would support the Bill, rather than this Amendment, because the foreign country in this particular case would know that it was dealing with an independent body and in no way with a commercial body.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: May I intervene a second time in this debate to endorse everything that the noble Lord has just said? This must be a neutral body. I was alarmed when I heard the words "to dominate" and that under the Amendment two members would be appointed by the Secretary of State to achieve a balance of power. Who knows what the balance of power is here? The only power which has been sought by this Bill is to see that we have zoological collections, properly licensed, of which the country need not be ashamed. There
1096
are some collections in this country which should not exist—and I know less about this matter than some noble Lords who are present.
I am sure that the noble Viscount was not implying that the Presidents of the Royal Society and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons had an interest one way or the other. But does the noble Viscount know what these bodies are? The Federation—of which I believe the Zoological Society of London is a member—is a Federation of Zoological Gardens. The other Association, of which I know nothing, calls itself the National Zoological Association. Zoology is the science of life. Perhaps the National Zoological Association is a scientific body. The Zoological Society of London is the national zoological society and, in the same way, the Royal Society has sectional committees on zoology. What can I or the noble Viscount know about a fourth or fifth association which might appoint itself? The National Zoological Association has given itself this name without any reference to the science of zoology; but any number of other so-called associations might be formed, in which case this Bill would become meaningless.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: We have listened to some interesting speeches on this Amendment, and particularly interesting was the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Fisher. I thought he made a very telling point when he said that the Council should not be loaded in the way the Amendment would load it. In the Government's view, the proposals as set out in the Bill are about right. I should like to point out to the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, that his Amendment has a very considerable weakness. If it were carried, the number of members to be appointed on the nomination of each of the two existing bodies representing zoos would be generally in line with their relative present membership. But the membership of the bodies could change in the future: one or both of the existing organisations could be wound up; or additional bodies representing zoos—particularly specialised collections such as aquaria or bird gardens—could be established in the future. It is unsatisfactory to specify in a Statute precise numbers of persons to be appointed on the nomination of unofficial

1097
bodies of this nature; the present provision in the Bill is more flexible and much to be preferred. I hope that the noble Viscount will see the force of the argument that I have tried to put regarding his Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: In view of what the noble Lord has said, and as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye wants to get on with his Question, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 7, line 16, at end insert—
("The Council shall elect from among their own number a chairman and such chairman shall hold office for a term of three years.")
The noble Viscount said: We are not told by whom the chairman shall be nominated, and I should have thought that it would be fairer for the members of the Council to elect him. I beg to move.
LORD JANNER: I hope the noble Viscount will not press this Amendment. We want to get on with the Bill and I am sure that this time he will realise that the Committee are not very happy about instructions from the Association to which reference has been made. I hope he will withdraw this Amendment.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

HUMAN RIGHTS IN COMMUNIST COUNTRIES
7.8 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether Government policy is governed by their desire to see democracy restored and human rights fully respected in Communist dominated countries where anti-Jewish and other racial persecutions are practised; and whether, to this end, Her
1098
Majesty's Government will take part in any future representations to be made by the United Nations on human rights; and, further, whether the Home Secretary will sympathetically consider applications from refugees from such countries. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the hour is late but I make no apologies for asking the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper because it deals with an important subject. No doubt the Minister who is to reply will note that I used the exact words of the Foreign Secretary in another place when answering a Question about Chile when he regretted the suppression of human rights and the denial of democracy. I thought that I could not do better than quote the authoritative words of the Foreign Secretary. Let me make it clear at once to the House that I have no sympathies with the Fascist régimes; but if the Government are to be consistent in their policy, that policy should apply equally to all who have not restored democracy or who have denied human rights to those within a country's frontiers. My question to Her Majesty's Government is: is this really so?
In Communist dominated countries—Russia for example—Russia's best friend could not but admit that democracy in that country is in short supply; that there are real horrors going on in labour camps of political prisoners; that there is anti-Jewish prejudice and persecution which is racialism. Outside Russia, in a series of one-Party dictatorship Governments in various overseas parts of the world, there are political prisoners and strong anti-racial prejudice, usually against the whites. For Chile the Foreign Secretary promised three things. He said that Her Majesty's Government will stop aid; secondly, that Her Majesty's Government will take part in protests to the United Nations on the suppression of human rights; and thirdly, he said that the Government will aid sympathetically refugees from this country. Those are the three points that the Foreign Secretary made. I want to ask whether the Government will declare now their willingness to do all this for countries of the extreme Left as well as those of the extreme Right? If the Leftists are guilty of doing what the Government condemn in Chile, will the Government extend the same treatment to the Left?
My Lords, in my view, you cannot direct foreign policy, both political and economic, on whether or not you approve of a country's internal policy. That is just what Her Majesty's Government are doing. In doing so, I submit to the House, they are building up avoidable enmities and damaging our economic need for full employment and for a healthy export trade. In fact, my Lords, what this Government are doing is arrogating to themselves the right to divide the countries of the world into what I would term the "goodies" and the "baddies", according to the Government's opinion of the internal policies of each particular country.
