Sitting of 5 December 1974

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

PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS
    SCOTTISH TRANSPORT GROUP (OBAN QUAY) ORDER CONFIRMATION
    Mr. Secretary Ross presented a Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under Section 7 of the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, relating to Scottish Transport Group (Oban Quay); and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be considered upon Wednesday and to be printed. [Bill 44.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Beef Industry
    Mr. Boscawenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he anticipates that measures for support for the beef industry will be introduced.
    The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I would refer the hon. Member to my statement to the House on 21st November.—[Vol. 881, c. 1535.]
    Mr. Boscawen: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that shortly after he made his statement confidence in the market was restored? Will he now answer the question which the farming industry and others have been asking for months? Why did he not take such action until there was an overwhelming expression of disgust at the way our food supplies were placed in jeopardy as a result of the lack of such action?
    Mr. Peart: The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that the matter had to be nego-
    1914
    tiated in the Community. It has been decided to have a major review of the beef regime in February. Because of representations made to me by the farmers' unions, and because I had long discussions with representatives of the unions, I was able to go earlier to the Community, and I got what I think has been welcomed.
    Mr. Pym: In view of the extreme importance of establishing a long-term policy for the future in which producers can have confidence, does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful and desirable to have a debate in the House about the new regime before it is finally decided upon? On a related matter, has the right hon. Gentleman anything to say about a more immediate problem, that is, the shortage of fodder, which is acute in certain parts of the country, including Wales and the South-West? Is the right hon. Gentleman able to give us any hope or encouragement in that respect?
    Mr. Peart: Yes, I am meeting the farmers' unions and I hope to make an announcement about fodder next week. I have discussed with the unions many of the details and I hope that hon. Members will be pleased with what we are doing. I have always argued that we should have a long-term policy. I have initiated discussion with the farmers' unions and other bodies. Those will continue, and it will be some time before they are completed. It is important to remember that we are part of the Community at the moment and, inevitably, the effect of the common agricultural policy can be considerable on a decision to continue membership. My party is committed to a referendum and consultations.
    Mr. Torney: Is my right hon. Friend aware that our membership of the Common Market is hampering his efforts to help the beef industry? Does he remember that it was the last Conservative administration which took us into the Common Market and which must take responsibility for the problems which are affecting the beef industry?
    Mr. Peart: I agree with my hon. Friend. I would add that the Conservative administration also ended the guarantee system.

    Sugar
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assurances he has received that the 1·4 million tons of sugar required by Great Britain in 1975 will be forthcoming.
    Mr. Peart: The developing exporting countries of the Commonwealth have expressed interest in continuing to supply quantities comparable with their quotas under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, although more in some cases and less in others. Firm assurances of supply, however, can hardly be expected before price and other details have been negotiated.
    Mr. Renton: In reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym), the Secretary of State referred to our being a member of the Community at the moment. Will he confirm that on the difficult question of sugar he has received notable help and support over the last few weeks from his friends in the EEC?
    Mr. Peart: I have said that in reply to Questions in the House. We achieved a good deal on access. The question now is one solely of guaranteeing price and quantity, and talks will take place very soon.
    Mr. Hardy: Will my right hon. Friend emphasise that more sugar has been distributed in this country during the last six months than was distributed in the same period last year? Does he agree that although some people are short of sugar many people have larder shelves which are groaning beneath the great weight of hoarded sugar, possibly in emulation of hon. Members opposite?
    Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. Hoarding has taken place. He is correct in what he says about the supply of sugar. In replying directly to the main Question, I am anxious that the developing countries— the Protocol 22 countries—should have satisfactory assurances, and I believe that they will get them through this long-term agreement.
    Mr. Wiggin: When will the negotiations with the developing Commonwealth Sugar Agreement countries take place?
    1916
    We understood that they were to take place immediately and that there would be a result before Christmas. Does the right hon. Gentleman hope to complete the negotiations by Christmas?
    Mr. Peart: No. The Community is negotiating with the countries concerned. Talks have already taken place and I hope to see some of the Ministers next week. I shall be in Brussels on Monday and Tuesday.
    Mr. Spearingasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress he has made in obtaining the 1·7 million tons of raw sugar required to maintain full production at United Kingdom cane sugar refineries.
    Mr. Peart: As I told the House in my statement on 21st November—[Vol. 881, c. 1535]—the decisions taken by the EEC Council of Ministers, in effect, give our refineries an assurance of supplies from the sugar producers of the developing Commonwealth. It is to be expected that additional supplies of raw sugar will be secured from the world market under the Community's import subsidy arrangements.
    Mr. Spearing: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) gave no guarantee that the sugar, if obtained, will arrive by late February or early March, when it is required? Will he give us an assurance on that point?
    Secondly, my right hon. Friend will note that the 1·7 million tons takes account of the 300,000 tons that we did not get from Australia. If the refineries are to keep going at their present rate, may I ask from where we shall get that amount?
    Mr. Peart: I believe that what we have called the Lardinois proposals will get us the sugar. From the point of view of Commonwealth supplies, in negotiations that I have mentioned about long-term assurances, of course, price and quantity will have to be discussed. That is the whole purpose of having negotiations.
    Mr. Marten: I recognise that the price and duration have not yet been fixed and therefore the 1·4 million tons is somewhat speculative. If the 1·4 million tons is not forthcoming, will the right hon. Gentleman honour the assurance given to

    1917
    me by the Prime Minister that he will go to Australia and get the missing sugar?
    Mr. Peart: I assure the hon. Gentleman that it is not speculative. That was the decision, and it has been laid down in even better terms than in the old Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. This is an indefinite agreement. Under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement we still had to negotiate quantity and price. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that. I believe that this was a good deal, and it has been welcomed by the Commonwealth producers.

    Floods (Alleviation)
    Mr. Matherasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on flood alleviation measures as a result of the recent heavy rains.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): Flood alleviation measures are a matter for land drainage authorities which we help with grant-aid and technical advice. The heavy rains proved the worth of the many flood alleviation projects carried out in recent years. They also served to show which areas still need attention.
    Mr. Mather: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that we were debating this matter at nine o'clock this morning and that although I was grateful for his reply it was not very full? Will he give a definite date for the start of this flood alleviation scheme?
    Mr. Strang: As I said to the hon. Gentleman early this morning, these financial arrangements, which, he appreciates, have to be worked out between the Ministry, the water authority and the county council, are going ahead. We intend to do all that we can to ensure that a start is made by the end of this financial year.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the cost-related benefit side of this question to see whether any relaxation is required—as I suspect it is—in many areas where the benefit does not come up up to standards laid down by the Ministry?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are some very impor-
    1918
    tant projects in the pipeline, including the one which interests his hon. Friend the Member for Esher (Mr. Mather). At the same time, we have a fixed amount of resources and must deploy them in the best possible way.

    Meat Supplies
    Mr. James Lamondasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied that there will be sufficient supplies of fresh meat available in Great Britain during the next 12 months.
    The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. E. S. Bishop): Yes. I am satisfied that there will be sufficient supplies of fresh meat available in this country during the next 12 months. Beef, mutton and lamb supplies are expected to be a little higher than this year whilst pork production will be lower, reflecting the reduction in the pig breeding herd in 1974.
    Mr. Lamond: Is my hon. Friend aware of the farmers' appreciation for the action that was taken in putting a floor in the beef market? That appreciation is very much in contrast with their feelings towards the former Minister of Agriculture in the Tory Government, who grossly misled them when he asked them to go into beef production. Has my hon. Friend any specific proposals to put to the National Farmers' Union when they have their meeting about the supply of fodder in the immediate future?
    Mr. Bishop: I appreciate my hon. Friend's comments about the position that we inherited. It is true that previously there had been great encouragement for farmers to go into beef, with the resulting problems that we have had to tackle. The action taken by my right hon. Friend will increase the confidence of producers and strengthen the return for calves.
    I have nothing to add to what my right hon. Friend said earlier about the fodder situation. Proposals are now being discussed with the appropriate bodies.
    Mr. Charles Morrison: The hon. Gentleman may express satisfaction about the next 12 months, but what about the period ahead of that? Has he taken note of his Ministry's figures for calf slaughterings? Has he taken note of the fall in the dairy herd from which about 8 per

    1919
    cent. of beef production comes? What will the beef situation be for the consumer in the period ahead of the next 12 months?
    Mr. Ashton: The hon. Gentleman will have to do the same as Margaret—stash it away.
    Mr. Bishop: The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the future policy and long-term prospects depend a great deal on our negotiations with the EEC. The Labour Party did not put us into that situation.
    Although calf slaughterings have been high in recent months, we believe that the additional support given recently and in the period that we have been in power will help to firm up the market. This should reduce premature slaughterings and encourage farmers to carry calves on to higher weights.
    It is important to get the matter in perspective. The provisional results of the September sample livestock inquiry for England and Wales show that, compared with September 1973, the breeding herd— the total beef and dairy-type cows— increased by 1 per cent. Within this figure the dairy herd decreased by 3·1 per cent. and the beef herd increased by 14 per cent. As a result of our recent policy decision and the achievements in Brussels, there is reason for optimism about future prospects.

    Butter (Import Levies)
    Mr. Denzil Daviesasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present level of import duties or levies imposed on butter imported into the United Kingdom from outside the Common Market.
    Mr. Strang: Rates of levy and compensatory amounts vary according to circumstance, and information about current rates is published by the Intervention Board for Agriculture. The present rate of levy on imports of butter from New Zealand under Protocol 18 arrangements is £117·48 a ton. From other non-EEC countries the net levy is £299·00 a ton.
    Mr. Davies: Will my hon. Friend explain to those of us who are not experts in this sphere and find it difficult to understand the complications of the CAP why it is necessary to impose these taxes on
    1920
    imports of food, especially at a time when we are fighting a difficult battle against inflation?
    Mr. Strang: The fact of the matter is that the system of levies is part of the common agricultural policy and is intended to safeguard the interests of Community producers. New Zealand has very special arrangements which my right hon. Friend recently improved to its satisfaction.
    Mr. Powell: In the absence of these duties and levies would the price of butter in this country be higher or lower?
    Mr. Strang: The price of New Zealand butter in this country if the levy were reduced—and the price to New Zealand was not increased and the levy correspondingly reduced—would indeed be lower. I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that one change since the argument about entry has been that for many commodities world prices are higher than EEC prices.

    Deep-water Fish
    Mr. Dalyellasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking in view of the results of research, conducted by his Department, into deep-water species of fish and blue whiting stocks, and work at Torry Research Institute; and whether he is encouraging the marketing of blue whiting and related species.
    Mr. Bishop: Fisheries laboratories continue their research into the problems of catching and processing deepwater species and blue whiting. The results will be given to the industry as they become available. In the meantime, trade demonstrations have been held by Torry Research Station and the White Fish Authority to show how these species might be utilised.
    Mr. Dalyell: Do these demonstrations suggest that marketing will be easier?
    Mr. Bishop: I think my hon. Friend will realise that there are a number of problems. On the marketing issue, we have the added problem of the conservative taste of the British consumer. Small fillets of blue whiting are of good quality, but they are not as white as cod. There are, therefore, problems of marketing and

    1921
    getting people to accept species of deep-water fish to which they have not been accustomed in the past, but these matters are under consideration.
    Mr. James Johnson: Is it not a fact that the Norwegians are fishing between North-West Ireland and the Orkneys and they say that stocks amount to about 12 million tons, of which they are catching about 1 million tons a year? Why are not we doing more? Why cannot we have marinated herrings and smoked mackerel fillets?
    Mr. Bishop: I think my hon. Friend knows that we are concerned with discussions about the implications of the Law of the Sea Conference. We are in touch with the Norwegian authorities on the aspects about which my hon. Friend is concerned, such as fishing limits and quotas. These matters are being kept under review.

    Launceston
    Mr. Pardoeasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will pay an official visit to Launceston.
    Mr. Peart: I have no plans to do so at present.
    Mr. Pardoe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his absence will be mourned in Launceston? Is he aware, too, that beef prices in Launceston market have been catastrophically low, and that although they are now a little better the action taken was belated? Has the right hon. Gentlemen seen Colin Cullimore's estimate that in 1976 beef and other meat prices will rise by 40 per cent. to 50 per cent.? Will he now guarantee that he will be as slow to act on excessively high producer prices in 1976 as he was to raise the ruinously low producer prices in 1974?
    Mr. Peart: I think it is the hon. Gentleman who is being mournful. The statement by Colin Cullimore is exaggerated, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman quoted it as a fact. It was speculation, and I do not accept what he said. The decision to put a floor to the market was right and, in the circumstances, I obtained it sooner than many people thought was possible.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real reason for so much hostile criticism of beef prices and
    1922
    other matters relating to agricultural affairs is the scrapping of the deficiency payments system and the haste to get into the Common Market, and that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) made a valuable contribution to the campaign conducted by the Leader of the Opposition? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the quicker we get out of the Common Market the better?
    Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend knows that the policy of the Labour Party, of which he is a member, is to renegotiate the terms of entry. However, I have some sympathy with his view about the attitude of the Liberal spokesman and also of Conservative Members.

    Sugar Beet
    Mr. MacGregorasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take immediate steps to ensure that United Kingdom sugar beet growers are given a firm indication now of the price per ton they can expect for next year's crop.
    Mr. Strang: After next week's meeting of EEC Agriculture Ministers my right hon. Friend expects to be able to confirm that we shall be adopting the full EEC price for sugar beet with effect from 1st January. If this price is increased by 16 per cent. for the 1975 crop, as the EEC Commission has proposed, it will be equivalent to £12·28 per ton. On top of this, the growers will get the pulp and transport allowances.
    Mr. MacGregor: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that there is great uncertainty among many beet growers in Norfolk— no doubt this is true of the rest of the country—about what commitment to make on their contracts next year? To say the least, many are unlikely to increase their acreage. Does the Minister realise that what is required in order to increase acreage for the United Kingdom on the A quota alone—let alone the B quota— which he successfully negotiated in Brussels, and which is so important to our balance of payments, is a clear statement to growers shortly after he returns from Brussels about the precise prices—not the percentage—that they will receive? Many believe that this, including the two other additions, should be at the level of £16

    1923
    a ton, and many growers will not commit themselves unless there is a cost escalation clause.
    Mr. Strang: I remind the hon. Gentleman that even under the old arrangements beet contracts were agreed before the price was announced in the following Annual Price Review. If the price proposed by the Commission is confirmed, it will represent an increase of 40 per cent. for 1975 crop prices and be 60 per cent. higher than the minimum price applicable for the 1973 crop. I am sure that that will be a great encouragement to producers to grow more beet.
    Mr. Spearing: Does my hon. Friend agree that there would either be more money to pay farmers for sugar beet or less money to be charged to consumers if the facilities at port refineries for white end refining were not duplicated by the British Sugar Corporation? Will he consider this problem to ensure that we do not invest too much in refining capacity and have two sets of refineries that may be complementary?
    Mr. Strang: My hon. Friend has raised an important point. The future structure of the refining industry is being considered by my right hon. Friend.
    Sir David Renton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that our sugar beet refining capacity this season—and quite often in recent years—has been under-employed? Will he bear that in mind and ensure that we have a realistic acreage that makes the fullest possible use of that refining capacity?
    Mr. Strang: I am sure the right hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that my right hon. Friend secured a substantial increase in the United Kingdom quota. The price to which I referred should provide a real encouragement to grow more beet.
    Mr. Pym: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that in the summer we urged that we should go to full EEC prices on 1st January, and that we shall welcome it when the Minister takes that step? The result will be an increase in price as he said, but does he accept that, because of the uncertainty that exists, there is a real risk that the extra quota that he negotiated will not be taken up? What is the Minister's estimate of the take-up of
    1924
    the quota on the new basis? Is he aware that many fanners are not offering contracts, even though in previous years they have not known the price before making contracts, because of the uncertainties and poor crops this year, and because they do not feel that the incentive is big enough? When the Minister returns from Brussels, therefore, it is important that he should announce the price and do everything he can to fill the maximum possible quota acreage.
    Mr. Strang: We accept that the greater the price the greater the incentive to beet growers. An increase of 40 per cent. is significant, and I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that it may be that some of those who have not signed contracts have been persuaded by publicity that has been given to the view that they should not sign but should hold back for a while.

    Energy Conservation
    Mr. Rostasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he has taken to assist and advise the industries with which his Department is concerned, to conserve energy.
    Mr. Strang: My Ministry is making every effort to give the industry practical information on methods of saving fuel.
    Mr. Rost: I appreciate that answer, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a year since the energy crisis arose and that other countries have implemented conservation projects? Does the hon. Gentleman not think it is time he got together with the Department of Energy and put into practice some constructive projects to conserve energy, with grant-aid technical assistance?
    Mr. Strang: I am happy to inform the hon. Gentleman that the Agricultural Research Council is rejigging its research to pursue projects to help use energy more efficiently in agriculture. The council is doing everything it can to promote the more efficient use of energy in agriculture.
    Mr. Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one part of the industry that is heavily dependent on fuel is horticulture? May we have an announcement very soon?
    Mr. Strang: The hon. Gentleman raises a very important point. We have got to adapt our economy to these high energy

    1925
    prices, and although it is very unpopular the horticulture industry itself must also adapt to these. That is why my right hon. Friend has announced that it will not be possible to extend the special subsidy granted by this Government.

    Import Levies
    Mr. Jayasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether in order to keep food prices down and strengthen the social contract, he will recommend the removal of all import levies and taxes on foodstuffs imported into the United Kingdom from outside the EEC.
    Mr. Maddenasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the purpose of the import taxes imposed on United Kingdom food imports from outside the EEC.
    Mr. Strang: Duties and other import charges are used, in the United Kingdom as elsewhere, to provide a measure of protection for our home industry, on which we largely depend for a secure supply of foodstuffs. As members of the Community, we are applying, by transitional stages, the common external tariff and levy arrangements for this purpose. World prices for most major commodities are currently in excess of Community levels. It does not follow, therefore, that the removal of all protection would keep down food prices.
    Mr. Jay: If it is really true that food available outside the EEC is not cheaper, what is the purpose of maintaining import quotas?
    Mr. Strang: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware that while we are implementing levies on butter, Cheddar cheese and canned ham under the Community arrangements, we are not operating a levy on certain other commodities, precisely because prices are higher than EEC prices.
    Mr. Scott-Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that many foodstuffs that we import from the EEC are cheaper than on the world market, thanks to our membership of the EEC? Does he not agree that the reason for keeping tariffs is to stop dumping in this country from outside and to stop subsidising below economic costs of production?
    Mr. Strang: That is true in the case of some commodities. One obvious example is sugar.
    Mr. Madden: Will my hon. Friend say when the next round of food levies is due and what effect the present range of food levies has on the retail price index?
    Mr. Strang: As EEC prices are raised, levies have to be raised unless there is to be an increase in world prices. Levies can have the effect only—after all, that is what they are designed to do—of increasing prices in the home market.
    Mr. Ridley: Since it is a fact that if we were not members of the Common Market our food would probably be dearer, do we not have to look for an ulterior motive in the minds of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)? Would not one of the strongest arguments to remain in the Community be the fact that the hon. Member for Bolsover is against it?
    Mr. Strang: I do not agree with those views. I would point out that the fact that in some cases world prices happen to be higher than Community prices does not affect some of the basic criticisms which many of us have always had about the CAP, as well as our feelings on the need to renegotiate the terms of membership as they apply to this country.

    Grassland
    Mr. Hooleyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what encouragement is being given to farmers to improve and cultivate pasture on a more extensive scale; and what variations in existing agricultural subsidies he estimates would be required to encourage the feeding of livestock by grass rather than grain.
    Mr. Bishop: The improvement and better use of grassland is an important objective of my advisory service. Under the farm capital grants scheme and the several hill subsidy schemes money is available to benefit grassland and encourage production from grass. The balance between grass and grain will be looked at in the forthcoming annual review.
    Mr. Hooley: I welcome that reply, but does not my hon. Friend agree that our grassland is an enormously valuable

    1927
    natural asset and that at the moment the farming community is not exploiting it as fully as it might? Does he not further agree that if we reduce dependence on imported grain we release food for people who are starving?
    Mr. Bishop: I welcome the emphasis that my hon. Friend places on the importance of the development of grassland. I refer him to my right hon. Friend's statement on 21st November regarding the recommendations to farmers contained in the report by the Economic Development Committee for Agriculture on grass and grass products and how they might best be disseminated to the industry. My hon. Friend should not overlook various aids already given to the development of grassland, including the farm capital grants scheme, the grants available to producers in the hill areas, and the grants at 70 per cent. for field drainage in hill areas. We have also brought forward the hill cow subsidy, available from 1st January, and we have increased the hill sheep subsidies. These aspects should be considered, along with the aid that we give to drainage schemes. I value my hon. Friend's support for these measures.
    Mr. Hicks: Is not improving the quality of our grassland one of the key aspects in increasing domestic food production in this country? Therefore, does not the Minister feel that he has an obligation to introduce further encouraging measures which will yield these results?
    Mr. Bishop: I largely agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I must point out that my right hon. Friend has given substantial increases in the areas where better use of grassland would be encouraged. I have already referred to the fact that a report is being considered, with the advice of ADAS, to encourage better use of grassland. If we can make better use of grassland, it will be better not only for home production but for our resources, which would be available to other parts of the world.
    Mr. Hooson: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that farmers who this year depended on grass in our marginal hill areas have found that it has been a disastrous time for them? They have had to buy fodder and straw at high prices. Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the whole question should be
    1928
    looked at from a national point of view? In my own area of mid-Wales farmers who have grown corn and barley are better off than those who have grown grass, because they have grain and straw, but from a national point of view this situation does not make much sense.
    Mr. Bishop: These matters are being looked at all the time. We are not responsible for the weather, which has caused difficulties with the feed situation. We shall be announcing proposals to deal with that situation. In the meantime, the hon. and learned Gentleman will not, I am sure, be unaware of the measures that we have taken to make it easier for farmers to provide feed for cattle, apart from the schemes of encouragement in relation to hill cow and hill sheep subsidies.
    Mr. Farr: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that one of the most efficient ways to conserve grass is by maintaining hedgerows, and that in this respect my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) ended the grant for ripping up hedgerows? Why has that grant now been reinstituted? Will the hon. Gentleman look into the possibility of again bringing this unwelcome form of aid to an end?
    Mr. Bishop: I do not want to get involved in any family quarrel between hon. Members on the Opposition side in relation to the ending of help, but I shall look into the aspects that the hon. Gentleman mentioned about the use of hedgerows.

    Beef Prices
    Mr. Brittanasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether it is his policy to provide guaranteed prices to British beef producers on a permanent basis.
    Mr. Hordernasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he will introduce to support beef producers after January 1975; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Peart: I refer the hon. Member to the assurance I gave in the debate on 25th November. It is my firm intention to secure arrangements from February onwards which will continue to give a measure of support to our beef industry

    1929
    equivalent to that given by the temporary arrangements introduced on 18th November.—[Vol. 882, c. 73–4.]
    Mr. Brittan: I welcome that answer, but does not the Minister accept that it is essential for beef producers not to live on a month-to-month basis if there is to be any assurance of adequate supplies in the future? Will he confirm that it is his intention that there should be not merely a measure of support but a permanent guarantee available to all beef producers?
    Mr. Peart: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomes my statement. He will appreciate that I have to go to the Community and negotiate this, when we discuss the beef régime in February.
    Mr. Hordern: When will the result of these negotiations be available? That is what farmers want to know. Will the Minister also give us a firm assurance that farmers will be given an absolute guarantee price upon which they can deal themselves?
    Mr. Peart: I have made a firm statement. I cannot say when negotiations will finish, but the beef year starts on 1st March, in the sense of fixing prices and matters affecting the industry. We are anxious to get things going much earlier and I shall certainly do what I can.
    Mr. Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that there is still a serious situation in agriculture, particularly in the livestock sector? Will he press the Leader of the House to set up a Select Committee on agriculture and to allow time for a debate on the export of live animals, which is a very important matter to the livestock farmers?
    Mr. Peart: I agree with the hon. Member about the O'Brien Report. The decision about a debate, which originally came up when a previous decision had been made in the House, will be a matter for the Leader of the House. I am well aware of its importance and have had considerable pressures from the industry. I understand the industry's point of view, and it knows that I am sympathetic, but this will be a matter for the House. The question of a Select Committee is a matter for my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Torney: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to give the
    1930
    beef industry a firm basis it would be a good idea to introduce a marketing board? If he agreed, would he start some machinery working for consultations with all sides of the industry for setting up such a board?
    Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend will appreciate that a decision on the question whether we should have a marketing board, similar to the Milk Marketing Board, for example, is a matter for the producers. The legislation is there. Within that, they can make certain decisions, but it will be for them, not for me, as the Minister.
    Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the interpretation of his last deal in Brussels was different from the interpretation given in this country, in so far as the deficiency payments structure has been regarded as a temporary exception and the intervention structure as permanent? Will he accept it from me that both the Labour Party and, I believe, this House would prefer it the other way round—that the intervention system was the temporary exception and the guaranteed price and deficiency payments system was made permanent?
    Mr. Peart: I thought I made it clear in my statement that I have completely reserved my position, so there is no question of that.
    Mr. Pym: The Minister referred to his assurance of 25th November, but does he recall his assurance on 26th June about a price of £18 a hundredweight, which he repeated on 17th July? In those circumstances, does he not think that he should make arrangements for retrospective payments to August at some convenient date, so as to be fair to those who believed what he said on 26th June?
    Mr. Peart: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not be so carping. The variable premium system that I have secured from the Community now gives something that hon. Members opposite never wanted. They believed in permanent intervention as a matter of supporting the Community. What I shall negotiate in February, I believe, will be along the lines of what I said earlier today. I am glad that Conservative back benchers at least have welcomed it.

    Milk
    Mr. Michael Marshallasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the arrangements of payments to farmers by the Milk Marketing Board.
    Mr. Bishop: Yes, Sir.
    Mr. Marshall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Chairman of the Milk Marketing Board has called on milk producers to produce extra milk during the winter months and that this appeal comes at a time when the banks are seeking extra security because of the falling value of cows? In those circumstances, will he consult the board to see whether Government assistance and encouragement could help in the way of advance payments from the board or in guaranteeing overdrafts in these difficult circumstances?
    Mr. Bishop: The measures announced on 3rd October were designed to increase the milk producers' return from 1st October for six months. The decisions of the Milk Marketing Board accorded with the terms and intentions of that statement. The chairman of the board welcomed the Government's announcement, and we think that it will help substantially. As for the future, that is a matter for the annual price review, which is now under way.
    Mr. Hicks: Does not the Minister agree that he is obliged to tell the milk producers when they are likely to know what will happen from 1st April 1975?
    Mr. Bishop: There is no difference between us here. We recognise the need for milk producers to have some idea of the future, but also, because of our membership of the Common Market, we cannot make a statement before negotiations are concluded. We hope to know something about that by the end of January or February next year.

  ENERGY CONSERVATION
  Ql Mr. Lamontasked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Energy, the Department of the Environ-
  1932
  ment, and the Department of Education and Science as regards the conservation of energy.
  Mr. Hurdasked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination of policy on energy conservation between the departments of Energy, Industry and the Environment.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Lamont: Is it not now quite clear that Britain's oil deficit this year will vastly exceed the extra £2,000 million forecast by the Chancellor in his Budget? Therefore, is it not all the more culpable that, one year after the Middle East war and nine months after the Government came to office, this country, unlike the United States, France and Holland, still does not have a proper energy conservation programme working? What is the misnamed Department of Energy taking so long about?
  The Prime Minister: Without arguing about the figures, it is certainly right, as the hon. Gentleman is trying to suggest, that we should be making the maximum savings in energy, although oil consumption per head is very low compared with the United States. However, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will be making a statement to the House in the near future on measures to conserve energy. These will be relevant and important measures, and we shall have to consider others, but we do not propose to follow our predecessors in trying to save energy by rota cuts on the domestic household and on industry, or by interference with industrial production.
  Mr. Mike Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to conserve energy the present electricity and gas tariffs as applied to the consumer are not satisfactory, in that they make consumption dearest for the small consumer and cheapest for the large? In the course of the current review of nationalised industry prices, will he give instructions that this consideration be taken into account?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Chancellor of the Exchequer referred to this matter in the Budget, as other Ministers have done in the House. This is

  1933
  certainly one of the important considerations relating to energy conservation, because there should be nothing in the tariffs which give the wrong incentives in terms of consumption.
  Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my hon. Friend's question. Does he not recall that the Chancellor of the Exchequer promised us a statement on this by the end of last month? Why are we lagging behind all the other main countries in the Western world?
  The Prime Minister: I do not accept that we are lagging behind. Measures already taken have saved about £150 million worth of imports at current import prices. Although this is a useful contribution, I think that the House would agree that we have to do much more. What we cannot rely on purely are voluntary measures, although they must make the biggest contribution. Nor can we rely on the price mechanism, apart from what my right hon. Friend said in the Budget. It is against this background that my right hon. Friend will be announcing further measures in the next few days.
  Mr. Horam: What discussions on this topic is my right hon. Friend involved in internationally, as opposed to purely national considerations?
  The Prime Minister: A good deal of international consultation is going on in this field—for example, between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his colleagues in Washington. My hon. Friend will also be aware, from the statements made after my talks with the Federal German Chancellor last weekend, that we spent a good deal of our time talking not only about the monetary aspects of the energy situation but also about energy itself and about international co-ordination in this field. When I met the President of France two days ago, this was one of the most important subjects that we covered. Of course, it will be very much discussed internationally at the European Council, the summit talks, in Paris on Monday and Tuesday of next week.

  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  Mr. Trotterasked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to Whitley Bay before the end of the year.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Trotter: Is the Prime Minister aware that if he were to visit Tyneside now he would find grave concern about the effect on industry of the naval cuts and that the unemployment is being moved from the dockyards in the South to the North? What does he propose to do to maintain employment in the seven yards which will suffer as a result of the cuts, particularly in the Royal Fleet Auxiliaries?
  The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence answered questions on these matters when he made his defence statement the other day. It is the intention that the House should debate these matters during, I think, the week after next. It is too early at this stage to make forecasts of employment in particular localities—for example, in the case of the naval expenditure programme—because the overall decisions which my right hon. Friend announced the other day have to be translated into terms of particular types of naval vessels, and this has not yet been done.
  Mr. Lipton: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that December is not a very good time of year to visit Whitley Bay?
  The Prime Minister: That may be true. When I have visited Whitley Bay I have have always been extremely fortunate in the weather there, and I have no reason to think that it would be otherwise, even in December. But I have no plans to go to Whitley Bay before the end of this month.
  Mr. Radiceasked the Prime Minister what plans he has to visit the Northern Region.
  The Prime Minister: I hope to visit the Northern Region soon, Sir.
  Mr. Radice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is always welcome in the Northern Region? Is he also aware, however, that despite all that the Government have done, the unemployment level in that region remains the highest in the United Kingdom, outside Northern Ireland? Is it not now time that the Government embarked upon a comprehensive review of all of their regional policies, particularly in relation to the Northern Region?
  The Prime Minister: These matters are under continual review. Successive Governments ever since the war have been improving the incentives for helping development areas. I spent a lot of time on this many years ago, and more recently. Indeed, in our discussions with Common Market countries we are very concerned to maintain as much freedom as we can have under the rules negotiated to be able to introduce new State aids on the part of the United Kingdom to help these areas.
  I agree that the anxieties in the Northern Region—they are shared by the area I represent in the House, Merseyside —are serious. My hon. Friend will know that in recent months we have doubled the rate of regional employment premium, tightened the industrial development certificate control in the non-assisted areas, and announced three new programmes of advance factories, including no fewer than 16 in the Northern Region.
  Sir W. Elliott: Will the Prime Minister accept that while one appreciates everything that is being done in the development areas, the continuing problem in the Northern Region is lack of skill, and that our high unemployment figure has always masked the shortage of skill? Will he take due note of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement in his Budget speech about the need for a review of the need for skills in the development areas, and will he take action forthwith?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about this matter. This has been a problem that we have faced not only in the Northern Region but in others for many years. That is one reason why it is important to have employment in the region to enable young people who can acquire skill to stay there. But it is a fact, and it has been a fact ever since the war, that in the Northern Region, which I know very well indeed, and in other areas one has to run very fast to stay in the same place. I agree that what we need is not merely new factories but a real chance of employment and training for those who leave schools in such areas.
  Mr. Thorpe: When the right hon. Gentleman goes to the North, will he bear in mind that there are some excellent local newspapers in the North, which I
  1936
  think he and I would agree are of the same standard of excellence as those on Merseyside and in the West Country? Is he aware that in the North there are many editors—some of whom I met last night —who are profoundly worried about the effect of the proposed closed shop in the newspaper industry? Is he aware that they are concerned not only about the independence of editors but about the fact that now contributors who are not members of the NUJ have, we are told, been able to submit articles to newspapers only twice a year? Not only would such a situation have prevented the nation from reading the right hon. Gentleman's own memoirs, as he is not a member of the NUJ, but it profoundly interferes with the freedom of the Press. Would he have anything comforting to say to these editors if he visited them?
  The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman was present when these matters were debated in the House the other evening. I was not present myself because I was in France. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment dealt with some of these questions. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman has had a chance to develop his knowledge by reading HANSARD. I think that he will already have seen the very full letter sent by my right hon. Friend to Mr. Denis Hamilton, which was published in yesterday's Press.
  I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and others who have raised this matter in the House that this is a very important question. It is a fact that one cannot— [An HON. MEMBER: "Answer."] This is a very important question. I get a little nauseated, perhaps, when I hear the phrase "freedom of the Press" used as freely as it is, knowing that a large part of our proprietorial Press is not free at all —[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—in the sense that no one could have written a pro-Market article in the Daily Express before October 1971 and no one could have written an anti-Market article in it afterwards.
  However, regarding the right hon. Gentleman's question, I think that these anxieties have been exaggerated. This has been dealt with by my right hon. Friend. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to study his statement.
  Mr. Ron Lewis: When my right hon. Friend visits the Northern Region, should he want a little relaxation may I invite him to my constituency, which is in that region? I can assure him that he will be greatly entertained by one of the finest teams still struggling in the First Division.
  The Prime Minister: It will be a change for me to take an interest in a team in the First Division. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, I have visited Carlisle many times. Indeed, I married a girl from the area.
  Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Prime Minister whether he will pay an official visit to Bottesford.
  The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to do so, Sir.
  Mr. Latham: Would not such a visit allow the Prime Minister to assure my local ratepayers that their rates increase next year, as a percentage, will not be allowed to exceed the annual rate of inflation, whatever that might be?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the problem of rating, which will be debated in the House in the very near future, has arisen both from the rate of inflation which the country has faced over the last year or two and from the fact that local government services have expanded very considerably in recent years, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said in his Budget Statement. The hon. Gentleman will also know that there has been a. very big boost to local authority expenditure because of the precise form, and everything that has happened under it, of the local government reorganisation introduced by the previous Government, which has greatly proliferated staffs. But he will know that we are giving local government in rate support grant £2,000 million more next year than the original figure for the year 1974–75, and we are also increasing this year's grant by £1,100 million, of which £350 million is a special allowance to tide local authorities over their present expenditure difficulties.
  Mr. Tomlinson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why ratepayers such as those in the constituency of the hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) are outraged is that they were
  1938
  encouraged to believe that there would be only a 9 per cent. increase in rates by the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) when he had responsibility for these matters in January this year?
  The Prime Minister: I think that impression was propagated fairly generally by the inaccurate statements and forecasts by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in question on the eve of the February election, but I have no information about whether these advices reached the citizens and burghers of Bottesford.
  Mr. Peyton: I think we all understand that the Prime Minister must be terribly torn in choosing between the alluring invitations that he receives. Will he decide at a fairly early date to accept one of them and to take the opportunity afforded by it to explain what the Government are going to do about inflation, rising prices and runaway wages?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that any matter has been more greatly debated in the House since the General Election as well as at both the General Elections, but I shall certainly consider what the right hon. Gentleman said. I have not yet decided whether the right medium for such a discussion would be Bottesford.

BAKING INDUSTRY (DISPUTE)
Mr. Raison Mr. Raison (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he would make a statement on the supply of bread.
The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): Industrial action by the Bakers' Union has had the effect of reducing commercial supplies of bread by about 75 per cent. I regret the inconvenience, even hardship, suffered as a result. The independent Conciliation and Arbitration Service has been exploring urgently with the two sides the possibilities of resolving the dispute. A reference to arbitration was agreed this morning, and I understand that the arbitrator will begin to hear the parties this afternoon. I very much regret that the union did not recommend an immediate return to work.
Mr. Raison: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the statement. We on the Conservative side share his regret that the union has not chosen to recommend a return to work now that arbitration has been agreed. May I have an assurance that the Secretary of State for Employment and the Minister of Agriculture will press this point as hard as they can? How long will it be after the strike ends before it is possible to go back to normal working? What is the position on supplies of alternatives to bread, including flour? What would be the effect on prices of the settlement offered and the settlement demanded by the union, and have the Government any plans to increase the bread subsidy? Does the Minister not agree that it is a fair commentary on life under the social contract that when the rather absurd provisions for displaying maximum prices for bread come in on Monday there will be precious little bread in the shops?
Mr. Peart: On arbitration, the size of the award and its costs are matters for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I do not wish to say anything that would harm discussions now being conducted by the arbitrator. We should leave this up to the arbitrator and see what emerges. There is plenty of flour in bulk; the problem is how to transport it to the retailers and bag it. We are looking at the situation carefully but I hope that as a result of the two sides going to arbitration the strike will soon be over.
Sir David Renton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the small independent bakers are providing the public with a very necessary service? Will he do everything he can to encourage them to continue with that service and ensure that nothing is done to prevent them from providing it?
Mr. Peart: I welcome the right hon. and learned Gentleman's statement. These bakers have done a fine job in difficult circumstances, and I pay tribute to them.
Mr. Torney: In addition to the small independent bakers, most of the large Cooperative bakers are still working and producing bread. Since the workers in these bakeries are trade unionists, does it not follow that the blame cannot be put just upon the members of the Bakers' Union?
1940
Rather, does it not indicate that some fault lies at the doors of the great multiple bakers who are not providing proper conditions of employment?
Mr. Peart: I agree with my hon. Friend about the Co-operative bakers, but it would be wrong at this stage to apportion blame. Let us try to get the dispute settled.
Mr. Pardoe: Without wishing to apportion blame, may I ask why the bakers are not prepared to go back to work even though arbitration has now been started? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell me in confidence — [Interruption.] — afterwards, if he wishes, or in writing, what will be the next half dozen essential food items for which my wife will have to queue?
Mr. Peart: I think that the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) is being totally irresponsible, and he knows it. I do not know why the union has not recommended a return to work. I wish that it had, but at least it is now going to arbitration.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend accept that the bakers are taking a leaf out of the book of the hospital consultants who are seemingly holding out for another £2,000 a year in exchange for the phasing out of a limited number of pay beds?
Mr. Peart: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) must appreciate that this is now a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment.
Mr. Tebbit: Since the Prime Minister has ruled that all his Ministers are responsible for the Government's efforts to enforce the social contract, will the right hon. Gentleman remind us whether the TUC guidelines suggest that where a claim goes to arbitration the workers involved should remain on strike or go back to work during that arbitration?
Mr. Peart: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment will answer that question when he makes a statement.
Mrs. Hayman: Will my right hon. Friend suggest to the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) that he

1941
might well in these days of hardship and sex inequality share the load with his wife and do some of the queueing himself?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Heath: In the absence of any reply from the Minister of Agriculture to the hon. Member for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mrs. Hayman), will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Edward Short): There was nothing to be said in reply to my hon. Friend.
The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9TH DECEMBER.—Private Members' motions until 7.0 p.m.
Afterwards, there will be a debate on police, which will arise on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Order.
Remaining stages of the Education Bill.
TUESDAY 10TH DECEMBER.—Remaining stages of the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill.
Motion on the Sheriffdoms Re-organisation Order.
WEDNESDAY 11TH DECEMBER.—Debate on Capital Punishment.
Consideration of any Lords amendments which may be received to the Social Security Amendment Bill.
Motion on EEC Document No. R/2976/73 on collective dismissals.
THURSDAY 12TH DECEMBER.—Motions on the Rate Support Grant Orders.
Remaining stages of the General Rate Bill.
Motions on the Northern Ireland Orders on Appropriation (No. 2), Financial Provisions, and Youth Employment Service.
FRIDAY 13TH DECEMBER.—Private Members' motions.
MONDAY 16TH DECEMBER.—There will be a defence debate, which will be continued on Tuesday, 17th December.
At the end on Monday, motion on the Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order.
The House will wish to know that, subject to progress of business, it is intended to propose that the House should rise for the Christmas Adjournment on Friday 20th December and resume on Monday 13th January 1975.
Mr. Heath: Will the Leader of the House now give a clear indication of the form he expects the debate on capital punishment to take on Wednesday? Will he also give a clear indication, if possible, that there will be a debate on the O'Brien Report, which we discussed last week, before the House rises for the recess? I must emphasise the importance of that subject.
Will the Leader of the House be much more precise than the Prime Minister was in answer to Questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Lamont) and Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd) about the statement of the Secretary of State for Energy on energy conservation? This was promised in November but we have still not had it. May we be told a specific date on which the Secretary of State will make his statement?
Mr. Short: The debate on capital punishment will be on a motion. I hope very much that it will be a back-bench motion. I shall see tomorrow what motions are tabled and decide which one to use.
I said last week that I was very sorry but it was not possible to debate the O'Brien Report before Christmas. However, I undertake to have a debate, if possible, in the first week when we return.
The statement on the conservation of energy will be made on Monday.
Mr. John Davies: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Scrutiny Committee has recommended that document R/2829/74, which deals with the European Economic Community's economic and financial situation, and which is in large degree a response to the Government's request for renegotiation, should be discussed at the same time as the document which the Government have circulated as a White Paper, Cmnd. 5790,

1943
reviewing Community developments from March to October? In the former Parliament the right hon. Gentleman gave an assurance that such White Papers would be debated regularly. At what time will it be possible to have a debate on both these important documents?
Mr. Short: I shall look into the right hon. Gentleman's first point. I hope that we shall be able to devote a day to the six-monthly report in the last week before Christmas. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman should have felt it necessary to go to the Press yesterday because of a grievance. If he has grievances about the way the machinery is working, I hope he will come to me. I think he will agree that when he has done so in the past we have had fruitful discussions on these matters.
Mr. Jay: As the debate on the EEC energy orders on Tuesday night was curtailed before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State could finish his speech, before he could answer questions, and before the House could reach a decision, can my right hon. Friend agree that the debate will be resumed next week or at an early date? Will my right hon. Friend the Minister in any case make a further statement? Can we have a more reasonable time for these important debates in future?
Mr. Short: I am very sorry that it will not be possible to give any more time to this debate. We have given some time to it, and there is no more time available for it. This illustrates the difficulties being caused for the House by our entry into the EEC.
Mr. Michael Hamilton: On Friday a motion was supported by speakers on both sides of the House, and was supported by 25 Members in the Lobby, none voting against, but, the House having been up all night, fewer than 40 Members voted. Therefore, the question stands open. Will the Leader of the House save the time of the House and prevent the need to reintroduce the motion? Does he recognise that the majority of Members would prefer planning inquiries to be held in public, with the sole exception of cases involving defence and national security? If so, will he prevail upon his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to make a statement
1944
accordingly, and thus reverse matters to the pre-1967 position?
Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman is an ex-Whip, and I do not think that he has a complaint about what happened in the House. He should be grateful to my right hon. Friend for intervening to save Friday's business. There is nothing I can do about the matter, but we should express some gratitude to my right hon. Friend for ensuring that there was, at any rate, some opportunity to debate this matter.
Mr. Guy Barnett: During the long Recess the Department of Education and Science published a White Paper entitled "Educational Disadvantage And The Educational Needs Of Immigrants", Cmnd. 5720. That was a reply to an important report on education produced by the Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration. In that reply, the Government turned down the two major recommendations of the Select Committee. Can my right hon. Friend at least give us an undertaking that the House will have an opportunity to debate that reply and the Select Committee's report?
Mr. Short: I agree that it is an extremely important matter. I shall bear it in mind, and see what can be done in the new year.
Mr. Jasper More: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider what he said about the O'Brien Report? After the expectations we have had, it will be widely considered to be an absolute disgrace if we do not have the debate before the Christmas Recess.
Mr. Short: The disgrace is that the Conservatives did nothing about the report when they were in office. At the request of the House, some time ago I intervened personally and got the consultations on it concluded. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is now ready to come to the House, but there is no time. One of the reasons is the great complications being made for the people who arrange the business of the House by the great volume of European legislation.
Mr. James Lamond: Will my right hon. Friend ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry to make a statement next week about his proposals to protect the textile industry, which faces a serious recession, partly