Where we disapprove there is no need to praise; but equally there is no purpose in silly gestures like forbidding the Royal yacht to refuel at Simonstown when we depend on Simonstown base for our strategic safety in the South Atlantic. There is no sense in cancelling naval visits to Greece (we talked about that in the House yesterday) when Greece is still an accepted NATO Member. Maybe this pleases the Left here, maybe it pleases the Left in other countries, but it is at a cost to industry and employment. The refusal to supply arms for external protection to South Africa, or to Spain, is in fact what I call political "mugwummpery" at the cost of employment and prospects of our own folks. My Lords, there is a very silly expression going around: "On which side of the barricades are you?" In the world as it is, we do not want barricades: we do not want to erect ideological barricades. But surely Her Majesty's Government should fulfil what should be their first and main interest, the welfare of our people. That is why I ask this Question.
7.13 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I anticipated that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, would ask his Question in a somewhat wider sense because I feel that this opportunity should be taken of asking the Government to consider certain other previous violations that are taking place. I am sure the House will realise that I personally am concerned, and very deeply concerned, with what is happening not only in some Communist countries, but in other countries as well where we ought to be taking action, particularly in respect of Jewish people. I cannot say that I
1100
agree with the line that was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, but I hope the House will forgive me if, in debating this Question, I pursue, for as short a time as I possibly can, what is a terribly important subject.
I need hardly say that all sections of communities who have been, and are, persecuted are my concern, as indeed is every human being. But owing to lack of time, I hope your Lordships will understand if I confine myself to referring to those persecutions which were inflicted on Jews whose plight has been brought particularly to my notice, and which I have endeavoured to assist in alleviating during my life—in addition to helping the other sections of communities. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that his accusations and requests do not relate to all Communist countries, nor to Communist countries alone. I instance the violations of human rights by the Syrians (who are being supplied and spurred on by the U.S.S.R. to-day) against their Jewish citizens—and perhaps one might say, and indeed with some justification, that the Syrians are Communist controlled.
Recently, four young Jewesses from Damascus, Eva Saad, and three sisters, Toni, Laura and Farh Zebah, were murdered in mysterious circumstances near the Lebanese border, apparently while attempting to escape from Syria across the border into Lebanon. Their bodies were brought back to Damascus by the Syrian authorities for burial. A statement was made by Aba Eban two days ago which I think one might bring to the notice of your Lordships. It stated:
"With the intensification of the wave of protests throughout the world …"—
I think probably the objection of the Question being put is that the protests should be brought to notice—
"… the Syrian Minister of the Interior, Ali Zaza, was forced to admit in his statement, broadcast by Radio Damascus on 14th March, that the young women were indeed murdered by what he termed as gangs of criminals, who were apprehended, confessed to their crimes and will be charged by a State security tribunal With it, the Syrian Minister added insult to injury in naming two Jews, Yosef Shaluh and Azour Zalta, as members of the band. These Jews are known to many former residents of Syria throughout the world and are renowned for their beneficial work and assistance to the needy of the community. Zalta is" [even] "related to Eva Saad, and the callous attempt to

1101
brand him with the false accusation of murdering the young woman, or participating in the crime, is a judicial murder and a vile blood libel."
Your Lordships will probably know that the Jewish people in Syria are confined to ghettoes in Damascus, Aleppo and Kamishli. They are subject to arbitrary arrest. Imprisonment and torture is the daily lot of this impoverished community, bereft of all legal rights and protection. They are denied freedom of movement, whether within Syria or in regard to leaving the country. Even the Jews holding non-Syrian passports are not permitted to leave Syria. Within the country, Jews are restricted by law to residence in the ghettoes of the places I have mentioned. Special permission is required for them to travel more than five kilometres (about three miles) from their place of residence. Permission must be requested many weeks in advance. They have been deprived of the Franchise. This is the terrible situation in the country of Syria. Now, we are in diplomatic relations with Syria and I hope, and I believe, that the present Government will make representations with a view to clearing that position.
Let me give another illustration of an incident which should not have happened. Egypt are to send us an Ambassador, who I understand, unfortunately, we have accepted, who not only ordered forces in his command to kill men, women and children, but was actually here at one time acting with anti-semitic forces who were well known for their anti-semiticism and who at that time made no pretence at not being anti-semitic. I do hope that something will be done, and if he does come here, that we shall keep a very close watch on the kind of racialist action that he undertook when he was here before and prevent it.
May I now speak about the U.S.S.R. for a short time? As far back as 1967 (I think it was) a Motion was put on the Order Paper in another place by some colleagues of mine and myself against the attitude of the U.S.S.R. to the Jewish community there. It was sponsored by several Members, including myself, and signed by more than 390 altogether—nearly the highest, if not actually the highest, number signing any of the numerous Motions which appeared on the Order Paper during the thirty years of my exper-
1102
ience in the other place. The signatories were drawn from all Parties in the House. At that time the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. were terrorised into remaining silent, but a new generation, of unbelievable, indomitable courage, face the terrible dangers which confronted them when they openly revolted against the heartbreaking and intolerable restrictions which were placed upon them against practising their beliefs, continuing their culture and living as Jews, although they were compelled to describe themselves as such.
It is late, but I hope your Lordships will forgive me for continuing because I think this should be placed on record so that it can be studied by the Government and by others concerned. The situation of the Jewish community in the Soviet Union continues to be grave and alarming, and it also continues to be a special one. A Committee was set up recently by the Council of Europe to investigate the position. It was a high-powered Committee, which issued a report, and the gist of the report was this. The tendency sometimes expressed to group the Jews with "dissidents" in the Soviet Union is erroneous. In a country where the Government spend great effort to develop, or at least to guarantee, the specificity of most minorities, Jews are in a particular situation. Anti-semitism has become State policy. Jewish culture has been destroyed—this is actually from the report of an investigating committee consisting of representatives from every country. Manifestations of it are sanctioned. In a country that prides itself on having developed the obscurest languages, Hebrew and Yiddish are forbidden. The limited but existing minority rights are denied to the Jews, although they are "Hebrew", according to their official nationality identity cards.
Jews remain the only minority without a territory of their own; they number only about 8 per cent. of the population of Birobidjan, their so-called Jewish "autonomous region", and this region has no Jewish facilities whatsoever. While the rest of the Soviet Union has enjoyed a certain measure of liberalisation in the last years, it is sad to note that in 1973 there were fewer synagogues, fewer Jews knowing their own language, fewer Jewish students in universities than in Stalin's time. This has brought many

1103
Jews to a painful process of soul-searching and to the conclusion that, more than fifty years after the Russian Revolution, they are unwanted in their own birthplace.
The report goes on to say that there are various "dissident groups" in the Soviet Union—"democrats", "believers", et cetera—who hope to change, to humanise, to liberalise the Soviet régime. These people wish to live in a better Soviet Union. Vast numbers of Jews have by now lost hope that they will ever find their place as Jews in that country. While the "democrats" seek to alter their country, the Jews now wish to leave it, and this is the basic difference between the two struggles.
To-day harassment of Jews is going on. A person who asks for an exit permit is deprived of his livelihood and insulted wherever he goes. Scientists of the highest standing are being rushed from pillar to post, sent to prisons. They are sent to so-called mental hospitals, and every type of what I consider to come under the heading of torture is being exercised. I should like to pay tribute to the Prime Minister, who rendered a service openly in trying to get Jews out from the U.S.S.R., but also to those Members and Ministers on both sides of the House who from time to time have been helpful in this way. But I hope that we shall take definite steps to let the U.S.S.R. know that they cannot deal with their Jewish people in that way. And the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, which is taking place in Geneva at the present time can be used by us so that it may deal with the position there. I am talking, of course, about the Conference which was originally held in Helsingfors and is now being held in Geneva.
I am hoping that the Government will do what the Board of Deputies of British Jews in this country have asked them to do; that is, to intervene in the debates there, and ensure that others intervene in those debates, so that pressure can be brought not only upon the U.S.S.R., in so far as the Jewish problem is concerned, but upon all peoples who are harassing human beings and who are dealing with them as though they were altogether objects of unconcern. It may be, my Lords, that by this kind of pressure we shall be able to answer the point
1104
which has been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. I do not say it will be in the same sense in which he has raised it because, frankly, I do not agree with some of the suggestions he has made. Nevertheless, the core of his complaint is something which is of tremendous importance which we as a democratic country, I am sure, would want to deal with.
7.29 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, your Lordships will have already noticed that the language in which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has framed his Unstarred Question bears a curious similarity to the language in which the Foreign Secretary replied in another place last week to a Parliamentary Question about Chile. I fully agree with my noble friend that if we are trying to keep alive the spark of human freedom in countries where it is now very dim, and if we are trying to help refugees from those countries, whether they be Communist dictatorships which have been the greatest enemies of human freedom for the last generation or more, or whether they be countries which oppress and stifle the freedom of the Jews, which countries are also enemies of liberty, we ought not to be less active in our dealings with them than with a small South American Republic which has lately been saved from a Communist dictatorship by a military coup d'état.
The only point I wish to put to the Minister of State on this Unstarred Question is a point about Chile, and I shall not discuss anything else except this one matter concerning technical aid. I should like to appeal earnestly to Her Majesty's Government not to maintain their suspension of the small amount of aid—although I think it is very valuable in relation to its amount in terms of money—which we have recently been giving to Chile and which I submit we ought to go on giving. I should like to make it clear that I do not expect the Minister of State to reply to this tonight: it would be quite silly if I did. I am only asking him, very respectfully, to submit it to his colleagues.
I should like to take this opportunity of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, very sincerely upon the great resourcefulness and promptness and skill with which he has replied to

1105
so many questions, on which he obviously could not be given a detailed reply: he has stonewalled, and sometimes hit a boundary. When I held the same office in your Lordships' House I was sent in 1963 to Peru to represent the Queen at the inauguration of the new régime of President Belaunde, and this new régime had succeeded a military dictatorship. The military dictator who had run Peru for about three years was a General Lindley—an English name; his grandfather was a Yorkshireman who had emigrated to Peru. He himself had not been brought up to speak English, but he looked exactly like a Yorkshireman and he spoke Spanish with a Yorkshire accent. He was a delightful man and he ran this military dictatorship. If your Lordships count the number of military dictatorships which there have been in America over the last 120 years you will find that not one of them has wanted to last very long. They nearly all intended to replace themselves with something else, as General Lindley did when he thought the time had come. He asked Belaunde to become President in a new democratic Parliamentary régime, which Belaunde did, and although that régime lasted only five years I think that was longer than the average régime in Southern America.