1945
due to our membership of the EEC? An indication of the seriousness of the situation is that Courtaulds Ltd., one of the firms which have invested very much in the industry, found it necessary today to announce the laying off of many hundreds of my constituents in the Old-ham area, employed in the 11 mills which the company has in the North-West, for four days immediately following the Christmas holidays.
Mr. Short: I know of my hon. Friend's concern, and the concern of many hon. Members on both sides of the House, about the situation in the textile industry. There was a short debate recently, I think, instituted by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith). However, I shall bear in mind what my hon. Friend has said and pass it on to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry. But I point out to my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend is, I think, first for Questions on Monday of next week.
Mr. Hooson: In view of the great importance for agriculture of a decision on the ban on the export of live animals, is it possible for the matter to be debated on a Supply Day, if the Opposition supply the day? Is such a day available?
Mr. Short: It would be possible to debate the matter on a Supply Day, but I have said that the Government will provide time for it. I think that we should. There is one Supply Day before Christmas, but I understand that it is the Supply Day which we hope will be devoted to the six-monthly report on the EEC. This is one more example of the complications being caused by the EEC.
Mr. Spriggs: Hon. Members have made efforts through you, Mr. Speaker, to obtain a ruling on, or advice about, the sub judice rule applied in the House and its inhibiting effect upon Members asking questions. Will my right hon. Friend get together with you, Mr. Speaker, and obtain a report on behalf of hon. Members?
Mr. Short: I am sure that this is a matter for you, Mr. Speaker. I talk to you freely, but if you felt that it would be fruitful at any time for me to talk to you specifically about this matter, I should be happy to do so, of course.
Mr. Berry: What has happened to the Bill incorporating the compulsory use of seat belts? If it is to be abandoned after one hour's debate on Second Reading, would it not be a good thing to abandon many other Bills after one hour's debate on Second Reading?
Mr. Short: I tried to oblige the House on this matter, and agreed to adjourn the debate if we had not had much time on the Bill. We adjourned it, and after that a number of emergency matters intervened. There is just no time before Christmas but it will be put down for Second Reading again after Christmas.
Mr. Leslie Huckfield: When will the House hear a statement from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the Government's response to the Younger Committee's Report on Privacy? There are reports of widespread use by the Army and the police in Northern Ireland of computers to store personal information, and the possible extension of that practice to use the national police computer and the vehicle licensing computer in the rest of the country. Is it not imperative that we have a statement on the Government's attitude on this most important matter urgently?
Mr. Short: I agree that it is an extremely important matter. The law of privacy, or the lack of a law of privacy, is one of the great blind spots in our law. I shall convey to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary what my hon. Friend has said.
Mr. Costain: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that some three or four weeks ago the House decided that the Channel Tunnel Bill should be reintro-duced? Does he appreciate that a number of my constituents' compensation depends on the reintroduction of the Bill? Will he say when the Bill will be brought back? Will it be re-introduced before Christmas? If the Secretary of State is going to kill the scheme on the instructions of the French, will the Leader of the House get his right hon. Fnend to come to the House and say so frankly?
Mr. Short: The hon. Gentleman must have known that my right hon. Friend made a long statement on this matter and answered a great many questions.
Mr. Luard: Is my right hon. Friend aware that since this Parliament began we have had no debate on foreign affairs? I know that he is pressed for time, but can he give us an undertaking that, even if he cannot arrange such a debate before Christmas, he will arrange for one to take place shortly after the return after Christmas?
Mr. Short: I shall convey my hon. Friend's point to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. He intervened in the debate on the Gracious Speech, so time was available then. I hope very much that in the last week before Christmas there will be at least a full day's debate on EEC matters.
Mr. Charles Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the farmers will be deeply shocked and further disillusioned by the Government if there is no debate on the O'Brien Report before Christmas? If there should not be time for such a debate, will he ask his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to consider making a statement and at least raising the ban on the export of store cattle rather than the export of cattle for slaughter?
Mr. Short: I shall pass on that point to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Buchan: Has my right hon. Friend seen Early-Day Motion No. 91? I welcome the commitment to have a debate on EEC matters before Christmas. Does he agree that this is the first going-back on a major success that we have achieved in the negotiations? Does he not agree that the motion should be debated and accepted, so that the House can make its judgment on what many of us regard as an immoral method of financing agriculture—namely, intervention buying?
[That this House considers that intervention buying of meat should not be implemented in this country unless and until this proposal has been debated and approved by the House of Commons.]
Mr. Short: Intervention buying is only a small part of the matter. I agree that this matter is urgent because the present arrangment expires at the end of January. I think that my right hon. Friend will wish to listen to the views of the House before he concludes his final agreement.
Mr. Peyton: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the question of discussing the O'Brien Report that has been raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Devizes (Mr. Morrison) and Ludlow (Mr. More)? The right hon. Gentleman produced an uncharacteristic riposte when he said that the previous administration had not given the House an opportunity to discuss the report. My recollection—I may be wrong—is that the report was published in February 1974. That hardly offered an opportunity for the previous administration to arrange a debate in the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reconsider this matter. It is a matter of great importance in agricultural constituencies. I need not remind him how depressed and unhappy many people feel in such constituencies.
Secondly, I refer to the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill. It is proposed to take the remaining stages on Tuesday next. Many amendments are being tabled from both sides of the House. I understand that my right hon. and hon. Friends have some 60 amendments in mind. I also understand that there are Government amendments and amendments from other sources as well. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to consider the matter again and be prepared to take a reasonable view if adequate progress is not made on Tuesday.
Mr. Short: I have said clearly for the past two weeks that there is no time to debate the O'Brien Report before Christmas. I regret this as much as anyone in the House. There just is not time to debate it. Arranging the business of the House, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, is a matter of priorities. There are other matters to be debated before the O'Brien Report. I have undertaken to do all that I can to ensure that the O'Brien Report is debated.
Mr. Wiggin: What priorities?
Mr. Short: I should have thought that our membership of the EEC was of some importance to the British people. That has to be debated, as has the Finance Bill. If the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) has anything to say, perhaps he will stand up and say it and not say it whilst remaining seated. I will undertake, if at all possible, to

1949
have a debate on the O'Brien Report in the first week when we come back.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the Offshore Petroleum Development (Scotland) Bill. I have checked the matter carefully. Ten Government amendments have been tabled and there are approximately seven issues to be debated. So far there is only one non-Government amendment. That guided us in our arrangements, but we shall see how we get on next Tuesday.
Mr. Mike Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that in the statement of the Secretary of State for Energy on Monday on energy conservation he will deal with the question of nationalised industries' tariffs? If not, will he give us an assurance that Early-Day Motion No. 98, which has been signed by nearly 100 of my hon. Friends, will be debated in the near future?
[That this House urges Her Majesty's Government in the course of its current review of nationalised industries' prices to take steps to ensure that the regressive nature of the tariffs in the electricity, gas and telecommunications services, whereby the smallest and poorest consumers—particularly old age pensioners—pay the highest prices, be brought to an end.]
Mr. Short: I cannot anticipate my right hon. Friend's statement on Monday, nor can I promise at this moment any debate on Motion No. 98.
Mr. Percival: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the many back benchers who have signed one or more of the motions relating to the death penalty will appreciate the fact that he has responded to their wishes and made time available
1950
next week instead of the week after? Is he aware that we are also glad to have heard the answer that he gave to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition as to the form which the debate may take? Will he go a little further? He referred initially in his Business statement to a debate on capital punishment. Will he give us an indication of when the motion is likely to be available? When will it be tabled? If it is in general terms, such as suggested in the right hon. Gentleman's original statement, will he assure the House that it will be in such form as to permit of amendment to raise the narrower and separate issue of the death penalty for terrorism?
Mr. Short: Almost any motion would be amendable in that way by deleting certain words and substituting other words. The hon. and learned Gentleman need have no fear on that point. With regard to the tabling of the motion, I said earlier that I thought that the best thing would be for me to wait until tomorrow to see what back-bench motions have been tabled. If at all possible, the Government will take a back-bench motion and make that the motion for the debate. That is the traditional way of debating this subject in the House.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. Many hon. Members wish to speak in the next debate. It is an important debate.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Ordered,
That the Elections (Welsh Forms) Regulations 1974 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments.—[Mr. Dormand.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [4TH ALLOTTED DAY]—considered
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Dormand.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND
  3.58 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): It is right that a new Parliament should take this opportunity to consider the continuing problem of Northern Ireland. Although to some, Northern Ireland affairs may appear remote, we must remember that they are the responsibility of the Westminster Government and Parliament. From the close and detailed knowledge that I have as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, I am clear that there are a number of key factors which must shape our policy.
  First, in the present situation, without the Army, there would be civil war. The only hope of avoiding a catastrophe in Northern Ireland—brought about by terrorist acts—is to retain an Army capacity to prevent a bloody confrontation between the two communities. Of course, it is right, if possible, to make a reduction in the Army, and this has been done. Army strength has been reduced from 16 to 13 battalions this year.
  Second, we are faced in Northern Ireland with a split society. The two communities, Protestants and Roman Catholic, have developed as they have because of different religions, different origins, different social customs and different histories. Northern Ireland is in this respect unlike England, Scotland or Wales. Any form of government for the Province must take into account the split community there.
  Third, Northern Ireland is governed directly from Westminster because there is at present no alternative form of stable government in the Province to which power can be devolved.
  Fourth, we do not intend—nor could we, if we wished—to drive Northern
  1952
  Ireland into the Republic, and the Republic would not want it.
  Against this background, we must, on security, try to reduce violence from wherever it may come, and, in politics, to seek, through a Convention elected by the people of Northern Ireland, a degree of participation between the communities which can lead to a stable and effective government. Above all, our policy must be a policy for Northern Ireland—a policy, whether on security or politics, which involves all the people there.
  We must face the facts of violence in Northern Ireland, but it is important to keep them in perspective. I published yesterday detailed security statistics which show a significant overall reduction in the level of violence. There were 115 bomb incidents a month in 1972; these fell to 81 a month in 1973, and to 57 a month this year. Shooting incidents have fallen from over 10,000 in 1972 to 3,052 up to 30th November this year.
  The security forces are achieving remarkable successes, and it would be wrong to underestimate them. The tight security in town centres, vehicle check points, control over explosives and other measures have combined substantially to reduce the level of violence. This year, by 30th November, more than 11 tons of explosives had been seized andi 153 persons charged with explosive offences. During the same period, 1,291 persons were charged with terrorist offences, and during last month alone 134 were charged. The co-operation of the community is beginning to tell. As I shall tell the House, the co-operation of the community has improved very greatly in the last week or two.
  Assassination has been a mode of terrorism over the years. The recent murder of two members of the judiciary by the Provisional IRA has sparked off the latest wave of killings. But the police, whenever they can enter an area and obtain evidence, bring persons before the courts, and 12 people have been charged with murder in respect of these crimes. In addition, during November, I signed 23 interim custody orders. Since Sunday, I have signed a further nine orders.
  I want to say something to the House here in terms of the way in which the situation is seen in Northern Ireland, in that I sign more interim custody orders

  1953
  for the Catholic community than I do for the Protestant community. All I would say to that is that if the police could get into the Catholic areas the situation would change. The proper comparison in such a situation is between the number of Catholics who have been made the subject of interim custody orders and the number of Protestants going through the courts. That is the true comparison to make, and by it the situation looks very different.
  It is not the wish of the British people that the Army should continue indefinitely in Northern Ireland to fulfil a rôle that is properly that of the police. A planned, orderly and progressive reduction in the Army presence can and will follow the ending of the present campaign of violence, but the Army will not be withdrawn so long as it is needed to support the RUC in maintaining law and order. There must first be wholehearted community support for the police.
  The RUC deserves great credit. Since 1969, it has undergone a fundamental reorganisation. Morale is now high, and detection rates are constantly improving. The recent changes involving the expansion of the RUC Reserve and the introduction of the local police posts provide a means by which the community can increasingly play a part in policing their own areas.
  We must, however, strive for ever greater improvement in the security situation. The best way forward is through more widespread co-operation with the police.
  In many areas, intimidation is still a basic problem. In this year alone, there have so far been 133 punishment shootings in both communities. The majority of the victims have been knee-capped. This is the terrorist form of justice—a penalty administered after a decision by a kangeroo court. There are degrees of knee-capping. A shot through the muscle above the knee cripples probably temporarily; a shot from the front of of the knee is more permanent; and one from behind the knee destroys the joint forever. This system has, however, been refined. I gather, from information given to me, that some Loyalist knee-capping is now carried out with a Black and Decker electric drill.
  1954
  It ill becomes O'Connell, the TV mouthpiece of the Provisional IRA, to say:
  "Our whole campaign has been geared to avoid civilian casualties."
  Hundreds of civilians in Northern Ireland have been killed as a result of terrorist activity, predominantly by the Provisional IRA, and the memory of that will linger on in a way that some people do not realise.
  I have informed the House of my recent use of Section 10 of the Emergency Provisions Act. Tonight, I shall be asking the House to renew those powers for a further six months. I hope to publish early in the New Year the report of the Gardiner Committee, which I set up last April to review the Emergency Provisions Act.
  The House will not expect me to anticipate what Lord Gardiner may recommend, nor what action the Government may take in the light of his report, which I have yet to receive. But I would like to say one thing. Detainees are held not for their political views but because of their involvement in violence.
  It is sometimes argued that the British Government are treating people held in detention as hostages. The truth is that the extremist organisations—and this means, above all, the Provisional IRA, on balance—are using these men as pawns since, by ending their campaign of violence, these organisations could transform this whole situation. Indeed, it would then become possible to consider further changes in the custodial system. A reduction in violence would create an entirely new situation. But I am not prepared to put the lives of members of the security forces at risk for a political whim, and no politician has the right to do that. I turn now to the political aspect.
  Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Has the right hon. Gentleman addressed his mind to the question of special category status for prisoners, many of whom are thereby induced to accept that they may benefit from any subsequent amnesty, which could reduce the deterrent effect of long sentences?
  Mr. Rees: The right hon. Gentleman has raised a very important matter, and it will be particularly relevant when we consider the whole system in the light of

  1955
  the Gardiner Report. It is an administrative system, and, from the administrative pattern of the last two years, there is no doubt in my mind that people claim political status for murders which were not politically motivated when they were carried out. Thus, to them the question of special category status is a means of hope for release in the long term. In such cases, however, their hope will not be realised.
  Now I turn to the political aspect, which is entering a new and important phase—the setting up of the Convention. The previous Government endeavoured in the Constitution Act 1973, to find a way in which devolved government could take place in Northern Ireland on the basis of consent. This followed upon long and widespread consultations with the political communities in Northern Ireland and with many individual citizens. I want to make clear my support for what the Conservative Government did at that time.
  The Executive fell because it lacked support from one section of the Protestant community, whose fears were aroused over what is called "the Irish dimension". That 1973 Act is still on the statute book and some parts of it may in time provide a basis for a way forward. This should be taken into account by the Constitutional Convention, for which I expect elections to be held early next year.
  We want to see devolved government again in Northern Ireland. We cannot agree to this, however, until we are satisfied that there exists both a workable system of devolved government and a willingness by political parties in Northern Ireland to make it work. It is only a system which commands support and respect throughout all parts of the community that will contain within itself the seeds of future stability.
  The Convention will provide the opportunity for elected representatives from both communities to come together for the good of Northern Ireland. I have made it clear that no British Government could—even if it wished—drive the North into the South. I would also remind the House of what the Taoiseach said in the Dail on 14th March this year:
  "I now, therefore, solmenly reaffirm that the factual position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom cannot be changed except by a decision of a majority of the people of
  1956
  Northern Ireland. This declaration, I believe, is in accordance with and follows from the resolve of all the democratic parties in the Republic that the unity of Ireland is to be achieved by peaceful means and consent."
  That there is an "Irish dimension" in Northern Ireland affairs, however, is a fact. And it is a practical relationship which ought to exist between two good neighbours with a common land boundary.
  I now come to the Convention itself. It has only one task: to make recommendations about the future constitution of Northern Ireland. In the words of the 1974 Act:
  "what provision for the government of Northern Ireland is likely to command the most widespread acceptance throughout the community there".
  It is not a legislature.
  In order to provide background for informed discussion in the Convention, I have already published two discussion papers. The first sets out financial and economic facts about Northern Ireland. Any system of devolved government must take account of financial and economic realities. The intention of this document is to provide a realistic background against which future discussions can take place.
  Not the least important point is that any Government has to operate and allocate within a budget. The very language of priorities means that hard choices have to be made. Everything cannot be done at once. As long as there is direct rule, the Westminster Government are entirely responsible for social and economic matters and for determination of priorities in expenditure. My right hon. Friend, the Minister of State, will deal with some of the matters in his speech if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  My second discussion paper is concerned with the procedural questions which must be settled to ensure that the discussions within the Convention take place smoothly and effectively. These will ultimately be a matter for the members of the Convention, but in deciding how to order their affairs, they will need to consider the subjects set out in the discussion paper, such as the procedures for working and the nature of expert advice which may be required.
  Preparations for the Convention are already under way. With the agreement

  1957
  of the Presiding Officer to the Northern Ireland Assembly, which is at present prorogued, I have invited Mr. Blackburn, the Clerk to the Assembly, as I told the House the other day, to undertake discussions with the leaders of the various political groups in Northern Ireland to make the preliminary arrangements necessary to ensure that the Convention can be ready to start soon after the elections have taken place. I will in due course announce the name of the Chairman.
  Early in the New Year, I intend to publish a third discussion paper which will set out—again as background for the discussion by the Convention—a wide range of methods by which devolved Governments can achieve effective genuine participation and protection of human rights in societies which have split communities. It will set out some possibilities which may, individually or in combination, be helpful. The wider the Convention ranges over such subjects, the better. What is important is that the Convention should be seeking agreement among all parts of the community.
  Mr. Leo Abse: Given the appalling background which my right hon. Friend has indicated, and given the wretched history of this matter, may I ask what contingency plans my right hon. Friend has in the event of the failure of what seems to many of us a very unreal effort being made at the moment through the Convention? In short, how long must my constituents continue to subsidise Northern Ireland if the people there are not prepared to take a decision on power sharing? What docs my right hon. Friend do if this scheme fails?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): In view of the large number of hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate I appeal for interventions to be as brief as possible.
  Mr. Rees: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in this matter. Of course Governments consider what will happen in the event of failure. To have informed discussion on this subject, I say to my hon. Friend that it does matter to visit Northern Ireland and to stand on the junction of the Shankill and the Falls. I think I could say that it would concentrate the mind admirably and might lead to clearer thoughts on the future. But the discussions have to take place.
  1958
  Methods of protecting the interests of the individual will, I hope, be considered by the Convention. But it is important that there should be no misunderstanding about what has already been achieved in Northern Ireland by the 1973 Act, which contains extensive protection for human rights. Discrimination on the grounds of religious belief or political opinion is prohibited in legislation or in the administration of the law. There is a right of appeal to the Privy Council on the terms of legislation, and to the courts on questions of administration.
  There is a Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights, and we are most fortunate in having Lord Feather as its Chairman. There is a Parliamentary Commissioner and also a Commissioner for Complaints who can investigate any complaint alleging maladministration involving discrimination. These provisions are more far-reaching than exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom, and it is my intention to extend them at the earliest posible opportunity by legislation which will make discrimination in employment an offence.
  It is to be hoped that, despite firmly held views, members of the Convention will not shrink from the task of exploring all possible constitutional solutions likely to commend themselves to the people as a whole. It is, after all, the people of Northern Ireland who must find their own solutions, and I believe this is a challenge which should evoke a response from the men and women of good sense in all organisations who have sought to portray themselves as patriots.
  It has been argued from all sides in Northern Ireland that it is only by Irishmen getting together in discussion among themselves that solutions can be found to the problems of their political future. The Constitutional Convention offers an opportunity for all shades of opinion to participate in such discussion, and people throughout these islands will expect all those with strong views about that political future to seize this unique opportunity.
  Mr. Bob Cryer: My right hon. Friend is attaching much importance to the Convention and I hope that he is right to do so. Can he explain the seeming lack of urgency about getting it off the ground?
  Mr. Rees: The Executive fell in May. The legislation was introduced in July. There needed to be a time for people to assess their own situation. I could not conceive of an election coming, as it obviously would have come, in the middle of a United Kingdom election. It would have been wrong to have an election in Northern Ireland immediately afterwards. Therefore setting up the Convention in the New Year is not a sign of a lack of urgency. In my view it is facing up to the facts of the situation.
  It is important to note that it is not just a question of getting elected members together for a chat. The Convention has to be properly structured and arranged to consider the wide scale of matters that are so important for the people of Northern Ireland. What I say on the question of participation is that it is not inappropriate to remark that recently the official Sinn Fein recognised the importance of pursuing its aims through the political process.
  This is a sober and testing time for the people of Northern Ireland. It is they who must create the circumstances in which progress can be made. Law, order and stability are not brought about by armies or by the police alone. They depend upon the desire, willing co-operation and indeed positive support of the people of Northern Ireland. It is not good enough to ask for assassination to be brought to an end, and simultaneously to ask for the immediate and indiscriminate release of detainees—and at the same time to withold support from the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is not good enough to say that law and order is essential to Northern Ireland and to purport to bring this about by setting up violent para-military organisations.
  It is not good enough for people to say that they want to live peaceably but to withold information from the security forces by which violent men can be brought to justice. Law and order, as we know it, depends on the responsible and willing co-operation of politicians and people alike in Northern Ireland.
  The Convention provides the opportunity for progress. The Government are pursuing a steady and consistent policy of giving the people of Northern Ireland a chance to show, through the Conven-
  1960
  tion, that they can work together responsibly to devise institutions of government which are fair to all.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: The Secretary of State made an important point. He promised that a draft concerning the emergency provisions that we passed last week would be laid before the House. Can he tell us when that will be available so that we can see, from the security point of view, bearing in mind the action taken on this side of the water, what reciprocal action he is taking in Northern Ireland?
  Mr. Rees: The orders are subject to negative resolution. They arise out of the Home Secretary's Act and are being laid today. I suggest that it would be better for hon. Members to read them.
  On the political side, Stormont came to an end in 1972; the Executive established under the 1973 Act fell earlier this year. New forms of government must be proof against the tensions and strains in Northern Ireland society. No constitutional device will alone resolve the problems of a split society. What we are trying to do is to bring about a new attitude, a willingness to work together whatever machinery of government may be introduced in Northern Ireland. We have been laying the groundwork for this; now we are ready for the next positive step—that is, the elections to the Constitutional Convention.
  We are asking the people of Northern Ireland to put their ideas to us here at Westminster. I have talked about the needs of Northern Ireland; I have talked about an Irish dimension. What I now say is that there is a Westminster dimension, because it is here, in this Parliament, that ultimate decisions will be taken.
  4.22 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: The Secretary of State gave encouraging figures about the level of violence, the number of arrests recently made and the number of arms and explosives finds.
  I begin, as he did, with the security position. Recent events here have helped to give people a better understanding of the Ulster situation. We have seen a wave of anger, horror and revulsion break over Britain as a result of the Birmingham

  1961
  outrage, and we have also seen something, fortunately small, of a backlash against the Irish population in Birmingham and elsewhere. When we remember that the people of Ulster have had to put up with this sort of thing for about five years, it is not surprising that they have looked at their political situation in a quite different way from that in which most people on this side of the Irish Channel have looked at it.
  Too many of us here have been inclined to condemn the atrocities in Northern Ireland, perhaps to put them on one side, and to expect the Irish to behave as though the atrocities had not happened, were not still happening and would not continue to happen.
  The climate of violence makes ordinary democratic politics very difficult. Democracy is hard pressed even when it is fighting an external war. However, when a great deal of violence is going on within a free country, people stop thinking in the traditional democratic categories. They are naturally, and almost exclusively, concerned with their personal security and that of their families and friends. Future democratic arrangements become almost an irrelevance except in so far as they promise, or seem likely to bring about, an end to the violence and terror. After the M6, the Tower of London, the Guildford and the Birmingham outrages, we understand rather better than we did how Ulster people have been feeling over the past few years.
  As the Secretary of State said, judged purely by the amount of violence, the security situation is much better than it was. There have been some particularly horrible sectarian murders, or murders that have been classed as sectarian murders. By every measurement, the level of violence is down from last year and much further down from its level in 1972. Unfortunately, a much lower level of violence now has the same effect on the morale of the population of Ulster as did a much higher level of violence a few years ago. That is wholly understandable because the average person's tolerance of violence does not increase or remain the same. It diminishes very sharply.
  The Secretary of State has, rightly, always made much of the importance of the policing problem. He gave some figures last week during Question Time.
  1962
  The fact remains that large tracts of Northern Ireland are still without normal policing. While I know their difficulties, I must say that I regret the refusal of the Social Democratic and Labour Party to support the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I know there is much prejudice against the Royal Ulster Constabulary stemming from the events of 1968 and 1969. But it seems to me that much more could be done to persuade the minority community that the RUC is now largely a new force. As the right hon. Gentleman said, there has been a fundamental reorganisation. Since 1969, 40 per cent. of the RUC have joined the new force. It is a new structure. It has a new command. It has a Roman Catholic chief constable. Its deputy is from the Metropolitan Police. The Londonderry commander is also a Roman Catholic.
  It may be that much more could be done to make the RUC more attractive to Catholics and more likely to attract Catholic recruits. No doubt the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) will tell us about his attitude to this matter. I am sure that more support from the politicians for the RUC is essential if the fight against terrorism is ever to be successful.
  The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the reductions in the Army and in the level of military forces in Northern Ireland. The Conservative Government began that policy, and we support its continuance. We all agree that the more the policing of the Province is carried out by the police rather than by the Army, the better for everyone. The Army has continued to perform its task superbly. The more it can be relieved of it, and the more it can be kept off the streets, the more pleased everyone will be.
  No doubt those who are in command are continually looking where the presence of soldiers is necessary and where it is no longer necessary. After a time, soldiers, however well behaved —ours have been incredibly well behaved —can become an irritant rather than a soothing influence. Often the best people to judge are the people on the spot, that is to say the battalion and company commanders.
  We read today of the very sophisticated methods now being used by the Army. In the present security situation in

  1963
  Northern Ireland, I welcome the use of those methods.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I agree that computers and that kind of techniques have a very adaptable use in this context, but will the Secretary of State bear in mind that once information is put on the computerised file it is very difficult to remove it? If people have to face the possibility of this kind of information being recorded for or against them for the rest of their lives, that is not a very inviting prospect.
  Mr. Gilmour: It may not be a very inviting prospect, but it is much more inviting than the continuance of terrorism. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's fears but, within the context of the present security situation in Northern Ireland, they must be very much less important than the use by the Army of all available proper methods to bring about a reduction in terrorism.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: We are talking as though the information given in the newspaper was correct. Of course, the Army and the police keep intelligence records. They would be failing in their duty if they did not. Vehicle records are checked using a computer for the purpose. One is also used in Great Britain. We are discussing vehicle checking on a computer.
  Mr. Gilmour: The Secretary of State need not be sensitive on this point——
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): The writer of the newspaper article is not a member of the Government. My right hon. Friend is.
  Mr. Gilmour: I am not suggesting that The Times correspondent is a member of the Government. All I say is that the Secretary of State need not be sensitive about the Army using up-to-date methods to deal with terrorism.
  Leaving aside those sophisticated methods, I still think that more could be done by way of car or vehicle documentation. Less sophisticated means could be adopted. Obviously it is not possible to inspect the documents of every vehicle crossing the border, but stricter documentation surely would make random checks more effective.
  1964
  Even more important than that is the gaining of greater co-operation from the Republic. We all know the difficulties. But it is high time that the Republic was far more active on the border than it has been in the past. I hope that the publication of the Bill yesterday about trials in the Republic, with all its defects, is a sign that the Irish Government will at last tighten their security along the border.
  Mr. Carol Mather: Is it not true that the restrictions on interrogation techniques are having the effect that less information is coming from interrogation?
  Mr. Gilmour: I am not in a position to answer my hon. Friend's question. But I get the impression that the flow of intelligence is very good. It may be that there could be even more with different interrogation methods. But I do not think that the security forces are lacking good intelligence at the moment.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: The right hon. Gentleman spoke of co-operation from the Republic, and he tended to give the impression that the Republic was not doing all that it could to stop the flow of terrorists. If he has the figures, can he tell us the number of people imprisoned in the Republic who have been apprehended for terrorist offences, who come from Northern Ireland and who therefore are an indigenous British problem, and how many of those apprehended are from the South?
  Mr. Gilmour: I have not those figures available, but I am not altogether sure that they are relevant. We are talking about people going across the border, and I am saying that there should be more control on the border. It does not matter what nationality they are. There should be more control on the south side of the border.
  Turning now to politics, the Secretary of State told us a little about the Convention, but not very much. The object of the Convention is that Ulstermen should reach a political solution on their own. I do not make too much complaint of that. The object is that they should come together and produce something after discussion amongst themselves. Therefore it is not appropriate that an

  1965
  Englishman, a Scotsman or a Welshman should tell Ulster men exactly what they should do and what the results of the Convention should be. But I think that it is not over-intrusive to say that the political solution in Ulster should have the following broad characteristics.
  First, it must not give any reason for Protestants to fear that it is intended to pave the way towards a united Ireland.
  Second, it must not leave Catholics feeling unprotected and thrown back on the IRA as a defensive force.
  Third, it must provide a scheme of government from which no substantial section of the community feels permanently excluded or disposed to resist by force.
  Those broad objectives seem reasonable and attainable. The main difficulty of the Convention procedure is that its members will arrive at it after having made various commitments to their electors. Some will be pledged to reject power sharing. Some will be pledged to demand it. Some will be pledged, as it were, to Stormont, and some, as it were, to Sunningdale.
  If all the members of the Convention remained encrusted in the positions which they adopted at the election, it is obvious that there could be no widespread agreement at the Convention and that the Convention would fail. I am not suggesting that the Convention should emulate the Labour Party and say different things immediately after the election from what they said during it. But surely there is quite a large and exceptionally acceptable area between the extreme of sticking totally to the electoral platform—a rigidity which would make the Convention worthless and useless—and the extreme of an unprincipled disregard of everything that had been said in the election—which brings democratic politics into disrepute.
  The American Constitution would never have been constructed at Philadelphia if delegates had not been prepared to move some way from their original positions. Burke's great speech to the electors of Bristol, which I shall refrain from quoting, is surely highly relevant here——
  Mr. Hugh Delargy: He lost the next election there.
  Mr. Gilmour: No. He was not even allowed to stand at it.
  The members of the Convention must be prepared to lead their electors as well as to follow them. I appreciate that members of the Convention will not want to move too far in front of their electors. They will want to be sure that they can carry their supporters with them. Therefore, anything which helps to break the isolation of the Convention from the rest of the community should be helpful, and therefore it will be valuable to have in session at the same time as the Convention is sitting one or more other consultative or advisory meetings.
  For example, it would be possible for the 350 local government councillors to be invited to meet in session in Ulster Hall to discuss the proceedings in the Convention. Incidentally, that would be a useful prelude to the return of more powers to the local authorities. It might be desirable for the political parties to be invited to send delegates in proportion to the votes cast to a meeting which could discuss the terms in which a possible constitution might be provided. Thirdly, and most important, it is highly desirable to involve the community as a whole in discussions while the Convention is sitting.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I understand and have some sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's point. Is not this the moment when we should seek to encourage these different organisations to discuss the constitutional possibilities, rather than simultaneously with the Convention?
  Mr. Gilmour: I was about to say that there has been too much of a political vacuum in Northern Ireland over recent months. But there is difficulty in doing that in advance of the Convention, because some people may think that any concessions which they make will be held against them afterwards. I see certain difficulties in the way, but I sympathise with much of what was said by the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith).
  I was saying that, perhaps most important of all, it is highly desirable to involve the community as a whole in discussion while the Convention is sitting. For that purpose the community organisations and

  1967
  even the para-military organisations could be assisted to come together in public places.
  I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will be able to think of other and perhaps better possibilities——
  Mr. McNamara: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the paramilitary organisations such as the official IRA, the Provisional IRA—both being proscribed organisations—the UDA, the UVF, the Orange Volunteers, the Red Hand Commandos and the Ulster Citizens' Defence Committee should come together and discuss what the politicians are doing?
  Mr. Gilmour: No. There is an obvious distinction between the proscribed and the non-proscribed organisations——
  Mr. McNamara: In other words, only from the one side.
  Mr. Gilmour: Certain para-military organisations are not proscribed and therefore their existence is legally recognised. I feel that it is better to make a virtue out of their existence than simply to hope that they will go away.
  I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will think of better ways of reducing the isolation of the Assembly. But I do not think that he has so far addressed his mind in public to the very great danger of this Convention or to the logical difficulty which is that people will be mandated to arrive with totally irreconcilable positions. If there is to be any reasonable outcome of the Convention, they must be helped out of those entrenched positions.
  We can argue about how it should be done, but I am sure that it is right to reduce the isolation of the Convention and to bring back more political activity in Northern Ireland. I share some of the views of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed. That is one reason why I regret that the Secretary of State did not announce the name of the chairman of the Convention this afternoon. That should be done soon so that he can get on with the work that will be necessary to make the Convention a success. There has been too long a delay, and I hope that the Secretary of State will name the chairman soon.
  1968
  It is a truism that there will be no possibility of a solution if everybody insists on getting 100 per cent. of what he wants. Apart from any other considerations, I imagine that most members of the Convention will wish to achieve a settlement, as the alternatives are plainly much worse. The House will have noted that the Minister of Justice in the Republic said recently that the IRA's strategy was to bring about a confrontation between the communities in Northern Ireland on a genocidal scale. That is a danger which we all hope will be avoided. The best way of avoiding it will be by a settlement at the Convention.
  As we said in our manifesto, we recognise that Ulster is under-represented in this House, and I trust that the settlement after the Convention will include an increase in that representation.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As it is, I understand, accepted that, without prejudice to future constitutional arrangements in Wales and Scotland, there would be no question of the representation of those parts of the Kingdom in this House being reduced, why should the proper representation of Northern Ireland in this House depend on the form of constitution which emerges from the Convention?
  Mr. Gilmour: The right hon. Gentleman may understand that, but I do not accept that it would necessarily be right for the representation in Scotland and Wales to remain at a greater level than that of England——
  Mr. Powell: As a first instalment, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would agree that Northern Ireland should be represented on the same scale as is England?
  Mr. Gilmour: I said that Northern Ireland was under-represented, but it would be a great mistake to do something about it now. We are just about to begin a Convention which we all hope will produce a political settlement, and the question of Ulster representation should be solved at the same time. That seems to be a perfectly reasonable attitude. Everyone can argue about the exact numbers at a later date.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: It is accepted by all hon. Members that the final decision on

  1969
  this matter ultimately rests with the House. Surely, when that final decision is taken Northern Ireland should be numerically properly represented in the House?
  Mr. Gilmour: That is merely saying what I have just said. When the House comes to a collective conclusion on the deliberations of the Convention, part of the settlement of the Northern Ireland problem should be an increase in Ulster representation.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that he has let an interesting cat out of the bag and that some of us would welcome the view of the Leader of the Opposition on the subject of Scottish representation?
  Mr. Gilmour: The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said that it was accepted that the Scottish representation should remain exactly the same. I did not think that talks had got that far. It is early to make such a statement. Speaking personally—I am not the spokesman on Scotland or anything else —my view is that it would be difficult to justify that position.
  Mr. Dalyell: The right hon. Gentleman is a very honest fellow.
  Mr. Gilmour: I thank the hon. Gentleman.
  The first alternative to a settlement at the Convention is the continuation of direct rule, but at a time when devolution is spreading elsewhere it would be highly paradoxical for Ulster to move in the opposite direction. For more than 50 years there was more devolution of power in Ulster than there was in any other part of the United Kingdom and it would be odd if, in the next few years, there should be less in Ulster than there is anywhere else.
  The second alternative is independence. We all know that the economic cost to Ulster of independence would be very high. Taxes in the Province would have to be raised by more than half, and public expenditure would have to be reduced by more than one-third. That is a grim prospect.
  Altogether apart from the economic disadvantages, I am wholly opposed to independence. I and the Conservative Party strongly believe in the integrity of the United Kingdom. Ulster is part of
  1970
  the United Kingdom and we wish it to remain so. I therefore hope that nothing will be said or done at Westminster which will further the bad cause of independence or make the achievement of a good constitutional settlement more difficult.
  4.47 p.m.
  Mr. John Parker: There is some feeling in the country that the present political and internal situation in Northern Ireland cannot be allowed to continue, that we in this island have had enough of Northern Ireland. Public opinion in favour of action being taken to deal with Northern Ireland is growing. The anti-terrorist legislation may have some effect, but we need to think further into the future than that.
  There is also growing public opinion that it is time we withdrew our troops from Northern Ireland. People feel that there is no reason why our countrymen should stand there to be shot at by both sides in a quarrel in which they have no part. Sooner or later that feeling will have to be taken into account by the House.
  The Minister said that the withdrawal of troops would lead to civil war, but we have civil war now in Northern Ireland. There is an attack on this coutnry by the IRA, and war conditions already exist. If we are to end those war conditions drastic action will have to be taken.
  What kind of political solution must we aim for? First, we must recognise the political facts of life. There are two nationalist movements in Northern Ireland —the Irish Nationalist movement and the Ulster Nationalist movement. One movement wishes to unite the whole of Ireland and the other wishes to have a separate and independent Ulster. The two aims are irreconcilable, and it is time we recognised that.
  The Ulster Nationalist movement is a grass roots movement, as was shown by the workers' strike in May last year. Not only the old ascendancy families but people throughout the whole of Northern Ireland have such strong feelings.
  What is likely to be the result of the spring elections to the Convention? If the General Elections to this House in February and October are any guide— and I think that they are—there will be a majority of Ulster nationalists in the

  1971
  Assembly, despite proportional representation. When discussions take place there, suggestions are likely to be produced that almost certainly will not be acceptable to the Government, the country and Parliament. That is what is likely to happen when we have an election to the Convention.
  Mr. James Kilfedder: I know that the hon. Gentleman believes in democracy. Does he remember the two polls in Northern Ireland in recent years in both of which the great majority of the people said that they wished to remain within the United Kingdom. There is no such thing as an Ulster nationalist movement—just a few hotheads.
  Mr. Parker: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman does not take account of recent developments in opinion. If the Convention comes forward with proposals which are unacceptable to this House there will have to be a break. That fact must be considered. I believe that that is almost certain to happen when the elections take place.
  What will happen if a majority of an Ulster nationalist character is elected to the Convention, as I suggest? We shall have to say that we shall withdraw the troops within a certain limited time. That will be essential to make the people of Northern Ireland face the situation and put forward definite proposals for consideration.
  I think that coming out of the discussions there is bound to be a redrawing of the frontier. It is bound to mean that various Catholic border areas should have the option of going into the South if they wish to do so. Newry, the Bogside, and so on, should be able to take that course if they so desire.
  There have already been exchanges of population in Northern Ireland, because one side has forced out the other in particular areas. The only solution is to encourage and, if necessary, give financial assistance to the population to take that process further.
  There must be a guarantee by this country that all the people who now live in Northern Ireland, whether they remain there or move elsewhere—to the South to Great Britain, Australia or anywhere else—will keep the British social services. After all, they have paid for them.
  1972
  It is frequently said that this is a conflict of religions. I do not believe that. We have Protestants on the one side and Catholics on the other, but there is very little Christianity about this whole matter. We see bloody murder often encouraged, certainly not discouraged, on both sides by clerical gentlemen who support different views. This would not be so if real Christianity were the issue.
  We must face the reality of the situation. The two communities have different origins. The Irish nationalists in the main are of the old Celtic population whereas others in the North are largely of Scottish or English origin. However, they have been there for a very long time. They were in Northern Ireland before the Americans settled in New England. They regard Northern Ireland as their home and obviously they do not wish to give it up. We must accept the fact that they are there, that they regard it as their home, and that they regard themselves as a separate community.
  There is a fundamental difference of opinion between what we and what the people of Northern Ireland feel about this situation. Their view is that politics can be solved by murder. That is an alien view to the great majority of people in this country.
  There is a curious cult of martyrdom in Ireland. Somehow it is to a man's credit to die for his country but not to live for it. That is what has happened in the past and there is no sign of it abating in future. We have had a surfeit of murders of one kind and another in Ireland over the years, particularly in recent years. There is no sign of the ending of this martyrdom. It is like the religion in Mexico before the Spaniards came—the religion which necessitated the making of human sacrifices. So it goes on. One martyr has to be followed by another to keep the cause going. Another mortal has to be sacrificed to this nationalist religion on both sides. It is alien, foreign and horrible.
  The Price sisters have called off their hunger strike because they have been told that they must not do it. But if they are told to start again, they will go on with it.
  Mr. Martin Flannery: I have listened with great interest to my hon. Friend, who deplores

  1973
  everything that is going on in Northern Ireland but suggests nothing that may set it right. I am wondering whether my hon. Friend has any constructive suggestions to make for setting right this deplorable situation—and I agree with him that it is deplorable.
  Mr. Parker: If these two peoples cannot live together, they must live separately. It means that we must do our best to ensure a homogeneous community on both sides of the border.
  If the Price sisters are asked to martyr themselves, they will do so. What are they going to die for? They are going to die for the right of the people in the South to force the people in the North, against their wishes, into a union with the South. That is the noble cause for which they propose to die. Many others have done much the same.
  I suggest that we should get away from this horrible idea of martyrdom and political murder. We must tell the people of Northern Ireland that if they wish to behave in future as they have behaved in the past, we want no part with them. We want Northern Ireland to be run as a separate country if that is to be the case.
  I do not see any sign of a solution coming from the Convention which will be acceptable to the British Government or people—certainly not to this Parliament.
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: The hon. Gentleman is expressing a view which has certain support. However, will he explain how open fighting in Belfast, which is what we would have, can be isolated from this country if we withdraw? There is no way out of the situation. If there is fighting there, we can be sure that there will be fighting in Liverpool and Glasgow, too. That is no solution.
  Mr. Parker: I spent a great deal of my youth in Liverpool in the days when similar things were happening there as are now taking place in Northern Ireland. Fortunately, people here now take a more sensible line.
  If we give the people of Northern Ireland a time limit, if we say that we shall withdraw our troops at a certain time, they will have to make arrangements for maintaining law and order in
  1974
  that country. Dr. Johnson said that there was nothing like the threat of hanging to bring people to their senses and to make them take a constructive line. If we give the people of Northern Ireland a time limit, they will have to make arrangements to see that law and order is maintained.
  We had trouble over the partition of India and Pakistan. No one would want to go back on that partition despite the trouble that we had. If we do not make a break we shall have the present trouble in Northern Ireland indefinitely. Therefore, we must make the break. I hope that a break will be made in a reasonable time. The time for the break will be when we have the report from the Convention with the proposals for discussion in this House.
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. James Molyneaux: In many ways I regret that I should have to follow the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), because I had hoped that we might approach this debate in a civilised, constructive fashion. I hope that some of his hon. Friends will not be tempted to follow his example. I know that my hon. Friends will not be tempted to engage in a tit-for-tat argument.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will accept that what I am about to say is in no sense a criticism and is not intended to be offensive. Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that some of the remarks attributed to him in his speech at the Labour Party conference last week have caused a great deal of resentment in Northern Ireland? I assume that the right hon. Gentleman was attempting to state a self-evident fact: that in a civil war situation the minority will always come off second best. That is not to suggest that majorities are any more bloodthirsty or murderous than minorities. All things considered, taking into account the reaction that we have seen in Great Britain in the past 14 days, perhaps the majority in Northern Ireland have not done so badly in showing and maintaining restraint.
  There is a need to remind ourselves that we are dealing with two separate and distinct issues. The first is terrorism, and the second is politics. There is a peculiar suspicion in this House that somehow or

  1975
  other the two are related, but of course they are not, except in so far as the lack of political will over the years has been an encouragement and even an incentive to men of violence to think that if they push a little harder, perhaps in the short term victory will be theirs.
  The separateness of the two issues is a matter not of opinion but of fact. The first of these uncomfortable facts is that the IRA has said over and over again, "We do not want to reform the State. We want to destroy it". Whatever else one may think of the IRA, it does at least have a reputation for saying exactly what it means, and some of us have seen the fearful consequences of its actions.
  The second fact is that had the terrorists been interested in political advancement and political solutions they would not deliberately have rejected the golden opportunity presented to them at the time of the abolition of the Stormont Parliament, because there was an occasion on which their primary objective had been achieved. All they had to do then was to declare a cease-fire and try to use their influence to make the new structure work, but they were not interested in that.
  The third fact is that when the Sunning-dale Agreement was superimposed on the newly formed Executive, and in the end proved to be its undoing, the terrorists intensified their campaign of violence. The two structures—and they were rejected by the vast majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland at the two recent elections—of Sunningdale on top of the appointment of the Executive would, in the mid term, if not in the long term, have produced and attained the objectives for which the IRA and the Republican cause were striving.
  It would not be true to say that the IRA missed its opportunity then, or miscalculated the situation. The plain fact is that it was not interested in a political solution, and it follows that if the majority in the Convention—and the hon. Gentleman forecast its composition with a certain degree of accuracy—were to concede everything and say, "You can have an Executive headed and consisting solely of the party that is led by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt)"—that is the SDLP—they would have no effect on the terrorist campaign because they would
  1976
  continue with it until they had swept away everything that we recognise as parliamentary democracy and government in both North and South, in Belfast and Dublin.
  We should pray that we shall be given, if not the serenity, at least the realism to accept that we cannot change the terrorists and that no amount of concessions or appeasement will even begin to placate the men of violence who are determined to overthrow authority in all its forms in the British Isles. It is encouraging to those of us who represent constituencies in Northern Ireland to note the changed atmosphere in this part of the Kingdom in the last few weeks. I hope that if my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) catches the eye of the Chair later he will deal with some of the suggestions for controlling, if not eradicating, violence not only in Northern Ireland but in the Kingdom as a whole.
  I turn to something more constructive, namely, political action. Perhaps I may list what I believe are the three aspects to which we ought to be addressing our minds. First, there is the one to which my right hon. Friend referred, that of full representation and full participation in this Parliament at Westminster. It has been said on many occasions that we ought to accept the authority and rule of the Parliament at Westminster, and that is what we do. That is why we were sent here, and why we came here.
  Second on my list is the Constitutional Convention, and third—and this again was referred to by my right hon. Friend —is the return to effective systems of local government in Northern Ireland. I have not listed the other aspect to which reference has been made, that of independence for Northern Ireland, because I speak for my colleagues who fought on the same manifesto as I did at the last General Election when I say that we do not regard that as an option.
  I come to the first aspect that I mentioned, that of full participation and representation at Westminster. I do not feel that under-representation for Northern Ireland can any longer be justified, particularly because, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) said, the proposals for Scotland and Wales do not seem to indicate that

  1977
  there will be any reduction in their representation in the House just because certain powers are being devolved to a local assembly or structure in their parts of the kingdom.
  Coupled with the responsibilities which we as Members of this Parliament must accept, there are certain rights, and prior among those is that of full and adequate representation, and a full and fair sharing of the burden that we bear as the only elected representatives functioning in any Parliament or assembly, and I hope that Labour Members will regard that as an acceptable form of power sharing, because it has worked here.
  I now come to the third aspect, which is local government, leaving aside for the moment the second aspect. We have in the new district councils that were elected on a system of proportional representation people of quite outstanding ability. The problem is that they will not remain there and waste their time and talents. They must be given some worthwhile function and authority. This is an area in which all the parties in Northern Ireland have proved in years past that they can work together. They have proved that they can engage in effective, meaningful power-sharing with councillors sitting around a table representing different political viewpoints and different faiths. They have shown that they can work happily and constructively for the common good, and it is my hope and prayer that we can soon get back to that happy state of affairs.
  I should not attempt to saddle the two main parties, or, indeed, any of the parties in this House, with the state in which local government finds itself in Northern Ireland. I freely admit that a great deal of the responsibility for that rests with the party that I represent and on those who served that party in the former Stor-mont Government. They miscalculated the situation, they may even have been misled by their advisers, and the situation is in an unholy mess.
  I feel that there would be some merit in the Government's not waiting for the new Convention before addressing themselves to the possibility of finding ways and means of at least beginning to construct a system of local government in Northern Ireland similar to that in this part of the United Kingdom. I concede that some hon. Members will say that
  1978
  the system here is not all that perfect, but it is a paradise compared with what we have to put up with in Northern Ireland. There would be a valuable byproduct from what I suggest, because effective local government representatives, after all they have been through, could again sit down around a table, get back to where they left off, and prove that they could work together and engage in meaningful power sharing. That would do much to clarify the minds both of those who are to elect representatives to the Convention and of those who are to be elected. For that reason I plead earnestly with Her Majesty's Government to take this point seriously into consideration.
  I return to my second point, relating to the Convention. For some reason or another the Convention has always seemed to hypnotise people. They seem to give it a prominence to which I do not feel it is entitled. I am not belittling the achievements of the Secretary of State and the Minister of State in all they have done to bring about the Convention. I am not belittling those who designed the legislation to bring it into being. But I believe that it would be a great mistake to focus too much attention on the Convention, because if we expect too much from it, we shall find that people will be greatly disillusioned. If we expect the Convention to come up with a brand new, chomium-plated, enduring constitution for Northern Ireland, we shall find that that is just not on.
  However, that is not to say that I am a pessimist. I am optimistic that something worth while will emerge from the Convention, but we must not expect dramatic results. How can we have dramatic results when the parties who will be going into the Convention elections will be standing broadly, as our United Unionist Coalition will be standing, on principles which they set forth in their manifesto at the last two General Elections in February and October?
  With regard to our coalition, our mandate has been misinterpreted as a refusal to accept what the Gracious Speech called "some form" of power sharing. But it does nothing of the kind. There is no reluctance on our part to consider any suggestions provided that they are in line with normal British democratic standards and principles. We in this House are