When I was there we had been giving, for the previous three years, not a great deal of money but some very valuable technical aid to the people of Peru. The best example I saw of that—and it was wonderful how little it cost—was a fairly large contingent of the British Overseas Youth Organisation who had gone to Lima to help with the housing problem, acquiring a knowledge of house construction. At that time, thousands of peasants were emigrating from the Andes, owing to the increase in population which could not be contained on the rough hill farms there. They emigrated from the Andes to Lima, and the housing situation was appalling: the local authority just could not deal with it. There were not enough builders, or electricians, and so on, and these young British men and women were building and helping the immigrants with their own hands, giving them the know-how to build literally hundreds of prefabricated houses: to put in the electric wiring (because there were no electri-
1106
cians), to put in the water supply, and to provide hundreds of these wretched Peruvian immigrants with quite comfortable modern houses.
The encouraging thing about this event was the gratitude of the Peruvians. They were genuinely grateful, and in an age when there is so little gratitude it made one happy to see their reactions. Whatever the régime—it had been a military dictatorship and it was going to be a Belaunde régime—that help by these volunteers from the Overseas Youth Organisation did an enormous amount of good, creating much good feeling between ourselves and the people of Peru. The young men and women got all the praise in the world from Lima, and I only wished that they had sometimes got a little praise from this country. But perhaps owing to the difficulties of organisation for the mass media, or difficulties of transport, I do not think there was ever one word in any broadcast about what these British boys and girls were doing. That was sad. However, they did a very good job.
Our aid now to Chile is not very great. I think the technical aid we gave last year was worth £360,000 or £400,000. It is not likely to be more than £500,000, and it is mostly technical aid which they particularly need now after three and a half years of Allende's Government. I do not say anything about what his real intentions were because I do not know, but in fact he has pretty well ruined for the time being the economy of Chile. The production of the copper mines has fallen by about half, and copper is their main export. Seventy per cent. of their exports depend upon the production and sale of copper and they are much poorer than they were; there is much more unemployment and there is much less hope of recovery at the moment owing to the unconstitutional action of not only nationalising everything against the will of Congress, whose wishes were vetoed by the President, but by the substitution of political management for skilled industrial management in most of the industries in Chile. The result is that they are now in a state of high unemployment and economic distress.
All I want to put to your Lordships is that if we can continue to give this aid it does so much more good to help a man when he is lying bleeding and helpless at the side of the road than when

1107
he is healthy and walking briskly to his work. That is why I earnestly put it to the Government that if we can give this small amount of aid now, with high effectiveness in proportion to its value, and not in three or four years' time, it may produce a much better return in international good will and international friendship in the years that are ahead of us.
7.40 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I am attracted to support my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye because of the wording of his Question. We shall listen with interest to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who will reply to the general question raised. The question of the prevention of emigration from countries like East Germany and Russia is not something we all applaud. It has always been a matter which has perplexed me, by comparison with other things, that Her Majesty's Government have not more persistently stimulated questions in the United Nations by the Committee on Human Rights, because it would seem that this kind of behaviour against emigration is a perplexity. It is not only confined to a few places; one calls to mind the position of the refugees in Palestine going Eastwards. It can be coupled with the restrictions on immigration which could oppose the wishes of certain individuals.
My Lords, more particularly the point I wanted to take up to-day comes under the heading of human relations. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye raised this point. Earlier this week we had a statement from the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who said that the Government
"… have the right and duty to make clear to them in appropriate ways our deep concern about the way in which internal policies …"—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/4/71, col. 802.)
and then he spoke of the intensified suppression of human rights. I am puzzled as to how that squares with the absence of action of that kind with regard to the oppression in Uganda. There are no repeated assertions of disapproval of those tactics by the Government.
In the same discussion, there was a statement by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, to the effect that the
1108
freedom-loving citizens of Greece approve of the attitude of the British Government, which I have just quoted in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. Those words did not seem to square with the absence of action which might be taken in so many directions, with the disapproval of the ideological line taken regarding the human rights, and the absence of protest with regard to what is happening in Uganda, the Sudan, Burundi, Nigeria or other places. The United Nations Committee, which my noble friend suggests ought to do something in this matter, did not do anything in other matters where human rights were being continually suppressed.
On this question of human rights, there are attitudes arising such as were referred to earlier this week in this House with regard to wages in other countries, which is none of our particular business. But as the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said, it is the obligation of the Government to do what they can on the grounds of human rights to correct any abuses that might exist. It is on those grounds that I am particularly interested in listening to the reply to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye because the "desire to see democracy restored and human rights duly respected …" is the purpose of my brief intervention.
7.46 p.m.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, may I associate myself with the compliments my noble friend Lord Dundee paid to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. I, too, have greatly admired his skill and fortitude while a Member of this House. He has had great experience in another place. I am particularly glad of the opportunity of saying that because what I have to say in other respects may not be quite as bland as what my noble friend said; and it might even seem to the noble Lord to be rather harsh. But if it should be harsh, the harshness is not directed either at him or at his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, but to what I greatly fear is the false philosophy which lies behind the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government now.
My Lords, we must all be most grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye for raising this Question. I want particularly to concentrate upon the bigger question which lies behind

1109
it, on which several of my noble friends have already touched. The big question is this: how do Her Majesty's Government see the function of foreign policy? Do they see the purpose of foreign policy as being to promote the interests of the people of this country first, last and all the time, and in particular to promote the safety of the people of this country? Do they see the purpose of foreign policy as being to promote the power and influence of the country throughout the world? Or do they, on the other hand, see diplomacy as Clausewitz saw war? As my noble friend will remember Clausewitz saw war simply as a continuation of policy by other means.
From what I have heard from the noble Lord and his right honourable friend since the new Government were formed, I am afraid that Her Majesty's Government see diplomacy rather as the carrying on of a General Election campaign by other means. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, looks very startled; I do not think he need. All he has to do is to read the White Paper on renegotiation of the Common Market. He will see that rather more than one page out of a little more than five pages is simply a quotation from the Election Manifesto of the Labour Party, so I think he will agree that there is no cause for raising the eyebrows, and that there is some basis for what I am saying to him.
My Lords, then there is the question which my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, raised, that vain and empty phrase which the Foreign Secretary used about showing which side of the barricades we are on. Those barricades which the Foreign Secretary talks about are very curious, because sometimes they are there and sometimes they are not. If on one side of the barricades are generals and admirals with gold braid up to their armpits, then Her Majesty's Government, through the noble Lord's right honourable friend, immediately jump down on the other side, but if on the one side of the barricades are boot-faced men in belted Ulster coats manipulating an instrument of terror and oppression by the side of which the most evil machinations of the wickedest general or admiral are really like parlour games at a children's Christmas party, there is no question of an antithesis between freedom and democracy; that all seems to dis-
1110
appear and the men in Ulster coats and trilby hats have it all their own way. That I think is really at the heart of the Question which my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has put on the Order Paper.
Not only do I think this policy of Her Majesty's Government most unwise; I think it is really baseless. Take Greece. A friend of mine who is a distinguished classical scholar and a great lover of Greece said to me a little time ago, "I cannot understand all this fuss about the Greek colonels. After all, this voluble and attractive people have never known stability unless they were ruled either by the Turks or by colonels, and that has applied ever since the days of Colonel Pericles". I think, broadly speaking, that is true. It is a great mistake to judge the Greek people by our standards here. And I think, too, that we have been greatly misled about events in Chile. I do not know whether the noble Lord read—I expect he did—the two very striking articles by Mr. Peregrine Worsthorne in the Sunday Telegraph on the subject of Chile. It seemed to me that here was an honest reporter, not somebody suborned by a dictator Government to write a favourable report but reporting on things as he saw them. Certainly he did not see them as they have been represented. He did not see Allende's Government as a progressive Left-Wing Government overturned by a Fascist dictatorship. He saw it as a Government which had failed Chile utterly, as my noble friend indicated, and which a relatively moderate Opposition had replaced.
On this question of the ideological basis for foreign policy, which I think is the basis of Her Majesty's Government's policy, and I think it is a wrong basis, I would ask the noble Lord a question. It is not only socialist Governments in this country that base their foreign policy on ideology. Sometimes you get a capitalist Government in another country basing its policy on the opposite ideology, and I do not think that has ever been any more successful. I would ask the noble Lord whether he believes that the long delay by the United States in recognising the People's Republic of China—and that was a just as deeply felt ideological concept as anything the Labour Government feel here—really contributed to the peace of

1111
the world, really contributed in particular to the peace of South-East Asia? Is it not possible that if the United States had followed the normal practice of dealing with peoples and Governments as one finds them and not taking an ideological stand, we might have been spared a great many of the horrors that South-East Asia has had to go through in recent years?
7.55 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I feel moved to say just a few words, because this short debate initiated by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye has turned out to be a debate of considerable importance. As he said himself, the core of his complaint is really whether the Government's attitude to foreign policy, to countries of different régimes and beliefs, is, if I may use a famous phrase, even handed. This theme was echoed by my noble friend Lord Coleraine, who made a plea that one should deal with peoples and Governments as one finds them. This particular debate is geared to human rights, and I would have thought, and hoped, that between the two major Parties in this country—and I am sure this applies to the Liberal Party, although they have not taken part tonight—there is no dispute, surely, about the need to use our influence to try to extend fundamental human rights overseas. But, of course, there remains the question of how we try to use our influence. It was in the time of a Labour Government that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was signed in 1948. It was in the time of a Conservative Government that the European Convention on Human Rights came into force, and of course we renewed certain provisions of it only recently.
The noble Lord, Lord Janner, who suddenly seems to have left us, although usually he is such an assiduous attender in this House, spoke with immense personal feeling about the problems of the Jewish community, particularly in Communist countries. I should like him to have been here and therefore I will defer what I was about to say for a minute or two in case he has the opportunity to return to the House.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Baroness, my noble friend told me that he had to slip out for a moment or two but hoped to
1112
get back before the noble Baroness spoke, but if that was not possible he asked me to give her his apologies.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am very grateful for that intimation. Perhaps it is as well to refer to what the noble Lord said because we cannot wait at this hour in the uncertainty as to whether he will return. I felt that, as always, he spoke with enormous feeling. He has often asked me Questions in this House in relation to the Jewish community, and particularly those members of the Jewish community who are within the Communist countries. He spoke also about the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. He will no doubt recall—and I hope he will read this in Hansard—that we have always made it a major part of our policy at this particular Conference to insist on some movement in the increased flow, not only of information and ideas, but also of people between East and West.