  1979
  engaging in a form of power sharing. If we deny that, we are saying, in effect, that the four parties on this side of the House are wasting their time, and should not be here. With respect, I do not think that we wasted our time entirely in the last Parliament—there are hon. Members on the Government side who would concede that—and I do not think that we are wasting our time in this Parliament. I think that per men we have a greater influence on policies and legislation than perhaps, with all due respect to them, do hon. Members in the two large parties——
  Mr. Abse: Do I understand that the principle on which the hon. Gentleman and his party are putting forward the idea of power sharing is limited entirely to the view that any opposition to his party which is in a minority must act as an Opposition acts in this House, and that it must accept, as it has done in the past, the position of a permanent minority? If that is what the hon. Gentleman is putting forward, it is no wonder that the British people are utterly disenchanted with the conception of the Convention, even before it has begun.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Before the hon. Gentleman answers that question——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. We cannot have one intervention on top of another.
  Mr. Molyneaux: This is an extraordinary philosophy, that this House of Commons, with all its traditions of parliamentary democracy over hundreds of years, should suddenly turn round and say that it is wrong in part of the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Kershaw: Would the hon. Gentleman explain how one turns a minority into a majority and gives it the same rights?
  Mr. Molyneaux: That presents great problems, if one is to reconcile that with any kind of structure—and this is the test —which will be answerable to the electorate through the legislature. The hon. Gentleman would accept that unless we have that kind of structure, and it is answerable to the electorate, then it is built on sand and will not last.
  1980
  It has been said repeatedly, both here and elsewhere, that the fact that we had appointed an Exective of a sort for a few weeks proved that this great experiment could work, but with respect to those who hold that view, I say that that is utter nonsense. It was propped up, isolated and insulated from all the disturbing draught that could blow in any normal democratic structure. The Executive was the creature of the Secretary of State. He said to the Executive, "Do not worry too much if naughty fellows and back benchers vote against you sometimes I shall be there to uphold you and underpin you. You need not worry too much about public opinion or the representatives sent to the Assembly by public opinion."
  My guess—no, it is rather more than a guess, knowing human nature as I do and bearing in mind that I am longer in the tooth than some hon. Members—is that the general public of all sections, and all political persuasions, would become more and more alienated from the people governing them simply because there would be no way of getting at them and influencing their policies——
  Mr. David James: I should like to get a point clear about power sharing. Am I to understand that it would be open for a Roman Catholic to join the hon. Gentleman's party, in the same way as a Roman Catholic can join the Labour Party or the Conservative Party?
  Mr. Molyneaux: The hon. Gentleman addressed the question to me as Vice-President of the United Ulster Unionist Party. The rules of the party place no such obstacles in the way of any person becoming a member of it. The rules and constitution were renewed and re-endorsed with that particular clause retained as recently as Saturday last.
  Mr. Orme: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is trying to explain his philosophy and his party's philosophy on power sharing, and trying to equate it with the British position in this part of Great Britain, but he is having great difficulty convincing the House on this. Does he not agree that it is a regrettable point in Northern Ireland that while his party might be open to people of all persuasions, it is dominated by people of one persuasion, just as the SDLP is open to all persuasions but

  1981
  is unfortunately dominated by one persuasion? Is it not a fact that we cannot close our eyes to the situation that the communities are divided in both a religious and a political sense?
  Mr. Molyneaux: I concede to the Minister of State that I have utterly failed to convince those of his hon. Friends who do not want to be convinced, but I like to think that my words have been listened to by some hon. Members on this side of the House.
  With regard to the point that the party may be dominated by people of one particular persuasion, I do not want to be naughty or unpleasant, but I recall that the goings-on in Central Hall, Westminster, were perhaps dominated by a certain organisation which is not, after all, an elected body. Perhaps it is a reflection on the state of law and order that at the last election people who were of a different persuasion from me and who worked quietly behind the scenes to secure my re-election requested that their names should not be published because otherwise retribution would follow. That is an indictment of those who have been responsible for law and order in Northern Ireland over the past five years. My other proviso is that the structure, whatever it might be, must not be required to contain those who aim to destroy the State. I do not think that that is an unreasonable condition.
  It has been suggested, finally, that there has been delay in setting up the Convention and that there is a vacuum in Northern Ireland. If so, that can easily be remedied by Her Majesty's Government without waiting for the report of the Convention. One hopes that there will now be a determined drive to eradicate terrorism from all parts of the United Kingdom. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South said earlier, when certain sophisticated Army methods were being discussed, we and those whom we represent, do not mind whether the Army knows the colour of our sofas as long as they get results.
  If we can get action now on the first point—full representation and participation in this House—if we can restore local government democracy. Her Majesty's Government will have done a great deal and have gone a long way towards
  1982
  providing a new element of stability in Northern Ireland which will give real hope to that troubled Province.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Parry: During this debate, many hon. Members will speak on different issues. I wish to deal with one point which has caused me great concern recently on this side of the water. I refer to the recent activities of extreme Right-wing groups and organisations, particularly their actions and so-called demonstrations under the slogan "Smash the IRA". At last week's Labour Party conference, I understand, a Birmingham delegate highlighted the activities of the National Front. Other organisations involved in stirring up trouble include the British Movement and the Union Movement.
  All these organisations are recognised as pseudo-Fascist. The British Movement last Saturday organised a march and demonstration throughout my constituency in Liverpool. I have in my possession a poster, copies of which were displayed widely in my constituency, bearing the emotive slogan, "Smash the IRA now". It is significant that that demonstration took place one day after the House had sat all night to bring in legislation in an attempt to curb the actions of the IRA. The actions of these fringe elements are unnecessary and are having an inflammatory effect in an already serious situation.
  I wrote last Wednesday to the Chief Constable of Merseyside Police and to the Home Secretary requesting that that demonstration be banned. I received the following reply from the Chief Constable:
  "Thank you for your letter of the 27th November 1974, concerning the proposed march in Liverpool on the 30th November 1974.
  I share your concern at the current trend of violence, but I do not feel that a request to the Home Secretary for the exercise of his special powers to ban the march is justified in this case. Home Office has been in touch with my office and has been given the information which we have to date on the situation.
  Arrangements have been made for extra police to be deployed to deal with any problems which may arise on Saturday."
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: They can wear black shirts but not black berets.
  Mr. Parry: I have not yet received a reply rom my right hon. Friend.
  Ever since the troubles started in Northern Ireland over five years ago, I have dreaded the thought that trouble could flare up in Liverpool or Glasgow. Thank goodness, violence has not arisen in Liverpool. We have not suffered the atrocities committed in Birmingham, London and other cities, and please God we never do.
  Fortunately, we in Liverpool have had no troubles for many years. The Catholic and Protestant communities now live in peace. The positive housing policy of the Liverpool City Council many years ago has led to a complete integration of the communities, and we can now see Orangeman and Catholic living next door to each other, working together and having a pint of beer together—sights which were unthinkable less than a quarter of a century ago. We wish that things like that could happen in Belfast and other towns in Northern Ireland.
  The occasional slogan is still painted on the walls. In one part of my constituency, one reads the slogan in large letters, "No Popery, no surrender". In other parts, the slogan is, "God Bless our Pope". Fortunately, such slogans are becoming rarer.
  In trying times, Liverpudlians have always tried to maintain a sense of humour. Earlier this year, when the "King of the Kop" and the Liverpool Football Club, Mr. Bill Shankly retired, it caused a big stir in football circles. "King William", as he was known, chose to resign, of all days, on Orange Day, 12th July. Hon. Members can imagine the jokes which were floating around Liverpool when the successor who was chosen was a Mr. Paisley—not the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), I hasten to add.
  The concern that I have expressed is shared by several of my hon. Friends who represent Liverpool constituencies, by Liverpool City councillors, by the Liverpool Trades Council, by the community in the Irish Centre and by the trade union movement. As a democrat, I believe in the right to march and to demonstrate in normal times, but we are not living in normal times. Marches by right-wing extremists will whip up feelings which lie just underneath the surface in the British
  1984
  people. Innocent people may feel the backlash, which may in turn lead to retaliation. I hope that the Minister of State will touch on this tonight when he replies to the debate. Things are peaceful in Liverpool today. The orange and the green mix quite freely. Long may they continue to do so.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Amery: The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) is right if he limits his criticism to anyone from whatever side of the political spectrum who tries to take the law into his own hands. Anyone doing that should of course be dealt with appropriately. At the same time, we have to realise that people seek to take the law into their own hands only if the official custodians of the law have not been successful in enforcing it. The success which has already attended the measures introduced by the Home Secretary last week has convinced me at any rate that his action was in many ways belated.
  Perhaps it is because we have had a thousand years without invasion and 300 years without any violent political change that we find it very difficult to face up to the dangers of our situation. There has been nothing phoney about what has been going on in Ulster in the last five years. But our public opinion, and even opinion in the House, has in my judgment taken on something of a phoney war climate all through this time. We have discussed the situation as if it were one of the restoration of law and order, of the remedying of grievances, of the winning of the hearts and minds of the people, and of the restructuring of society. But it was not until the bombing outrage in Birmingham that public opinion woke up to the fact that we are at war—at war with the IRA.
  This is a guerrilla war. To some extent it partakes of the characteristics of a civil war, in that the enemy consists, in part at least, of British subjects from Northern Ireland, aided and abetted by certain British organisations over here not concerned with Ireland. It also partakes of the character of a foreign war in that the support for the IRA comes largely from outside, not only from the Republic but from the United States and elsewhere.

  1985
  But a war it is, and a war fought against an intractable enemy. I say "intractable" because he is not fighting for a limited objective over which there could be compromise. The IRA, as has been said, is not seeking a particular concession on this or that point. There is one so-called injustice which this enemy is fighting against, and it is the only one with which he is concerned. He wants to tear Ulster out of the United Kingdom. That that is his objective is a statement about which all of us can agree. The Secretary of State made that abundantly clear. But it is an objective which we cannot accept. We can never accept it against the wishes of the majority, and there can be no compromise about it.
  In these circumstances, and since Birmingham, people are waking up to the fact that our policy must be to wage war and that our immediate aim must be victory. By "victory" I mean destroying the power and the will of the IRA to try to destroy the unity of the Kingdom.
  I hope that this is now the mood of the House of Commons. I am not quite sure whether the Secretary of State has yet fully grasped this mood and whether he yet gives the priority to the waging of war that he should. There were certain parts of his speech which seemed to me to belong to the period through which we have passed, when insufficient priority was given to the waging of war and the attainment of victory. I hope that he can bring himself to rise to the challenge. If not, I think that a new Secretary of State will be needed.
  I do not blame the Secretary of State for being slow to grasp this issue as the central issue. Previous Secretaries of State did not do so, and indeed it is very difficult to do so if public opinion is not ripe. But since Birmingham there is a new tide of feeling in the country. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will rise to the occasion.
  This war against the IRA must be prosecuted on both the military and the political level, in Ulster, in Britain and, with the help of the Republic, in the Republic of Ireland—if the Republic will co-operate. It seems from statements made yesterday that the Republic will co-operate more closely.
  1986
  I should like to make some comments on the military side.
  Mr. Orme: I have been following carefully what the right hon. Gentleman said. No one wants to see violence eradicated more than do the Government. The actions which the Government have taken are proof of that. Nevertheless, we want a political settlement to the problems of Northern Ireland. At the end of the day, we do not see that these problems can be resolved in a military sense. It therefore behoves both communities to work towards that aim.
  Mr. Amery: Just before the Minister of State interrupted me I said that the war must be prosecuted on the military and the political level. I was about to comment on the military side and then to come to the political side.
  Mr. A. W. Stallard: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Amery: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not give way. I have given an undertaking that I shall be brief, and I have much to say.
  First, on the military side, it is clear from what the Secretary of State has said that the powerful police and military framework that we have created is bringing in results, and so is the work of the Special Branch. So too, I believe, will the measures introduced by the Home Secretary last week produce results.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Amery: No.
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Thorne Mr. Thorne rose——
  Mr. Amery: I have not said anything controversial on this particular subject yet.
  Mr. A. E. P. Duffy: If the right hon. Gentleman insists on being provocative, he should have the decency to give way.
  Mr. Amery: I have not said anything yet with which, I think, the Secretary of State would not agree.
  This powerful defensive apparatus that we have developed will not in itself lead to the breaking of the power and the will

  1987
  of the IRA to seek to destroy the union of the United Kingdom. One can never get a victory by operating on the defensive.
  The Secretary of State referred—and rightly so—to the danger of the independent para-military bodies which are growing up. These are dangerous because they are uncontrolled. But I submit to the Government that what they need to do is to create an offensive force of a para-military character, but under the control of the authorities—a force which will take the offensive as a counter-guerrilla force. I have had some experience of guerrilla warfare, both as a guerrilla and from the security side. I spent several months fighting against the Germans, both in the hills and in towns. I know what guerrilla war is like. The one thing which guerrillas are frightened of is not the police or regular soldiers operating against them but counter-guerrillas operating against them and living in the same conditions as they do.
  That is what we need to do if we are to achieve success and to destroy the IRA forces against which we are engaged. This may need the introduction of martial law. I do not know about that. The introduction of it would be repugnant to us, but unless we take action, others will take the law into their own hands. What is more, I believe that the action I am proposing would have a far greater deterrent effect and leave far fewer scars than the reintroduction of capital punishment. Well was it said that the grass soon grows over the battlefield but never under the scaffold.
  Let me turn to the political aspect, on which the Minister of State interrupted me. Great emphasis has been placed on the need to win the hearts and minds of the minority community in Ulster and to remedy injustices. Of course, injustice should always be corrected and remedied for its own sake. Had it been remedied before, at an earlier stage, there might have been less sympathy in the minority community for the IRA. When the struggle is completed it will be essential to do everything to prevent a recurrence of that struggle and; therefore, it will be essential to create a more just society.
  But let us be clear about one thing. The concessions which have been made
  1988
  during the struggle in the attempts to win the hearts and minds of the minority community—the disbandment of the B Specials, the destruction of Stormont, the introduction of the power-sharing concept and of the "Irish dimension"—have all been interpreted in Northern Ireland as victories for the IRA, both by the minority and by the majority communities.
  Mr. Stallard: So is the right hon. Gentleman's speech.
  Mr. Amery: Not at all. The essential political aim in the immediate future must be to make it quite clear to the IRA— the Secretary of State went a long way towards this in his speech—that we want to maintain the union of Northern Ireland with the United Kingdom. That is the first aim.
  Second, we must make it clear that we shall maintain that union and that we shall never accept that it can be broken by the coercion of the majority. "Never" is a big word to be used in politics. I remember what happened to Lord Colyton when he used that word over Cyprus. But I also remember the great speech made by Churchill in the war when he said "We will never surrender." He was quite right. When one is talking about the United Kingdom, "never surrender" is the right phrase to use.
  But war never leaves a country where it finds it. We have to think about the future and to prepare for it now in the midst of the struggle. There is much to be said, when one looks back historically, for what Stormont did in the 50 years of its existence; in the great depression, the war and the aftermath of the war. But I doubt whether one can restore an organisation which has been uprooted. There is everything to be said for power sharing if it can be achieved but, as has been said, it seems unlikely that the Convention will produce the result which many of us would like to see. But if it does not, I do not think that we should despair, because although there is much to be said for devolution, it also suffers from serious defects. For much of my life I have been an advocate of devolution, not only for Northern Ireland but for other parts of the Kingdom. But it has one great danger. Devolution tends to lead to the best political minds remaining on the periphery instead of coming here. This was very much the case under the old

  1989
  Stormont system. If we can move in Northern Ireland to a system of local government in the sense that we have it here, but where there is fair representation at Westminster—that means an increased representation—Irish affairs will be discussed in the more tolerant climate of Westminster, and that could have a healthy effect.
  Anyone who studies the memoirs of those who worked in this House before the First World War will know how the Irish Nationalists who came to Westminster, the members of Redmond's great nationalist party, were softened and became more tolerant by working in our parliamentary climate. If the result of my proposal were that there was increased representation here, an Irish Office with an Irish Secretary of State, and his colleagues—who I hope would be chosen from the Ulstermen of both denominations—and ordinary local government in Northern Ireland the situation would not be one about which we would need to despair.
  Such a development would not, of course, be highly popular in Dublin, but it would be better than the civil war which would follow withdrawal, and from Dublin's point of view it would be better than a return to Stormont.
  The Republic must know, and its Prime Minister has certainly recognised, that the prospect of union between North and South is now very remote. But there is another prospect of a different kind of union in a quite different dimension. If we succeed in bringing about a final and lasting adherence of Britain and Northern Ireland to the European Community, that Community will grow in due course from an economic and monetary union to a political union. When it does—and it could happen in 10 to 15 years' time— then Northern Ireland, Britain and Southern Ireland would all be members one of another.
  5.43 p.m.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: In view of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's spirited and heartfelt response to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) when he told him he should go and stand at the corner of the Shankill and the Falls, the House will forgive me if I impose upon it a
  1990
  personal experience. On a drizzling morning this spring my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) and I, waiting to get into Long Kesh, found ourselves face to face with some of the women with kids and babes in arms queuing up on their monthly or fortnightly visit to see their menfolk.
  The sheer elemental hatred for us as "Brits", as people vaguely connected with the British Government, was of a nature that I shall not forget to my dying day. I shall never forget the sheer ferocity of the hatred of those women. It was paralleled only once in my life and that was a few hours later when we felt exactly the same thing from the young immature Protestant girls in the women's prison in Armagh.
  We have to face the uncomfortable fact that there is a surprisingly large nucleus of people who simply will not rest until the British, and in particular the British Army, are out of Ireland. An equally uncomfortable fact is that this nucleus has a large fund of good will especially among the young in Northern Ireland, and, appallingly, many well-wishers in both the North and the South. If that is not so, how come that so very few wanted men are ever picked up in the South?
  This is not only a question of intimidation but—and we have to face this—an inclination of many families to harbour men of violence, and in passing this House might raise its collective eyebrow at the results of the election in Cork on 14th November when Sinn Fein got 5,346 votes—13 per cent. of the poll recorded for Mr. Joe Sherlock. Is that not significant in terms of the good will which might exist in the South?
  So the gloom-laden reality is that the situation is now so sick and so sour that if we go on as we are at present—Convention or no Convention; and I listened with a depressed heart to what the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) said about it—the ever-escalating war and murder in Ireland will continue for as long as most of us here can expect to remain in public life.
  After five years, is political innovation alone sufficient? I believe that the precondition for any chance of success for the Convention is a British military get-out in the spring.

  1991
  Before the House gets irritated with me let me pose a couple of questions. Has the House ever produced in living memory two more skilled and patient negotiators than my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw)? Re-reading, as I did over the weekend, the most interesting book of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East—"A House Divided"—I realised what a testimony it is to how hard he and his Ministerial colleagues and officials worked to try to get some kind of solution. Have we ever had more conscientious Secretaries of State than the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Rees)? Two Prime Ministers have striven as hard as they know how to get some kind of solution. I make no party issue of this point. The fact is that two Prime Ministers with very different views on most things tried extremely hard to get some kind of solution in Ireland. If these men whom the House knows and trusts have failed, what other Englishman, Welshman or, Heaven knows, Scot is likely to succeed?
  The ominous fact is that, with the arguable exception of Lord Mountjoy in the reign of Elizabeth I, no statesman from this side of the water has had much success in Ireland. It is not that successive Ministers are at fault in any personal sense, still less that they are inadequate. It is that the policy is tragically misconceived because it is hard for us to admit that armies- even our British Army, usually heroic in patience —are no good in the role of police forces.
  I agreed with much that was said by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) about irritation by an Army which has been there for too long. Does that not create a framework in which violence must be expected as a matter of course? It is one thing to send in an Army on what most, if not all, hon. Members in the House supposed on 13th October 1969 to be a three or six-month fire brigade operation. It is quite another thing for it to be in the sixth long year of a campaign. Nor is it sufficient to say that it is legally correct because it is our Army in our country.
  1992
  The reality is that the British Army is now seen by many Irish men and women as the English, Scottish and Welsh alien Army, not their Army. Any hon. Member who talks to Service constituents from the ranks returning from Ireland knows that this is nasty but true.
  Irish history is against us. A total of 72,000 British troops were not much use in the long run against Michael Collins. The history of Ireland suggests that extremes always settle. I wonder whether we have not made the mistake of supposing that the right course is to back the moderates, because the moderates seem to some of us to be a decreasing number, and perhaps always less numerous than successive British Governments have supposed.
  I believe that not only has the Army's presence not made things better but that its very presence has made matters significantly worse. As long as the British Army is there, the men of violence can think that they are operating in a cocoon of general communal safety, that there is a safety net which will prevent retaliation on a large scale. Remove that cocoon, that safety net, and both sides might think a bit harder before embarking on violence and massive retaliatory action.
  The British soldiers have simply become a focus for hatred. Incidentally, some of us are becoming worried by the brutalising effect of Ireland on the British Army. Although it has become nothing like as serious as the effect of Vietnam on a whole generation of American soldiers, every hon. Member is receiving more and more letters from mums and wives impatient that they should be expected to see sons and husbands sent to Ireland to be shot in the back or blown to pieces.
  As 19-year-old Elizabeth M'Kee put it to us in Armagh gaol, as Provo spokeswoman, "Your poor boys come over here and get killed for reasons they do not begin to understand." A sergeant-major of the Seaforth Highlanders in Bathgate, in my constituency said, "Malaya was bad enough, but it was nothing to what my son who is a sergeant and my other son who is a bandsman in Ireland have to go through." That is the feeling of hardened, serious ex-members of the British Regular Army.

  1993
  Those of us who have dissented from the two Front Benches, and who look at the tragedy in Ireland through different spectacles, are under an obligation to spell out what we would do if we were to carry the awesome responsibilities of my right hon. Friends. I emphasise that there is truly a frightful balance of risk. I do not under-rate the terrible burdens that those of both parties on the Government Front Bench have had to carry. If there were such a thing as certainty in approaching the solutions to Northern Ireland, Ministers would have found it long ago.
  What, then, should the policy be? First, there should be an end to detention without trial. I would let out every politically-related prisoner from the Maze and other prisons in the week before Christmas.
  Secondly, we must face up to the crucial issue of policing, and tell the Provos——
  Mr. Merlyn Rees Mr. Merlyn Rees rose——
  Mr. Dalyell: I listened with great care to my right hon. Friend, who is the most courteous of men. I should like to finish this part of my argument, and then of course I shall give way.
  We must tell the Provos and the IRA, "Make quick plans for your own policing arrangements in the Catholic areas of Belfast"— —
  Mr. John Carson: Come off it.
  Mr. Dalyell: I know that this may be of a shocking nature. I simply say, "I understand"——
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Dalyell: Hon. Members can hear out the argument, and then I shall give way. I know what I am saying. I understand the consequences, and I have a real concern for the law.
  Thirdly, I would announce soon that the British Army will carry out a snappy evacuation at an unspecified date shortly after the Convention elections.
  It may be asked, "Is this callous?" My answer is "No." I care about Northern Ireland and its people. I have taken a longer and more sustained interest than many of those who dismiss
  1994
  what I say. I have 30,000 second- and third-generation Irish constituents.
  Is this reckless? I admit straight away that there is a balance of risk, but it is not exactly as if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) said, Northern Ireland was bloodless and tranquil now. There is the possibility of a bloodbath. Perhaps that possibility is greater than it was 18 months ago, when some of us first argued in public the case for the withdrawal of the Army.
  Secondly, there is the damaging argument, "You are giving in to terrorists." I shall deal with both arguments, and then give way.
  On the question of the bloodbath, why is it that the Catholic men of violence do not think that there would be a bloodbath? [An HON. MEMBER: "They do."] Quigley and Morley in Long Kesh, representing the Provos, said, "We don't think there will be a bloodbath." [Interruption.] That is what they said. Hon. Members must listen to what they do not like to hear. They added, "We can talk to men like Mr. Carson"—the hon. Member for Belfast, North. Monaghan and O'Hare, for the Official IRA, said exactly the same thing. The girls in Armagh gaol made remarks along those lines.
  Then we come to O'Connell. People do not like to hear about this. Incidentally, instead of the argument being entirely about whether Mr. O'Connell should have been allowed to broadcast on ITV, a little more attention should have been paid to what he actually said. I quote:
  "Again I come back to the precedent of Algeria. This was the great fear of Algeria that the colons would, you know, opt out Many of them did opt out, which was a great tragedy, but the major section of the French-Algerian people remained behind, and it is a fact that today they are playing a positive productive rôle in free Algeria.".
  To historians of the French Empire, all sorts of faults can be found with the comparison, but the message is clear enough. The Provisional IRA, rightly or wrongly, thinks that it can settle down and play a useful r61e once the British have gone. That is the general view of the men of violence on the Catholic side.
  It is a good guess—though I confess to the balance of risk—that the Catholic IRA would not dare risk provocative action in the absence of the British Army.

  1995
  as it knows that retribution by the Protestants against the Ardoyne and the Bog-side would be terrible. The question is: would the Protestants inaugurate action against the Catholics at the first opportunity? That is the uncomfortable, critical question.
  Before he interrupts me—I do not know what he will say—I would advisedly refer to the hon. Member for Belfast, North as my hon. Friend, in one sense. Those of us who had the experience of wandering up the Shankill with my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, North know that, like it or not, whatever one's view, he represents the authentic voice of the working people of the northern area of Belfast.
  No one who has gone with my hon. Friend up the Shankill can doubt that he speaks for the vast majority of his constituents. I simply think that if he and his friends were feeling either that a counter-lash from Catholics was not meant, or that the provocation was slight, they could control their forces.
  This is a difficult area. It is a balance of judgments. There is no easy way, as my right hon. Friend knows only too well. I am simply facing up to the most difficult question. Aneurin Bevan always told us to face up not to the easy question but to the most difficult. I am making an attempt to face up to the most difficult question whether there would be a Protestant massacre of Catholics in some areas of Belfast, and I am saying that, on the evidence we have, and from my experience of going up Shankill with the hon. Member for Belfast, North, and other experiences, in my judgment, for what it is worth, I do not think that there would be.
  The second point is the damaging argument that this would be "giving in to violence". In England and Scotland, I am totally against that. I echo the feelings of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Mr. Walden). I make no bones of the fact that I do not listen with too much patience to any anxieties as to whether this, that or the other civil right may temporarily be somewhat abridged. I would not give in in any circumstances.
  But in the context of Northern Ireland, I would not see withdrawal of the Army as giving in to violence, but rather as
  1996
  the painful recognition that the English and Scots military presence cannot make matters better and probably makes them worse, because there is a difference between cravenly giving in to violence and at any rate recognising that one's own military presence may be the cause of the continuation of that violence.
  I do not understand my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Northern Ireland office, least of all my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), with his impeccable Socialist credentials. I mean that as a compliment. I have a great regard for him. I make that clear. But does not my right hon. Friend feel how awful alien armies are when they are chez vous? The British soldiers have been heroes provoked beyond endurance, but their very presence in Northern Ireland creates an atmosphere in which violence breeds violence. Armies are no good as police forces, and there comes a time when it is difficult to shoot occupying soldiers, so one just increases shooting other people.
  I know as well as anyone that the Catholics welcomed the soldiers five years ago, but the whole chemistry of the situation has changed since then. Now there is a gut reaction—"damn you". Actually, it is put a little stronger than that, but I will not use strong language in the House. Every hon. Member knows what I mean.
  The rational objectives of the IRA as described by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) may not be as rational or as coherent as he makes out. When I turned up to see the Ulster Workers' Council, at Hawthorden Road at the time of the strike, one of the first things these men of considerable and genuine personal charm—as most of the extremists are—said to me was," We have called you Parliament men back early from your holidays." I saw that per se they thought it was jolly good to inconvenience us. They said, "Got Mr. Heath back early from China, we did". Bringing the Leader of the Opposition back early from China, so that he could not have talks in Hong Kong, was an achievement. They had done something. They had said, "Yah, boo" to someone in authority.
  To cap it all, the Prime Minister had to hasten back early from the Scilly

  1997
  Isles. They were obviously extremely pleased at having brought an overworked Prime Minister back early from his well-merited holiday. We are not dealing on a rational plane of the type we are used to in this House. My suspicion is that the withdrawal of the British Army would be a matter for crowing, a marvellous excuse by the extremists and men of violence to call a halt to the violence because something would have been achieved.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick) nods his head in agreement. This is beyond the clear logic we have heard from Sir Phillip Allen and his successors among the intellectual heavyweights of Whitehall. We Celts view life rather differently from Anglo-Saxon Oxbridge.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: Will the hon. Gentleman expand on what he meant by political prisoners he would release before Christmas? Would that include men imprisoned for political crimes, even murder?
  Mr. Dalyell: Absolutely. I would take the risk; the lot.
  Mr. Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman would not be taking the risk.
  Mr. Dalyell: I am aware of that. That is why I am careful to point no finger of blame at either the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border, or the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. But I will give a straight answer. A prisoner whose crime was something to do with the political situation——
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have signed four interim custody orders this afternoon. I have given a great deal of thought to it, but I am circumscribed in what I can say because I cannot reveal the circumstances. However, last week, I signed interim custody orders for someone who clearly killed a fellow co-religionist in Belfast. There was no politics in that. Am I to say, "You can go out on the streets again" and leave him free to commit another murder?
  Mr. Dalyell: The reply is, how else do we bring collective madness to an
  1998
  end? If there were any easy way out. Ministers would have found it long ago.
  There may be an unacceptable precondition for success—a television and radio blackout for a period on all news about the troubles in Northern Ireland. This would be against the instincts of most of us, but what do we do when a garage attendant in one town is murdered and retribution is meted out on a garage attendant in another town?
  I also find it odious to see how some characters on Ulster Television wallow in the troubles. If I may be brutal about it, to me too many Ulstermen seem to be enjoying every moment of drama they see around them and to be wallowing in the fact that the world's Press and TV are taking an interest in a place which would get little attention were it not for the troubles. I know that this is a nasty thing to say, but there are real problems when many leaders are drugged by publicity.
  I understand that there will be a vote tonight. I shall be in the Government Lobby for two separate reasons. First, I am very unhappy about a phased withdrawal. It gives the impression to the men of violence of someone saying, "On your marks, get set, go". An actual date far in advance might be a cause of unnecessary trouble.
  Second, if I vote against the Government I know that there will be a row with the Chief Whips about a member of the PLP not going into the Government Lobby. That would be a row that would benefit no one. Far more profitable for one who offers the kind of view that I have put forward is that my argument should not be befuddled by a voting row and that the general time of thinking will finally commend itself to members of the present Government.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): Order. I appeal to hon. Members to bear in mind that there is a long list of hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to speak.
  6.11 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: I do not wish to take up what was said by the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). I congratulate him only in one respect—namely, in the tone of what he

  1999
  said. Even though the content of what he said was outrageous, he adopted a moderate tone. I think that these matters are best discussed in the sort of moderate manner in which all the speeches have been couched so far. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman particularly on a unique ability, which I believe is unmatched in any part of the House—to reflect at any given time exactly what Parliament and public opinion is not thinking.
  I turn to the remarks of the Secretary of State and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) about the Convention elections which will be held in Northern Ireland in February. I add the further plea that we should have not only a firm date announced for the Convention fairly soon but that well before Christmas we should have some knowledge of who the chairman will be. That is a matter of proper and genuine interest that we should know. If that information is held up much longer it could cause some inconvenience when the Convention takes place.
  I am glad that the Convention is taking place. I have no doubt about that. I am glad, too, that the British Government are standing well out of the picture. The many successive initiatives by British Governments in Northern Ireland in recent years have failed. Let the British Government stand right back. Let the people of Northern Ireland decide, if they can, what it is that they want.
  I know that some people have said, "Why should we have the Convention? We know what Northern Ireland wants." They say that the Convention will mean a repetition of old arguments and old points of view. I believe that no one knows what Northern Ireland wants today. We might have known what it wanted yesterday or last week, but public opinion in Northern Ireland, as in every part of Britain, is continually evolving. We may learn something, and some progress may be made in a February or March election.
  Some people have asked about the Convention, "Will the British Government implement any agreed Convention decisions?" There is no British Government that would not implement to the full almost any agreed Convention decision. Obviously there must be certain limitations, such as financial limitations
  2000
  and limitation for other reasons. But basically, I think, any decision which is taken unanimously by the Convention must be endorsed by any British Government in this House.
  After all that we have pledged, we shall abide by the wish of the majority in Northern Ireland regarding association with the United Kingdom. I understand that we are not saying that we shall carry out majority decisions or recommendations passed by the Convention. Of course, any unanimous decision which is taken must be adopted by any British Government.
  I refer now to security in Northern Ireland. It has already been touched upon by several hon. Members as well as by the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend. I take this opportunity of paying a tribute—I do not think that this can be said too often—to the wonderful role played by the British forces in recent difficult years. They have had a difficult task. It is one that the forces have carried out with fortitude and determination. They have done a first-class professional job and to some extent they have been helped by the House of Commons. Luckily enough, irrespective of which party has been in power, there has been a multi-party approach to Northern Ireland problems. Whatever party has been in power we have been lucky enough to have a united approach to Northern Ireland.
  Both Conservative and Labour Governments have said that law and order in any part of the United Kingdom must be upheld if democracy is to continue to exist. In a democratic country I suppose there are two requirements: first, there must be free elections, and, secondly, there must be the implementation by the newly elected Government of the wishes of the majority which voted them into office.
  It is clear that in Northern Ireland we have had a profusion of elections in recent years. In this year alone we have had two General Elections. The undoubted view of the majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland is that the United Kingdom must remain united. The majority has spoken, and we must be prepared resolutely to support the affairs of law and order. If we should be seen to waver in our resolution, and if any of us should be seen to endorse the views of the hon.

  2001
  Member for West Lothian, or seen to waver in our resolution, I believe that the men of violence, who have the arrogance to believe that they can usurp our democracy and the law and order of our ancient Kingdom, will only be encouraged. The men of violence must be eliminated.
  I suggest that the elimination of the men of violence is not only demanded by the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland but by the overwhelming majority in the Republic. The hon. Member for West Lothian referred to a Sinn Fein candidate in Cork polling 5,000 or so votes, or 13 per cent. of the votes cast. I can tell him that in the Republic there have been two General Elections recently and that the total vote cast for Sinn Fein on a national basis was a lot less than 3per cent. of the total. That is an expression of opinion which is there and which will always be there, but the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland discount the views and the actions of the men of violence. In the North of Ireland and in the Republic the people are sick of bloodshed and weary of internal war. They recognise that the social and religious injustices which were present North of the Border have been eliminated.
  The rules for living in the North and South are fair now, and the vast majority have only one fear. That is that we in this House will weaken in our resolve. I submit that we have a duty to make it clear that we shall not weaken. We must make that clear to those in the North and South of Ireland and the wreckers in that society wherever they may live.
  6.20 p.m.
  Mrs. Maureen Colquhoun: This debate is long overdue. I thought that the House would have a quiet, reasoned and above all honest and straightforward debate about Northern Ireland—about what had gone wrong and what we could do to set up a situation which would begin to lead to peace. I thought that we would listen without malice, and interchange ideas on Ireland, however difficult they might be—ideas which have been sadly lacking for months and years. What I have asked myself is what could I, as a back bencher and a rather obscure Member of this House, do to help solve what has become perhaps the fiercest, most intangible and most
  2002
  complex single problem facing the Government and the House?
  I have no brief, no patronage, no leverage, no command of big battalions or even of small battalions. I have one thing in connection with Northern Ireland and that is a point of view which is fairly much my own, which owes nothing to consensus and nothing to the bipartisan policies on Ireland that I have very sadly watched being carried out by the House since I have been a Member.
  In applying this kind of detachment to the Irish problem I want to demolish some of the fallacies I have heard about Northern Ireland. Fallacy No. 1 is the extraordinary notion that the British Government and Parliament are doing the best that they can to bring peace to Ireland. This is perhaps the most insidious fallacy of all because it is the most widely accepted. By what measure is the state of Northern Ireland today the best that we can achieve? Are the Government devoting the best part of their time to solving the Irish problem? Clearly they are not. The best part of their time is devoted to entirely different matters, such as the economic situation, rising prices, problems with the European Economic Community, the price of beef, the shortage of sugar and the atrocities in Ethiopia.
  All of these are important matters which have to be dealt with by the Government. But the Irish problem is far more important at this time. We have a situation where the blood of British citizens is being spilled in the streets of Britain and yet the best political brains in the country cannot be spared from haggling over the small print in Brussels. We have a situation in which people are afraid to walk past pillar boxes, and yet the solution to this problem is being entrusted to political minnows. They are very nice minnows, and I mean no disrespect to those men who will have the courage to go to Ireland and try their hand at a solution. But I am forced to ask this question: are they really up to it? Should not they and the Government admit that they have failed? Should not the Government seek other solutions? I sincerely believe that they should.
  In the British Cabinet there are men such as the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Foreign Secretary, the Home Secretary and others whose first duty is surely

  2003
  not to fret and fuss over the arithmetic in the Treasury, not to bend their minds to the problems of foreign affairs, that are largely academic, but to tackle the most important task in Britain today, the task of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.
  Why do they not do so? Why is it that the first chance of a genuine debate on Northern Ireland in this House has arisen out of the tragedies in Birmingham? Is this not disgraceful? As a back bencher it is not for me to say why Northern Ireland has drifted further into violence. I make the point that no one will thank the Cabinet, the Government or this House for running away, as they have done over the past few months, from the greatest challenge of the hour.
  I now come to fallacy No. 2, which is that a military solution in Northern Ireland is possible. The Army has done its job skilfully and well. I am a pacifist, but I acknowledge efficiency when I see it—even military efficiency. The Army has learned to protect itself and is able to give protection to those who seek it. The soldiers were brought in to police Northern Ireland after the local police had failed to maintain the necessary neutrality between the different communities. But what happens now? What do the British people expect from the Army? I know what ordinary British people in my constituency want. They want the troops brought out. They see no sense in more and more British soldiers being shot and killed and brutalised in this dreadful situation.
  It must be asked: what is the policy of the British Government? Is it a policy demanding unconditional surrender, as it was in the last world war? Do the Government visualise only a solution in which the IRA comes to the Army on its knees pleading for mercy? If they do they will wait 100 years and it still will not happen. The politicians can no longer shield behind the guns and batons of the ordinary British soldier.
  I come to fallacy No. 3, which is that in some way the Government of Southern Ireland will somehow bring about a solution. This will not happen. It pays lip-service only to the problem. The Irish State is like a hijacked aircraft. If it turns on the IRA it will be reduced to a
  2004
  smoking ruin—another Belfast. It knows that. Its politicians will be murdered one by one and there will be little that can be done to save them. The Irish Army does not have the capability or skill to protect its employers as does the British Army.
  Fallacy No. 4 is the religious fallacy. There is an idea that if the Catholic priests would only excommunicate every IRA gunman, if the Pope would only bring down the wrath of Heaven on the movement, the problem would be solved overnight. It would not. Religion is an ingredient of hate in Ireland. The Irish civil war is not a religious war. It does not have religious aims. It has political aims. The absurdity of the idea that the IRA gunmen are religious maniacs becomes demonstrably obvious when one asks oneself what good Catholic would bomb another Catholic into oblivion before the victim had confessed his sins. That may seem a small point, but it is significant in that it helps one to make a true reading of the Irish situation.
  So much for the fallacies. What of the solutions? Before we are able to work constructively towards true, lasting and just peace in Ireland we must first try to decide what kind of settlement would be acceptable to us.
  If unconditional surrender is ruled out, how do we then proceed? As I ask that question a number of possible answers may occur to those who hear it—perhaps a united Ireland, perhaps partition, perhaps the complete integration of the North of Ireland with England. However, I feel that we in Britain have now exempted ourselves from initiating any solution in Ireland. At one time, even during the life of the last Parliament, it might have been feasible to sit down at the negotiating table with the IRA but not now. Stranger things have happened in the history of the world. The bombings in Britain, the outrage felt by the British public, and the reflection of that outrage in the measures taken by a sleepy Government, now make such a course of action impossible. We must face the fact that almost any action initiated by the British for peace is also impossible.
  The prospect of peace in Northern Ireland is now farther away than at any time in the conflict. The British Government are benumbed. The IRA has gone beyond the bounds of understanding.