We are very well aware, and always were when we had the responsibility of Government, that there are very great and deep feelings in this country about the treatment of non-conformist elements, if one can so call them, in the Soviet Union, especially potential Jewish emigrants. We made this public feeling known to the Soviet Government. But I think it is also right to say that there is a limit to which one can go in conveying these deeply held feelings: because, of course, it is a longstanding principle of international affairs that they should if possible be conducted on the basis of non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. It is for this reason that I should like to refer to the comments made by my noble friends about Chile.
We had a Question in this House on Chile, and unfortunately the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, was not in a position to reply to us because a Statement was going to be made in another place. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Dundee about the value of aid to countries, like Chile, in South America. I had the opportunity, a very interesting chance, to attend UNCTAD 3 meeting in Santiago, and I am absolutely certain that our aid, although small, did a great deal. I agree with my noble friend that it seems very unfortunate that we should

1113
try to cut off what is the equivalent of about half a million pounds in technical aid. One can say that it is not very much, but it means a great deal to a country whose needs are so very great.
In this context, I must question whether the separation of the O.D.A.—the Overseas Development Administration—from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will in fact achieve what it is said to do; because, as I understand it, the present Government have said that the reason behind this move was that no political considerations would come into the administration of aid, and that the criteria would be only development need. That is all very well, but when we look at Chile it seems to me that the reason for cutting off the development aid, small though it was, which we had been giving was entirely because Her Majesty's Government disapproved of the réegime at present in authority in Chile. That seems to me the most political reason of all for refusing aid.
I have always thought there is a great deal to be said for having the Overseas Development Administration in constant touch with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, because there are considerations which one cannot divorce from one's policy on giving aid. For example, my noble friend Lord Barnby referred to Uganda. It really was impossible to continue the aid in those circumstances, and I suppose it could have been said that it was a political consideration. Then, of course, there are the financial considerations. Only this week we had a reply from the noble Lord about aid to India, about a new interest-free loan to be given on top of the aid presently given, which is very considerable. How are we going to supply this loan? We are going to do so by borrowing money, on which we pay interest, and we are then going to give the loan free of interest. It seems to me that aid is inevitably bound up with the strategy, and of course the resources, of any Government. Therefore I cannot be convinced that an aid programme is better handled by separating the O.D.A. from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
When I give the two examples of Uganda and financial resources. I do not mean to imply that one should cut off aid, or increase aid, according to whether one believes in the political complexion
1114
of the country concerned. There are a great many repercussions which can come from doing this kind of thing. For example, I would like to ask the noble Lord what action the Government intend to take in view of the possible suspension of copper shipments to this country from Chile following the stopping of technical assistance by this country? Secondly, what are their views on the change in Anglo-Chilean relations, especially in relation to the I.M.F. economic report on Chile and the rescheduling of Chile's foreign debt? It is political considerations of this kind that have to be taken into account, and they have nothing to do with the complexion of the Government concerned. That being so, I would ask the noble Lord to try to satisfy some of those who have spoken, and who have spoken from a very deep conviction.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I offer my apologies to her for not being present during her speech? I had left the Chamber for a few minutes. I have been here all the afternoon.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, it was not quite clear from what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi said, when he said that the noble Lord had left the Chamber for a few minutes, whether it was possible for him to return or not. As I did not wish to detain the House too long, I am afraid I dealt with some of the important matters he raised. Perhaps he will look at them in Hansard.
8.6 p.m.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for making this debate possible. He has raised matters which transcend political partisanship and political expediency. He has reminded us of principles to which we all subscribe and for which we all strive to do our very best. There is unity in this country and this Parliament for the restoration, where possible, of democracy, and certainly for the upholding of human rights and their expansion where-ever possible.
The noble Lord's Question raises, in turn, three points, of which he reminded us in his speech. He asked whether Government policy is governed by a desire to see democracy restored and

1115
human rights fully respected in Communist-dominated countries, as well, presumably, as in other countries. The answer is, "Of course". But the method of upholding and promoting democracy and human rights in all countries must vary according to the relations we have with them, and the opportunities we have of asserting by appropriate means our views and our persuasions. For instance, in this very debate we have heard references to Palestinians as well as Jews. Views and attitudes vary within that comparatively small section of territory in the world. Who is oppressing whom? It is not an easy matter for any Government, of whatever complexion, that subscribes to the central purpose of upholding democracy and human rights, to decide in a generalised way how it should, in the interest of those objectives, respond to developments in various and varying countries. Certainly we are for democracy and human rights in all countries, whatever the complexion of the Government. That is the basic answer to the first point raised in the Question asked by the noble Lord and put forward in his speech.
The second question he put—and it is contained in the Question he put down on the Order Paper—was whether, to this end, we will play our full part in the United Nations. Thirdly, he asked whether the Home Secretary will sympathetically consider applications from refugees from such countries, from Communist-dominated countries, and I am quite sure that he would join me in amending that practically to include other countries as well.
May I briefly, but I hope helpfully, deal with those three points which he has raised and which have been spoken to also by other noble Lords in this debate. First of all, the question of whether Government policy is governed by a desire to see democracy and human rights upheld and expanded. Noble Lords will have read the Queen's Speech and the Labour Party Manifesto and also the Statement by the Foreign Secretary on March 19 in another place when he said:
"We shall make it our business to back and stimulate this multilateral diplomacy by developing relations with the countries of Eastern Europe up to the limit that the situation in each case allows and we shall look
1116
for opportunities to build a safer and more productive relationship with the Soviet Union."
That applies, of course, to our relations and our foreign policy towards all countries. However, the Government believe that they should make full use of such bilateral influence as they possess in addition to the use of these multilateral approaches, and in this we are following the precedent of the Party opposite.
Referring to the position and the policy of the Soviet Union and its satellites, it is a fact that the attention of the Soviet authorities, and of the authorities in control of other countries associated with it, has been drawn on many occasions in the past to the strength of feeling in Britain among people of all Parties about the limitation of the rights of dissidents, including in particular people of the Jewish faith. We have drawn attention to the negative effect of certain Soviet domestic policies on British public opinion which make the improvement of Anglo-Soviet relations that much more difficult to achieve. I have absolutely no doubt that when suitable occasions arise this point will again be made to the Soviet authorities and to other countries which follow policies similar to theirs.
LORD COLERAINE: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I was glad to hear what he said, that Her Majesty's Government of whatever side dissociate themselves, and have always dissociated themselves, from certain aspects of Soviet policy. But if it is unnecessary in pursuit of getting a more humane Soviet attitude, on, say, the Jewish problem, to levy insults at the Soviet Government why is it necessary to level insults at the Greek Government and the Chilean Government?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is a matter of opinion whether in fact the attitude or any gesture made by the British Government was an insult. I could not agree that it was an insult. I would insist that it was an indication of deep British disapprobation of policy as it has been conducted for some years now in Greece, a country and people for whom we in this country have longstanding affection and respect. The feeling is not confined to my side of the House, as the noble Lord well knows. It was not an insult; it was a protest,

1117
a protest from a longstanding friend carrying with it a deep hope that as soon as possible Greece will be restored to the democratic comity of nations, particularly as it is a member of NATO, an Alliance which was formed to defend and to uphold democracy.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what similar act of disapprobation Her Majesty's Government are considering extending to those Communist countries where there is Jewish persecution?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: Of course, my Lords, we are not in the same relation to them. We have a relationship with Greece which enables us to show in appropriate ways what we feel about the course they are pursuing. In a similar way we have in relation to Chile an appropriate way of making known our disapproval. We are not extending technical assistance or aid to the Soviet Union, so it could not be suspended or withdrawn. We were in that relation with Chile. I am hoping that out of this debate there may come, not a final consensus as to how we face these difficult and complex problems, but the start of an assessment as to how this country should follow a constructive policy of promoting democracy and human rights across the board.
May I make this point?—and it is not a hypothetical point. If indeed we were extending technical assistance or aid to the Soviet Union, would there not be a reasonable demand in more than one quarter of this House or another place for that to be suspended to show our disapproval of the treatment of the Jews in the Soviet Union? I merely mention that, not because I want to engage in anything like an exacerbated exchange on this matter, but because I am very conscious—and I hope the House will come with me on this—of the need for us constantly to think out our attitudes in foreign relations. It is not a simple matter. The world is full of countries—and new countries—where our relations are changing almost from day to day. At the same time there is a specific gravity of conviction in this country that we cannot stand by without saying or doing something, whatever that is in a given case, when we see the kind of dic-
1118
tatorship against which we have fought in two wars superseding what looks like an emerging democracy in a country like Chile.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, would my noble friend let me know whether he will give instructions to those who are at present representing us at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe to the effect that we deplore the kind of actions being taken by the U.S.S.R. and Syria and that we are in full agreement that proper steps should be taken to ensure fair treatment for all people?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am glad to go on to the second point because I think that the noble Lord who initiated this debate quite seriously wanted us to look at this second question as well, which was (and I hope I paraphrase it in a reasonably fair way), whether Her Majesty's Government will support in the United Nations Organisation multilateral attempts to improve matters in those countries where these things are happening. Here I join with the noble Baroness and my noble friend in saying that we made absolutely clear at the very commencement of this Government's period of office our belief that the cause of human rights is best pursued through international and multilateral action. There are difficulties and pitfalls, I agree, in bilateral action, and it is best and safest—not always, but usually—to pursue the policy through international and multilateral action, mainly through the United Nations and its related agencies, but also, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, reminded us, and as my noble friend Lord Janner has just repeated, in the very important discussions now proceeding, and initiated by the previous Government, with our full support, in Helsinki, in Vienna—the locale does not matter—and at the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Geneva. We are working together, and certainly not in contradiction of each other, in the United Nations, and I think everybody will agree that our country is second to none in the way it has upheld the Charter of the United Nations, particularly in regard to Articles 55 and 56 which relate to the points raised by my noble friend, and also now, since last year, in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Geneva.

1119
May I detain the House for a short time on the second point? One of the most important topics under discussion in the Conference on Security and Co-operation is Item III, which some people insist on referring to in the obnoxious jargon of our times as Basket III. This is what the noble Baroness quite rightly directed our attention to. Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, is one of the principles which this country and like-minded countries would wish to see endorsed in the declaration which is to be produced by the Conference. How are we working for this? We are working together with other Western delegations for real progress towards freer movement. This touches very closely the points which my noble friend Lord Janner quite rightly raised, and which the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, emphasised—the question of freedom of movement within a country and from one country to another, including the freedom within reason to emigrate and the duty within certain limits to accept immigration—the two things go together—as well as family reunification. One of the most repulsive aspects of the kind of oppression that we see in some countries today, in what is almost the final quarter of the twentieth century, is how husbands and wives can by authoritative decision be parted, and how permission for a husband to emigrate can be given, but not permission to take his family with him.