  2005
  I believe that we must now accept the intervention of a third party, a negotiator, who is sufficiently detached from all sides to be genuinely acceptable as neutral. There must be a United Nations appointment. There is a procedure for such an appointment. Parliament and the Government must take the necessary steps to inaugurate it. Fundamentally, we need a peacemaker in Ireland. It is an honourable task. There are many people in the world who are fitted to discharge that role. If we openly state that we need a peacemaker, it is a perfectly honourable statement to make. We shall not lose face by making it. On the contrary, we shall gain face. By means of this simple statement of intent we should have at least made a small decisive step towards solving this dreadful problem.
  I urge this House to select the United Nations as a mediator in Ireland, that we set a date for the phased withdrawal of the British troops, that we end internment without trial, that we immediately take the British Army off the streets of Northern Ireland and return the troops to barracks, and that we set up, in consultation with the United Nations, a United Nations peacekeeping force which will take over when the Army leaves. That is the only realistic way ahead, which I urge hon. Members to consider seriously before the bloodshed, the murders and the outrages become far worse.
  6.34 p.m.
  Mr. A. J. Beith: I listened with mounting surprise to the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun), who started by saying that she hoped the debate would proceed with a useful exchange of views without recriminations or malice. She then proceeded to mount an attack on the Secretary of State and his colleagues, whom she described as political minnows. There are a number of fallacies which should be added to the hon. Member's list. One is that there is some kind of politician with the magic touch who can be brought into the office of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and by sheer gift of personality remove the problems. That office has had occupying it a number of men of considerable political skill. The personality of the Secretary of State alone will never solve the problems of Northern Ireland. It is a fallacy to suppose so.
  2006
  Another minor fallacy to add to the list concerns those Ministers in the present Government whom she thought might be distracted from their present activities to take on the office of Secretary of State and who would wish to depart from the policy the Government are now pursuing. I have some doubt about that. I would be surprised if many of the hon. Lady's right hon. colleagues at present holding senior ministerial office would wish to pursue a different policy.
  The House has decided that a constitutional Convention shall be the vehicle for working out the future of Northern Ireland. That being the case, it seems to me that everything we do now must be designed to prosecute the success of that Convention. That places obligations on the Government, on the House and on many individuals.
  I was depressed, as were many others, by some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux). They did not suggest the kind of spirit in which we all want the Convention to proceed. We understand that the hon. Gentleman must represent the views of those who sent him here, that we must heed what his political supporters say. None the less we would expect from him and from his right hon. Friends a degree of statesmanship, both now and in the Convention, greater than seems to be implied in what he said. He made great play with the desirability of strengthening local government in Northern Ireland. Power sharing had already been practised in local government in Northern Ireland. Those of us with experience of local government in England might say that it provides opportunities for power sharing on a basis which this House does not. In a Province on the scale of Northern Ireland, the committee system, of which local government makes such good use and in which people from different parties engaged in administration and take crucial decisions together, is something from which we can learn a great deal. It is a kind of power sharing which the hon. Gentleman should not automatically rule out when he considers what the constitutional conference can recommend.
  The Convention and its success places obligations on all those who might be elected to serve on it and on hon. Members of the House. For that reason we

  2007
  must particularly make it clear that only through the processes of the Convention can people influence the outcome. Only through the Convention processes can the future shape of Northern Ireland be determined. Those who wish to influence the future of Northern Ireland must stand for election to the Convention and not seek to bring about changes by other means, because this House is not prepared to countenance that. We must make it clear that those who are trying to bomb or shoot their way into change and into a particular settlement in Northern Ireland will not succeed.
  The escalation of IRA violence in England is based on the assumption, which David O'Connell made clear during a television interview, that the British people can be terrified into withdrawing the troops from Northern Ireland. That is the basis of the assumption, that the people on this side of the water can be frightened into demanding from their politicians that the troops be withdrawn immediately. The British public have become regretfully accustomed to the scale of deaths occurring in Belfast and that the impact of the deaths in England was very much greater. However much we may regret it, we know that is true. It is probably even true for us as individuals that the impact of deaths much nearer the homes of people living in England was greater.
  Not one hon. Member wishes to see British forces permanently employed in a police operation in Northern Ireland. I say to those who want to set a date for the withdrawal of British troops that by doing so they would be conceding to the IRA precisely that which the strategy of violence in England is designed to bring about. To do so before the Convention elections, or to set a date before the Convention elections, would play straight into the hands of the IRA. Any victory so gained would be a victory for the IRA alone and not for either of the communities in Northern Ireland. More than that, it would be a sell-out for the moderate people in Northern Ireland. I want us to look very carefully at this aspect, because the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) echoed the feelings of many people on one point when he said that the moderate
  2008
  people in Northern Ireland sometimes seem to be rather few in number and possibly even declining in number.
  In the sense in which we use that word in England, there are very few moderate people in Northern Ireland. We often use the word "moderate" in England to mean non-aligned people. There are very few non-aligned people in Northern Ireland. Instead, there are two main groups of people. There are a great many extremists. There are a lot of people who are prepared to use violence. That would still be the case if we got a political settlement. There would always be the problem of dealing with those people. However, the vast majority in Northern Ireland are aligned to one community or the other, and they have strong views about the future of Northern Ireland. But they hate, detest and fear violence. These are not people who are detached from the conflict. They have deep emotional commitments and great fears. If they are Catholics, their fears are the fears of people living in a surrounded, ghetto situation. If they are Protestants, their fear is that the IRA will be able to bomb them into a State to which they do not want to belong.
  Both those different types of fears lead people to look all the more readily to the leadership of people who are involved in violence and to close their eyes and perhaps their judgments to the violence going on round them. In this context, tribute must be paid to the increasing number of people who make use of such things as the confidential telephone, seeking to bring an end to violence by co-operating with the security forces. There is no doubt that a large number of people in Northern Ireland, although they are emotionally committed to one group or the other, want to see an end to violence and fear, and it is when they feel unprotected by the forces of law and order that they are drawn to support the various extremist leaderships which have arisen in different sections of the community. Many resist that temptation and that drawing towards extremists and violent leadership. But what have we said to them so far in recent months? We have told them to wait for the Convention and not to listen to the extremists. We have told them that they will have an opportunity for their views to be heard, and that the Convention will provide a vehicle

  2009
  for people to get together to work out the future of Northern Ireland.
  Can we now say that we are sorry, that we have changed our minds, that there will be a Convention, but that in the meantime we intend to remove the protection without which the people of Northern Ireland will become entirely dependent on the power of the IRA and other extremist groups? Can we say that we cannot afford to protect them between now and the Convention?
  In the vital period between now and the Convention, which we hope will not be a long period, we must continue to fight the IRA and to make it clear that its outrages will stiffen our resolve rather than weaken it. We must not invite further outrages by appearing to fulfil the IRA's plan. If we react to the Birmingham bombings, for example, in a panic way and say that we must withdraw British troops from Northern Ireland, we shall appear to be carrying out the strategy which Mr. O'Connell has mapped out for us. We must make it clear that we shall not hesitate to punish those who want to use violence.
  It must be pointed out in this context that we have to dispel any talk of future amnesties. There is a rumour circulating in many parts of Belfast that all kinds of activities engaged in now may be the subject of future amnesties. This view is especially prevalent among some of the more hooligan elements which associate themselves with one community or another primarily to engage in violence of their own making which has very little to do with politics. We must make it clear that people who engage in violent crime will not be pardoned and have their sentences removed simply because they claim some kind of political involvement.
  Mr. David James: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised this point, because it is of crucial importance. I support any suggestion that we want a definitive statement from the Government that in no circumstances will there ever be an amnesty, as such.
  Mr. Beith: I believe that an indication of view from the Secretary of State on issues of this kind would be extremely helpful. I am sure that the Minister of
  2010
  State will note what has been said and take it up later in the debate.
  In addition to doing our best to make it clear that we shall continue to fight the IRA in this period, we must encourage the widest possible discussion in the community. In my view that should be happening now. The discussion papers are a contribution to that process.
  We should also do all that we can to maintain and restore normality of life. There is nothing more productive of an extreme reaction than despair—despair over such basic problems as housing, or getting a case, for compensation or damages settled—amongst ordinary people. The build-up of frustration has been very great. I have no doubt that the Ministers involved recognise the importance of this, but it must be stressed that getting the people of Northern Ireland back to some normality of life of the kind that we expect on this side of the water in terms of administration and provision of public services is of immense importance.
  We must do our best to let the majority community feel that they are protected by the RUC and the Army, and we must do all that we can to avoid giving anything other than an even-handed impression. There is no getting away from the fact that internment and some of its implications have increased the problem in this respect. The very issue of internment without trial remains a propaganda weapon in the hands of the IRA. as is the way in which it is operated.
  Right hon. and hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies will be familiar with the feeling in some quarters that, whereas the RUC takes cases to court and avoids internment wherever possible, the Army tends to make more use of it. There are obvious reasons for this—the main one being that the RUC is policing, primarily, areas in which there is a relatively high degree of community co-operation, whereas the Army is patrolling areas where the level of co-operation is low and the risk of intimidation is high. However, the problem exists, and it helps to increase the unwillingness of one section of the community to express confidence in the authorities. It should be taken by the Catholic majority as a strong argument for accepting normal policing by the RUC. However, so long as there is some dis-

  2011
  parity between what happens in RUC-policed areas and what happens in Army-patrolled areas, it is bound to be a source of further difficulty.
  It has been suggested that if we were to set a date for the withdrawal of British troops in advance of the Convention, we would provide to the IRA and other extremist groups a clear incentive to put their heads together in order to determine what to do or to arrange for a peaceful takeover. We should be clear that the IRA would have no such incentive. It does not make sense to suggest that on receipt of the news that British troops were to be withdrawn by a certain date the IRA leadership would seek accommodations with various sections of the community with whom they disagree. They would immediately look to how to defend their stockade and possibly to extend it.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian made it clear that he envisaged the consequence of British troop withdrawals as being that policing in various areas would be taken over by the extremist groups. I do not view the prospect with the equanimity that he seemed to express. In my view that offers no hope for any future for the people of either community. I view the suggestion with horror——
  Mr. Dalyell: Not equanimity.
  Mr. Beith: Perhaps that is not the right word, but certainly the hon. Gentleman seemed prepared to accept the possibility of policing by the extremist organisations. We have seen what the law of the extremist gunman is. We have seen what passes for a trial. We have seen what passes for evidence, for sentence and for punishment——
  Mr. Dalyell: What is the hon. Gentleman's alternative?
  Mr. Beith: I do not think that it would be right to make policing by the IRA the basis of our policy, and there is no evidence that there would be any incentive to the extremist organisations to move towards peaceful and realistic policies if we set a date for the withdrawal of our troops.
  The British Government must show that they are the ally not of any particular community but of all those in Northern
  2012
  Ireland who are prepared to talk their way to a political solution. For us to back down on that commitment now would be fatal.
  6.50 p.m.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: As we enter the last days of 1974 we are once again engaged in a Northern Ireland debate. This year, which began so hopefully for the people of Northern Ireland and Great Britain, has ended in stark tragedy for them, particularly for the people of Birmingham.
  I pay my respects to the courage and initiative shown by the previous Conservative Government in their attempt to get the people of Northern Ireland to work together to evolve political structures which would be acceptable to the whole community. This time last year, when we were all engaged in the Sunningdale talks, we desperately tried to bring about a form of government which would bring to an end the tragedy and violence we have witnessed in Northern Ireland for so long. We thought that we had succeeded, and I honestly believed that we had.
  On 1st January this year, when the Executive took office in Ireland, people from different traditions, who had been bitter political opponents and who represented the various aspirations in Northern Ireland, were determined to try to work together as never before to eradicate the violence and the gunmen from our midst. We never had a chance to succeed. That Executive and all that had gone into it was deliberately wrecked.
  It was wrecked by the IRA, which immediately engaged in a campaign of bombing, intimidation and assassination to make certain that that worthwhile experiment never got off the ground. It was wrecked by the intransigence of the Unionist majority, who were not prepared to give the system an opportunity to work. Most of all, it was wrecked by the unfortunate timing of the February election, which led to the return of so many extremists who wanted a return to the ascendancy under which Northern Ireland had been governed for 50 years. After the February results it was easy to see that we should not succeed. The IRA was determined to bring about a united Ireland and to coerce the vast majority of the Northern Ireland people

  2013
  into the Republic against their will— something which the people in the Republic did not want. The Unionist majority were determined to resurrect Stormont and to create once again an ascendancy.
  Then came the strike, be it political or constitutional, the repercussions of which will still be felt throughout the Western democracies. Make no mistake, I know that some of my hon. Friends would be wary of taking action against the people involved in the strike because of the trade union connotations which apply in this country, but that strike had nothing to do with any trade union stoppage that has ever taken place in the United Kingdom. It had nothing to do with the wages or conditions of the people who worked in factories and industries. It was deliberately aimed to bring Northern Ireland to a standstill and so do away with the experiment that we had initiated.
  After the downfall of the Northern Ireland Executive we find ourselves once again in a political desert. I intend to say nothing that could be construed as partisan. I intend to say nothing that could inflame passions in Northern Ireland, or that could escalate dangerous tensions. A great responsibility rests on the elected representatives of the Northern Ireland people. Words spoken in the House can lead to death and destruction in Northern Ireland. I hope to have the support of my Unionist opponents who represent Northern Ireland constituencies. I hope that they, too, will feel that they should do what they can to fill the political vacuum that exists prior to the Convention elections.
  I recognise that it may be said that if we engage in discussions at this time we may lose the support of some of our more extreme supporters and that we shall harm our bargaining position in the Convention elections. I am prepared to lose that support, and I advise hon. Gentlemen with overwhelming majorities who represent Unionist constituencies not to let those overwhelming majorities deter them from taking account of the interests of the whole community in Northern Ireland. Each vote that was cast for a Unionist representative did not mean that the elector wanted the return of Unionist ascendency. Those overwhelming majorities do not mean that the people wish to
  2014
  see a continuation of the hard-line intransigent attitude that we have seen so often in the House. Thousands of people who voted for my Unionist opponents desperately want to see the end of violence and yearn for peace, just as do my constituents.
  Pertinent questions have been asked this afternoon by three hon. Members on the Government benches. The Secretary of State would do less than justice to himself and his Government if he failed to answer those questions. The feeling in Northern Ireland is that the result of the election is predictable and that the United Ulster Unionists will have a majority. I cannot say whether that will be true. I hope that no single party or political ideology will ever have such an overwhelming majority in the Convention as to make it impossible for one person to see the other person's point of view. I hope that the elections will result in a broad reflection of political opinions and ideologies. It may then be possible again to evolve a system of partnership in government.
  To look at the future at its worst, if there were to be an overwhelming Unionist majority which adopted a hard-line attitude in the Convention and refused to have a power-sharing partnership or anything resembling the Irish dimension as it was understood at Sunningdale, what will be the attitude of the British Government? The Government must make contingency plans. In the past our hopes have been raised high and within a short time dashed to smithereens. It is the bounden duty of the Government to say what they will do if that is the outcome of the Convention election and the Unionist party remain intransigent.
  There is an opinion amongst hard-line Unionists that the British Government will never face them in open conflict and that they will keep the troops there to protect not the minority interests but the Unionist majority population.
  I have heard sneers and jibes at Ministers to the effect that, whatever they may say at the Dispatch Box, however much they may tell the Unionist majority that they will have to reach an accommodation with their fellow countrymen in Northern Ireland, it is only talk, because the Government are unwilling to face them in such a confrontation.

  2015
  I believe that before the Convention elections take place in Northern Ireland, the Government should spell out clearly the conclusions that they will accept and those that they will reject. They have already said—it has been repeated time and again in this House and been written into the Downing Street communiques —that they will insist on a recognition of both communities in Northern Ireland working together in partnership and power sharing. That power sharing must not be given at the behest of the majority in Northern Ireland. It must not be a committee system in which a minor position is given to a minority representative. Due weight must be given to the fact that those who would be opposed to Unionism form a significant part of the population in Northern Ireland and that they must be given power at executive level as well.
  I concede that in the Irish dimension that we envisage may not initially or in the short term have anything approaching what we had under the Sunningdale Agreement—a Council of Ireland. I shall continue to work for such an establishment. If people in Northern Ireland learn to live together, it will be essential for some means to be found to enable the Northern Ireland majority, both Catholic and Protestant, to communicate with the rest of the people in the small island of Ireland.
  I am prepared to discuss with the Unionist majority whatever means can be found to bring into operation an Irish dimension that can be recognised and trusted for what it is. Under the Sunningdale Agreement the Irish dimension that we had for such a short time offered no danger to the Unionist majority. All kinds of safeguards were built into it. For example, there was the unanimity rule and the Council of Ministers.
  However, those who were opposed to the establishment of that Irish dimension deliberately set out to misrepresent what it meant and to create and instil fear into the minds of their supporters about it. They succeeded only too well. The Sunningdale Agreement and all that it stood for was brought to an untimely end.
  2016
  The British Government must show courage in this situation. They must clearly state what they are prepared to accept and what they will not accept. Only by doing that will people in Northern Ireland, who believe that this Government will not insist on anything, be brought to the full realisation of the consequences of their actions if they insist on rejecting the will of this House. In the final analysis it is this House, not this Government or the Opposition, which must agree to any decisions about Northern Ireland and its future.
  Last week in this House we agreed to certain emergency legislation. I did not vote against the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, because I recognised the depth of feeling in this country about the tragedy of Birmingham. During the past five years people in Northern Ireland have had to live with an almost daily succession of such tragedies.
  Legislation of the kind that we passed last week probably will be successful— we may have to bring into operation an extension of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act—but it will not lead to peace. Repressive legislation, throughout the long history of the relationship between Ireland and Britain, has never brought peace. I give notice to my right hon. and hon. Friends that I shall be voting against the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) Order, and I hope that a considerable number of my hon. Friends will support me in the Lobbies.
  I have no hesitation in saying that I detect in the attitude, the expression, and the demeanour of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour), who now speaks for the Opposition on Northern Ireland affairs, a decided swing from the attitude that we knew under the Conservative Government. The right hon. Gentleman believes in a para-military solution to the Northern Ireland problem. He is very foolhardy to believe that. Anyone who believes in a para-military solution to that problem has no experience of Ireland, either North or South. I wonder whether the Leader of the Opposition is in full accord with some of the sentiments expressed time and again by the right hon. Gentleman about Northern Ireland.

  2017
  My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) asked the right hon. Gentleman what he meant when he said that para-military organisations in Northern Ireland should somehow be brought into the political discussions. The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a difference between organisations which were proscribed and those which were not.
  Certain organisations have rightly been proscribed because they are engaged in campaigns of violence. However, other organisations which have not been proscribed are also engaged in campaigns of violence.
  The Ulster Defence Association is a para-military organisation. Yesterday, three of its members were convicted in a British court and sentenced to long terms of imprisonment for arms trafficking. If those arms had reached the City of Belfast, in what way would they have been used? They would have been used on the minority population in the right set of circumstances.
  If the IRA, as an organisation engaged in violence, is to be proscribed, so should the UDA, the UFF, the Red Hand Commandos and all the other organisations which are engaged in campaigns of violence.
  Public relations are very important in Northern Ireland. Yesterday the Belfast Telegraph carried a story about a man who was brought before a court under the emergency legislation, because a machine-gun, a rifle and a revolver had been found at his home. Forensic tests proved that the machine-gun had been used in three murders—I take it that the victims were Catholics—and in 14 other shooting incidents. He was brought before the court and later released on bail of £750. He said that he was disenchanted with the UDA and did not want to have anything further to do with it.
  Surely a person who is found in control of a weapon that has led to the death of three probably innocent people should be asked to say who was responsible for the placing of the gun in his home, if it was not himself. I shall not presume to judge this case, but stories such as that give reason for concern amongst the minority population, particularly when such stories are backed by the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham
  2018
  saying that para-military organisations outside the IRA should be brought into political discussions.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) has left the Chamber. His was an appalling speech, and it did not represent the view of anyone in Northern Ireland. His view is that the Army should be withdrawn and the Provisional IRA should be given the duty of policing districts in Northern Ireland. That is the last thing that my constituents want. No one wants to see that. The Provisional IRA mentality is not representative of the views of the minority. In every election that the Provisional IRA has fought, its candidates have lost their deposits. At every election in which the Catholic minority has had the opportunity to express its opinion at the ballot box they have rejected completely the men of violence. That has happened not only during the last five years but throughout the history of Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) seems to attach a good deal of importance to the opinions of both Official and Provisional IRA men who are interned, some of whom have been convicted. I am against internment without trial, and nothing will remove my opposition to that, but the opinions to which the hon. Gentleman attaches such importance count for nothing in Belfast. I do not pass judgment on any individual who has been interned without trial. That is a matter for the Secretary of State and not for me.
  I think I heard the hon. Gentleman mention Quigley, a man who has been sentenced to 12 years' imprisonment for attempting to blow up British Home Stores in Belfast. That man does not speak for my constituents, though he lives in my constituency, and anyone who agrees with or supports men like him is rejected by ordinary decent peace-loving members of the Catholic minority.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian said that he heard David O'Connell make that dangerous, destructive and tragic broadcast on a Sunday when he said that there had been a similar situation in Algeria and after the French under de Gaulle left, some French colonialists decided to stay and were living very well. That is contrary to the facts. The vast majority of them

  2019
  left Algeria. Before coming to the debate this afternoon I checked the facts with French officials, and I can tell the House that the vast majority of French colonialists left Algeria. If someone listens avidly to and accepts as pearls of wisdom the words that fall from the mouth of David O'Connell, he can be given the wrong impression.
  The hon. Gentleman said that he had been told by people in Long Kesh that there would not be any danger of a holocaust if the British Army was withdrawn. Let me choose my words very carefully. I shall be the happiest representative in Northern Ireland when it is no longer necessary to have the British Army patrolling the streets of my constituency. I want to engage in every possible political endeavour to try to create the climate in which it will be possible for British forces to be withdrawn, first, because of my national belief that ultimately Ireland will be united and, secondly, because of the tragedies that have been inflicted on the families of the soldiers who, unfortunately, have lost their lives in the Northern Ireland conflict.
  It is worth recalling what was said in a television and radio broadcast on, I believe, RTE by Sammy Smyth, a former spokesman for the UDA, after the Birmingham bombing. He was asked what he felt when he heard of the bombings and he replied:
  "When I heard of the bombings in Birmingham my immediate instinct was to get bombs and go out and blow up every well-filled Catholic church in Northern Ireland."
  That was a gut reaction, and that is what would happen if there were no protecting forces on the streets of Northern Ireland. I want to see the British Army withdrawn as soon as possible, and a great responsibility rests upon the elected representatives of Northern Ireland to try to create the political climate in which that may be possible.
  Time and again in this House and in Northern Ireland, and through the media, the SDLP is castigated on the ground that we do not give full support to the RUC in Northern Ireland. I have already said that I shall not go back into history or say anything about the record of the RUC. It would be extremely easy for me to do so, but I shall resist the temptation.
  2020
  Sunningdale was a freely arrived at agreement between the SDLP, the Unionists led by Mr. Faulkner, the Alliance Party and the Irish Government. The then Prime Minister—now the Leader of the Opposition—went to great pains to be present during those momentous four days. In all, 22 points of agreement were arrived at and they covered every aspect of political life in Northern Ireland and in the Republic.
  First, there was to be the Executive, then Ministers were to be appointed to it. This was to be followed by recognition of the Northern Ireland State by the Irish Government and the setting up of judicial processes that would enable people who engaged in violence to be apprehended on either side of the Border. The IRA, in concert with the Unionists who were victorious at the elections in February of this year, wrecked the agreement.
  Mr. Delargy: And the strikes played their part.
  Mr. Fitt: Yes. A significant part of the agreement was written in by the SDLP, and I signed the agreement. Policing in Northern Ireland is not an easy matter. Given the history of the State, it is a delicate subject, yet now we are being told to forget about the other 21 points of the agreement and recognise the RUC. To say the least, that is not fair and I say again that the creation and acceptance of security forces in Northern Ireland is part and parcel of an overall political settlement. One cannot consider the police and security situation in isolation from all the political problems. Anyone who has justice in mind will concede that to be correct.
  I have never in this House or in Northern Ireland—nor has any member of my party—condemned the RUC in total as being unacceptable.
  Mr. John Dunlop: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why one of his companions in the SDLP has used the Press, radio and television to describe the RUC as a pack of scoundrels? How does the hon. Gentleman reconcile that with what he has just said?
  Mr. Fitt: My colleague—the hon. Gentleman refers to John Hume—did not refer to the RUC as a pack of scoundrels. The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. My colleague was questioned at

  2021
  great length in what was an antagonistic and hostile interview. We have all been subject to such at times. He said that in his opinion there were still scoundrels within the RUC. I resist the temptation to go into this in detail, but we have had the Scarman Report, the Cameron Report and the Bailie Report, and from these we can see whether those remarks were justified in the circumstances.
  I recognise that many other hon. Members wish to speak and so I shall try to be brief in the remaining part of my speech. We have been talking about the political situation in Northern Ireland, the attempts to create political structures and to do away with violence. But underlying all this is the terrible social problem that we have in Northern Ireland. As recently as this week the Housing Executive issued a report on housing in Northern Ireland. That report makes clear that Northern Ireland is the worst-housed area in the whole of the United Kingdom. The report mentioned my constituency which has many deprived Protestants and Catholics. They are deprived not only through living in homes that do not come up to normal standards, but in terms of employment.
  The economic problems now besetting the whole of Northern Ireland seem to be swamped in the pools of blood that are darkening our streets. The Government here in London must make clear—I think I have said this four times during my speech—what would be their intentions if the Loyalist majority in the Convention reject the will of this House. I appeal to the Government not to let themselves be intimidated by men of violence, whether those men be in the Provisional IRA, the Official IRA, the UVF or the UDA.
  If we stand together in attempting to ensure that social justice and freedom are brought back to Northern Ireland, the men of violence will be defeated. In that battle I shall be unreservedly on the side of the people in Northern Ireland who want desperately to bring the campaign to an end.
  7.23 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Miscampbell: I welcome the opportunity to follow the speech of the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), regardless of whether one agrees with the specific points he made. There were three themes
  2022
  in his speech worth noting. He said that there must be co-operation in Northern Ireland—and that goes without saying. He said that there is no quick pull-out solution and, above all, that this Government and this House have a direct responsibility for what is, after all, a part of the United Kingdom.
  Since the outrages in Birmingham I have sensed a growing awareness of the Ulster problem. It has come to the fore in two views expressed in the House this afternoon, and I shall deal with them briefly. There has been the view expressed by the hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), that we can achieve a solution by pulling out of Northern Ireland. The point was put at its most extreme by the hon. Member for West Lothian. He seems to contemplate a situation in which, as he puts it, on balance he does not think that there will be a civil war in that part of the United Kingdom.
  But to view a matter like this "on balance" amounts to a chance that this House has no right to take and, indeed, could not take. It would be quite impossible to do so. The hon. Gentleman envisages that parts of Belfast—a British city—should be taken over by the Provisional IRA. What would happen if the IRA tried to achieve their political ends by taking Ulster out of the United Kingdom? I believe that fighting would be inevitable, and I do not think that any British Cabinet would contemplate taking the sort of decision that might lead to such a consequence.
  I do not think that withdrawal is an option open to the Government. The Secretary of State has twice said emphatically in the debate that he has no intention of driving Ulster into the arms of the Republic. In a speech last week he drew the picture of the situation that has been drawn here again today, and has been recognised by the hon. Member for Belfast, West, that if the British presence were to go, there would be grave danger to the Catholic minority. But I go much further than that. I say that there would be danger not only to the Catholic minority but to all the people in Northern Ireland, all of whom are British citizens—and this House must recognise that it has a responsibility to those people.

  2023
  I turn briefly to the present position. The Northern Ireland Labour Party got the position right last week when it said that
  "vacillation in the past has created the necessary vacuum on which armed conspiracy has depended".
  At its conference the Northern Ireland Labour Party was taking an extremely pessimistic view of the future of the Convention.
  Two views are expressed in Northern Ireland about the Government's activity or, as I see it, inactivity over the past six months. One view is that the Government in the past six months—during which there was, inevitably, a General Election—wished to put off any decision about Northern Ireland, as far as was possible, in order to get a period of quiet in which they had no need to take any action. There is another view that I must tell the House about—and this view is believed in Northern Ireland, although I do not accept it. It is that the Government's latest actions are no more than a preparation for them to shuffle off their responsibilities regarding Northern Ireland. I give the Government the benefit of the doubt on this. I do not believe that that is the Government's intention, but I have to tell the House that this view is held widely in the North of Ireland.
  I thought that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun) got the position right in her interesting speech. She was, in effect, saying directly to the Government that over the past six months they had created a vacuum, and that in that period they had not borne their responsibilities. I regard that as being at least partially true. Had Northern Ireland been able to solve its own problems, on its own, and left to itself—as seems to be the wish of many hon. Members—it would have done so at some time within the past 50 years. But it cannot, and it has not. The Government must recognise that there is not only an Irish dimension but also a British dimension, a deeply important British dimension, and I think that that point is being ignored at the moment.
  There is to be a Constitutional Convention. We cannot lay down or dictate
  2024
  to those who are to be elected as representatives in the North of Ireland what they should or should not do. We certainly cannot dictate to them on tight lines. But they are entitled to some guidance and help from the Government about what is acceptable and what is not. How can an association choose someone to go to the Constitutional Convention when it does not know what kind of government will be formed, what powers the British Government envisage giving to Stormont or what the British Government will insist on at the end of the day?
  The natural result is that, as each one is adopted—the adoptions are going on apace now in the North of Ireland—they are being mandated by their associations to take a very tight line at the Convention. I am sure that it would have been much better—it may be too late now—if the Government had faced up to their responsibilities and recognised that they could not draw away from a problem which is specifically a United Kingdom problem. It cannot be left to Ulster to decide on its own. The present Government have a responsibility. I hope that it is not too late—either in this debate or soon—for them to tell us what they hope and expect from the Convention. They are much more likely to get a solution which they will accept if they do that.
  That means that they must also spell out the clear concessions that will be made. One noticed that the "Irish dimension" was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech. Is that still a prerequisite of a solution in the North of Ireland? If it is, to the best of my judgment there will be no solution; we might as well forget about elections to a Convention in March. I will not go into the arguments now. That has been done by other hon. Members on this side and recognised even by some hon. Members opposite.
  It is time to face up to the proper representation of Northern Ireland. It would surely be a concession that we would want to make, as democrats. However, apart from that, if it will help us to get a solution, to stop the bloodshed in Northern Ireland or at least to give us the chance to get a political solution which might be a step towards the cessation of bloodshed, it is a small step to take, bearing in mind that it is the

  2025
  democratic right of those who live there to have a proper representation in the House that will decide their fate.
  My final point is technical rather than a point of principle. As I understand it —I hope that the Minister will be able to give us guidance—as soon as the Convention is formed, the present Assembly men, some of whom will be in the Convention, of course, will lose their posts. There will be no Assembly. We do not know how long the Convention will go on in six-month stages. Knowing Irish politics, one realises that it may go on for some time. But is it necessary that the one should supersede the other?
  The Convention cannot do the job which I know is being done at the moment by those Assembly men. I know that they are not going to Stormont, but the ordinary complaints and constituency work of Northern Ireland, of the kind with which we are so familiar here, is being done in some measure, perhaps in large measure, by the old Assembly men. Why do they have to go? Why can they not stay to do that job? Surely the broad shoulders of hon. Members on this Unionist bench can be made to bear the added burden of taking on every domestic problem as well——
  Mr. Molyneaux: We may have to.
  Mr. Miscampbell: Indeed, they may have to. But this House does not have direct responsibility for these problems. They are Belfast problems in many cases——
  Mr. McNamara: They are our problems.
  Mr. Miscampbell: I stand corrected. The hon. Gentleman is right. It is right that the responsibility is here. I should have put it another way—that on many matters the inquiries have to be made in Belfast rather than here. That is all I meant.
  Would it not have been sensible to leave the Assembly in being at least until the Convention had produced a solution or had failed? To get rid of it is to get rid of a useful solution for dealing with the nuts and bolts of minor domestic problems in the North of Ireland which could be dealt with by those people rather than by hon. Members here.
  7.35 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Delargy: You will be relieved to hear, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I do not propose to speak for more than a few minutes. The Secretary of State will be equally relieved to hear that I have no solution whatever to offer of the Ulster problem. In fact, I had no intention of speaking in the debate or even of listening to it until about lunchtime today. I consider that at this moment speeches made about Northern Ireland—my speeches, certainly —are a complete waste of time. Then why, if I think so, am I speaking now?
  I am speaking now because this morning, through the post, I received a pamphlet which no other hon. Member has received. It is a pamphlet about Ulster's problems called, "The Ulster Quarrel", price one old penny—from which it may be deduced that it is not a modern pamphlet. In fact, it was written 36 years ago very hurriedly, to coincide with a meeting called in the Manchester Free Trade Hall at which the principal speaker was a young man called Erskine Childers, who died recently as President of the Republic of Ireland.
  On reading the pamphlet, I was surprised to see how much of it was up to date. It touched on social problems, which I regret to say have not been mentioned today, which have been the cause of all the horrors and unrest of the last five years. The pamphlet was written with English people in mind. The author was of the opinion that there was some conspiracy of silence about what was going on in the North of Ireland.
  When I heard the mistaken speech today of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in which he said that a TV and news black-out would assist in solving the Irish problem, I could only reflect that 50 years of silence has helped to create it. We were never allowed to debate Northern Ireland in this House. When we asked questions about injustice, evictions, discrimination and the rest, we were always told that they had nothing to do with us, that they were internal matters which came under the jurisdiction of Stormont.
  Mr. Molyneaux: Would the hon. Gentleman also agree that exactly the same position existed during the brief life of the Executive at Stormont and that, despite the efforts of the Ulster

  2027
  Unionists at the time to have that corrected, nothing was done and that looked like being the position had the Executive continued to function?
  Mr. Delargy: I regret to say that I do not know. I am not as well acquainted with Stormont as the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Molyneaux: Here.
  Mr. Delargy: During my time in the House of Commons—I think that I have been a Member for longer than anyone present in the Chamber tonight—I cannot remember hearing any Member from Northern Ireland asking that these questions be answered.
  Mr. Molyneaux: Yes, they did.
  Mr. Delargy: I do not remember one of them. I have said this time and again. I have written it many times. I have never previously been corrected on this point. We were told that it was the affair of Stormont and not of this House, in spite of the fact that the Government of Ireland Act said quite specifically that ultimately the responsibility for Northern Ireland rested here. Therefore, the two main parties in this House have a great deal to answer for. They have great guilt on their shoulders for what is happening.
  I said that the pamphlet was, in a sense, up to date. We read again from the pamphlet about entry without warrant, detention for any unlimited period, and internment without trial. It was all going on then under the Special Powers Act with the help of the B Specials and the armed police. There was not much difference from what is taking place now.
  I can give some of the reasons for the unrest in Northern Ireland. I have quotations here. I said that this was an old pamphlet from men who are now long dead. However, I shall give only three short quotations from three Prime Ministers of Northern Ireland. I start with Lord Craigavon and with his famous slogan
  "Ours is a Protestant Parliament for a Protestant people."
  I cannot remember one Unionist saying anything to the contrary. Then his successor, Mr. Andrews—I believe he was his immediate successor—said when he was Minister of Labour that he had heard a rumour that of the 31 porters at Stor-
  2028
  mont—porters; God help us—28 were Catholics. He also said:
  "I have investigated this matter and have found that there are 30 Protestants and only one Catholic, and he is there only temporarily."
  We all remember the third Prime Minister I shall quote, Sir Basil Brooke, later Lord Brookeborough. He said:
  "Many in this audience employ Catholics, but I would not have one about my place."
  A year later, when he had had opportunity to reflect upon it and when he had read what the newspaper editorials had said about that statement, he said:
  "When I made that declaration I did so after careful consideration. What I said was justified. I recommend people not to employ Roman Catholics."
  I do not wish to resurrect old bones. The whole point of my speech is that what we are debating now we should have been debating years and years ago, because the same conditions applied then as apply now.
  I should like to tell hon. Members, in another way, how these same conditions apply. The pamphlet from which I have quoted was written 36 years ago and was a great success. There were only 5,000 copies of the first printing because it had to be printed in a hurry for the meeting about which I spoke. The first printing sold out in two days. But there was never a second printing, because several hours after the meeting in the Manchester Free Trade Hall, in the early hours of the morning a mysterious explosion occurred, which killed a man on his way to work at the market. After a little while it was established that this explosion had been caused by a bomb set by an organisation of which most people in England then had never heard—the IRA.
  Other explosions occurred, and other people were killed by bombs set by the IRA. The IRA did not simply kill all those innocent people. The IRA killed hope and the good will of men who were trying to seek a peaceful solution to the problems. The IRA killed the efforts that men of good will were making to enlist the sympathy of the people of England, from whom the truth was being withheld by Parliament and the Press.
  The immense harm which the IRA did then it has multiplied since. No one condemns the IRA more strongly than I do. I have been talking about a

  2029
  pamphlet. I may as well tell the House now, of course, that I wrote it. I was a brash young man in those days. I imagined that I could change people's opinions. I know better now. No one takes the slightest notice of anything I say. I have no need to be reminded of that. When one has been a Member of the House for 30 years, always in the obscurity of the back benches, one has no need to be reminded that one is of no significance. Nevertheless, it is still one's duty to say what one thinks, and I am saying that now.
  I have no solutions to offer. I felt that Sunningdale was a solution. I am still grateful to any pay homage to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) and all those associated with him who negotiated that agreement.
  Mr. Dunlop: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw), in spite of the assurance that he gave to the people of Ulster, invited the IRA and Sinn Fein representatives from Dublin and transported them to London in a British aeroplane to talk to him—the people who 36 years ago were doing what the hon. Gentleman is now condemning?
  Mr. Delargy: I do not wish to be deflected from what I am saying about Sunningdale. I am not discussing at present what the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border did on other occasions. If the hon. Gentleman would care to have a word with me after the debate, I should be quite agreeable to that, but I shall not be drawn away from what I am now saying.
  The Sunningdale Agreement was accepted by the Labour Party when it came to power, and we all rejoiced. Although I have always been in favour of a united Ireland, I think that there is something in what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Mis-campbell). If by dropping this talk of an Irish dimension we can get peace in Northern Ireland, I might even go that far. Anything for peace, to save lives.
  But Sunningdale was scrapped, largely because of a strike which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said in the best speech of the debate
  2030
  so far, had nothing whatever to do with industrial conditions but was a political strike. The Government did not know how to handle that strike. They should have known how to handle it, and they could have handled it.
  Mr. Dunlop: What about the miners' strike?
  Mr. Delargy: The miners' strike was an industrial strike. I cannot see the parallel between the strike of the miners in Britain and this strike in Northern Ireland, the leaders of which said was called on account of the Sunningdale Agreement. They wanted to smash the Sunningdale Agreement and they were not in favour of power sharing.
  Mr. Dunlop: The miners wanted to abolish the Industrial Relations Act.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The more interruptions there are the fewer hon. Members will have the chance of being called.
  Mr. Delargy: I am sorry that I have spoken for longer than I had intended. I am not very optimistic about the Convention—not after Sunningdale—and I have never been optimistic about Northern Ireland. When my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) said that he originally thought that British troops were going to Northern Ireland as part of a fire brigade operation lasting three or four months I could not help recalling that I told the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) that the troops would probably be there for several years. I also said then that there should be a separate Minister for Northern Ireland and I was sneered at. Now we have four.
  Suppose there is a strike after the Convention. What will the Government do then? Will they be blackmailed once again? We have a right to be told. We have a right—and this has been asked from both sides of the House—to know what is the minimum the Government expect to achieve before the Convention meets. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) mentioned the possibility of violent organisations which are not proscribed being called in for consultation. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) tackled

  2031
  me over the action of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) in consulting the IRA. Are the Government planning to consult these non-proscribed organisations? I am frightened about this, because the last words which were spoken in our 17-hour debate which ended last Friday morning concerned the refusal of the Home Secretary to proscribe in his terrorist Bill the UDA, the UFF and the Red Hand Commandos. Those organisations should have been included and I was in favour of pressing the point in a Division. If there had been one I would have voted for the third time that night against my Government, and I would have done it with a glad heart, because I knew that I was right.
  I have always considered my speeches on this subject to be a waste of time. I have no solution to offer, but I should like an answer to my questions. I apologise to the House for having wasted its time.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. Robert J. Bradford: The people in Northern Ireland will have received the Secretary of State's remarks about the police with a certain degree of pleasure. The fact that he has recognised the tremendous contribution of the police over the last few years will be extremely pleasing. We would have preferred him to recognise their contribution over a far longer period.
  I submit that the authority of the Royal Ulster Constabulary is not exactly enhanced by the lack of liaison between the Army and the police. Under the existing provisions the Army is able to hold men or women for four hours for questioning. Often those people are Roman Catholics because the Army tends to operate more in Roman Catholic areas, while the police operate more in Protestant areas. Yet in certain Catholic areas the police could in some instances save the Army a fair degree of work and increase its potential acceptability there. The Army does not consult officers in the constabulary about family backgrounds. It often makes mistakes which antagonise the minority and which consultation could have avoided. Liaison with the police is therefore of vital importance.
  2032
  My second point concerns the importance of using the RUC in certain areas in Northern Ireland. There are still no-go areas for the RUC, and that has sinister overtones. When the Army arrests Catholics in Northern Ireland it tends to intern or detain them. People from Protestant areas who are arrested by the police tend to be brought before the courts. If a future settlement is reached, therefore, there could be the problem of detainees being granted amnesty which is not available to convicted prisoners even though they may all be as guilty as one another. That could be a further serious source of disruption in the community.
  The third point of importance is the local command structure to combat the impromptu terrorist situation. This is a rôle for the reserve force. The specialist force has been greatly maligned over the years. These men, under a local command structure, were able to react instantly when terrorists were discovered. Although the UDR is a tremendous regiment and agency for keeping law and order, it has shortcomings in the situation I have described. We therefore advocate that the police reserve should be reconstructed so that it can fulfil this important function which has proved such an asset in the fight against terrorists.
  In his measures the Secretary of State has not dealt fully with the border situation. There are more than 300 miles of border to secure against terrorists and it seems nothing more than common sense to deploy full-time UDR men in that vital rôle. It is one thing to snare terrorists in an urban situation, but quite another to apprehend them as they enter the country.
  I add my comment to that made by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneux) who highlighted the concern expressed by Ulster people when they listened to comments by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. The inference seemed to be that if the Army were withdrawn from Northern Ireland the minority would immediately be victimised and bludgeoned by the majority. We hope that it will be made clear that neither of those Cabinet Ministers is trying to reflect the opinion that Protestants have wholesale murder in their hearts.

  2033
  The speed with which Parliament rightly dealt with the problem caused by the atrocity at Birmingham will not have escaped the attention of the people of Northern Ireland. The question which immediately comes to mind is, why was it not done in reaction to five or six years of hideous terrorism in Northern Ireland?
  I turn to the problem of housing, which is perhaps second only to the great problem of the State and security. I compliment the Minister responsible for housing, who said in Northern Ireland last night that he would be seeking even more money than he has been allocated to deal with the chronic housing shortage. He emphasised that about one out of five homes in the Province was unfit for use. While we welcome the tremendous concern and intensity of his endeavours, we should like to record the disturbing emphasis he placed upon the minority in respect of housing.
  A Belfast newspaper, in a recent statement which was not challenged by the Minister responsible for housing, said that four-fifths of the applicants in Belfast were Roman Catholics. That is not so. The truth is that in South and East Belfast there are about 7,500 applicants for Housing Executive accommodation. A simple piece of arithmetic will produce the figure of 30,000 Roman Catholics awaiting houses in Belfast, which is absurd. The article added that most of those were residing in, and requiring accommodation in, West Belfast. It is an absurd figure, which was not challenged by the Minister.
  We ask that in any future housing programme the whole community is taken into consideration, and that no undue emphasis is placed upon the minority. The majority are being penalised because they have a sense of social responsibility. I do not intend to allow the debate to degenerate into a discussion about the morals, lack of morals and moral awareness of certain religions, but the point must be made that a large section of the Northern Ireland community is being penalised because it has a sense of responsibility in terms of family planning.
  There is also the great problem of derelict buildings of which there are about 9,500 in Northern Ireland. Perhaps the city council should be empowered to take
  2034
  them over, to remove the breeze blocks and make them habitable again for many people who desperately need housing in the immediate future.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South said that we sought to draw attention again and again to the need for parity within the whole kingdom. He said that Northern Ireland did not enjoy parity with the rest of the realm. It is incredible that the majority have to come to this democratic House and demand parity and full British standards, in legislation and in the form of a legislature. Let the House realise that the insidious movement that began with the war cry of "One man, one vote" and "Fair play for the minority" has now come to the point where it is trying to obstruct full parity for Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is an incredible turnabout.
  Sir Winston Churchill said that the anatomy of revolution consisted basically of three things: first, an attack upon the legitimate government of any given country; then an attack upon the security forces of that country; and, thirdly, an attack upon its economy. Over the past six years, and before—since the inception of the State of Northern Ireland— we have seen a consistent and persistent attack upon the Government. A certain section of the community, now known as the minority, from the inception did not want that Government to work. The attack upon the police, and the undermining of the security forces, came about, and comes about now, because the police and security forces were totally effective in rebuffing the enemies of the State. It is no surprise to hear the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) still denying his support and the support of his party to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and its reservists.
  The hope of our enemies was that if the economy of the country could be destroyed, men and women who wanted to remain British and to enjoy the full status of British citizenship would somehow be brought to the point where, having watched their businesses go and their means of income disappear, and their families perhaps enter into deprivation to a great degree, would eventually concede some kind of Irish dimension with executive powers.