So far as the Western initiative is concerned—and this country, I entirely agree, is in the van of that initiative—the Conference on Security and Co-operation is working hard through the appropriate sub-committees under Item III to get a statement which will ultimately be accepted within the decisions of the Conference. The sub-committees are those dealing with movement, and there are other sub-committees dealing with education and culture, and they are required by their terms of reference to bear in mind the contributions and rights of national minorities or regional cultures. On all these sub-committee—and they are working committees and not just discussional ones—delegates are working to achieve practical statements which we hope the whole Conference will adopt
1120
and subsequently implement throughout the countries of Europe. We are represented on all these sub-committees and while we could not divulge what goes on in them, and would not be expected to do so, I can assure the House, as I know the noble Baroness could, that the British contribution in these vital sub-committees, and indeed in the Conference as a whole is very substantial indeed. If the Conference is successful it should offer better prospects for individuals in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union, including of course Soviet Jews.
I turn to the third point raised in the Question, which is the position of refugees from Communist and other countries which follow oppressive policies. The noble Lord asked for a clear indication of Government policy on this point and I give it. I want to say quite clearly that the Home Secretary will consider applications from such refugees sympathetically. Applications for asylum normally arise when the people concerned are already in the United Kingdom. Of the Soviet Jews, of whom rather more than 30,000 now appear to be leaving Russia annually, only a comparative few with connections in this country seek to come here. Such persons do not always meet the normal criteria of admission, but the immigration rules provide that a foreign national who does not otherwise qualify for admission should not be refused leave to enter if the only country to which he can be removed is one to which he is unwilling to go, owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality or membership of a particular social group or political opinion. These criteria are fully in accord with Article 1 of the Convention on the status of refugees and these factors would be taken into account. In the event, most applicants for political asylum here are allowed to remain here and to take employment.
I shall not detain the House with certain encouraging figures on this score, except to say that if the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, or some other Member would care to put down a Question to elicit the figures they will find them interesting and encouraging. This country is playing its part in making available to the victims of oppression

1121
abroad a home and a new opportunity of life.
I have dealt with the three points raised by the noble Lord, and I have given an assurance to this House that Her Majesty's Government are indeed dedicated to doing their utmost to uphold and expand so far as possible democracy and human rights wherever they are in peril, whatever the nature of the Government of those countries. Secondly, we are, as we always have been under successive Administrations, playing our part and from time to time taking an honourable initiative in the multilateral field. I gave two examples of this—the United Nations and the very important Conference whose work is now proceeding in Europe. Thirdly, I am glad to give a renewed assurance that victims of oppression who cannot go to any other country are assured of sympathetic consideration by this country, which has been our practice in the past.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, the Board of Deputies of British Jews stated in the letter that they are acting in co-operation with the World Jewish Congress, and they referred to other features which might be dealt with. I am very much obliged to my noble friend for the assurance he has given that the matters to which he has referred are being attended to. But I would ask him to be good enough to look at the other items which have been mentioned to see whether he can do anything about them.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, certainly. My noble friend raised a number of specific points about specific people. It is up to him to put those points directly, or in some other way, to my Department. We shall always look at everything he puts to us. May I say that I personally feel greatly advantaged by listening to this debate? I cannot pretend that complete, final answers are possible about the techniques of conducting foreign relations, especially in days when events and conditions change so quickly. I understand the desire that there should be a basic principle on which this country should stand in dealing with countries of varying ideological persuasion. But I hope noble Lords will not think that simply stating it settles the matter.
1122
I have fairly gently given an example of how, if our relations with the Soviet Union were somewhat different, perhaps the climate and the balance of debate in this House might be different. If the relations we have had with Chile were the relations we had with the Soviet Union it might be different, but this is not so. Therefore, we must proceed from case to case and do our best to fashion our reactions in pursuit of our objectives as genuinely and as best we can in each case. It is certain that the Labour Government, the social democratic Government of this country, yield to no other Party in their devotion to democracy and human rights.
The Government do not pretend that they have all the answers all the time in this difficult and vital field, and certainly from time to time I shall be very grateful for the opportunity of discussing these matters in this House, of listening as well as attempting to answer questions addresed to me.

  E.E.C. COMMISSION: REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
  E.E.C. COMMISSION: REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: BUDGETARY POWERS
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: BUDGETARY POWERS
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: SELECTION OF MEMBERS
  EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT: SELECTION OF MEMBERS
  FACTORY INSULATION STANDARDS
  FACTORY INSULATION STANDARDS
  ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
  ELECTRICITY CONSUMPTION
  HOUSE PRICES
  HOUSE PRICES
  CIVIL AVIATION: AIR OPERATORS' CERTIFICATES
  CIVIL AVIATION: AIR OPERATORS' CERTIFICATES
  CLERICAL, MEDICAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
  CLERICAL, MEDICAL AND GENERAL LIFE ASSURANCE BILL [H.L.]
  BRITISH AIRPORTS AUTHORITY (LONGFORD RIVER) BILL [H.L.]
  BRITISH AIRPORTS AUTHORITY (LONGFORD RIVER) BILL [H.L.]