  2035
  It is my duty tonight to assure the House that even though we have to coax and cajole a reluctant mother or father we shall not cease to do so. It is my belief that full British status will be given to Northern Ireland, because there is no alternative.
  Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Morton): Before calling the next hon. Member to speak, I remind the House that time is running on, that a considerable number of right hon. and hon. Members still wish to speak, and that brevity would be very acceptable.
  8.11 p.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: We now have it from the elected leader of the United Ulster Unionists, the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) that his party is not prepared to share power in a meaningful way with the minority in Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I said that we were prepared to consider any system which was in keeping with the concept of meaningful power sharing which we accept as Members of the United Kingdom Parliament.
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman was saying that unless he is able to go back to the old Stormont system he is having nothing to do with power sharing.
  Mr. Molyneaux: No.
  Mr. McNamara: That is the understanding of it. He is not prepared to share power in a meaningful manner with representatives of the minority. He is not prepared to give them a positive executive role in the administration of Government. Is that right?
  Mr. Molyneaux: I have made the position clear. We could not be expected or required to include in any form or in any structure people who are determined to destroy the State. I think that that would be accepted in any normal democracy.
  Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman is saying that people who have long-term aspirations for a united Ireland cannot share in any Government of his.
  Mr. Molyneaux: No; I refer to those who effectively would destroy the State.
  Mr. McNamara: If the hon. Gentleman is talking about the IRA, I accept his point, but if he is talking about people who would argue for a united Ireland, I cannot accept what he says.
  The situation is clear. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be in a difficult position after the Convention elections. The hon. Gentleman is not prepared to accept power sharing in a meaningful way with the minority. It is a shame that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) has left the Chamber, because I disagree with him. I do not think giving up the Irish dimension will lead to peace.
  It is clear that the hon. Member for Antrim, South is not prepared to accept power sharing. How shall we have a system which will be acceptable to the Parliament and the people of this country? That is what the members of the United Ulster Unionists must try to understand. For our part we are not prepared to see everything put at risk, our troops, our towns and our people, if the United Ulster Unionists are not prepared to accept what this House says about power sharing or are not prepared to accept it in a spirit of goodwill so as to make it work. The United Ulster Unionists are insistent that they alone shall have executive power. That is what we have had time after time from them. That is clear, and it must be placed on the record.
  It seems that it is now the official policy of the Conservative Party that when the Convention is meeting there shall be parallel meetings of representatives of local authorities and of the paramilitary organisations to discuss what is going on in the Convention. Public meetings are to be held with representatives of these various groups so that they can keep a watching brief on what is going on in the Convention. Is that official Conservative policy?
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) must speak for himself and amplify the remarks that he has put before the House. I have not heard him express such remarks before

  2037
  and there is no question involved of Conservative policy. My right hon. Friend was saying that it would be necessary to discuss the future of Northern Ireland with people who have a position of power and influence in Northern Ireland. However, my right hon. Friend must speak for himself.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have come here to listen and to understand what is going on. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) said that while the Convention is meeting I should call together meetings of the para-military organisations in Northern Ireland alongside the representatives who have been elected by the people. It is most important that we get this matter clear. The right hon. Gentleman, in putting his case, said that his was a political party which never took a U-turn after the election. I found that a strange remark. That is a curious way of expressing party doctrine. It is most important to get it clear. It will be noticed in Northern Ireland even if it is laughed off here.
  Mr. McNamara: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Perhaps the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) will answer the question that has been addressed to his right hon. Friend. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said that it is highly desirable to concern the community as a whole in discussions while the Convention is sitting. He said that for that purpose the community organisations and even the para-military organisations could be brought together in public places. He then encouraged my right hon. Friend to consider other possibilities. I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend will be able to think of other and better possibilities. By God, I hope that he can.
  We shall find a situation in which the British people will say, "We are putting the IRA members in gaol and the members of the UDA, yet over in Belfast they are sitting as some sort of court over the progress of the Convention." This presumably is official Conservative policy. The hon. Member for Epping Forest, who was at one time associated with the Monday Club, is now sitting on the Opposition Front Bench. No doubt he would wish to tread away from the Left-wing radical ideas of the Opposition's official spokesman. There is revealed another split in the Tory Party.
  2038
  But it is more than that. They are saying that we should call together the members of the para-military forces. I asked what would happen with the proscribed organisations. The Shadow Minister then drove his point home even further. He said that there is an obvious distinction between the proscribed and the non-proscribed organisations. If my right hon. Friend can be persuaded to take the IRA off the proscribed list, we might well have them sitting with the UDA.
  Who will represent these organisations? Is my right hon. Friend to nominate who will represent them or will they be given that choice themselves? Shall we have Mr. Craig and Mr. Spence acting as representatives? I think that the hon. Member for Epping Forest must say to his right hon. Friend that when he gives out ideas like this he should think them through and not just put them forward as some sort of academic exercise, throwing them off his shoulder with abandon. They are reeking with danger and he should understand that.
  Mr. Molyneaux: I do not intend to comment on the merits of invitations to various organisations to take part in public meetings, but does the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central feel that there is anything repugnant in the system of nomination, remembering that the Executive was nominated by the then Secretary of State and that the next Executive, if it is formed as he suggests, will presumably also be nominated?
  Mr. McNamara: I do not know what the next Executive will be like. We shall depend on United Ulster Unionists to bring forward a resolution that will be acceptable to the Members of this Parliament. The previous Executive had the support of a majority in the Assembly, and that is the important matter. It is answerable in that way.
  I return to the point that I was making. The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said that certain para-military organisations are not proscribed and therefore their interests must be recognised. He suggested that it is better to make a virtue out of their existence than simply to hope that they will go away. The IRA is proscribed but is in existence. Should we now make a virtue of its existence and not hope that it will go

  2039
  away? Should we bring in the IRA? I attack the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion because I find it hard, as a Socialist, to understand the sort of ideas that are now coming from the party of law and order.
  Secondly, the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion would be to take away the whole vestige of any sort of bipartisan policy such as we have had in this country—which is that we look to elected representatives and their people to talk to the Secretary of State and to try to come to decisions acceptable to this Parliament as a whole. That is the way in which we work. The IRA, the UDA and any other such groups have no right in a democratic assembly. They have a right to their own opinions, like everyone else, but they must be able to say that they represent constituencies or groups of people. We could not have self-appointed people trying to dictate to the rest of the community. The Conservative Party should be careful of what it is saying.
  I understand the reasons for the delay in elections to the Convention. I have advocated them. But while we are responsible for the Government of Northern Ireland, and while it has no Executive, we cannot get away from the feeling that there has been a most dangerous drift in policy. There has been lack of direction. Things have been done which have not put any heart into many people in the Six Counties.
  At one time, it was said that no Government here had the support of the majority in Northern Ireland. Now the Government have not even the support of the minority there. In some ways, that might be a useful position for the Government, in that one could say that they can take an objective stance. But it is regrettable when any Government cannot look to a great deal of support from any of the population in Northern Ireland.
  8.22 p.m.
  Mr. David James: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) for mentioning the dangerous drift, because that is the point I wish to consider. I recognise that the Secretary of State, through no fault of his own, has presided over a situation which has
  2040
  been getting steadily worse. One recalls those June days when my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw) had his birthday, and when we had the elections in Northern Ireland and such high hopes for the Executive. Now the situation has fallen to a sad state.
  I want to look to the possibility of new initiatives. We know that there cannot be any degree of integration with the Republic because 1 million Protestants would go through the roof. I understand their point of view. To me, home rule is not Rome rule, but it is a reality to them, and I respect their view.
  I have had cousins living on the border since 1634. One wing of the house is Protestant and the other Catholic, so my feelings are fairly evenly distributed. About one-third of the community in Northern Ireland are not particularly enamoured of being British.
  I want to look more seriously at the proposition advanced by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker), which was rather summarily rejected by one of my hon. Friends—that we might at least consider the possibility of an independent Ulster, not in the immediate future but in the long term, naturally within the Commonwealth, if that independent Ulster so chose, and with EEC and other existing relationships maintained.
  Rather than have the loyalties of the people of Ulster torn apart by dependence on London, on the one hand, and dependence on Dublin, on the other, this might get them concentrating on the fact that they have one superbly important thing in common—that they are Ulstermen and have every right to be proud of it.
  If the people of Ulster were to have independence to a limited degree, they might find that all these power-sharing problems would vanish, because I, as a Catholic, am convinced, having seen most of the parish priests in the "No go" and other areas, that the Catholic in Belfast or in Derry or in any of the country districts has far more in common with a fellow Ulsterman from, say, County Antrim than with a co-religionist in Cork. There is an Ulster identity which could be nourished. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry

  2041
  (Mr. Ross) nods assent. Certainly, the parish priests in his own city have given this advice. Such a proposal should not be dismissed out of hand. It is worthy of serious consideration, and there is no reason why it should disrupt any relationship which the people of Ulster wish to have with the United Kingdom or with the Republic of Ireland.
  Mr. Powell: Supposing they wanted to belong to the United Kingdom?
  Mr. James: They might find that dominion status would help them to get on with the rest of their community. It is up to them to decide.
  I want to examine the question of the border, because the legislation we enacted last week supposed that the border would be crossed only at "authorised places". Anyone who knows the border knows that to talk about authorised places for crossing is moonshine, because the number of unauthorised crossing places is no one's business. No serious thought has been given to this problem since the Border Commission, appointed after the 1921 treaty, reported in 1925–49 years and two days ago. A copy of the report is in the Library of the House.
  It is a thousand pities that the recommendations of the Border Commission were not taken more seriously, because many of our problems would not exist if they had been. I want to deal briefly with one or two suggestions about the border. This is not a suggestion for repartition. I am not trying to turn Ulster into 3½ counties, but, with a little give and take here and there, we could have a border 100 miles shorter, with 50 fewer road crossings and no footpaths across running through kitchens and dining rooms.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: But does not the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a very large Catholic population in Belfast and that no change on the border could deal with that very special problem?
  Mr. James: Of course I agree that that is so. But there are large minority groups throughout the whole of Ireland.
  A border has two specific objectives. The first is that, as far as humanly possible, it should reflect ethnic differences— for example, the border between France and Germany. The other is that it should
  2042
  have geographical validity, like the Rhine or the Pyrenees. But because everyone in Ireland got fed up with the whole subject by the time the Border Commission reported, they decided to settle for the Six Counties border, which had no significance in ethnic or geographical terms.
  South Armagh and the Crossmaglen area was recognised by the commission 49 years ago as utterly hopeless because it was nearly 100 per cent. Republican. It is, in fact, of no economic significance to Ulster. It follows no geographical boundary and about 25,000 people might be involved, 80 per cent. of whom are Republican in sentiment. By moving the border back a few miles to a range of hills—which troops and others can recognise—we would shorten the border from 60 miles to 40 miles and give the soldiers a much easier chance.
  Again, Monaghan juts like a thumb into the under-belly of Ulster. The border at Monaghan is 34 miles long. If there were a quid pro quo and the Republic were to cede the northern tip of Monaghan, excluding Monaghan Town, and take the line of the boundary down the Monaghan canal, the border would be reduced to 18 miles of water and we would have a far straighter border, which would be much easier to defend.
  Then we come to a rather remarkable bit of the world, the extreme south of Fermanagh——
  Mr. Fitt: The hon. Gentleman is making a remarkable speech, talking about the re-partitioning of Ulster. I would say, "No, thank you; it is not on".
  Mr. James: I am sorry. I cannot please everyone. It is a remarkable state of affairs that between Clones and Belturbet one could cross the border four times in six miles so that even the inhabitants as often as not do not know which country they are in. This is crazy. There are constant border incidents with the troops because they do not know which side of the border they are on. The Gardai are constantly worrying about it, because they do not know, either. It would be in the interests of everyone if, from the end of the canal, the border picked up the river and followed the line of the loughs. This would cede a large area of southern Fermanagh, but there

  2043
  are only 6,000 people in it. It would reduce a border of 60 miles of wild hilly country to a border of loughs of 34 miles which was to a certain extent envisaged by the Boundary Commission which reported 49 years ago.
  In all, the proposals advanced would reduced the length of the border by almost a third, to 84 miles. The number of people involved would be 33,500, practically all Republicans going to the Republic. After all, the smaller a minority is, the less of a threat it is to those who feel threatened by it. Approximately 10,000 people, nearly half of whom are Protestant, would come into Ulster. The number of main road crossings would be reduced to 24. I know that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) is not taking this seriously——
  Mr. Fitt: Nobody could.
  Mr. Wm. Ross: Would it not be much simpler to shorten the border by giving Donegal to Northern Ireland?
  Mr. James: The hon. Member is asking me to bite too much of the cherry. That suggestion has its attractions but I do not think it is possible to go that far. All I can say is that there are people in the Republic who are perfectly prepared to consider the proposal which I have put forward. I am convinced that we have to protect the entity of Ulster and that such an entity could be well served by having a much more effective border which could be closed.
  I know that the concept of the Council of Ireland caused great offence and misunderstanding as well as arousing great suspicions among Labour Members. With the likelihood that Scotland and Wales will have a substantial measure of devolution in the foreseeable future, and in the belief that we shall remain in the EEC—[Interruption.] Yes, I believe that. In that belief it would be very much more meaningful if we were to reconstitute Great Britain in a modern form and think of a Council of the British Isles.
  8.33 p.m.
  Mr. Stan Thorne: We have listened to some interesting and peculiar speeches today, not least that which the hon. Member for Dorset, North
  2044
  (Mr. James) has just inflicted upon us. I wish to refer to the speech made earlier by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). For some time now we have heard a good deal from the Conservative benches about the problems of violence, terrorism, public safety, respect for the law and such other phrases. I have not been a Member of this House for very long but I have never heard a more sabre-rattling, warmongering speech than that which we had today from the right hon. Member. If ever there was an incitement to violence and to terrorism that was it.
  The right hon. Gentleman's speech was a declaration that we are at war with the IRA and the Irish people. If that is so, we can expect to receive war from the IRA and the Irish people. I do not think that that is the situation. It is necessary for us to go back a little in history, but unhappily I cannot, in five minutes, go all the way back to the tenth century, when this began. Even within a short period of time it is, however, necessary to go back to the words of James Connolly. I have wanted to quote James Connolly on a few occasions and I will do so now. Several of my hon. Friends seem to have forgotten about the Socialist traditions that have permeated the ranks of the Labour movement in its approach to the Irish question. Connelly said:
  "The pressure of a common exploitation North and South will make enthusiastic rebels out of a Protestant working class, enthusiastic champions of civil and religious liberties out of Catholics and out of both a united Socialist Democracy."
  Unhappily, since Connolly said that very little has happened in Ireland to afford much hope for the foreseeable future. Probably the Labour Party in Britain is more directly our concern. It is necessary to remind Ministers in terms of the policy decisions they make, whom they represent in this House.
  In 1972, the Labour Party Conference carried with acclamation the following paragraphs:
  "As stated in the Party Constitution the Labour Party affirms that the national territory consists of the whole island of Ireland, its islands and territorial seas; and it accepts as part of its immediate programme the work of securing social justice and equal opportunities for all citizens in accordance with the declaration of democratic principles embodied in the 'Proclamation' of Easter 1916."

  2045
  The document goes on:
  "The Labour Party recognises that a major step towards a settlement of the present division in the North Eastern part of Ireland would be the enactment of a Bill of Rights by the Westminster Parliament which would guarantee full civil and religious rights to the minority."
  I remind Ministers of those statements because many of us in the Labour Party have felt somewhat betrayed during recent years as a result of the clamour which has occurred not because of the causes of the Irish situation but because of the symptoms of that situation.
  Time and time again, hon. Members have addressed themselves to the question of bombings, terrorism, internment, and so on. However, we seldom discuss why there is terrorism, why there are bombings, and why there is internment. That is the mistake we make continually with regard to this problem.
  I find myself in the same dilemma. I must also address myself to the problems of the immediate situation. My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) said that the Provos in Northern Ireland obtained a considerable measure of their support from a community which accepted neither their philosophy nor their techniques. Nor do they accept the internment of their brothers by some sort of order without trial of any description. Only when we remove internment without trial shall we begin to make progress.
  I strongly deprecate the words used by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) earlier this afternoon. It is completely alien to what we believe to release from gaol a person who has shot somebody in cold blood merely because that person holds a different religious philosophy. I thought that nobody advocated that, but that is what my hon. Friend said.
  I suggest, however, that people interned without trial who have not had the opportunity to face charges in the normal democratic way in a court of law should be released with the minimum delay. On that basis, some progress may be made.
  I shall not pursue this aspect of the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I know that there is some sort of agreement among hon. Members about the timetable for this debate. However, there are one or two other matters which are
  2046
  highly relevant and to which I must refer.
  Much has been made of the withdrawal of troops. I admit that at one stage not very long ago I thought that the only real solution was to campaign for the withdrawal of British troops. Unhappily, becoming involved in a campaign of that sort results in one's being asked whether it means their withdrawal next week, today, in three months, or when.
  Against that background, anyone in that position is obliged to answer some of the questions which have been posed in this debate—for example, what happens when we have withdrawn the troops? On balance, I think that those who advocate the withdrawal of troops to barracks pending the effective policing of certain parts of Ireland against the background of a commitment—a declaration of intent—by a British Government to disengage totally, politically and militarily, from Ireland over a period of time have got it right. In other words, we should make our first priority that declaration of intent. It may take one, two or five years to succeed. But it is completely in accord with the Labour Party's policy of 1972 and the statement which was made then. It would be possible for this Government to do it and to get the support of the Labour and trade union movements in doing it.
  The Government would have to begin the job of organising, through the Irish Congress of Trade Unions and a number of other organisations in the north and south of Ireland, some who advocate that Ireland should be united and others who oppose it. All would have to be brought into discussions about what should emerge following that declaration of intent and about the timetable that we ought to give to it.
  I notice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you are becoming "browned off" with the way that I am going on. However, to some degree you are yourself responsible, because you have laid down a pattern for discussion in this House of which I have no knowledge, and have learned secondhand.
  It is necessary to say from the Government benches that it is only along those lines that we can make progress. We shall not hear it from the Opposition. We know the Fascist slogans which will

  2047
  emanate from the benches opposite before the end of this debate. We know that the Protestants in Northern Ireland only wait for an opportunity to establish their supremacy beyond any shade of doubt. That is taken for granted.
  I am not a Catholic, though it is a question which has been put to me recently. All that I say is that when we have established a united Ireland we shall ensure that the minority rights of the Protestants are protected. I only wish that it had been possible for them to address themselves to the minority rights of Catholics in Northern Ireland over recent years. If they had, we should not have been obliged to have this debate today.
  8.44 p.m.
  Rev. Ian Paisley: I make only one comment on the speech of the hon. Member for Preston, South (Mr. Thorne). He said that in the event of a united Ireland this House would guarantee to the then Protestant minority in Northern Ireland their rights. I take it that he is referring to the rights of civil and religious liberty. Through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that when Ireland was partitioned this House did nothing to defend the Protestants in the south of Ireland. The Protestants at that time formed a sizeable minority of about 10 per cent. or 11 per cent. but they have now shrunk to below 3 per cent. Nothing was done by the House then to guarantee their rights.
  It is wrong for the hon. Gentleman to say that the House would have any say in a united Ireland. That would be entirely outside the domain of the House and outside the practical influence that the House could exercise. The hon. Gentleman has brought to light what the people of Northern Ireland have always known, which is that the British Labour Party has stood for a united Ireland. The Northern Ireland Labour Party has had difficulty in getting people elected because it is connected in the public mind with that policy of the British Labour Party.
  The first part of the quotation which the hon. Gentleman gave is taken directly from the Eire Constitution, which concerns the whole of Ireland, and it is repugnant to the majority of people in
  2048
  Northern Ireland. The majority of people in Northern Ireland will not have a united Ireland. That should be spelt out clearly and strongly. If the hon. Gentleman wants to interpret that as Fascism, that is his business. The majority of people in Northern Ireland are set against any attempt by the House or by anyone else to bring them into an all-Ireland republic.
  I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) that the House should always have discussed matters relevant to Northern Ireland. He put his finger upon an important weakness. When Ireland was partitioned and the Stormont Government was set up it became a convention that no questions concerning Northern Ireland could be asked in this House. I am entirely against that convention. That happened again. When the Assembly was formed and an Executive was nominated, I was refused permission by the Table Office to put down Questions to the then Government on matters relevant to Northern Ireland. I was told to ask those questions in the Assembly and not to come here with them. The hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills) said that those matters are no longer for this House but for the Executive. No matter what comes out of the Convention, the Parliament of the United Kingdom should have the right to discuss matters relevant to all parts of the United Kingdom, and that should be clearly established.
  I am not pessimistic about the Convention. It will be the first time that elected representatives of Northern Ireland have had the opportunity to discuss the future government of Northern Ireland. I advocated in the House before the Assembly was set up that there should first be an elected constituent assembly to discuss the future of Northern Ireland. That was never done.
  The people of Northern Ireland tell me that on 20th March—I do not know whether that is the date; I confirm from the Secretary of State's murmurings that that is not the date, but he does not seem to know—they are to have an opportunity of electing a constitutional Convention where elected representatives will be able to discuss how Northern Ireland should be governed in future. They have not had that opportunity before.

  2049
  This House, in its wisdom or otherwise, has said to the majority in Northern Ireland, "You will never go into the Republic, unless you wish to go into the Republic." If this House is willing to grant that concession to the majority, surely it should be willing to grant to all the elected representatives of the people the right to discuss for the first time the future government of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. I would welcome that decision.
  It is no use going into the past and discussing how it came about. We are to have this Convention and the people of Northern Ireland will elect representatives to it. Those representatives will be responsible for the form of that Government. The issue will not be decided at an Ulster Hall meeting of local councillors or some other meeting of paramilitary groups, with the possibility of the security forces finding them all together and interning them, if that is what they want. However, if the para-military groups and other people can get themselves elected to the Convention, they can put their views to it.
  It is wrong to suggest that this House will accept only a rehashing of the old constitution that was brought about by the Conservative Government here. I believe that the Convention should explore every possibility. Other countries have had deep religious difficulties. For example, Holland had just as deep a religious divide as does Northern Ireland. However, the Dutch evolved a form of democratic government.
  I do not believe that 22 per cent. of the electorate should have 40 per cent. of the seats in the Government. That happened with the SDLP in the last Executive. Getting only 22 per cent. of the vote, but 40 per cent. of the seats in the Government is not democracy. No one could justify that sitation. For hon. Gentlemen opposite to suggest that that is what we should have is ridiculous.
  The people of Northern Ireland should have freedom to hammer out a solution. The Convention should not be used as a Parliament to open up and rehash all the old sores. There are many old sores on both sides of the divide. We should get down to planning for the future. This House should encourage the Convention to lift its sights to the future and decide
  2050
  how the Government of Northern Ireland should be shaped.
  As an Ulsterman I believe that there is enough gumption left in the Ulster people to find a way to solve this problem. Although I disagreed with most of his speech, I agree with the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), that the English, Welsh and Scots only dig their own political graves when they come into Ireland. There are few exceptions. One of the greatest exceptions was Lord Carson, who came from what is now the Republic and did a very good job for Ulster. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) will do the same.
  When the Secretary of State appoints the chairman of the Convention—he will have wide powers although he will not be an elected member—he should have consultations with various parties in Northern Ireland. It would not be fair of me to name him, but we are told that a certain gentleman is being sponsored by the Secretary of State for the post. The right hon. Gentleman says that he has not made up his mind.
  I do not want to mention the gentleman's name, but I must tell the right hon. Gentleman that that person would not be acceptable as chairman. The chairman will have a solmen responsibility. If one reads the document that has been issued by the right hon. Gentleman one sees that the chairman will have wide responsibilities, because he is the person who will eventually report on the findings of the Convention.
  We have been asked: why the bombings, the killings and all this trouble in Northern Ireland? Over the years, the enemies of Northern Ireland said that Stormont was the trouble and that if we got rid of Stormont all would be well. I warned the House when Stormont fell that the trouble would still be there and we would experience the same difficulties. We got rid of Stormont, but we still had trouble.
  We were told that the B Specials were the running sore in the community and that if we got rid of them everything would be all right. We got rid of the B Specials, but the trouble is still there.
  We were told that the police should be disarmed. A gentleman from London told the police that the doors of their

  2051
  stations should be kept open day and night and they should become a service to the community. Those who come from Northern Ireland constituencies know exactly how many policemen have been brutally murdered. In my constituency, a sergeant at Toome, Co. Antrim, went out to answer a call of mercy and was brutally shot down by the IRA. That was the kind of thinking that went on on this side of the water.
  We got rid of the armed police and the B Specials, but we did not get rid of the IRA and those who, by bomb and bullet, want to coerce the majority of people into an all-Ireland Republic.
  Then we were told that if we provided one-man-one-vote in local government all would be well. Following that, we got district councils which have no power. What was the use of enlarging the franchise—which I agreed with, by the way— if we took away the power of the district councils? My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Molyneaux) made a valid point when he said that if the powers of local councils could be increased it would be a great step forward in Northern Ireland. We have had a housing return, but the local councils have no authority in housing. They cannot even make representations about the allocation of houses, and those involved in local government are suffering great frustration.
  We were told to do all those things and we did them, but the IRA did not go away. It will not go away until it has driven the British Army out of Northern Ireland and until it has completely and totally subverted the wishes of the majority of the people in Northern Ireland.
  I say to the IRA that until it wipes out the last Protestant in Ulster it will never intimidate Northern Ireland into an all-Ireland Republic. What sort of Republic would it be? There would be a repetition of the civil war, when brother fought brother in the South of Ireland.
  Reference has been made to the shooting of the father of Erskine Childers. He was shot, not by the British Army but by the Cosgrave Government. It was said he was tried as a result of the trouble. He was shot by the Free State Government. They shot him.
  2052
  We have heard a lot today about Northern Ireland, much of it propaganda put forward by those who do not know the situation. Hon. Members have said that our Army is being fired on and murdered by both sides—but what are the facts? The facts, as released by the security forces last Friday, are that 230 regular Army men have been killed in Northern Ireland, 46 UDR men have been killed, 49 RUC have been killed, and nine police reservists have been killed. According to the security forces all but six of these men have been killed by the Irish Republican Army. Is it fair for hon. Members to use the sounding board of this House to try to tell the world that the British Army, the police, the UDR and the police reserve are at the mercy of both sides of the community in Northern Ireland? That is an atrocious falsehood that needs to be nailed tonight in this House.
  Let me say something more regarding the killings. The vast majority of people who have been slaughtered in Northern Ireland have been Protestants. Let us make that absolutely clear. The Minister of State may shake his head, but the vast majority of those killed have been Protestants. The IRA engages in sectarian murders. There is no doubt about that.
  We in Northern Ireland have gone through a very rough period in our history, but I believe that good can come out of this evil. This country, through recent happenings, is now learning what Northern Ireland has come through.
  I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South that in the days ahead this House should not expect too much from the Convention, but I believe that it can, nevertheless, expect quite a lot, because at that Convention there will be, for the first time since the Stormont Parliament fell, real talks between the elected representatives of the community.
  I ask the Secretary of State to consider again the plea I made to him some months ago—why not start talking in this House? There are 12 elected representatives from Northern Ireland in this House. I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister and he should have called these elected representatives together long ago, in this House, and should have discussed personally with

  2053
  them their ideas about the future and about the way they believe that Northern Ireland could establish itself in government in the future.
  It has been said here today that this House, and this House alone—and I agree—will have the final say in what is accepted, but a point arises here which seriously disturbs me. Is it fair, is it honourable, is it democratic that the House that decides the future of Northern Ireland should not have its proper quota of Members of Parliament from Northern Ireland?
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. John Biggs-Davison: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) in an eloquent speech, brought the House hard up against the stark realities of the agony of Ulster. I will not follow all that he said except to say that I agree with him as with other hon. Members who have urged the case for proper representation for Northern Ireland in the House of Commons.
  It is hard, particularly for a relative newcomer to the Dispatch Box, to do justice to an important debate of such high quality. If I fail to comment adequately on all the salient points I can at least tell the House that I have sat through the whole debate and heard every speech and learned much from different quarters, although I missed most of the speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), to whom I would apologise if he were here.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) spoke of the restrained and moderate tones in which hon. Members have spoken. That is so, and I am sure that it is right. We are concerned tonight, as a nation and as the Parliament which has the ultimate responsibility, with issues of terrible gravity. It is natural that the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) should have devoted much of their speeches to the progress of the security forces. Progress there has been. There is growing antagonism among the Roman Catholic people, for example on the Belfast housing estates, to the tyranny of the IRA. There is increasing popular support for the security forces.
  2054
  The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) mentioned the success of the confidential telephone service. I confess that I was sceptical when it was introduced, and I was wrong. I feared that it might be abused to set up ambushes for the security forces. I understand—perhaps the Minister will correct any mistake of fact or figure that I may make—that more than 1,000 alleged terrorists are in process of coming before the courts. They are not being put away; they are to be tried. The House welcomes, I think, the increase to five in the number of judges who preside over what are called the "Diplock" courts.
  For security and law and order, the Secretary of State made a most important statement when he said that the hope of amnesty among so-called political offenders will not be realised. Of course we detest detention. That will be discussed on the order later. But the ending of detention depends simply on the public support which can be obtained for the forces of law and order and on the support of those who wield influence among all sections of the population.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) pledged himself to the defeat of the men of violence, and we are deeply grateful for what he said. But I only wish that the hon. Gentleman could have taken that one step further and perhaps given a word of praise to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Only the other day, I understand, Mr. Napier, the leader of the Alliance Party, appealed to the SDLP to give the police full support. Surely that should be possible. If once there were sectarian bias in the RUC, there is not now. The first Catholic to become chief constable, Mr. Flanagan, has risen from the rank of constable and has served in every rank of the force. The first Catholic chief constable has shown himself able, courageous and impartial. As has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham, there are other Roman Catholics at the key level of chief superintendent.
  No one can say, having studied the recent figures, that the RUC is not acting vigorously against sectarian assassination. It is untrue to misrepresent it as a sectarian or Protestant force. It is a people's force, and the leaders of all,

  2055
  constitutional parties who wish to serve the people of Northern Ireland and bring them peace should give the RUC all possible help and call on their supporters to do likewise.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Har-borough referred to the record of our troops. I shall not pay tribute to their skill, to their sacrifice, to their forbearance, because I lack the necessary eloquence to do so. But I must rebut the charge of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) and the charge of the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun) that our soldiers have become brutalised. It might perhaps not be surprising if some of them had. But it is a travesty of the truth to assert that our soldiers in Northern Ireland— and those who have met them and seen them in action know this—have become in any way brutalised. There has been some controversy—there has been even some acrimony—over the suggestion that the names of those who have fallen in Ulster should not be or should be inscribed on our war memorials. They are inscribed in the hearts of their countrymen.
  I should like to add one word of special admiration to my co-religionists who defy exceptional intimidation to serve in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the RUC Reserve and the Ulster Defence Regiment. One of the early IRA victims in the UDR was a man called Sean Russell, a private in the UDR. I thought it was incredibly heroic—it certainly passes my understanding—that he should have enlisted in the UDR from the Falls Road. That is where his home was, and it was there that he fell to the gunmen while watching television with his children.
  We have heard in the debate from those who want to remove, or at least remove to barracks, those troops who are still indispensable to what security, what peace, what law there is in Northern Ireland. They include the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker). He seemed to complain in the early part of his speech that the trouble with these wretched people in Northern Ireland was that they were so unlike the British. He seemed to suggest—preposterously, I thought— that the six Ulster counties are divided politically between Irish nationalists and
  2056
  Ulster nationalists. I thought that his argument was difficult to follow.
  We heard also from the hon. Member for West Lothian. He speaks with great sincerity and with courage. He needed courage, because I thought he had less than universal agreement even on his own benches. I, too, want the troops out. I want them out of the streets. I think we all do. We want them out of the housing estates. Policing is for the police, not for soldiers. This, again, is like detention. If we want detention to end, and we do, and if we want the troops to return to their proper role, we must build and back the police.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. James) wants an independent Ulster. I was a little confused, after wandering with him around the border, whether by the term "Ulster" he included the six counties or the nine counties. I mistrust the learned analyses which purport to show that economics rule out independence in Northern Ireland or anywhere else. The map of the world is studded with sovereign States which were declared incapable of autonomous existence on economic grounds. Professor Carter, the Vice-Chancellor of Lancaster University, said that any calculation of transfers within a unitary State were in some degree notional. Among the facts which have to be assessed is the important fact, which is much to the credit of the hard-pressed people of Northern Ireland, that the rate of growth there in the past six years of trouble has been higher than in any other part of the United Kingdom.
  In spite of what the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) said, I do not believe that the people of Northern Ireland want independence, and still less do they want some sort of federation with the Republic, which is another idea being floated. Independence is incompatible with the principles and very name of the party for which I speak. Independence will be contrary to the strategic interests of the United Kingdom. Eire is traditionally and firmly neutral and a British foothold in Ireland is, I believe, necessary to the security of Western Europe. So those who, from the best of motives, argue for independence are, I believe, asking for an act of national self-destruction, and because of the increased

  2057
  bloodshed which would ensue they are asking, too, for an act of moral betrayal.
  My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) spoke of the role of the forces as the protection not of the Roman Catholic minority but of all Her Majesty's subjects in Northern Ireland. If the troops were prematurely to be withdrawn not only the Roman Catholics would be in danger. No one could say what the result would be. There might be a geno-cidal civil war. This is much feared south of the border and by the Government there. The border would set no limit to such a civil war and the process of disintegration of the United Kingdom might set in. Nowadays there are such forces of separatism and anarchy within this realm that the process would probably not be halted at the Irish Sea.
  I think the whole House welcomes the growing willingness in Dublin to take effective action against the IRA——
  Mr. Dalyell: It cannot take such action.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: The history of past troubles shows that it is when that Government acted most strongly against the IRA—and sometimes it has acted even more strongly than the British— that the troubles have come to an end. It is very much within the power of the Dublin Government to bring a speedy end to the present troubles.
  Mr. McNamara: Will the hon. Member, for the benefit of this House and for those members of the Dail and the Republic who read our proceedings, spell out precisely what resources and expenditure the Republic is to devote to dealing with the IRA more rigorously than it is dealing with it at the moment?
  Rev. Ian Paisley: Extradition.
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: I do not mean that it is wholly within the power of the authorities in Dublin, but I believe that with their full co-operation the troubles can be brought to an end, as earlier troubles have been. I shall say a little more on the subject later, although time will not allow me to go into it in the full detail that the hon. Gentleman would no doubt desire.
  The hon. Member for Thurrock mentioned the late and honoured Erskine Childers. I hope that the House will for-
  2058
  give if in passing I salute his memory. In the words of one of the obituaries, he brought to the old love-hate relationship between the Irish and the British peoples a little love. Those words are a fitting memorial to him.
  I have always considered it only fair to Dublin that organisations that were illegal in the Republic as well as in Northern Ireland should be proscribed in Great Britain, and that has now come about. The Irish dimension has entered the debate. Whatever the Irish dimension means precisely, and whatever its future, in one sense we need to add an Irish dimension to British policy in the form of an intimate partnership for the defence of all the peoples of the British Isles against their common enemy.
  There has been reference to that notorious television interview which some believe set off the Birmingham atrocity. In that interview, David O'Connell, the Provisional IRA chief of staff, made it clear beyond a doubt that the IRA is concerned not with a political settlement but with unconditional surrender by the British Government, and that it is not concerned with the redress of grievances. The Secretary of State has spoken of the steps still being taken to ensure that there is no cause for grievance in the future.
  But Mr. O'Connell did more. He revealed the cold cruelty of the IRA. He revealed its contempt of the wishes of the large majority of the Ulster people, expressed in successive elections and in the border poll, by free and secret ballot, to remain part of us. The IRA rejects democracy, because democracy rejects its candidates and its doctrines with loathing and revulsion.
  But—and this is the point I wish to make in connection with Dublin—the broadcast also revealed the threat presented by the IRA to the democratic institutions of the Irish Republic. Two names were singled out for mention in the broadcast as enemies of the IRA, and they were not citizens of the United Kingdom. The names were Cosgrave and Lynch.
  The hon. Member for Northampton, North was doubtless right when she said that the established order is more precarious in the Irish Republic than in the United Kingdom. Therefore, the cooperation of the Republic with the United

  2059
  Kingdom is at least as much in its interests as in ours. The legislation before the Dail to implement recommendations of the Law Enforcement Commission set up at Sunningdale are welcome. However, they are a bad second to extradition. I wonder how easy it will be for evidence to be given in these cases in the Republic.
  The hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) spoke of reactions here to the terrible bombings and IRA activity. England has now suffered something of what the people of Northern Ireland have suffered for half a decade. However, it is a matter of honour and interest as well that there be no reprisals or threats of reprisals against the Irish in our midst. Nothing could be more helpful to the Provos than reprisals. Those of us who have constituents of Irish origin hold them in high esteem.
  We must acknowledge the vitality that Irish Members bring into our debates. I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Bradford). I say to those who quickly criticise Ulster people that they might reflect that it was only after three years of IRA terror that Loyalists violently appeared on the streets in para-military formation. In England there have already been deplorable attacks on Irish persons and property. I hope that we shall never hear of English or Scottish Protestant extremists. To many of us who are Roman Catholics it seems that it would be right and helpful to the keeping of peace——
  Mr. Mike Noble Mr. Mike Noble (Rossendale) rose——
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: If I have time I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have reached the end of this portion of my speech.
  It would be right and helpful to the keeping of peace if those prelates who have not lived up to the courageous lead of the Archbishop of Birmingham would make clear what should be self-evident—namely, that no terrorist or sectarian assassin has any place at the altar rail. Anything less is to my mind scandalous in the proper and literal meaning of the word.
  Mr. Noble: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some months ago a UDA unit based at Preston was discovered. Its members were tried at Lancaster and
  2060
  sentenced. Arms caches for Protestant use were discovered in Accrington. The people who were sentenced admitted that they had been allocated areas in Ulster by the UDA for defence in the case of civil war. Has the hon. Gentleman seen today's newspaper reports of this case?
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: Yes, I have. I was referring to the dangerous possibilities of such circumstances. Any hon. Member who has relevant information which he can bring to the notice of the police or to the Home Office should do so.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said that the British people had begun to grasp since the Birmingham massacres that it is no phoney war in which we are engaged. Three, four or five bitter and bloody years ago some of my hon. Friends and I were saying that whether the battlefield was at London, Londonderry, Belfast or Birmingham did not matter as it was the same struggle. We were not always believed.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian, with his false comparison with Vietnam, exhibited one of the defects that is to be found in democracies—namely, the besetting temptation to weary of difficult and dangerous exertions when there is no end immediately in sight. It is a sterile argument whether a political or military solution comes first. I think that they must both go forward together. The gulf is fixed between those of us who believe in the Union and those who would tear the cross of St. Patrick from the flag of our country and impose by force an all-Ireland workers' republic which would be Cuban rather than Catholic and which would be erected on the ruins of existing society.
  Mr. McNamara Mr. McNamara rose——
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: No. I have one minute before I give way to the Government spokesman who is to reply to the debate.
  It will be hard for Ulster politicians to move from their fixed positions within or without the constitutional Convention, about which the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Molyneaux) made a constructive contribution. We are at war with the IRA because the IRA is at war

  2061
  with us. In Churchill's centenary year we may well recall how Churchill, having vowed to win a war which could not have been won without the use of the Ulster ports, warned the House of what the whole nation must expect. "We have before us many long months of struggle and of suffering." Indeed, that may be our portion. Churchill also declared the national purpose in the face of a merciless foe. It was to be
  "victory … victory in spite of all terror".
  Let that be the aim and resolve of the House.
  9.30 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Stanley Orme): It is my pleasure to congratulate the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on his first major speech at the Dispatch Box. I am afraid that he set a bad example for others who will have to follow him by quoting so assiduously those hon. Members who had taken part in the debate already. An hon. Member who, following him, did not go along that road might get into some difficulty with some of his own hon. Friends, let alone hon. Members sitting opposite to him. But we welcome the hon. Gentleman's appearance on the Front Bench.
  The hon. Gentleman is right about the number of people now before the courts. Nearly 1,000 people are awaiting trial in Northern Ireland for crimes of violence and attendant crimes. This is under the strict process of law and has nothing to do with detention.
  I want to deal with some of the social and economic problems of Northern Ireland. Ministers at the Department spend a great deal of time in Northern Ireland dealing with economic and fiscal difficulties there, as well as other problems. All the Ulster Members in this House, as well as Members of the Assembly, press Ministers extremely strongly on behalf of their constituents. We certainly do not object to this. But it is often forgotten that work on the social and economic problems of Northern Ireland is going on, quite apart from the work on security, and policing.
  It would appear from some of the speeches in the debate that there is no Government in Northern Ireland. But there is, and it is a Labour Government, carrying out policies which are also being
  2062
  carried out in the rest of the United Kingdom. In this respect, we are playing our part in the Government's broad economic and industrial strategy, particularly in their plans for the regeneration of British industry.
  There has been a tremendous demand for support for industry in Northern Ireland. The Conservative Government set up the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation, which, while it has had some problems, has been extremely successful. I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition that it was a good forerunner for the National Enterprise Board. We in the Northern Ireland Office are looking to tailoring the Northern Ireland Finance Corporation into the United Kingdom Government's proposals for the National Enterprise Board, so that it can work, in the Northern Ireland context, not merely as an adjunct on the board itself.
  We hope to increase the corporation's powers and to bring proposals before the House which will allow it to take account of social factors. Such provision is missing from the corporation at the moment. The planning agreements between the Government and major firms in key sectors of manufacturing industry will apply, where relevant, to Northern Ireland. For example, location of employment and investment will be important topics to Northern Ireland in such agreements.
  We have already had discussions with the Economic Council in Northern Ireland, which comprises trade unions, employers and independent members. It has welcomed the fact that these powers will be extended. It would be wrong for me to put views into people's mouths, and obviously some employers are not fully happy about our proposals. No one pretends that they are. But the CBI representatives in Northern Ireland recognise that development will have to be made along the lines we are suggesting.
  The Government have made clear in their White Paper dealing with land that the new tax arrangements will apply to Northern Ireland. Consideration is being given to the other proposals concerning land, in consultation with the relevant interests in Northern Ireland.
  Here again, Ministers are dealing daily with the economic and social problems of the Province against the background of

  2063
  our policy. Many of our difficulties were inherited by the former Tory Government when direct rule was imposed. There are areas with high rates of unemployment, areas outside the immediate surroundings of Belfast, stretching west of the Bann and down to Newry. We deal daily with industry requiring Government assistance. The maintenance of employment often overlaps into the security sphere. Naturally, on occasions the Government have to act in the interests of the community as a whole. Government support is asked for in East Belfast, Coleraine, and Bangor just as in any other part of Northern Ireland. The desire for the extension of employment is no different from that in any other part of the United Kingdom.
  We have recently received the report dealing with housing. Here again we have inherited a situation far worse than anywhere else in the United Kingdom. We hear talk of what was done during 50 years of Stormont rule, but it does not come out very well on the ground.
  Mr. McCusker: Do not the statistics in this housing report show that 52 per cent. of the population of Northern Ireland is housed in modern council housing built since the war and that the major problem is in the private sector?
  Mr. Orme: I do not want to bandy the statistics around. The hon. Member has seen the report. The situation in Northern Ireland is 15 per cent. worse overall than elsewhere. Dealing with this problem will require a lot of money and hon. Members representing Ulster constituencies must understand that the British taxpayer who will have to find this money will want to see results.
  The problem of housing was mentioned in an earlier debate. The provision of new and better housing, as necessary as that is, will not resolve the political and security problems in Northern Ireland. Unfortunately, the process of polarisation started in 1969, and it has not yet stopped. Increasingly, people are being forced to live in ghettoes. We heard of a housing estate comprising 400 new houses which could not be occupied. The ghetto mentality presents a problem when one tries to provide employment. Some people will not leave a ghetto and take up employ-
  2064
  ment in another area. We are attempting to deal with this problem.
  Yesterday, I attended a constructive meeting at the Harland and Wolff shipyard with the management and shop stewards. The firm announced that, with Government acquiescence, orders for three major tankers had to be cancelled. They were pulled out of the order line because of extremely severe penalties and it would have been impossible to meet the vessels' completion dates. There has been some progress in regard to the wages log-jam and previous legislation. Steel throughput is increasing, and must continue to do so. Proposals for industrial democracy will shortly be put to the workers for their consideration. What might seem to be a small step forward has been taken in that a joint consultative council, representative of trades unions and management, will hold its first meeting in the shipyard early in January. That provides the basis and, we hope a springboard for future results.
  Parliament underwrote the finance needed by Harland and Wolff on the basis that the provision could not be repeated and that this time a success had to be made of the venture. The people working in the shipyard are beginning to appreciate this point and are taking it very much to heart. We are proceeding with constructive proposals which will allow the shipyard to remain the largest employer in Northern Ireland and to remain a major economic base.
  In Northern Ireland between 9 per cent. and 10 per cent. of the working population work on the land, as opposed to less than 3 per cent. of the working population in the rest of the United Kingdom. If a major company such as this ceased operations, the advantages of Belfast's being an engineering centre and the consequent technological spin-off would be lost. That would be disastrous for the economy. We are putting the message over that only by maintaining output and good industrial relations, with worker participation, can we make any real advance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Stallard) has shown a great interest in industrial training. A new training centre, not connected with the shipyard, for apprentices and other people, will be opened in west Belfast very shortly. It will be a non-sectarian

  2065
  training centre, similar to all the others. We intend to extend such development.
  Many facilities in Northern Ireland are well ahead of those in other parts of the United Kingdom. I have in mind specifically those for industrial training. The construction of the economy and the liaison between Departments dealing with the environment, planning and commerce allow for very close relationship between industry and those Departments. In many ways it is more close than a good deal of what goes on in a number of regions in the rest of the United Kingdom. We must build on this, because progress in this area is in the interests of the economy.
  Mr. Stallard: My hon. Friend will know that I welcome his announcement about this training centre, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt). But can the Minister say what opportunities for employment youngsters from that area will have after training? Has there been any discussion, for instance, with the shop stewards at the shipyard about the employment prospects for kids from the area who go through that training school?
  Mr. Orme: I hope that my hon. Friend will not confuse this matter with any proposals that we may have for Harland and Wolff. A new industrial estate is about to be started in West Belfast which will create the type of employment about which my hon. Friend is concerned.
  In a Written Answer, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave the Government's rethinking about the proposed Belfast motorway. This proposed urban motorway would have been completely non-sectarian in its route, in that it would have ripped apart areas of east and west Belfast; it brought the most unlikely people together in their condemnation of it. These grandiose plans have been dropped, but certain provisions will be carried forward. The change of plan will prevent a great deal of unnecessary destruction, and it will be economically advantageous to put the original proposals on ice.
  We are pursuing policies which are in line with what the Government were elected to do. We are pursuing them with the same vigour as that which is being applied in the rest of the United Kingdom. Sometimes that is overlooked in this House.
  Mr. Kilfedder: The subject of training is an important one. Will the Minister assure us that teachers in Northern Ireland will receive the lump sum payment to be made to teachers in England, Wales and Scotland—and before Christmas—pending the outcome of the Houghton Report?
  Mr. Orme: I am informed by my hon. Friend the Minister of State that the answer is "Yes".
  During the debate today, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) spoke of recent demonstrations and the problem that he had had in Liverpool where members of the National Front took part. It appears to me that the good sense of Liverpool people knew how to deal with it. I think that it is better left in that setting than to try to find other means of dealing with it. There may come an occasion when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has to deal with such situations differently. If we can overcome them without that sort of intervention, so much the better.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mrs. Colquhoun) said that people who have a religious faith could not knowingly kill other people. Our experience is different. We find that people who profess to be religious, who often attend Mass or go to church regularly, do go out to shoot and kill. That is a fact of life which we cannot avoid. I could mention one or two infamous cases of which the hon. Lady must be aware. If my hon. Friend knew how religious those people are she would be surprised. I will not give details in the House, but if my hon. Friend wants it I will give her the information later. I agree with her that it is a complex problem. No one denies that. I understand the anguish which many of my hon. Friends—and my right hon. Friend—feel about the events in Northern Ireland. We are looking for a solution, but as we have seen from the debate today there is no ready alternative——
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) suggested some.
  Mr. Orme: The right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) mentioned some alternatives,

  2067
  but the reception the House gave to his speech is an indication that handing over Catholic areas to the Provisional IRA or to any other para-military organisation is not acceptable. It may have been a slip of the tongue, but the right hon. Gentleman appeared to suggest that there might be a link between the Convention and the para-military forces.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman commented perfectly fairly on my speech. I am sorry that the Secretary of State should have joined in. If he had any doubts or comments on my speech it would have been better for him to make them either during my speech or while I was in the House.
  I repeat, it is highly desirable to involve the community as a whole in the discussion. While the Convention is sitting for that purpose, the community organisations and even the para-military organisations could be assisted to come together in public places. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State will be able to think of other and better possibilities. I do not regard talk as a para-military operation. These para-military organsia-tions exist, and it is far better that they should talk than involve themselves militarily. It is not a question of linking. I was trying to get away from the political vacuum that has long existed in Ireland.
  Mr. Orme: Under no consideration would we accept that as a basis for any talks. We have resisted talks with the Provisional IRA and with para-military forces on the other side linked with the Convention.
  The hon. Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Miscampbell) asked whether the Assembly could not run in tandem with the Convention. The Convention is an entirely new organisation. It is a meeting of elected representatives in Northern Ireland which will be able to consult trade unions, employers and other responsible bodies. The Convention is a major development and a step forward by the British Government. It is not regarded merely as a step along the road to be tried before we try something else.
  The House will not tolerate any section of the community, either the minority or the majority, wrecking the Convention
  2068
  for the sake of wrecking it, or for a sectarian purpose.
  Mr. McNamara: What will the House do?
  Mr. Orme: That is a glib question.
  Mr. McNamara Mr. McNamara rose——
  Mr. Orme: We are not looking for a failure in this Convention. If it fails, the Government will have to reassess the situation.
  Mr. McNamara: That is different.
  Mr. Orme: It is not different. My hon. Friend is trying to be too clever. The House should understand that the Convention will be a landmark in Irish history.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: For its failure.
  Mr. Orme: The operation of the Convention will not go unnoticed in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  There is a growing impatience among British people regarding Northern Ireland. This is a feeling, not pro one side or anti the other, but of being sick and tired of the whole Northern Ireland situation.
  The Convention must make a real attempt to arrive at an agreement which is acceptable to both communities and then come to this House with proposals which are acceptable here. The White Paper spells out the situation clearly. The final responsibility for acceptance or rejection of any proposals brought forward by the Convention will lie with the House of Commons as it is at present.
  We are being pressed all the time, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), for political initiatives.
  We would have liked the Convention to meet fairly soon, but that will not be possible for the reasons that have been given. It will meet early next year. When the Convention deliberates, those elected to it, representing about 2 per cent. of the people in the United Kingdom as a whole, will have to take account of the views of the other 98 per cent. That is the serious point about it.
  In this situation it would be disastrous for the British Government to withdraw the troops. We want the Army to come out in a peaceful manner as soon as practicable. Anybody with common

  2069
  sense wants that. But the Army was sent to Northern Ireland to do a particular job. If the troops were withdrawn now, the incipient civil war situation that appertains at the moment would develop into a Congo situation. We have already seen what has happened in Birmingham and Guildford. The results of withdrawal of the troops would be far worse in other British cities. The Army is not there to get a political settlement. It is there purely to maintain law and order. The Convention is the political approach.
  On that basis, I recommend the House to give its support to these proposals. We see no real alternative, but there is an opportunity for a settlement of this prob-
  2070
  lem now if the people of Northern Ireland as a whole will take it.
  Mr. Thomas Cox: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
  Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 93 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

  NORTHERN IRELAND (EMERGENCY POWERS)
  10.1 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Merlyn Rees): I beg to move,
  That the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.
  The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973 was enacted in order to deal with an emergency situation, as was the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974. The intention was that these provisions should be temporary and should lapse after a limited time. If the Government wished to renew them they would have to obtain the approval of both Houses of Parliament, and I ask for that approval in this House tonight.
  The House will recall that on 9th July I asked for approval to renew the provisions of the emergency provisions Act for six months only. The time had previously been 12 months. At the time I said I hoped that we should be able to present new legislation based on the report of Lord Gardiner's Committee. The committee had been asked to make recommendations on powers to deal with terrorism and subversion, while maintaining the civil liberties and human rights of the people of Northern Ireland to the maximum practicable extent. I have not yet received the report of the committee, but I understand that it is in the final stages of drafting and I expect to receive it in the near future.
  I am asking for a renewal of the provisions in these Acts for a further six months because even if the report came out tomorrow we should not have sufficient time to consider and debate its proposals as thoroughly as they deserve before these Acts fall due for renewal on 24th January 1975. Moreover, legislation will have to be drafted, and debated fully. I ask for approval for a further period of six months, and I shall do everything possible to introduce new legislation within that time.
  My power to seek the renewal of the Act by order, subject to the approval of Parliament, applies to the complete provisions. I cannot alter the sense of any
  2072
  sections of these Acts, which have been debated and approved by Parliament, by allowing subsections of the provisions to lapse. The only alternatives open to me are to allow the whole section to lapse, to renew the section in toto, or to amend the section by a Bill.
  There are good reasons for having the power of proscription in Northern Ireland —the same reasons as led my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to take powers for the rest of the United Kingdom. The whole Act will be reviewed in the light of the Gardiner Report, and it would be inappropriate to introduce amending legislation now.
  I do not propose to take the House through the provisions of the Act, but I should like to take this opportunity to clear any confusion which might occur between the powers of a constable to detain an arrested person for 72 hours under Section 10 of the 1973 Act in Northern Ireland and the power to arrest and detain for up to seven days, on the authority of the Secretary of State, under Section 7 of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974. The latter, which also applies in Northern Ireland, is a separate additional power to the provisions under the 1973 Act and it in no way affects them.
  Perhaps the House would find it convenient for me to refer to some of the consequential orders that come under the legislation introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. The House will know that the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act which was passed a week ago extends fully to Northern Ireland. The power to make exclusion orders can be exercised by me in Northern Ireland, and the power to set up entry and departure controls exists in Northern Ireland in the same way as in Great Britain.
  The House may wish to know, therefore, that I have today made two orders. I informed the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) in the earlier debate that I was doing this. The orders will, between them, have the effect of completing the scheme of the Act.
  The first order is the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) (Adaptation) Order which, as its title implies, makes several small changes in the text of the Act to make clear exactly how

  2073
  some of the provisions in the Act will apply to Northern Ireland. The second order is the Prevention of Terrorism (Supplemental Temporary Provisions) (Northern Ireland) Order, which is essentially the counterpart of the Supplemental Temporary Provisions Order which the Home Secretary made a week ago——
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend, and I am not seeking to be glib or discourteous to him, but he is spending a great deal of time discussing two orders which are not at present before the House and which have been laid only today. According to the Order Paper, we are discussing the order that is now before us. I would regard it as most inconvenient to the House if what my right hon. Friend is now saying were to mean that, because of the nature of this type of order, the Government would have an excuse for saying that we could not debate the other orders properly later.
  Mr. Rees: I am not using this as an excuse for anything. They are orders under the negative procedure, as I understand it, and I thought that it would be helpful and advantageous to the House if I were to refer to the two orders. I assure my hon. Friend that if I wanted to act openly on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Lord President I would do so. This is not a clever way of trying to deal with the situation. The orders I have referred to are negative orders and I have no control over them. If the House is agreeable I shall continue giving the information.
  The Northern Ireland order establishes control over entry to and departure from Northern Ireland in the same way as the Home Secretary's order establishes controls over entry to and departure from Great Britain. The Northern Ireland order is different from the Great Britain order in that it controls a land boundary as well as sea and air traffic. But land controls are administered in the same way and in the same spirit as the sea and air controls.
  The effect of all this is that there are now the same powers in Northern Ireland to examine all traffic coming into the Province and leaving the Province, and
  2074
  that I can exercise similar powers to those which the Home Secretary can exercise to exclude from the part of the United Kingdom any person who has been concerned in terrorism. I regard the completion of these powers as an important step forward.
  I give this information for the benefit of the House. I cannot affect the procedure of the House, but these two bits of legislation go together.
  The other evening, when we were discussing the legislation for Great Britain, its relationship to Northern Ireland was raised on a number of occasions. A few moments ago I referred to the 72 hours arrest powers that I have under the 1973 Act, which we are renewing tonight, and the extra power given in Great Britain which also applies to Northern Ireland —in otherwords, to the United Kingdom as a whole.
  The Emergency Provisions Act provides the statutory authority for detention. There is violence in Northern Ireland of the most vicious kind and it is my duty to use the powers in the Act until I have reviewed them in the light of the Gardiner Report. As I said to the House this afternoon, since Sunday I have signed interim custody orders on nine people in connection with the recent sectarian murders. I am satisfied that these men have been deeply implicated in murder and violence, and yet— as the organisers and members of assassination squads—no one is prepared to give evidence in open courts against them. It is difficult to blame persons who will not risk their own lives and those of their families, but I have to act.
  Mr. McNamara: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to name the people on whom he has served ICOs?
  Mr. Rees: I think that it would be better if I did not, but the names are available.
  It is for this reason that I ask the House to renew the powers of detention in the 1973 Act for a further limited period of six months, in order to allow the Government to consider the Gardiner Committee Report. I assure the House, however, that, if the violence were to cease, I would take immediate steps to bring detention to an end.

  2075
  As the House knows, I am carrying out a programme of executive releases. Since I announced this programme to the House on 9th July, I have released 71 detainees, and the commissioners have released a further 99. I said at the time that I announced this programme that this was to be an earnest of my intention to bring detention to an end. I regret that this earnest of my intention has not met with any reciprocal action on the part of the para-military forces. Murders continue. The campaign of violence has spread to Britain. During the same period, I have had to make 87 interim custody orders.
  The draft order before the House also extends the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act 1974 for a further period of six months. Courts in Northern Ireland may remand a young person to prison only if they are convinced that he is unruly or depraved. Accordingly, most young persons were being held in remand homes pending trial. These homes are not secure establishments and some of the young persons charged with serious offences were absconding and immediately becoming involved again in terrorism.
  The Act gives the Secretary of State power to direct that a young person charged with a scheduled offence who has been remanded or committed for trial may be held in a prison or other secure place. As well as preventing him from absconding, this works to ensure his own safety and that of those who are looking after him. The powers given by the Act have been used sparingly since it came into operation on 1st August 1974. Between that date and 30th November only eight young persons have been held in prison pending trial under a direction given by me. There have been no escapes.
  At the time, I arranged that a number of hon. Members should visit Belfast to look at the facilities, and among their number was my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I think that they saw the reason for our action, but more important, they looked at the facilities available.
  The House may also wish to know the position on prisons in Northern Ireland and, in particular, the recent riots at the Maze. I received the report from the Chief Inspector of Prisons last week. I
  2076
  have considered it and take this opportunity of informing the House of its contents, which is my main duty. As I explained in my statement on 30th October, the nature of the inquiry prevents publication of the report, but it deals with three main matters. The first is the extent of the damage to the Maze Prison on 15th and 16th October and how it was caused. This confirms what I told the House on 30th October. A working group has been considering the security and operational measures required to provide against future outbreaks and I cannot expand on this aspect.
  The second is the need to move towards a greater segregation of Loyalists and Republicans within the Maze Prison. This poses accommodation problems, but the first steps have already been taken and, as the reconstruction of the prison proceeds, I hope to provide as far as possible that the two groups are confined in different and self-contained areas of the prison.
  The third refers to matters of administration. The numbers in the prison have expanded very rapidly. Before the disturbances, it had become clear that, as in any large organisation, control and communications were of paramount importance, and that better forms of consultative machinery should be devised in the interests both of staff and of prisoners. With co-operation on the part of the prisoners, I hope it will be possible as a result of changes now being introduced to reduce tension within the Maze.
  In the meantime, work has been proceeding very rapidly on the replacement of living accommodation at the prison, and all inmates are now rehoused in huts with heating, lighting and ablution facilities. Other facilities are also being restored as soon as possible, and accommodation should be generally getting back to normal by the end of January, although it may not be practicable to complete all the improvements planned before mid-April.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: What does my right hon. Friend mean by the phrase "with the co-operation of the prisoners"? If one runs a Colditz what else does one expect?
  Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend must accept what I say, that there is co-operation with prisoners and with the prison staff.

  2077
  I say to him—I say it to someone whom I respect—that I have to deal with the prison staff and the prison governor daily. They are facing a most difficult job, not the least factor in which is the prison accommodation which is available in Northern Ireland. When I used those words, there was no wrong in using them. I take advice from those who have worked in the prison service for years. They feel very remote from politicians. What they say to me is this: "Politicians seem more concerned about the prisoners who burn the place down than about those of us who are attacked."
  I have a responsibility to prison officers, which I very gladly take, and I take equally my responsibility towards prisoners. They are both my concern. The prison officers have been reacting very adversely in recent weeks to some of the comments that are being made. The point I make is that the advice that I get is in the terms in which I expressed it a moment ago.
  As to long-term plans, the House will know that I have already announced an extensive prison building programme. Action has already been taken to survey the site at Maghaberry prior to a public inquiry. Prison accommodation cannot be provided overnight, however; plans have to be made well in advance.
  I should like to say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) that the prison in Belfast, the Crumlin Road Prison, would still need replacing even if the troubles had not broken out five years ago. I am not talking about the troubles. I am talking about a new prison for Northern Ireland. A new permanent prison there should have been started five years ago and not five weeks ago. I do not apportion blame for that. When my hon. Friend makes his remarks as though Northern Ireland does not need a new prison for peace-time circumstances, I think that he begins to reveal a certain lack of knowledge of what I am talking about.
  I come now to the aspect of things about which he is concerned. A long-term prison is needed in Northern Ireland. The present prison is out of date. There was a report about five years ago recommending a new prison, and we are implementing it. We are now getting to the current situation. We shall be building
  2078
  there a temporary prison as well. Arrangements have already been made for the completion next year of a new wing at Armagh Women's Prison. If the troubles were to end now, there would still be women prisoners in Northern Ireland. The accommodation in the old prison is not good enough, and we are building an extension.
  In 1976, closed borstal accommodation will be ready at Woburn, Millisle, and work has started on a young offenders' centre for 300 males at Hydebank Wood, which is due to be completed in 1977.
  All these projects are proceeding as quickly as possible. I shall keep the House informed. I mention them in the context of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act because when we consider new legislation we shall have to consider it in the context of new prison accommodation and of Special Category prisoners—the administrative categorisation which was referred to earlier today.
  All of that must be taken into account. Indeed, the original riots in the Maze were not initiated by detainees. They were initiated by properly sentenced prisoners, most of whom had been given Special Category status. Therefore, the House must consider the whole of penal policy in Northern Ireland. One must look at the young offenders' centre and at the work done at Millisle. In many respects Northern Ireland is advanced. In this respect, Northern Ireland is more advanced than we are on this side of the water. It is always as well to say so because we so often look at those aspects which are not as well advanced.
  That is an important factor in considering the Gardiner Report early in the New Year and the legislation which will stem from it. Prison accommodation will be an important element in the report because there is no doubt that at the Maze the mixing of the different categories has an effect on the borstal boys who work around the place. That aspect of the present situation, which I inherited, is bad and something for which we all bear responsibility. I am not making a political point.
  We have to consider that aspect. It is not good enough just to look at sentencing. We must look at the facilities, and that will be an important part of the Gardiner Report. The report will be available soon and we should discuss it

  2079
  and then translate it into legislation. I require another six months to do that. Without the provisions before us tonight the security forces would not be able to operate in Northern Ireland. As we talk those forces are on duty and we have a responsibility for them. For that reason, I hope that the order will be passed.
  10.22 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: The House will have been glad to learn of the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, of the progress that is being made in improvements and of the plans for adding to present accommodation in Northern Ireland. It will also be relieved to know that the Northern Ireland (Young Persons) Act has been used sparingly, though we agree that its continuation is necessary.
  We agree that the renewal of the emergency provisions is inevitable pending the report of the Gardiner Committee, and I agree with the Secretary of State about the security forces not being able to operate without them. It would be odd just when the Government in Britain have taken emergency powers for them to be given up in Northern Ireland. We therefore support the order.
  10.23 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: I wish to express my concern about the renewal of these emergency provisions, particularly because no one who has listened to the debate today could be anything but concerned about the apparent lack of Government policy.
  I am worried that we seem to have adopted a procedure simply of waiting to see what the Convention will produce in the hope that it might produce something. If the Convention does not produce the kind of results my right hon. Friend is hoping for, what are we to do? The reason some of my hon. Friends are advocating withdrawing our troops from Northern Ireland is that at least to do that is to have a policy, which is more than I can say for some of the things I have heard from the Government Front Bench today.
  As well as referring to the special provisions, I want to deal with the apparatus which I understand my right hon. Friend intends to establish to back up those provisions. I refer to the article
  2080
  on page 1 of The Times this morning. My right hon. Friend gave what I considered to be an accurate denial of the story in The Times until I chose to do a little research into what he said. It is my understanding of the situation that when he gave his denial this afternoon and said that computers were not at the moment being used except for vehicle registration and vehicle checking, he could have been technically right. But it is the conclusion of my researches that in Northern Ireland the computers, the punch cards and all the machinery and apparatus are ready, and that over the next two months it is intended to set up precisely the system described on page 1 of The Times this morning.
  I have many times talked about the possibility of setting up Big Brother machinery with the use of computers. I have been laughed at a bit and have been told that what I was suggesting was ridiculous, because it could not happen here. But the conclusion of researches this afternoon is that it is about to happen in Northern Ireland—within the next two months.
  Many of us regretted the introduction of internment and its political consequences. If I oppose the renewal of the provisions, it is because I believe that, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may say that they are necessary for the security forces, the wholly bad political consequences of internment more than outweigh the benefits to which he referred.
  If there are political disadvantages and bad consequences of the renewal of the emergency provisions, there will be even more disastrous political consequences if my right hon. Friend goes ahead with the kind of computer system described on page 1 of The Times this morning. It will not be just a matter of the emergency powers of arrest and the orders that my right hon. Friend has told us he is signing. It will be the whole of the Big Brother apparatus that he will have at his disposal to back them up.
  I shall not say that the use of computers and this kind of technology in the present context is entirely wrong. Computers may well have a function. It has always been my attitude that they can be useful in such situations. But before my right hon. Friend gets the punch cards going to set up the system,

  2081
  before we put half the population of the Province of Ulster on computer, will my right hon. Friend tell us exactly what he is doing, what he intends to do, and how he intends to put the system into practice?
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I was checking on the information I gave the House today. It would be extremely foolish not to check information that one is giving to the House. What I have just checked on is what is done for intelligence information. There is a computer for vehicle checking, for vehicles crossing the border and so on, and there is a computer—I nearly said where it was, but although that is probably known in Northern Ireland there is no point in throwing names about. There is a computer centre of the same sort as we have here, which the police use. There is no computer for intelligence, and I have not been asked to give permission for one. Intelligence information for a far smaller number of people than was stated is available on index cards. That is what I was checking on. The information is there, quite properly. The question of its going on computers would be a decision for me, and the matter has not been put to me.
  Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's intervention. But I still say that my researches indicate that there is every intention to pursue this kind of technology, computerised filing and storage of information, of exactly the kind described on page 1 of The Times today. I understand that it is already set up and raring to go.
  Mr. Rees: I can say that it is not set up and raring to go, and before it is done I will inform the House.
  Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will my right hon. Friend say that if he is faced with that decision he will reject the proposal?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): It is very difficult for hon. Members addressing the House if other hon. Members intervene.
  Mr. Huckfield: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his assurance, but I must press him on two or three technical points which are of fundamental importance not only to the use of this system but so that people can understand what
  2082
  he is trying to do. First, will my right hon. Friend make provision for the erasure of this information from the tapes when it is filed? If there is information stored in filing cards and placed in filing cabinets, it is clear that ultimately someone has to do something about getting rid of it. It is my opinion that once a person is stored on a computer he tends to be stored, whether or not the information is right, for the rest of his life. That is not the most encouraging of precedents that my right hon. Friend would want to set if he wants to bring people together.
  Will my right hon. Friend tell the House when he makes his statement what kind of control he intends to maintain over access to information? He will know that whoever has access to the computer will have access to an important source of information. I hope that he will maintain some kind of access control system. Further, I hope that he will maintain a record to ensure that what is called audit trail is maintained so that there will be information on exactly who has been getting into the computer.
  If my right hon. Friend is prepared to do that, and if he is prepared to be frank about what he is doing, one or two of my hon. Friends and myself may be able to understand what he is doing. That does not mean that we shall find his proposal any more palatable. However, if he gives that kind of assurance there may, within limits, be some understanding. I hope that he will say something about the technical matters to which I have referred.
  My right hon. Friend has said something of significance. It has long been accepted throughout the British Isles that information stores of various computerised systems—for example, public health data, educational data, car licence data and the national police computer data—would never be integrated. Once it is put together it becomes possible to make Big Brother type value judgments. That is the sort of thing that leads to computerised files, some wrong categorisation and some bad political decisions.
  If my right hon. Friend intends to set up this kind of system, how in God's name does he ever think he will get rid of it? Once the police and the security forces get used to using it, they will be reluctant to see it dismantled. It will be

  2083
  a devil of a job to break down the system once it has been set up.
  I remain unhappy about the sterile posturing that we have had from the Government Front Bench. I am not happy about pursuing a policy of watching, waiting and hoping. That is what the Government seem to be doing. We must do something much more constructive. Perhaps the most constructive thing that we can do is not to renew these powers.
  10.34 p.m.
  Mr. William Craig: My colleagues and I feel somewhat reluctant to consent to the renewal of this measure. When it was last considered we felt that we could not consent to a further renewal unless in the meantime there had been a complete review of the law. We are disappointed that we are now asked to give consent to a further renewal without having the advantage of hearing from the Scrutiny Committee and considering the law generally.
  We are all conscious that we are dealing with a matter of life and death. Anyone who has lived in Northern Ireland and experienced the situation there will not lightly disarm in any way the forces of law and order. It would be reckless and foolish for us to refuse renewal of this vital part of the armoury of law and order, much as we do not like it. I felt reassured when the Secretary of State said that the Gardiner Committee is in the process of its final draft and that we may shortly be considering its report.
  I hope that it will lead to the consideration of a wholly new code of law to deal with terrorism. The present system of detention is far from satisfactory. The longer it continues the more difficult it is to revert to a normal situation. In recognising that, we must not fall into the trap of saying that detention as it exists is a cause of violence. It is not. If we were to abandon it now there would be disastrous results. As a bare minimum it would increase by three times the hitting strength of the Provos.
  None of us wants to do that. The passing of legislation to deal with terrorism is, I hope, the beginning of the shaping of a new code of law. As it develops we would like to see uniformity throughout the United Kingdom. We would like the problem of terrorism to be dealt with,
  2084
  as far as possible, through the normal legal machinery. We may have to vary the code of law on occasions, and vary the nature of the courts, but it is better by far to deal with such matters through the normal legal processes.
  Many experts would agree that, no matter how effective the law is made, there will always be some need for a residual power of detention. In those cases I would like to think that it would be a matter for the Executive and that the Executive would be answerable to the representatives of the people. We feel unhappy about this order, but the need in Northern Ireland is great. We feel obliged to support its renewal tonight.
  10.37 p.m.
  Mr. Kevin McNamara: I listened with interest to what the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig) said because when his hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) spoke on the occasion that the order was last before us he used far more stringent language. He gave what amounted to an ultimatum to the Government when he said
  "I and my colleagues do not propose to vote at the conclusion of this debate. But I say to the right hon. Gentleman that, if at the end of this period, he has not brought in some amending legislation to deal with this matter in an effective manner, we shall have to vote solidly against any further extension of these powers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July 1974; Vol. 876, c. 1293.]
  Alas and alack. We 17 who voted against the order on the last occasion were looking forward to marching into the Lobby shoulder to shoulder with the serried ranks of the 10 Ulster Unionists. It is not to be. Perhaps on another occasion they will take up the courage of their convictions and try to make the Government get rid of this iniquitous legislation. I do not say this in any glib fashion. I do not say that I will not tolerate this and, when challenged, say that I shall think again and reassess the situation. I do not believe that these powers have ever worked.
  The Secretary of State has just condemned nine men, without trial, without a shred of evidence, accusing them of mass murder and sectarian crimes of the worst possible sort. He has done it in this House today, saying, "I have put nine men behind bars. On the information before me they were responsible for

  2085
  sectarian murders and crimes of the most devilish kind." Who are these nine men who have had these interim custody orders placed on them? They are nine men who have been "hanged, drawn and quartered" by the Secretary of State today. They have not been able to say a word in their own defence, or necessarily see the evidence against them. Now we are to say glibly that we shall continue these powers.
  I have great faith in my right hon. Friend, but once we start on this sort of track we put everyone inside on the same sort of basis. We are in a situation where my right hon. Friend can name the Rathcoone murderers on the basis of no evidence and no statements. He can say, "These are the men suspected of the Rathcoone murders." There will be no trial, and no evidence—only a bastard system of justice, perhaps before a commissioner with no possibility of anyone seeing what is before him.
  This applies across the sectarian divide. IRA, UDA—whoever they are—all tried and all convicted and all named on the basis of dates and events which have come from my right hon. Friend since last summer. We have known that this has happened.
  Where is it now? It is in the records, perhaps even on the computer of my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield)—against their names for all time, with no trial——
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: We shall all be there.
  Mr. McNamara: But my right hon. Friend says that if the violence ceases, he will let out these men. They are sectarian murderers and people who have planted explosives. They are evil people. My right hon. Friend says that he has already let out 71 men, and that 99 have been let out by commissioners. They are all murderers, and they are at large in Northern Ireland. My right hon. Friend has taken a selective judgment to let them out. But he cannot have it both ways. He cannot say that it is necessary to have detention to put dangerous men inside, and then let them out. We cannot accept that. It simply does not stand examination.
  I am even more unhappy about this because, when my right hon. Friend came most reluctantly to the House on the last
  2086
  occasion to move his continuance order, he did so against the background of the great reforming Lord Gardiner and his committee who were to report to this House, and he said that this House would have for consideration some legislation based on Lord Gardiner's Report. No one knew what was in that report, but it was to be the great miracle detergent to find a way of putting behind bars dangerous men against whom there was no evidence.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said:
  "I ask the House to allow it to continue for this further period of six months, giving the undertaking that the Gardiner Committee will make its report as rapidly as possible and that when the Government have considered that report they will be in a position to come forward with proposals for whatever new legislation is required."
  So there we had the promise of a report. But it was not a complete promise, because earlier in his speech, my right hon. and learned Friend said:
  "The very point of asking for a renewal for six months only when we could have asked for renewal for a longer period is due to our hope that before the six-month period is up the committee chaired by the noble Lord will be able to give the House its report and that we shall be able to act on it."
  My right hon. and learned Friend did not say that we must get it, consider it, and introduce legislation. The word he used was "hope".
  In his remarks, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said nothing about hope. There was a direct commitment that we would have the Gardiner Committee's Report. He said:
  "I have reduced the period for which the Act will operate from a year to six months. That will be the period during which the Gardiner Committee will report."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9th July 1974; Vol. 876, cc. 283–316.]
  He did not say that it "may" report. He did not say that it "may" be delayed by evidence coming through in a rush at the last minute. He gave a distinct undertaking that the Gardiner Committee "will report". All we hear now is that it is in draft, it will not be ready for six months, there is pressure on legislation, a referendum here, something to nationalise somewhere else, there is no time for it on the Floor of the House, it might be considered in an Ulster Grand Committee, or something of that nature. We shall not see the legislation, and we shall have to renew the powers once again.

  2087
  What do we expect from Gardiner? Will he say that we have a system, and we can make do with that. Must we accept what Lord Gardiner says? Will he say that we should do away with the powers completely, and will my right hon. Friend say, as he said earlier today, that he will not put British soldiers at risk on the streets without these powers? That is a perfectly proper sentiment, but what happened in the three months from August to September 1974? There were 11 killed in the Army, four in the police and one in the UDR—the same number in three months as were killed in two years under the security arrangements before the introduction of internment. Look at the way the figures escalate.
  British troops are at risk, but they are at risk because of internment, detention and emergency powers, and the figures show that they are more at risk than they were before because of the degree of harassment to which they are subjected from all communities. That we cannot accept. The figures show the escalation after the introduction of internment. The graph goes up and down.
  Then there is the chicken and egg argument: "Stop violence and we will end internment. Do not stop internment and we will increase violence." Neither side gives way. Yet everyone says that what caused violence was the introduction of internment. So we get this stupid circular argument, and the Government do not know where they are going. They will say, of course, that they know where they are going; they are not putting their troops at risk; but the figures deny that.
  We do not want our troops at risk; we want peace for our troops and peace in Northern Ireland. We want a decent society there. That is not the way to do it.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: I have to ask myself, if the order does not go through tonight, do we withdraw the troops immediately or do we put them at risk?
  Mr. McNamara: When the troops were at risk before internment the casualties were considerably fewer than they are now. It is no good my right hon. Friend's saying that that is no argument because the situation was entirely different, which is what I think he is trying to suggest,
  2088
  because the situation we have now was created by internment. The figures of explosions, deaths and killings show that. We cannot continue in this way.
  We must say at one stage or another that we shall stop internment. It is a difficult decision to take, and I understand that. But if Gardiner does not come up with a trump what will my right hon. Friend do then? Will be plough on with internment? How does he think that that will help his Convention elections? I do not think it will help them at all.
  In six months' time we shall renew the powers, when the Convention will be at the height of its most productive function. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will be running around to throw powersharing wraps on the shoulders of everyone in the Province, and we shall be here continuing the internment powers. So long as we have this system it will all collapse. It is no answer. We said in opposition that it was no answer, and we voted against the whole of these provisions. Last Thursday we said in the House that it was no answer.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees Mr. Merlyn Rees indicated dissent.
  Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend shakes his head. He denies he said that it was no answer and that he voted against it.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: This is a personal matter. My hon. Friend knows that in opposition I made clear on behalf of the Opposition that the community has the right to take steps even under the European Convention on Human Rights, extraordinary fashion, to deal with matters of this kind. I made it abundantly clear, and my hon. Friend has said so in the House.
  Mr. McNamara: But my right hon. Friend also voted against it.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees Mr. Merlyn Rees indicated dissent.
  Mr. McNamara: My right hon. Friend should look at the Committee stage proceedings. He will find his name there. I know with what misgivings he approached the whole matter. I am not denying that he feels that this residual power must be there, but I say that it does not really answer as a policy. It is not an answer to the problem.

  2089
  If my right hon. Friend continues with the policy, he may for a time get all the Provos and all the Officials still fighting, and all the UDA and UVF behind bars, but he will have to let them out again. His prisoners will get out. But how will they get out? Where does all this stop? Do they get out in a box, or do they walk out, released by my right hon. Friend, who will say one day that they are a terrible danger and cannot be let out and the next day say that they can be let out? It is for these reasons that I shall vote against the order.
  10.52 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: It is not for me to defend the Secretary of State against his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. MacNamara), because if he has friends like that he does not need me to do it. The extreme attacks which the hon. Member has been bringing against the order and the position of the Government do not carry much conviction.
  It is the case, no doubt that tonight we are in a rather negative posture. We realise that we are waiting for the Gardiner Report and the Convention to bring us some more facts, some more certitude, some more opinions on which we can form our judgment.
  In the past five years there may have been a number of occasions on which it was possible to imagine that if the decision had been grasped in the way that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central wished it to be grasped, from time to time, we would have averted events which have subsequently taken place. But there again, perhaps, there were no such opportunities. It is difficult to say. No doubt every such chance would have presented the House and the country with very hard choices. Hard choices cannot be imposed from outside. Only free will can impose upon itself the discipline necessary to accept the sacrifices involved.
  In these last years, one feature of our position which has made it impossible to grasp these decisions when they might have been taken has been the denial of one of the major principles of democracy—that if majority rule. In a democratic environment, only very special circumstances such as a colonialist environment can justify not entrusting to the majority
  2090
  of a country the responsibility for its government.
  Colonialism justifies it because of the alleged inexperience of democracy of parts of the population. That surely cannot ever have been the case in any part of the United Kingdom during the time to which I refer. It may well have been that the minority in Northern Ireland were to some extent disadvantaged and oppressed, although I believe that that has been very much exaggerated. At any rate, legislation has now been passed which has made the situation very different from what it was then.
  We have, as the right hon. Gentleman said earlier, human rights legislation far more extensive than that of any other European country. We have the Human Rights Convention at Strasbourg, which is in operation, as we know, partly to our cost. We have the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and other ways in which the rights of minorities can be secured.
  Whatever may have happened in the past, I do not believe that in future both sides will not realise that neither can triumph completely. Surely the lessons of the past five years will have brought that home.
  I said that hard decisions would be involved in any policy that we could adopt. After the Convention we shall have to decide how the country shall be governed and, after the mechanisms have been decided, we shall have to consider questions of the greatest importance—for example, questions on the border, and on the movements of population. No decisions on questions of such magnitude can be imposed from outside. I shall not go into any detail on what they may be. I do not think that such decisions can be taken and imposed without the restoration of majority rule in Northern Ireland.
  We have before us orders maintaining a state of emergency in Northern Ireland. These also need the support of the majority if they are to be effective. The majority must feel that, in the difficult decisions and tasks before them, their legitimate rights are respected. They must feel, in particular, that they have proper democratic representation in Northern Ireland—after the terms of the Convention, whatever they may be, have been carried out—and in this House. I do not see how anybody can argue that

  2091
  Northern Ireland should be represented to any less degree in this House than are the constituencies of England itself.
  The debate today will have allayed no fears about the future in Northern Ireland. During the course of the earlier debate nothing depressed me more than the merriment of back benchers on the Government side when my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) referred to the military methods which he thought were necessary to combat the IRA.
  Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Merriment?
  Mr. Kershaw: Yes, merriment. When my right hon. Friend said that he had been a guerrilla there was a roar of laughter. I wondered whether is was mere frivolity, lightness of mind, or whether, because hon. Gentlemen who have troubled to turn up today have not got their hearts in the matter, they are not on the side of their Front Bench.
  The IRA is at war with the United Kingdom. Both military and political means are necessary to combat it. By their neglect and denigration of the military means, those of the majority party in this House who have been here today show either that they only half understand the problem or have only half the courage necessary to finish the matter.
  We have heard indignation expressed by some hon. Gentlemen opposite about conditions at Long Kesh, which we all deplore. The Secretary of State sought to take credit for the way that the rebuilding has been rushed forward and the speed with which light and heating have been restored. We also heard that housing conditions in Northern Ireland are the worst in the United Kingdom. We heard that from the Minister of State. I see no reason for boasting about the quick rebuilding of these buildings in Long Kesh to retain in comfortable circumstances the people who are there.
  The hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), in the politest way possible, put forward the most hair-raising proposition that I have heard in this House in many a long year. The hon. Gentleman is known as a genial eccentric, but today he deteriorated to the point of dementia in his attack upon his own Front Bench.
  Mr. Dalyell: The hon. Gentleman, like me, has been to Long Kesh and to the women's prison at Armagh, has he not?
  Mr. Kershaw: No, I have not, but everything that the hon. Gentleman sees does not contribute to the conclusions to which he comes. I think it would be much better if he stayed here and theorised rather than went to see things, because he comes back with the most extraordinary opinions.
  I have no doubt that we ought to renew these Acts for six months, but we look forward on the next occasion to seeing the Gardiner Report and the further proposals for the long-term peaceful governing of Northern Ireland, which will, I trust, include the democratic principle of majority rule.
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Gerard Fitt: Once again the retention of these Draconian powers, to use the term used last week by the Home Secretary, has given rise to great concern. The Government cannot be surprised that those of us on this side of the House who strongly opposed the introduction of these powers originally are tonight opposing their retention for a further six months.
  I think that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) was being a little unrealistic in expecting a former Minister of Home Affairs in Northern Ireland, now the right hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Craig), to oppose this type of legislation after having been trained in the introduction of measures such as this over many years.
  Last week we reluctantly passed through the House the terrorism Bill, which is now an Act, and today we heard that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has power to extend the measure to Northern Ireland, and he has introduced this order to do that.
  What will be the position in Northern Ireland when an arrest is made by the security forces? Will the police, or the Army, or the arresting authority, whoever it may be, have in one pocket the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973, and in another pocket the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974? Those measures

  2093
  will be in conflict, though my hon. Friend may say they will be complementary.
  Under the temporary provisions Act, the security forces and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can detain for up to 72 hours, but under the new terrorism Act he will be able to detain for five days. When will the Government decide under which Act they are acting? Will they tell the person who is arrested under which Act action is being taken against him? It seems to me that all the arrests will be under the terrorism Act because that gives the Government more time during which to hold a person suspected of a crime.
  Many people in Northern Ireland, both Catholic and Protestant—but the majority have been from the minority community—have been arrested by the security forces. To use the polite language of my right hon. Friend, they have been served with interim custody orders. After being held for some time, they have appeared before the commissioner in Long Kesh, and he has found that the evidence has not permitted him to continue their detention.
  On what evidence was someone in that circumstance served with an ICO? Why was the commissioner not prepared to accept the evidence in the first place? Has consideration been given to the fact that someone who is arrested may lose his job, or have great difficulty in finding a job, because of the stigma attaching to Castlereagh and Long Kesh? No compensation is payable to someone who suffers that injustice.
  I know many young boys who have been served with ICOs. They have appeared before the commissioner in Long Kesh and, after asking various other questions, he has put this question to them: If you were released, would you be prepared to go to England, get a job and keep out of trouble? If they are released after that question has been posed to them, would they be admitted into this part of the United Kingdom? Would people take kindly to the arrival of a suspected terrorist in those circumstances? It would seem to be unfair, and the British people would have the right to question that traffic.
  Of course, the traffic can go the other way. A person could be excluded from here by the Home Secretary, and once he
  2094
  arrived in Northern Ireland it is almost certain that he would be interned. I know that the Government will say that he had been excluded because he had been suspected of having been involved with an illegal organisation, so presumably internment would have to wait until he became involved with such an organisation in Northern Ireland.
  But can anyone imagine the life that that person would then lead? From the very hour that he set foot in Northern Ireland, he would be under complete surveillance by the security forces, even if he stayed in his own home. It would be only right and just for the security forces to have suspicions about someone deported or excluded from this part of the United Kingdom. We are getting near to 1984 with all this repressive legislation. Has it led to any improvement? For how many people has the Secretary of State signed ICOs who have been released at the first hearing of the commissioners?
  The Secretary of State said a dangerous thing tonight which will have repercussions. Last weekend the news in Northern Ireland contained words like "Following the recent spate of assassinations in Northern Ireland, 18 persons have been arrested, of whom 16 were Catholics and two were Protestants." That seemed to be pointing the finger at one section of the community. Now the Secretary of state says "I have detained nine." One does not have to have passed the 11-plus to realise that if only two of the 18 arrested were Protestants, seven of those detained must have been Catholics. Naturally, the Protestant community will see them as seven murderers who have been involved in the most heinous crimes. My right hon. Friend himself said that these people were involved in brutal, callous assassinations and murders. The Catholic community, in its turn, will say "Why did he get only two of them? There are plenty running around." The figures of assassinations over the past period show this.
  Attention has been drawn to a leaflet distributed throughout the media in Northern Ireland in the last 48 hours, in which some organisation calling itself the Ulster Workers Defence Association has printed 13 names and addresses of Protestant members of the UDA, who it says

  2095
  have been involved in the assassination of Catholics. I do not know whether that is true. Perhaps an internecine war is going on between extreme Protestant factions. Perhaps it was published by a crank. Perhaps it is true. The Secretary of State ought at least to tell us what he knows about this publication. If it was published by a crank, it should not be beyond the capabilities of the police authority to catch him. If these people were involved in assassinations they should also be ICO'd—in the polite terminology of the Secretary of State. If they were not involved, it is even more crucial that the police find the people responsible for this publication, because it identifies people by their names and addresses, and they could possibly be the victims of assassinations.
  Before the Bill became an Act I remember that in Committee great stress was laid on the power of a judge to withhold bail or to grant it in certain circumstances. I repeat what I said earlier today. Can the Minister explain the following case? A person was charged with having in his possession a machine gun, which the police authority and forensic experts claimed had been used for three murders and 14 other shooting incidents. After being refused bail by the magistrates, that person was brought before the High Court under the provisions of the Act. He then said that he had been a member of the UDA but had become disenchanted with it and that he would do nothing wrong in future. He was then released on £750 bail. If this law is to command any respect, someone who has had in his possession a machine gun which had been used to murder three people should not be granted bail.
  This does not mean that I am supporting the Act. But if there is to be any sense to this, its provisions should be enforced and should be seen to be even-handed all round.
  One hon. Member of the Opposition has mentioned the human rights that we had in Ireland. Earlier today my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the Standing Commission on Human Rights, which is chaired by a friend of mine—I hope—Lord Feather. There will never be any human rights in Northern Ireland with this type of legislation. It
  2096
  negates every basic human rights provision. This legislation on terrorism which has been applied to this part of the United Kingdom erodes the human rights of the people of this country.
  One hon. Member referred to the European Court of Human Rights which is sitting in Strasbourg. Perhaps that hon. Member did not know that there is a case pending before that court in relation to what has happened in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, under the provisions of the Act.
  I do not blame my right hon. Friend for trying to take steps to prevent people from being assassinated. If I thought that the nine people made the subject of ICOs yesterday were guilty of murder— it would be hard to convince me—I should have no hesitation about standing where I am standing now and giving my full support to my right hon. Friend. But I cannot do that. I do not think that he can be as sure as he would like to be, that he was as sure of their guilt as he possibly could be, before he signed those ICOs.
  Again, we must ask a question. I have been told by the former Secretary of State and the present Secretary of State that they are convinced that many of the people interned in Northern Ireland since the introduction of the Act were guilty of murder. Indeed, I was told that a number of them were guilty of the heinous brutal murder of a colleague of mine, Senator Paddy Wilson. Since then, these people have appeared before the commission and the commission has released them.
  Who is wrong? Who is right? Do the commissioners have authority to release people against whom the charge of murder has been proved in the eyes of the Secretary of State? For my part, if there is anyone in Northern Ireland, Catholic, Protestant, Provisional, UDA, or whatever he may be, who has committed murder, no one will hear me pleading for his release in any circumstances. But I could not accept, and I urge my right hon. Friend not to accept, the evidence which he is at present accepting which enables him to make ICOs.
  Too many people have suffered a grave injustice at the hands of this legislation. That is why I say that it is no answer to the problem of Northern Ireland, and

  2097
  that is why I shall oppose the order tonight in the Lobby.
  11.15 p.m.
  Mr. Nicholas Ridley: This is the first time I have sought to intervene in a Northern Ireland debate. I hope that I shall be forgiven for so doing, because, like the Secretary of State, I feel that there should be a Westminster dimension, and the events in that unhappy Province are of sufficient gravity to trouble the conscience of all English Members and to cause us to give some thought, from time to time, to the situation there.
  I have heard many of the speeches in today's debates. In particular, I heard that of the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), who suggested that we should immediately take the Army out. I heard, also, what was said by the hon. Members for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) and Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara), who violently attacked the internment powers, as did the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt).
  The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Huckfield) questioned the Secretary of State's right to use computers in security work, and raised points which in any peace-time situation would have been valid. I could not help wondering, listening to those hon. Members, whether the IRA had ever had a meeting such as this when it discussed the niceties of democracy, of human rights, and of legality in the operations which it has sought to carry out against the people of Northern Ireland, and latterly against the people of England, too.
  I could not help thinking that the tone of the discussion this afternoon was totally different from the tone of the terrorist attack which we face, whether v/e be Irish or English, and I felt that there was such an unreality about the whole thing that I was finally brought to my feet.
  It seems to me that much depends on whether one thinks that the situation in Northern Ireland is war or some normal peace-time state of affairs with an ugly disturbance which we do not admit to be war. Although I understand the ethnic troubles which lie at the heart of it, I cannot but conclude that it is war.
  I am a Northumbrian, and——
  Mr. Tom Litterick: The hon. Gentleman uses the word "ethnic". What does he understand that to mean, in the context of Ireland?
  Mr. Ridley: I gave way too soon. I was saying that I am a Northumbrian, and dimly in my memory is the tradition of the war between England and Scotland, which raged for 500 years. I think that there is a similar feeling, which is closer to surface consciousness, in the troubled island of Ireland between those of Celtic origin and those of English or Scottish origin—a matter to which the hon. Member for West Lothian referred.
  But it was all very long ago, 350 years ago. The Irish colonised America long after the English colonised Ulster. Whatever may be the rights or wrongs of it, the thought of settling this situation by war seems to me to be so absurd and so unreal that we must resist it with all the powers at our disposal. If this order and the Act passed last week contribute to those powers, they deserve the support of all people, and of all sensible Members of the House.
  Of course there must be a political solution. That is the difficult part of the equation. Until that political solution is found this is a state where normal peacetime Queensberry rules as enunciated by some Labour Members are less important than the maintenance of law and order and the protection to whatever extent is possible of innocent people from being maimed, murdered and blown up.
  I come now to the political solution. The bipartisan policy of the last five years has proved a failure. It is a lesson to us that what matters is not the degree of support that can be achieved for a policy but the fact that the policy must be correct and successful. There are, perhaps, shades here of the last election, where we sought wide agreement among politicians and parties for our Conservative approach to the electorate but failed to say what we sought to do.
  In Ireland it is not enough to say that the support of both sides of the House —of this party or that party—has been achieved for the policies. What matters is whether the policies are successful—and they have not been. We must all now concede that there have to be other political solutions than that which has been

  2099
  tried. Only two are possible. The first is the policy enunciated by the hon. Member for West Lothian, that we should quit all our responsibilities, pull out the Army and leave the people to fight it out. That policy seems to be a poor reward to the citizens in Ulster who have paid their taxes to be defended and have expressed a desire to remain part of this country.
  I wonder what the hon. Member would think if the Germans parachuted an invasion into West Lothian and we decided to pull out and leave it to the Germans. Would the hon. Gentleman's constituents feel that was a fair reward for what had happened to them in the past? His proposal must be rejected as a solution.
  The other policy is to make clear that Ulster remains part of this country, that we shall defend it from those who seek to attack it, that we shall give it full parliamentary approval, and that we shall seal the border with Southern Ireland. I believe that the way the Government are moving towards controlling the frontier and stopping uncontrolled movement between this country and Eire is a policy in the right direction. I wish them well with it. I hope that they will proceed with it, because whatever might have been wrong in the past, it is now time for the British people to assert themselves and to assert a solution upon the problem which has a greater chance of success even though it may carry less support than the policies of the past.
  11.23 p.m.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: By leave of the House; I should like to answer a number of points that have been raised.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nun-eaton (Mr. Huckfield) asked about the computers. I make the point that we use computers for vehicles in Northern Ireland. They are most valuable for tracing cars carrying bombs and so on. On another point, I can only repeat that I understand the nature of the wider problems he has raised with my right hon. Friends about locking systems and so on, which are most important for the freedom of the individual. On the precise question about the computerisation of intelligence records, when that is to be done I will let the House know because
  2100
  my hon. Friend's points concerned the destruction of information, and this is important, too. Information is already available, but not on the large numbers of people suggested in the Press, and it is most important to have that information.
  Hon. Members have mentioned the time that Lord Gardiner's Committee has taken. It has heard more than 100 witnesses and received more than 200 written memoranda and transcripts; it has visited the Crumlin, Armagh and Maze Prisons and talked to staff, welfare workers, prisoners and detainees, and visited the Army and the RUC. It is most important that Lord Gardiner's Committee has depth.
  Other hon. Members referred to the Diplock system and ICOs and people going before the commissioners. I was asked how many people who had been made subject to an ICO had been subsequently released by the commissioners. I am told that 52 of those for whom I signed an interim custody order were subsequently released at first review. But that does not mean that I was wrong. The wording of the legislation means that the independent commissioners may decide that there is insufficient evidence to prove that the detained persons were concerned in terrorism and were a danger to the public. The system is that my judgment is put to the commissioners. That is the law that I operate.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) asked about the power under Section 10 of the 1973 Act to detain after 72 hours and the United Kingdom powers introduced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, for detaining for two days plus five days. Anybody who is arrested will have to be told under which of the two Acts he is being arrested.
  It was suggested that a person subject to an exclusion order could be detained under an interim custody order on reaching Northern Ireland. I may operate my powers when it appears to me that the person in question has been concerned in the commission, or attempted commission, of any act of terrorism, or in the direction, organisation or training of persons for the purpose of terrorism. My right hon. Friend said the other evening that if charges could be brought they would certainly be brought. The judgment

  2101
  that I have to make in Northern Ireland and the law that I have to operate concern involvement with terrorism in Northern Ireland.
  The hon. Member for Belfast, West made a comment of the kind that I deplore. He spoke about people from certain communities and about certain powers and so on. He knows that I have said before that the police are in the Protestant areas and in recent months have had remarkable success in bringing people before the courts. The police are not in the Catholic areas in any strength.
  Four of the interim custody order that I signed most recently were for Protestants. I am not sectarian in this sense. I act according to the nature of the evidence that comes before me and in the hope that as many suspects as possible will go through the courts, and more are now going through the courts than ever before.
  That is the right development. The correct thing to do in Northern Ireland is to develop the police. I can only repeat what was said in the White Paper that was published in July. Some of my hon.
  Friends believe that a policy for Northern Ireland which has been picked over three or four months can be pulled out of a drawer—a new policy a week. That is not so. There are in Northern Ireland basic problems that have existed for years.
  The Government want the people of Northern Ireland to work together and to speak together and to put their views to us. If, despite what they say about wanting to work together as Ulstermen, that is not possible, that will be a factor in the development of any policy that we shall have to pursue.
  As the White Paper said, the important thing was to reduce the role of the Army, and this has been done with the reduction of three battalions. This must mean a growth in the size of the police. Policing is the key to the problem of Northern Ireland. The more policemen the better. The quicker we can get back to the normal processes of law—although it cannot be done overnight—the better.
  Question put: —
  The House divided: Ayes 91, Noes 22.

  Division No. 23.]

  AYES

  [11.30 p.m.

  Anderson, Donald

  Harper, Joseph

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Archer, Peter

  Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)

  Ovenden, John

  Bates, Alf

  Hatton, Frank

  Parkinson, Cecil

  Bean, Robert E.

  Horam, John

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Beith, A. J.

  Hordern, Peter

  Penhaligon, David

  Biggs-Davison, John

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Jay, Rt Hon Douglas

  Radice, Giles

  Bradford, Rev Robert

  John, Brynmor

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S.)

  Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle)

  Jones, Alec (Rhondda)

  Ridley, Hon Nicholas

  Carson, John

  Kaufman, Gerald

  Ross, William (Londonderry)

  Cocks, Michael (Bristol S.)

  Kerr, Russell

  Silkin, Rt Hn S. C. (Southwk.)

  Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast)

  Kershaw, Anthony

  Smith, John (N. Lanarkshire)

  Cunningham, G. (Islington S.)

  Kilfedder, James

  Spearing, Nigel

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Lamborn, Harry

  Steen, Anthony (Liverpool)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lamond, James

  Tinn, James

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N.)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Tomlinson, John

  Deakins, Eric

  Le Merchant, Spencer

  Torney, Tom

  Dunlop, J.

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V.)

  Dunn, James A.

  Luard, Evan

  Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)

  Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth

  Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)

  Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

  Ellis, John (Brlgg & Scun)

  McCusker, Harold

  Ward, Michael

  Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)

  Mackenzie, Gregor

  Watkinson, John

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Mackintosh, John P.

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Marshall, Or Edmund (Goole)

  White, Frank R. (Bury)

  Fox, Marcus

  Meacher, Michael

  Whitehead, Phillip

  Freeson, Reginald

  Mellish, Rt Hon Robert

  Winterton, Nicholas

  George, Bruce

  Molyneaux, James

  Woodall, Alec

  Gilbert, Dr John

  Moyle, Roland

  Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Grant, George (Morpeth)

  Murray, Ronald King

  Mr.Donald Coleman and

  Grocott, Bruce

  Noble, Mike

  Mr. Thomas Cox.

  Hamllng, William

  Oakes, Gordon

  NOES

  Atkinson, Norman

  Litterick, Tom

  Skinner, Dennis

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Loyden, Eddie

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Clemitson, I. M.

  McNamara, Kevin

  Thorne, Stan (Preston)

  Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen

  Madden, Max

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Fitt, Gerard (Belfast)

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Flannery, Martin

  Newens, Stanley

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Gould, Bryan

  O'Halloran, Michael

  Mr. A. W. Stallard and

  Huckfield, Leslie

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Mr. Bob Cryer.

  Kerr, Russell

  Sedgemore, B.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the Northern Ireland (Various Emergency Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 28th November, be approved.

  AGRICULTURE
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments).
  That the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy Scheme (Approval) Order 1974, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19th November, be approved.— [Mr. Pavitt.]
  Question agreed to.

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

  ENERGY CONSERVATION
  11.39 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Hordern: I am glad to have the opportunity to debate energy conservation. I hope that the Minister will set out the Government's proposals on energy conservation and will disregard altogether the rumours that have been put about in the Press that their pronouncement on some of the proposals may be delayed until next week.
  There can be no doubt about the importance or the urgency of a comprehensive policy to conserve energy. After all, the Government have been in office for 10 months, and that is surely more than enough time to present a set of proposals to deal with so vital a problem, which is part of our most intractable problem today—the oil crisis, which arose exactly a year ago. The fact that we are now running a balance of payments deficit of about £3,500 million a year, of which the oil part represents about £2,000 million, is bad enough, but what makes the position so much worse
  2104
  is that if we and the other consumer countries continue to use as much energy as we did a year ago we shall be completely in the hands of the producer countries.
  I understand that the non-Communist world now consumes 47 million barrels of oil a day, of which the OPEC countries supply 32 million barrels. If the consumer countries together were able to achieve a reduction of about 20 per cent. in their demand for oil it could mean a reduction of 30 per cent. from the OPEC countries and the end of their all-powerful position. We shall not easily see a reduction of 20 per cent., but I think we could see a reduction of about 10 per cent., which would make a substantial difference.
  I understand that industry in West Germany is using 18 per cent. less fuel than a year ago and that Holland's consumption of fuel has fallen by as much as 32 per cent. The French are making the most strenuous efforts to reduce consumption, and the United States aims to be self-supporting in fuel within a measure-able period. Dr. Kissinger's proposal is for a 10 per cent. reduction in oil imports by the end of next year.
  I think that the Government accept this; indeed, I think that one Minister has quantified what the savings would be if we were to achieve a 10 per cent. reduction. He estimates that it would be about £600 million a year, which is equal to the whole of our annual investment in electricity.
  What are the Government themselves doing to achieve this reduction? So far as one can tell, the only measures that have been taken are to allow industrial companies completely to write off against corporation tax expenditure on insulating factories. That is very helpful as far as it goes, but why is there no similar provision for industrial and commercial companies in respect of office accommodation? How can it be less desirable to carry out

  2105
  proper insulation for offices than for factories? There can surely be no division of view about this. If it is of absolute importance to conserve energy by insulation, there can be no artificial division or distinction between offices and factories. I hope that the Minister in replying will not tell us about the difficulties that the Inland Revenue may have in classification, because those difficulties are there to be overcome.
  How else do the Government propose to conserve energy? I think that the proposal to allow the nationalised industries to charge more realistic prices is certainly a move in the right direction. I understand that in West Germany the increase in the cost of oil has been passed straight on to the consumer and that this has already had an appreciable effect on consumption.
  I do not think it would be possible for us to move at once to this proposition because the nationalised industries have been subsidised for so long, but I think that we can move towards it by sensible and rational means. It should be possible for every consumer, industrial, commercial and domestic, to use up to 90 per cent. of his previous intake of fuel a year ago at the same rate, but to be charged an increasing surcharge on consumption above that level.
  What is necessary now is to bring home to every consumer the absolute necessity to conserve fuel. What we should move away from is the position in which large discounts are given by nationalised industries for increasing quantities of fuel consumed. The opposite should be the case. What else are the Government doing to encourage us to use less fuel? They have set up a committee. That is a reflex action of every Government to any difficult problem. Sir William Hawthorne's Committee was set up in the summer but did not meet until October. I understand that the Government are about to announce some proposals. There could certainly be no more fitting time than in this debate, and I am sure that the Minister has come armed with all these proposals, which will be well reported and well received.
  The latest information about consumption is not at all encouraging. Actual energy consumption was 1 per cent. higher this September than it was in September a year ago, although I understand that the
  2106
  fact that this September was much colder than a year ago makes a substantial difference. But petrol consumption is only 2 per cent. down on a year ago, and deliveries of heating oil are well up to the levels of last September. This situation cannot continue.
  We are entitled to know what the Government propose. Oil prices rose dramatically a year ago. The Government have had responsibility for 10 months and they have done virtually nothing. Let me contrast their inaction with what the French did in September. First, they placed a limit of 51 million francs on the French oil imports in 1975. This represents the tonnage imported in 1973, reduced by 10 per cent., calculated at present oil prices. It means that if prices rise, as they may well do in a few months, French imports next year will have physically to be reduced.
  At the same time the French announced a massive increase in their nuclear power programme and their run-down of the coal industry was first halted and then reversed. To save energy the French have limited heating in offices, shops and homes to 68 degrees Fahrenheit. I do not know how effective this measure will be, but at the least every Frenchman is physically aware of the acute energy position.
  The same cannot be said of our people, nor I suspect of Government offices, nor even of our own homes. I do not know about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but walking towards the Tea Room for a coffee I find that it is most comfortable and I am not inconvenienced by the temperature of this place. It would cause us no great difficulty if we were somewhat more inconvenienced and the temperature were reduced a little.
  The great majority of people can scarcely be aware that there is an energy crisis. They see shops and offices ablaze with light and advertising signs flickering every night. How can they be expected to take the situation seriously? The fault is entirely that of the Government, and they must take action soon if we are to achieve worthwhile savings of energy.
  The steps that need to be taken should be constructive, rational and effective if they are to gain the support of the country, without which they will not succeed. Perhaps I can suggest two areas

  2107
  for action which would have an effect soon. The first concerns transport. While it consumes only 14 per cent. of our total energy, it nevertheless consumes 25 per cent of our oil. The Central Policy Review Staff said that if our motorway speed limit were reduced from 70 miles an hour to 50 miles an hour there would be a saving in petrol of about 25 per cent. The Central Policy Review Staff called this a Draconian measure. If the limit were reduced to 60 miles an hour everywhere else, or even 50 miles an hour on some minor roads, this too would result in a great saving. This is something that the Government should consider.
  Would not it be worth while also to consider abolishing altogether the road tax licence, which must be administratively very expensive, I understand that it would save about £12 million if the staff and the administration on the road tax licence were abolished altogether. I do not know what would be the compensating effect of the increase in the price of petrol which would have to be incurred instead. Perhaps the Minister can supply some information for us. I do not know what the effect would be, but this is something which I hope the Minister will be able to tell us.
  In 1857 a Committee of this House produced a report entitled "Warming and Ventilation of Dwellings", which recommended the double-glazing of windows. We do not seem to have made very much progress since the House reported on this so many years ago. We use about 34 per cent. of our total energy in our homes, and a considerable part escapes at once through roofs, walls and windows.
  I believe that we have the worst record in insulation of our homes of any country in Europe, with the possible exception of Spain, which has a much more enviable climate, anyway. Clearly, the scope for saving energy lies far more in insulating our homes than in any other way.
  Apart from the waste of energy in resource terms, I understand that if all buildings constructed during the course of one year had been built and insulated to continental standards, the extra costs of construction would have added another £8 million but the fuels bills would have been reduced, on an annual basis, by some £2 million every year. As we use 34 per cent. of all our energy in our
  2108
  homes, the scope for saving here must be very considerable.
  There is a further consideration. So much of our national stock of houses was built before the war, a great deal of it in the last century. It is in these homes that there is such inadequate insulation. The cost of repairs and maintenance, falling as it does on local councils, must be enormous, and it must make sense, therefore, to encourage councils and private landlords and householders to instal proper and effective insulation.
  In an admirable speech on 19th November, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir J. Rodgers) drew attention to the deplorable standards of insulation in our houses. He said that we were wasting energy at the rate of £2,000 million a year and that we were building houses, even now, to the worst standard of thermal insulation of any country in Western Europe.
  We cannot accept that the improvement grants under the Housing Act 1974 are adequate to the challenge that we have to meet. Grants specifically for insulation are available in both France and Western Germany, and this is one method which must be considered here. After so many years of inadequate building standards, it is high time that we put our house in order, quite literally, instead of allowing scarce energy to be squandered. It calls for a major revision of building standards by the Department of the Environment and by architects throughout the country.
  So much else also needs to be done. The waste of power from power stations, from steel works and from transport is simply alarming. They all operate as if we were in a time of cheap and abundant energy. All these processes call for the most urgent attention from our scientific advisers.
  Above all, the country needs an effective lead from the Government and firm proposals to deal with this pressing problem. Let these proposals come soon, before another week goes by.
  11.55 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. John Smith): The hon. Member for Horsham and Crawley (Mr. Hordern) has raised a most important topic An accident of events means that

  2109
  I am unable to deal fully with his constructive speech. Rumours which are often not well-founded happen on this occasion to be well-founded, and on Monday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy will be making a full statement on the Government's plans for the conservation of energy. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will recognise that that places certain inhibitions upon the frankness with which I shall be able to deal with his suggestions. The debate should, perhaps, be regarded as the hors d'oeuvre to the main meal, which will take place, I hope, on Monday and thereafter.
  The hon. Gentleman is right to draw to the attention of the House and the country the urgent need for the nation to adopt and sustain measures for the conservation of energy. The theme which my right hon. Friend will adopt when he makes his statement is that there is little point in indulging in a short-term campaign for the conservation of energy because the country needs a long-term campaign, and our measures must be geared to that end.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the need for the insulation of dwellings. He quoted an example of how an initial cost which is fairly high is recouped over a period of years by the annual saving in energy. That indicates that the approach we adopt must be a long-term one, because the energy crisis will not disappear in the short term. It is a feature that we shall have to live with. We shall have to accustom our style of life to the energy resources available.
  The constructive suggestions made by the hon. Gentleman on policies which the Government might adopt will be extremely carefully considered by my right hon. Friend and other Government Departments. The responsibility for energy conservation does not rest solely with the Department of Energy. It involves every Department of government and every individual in the country. The public at large recognise the difficulties which the country faces in its energy resources, and understand the urgent need for a comprehensive set of proposals such as those which my right hon. Friend will announce on Monday.
  When the Government came into office last March they were well aware of the
  2110
  great importance which the efficient use of fuel would have in this new era of expensive energy. They also realised that mounting a campaign on energy conservation could not be done overnight. It needs careful planning and preparation because it requires to be both realistic and effective. It cannot be just a nine days' wonder—it has to be sustained over a longer period of time. Our aim, therefore, is to mount a campaign which will build up steadily over the months, taking account of the energy situation as it develops and not trying to do everything at once.
  I will gently take issue with the hon. Gentleman on one matter. It is not entirely fair to the Government to say that nothing has been done until now. He referred to the setting up of the Advisory Council on the Conservation of Energy and suggested that that was the reflex attitude of Government to any problem. It would not be unfair for me to point out that the reflex attitude of the House of Commons to any committee that is appointed is to think that it is set up to take minutes and waste years, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister once observed. That is not a fair assessment of the advisory council. It is a high-powered council. We do not expect it to make recommendations in the immediate future, although it has already produced a number of suggestions for consideration by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We envisage that its work will grow and develop over the months ahead. There cannot be much serious dispute about the necessity for a high-powered advisory council to consider and evaluate, outwith the mainstream of activity of a Government Department, the various suggestions that will be put forward for the conservation of energy.
  The hon. Gentleman referred to the increases in prices which were the result of the recent Budget Statement. One must take account of them. Value added tax on petrol has been increased to 25 per cent. In addition, the initial tax allowance for expenditure on the insulation of industrial buildings has been raised to 100 per cent.
  Mr. Hordern: Will the hon. Gentleman consider the point I raised about the allowance made in respect of factories but not of offices for relief against corporation tax?
  Mr. Smith: I think that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I undertake to draw it to his attention and ask him to consider it. I am afraid that I cannot do more than that at the moment. It would be well beyond my responsibility to commit the Treasury, but I agree that the point merits investigation.
  As I was saying, hire-purchase controls on space heating installations were relaxed to a 10 per cent. minimum down payment with repayment over a maximum of five years. It is hoped that this measure will contribute to the long-term improvement in efficiency of heating in the home, to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention.
  There has been a series of Government leaflets and pamphlets, issued by the Department of the Environment, which gave advice to domestic consumers on ways of achieving the more efficient use of their fuels. There is to be a sustained Government campaign to draw the attention of individuals to ways in which they can help both themselves and the nation by economy in the use of fuel.
  Amendments to the existing building regulations which will broadly double present thermal insulation requirements for new domestic dwellings are in hand. In addition, the Health and Safety at Work Act, which received the Royal Assent in July, extends the purpose for which building regulations can be made to include the conservation of energy in buildings of all kinds. There are also regulations which will normally require homes to meet the current standards of insulation before qualifying for improvement grants.
  Of course, we recognise that the Government must set an example. It is reasonable to ask what has been done about energy efficiency in central Government when the annual bill for heating and lighting in Government establishments alone is about £90 million a year. Action to conserve energy is being taken by enforcing authorised standards and by a programme of installation of better control equipment to eliminate heating during unoccupied periods. It is estimated that these measures will result in a saving of up to 6 per cent. in the financial year 1974–75 and of up to 7 per cent. in 1975–76.
  2112
  Of course, while it is an obligation on the Government to set a good example it is also an obligation on everyone else. There is a tendency for the public to write to the Press and Government Departments about lights blazing in Departments throughout the night. There is a slightly lesser tendency for the public to write to private companies about lights blazing in their offices throughout the night. If fairness to be observed, both the public and the Government must take action on both fronts. If the Government set the example. I hope that it will be followed by private individuals, local authorities and private companies.
  Another area which is of significance in the context of energy conservation is transport. The transport sector accounts for about 16 per cent. of our total energy consumption and almost a quarter of our total demand for oil. The scope for saving is considerable, because it is almost exclusively dependent on oil, our most scarce resource.
  It is possible to envisage a variety of measures which might reduce the total demand for energy in this area, varying from restraint on parking in the centre of large cities to changes in vehicle engineering technology, but any changes need to be viewed against the wider background of resource costs, including their possible impact on the environment.
  There are some quite simple steps which can be taken voluntarily by individuals. Amongst them, I would include ensuring that cars are properly maintained and driven at speeds which are economical in terms of fuel consumption. A great deal has occurred in the last few months to bring the public to a much greater appreciation of the savings which can be made, in terms not only of energy consumption but of the reduction of accidents on the roads. Considerable savings can be made by actions by private individuals in addition to the activities undertaken by the Government.
  The hon. Gentleman rightly drew attention to the serious problem facing the nation because of the increase in the price of oil. We shall be paying £2,500 million more this year for 5 per cent. less oil than we imported last year. This represents money and real resources which could be better employed elsewhere.

  2113
  Therefore, we all have a vital interest in diminishing this burden as quickly as possible.
  The Government's approach is to adopt two main lines of attack—first, to develop our substantial indigenous resources as quickly as possible, which is the prime responsibility of the Department of Energy, and, secondly, to promote energy conservation and the more efficient use of fuel, the subject with which we are concerned tonight. These two aspects of the policy must be carried out simultaneously.
  On the first factor, the public must understand that although we have discovered great new wealth in the North Sea it will not be immediately available to solve the problems now facing us. The Government have adopted an energetic policy towards the exploitation of the resources of gas and oil which lie beneath the North Sea, but it will be some years before we reach self-sufficiency of our energy resources from that area. The hon. Gentlemen no doubt knows that it will be the early 1980s before we reach that target.
  As a nation, we are fortunate in having these new-found resources. Our principal task must be to make sure that in the years before we become self-sufficient
  2114
  we waste as little of our precious fuel resources as possible.
  I do not think that I can go much further than I have gone in response to the hon. Gentleman's Adjournment debate. I think that he was wise to raise this topic. Indeed, he has approached this matter in a very constructive way. I hope that the fuller debates that the House will have on this topic will be conducted in the same spirit as this short debate has been carried on.
  I do not believe that energy conservation is a topic on which we need have unnecessary divisions. The nation as a whole—both Government and people acting together—must achieve the highest possible rate of energy conservation. I am sure that this tone will be adopted by the House when it consider more fully the wide-ranging measures that my right hon. Friend will mention on Monday.
  Returning to my opening remarks, if, indeed, this is an hors d'oeuvre to the main meal, we could not have had a more constructive hors d'oeuvre. I hope that we shall have an even more constructive main meal.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Beef Imports
  Beef Imports
  Beef Cattle (Sales)
  Beef Cattle (Sales)
  Cattle (Exports)
  Cattle (Exports)
  Livestock
  Livestock
  Beef (Storage)
  Beef (Storage)
  EEC Ministers (Meeting)
  EEC Ministers (Meeting)
  Beef Production
  Beef Production
  Milk
  Milk
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Slaughterhouses
  Slaughterhouses
  Farmers and Co-operatives
  Farmers and Co-operatives
  Meat (Marketing Board)
  Meat (Marketing Board)
  Fish
  Fish
  World Food Conference
  World Food Conference
  Sugar
  Sugar
  Artificial Proteins and Meat Substitutes
  Artificial Proteins and Meat Substitutes
  EEC Beef (Sales to USSR)
  EEC Beef (Sales to USSR)
  Horticulture
  Horticulture
  Fishing Industry (Subsidy)
  Fishing Industry (Subsidy)
  Cheese (Import Levies)
  Cheese (Import Levies)
  EEC Beef Stocks
  EEC Beef Stocks
  World Food Supplies
  World Food Supplies
  Guaranteed Prices and Deficiency Payments
  Guaranteed Prices and Deficiency Payments
  Artificial Insemination
  Artificial Insemination
  Beef (Import Levies)
  Beef (Import Levies)
  Animal Exports
  Animal Exports
  Hardwoods
  Hardwoods
  Beef (Subsidies)
  Beef (Subsidies)
  Horticulture (Glasshouse Sector)
  Horticulture (Glasshouse Sector)
  Food Production and Supply
  Food Production and Supply
  Straw Burning
  Straw Burning
  Farm Amalgamation Schemes
  Farm Amalgamation Schemes
  Allotments and Gardens
  Allotments and Gardens
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Wool Guarantee
  Wool Guarantee
  Cream
  Cream
  Butter
  Butter
  Cheese
  Cheese
  Farm Accidents
  Farm Accidents
  Cattle Imports (Republic of Ireland)
  Cattle Imports (Republic of Ireland)
  Sugar Beet
  Sugar Beet
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Fodder
  Fodder
  Government Policy
  Government Policy
  Poultry
  Poultry
  Hill Farming Subsidies
  Hill Farming Subsidies
  Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement
  Anglo-Irish Free Trade Agreement
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Insurance Premiums (Married Women)
  Insurance Premiums (Married Women)
  Short-Term Saving
  Short-Term Saving
  Tax Revenue (Shipbuilding Industry)
  Tax Revenue (Shipbuilding Industry)
  Tax Assessments (War Widows)
  Tax Assessments (War Widows)
  Personal Taxation
  Personal Taxation
  Estate Duty Office (Wales)
  Estate Duty Office (Wales)
  Income Tax (Travel Allowance)
  Income Tax (Travel Allowance)
  Luncheon Vouchers
  Luncheon Vouchers
  Wealth Tax (Authors)
  Wealth Tax (Authors)
  Invisible Exports
  Invisible Exports
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Nationalised Industries (Subsidies)
  Nationalised Industries (Subsidies)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
TRADE
  Import Levies (Food)
  Import Levies (Food)
  Departmental Questionnaire
  Departmental Questionnaire
  "Asiafreighter"
  "Asiafreighter"
  Aviation
  Aviation
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Fatstock Marketing Corporation
  Fatstock Marketing Corporation
  Petrol (Rural Areas)
  Petrol (Rural Areas)
  Caravans
  Caravans
PRICES AND CONSUME PROTECTION
  Brewers (Take-overs)
  Brewers (Take-overs)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE PRESS
  CABINET PAPERS
  CABINET PAPERS
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  MINISTER OF STATE, DEPART-MENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  MINISTER OF STATE, DEPART-MENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  REFERENDA
  REFERENDA
  INDUSTRY (AID)
  INDUSTRY (AID)
  CHANCELLOR SCHMIDT
  CHANCELLOR SCHMIDT
  ENERGY CONSERVATION
  ENERGY CONSERVATION
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Independent Broadcasting Authority (Chairman)
  Independent Broadcasting Authority (Chairman)
  Mr. Thomas Pankhurst
  Mr. Thomas Pankhurst
  Terrorism (Insurance against Damage)
  Terrorism (Insurance against Damage)
  Radio News Services
  Radio News Services
  Bus Crews (Protection)
  Bus Crews (Protection)
  Bomb Hoaxes
  Bomb Hoaxes
  Summary Trials (London)
  Summary Trials (London)
  Parole
  Parole
  Lady Margaret Hall Settlement, Kennington
  Lady Margaret Hall Settlement, Kennington
  Police
  Police
  Children's Publications (Prosecutions)
  Children's Publications (Prosecutions)
  Exclusion Orders
  Exclusion Orders
  Clergy (Registration Fees)
  Clergy (Registration Fees)
EMPLOYMENT
  Social Contract
  Social Contract
  Threshold Payments
  Threshold Payments
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Wages
  Wages
  Drilling Technology
  Drilling Technology
ENVIRONMENT
  Water Rates
  Water Rates
  Building Industry (North-West)
  Building Industry (North-West)
  Building and Insulation Research
  Building and Insulation Research
  Improvement Grants
  Improvement Grants
  Pedestrian Crossing, East Molesey
  Pedestrian Crossing, East Molesey
  Compulsory Purchase Orders (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Compulsory Purchase Orders (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Rate Support Grant
  Rate Support Grant
  Burials (Legislation)
  Burials (Legislation)
  Furnished Tenancies
  Furnished Tenancies
  Waste Disposal (Pitsea)
  Waste Disposal (Pitsea)
  Development Land (South-East England)
  Development Land (South-East England)
  Motorway Verges
  Motorway Verges
ENVIRONMENT
  London Rail Study
  London Rail Study
  M1-A1 Link
  M1-A1 Link
  Forth and Clyde Canal
  Forth and Clyde Canal
  Construction Industries (Economic Development Committees)
  Construction Industries (Economic Development Committees)
  Mobile Homes
  Mobile Homes
  MS (Taunton)
  MS (Taunton)
  Control of Pollution Act 1974
  Control of Pollution Act 1974
  Housing Associations
  Housing Associations
  COURT OF PROTECTION
  COURT OF PROTECTION
  TRIALS (WAITING TIME)
  TRIALS (WAITING TIME)
  Government Advertising
  Government Advertising
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions
  Pensions
DEFENCE
  Civilian Personnel
  Civilian Personnel
  Expenditure (Scotland)
  Expenditure (Scotland)
  Fishery Protection Squadron
  Fishery Protection Squadron
  Royal Naval Armaments Depôt, Bedenham
  Royal Naval Armaments Depôt, Bedenham
  Reconnaissance Vehicles
  Reconnaissance Vehicles
  Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve
  Territorial Army Volunteer Reserve
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Nursery Schools (Cheshire)
  Nursery Schools (Cheshire)
  School Books
  School Books
  Teachers
  Teachers
ENERGY
  Offshore Oil and Gas Reserves
  Offshore Oil and Gas Reserves
  Offshore Oil Industry (Costs)
  Offshore Oil Industry (Costs)
  Petrol Conservation
  Petrol Conservation
  Petroleum Division Staff
  Petroleum Division Staff
  Departmental Staff (Petroleum Economists)
  Departmental Staff (Petroleum Economists)
  Smokeless Fuel (Yorkshire)
  Smokeless Fuel (Yorkshire)
  Agreement on an International Energy Programme
  Agreement on an International Energy Programme
  Gas and Electricity Consumption
  Gas and Electricity Consumption
  Gas Consumption and Revenues
  Gas Consumption and Revenues
  Electricity Consumption and Revenues
  Electricity Consumption and Revenues
  Conservation
  Conservation
  Consumption
  Consumption
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Oman
  Oman
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Palestine Liberation Organisation
  Sudan (Briton's Arrest)
  Sudan (Briton's Arrest)
INDUSTRY
  HS146
  HS146
  Scottish Council and National Research and Development Corporation
  Scottish Council and National Research and Development Corporation
  Tower Hamlets
  Tower Hamlets
  Scottish Daily News
  Scottish Daily News
  Cable and Wireless Ltd.
  Cable and Wireless Ltd.
  Alfred Herbert Ltd.
  Alfred Herbert Ltd.
  Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.
  Rolls-Royce (1971) Ltd.
  IPD (Industrial) (Workers Co-operative)
  IPD (Industrial) (Workers Co-operative)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Collections for Charity
  Collections for Charity
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Resettlement Association
  Resettlement Association
  Firms (Possible Closure)
  Firms (Possible Closure)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Food Shortages
  Food Shortages
  Somalia
  Somalia
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Sickness Benefit
  Sickness Benefit
  Abortion
  Abortion
  Health Service Consultants
  Health Service Consultants
  Benefits (Increases)
  Benefits (Increases)
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
WALES
  Socio-Economic Groups
  Socio-Economic Groups
  Handicapped Persons (Accommodation)
  Handicapped Persons (Accommodation)
  Homes (Elderly Persons)
  Homes (Elderly Persons)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.
The Duke of Buccleuch and Queensberry—Took the Oath.

ROADS: MARKING OF THIRD LANES
Lord SWANSEA: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider marking the so-called "fast" lane of dual carriageway roads, and particularly motorways, in some distinctive manner, in order to impress upon motorists that this lane should be used only for overtaking.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the possibility has been considered, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has concluded that the practical difficulties and expense of such a step would outweigh the benefit.
Lord SWANSEA: My Lords, I am rather disappointed at the noble Lord's Answer. Would he not agree that hogging the outside lane in this way is a peculiarly selfish habit, and is particularly dangerous as it tempts other drivers to break the law by overtaking on the near side?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is disappointed at the reply. Her Majesty's Government have looked into this matter with some care. I would agree with him that it is important that motorists should follow the rules about the correct use of lanes, which are clearly set out in the Highway Code and in the publication Driving. Her Majesty's Government have taken considerable steps to make sure that this information is given to the public. Two short films have been made and shown frequently on television, and
292
a short cinema film is currently being prepared.
Earl HOWE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that our motorway, the M1, is now so very overcrowded at certain times of the day, particularly the rush hour, that a motorist is really forced to move along the third lane rather than weave from lane to lane, which is a rather dangerous manoeuvre?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am not quite sure which lane the noble Earl is saying the motorist is forced to stay in.
Earl HOWE: My Lords, most individuals think of this lane as the fast lane. As a matter of fact, the police refer to it as the third lane.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, my understanding is that it should correctly be referred to as the overtaking lane, and that is the important point to stress. It is not the fast lane, and motorists should not think of it as such.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if the right-hand lane is used only for overtaking it is a waste of a great deal of good motorway?
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the best way of getting effective lane discipline is to appoint a modest addition to the traffic police, whose presence on the motorway would very soon ensure correct observance of the Code.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, what the noble Lord says is, I am sure, quite right. It is, of course, very difficult to get motorists to observe this rule.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what is being done to inform drivers of large articulated vehicles, particularly those from the Continent who come over and are not perhaps aware that they should not go into the third or overtaking lane? I remember an occasion when I assumed that a lorry would stay on the left-hand side but it moved over into the overtaking lane, which was rather frightening. I wonder what is being done to inform these drivers that they should not go into that lane?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I have a feeling that that is a slightly

293
different question from the original Question on the Order Paper about markings on lanes. My understanding was that, on the whole, Continental drivers had a better reputation for sticking to the left—or the right, in their case—than drivers in this country.

PAYE RECEIPTS
3.8 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: 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 to state the total sums received in direct taxation from employees subject to the "pay as you earn" policy from January, 1973, to the latest available date.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Inland Revenue's gross receipts of income tax through the PAYE system between January, 1973, and October, 1974—that is 22 months—were £11,900 million. This figure includes not only tax paid by employees but by office holders such as directors, Members of Parliament and judges. It also includes tax paid by occupational pensioners. Separate figures for employees arc not available.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, would my noble friend agree this is a vast contribution made by employed persons, even if it includes directors and Members of Parliament? Has he any idea how it compares with the contribution made by way of direct taxation by industry? And has he got in mind the additional sums paid by employed persons in indirect taxation? Has not this got some relation to the wages that some of the employed persons receive, and the vast sums of money extracted from them by way of taxation?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, no matter who is paying, it is a vast sum. The amount collected under PAYE in 1971 was 59 per cent. of the whole of direct taxation. In 1972 it was again 59 per cent., and in the 22 months from January, 1973, up to October, 1974, it was 60 per cent., so there was a slight movement upwards. I would point out that my right honourable friend recently stated in the
294
other place that he was fully aware of the effect of inflation upon income tax allowances, and he gave an undertaking to review these allowances in connection with his Budget next spring.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, it is very interesting to have figures furnished to Members of your Lordships' House which indicate that the employed persons of the country, whatever category they are associated with, are actually paying more by way of direct taxation than the so-called propertied classes. My noble friend will understand that I am not raising the issue of a class war, but should not these facts help to diminish the criticism that is often levelled against employed persons who ask for increases in their salaries and wages?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I would wholly agree with my noble friend.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—and there is no earthly way that he could be—that I received my first pay as Leader of the Opposition last week, and the net amount payable to me was 71p? Is the noble Lord satisfied that that is more pay than earned?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I would point out that I was dealing with figures up to October, 1974.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in view of that pathetic hard luck story that has been given to the House, may I ask my noble friend whether, with some of his colleagues on the Front Bench, he would consider taking the hat round in order to help the noble Lord?

GRENADA: USE OF AID
Lord SAINSBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they can confirm reports that £250,000 of British aid to Grenada, earmarked for such specific projects as the extension of the airport, and the construction of bridges, roads and primary schools, has been diverted to other purposes by the Prime Minister of Grenada including payments to his personal police force.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the Grenada Government were recently unable to pay certain bills for development projects, although aid funds to cover these projects had been advanced by Her Majesty's Government. I am however glad to inform noble Lords that the Grenada Government have now agreed to repay these funds.
Lord SAINSBURY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask whether she would not agree that in 1962 when Mr. Gairy was the Chief Minister of the Island he had to be deposed for misappropriation of public funds, and a Treasury representative had to be sent out—I put it that way—to clean up the books? Secondly, does she not feel that the advice which we were given locally, that Gairy would change the colour of his spots when he was granted independence, has proved wrong?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am not an expert on leopards, but, nevertheless, I am of course fully aware—as were Her Majesty's Government at the time of independence—of the White Paper of 1962, which investigated the financial situation of that time. I am quite sure that noble Lords will be relieved to know that a different form of paying aid funds will now apply to Grenada—and to other countries—whereby advances are replaced by reimbursing certified claims.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, would the noble Baroness answer the last part of the Question about payment to the personal police force? Were Her Majesty's Government aware of this matter and, if so, for how long? How can they ensure that this money does not again go to abuses of a similar kind?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think I have explained that under the new system there will not be abuses. We have no precise information about the particular application of these funds to the "police force", but again noble Lords will be delighted to know that, on Mr. Gairy's
296
assurance, the "police force" has now been disbanded.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, what is Mr. Gairy's assurance worth?
Lord PANNELL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that when she refers to the Government, or when questions refer to the Government, the reference is not to this Government but to the previous Government?
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, as someone who first knew Mr. Gairy in 1953, none of these facts come as any great surprise to me? Could she say exactly what type of official control in the Island there is to ensure that monies are not spent as quite obviously they have been in the past?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, there will now be two different kinds of accounts, one in the Island which will be supervised by our people from Barbados, and secondly contractors in this country will be paid here.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, uniquely in this case, many of us opposed independence because of the private Police State run by the Prime Minister? Do not the facts since show that we were correct in that opposition and in welcoming the Government's intention to revise a system in which aid is declared? Have the Government any more reason today to believe the Prime Minister than they had when independence was granted?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, it must indeed have been a unique occasion for my noble friend to have opposed independence—and I may add, so did the present Government who were then in opposition. Independence was in fact granted by the Party opposite even though we voted against it. Nevertheless, I think we must remember that we all have at heart the welfare of the people of Grenada, and that we must continue to give aid to what is a lovely and potentially prosperous Island.

CYPRUS: TURKISH REFUGEES
3.21 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in ray name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many Turkish Cypriot refugees there are now in the British Sovereign Base at Episkopi, under what conditions they are living, and why they are not allowed to go to the destination of their choice.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, there are approximately 8,500 Turkish Cypriots at present living at Paramali in the Western Sovereign Base area. Their living conditions are relatively good and they have adequate shelter and food. There are no restrictions on their freedom of movement between the Western Sovereign Base area and the Republic of Cyprus.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree, in spite of what he has said, that it is in the interests of all concerned—especially of the refugees—that arrangements should be made as soon as possible for these refugees to go to the places that they choose?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I would agree totally with the noble Lord. At the present Government's suggestion, Mr. Clerides and Mr. Denktash have included the problem of Turkish Cypriots in the Western Sovereign Base area in their current discussions. As a result a small start has been made and 120 Turkish students have been able to leave, while the very old, the very sick, the very young and the pregnant have also been exchanged. But the problem is still great and the rate of movement is probably too slow.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may I ask whether it is the case that relatives of refugees in Cyprus have had great difficulties in tracing them, notwithstanding the efforts of the Foreign Office through broadcasts over Cyprus Radio and so on? Why is it impossible for a census to be taken of the refugees who are in the Sovereign Base area so that a list can
298
be published and relatives in this country can be assured of their safety?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am speaking without exact knowledge, but I understand some such study has taken place and I will arrange to have the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, informed.
Lord BETHELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many Turkish Cypriots in the base at Akrotiri are not willing to go to Turkey and from there to the Northern part of the island? So far as my information goes, many of them wish to return as soon as possible to their homes in the Southern part of Cyprus. Will the Government undertake not to connive at any mass compulsory population movement of all these refugees, against the will of some of them, to Turkey and the North of Cyprus?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as long as these 8,500 Turkish Cypriots are within the Sovereign Base area, there will be no compulsion. Freedom of movement exists and, indeed, even those who, as it were, half-settled in the Akrotiri area move over the border into the Republic of Cyprus to tend their farms and come back into the Base area to sleep at night.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one other question? He said that the conditions in which these people are living are relatively good. Is he satisfied that they are relatively good for the time of the year, and will he do everything to make certain that between now and the time when arrangements are made for them to go their conditions are improved?
Lord W1NTERBOTTOM: The noble Lord is absolutely correct. We are entering the winter period when conditions will become much harsher. We must also not forget that, unfortunately, many Greek Cypriot refugees who are not in the Sovereign Base area will live under equally harsh conditions during this winter. But her Majesty's Government will do what they can.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that these people have the basic needs of life such as bread, sugar and salt?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Certainly my Lords, the basic needs will be

299
ensured. The cost to Her Majesty's Government for the aid given to these refugees is £20,000 a week.

BREAD SUPPLIES: INDUSTRIAL ACTION
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a further statement on the supply of bread."
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Beswick will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

THE CHRISTMAS RECESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may I now, with the leave of the House, announce the dates of the Christmas Recess? Subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Recess on Thursday, 19th December, and resume on Tuesday, 21st January 1975. For the convenience of your Lordships, the House will meet at 11 o'clock in the morning of Thursday, 19th December.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, whether she thinks this leave for Christmas is grossly excessive in view of the crisis that we are now undergoing?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are always aware of any kind of emergency that may arise. I feel certain that your Lordships would concur if we thought it necessary to recall the House at an earlier date.

BUSINESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, once again intervene? The Private Notice Question, which will be answered after 3.30 p.m., will then be
300
followed by a Statement on British Leyland which will also be made by my noble friend Lord Beswick.

THE GREEN, ABERDEEN (BOOTS THE CHEMISTS LIMITED) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered on Report.
BIOLOGICAL STANDARDS BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, an Amendment (privilege) made Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

DISTRICT COURTS (SCOTLAND) [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord HUGHES): 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 Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Earl of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Abolition of existing inferior courts and establishment of district courts]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 19, leave out "(other than those exercisable when acting as a court of summary jurisdiction)"
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to leave out the words:
"other than those exercisable when acting as a court of summary jurisdiction."
I find it difficult to know what those words mean. As I read this subsection, it seems to me that all functions of burgh magistrates not otherwise provided for, including a court of summary jurisdiction, shall be exercisable by a justice of the peace. This seems to me too simple an explanation, and I rather suspect there is something else in it. If so, perhaps the noble Lord will tell us so that we can understand the object of the subsection.
Lord HUGHES: Like the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I also had some doubt as to exactly what was the effect of these words, so I have examined the matter fairly thoroughly. I find, in fact, that it can perhaps be described as a "belt and braces" principle. When an Amendment is moved which has the effect of "adding belt to braces", it is generally the practice for Governments to say that it is not necessary to do this. I prefer consistency in the arguments which I advance rather than sticking to the wording of the Bill. For these reasons, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 7, after "bail bond" insert "bail money, caution money"
The noble Earl said: I beg to move that the words "bail money, caution money" be inserted in the place mentioned in the Amendment. There is, I believe, bail money and caution money in the old courts, and they should accordingly be transferred to the new district courts. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: Clause 1(3) of the Bill provides for continuity in the handling of cases between the existing courts and the new courts. Under the provisions of the subsection the district court will be treated as a continuation of the old court, and all acts, proceedings and documents of the old court concerning the court shall have effect accordingly in the new court. Bail and caution money paid to an existing court would be returned, where appropriate, by a district court. I am informed that there is no need for an explicit statutory provision to cover this, since the clause already provides that the district court shall be treated as succeeding to and being the same court as the existing court.
I would point out that the part of the Bill which the noble Earl wishes to amend refers to documents and proceedings, and neither bail money nor caution money can be regarded as either a document or a proceeding. So in the first place it is unnecessary, as I have said, to include any reference to this to ensure that the man who properly turns up has his bail or caution money returned to him;
302
nor is it appropriate to treat either of these items of money as being a proceeding or a document. I therefore feel that this Amendment is unnecessary, and I ask the noble Earl to withdraw it.
The Earl of SELKIRK: With that explanation I am very happy to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [District of, and exercise of jurisdiction by, district court]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 31, after first "or" insert ", in areas or in circumstances in respect of which the Secretary of State may direct.".
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is intended to bring about a slight change of emphasis, and refers to the appointment of an increased number of stipendiary magistrates. Those concerned with the work of the inferior courts in Scotland hold strong views in favour of an Amendment of this character. What it really does is to give to the Secretary of State the initiative in appointing additional stipendiary magistrates. The reason I bring this up is because of Lord Grant's Report on sheriff courts, which was published in 1967. On examining the sheriff courts he felt immediately compelled also to examine the jurisdiction of the inferior courts. He found that he was seriously concerned at the alarming congestion in the sheriff courts, and when he went on to look at the inferior courts he found that they, too, were in difficulties.
He suggested four possible improvements here. The first is closer integration between the sheriff courts and the inferior courts. These two courts should be as close as possible in working together and in a later Amendment I shall put forward a specific proposal dealing with that. Secondly, he suggested that work should be transferred from the sheriff courts to the inferior courts in so far as the latter are competent to carry this out. Thirdly, he suggested an extension of jurisdiction of the inferior courts, but not an extension or increase of their powers of punishment. As a matter of fact, the Bill does not extend their jurisdiction, but that is the point which he made. Finally, he emphasised

303
quite clearly in his Report that there must be an increase in the number of stipendiary magistrates except in the areas which are not thickly populated. The importance of this is that to some ex-tent the stipendiary magistrate has the powers of a sheriff. Glasgow, I believe, is already asking for an additional stipendiary, and this should not cost any more money. Not only will the money come in from the fines, but I believe that the cost of maintaining magistrates will be at least as much as the cost of employing a stipendiary.
The weakness of the Bill as it stands, to my mind, is that the appointment of stipendiaries is left entirely to the local authority. This is in fact a national problem; it is not a problem which can be left simply to the local authorities to deal with. The Secretary of State, in making a decision in regard to this, has the advice of the Lord Advocate, who is now taking over prosecutions, and we are very glad indeed that he is. I hope to bring in the sheriff principal, who can also give advice on this matter if he is put in a position in which he can supervise all criminal jurisdiction inside his sheriffdom. I believe this will bring about greater speed in disposal; it will give a much more standard and stable quality of justice; and it will maintain the confidence. This is no reflection at all on the existing bailie system. Lay magistrates will be available whenever they can do the job, and counsellors can play their part by appointment at any time under Clause 6. I think that this is a considerable advance on form, and I believe it is right that the initiative in increasing the number of stipendiary magistrates should lie with the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

BREAD SUPPLIES: INDUSTRIAL ACTION
3.38 p.m.
MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord BESWICK): I My Lords, with permission, I would repeat a Statement on the supply of bread:
304
"Industrial action by the Bakers' Union has had the effect of reducing commercial supplies of bread by about 75 per cent. I regret the inconvenience, even hardship, suffered as a result. The independent Conciliation and Arbitration Service has been exploring urgently with the two sides the possibilities of resolving the dispute. A reference to arbitration was agreed this morning and I understand that the arbitrator will begin to hear the parties this afternoon. I very much regret however that the Union did not recommend an immediate return to work."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the House will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for repeating that Statement, because this is a situation which is causing, as he well knows, grave public concern. I welcome the fact that arbitration has been agreed to; this is a good step forward. But, my Lords, is it a fact that the bread strike is caused by a demand for a 66 per cent. wage increase? If this is so, would the noble Lord say whether this is a breach of the social contract? As arbitration has been agreed, why is it that the Secretary of State for Employment has been silent upon urging publicly a return to work by those who are involved in the strike, both to preserve the social contract and also in order to ensure—which is the Government's very direct responsibility—that there is an adequate supply of bread to the people of this country? The Secretary of State for Employment has been remarkably silent upon that. We should have expected the Government to take a sincere and direct lead.
Lord WADE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement, and I welcome the fact that arbitration is taking place. On the other hand, a 75 per cent. cut in supplies is a very serious matter. With regard to supply and distribution pending a settlement, is there anything that the Government can do to help in this respect? Would the noble Lord agree that there are certain categories of people who are particularly seriously affected, such as a family with small children, where both the father and mother are going to work and neither can queue at the shops where there is bread? Secondly, is there any hope of those on

305
strike being persuaded to go back to work pending a conclusion of this arbitration? I would hope that they might be so persuaded. Lastly, is there much evidence of people buying up supplies unjustifiably, in so far as there are supplies?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, replying to what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said about my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment, he has not been silent and, in fact, made a Statement on Friday of last week. I of course recognise that there is concern, and I accept, as the noble Lord says, that the situation is serious. The difficulty here is the practicality of setting up a rationing system overnight, and especially a rationing system on the selective basis which the noble Lord understandably suggested. What the Government have concentrated upon, in the first place, is setting up an arbitration and conciliation service. Thankfully, it is apparently working and the possibilities are that it will achieve a settlement much more effectively, I might suggest, than the arrangements that were in existence a year ago.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, could the noble Lord answer the question I asked him? If this strike is caused by a demand for a 66 per cent. pay increase, is that a breach of the social contract? Can he also say whether his right honourable friend has either publicly or privately advocated a return to work while arbitration is going on and, if he has not, will the noble Lord do so?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I deliberately did not answer that part of the noble Earl's question. It is a delicate area. It is delicate from the point of view of those who had responsibility for affairs last February. The basic pay of these bakers happens to be £23·80 a week for a 40-hour week. That is the situation left behind by the statutory pay code of noble Lords opposite; and it is a percentage on top of that that makes the figure demanded appear to be so great. Obviously, even 66 per cent. of that figure does not result in a very large absolute award. These are the facts of the situation. I did not want to go into it, because I do not think it is seemly and useful for the Government to get involved in an arbitration process.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I quite appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, does not really want to answer all my noble friend's questions, but would he say whether or not the Secretary of State for Employment will urge a return to work? This is an extremely serious position for the housewives of this country, for those with small children, for those who are working and who cannot spend hours in the bread queue; and this is not really a matter on which the House wants to hear debating points.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, that is exactly the reason why I did not take up the points made by the noble Earl opposite in the debating way in which he posed his questions. But as for his point about the Secretary of State for Employment, the fact of the matter is that he made reference to this situation last Friday. In my answer to the question, I said that I very much regret that the union did not recommend an immediate return to work. These are words which were agreed with the Secretary of State for Employment. He regrets the fact that they did not agree to an immediate return to work while the arbitration process is taking place. It is possible —I put it no higher—that by tomorrow there will be an award by the arbitrator, Professor Thomason. I agree with the noble Baroness that it is unwise to stir up debating points, if there is a chance of getting an agreed settlement by tomorrow.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us whether there is a sufficiency of flour and yeast to fill the present gap of bread which is not available?
Lord BESWICK: Yes, my Lord. That is a very practical question. There is a sufficiency of both flour and yeast. The difficulty is that it is in a form that does not make it easy to distribute. Packaged flour is being distributed as quickly as possible, and is being taken up very quickly. Certain yeast is being distributed in packaged form. Clearly, if the dispute is to continue something will have to be done about the stocks of yeast that are not in the sort of packages that make retail distribution easy.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the General Secretary of the Bakers' Union said that unless a

307
miracle happens he cannot see any bread being available until a week on Saturday? From the answers the noble Lord has given—and I do not wish to make debating points—is he aware that we can only conclude that the Secretary of State for Employment has not, and does not, urge a return to work while this arbitartion is going on? With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I think the Government have a great responsibility to housewives to see that there is bread available.
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, they have a responsibility and they are discharging that responsibility—and I rub in this fact —much more effectively than noble Lords opposite a year ago. This is so, and you cannot escape this fact. We have set up a Conciliation and Arbitration Service. The Conciliation Service worked quite quickly; it failed to get the two sides together but it did get them to agree to an abitrator, Professor Thomason. The arbitrator has been appointed; he started work at two o'clock this afternoon and he intends to work on as long as is necessary. It is a possibility—I cannot put it higher than that—that there may be an award which is acceptable. In those circumstances, I really think the noble Earl should take advice from the noble Baroness who sits beside him and not make debating points.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord assure us that both sides have agreed in advance to accept the award of the arbitration?
Lord BESWICK: No, my Lords, I cannot give that assurance.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, would the noble Lord therefore not agree there can be absolutely no guarantee? In view of what the General Secretary of the Bakers' Union has said, that there is a strong possibility that there will be no bread until next Saturday, there is an extremely serious situation of the country doing without bread for two weeks which calls for some kind of contingency plans? We have Christmas only ten days' after that, and what plans have the Government in mind for dealing with this situation?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, possibly the experience of the noble Baroness in industrial affairs is not extensive; but
308
if one talks about contingency plans at this point it does not help the atmosphere within which arbitration takes place. That is the first point. The difficulty here of putting anything into effect is that Governmental machinery is not really appropriate. What is appropriate is the ordinary distributive process. My understanding is that those companies, concerns and shops who are distributing bread are co-operating extremely well without any great dramatic show. Most of them already have a voluntary rationing system in operation. Everything that can be done is being done to distribute flour and I have said that, if possible, something will be done about distributing yeast. I think that it will be better to accept that, although there is no great, dramatic Government operation, the appropriate steps are being taken.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, why is it provocative to ask the people to go back to work while arbitration takes place in order to avoid hardship?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I have said that in the first place the Secretary of State regrets that they have not agreed to go back immediately to work when accepting this offer of arbitration. I have said that. If the noble Lord wants to know what is provocative and what is not, I suggest that he should read Hansard tomorrow in order to see what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has had to say.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords with the leave of the House, may I say there will be no second Statement as I had previously announced. This was owing to a misunderstanding.

DISTRICT COURTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.52 p.m.
House again in Committee on Amendment No. 3.
Lord BALERNO: The Amendment relates to stipendiary magistrates for the lower courts, the new district courts in Scotland. The importance of the Amendment is that, while almost all the lower court work has in the past been done, so far as the towns, cities and boroughs are

309
concerned, by what is known as the borough courts, it has been quite obvious that the load on the borough courts as well as on the justice of the peace courts in the country areas has been steadily increasing and that we have a mechanism in Scotland which has already been used for court work with great effect. Glasgow has used a system of stipendiary magistrates—full-time magistrates—which enables its courts to catch up with the backlog of, mostly, petty crime. I am on the Committee which advises the Secretary of State on problems of the justices of the peace of Scotland and, during the past few years, we have looked into this matter with very great care. It was only after considerable deliberation over the years that we came down strongly in favour of a substantial increase in the number of stipendiary magistrates.
This is quite essential. There is nothing very difficult in the Amendment. It merely encourages an increase in the number of stipendiary magistrates where they are required. That the stipendiary magistrate should be appointed by the Secretary of State means that it will be possible to have an even level of justice in these courts throughout the whole of Scotland. There is no reason why the local authorities should feel insulted in this matter because, as I understand it, it will still be possible for them to make requests for the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate in those areas where there is an increase of crime or a shortage of justices.
I have a second and perhaps more cogent reason for supporting the Amendment: at present, new industries are developing in Scotland. Most of these are centred on oil and the new industrial areas are developing more particularly in the North-East of Scotland—Aberdeen, the Grampians and in Ross-shire round Nigg Bay—though they are also coming to other parts on the West coast. I will not say these developments bring in undesirable characters, but they do bring in labour from other parts of the world, using the word "world" with due care and meaning. There is no reason to anticipate that the incoming labour to these parts of Scotland will be any more law-abiding than the existing population, and there is some reason for apprehension that there will be more crime, not merely because there will be more people but
310
because they will be living in conditions which may be conducive to crime. Therefore, I think it is important that it should be possible, if the need arises, to have more stipendiary magistrates and that they should be appointed by the Secretary of State so that the service may be uniform throughout the country.
3.55 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I believe my two noble friends have said everything which needs to be said upon this matter. I strongly endorse what they have said. This is a flexible provision which will enable the Secretary of State to use the new powers where necessary, as explained by my two noble friends.
3.56 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: I am afraid that there is some misunderstanding on the part of noble Lords opposite as to what exactly the Amendment would do. It is certainly not in the category implied by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who said that this was a flexible provision.
First of all, in reply to the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, Glasgow is not asking for an additional stipendiary magistrate: what Glasgow has done is to ask for authority to appoint a stipendiary in place of one who has retired. Therefore, the number will remain as it is. The effect of the Amendment which is under discussion would be that the benches of the district courts were manned exclusively by stipendiary magistrates. It would not, as the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, mean only increasing the number of stipendiaries where they are required. That is why I say that it is not more flexible. It will make stipendiaries the basis upon which the courts have to be manned, because it goes on to except those areas and circumstances in which the Secretary of State directs that lay justices may act on the bench.
Whatever view one may take of the relative merits of stipendiary and lay magistrates, I cannot advise your Lordships that an Amendment on these lines could possibly be acceptable. It seems to be contemplated that the normal position in the district court would be that one would have a stipendiary magistrate and that justices would be used only in special circumstances or in special areas—for example, in rural areas. I do not think

311
that it is appreciated just how much work a stipendiary magistrate does. The one thing which is quite clear from the workload of those stipendiaries who have been operating in Scotland is that there are very few areas in Scotland where the workload falling on the lower court would be of an order to justify the appointment of a stipendiary. There could be a few cases where, by joining together a number of districts, a stipendiary might be appointed to cover those districts, but I feel that that would be going back, on the court side, to the sort of objections which many of us had when the reform of local government was going through, that far too large bodies were being created. It would be quite retrograde, having regard to the present feeling in relation to the system now coming into operation in Scotland, that we should create these large areas, the only justification for which would be to enable a stipendiary to have a proper workload.
Even if one ignored all the practical difficulties which would result if the Amendment were accepted, the resulting system of courts would be unacceptable in principle. Successive Secretaries of State, even of the same Party, do not necessarily adopt the same criteria in dealing with matters of this kind. One year lay justices might be sitting in every district court, whereas in the following year they might be allowed to sit only in a minority of districts. No doubt successive Secretaries of State would act sensibly about these matters, but what must be avoided is the uncertainty which is created by the mere existence of such powers of direction. Justices might well be loath to undergo extensive training if they were aware that at any time their services could be declared to be no longer required. Moreover, persons who were very suitable for appointment as justices might be reluctant to accept the office because of uncertainties about whether or not they would be able to sit on this bench.
I would draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that the provision contained in Clause 1(1) of this Bill, whereby the Secretary of State may direct that a district court need not be set up in a particular district, does not suffer from the grave defects of the present Amendment. First, I ask you to note that the power can
312
be exercised only on or before 16th May 1975, and not thereafter. Where a district court is established on 16th May 1975—and this will be so in the vast majority of districts—then such a court will continue, as the Secretary of State has no power to decree otherwise. Secondly, if or when he is invited to exercise his power prior to 16th May 1975, the Secretary of State is required to have regard to the likely lack of business for such a court. His power is not therefore an unfettered one. To ensure that from 16th May 1975 Scotland has a nation-wide system of lower courts which can be properly established and whose future composition is not left uncertain, I must advise your Lordships that this Amendment should not be accepted.
Lord BALERNO: I really cannot follow the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, in this matter at all. He thinks that there will not be sufficient work for a stipendiary magistrate. In certain areas that is so: of course there will not be, and the lay magistrates will deal with the work very well indeed. But I would draw your Lordships' attention to one of the most important provisions of this Bill, which is that for the first time in Scotland legal aid is being introduced into these lower courts. Directly you have legal aid you will have cases being contested, and automatically the workload will go up, and it will go up quite considerably. The Scots are a litigious people, and if we can get our litigation free of charge we shall hope to get full benefit out of this new system; so there will be a substantial increase in the amount of work in these district courts, especially following the introduction of legal aid. I mentioned during my Second Reading speech that in one month in Edinburgh there were something like 280 cases, in which 250 people were found guilty right away—that is, they pleaded guilty. The entire tradition of the lower court is, "Plead guilty; otherwise you go to prison."
Lord HUGHES: I am very sorry: it may be that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, does not understand my argument. I cannot possibly accept the point of view that he is putting forward. It may be that the Scots are as fond of litigation as he says, though I think perhaps they are not so awkward on this point as the noble Lord is himself. I hope

313
he does not find occasion to appear before the district courts—I have no doubt he could keep them going for a long time on his own without any assistance from other people—but the fact is that up to the present, even in such large centres of population as my home town of Dundee, which the town clerk used to describe as being "third in population, and second in commercial importance", it has never been found necessary to suggest having a stipendiary magistrate; the load has been capable of being easily handled by eight bailies; and in Aberdeen the workload was handled by six bailies. There is nothing to suggest that it will be necessary for the expeditious carrying out of business to create stipendiary magistrates in the areas in which there is no foreseeable demand or no foreseeable likely need. Nothing that the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has said even remotely makes me think there is justification for this Amendment.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I must say that the answer of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is not really very satisfactory. He says there is nothing to suggest this need. May I just read what the Grant Report said—I wonder whether he has seen it?—
"There is an urgent need for relieving the pressure both on the sheriff courts and on the district courts."
The noble Lord has made no suggestion as to how this might be done. He says that the Secretary of State would be sensible, and I agree. I do not see why the Secretary of State should misuse the powers which are here suggested. I want to make it very clear that the responsibility for the expeditious carrying out of justice is a proper one for the Secretary of State and not for the district. I think the Secretary of State must accept that responsibility: it is his business to do so. If the noble Lord says that this is not the best way of doing it, I am prepared to accept that. But would he undertake to see whether there is a better way of bringing the responsibility of the Secretary of State more clearly into this Bill which deals with the whole area of district courts? If that could be done, I should be very glad to withdraw this Amendment and see whether or not we can devise something to meet this point more fully than hitherto. This is not a Party Bill. It is one in which we are all interested. We all want to see the administration
314
of justice speedily carried out, and to a good standard, throughout the country.
Lord HUGHES: I am hoping that we are now getting to the point where the noble Earl is going to withdraw the Amendment. I am quite willing to look at the question of how further stipendiary magistrates may be appointed. The position is, however, that any local authority which wants to have a stipendiary magistrate can ask for one: there is nothing to prevent that. Quite obviously, any Secretary of State who is anxious—and it is also the purpose of this Bill—to see the administration of justice improved in Scotland will not refuse the appointment of a stipendiary magistrate where obviously there is a workload for him, and the people in the district wish it. After all, lay magistrates are not anxious to kill themselves because of an overload of work in district courts, if there is the possibility that they can be relieved, as in Glasgow, of part of the work by a stipendiary magistrate. As things stand at the moment it would be quite wrong to set up, as this Amendment proposes, a situation where you have almost to prove that you do not need a stipendiary magistrate before you can have the administration of justice conducted by a layman. Up to now the position has been the other way about: you have to show that there is need for a professional judge being appointed, and where that can be done no obstacle will be put in the way.
I am quite willing, between now and the next stage, to discuss this matter further with the noble Earl; but I should like to make it perfectly clear that in such a discussion I am not in any way committing either the Government or myself to the acceptance of so radical a principle as this Amendment suggests, and which tends to turn the whole thing the other way round. I should also like to remind the noble Earl that last Thursday we passed an Order making provision for changing procedure in relation to the sheriff courts. The sheriff courts have not been ignored at the present time. I would also remind your Lordships that there is a degree of urgency about this because the reform adopted in the Local Government (Scotland) Act left certain things undone, and they were to be the subject of further Government action.

315
This is one of those things, and we have to get a system which will operate as from May of next year. In a longer term look at the relationship between the sheriff courts and other courts there may well be room for changes of this kind which might well be a factor in encouraging the appointment of stipendiary magistrates, if that were to be a method of relieving the burden on the sheriff courts. That is not the problem that we are at present facing in district courts.
I am, as I say, quite willing to discuss the matter, but I would not wish to mislead the Committee into believing that I am going any way towards accepting what we believe is the erroneous principle behind this Amendment, and which, on the way it has been spoken to by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, is not in fact what they are wanting. They are not asking for this to be made the main system. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said that it was to be a way of getting more stipendiary magistrates appointed. The Government have no objection to that, where it can be shown to be needed, but it is quite wrong to go about it in this particular way.
The Earl of SELKIRK: The noble Lord has done nothing about the sheriffs. All he has done is to create fewer, but full-time, sheriffs. That has nothing whatsoever to do with the congestion of the courts, and this Bill does nothing to relieve that congestion. I do not think that the administration of justice in this sense should be left wholly to the local authority. I shall develop that later. If the noble Lord were prepared to talk on the basis of bringing in the Secretary of State with a greater initiative to ensure the speedy and full disposal of justice I should be very glad to withdraw this Amendment and have discussions to see what we can do.
Lord HUGHES: I am prepared to discuss the matter in the interval with the noble Earl. I cannot commit myself as far as he says, but I am not asking him to commit himself to taking no further action. If he is not satisfied with the result of the discussion, obviously he has a remedy in a further Amendment—I would hope of a different character—at the next stage. If the worst came to the
316
worst, he could put this Amendment down. So while he has nothing to lose by discussion, I have nothing to gain by promising something which I may not be able to carry out. All I am prepared to do is to talk, and if it produces a satisfactory result then it will be useful; if it does not produce a satisfactory result, it will be a waste of time.
The Earl of SELKIRK: We have a common interest here. I recognise that the noble Lord will seek that, too. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.14 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert ("with a maximum of three")
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Selkirk I beg to move this Amendment. On Second Reading the noble Lord the Minister said that Clause 2 was designed to give maximum flexibility and he acknowledged that single magistrates in burgh courts were quite often the rule, and one or two justices is the tradition in those courts. This Amendment has a very small compass. Its purpose is merely to stop what has occurred occasionally in some parts, not particularly of Scotland but other countries as well. Too many magistrates may influence the feelings of a jury, since there can be too much discussion and argument. We think that a maximum of three is adequate. I should like to hear what the noble Lord has to say about that, and I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: I find it difficult to disagree with the sentiments behind this Amendment. In the normal course of events I think three magistrates would be perfectly satisfactory, and that when the justices committee were drawing up rotas this is what they would endeavour to do. Strangely enough, I have been subjected to two conflicting pieces of advice about the number of magistrates. I have been told by an eminent lawyer that there ought to be either one or two magistrates, but never an odd number other than one. I am also told that the law as it stands is that if you have two magistrates and they disagree on the question of guilt, the accused person must get the benefit of the doubt and

317
be declared to be not guilty. Unfortunately, the law does not condescend to express a view on what happens if, having agreed that he is guilty, one being a tough magistrate wants to send him to prison, the other being a lenient one says that a fine will do. How we get out of that difficulty, I do not know. It seems that the balance of argument is perhaps against having the even number, because obviously you cannot have a casting vote to decide on these matters. The probability is that three is the likely number.
Nevertheless, we would hope that the noble Lord will not press the Amendment, because we do not think it is desirable to put on a restriction of this kind particularly in the early stages. It may well be that magistrates, for instance, who have been undergoing training would want to sit with magistrates of greater experience, and in the early stages we might find that we have more than three magistrates. I certainly hope that we never reach the situation to which the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, referred, of sitting on a bench of seven or even more magistrates. We have undertaken some investigation and obviously it would be wrong to say that it does not happen, because the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, has told us that it has happened in his experience. But we can say it is very unusual, and in most cases the justices have sat in numbers not exceeding three. There will be a certain amount of administrative guidance given in these matters, and I can assure the noble Lord that we will certainly not encourage sittings of large benches of magistrates, other than perhaps on the occasions of which I have spoken where there are one or two more. We should not encourage six, seven or eight people to sit on a bench to decide whether so-and-so had been guilty of being drunk and disorderly the night before. So I can give the assurance that very likely what the noble Lord is asking for in this Amendment is what will take place, so perhaps he will be content to let the matter rest there.
Lord BALERNO: There is one point which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, made on which I think he must be corrected, He seemed to think it was possible to have justice done with an even number of magistrates. I think in
318
the interests of justice you must have an uneven number, and that would go down with most of the practising lawyers and the Law Society who have been talking about the matter during the past month. Whatever the number of lay justices on the bench, it would be an uneven number.
Lord HUGHES: I do not know whether my accent is getting more and more difficult, but I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, thinks as he does. I emphasised the fact that it was desirable to have an odd number. I pointed out that the law lays down what takes place if there is an even number, and I said that I did not think that was a good thing. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, and I can have another set of talks to see whether we can get on a common basis of the use of common language.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I am glad that my noble friend has been satisfied, and in view of what the Minister has said about positive guidance being given to the courts I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Jurisdiction and powers of district court]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.20 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am given to understand that in the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Acts from 1954 to 1967 there is a "tariff" between the amount of the fine and the length of the period of custody. If I am correct in this, the period of custody for a £100 fine is three months. That would mean the amount of punishment which could be inflicted by the district court is greater than at present. I suggest that it should not be; I think 60 days is probably enough. Would the noble Lord be good enough to look at this to see whether the increase to £100 would extend the period of imprisonment?
Lord HUGHES: I cannot answer that question off the cuff. I suspect that the noble Earl is right. The whole basis for changing the limit from £50 to £100 is

319
to take account of the change in the value of money. We have not yet reached the point where inflation is also attacking time.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clauses 4 to 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Clerk of district court]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 5, line 22, after ("area") insert ("who shall be an advocate or solicitor qualified to practice on his own account").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to ensure that only a properly qualified person will be able to act as clerk to the court. In these courts, as has been pointed out, we may not always have fully qualified people on the bench and, in the interests of justice, it should be seen that the clerk of the court is a fully qualified person. He is a man of great importance and his advice is sought. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: I think I may be helpful here. The basis on which the Bill was drafted was to follow the pattern, which has become more common in legislation relating to local government in recent years, not to give any more instructions to local authorities about the type of person they might employ than is necessary. But there are exceptions; in certain cases it is laid down that professional qualifications will be required for the occupants of particular posts. I said earlier that the authorities had indicated that this is what they would do. I think, having regard to all that has been said, there can be no disagreement about the need for legally qualified people, particularly in the case of the clerk of the district court. It must be accepted that the clerk of the court is someone primarily concerned in the administration of justice rather than as an official concerned with the local authority administration or procedures. I understand that Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are related. If the noble Lord will withdraw this Amendment and not move Amendment No. 8, I will undertake to consider tabling a suitable Government Amendment at the next stage.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I am very grateful to the Minister for
320
what he said. On this understanding, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Court houses for district court]:
4.23 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 37, after ("available") insert ("to that extent").
The noble Earl said: I should like to take Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 together. These are drafting Amendments and I put them down for the purpose of making it clear that district court buildings can be used for other purposes. As the clause reads at present, it looks as if they may be used only as district courts. However, they could usefully be used for other purposes. The Amendments also provide that if they were to transfer to another building this would be fully within the terms of the Statute. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: Clause 8(1) places a general duty on the district or islands council to provide suitable and sufficient premises for the district court. In the early stages of the new system the existing court buildings will almost certainly be used by the district courts. In any district area there will probably be several premises used by the existing courts and it will be for the local authority to determine which accommodation should be used. In local government reorganisations some of the existing accommodation will go to the regional councils and some to the islands and district councils. Subsection (2) requires the regional islands or district authority, without prejudice to subsection (1), to make premises used for the purposes of the existing courts available for the district court.
In most areas there will probably be several premises used for the burgh and justice of the peace courts. Some are at present used for court purposes only for short periods. After 16th May 1975 the court work will for the most part be concentrated in each district in one centre and it is therefore unlikely that all existing accommodation will be required. It would not be reasonable to include a limitation restricting future use to the

321
same extent as at present since circumstances will have changed. With good will I do not think that difficulties will arise.
We therefore feel that as the Bill stands we will achieve exactly the point the noble Earl has made, that the buildings should be available for the best use to be made of them, provided there is satisfactory provision of buildings for use as district courts. I hope he will not press the Amendment.
The Earl of SELKIRK: If the noble Lord is satisfied that courts can be used for other purposes, I will not press the point. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Existing justices and magistrates]:
4.27 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 8, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Earl said: We now come to the Part of the Bill which deals with the appointment of magistrates. To some extent subsection (2) of Clause 10 is, I presume, dealing particularly with what I call the transitional stage. I am not certain what the subsection means, but as I read it it seems to me that anyone who happens to be a bailie on 15th May automatically becomes a justice of the peace on 16th May. I do not understand why the procedure under Clause 9 should not be followed. Why should he not be made a justice of the peace in the ordinary course of events with the restrictions that that implies; the use of the Great Seal, residential accommodation and possibly going on to the supplementary list? Why is it set out in an entirely different way in this sense? Would it not be simpler to take this clause right out and let those bailies who are suitable, or who want to continue, be appointed to any commission area, in the ordinary way under Clause 9? This is the correct way to proceed and, in the circumstances, is a better way. There should be no delay in appointing these magistrates; the procedure cannot take long. To have
322
magistrates all on the same basis is a very much more suitable method. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: I cannot pretend that the Bill would collapse if this subsection were taken out, and if, in fact, we were to do what the noble Earl has suggested it would be quite possible for arrangements to be made for every one of the people who would have automatically become justices by virtue of this provision to be appointed a justice and to carry on. The reason for this provision is that in some places, particularly in the burghs, not all the existing bailies are justices of the peace. I checked, for instance, on my home town and found that exactly half were justices and half were not. I want to make it perfectly clear that I am not talking about Dundee, because this could be construed as a reflection on particular individuals. But in some cases it will be found that some of the best magistrates are not justices at the present time because they are younger men and the tendency under the existing system is that the older people have a better chance than the younger ones of being appointed justices of the peace. That may or may not be a good thing but that is the way it has tended to work.
So there is an advantage in doing this in that one at least starts off on the basis that the experienced people will be immediately available. I have made it clear that the training facilities will be under way before 16th May—and I may mention that when my wife travelled down to London yesterday she informed me that there were two letters in the post, one for her and one for me, asking us whether we were willing to undertake training as magistrates so that we could do our duties properly as from 16th May. I do not know how she is going to answer, but I know what I am, and I do not expect to be very busily engaged as a magistrate after 16th May. However, there is bound to be a certain interval, and this seemed to be an appropriate way of dealing with the situation. In the discussions with them, this is what the local authorites felt strongly should be done.
It is a long time ago since I fought an Election with the Party opposite in Scotland on the basis that the own hall

323
knows better than Whitehall—and "Whitehall" is interpreted as covering Dover House and St. Andrew's House also. We are now seeking to say, when we receive this strong advice from the local authorities, that it is the wrong way round; that Dover House and St. Andrew's House do know better than the local authorities. The numbers involved are very small. There are some 5,000 justices in Scotland at the present time, and the number who would come in on this basis is a very small fraction of that total. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will find that, although there are obviously points to be made both ways, it is not worth while taking out this subsection. I have a definite suspicion that the local authorities will feel so strongly on this matter that, if we take out this subsection, another place will be invited to put it back in again, and that is a waste both of their time and of your Lordships' time. I therefore invite the noble Earl not to press this Amendment.
Lord BALERNO: I cannot see why we are making it so complicated. Let us have one uniform system for Scotland. That is the whole purpose of having the district court for the whole of Scotland, instead of the old burgh court and the old justice of the peace court. What is the difficulty of making every magistrate a justice of the peace if he so wishes to become a justice of the peace? There is plenty of time. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, admits that he has just received a letter inviting him to continue as a justice of the peace on 15th May next—
Lord HUGHES: Not to continue as a justice of the peace but to take training to qualify to sit on the bench. I will continue as a justice of the peace but not necessarily acting as a magistrate.
Lord BALERNO: I think that if the noble Lord reads his letter a little more carefully he will see that he is also given the opportunity of going on to the retired list of the justices of the peace, which allows him to continue signing papers. As that letter has just gone out, it is surely within the wit or the ability of the Scottish Office within another month to send out a parallel letter to every magistrate of every burgh who is not already a justice of the peace asking him whether he wishes to be appointed a justice of the peace and
324
pointing out to him the requisition for training. Of course we all understand that there will be difficulties in completing the training by 15th May, but what we want to know is whether they are willing to undergo the training. So I do not see that the difficulties which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has been making about accepting my noble friend's Amendment are justified.
Lord HUGHES: All I would say in connection with that is that there is nothing complicated about it; this is, in fact, the simplest matter. If this provision becomes law these people automatically become justices of the peace. To have to write to them individually and say: "Do you wish to become a justice of the peace?" and then, by implication, to agree to appoint each one who says: "Yes, I so want and I am prepared to act" is a much more complicated and expensive way of doing it than the procedure provided by these three and a half lines in the Bill.
The Earl of SELKIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, is always very persuasive, but he has not, with great respect, given the slightest reason why it should be done this way at all. Here is a person becoming a statutory justice of the peace whether or not he wants to. Nobody asks him whether he does; he just becomes one. There is a perfectly good system laid down in great detail under the previous clause. Does this man go on the commission of the peace? Does he remain a justice all his life? Is he on exactly the same basis as every other justice? I do not feel strongly about this matter. This is just a transitional stage, and while it may help the Government, we always want to help the Government if we possibly can and we are not worried about that; but the noble Lord might look at this point to see whether it is worth having this, frankly, rather ridiculous little procedure.
Lord HUGHES: I must say that I am impressed by those last remarks. I should dislike to think that we were forcing justice of the peace status on somebody who did not want it.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Exactly.
Lord HUGHES: Perhaps we could look at it on the basis of seeing whether we could add some words to the provision

325
along the lines suggested. I cannot make a promise—it may be difficult to do—but perhaps we could word this provision in such a way that anybody who did not want the appointment would have the right to say, "No. I do not wish to be a justice after 16th May. When I cease to be a bailie, that is the end of it so far as I am concerned." Could we look at it on the basis of amending the wording so that there can be no question of people being conscripted to the justices' court and all will be volunteers? Would the noble Earl withdraw on that basis?
The Earl of SELKIRK: Yes, I am very happy to accept that. I personally think it would be much better to debate this point under Clause 9. In response to what the noble Lord said, I am quite happy to beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Ex officio justices]:
4.39 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK moved The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 8, line 30, leave out subsections (2) to (8).
The noble Earl said: We now come to a more serious part of this Bill. It is a great pity that the Government did not put out for discussion a White Paper saying what they were going to do in this connection. This was done by the previous Government and the Bill was not carried through. Not only that, but my information is that there has been no serious discussion at all between the Government and the profession in Scotland about the contents of the Bill. Clause 11 was, I think, a last minute thought and it was popped into the Bill for reasons which—I will not say I find hard to guess, but which I will not enlarge on at the present time. The crux of this clause comes in subsection (2) which states:
"Each local authority may nominate up to one third of their members to serve as ex officio justices for their area …".
This is a most extraordinary way of appointing justices. I find that it is quite misconceived, and I wonder how it is that this ever came into the mind of the Government. We have abolished burghs.
326
We seem now to be anxious to set up burgh magistrates for burghs which no longer exist. I wonder just why this is being done. As I see it, this is no more than the tail end of feudal institutions which, in point of fact, should have disappeared quite a long time ago. When the burghs were set up, probably in the reign of Alexander or James IV, they had three functions, Royal burghs, burghs of barony and burghs of regality, and their three functions were defence, certain economic privileges and administration. In those days, administration included the judicial courts, just as in its early days Parliament was also a judicial court. We have travelled a long way since then, and this is simply not in line with the 20th century. I do not think that any other country in the world allows its bench to be elected by an assembly. In the United States of America they have elections at large, and that is one way of doing it. I do not approve of it very much but I would much rather have elections at large than I would have an assembly appoint its own magistrates.
It is a peculiarity of Scotland that we have allowed this system to carry on for a good deal longer than probably is absolutely wise, in view of the fact that people like Montesquieu and others have stressed the importance of the separation of powers. One sees it, for instance, in the official name of "Edinburgh", or that of any other burgh. The Lord Provost, the magistrates and councillors of the City and Royal Burgh of Edinburgh have joined together from ancient time the administrative and the judicial functions. Today they should be separated. Indeed, I think it is essential that they should be separated. How do local authorities appoint their magistrates? May I describe to your Lordships how it is done. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will not, I think, disagree with what I say. Before the town council meets, the caucus comes together and the chairman says, "We have three bailie vacancies. What shall we do? Shall we keep the lot, or shall we let the other Party have one, or possibly two"? It is a pure Party appointment and something which, to my mind, tarnishes the Bill.
I wonder how these nominations are made in other burghs. I have a fairly definite idea that my experience is similar

327
to that of virtually every other burgh. In Scotland we do not believe that something of this kind should be continued in the new Bill. This is not a continuation of the existing system; it is a new system of district court which we are introducing in this country and I think that it is quite wrong that anything of this kind should be carried out. I am not saying this in a spirit of criticism, although there was criticism at Second Reading regarding the bailies' court; I feel that they have carried out a tremendous job over many years. However, it is not work which councillors ordinarily should do. They are elected to administer a city; they are not elected as judges or magistrates. That is not what they are there for. Under the system which is proposed in the Bill, they will be elected and will be responsible to their electors; they will have to be nominated by the council; and they will need the approval of their Party. I think that this detracts greatly from the value of the Bill, a great deal of which is common ground to us and which we like; but this is a sheer anachronism which I think should be taken out of the Bill. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord BALERNO: I wish to support my noble friend in his Amendment, but I will not enter into the legal argument. Instead, I will give you one very cogent reason for the Amendment. One of the virtues of the Bill is that justices of the peace should be trained, and naturally that training will take quite some time; it could quite easily take up to ten or twelve lectures. Indeed, the recommendation is that there should be a weekend course for justices of the peace. If he is not already a justice of the peace what district councillor will have the time to spare to take this instruction? As an elected member, one never knows how long one is likely to remain in that position. It is not as if one remains in Office for life.
If we delete these subsections, it will still be perfectly possible for a county council to say to the Secretary of State that so-and-so of its membership wishes to be a justice of the peace and is prepared to be trained. His name will come up for consideration and the odds are that they will be only too glad to have him. But that a district council should
328
nominate one-third of its members for the period that it is in Office and should then nominate perhaps a completely different third for its next period seems to me to make a nonsense of the whole idea of training. For those reasons, as well as for the reasons which my noble friend has led, I ask your Lordships to support this Amendment and to delete these thoroughly objectionable proposals.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: May I support my two noble friends in this Amendment. Politics and justice are not normally associated. If this Amendment is passed by your Lordships, it will remove politics from these courts. As my noble friend Lord Balerno has said, people do not elect their councillors primarily as magistrates. It happens more and more frequently today that councillors are elected for political reasons and, human nature being human nature, too often they tend to elect members of their own Party to these Offices. I hesitate to use the word but I shall. Tammany Hall springs to mind as a possibility of what could come about if this clause were abused.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will assure us that most of the councillors who are elected are good, honourable men who would intend nothing of that kind. I do not doubt that to be a true statement. Nevertheless, there is a way open here for that kind of situation to arise. I do not see why the Clause 9 legislation for appointing justices cannot be used as my noble friends have said. Obviously there will be councillors or eminent men in an area who are suitable to act as magistrates. All right; use the Clause 9 procedure. Why should there be this power whereby local politicians can put 100 per cent. of the magistrates on the bench? May I support, therefore, my two noble friends in what they have said.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: May I support my noble friends in this Amendment. I am afraid that I am a Sassenach magistrate. Probably, therefore, I should not speak on this Amendment. However, I expect that the noble Lord is well aware that several years ago ex officio members of the local authority were prevented from being ex officio magistrates. They were able to be magistrates after their terms of mayoralty in

329
their local authority, if the Lord Chancellor, in his wisdom, appointed them. But nobody is an ex officio magistrate, and that has been the position for, I think, five years.
May I make the further point that if one has local authority representatives, there are many cases coming before the bench where the local authority member has to retire purely because he knows too much about the case and also about the people involved. I can foresee a situation where you might well be left with very few magistrates to serve on the bench for that reason. I support all my noble friends who are against subsection (2) of Clause 11. I think for the local authorities to have the prerogative of appointing up to one-third of the bench is utterly wrong. It certainly would not work in this country as all the magistrates are appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: May I be forgiven for adding a word to this discussion? I have been a Member of Parliament of one House or the other continuously since 1938, and I think this may be the first occasion during that period of time on which I have ventured to utter a word on Scottish affairs. My qualification for doing so is two-fold: in the first place, I am half-American and I know something of my mother's State where the local bench was in fact directly elected, largely on Party lines. Secondly, during the period in which I was Lord Chancellor for nearly five years, it fell to my lot in England and Wales, minus the county of Lancashire, to appoint all the justices of the peace on the advice of advisory committees.
I wonder whether the Government really are wise in what they are now proposing to do, which is a sort of indirect election by local authorities of people holding judicial office. When you do justice as a magistrate, it is important that you should not be afraid that your own position will be called into question if you make an unpopular decision. That is absolutely vital to being a good magistrate. The weakness of any form of election, whether direct or indirect, is that the magistrate or the judge will lose his job if he makes an unpopular decision. When I lunched with the local judges in Tennessee I was given a card by one of the judges. To my astonishment it was
330
a poll card; it was not a visiting card, and it said, "Vote for me". Quite obviously, one can see what would happen if such a person gave an unpopular decision. One has to recollect that in all contested litigation you become unpopular with one Party or the other and an unpopular decision may well lead to a campaign against you and may cause you to lose your job.
I recognise of course that in an indirect election where you are elected by the county council, this may operate in one of two ways—possibly less indirectly than in the case of a direct election, but it can still operate. Supposing you make an unpopular decision—and, as I say, some decisions are less popular than others; some arouse more public excitement than others. To begin with it may affect your position on the local authority when the next election comes. It may be said: "That is the man who did so and so when I was up before him". Indeed, when you are a judge you have to make a decision which will adversely affect somebody's financial interest or the interest of some powerful trade union or powerful minority. It must affect your chances of re-election to the local authority. Or vice versa, you speak up in the local authority against a policy. You may be in a minority or a majority, but you make enemies, and when the time comes to re-nominate the justices of the peace that conduct will be held against you. In other words, it is not possible to be a just judge and to be elected and to be liable to be re-elected on popular grounds, direct or indirect.
Of course I do not want to say a word against the personnel of local authorities. When, as Lord Chancellor, I was appointing justices for England and Wales they were among the most fruitful sources that were drawn upon for nomination by the advisory committees, but they did not depend for their jobs upon election by their local authorities. They depended for their jobs upon nomination by the independent advisory committee and by appointment by the Lord Chancellor, and in practice they would not be dismissed by the Lord Chancellor except for judicial misbehaviour or incapacity. That is the opposite of what is proposed here.
I was disturbed to hear what my noble friend Lord Selkirk said, because he was

331
describing the matter from experience in Scotland. I have some experience in England of the working of local authorities in other spheres, although in this sphere happily we are not faced with such a situation. I know of two systems, both of which are bad and I do not know which is the worst. One is for the Party Whips of the majority Party to nominate the whole of, say, the governors of a school, and the other is for the Party Whips of the two Parties to carve them up on Party lines, and this is what goes on in local authorities. This is from my knowledge of England and Wales. The idea that judicial offices should be parcelled out in this way seems to me to be absolutely repugnant to our whole idea of justice. Of course it may be true that the Scots have no original sin. We know that many of them think so. They are all justified by faith, I think, North of the Border, but if they are in any way similar to the English I ask the noble Lord to think again.
4.57 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: It is certainly a new experience for me to find a former Lord Chancellor intervening in a Scottish debate, but it is none the worse for that. The noble and learned Lord will forgive me if I say that I find myself in sufficient difficulty in dealing with the legal aspects without following him into the theological fields into which he was seeking to divert me at the finish. I would also say that it is perhaps not the best qualification for considering the situation in one particular set-up to make comparisons with what occurs in other places. For instance, I thought the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was quite wrong when he was describing these duties that we are talking about as "jobs". They are not jobs; they are voluntary duties which people are undertaking and for which they do not receive payment, other than out-of-pocket expenses. They do not get any allowances as councillors; it is the other way round, and I think this is the subject of a later Amendment tabled by the noble Earl.
I also wish to point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve—and although she said that she is a Sassenach, anyone with that name, whether acquired by marriage or by birth, has no need to
332
apologise for intervening in a Scottish debate—that it was not a third of the bench that they are given the right to appoint. It is a third of their number, and this perhaps is the right point at which I should emphasise that in comparison with some 5,000 justices in Scotland there would be some 400 people who will be appointed if this remains part of the Bill. So it is a very small part of the total.
I find myself in an exceedingly surprising position. Most noble Lords on the Benches opposite find themselves members of a Party whose title is "Conservative", and whenever a title is applied to the Party of which I am a member, we are not supposed to be innately Conservative. Yet I find that here am I, seeking to continue a system which has worked completely satisfactorily in Scotland, not for decades, and not just from the institution of the burgh court, because in the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said that the burgh court was only a creation of the nineteenth century. But that was merely a change that took place in that particular Act of Parliament. We have done a little research on the matter and the earliest Act of the Scottish Parliament in which we can find a reference to the bailies is 1535. How much further back they have gone beyond that I do not know, but the fact is that throughout all this period this system has worked in Scotland and one of the justifications for refusing to make changes is that changes should not be made unless it is desirable to have change. This is a doctrine which I find myself having no difficulty to accept in this connection.
I was a member of a local authority for 27 years. For only two of those did I occupy the post of bailie. I was a Lord Provost for six years. One of the privileges of being a Lord Provost is that one manages to dodge magisterial duties, so I did not sit on the bench for those six years, although in the smaller burghs the Provost tends to take his turn on the bench along with the bailies. At no time during my period of membership of a local authority, and at no time since I ceased to be a member of a local authority—and that now goes back 14 years—have I ever heard any demand from any quarter of Scotland, inside or outside the local authority, for the abolition of the system

333
of lay justices as practised in the burghs. In fact, the request for this is not a last minute thing. It was referred to by the Secretary of State as far back as 15th July, and we came into office only in March.
The system is requested by the local authority associations, and it was emphasised in these requests that the view put forward was irrespective of politics. All Parties engaged in local authority activities in Scotland wished a system of this kind to continue. But I would remind your Lordships that still in local government there are considerable parts of the country where the political system does not operate in local government, and whether they were the bigger areas where it does operate, where the parties work, or in the rural areas where it does not, the same position prevailed—they wished to have a continuation of, or something resembling, the present system.
During the passage of the Local Government Bill last year, one of the points which the then Secretary of State, Mr. Gordon Campbell, was anxious to perpetuate was that the chief magistrate in the four cities should continue to use the title of "lord provost" and that is in the Bill. We amended the Bill during its passage through this House, to ensure that the title of "provost" would also be available for use in district councils if it was the wish of the district council that the chairman should be known by the term "provost". They have all taken the decision; some have decided that the term "chairman" should continue, some decided for "convenor", some have decided on the term "provost". The feeling has been that in those districts largely based on the former burghs, they have chosen the title "provost", so it shows there is anxiety to hang on to things which have certain merit.
One thing which has been under consideration is whether there was any way of preserving the title of "bailie" which, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said on Second Reading, is still held generally in high repute. I am told, for instance, against what the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said, that there is a considerable number of cases heard in these courts, and only the few such as he quoted ever got any mention in the Press. I have spoken of my own experience. In the two years that I was on the bench, in
334
the succeeding elections I never had raised as a possible reason for not reelecting me to the council any decision which I took on the bench.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: There could be no reason for not re-electing the noble Lord.
Lord HUGHES: I should like to think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, is right, but obviously he does not know Dundee. I should think that at least one-third of the population in any given time would be able to give reasons why I should not be re-elected, or as to why I should even exist It was never a source of difficulty. After all, we are not comparing like with like. The powers of the district court, as the powers of the former bailie's court, are limited, and the opportunity for making oneself either popular or unpopular by sitting on either bench is very limited indeed. I am quite certain no one from the home State of the mother of the noble and learned Lord is likely to emigrate to Scotland for any pickings he will get from being nominated as a member of the justices court of a district council.
The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, raised a point which has to be answered, because it seems to me to be a reasonable one. The noble Lord said that the district council will have a great deal of work to do. He asked whether it will be likely or possible for people to take the extensive training required, and then put in the time required on the bench. It has been possible for people to undertake the duty of a magistrate, which does not cover any training at this stage, on the basis that they were all-purpose authorities in the cities. The district councils will be a mere shadow of the burghs compared with the burghs, much less than the large burghs and cities. They are not education authorities, social work authorities or strategic planning authorities. The only major function they have will be as members of the Housing Committee. I should suspect that one of the reasons why the local authorities are so anxious for this to be done is because they want to ensure that those people who take election to a district council are continuing to have a worthwhile job to do. This is something which they would regard as being worth while.

335
I do not want to go on much longer, because if there is anything I hate (as most Scots do) it is waste. I know perfectly well that the longer I stand here, the more I am wasting my breath and your Lordships' time, because that side of the House has already decided to divide on this Amendment. All that remains is for me to say that this is a fundamental part of the Bill. We have commitments to the people of Scotland to legislate along these lines.
I advise your Lordships: do not follow the example which I have just attempted to do, in that I am wasting your time and my own breath. Do not waste further time by taking this out of the Bill, because if you do, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to reinstate it in another place. I have no doubt whatsoever, notwithstanding the fact that I have been told you have the major support of Miss Winifred Ewing, that the Government will be able to put into this Bill what the people of Scotland have shown by their views they want. But it is the privilege of your Lordships' House to give the other place the chance to think they had been totally wrong in this matter. I am merely telling your Lordships what our intentions will be: that we regard this as a fundamental part of the Bill, and would consider ourselves to be failing in our duty if we did not attempt to reinstate it in another place. Having said that, I am quite prepared to encourage my small part of the House to follow your large part of the House, but not into the same Division Lobby.
Lord BALERNO: I have listened to the apologia for burgh courts, but I cannot understand why they have not been continued if they are so wonderful as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has made them out to be. I cannot understand why every burgh in Scotland has not been allowed to continue this legal system; that is to say, if the system is as wonderful as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, makes it out to be. As he said, he believes the people of Scotland want to continue the burgh courts. This is not a bad thing. But I do not think the people of Scotland care two hoots about this. The people who do are a few local authority representatives, people who like to be called a bailie. As the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, said in the
336
Second Reading debate, "once a bailie, always a bailie". There is no sound argument adduced along those lines by the noble Lord. The proposal of one-third of the elected representatives of an authority is neither fish, fowl, nor good red herring. I remind your Lordships of the quotation I made of a lawyer in Scotland who I am sure expressed the feelings of the great majority of the lawyers there, that the burgh courts are a blight on our society.
The Earl of SELKIRK: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has done his best. It is an absolutely indefensible clause by any conceivable standard. He has said he is continuing a system. If he reads Lord Cooper's Introduction to the Legal History of Scotland, he will find it was decaying at the end of the seventeenth century. This system really should have gone out long ago. It is a tribute to the standard set by our bailies that it has worked as well as it has; I give them full credit for having worked against a very bad system, and having done it tolerably well. The noble Lord said he is not aware of any demand, and I will tell him why. It is because he has not listened; he has refused to see anybody; not a member of the profession went to talk to him. In any case, the Bill was published only about three weeks ago and nobody saw that clause until then. So he simply cannot say that there is no demand.
Lord HUGHES: Then I will correct my statement. I will say this; nobody outside the legal profession has asked for this.
The Earl of SELKIRK: Probably nobody outside the legal profession read the Bill. One point is perfectly clear. This is not fundamental to this Bill. This is simply a little pimple which was pushed in at the last moment, and the main feature of this Bill rests as it is. If any councillor wants to become a justice, let him go through Clause 9; that is the proper way to do it. I think we must divide on the point.
Lord ERROLL of HALE: Before we divide, I should like to intervene briefly on a very important point put by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. He said there was really no point in the Committee dividing because the matter would be put right in another place. I think that is

337
a very dangerous doctrine to be accepted by your Lordships. We should divide when we think it is appropriate to do so. What may happen in another place is for that other place to decide, particularly as the Bill has not yet been to the other place. To suggest that we should not waste time dividing because some juggernaut in some other part of the building is going to over-rule us is not, I suggest to the genial Lord Hughes, the way to treat your Lordships.
Lord HUGHES: I did not say it would not be right. I said it would be a waste of time from the point of view of altering the Bill. We regard this as a fundamental part of the Bill. No one knows better how to operate a juggernaut than the noble Lord who has just criticised
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
it. I remember, as a member of a local authority, being on a deputation when he was a Minister at the Board of Trade and we got "juggernaut" then under his very efficient operation. He need not lecture me on how to operate a juggernaut. I know what another place will want to do on this; I know what the Government want to do. I am advising your Lordships that you can certainly do what you will, and it is quite obvious that you are going to do it; but I am saying that it will be a waste of time in the end because it will not stick.
5.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 82; Not-Contents, 41.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Essex, E.

Moyne, L.

Airedale, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northchurch, B.

Aldenham, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen, V.

Oakshott, L.

Amherst, E.

Grenfell, L.

Ogmore, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Onslow, E.

Arbuthnott, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Auckland, L.

Reay, L.

Balerno, L.

Hankey, L.

Redesdale, L.

Belstead, L.

Hanworth, V.

Reigate, L.

Berkeley, B.

Henley, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bessborough, E.

Hereford, V.

St. Helens, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Saint Oswald, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandys, L.

Bradford, E.

Killearn, L.

Selkirk, E. [Teller.]

Braye, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sharpies, B.

Colwyn, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Somers, L.

Colyton, L.

Long, V.

Strange, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lothian, M.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Courtown, E.

Lyell, L.

Cowley, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathspey, L.

Denham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swansea, L.

Derwent, L.

Merrivale, L.

Teviot, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Meston, L.

Thomas, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Milverton, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monck, V.

Vernon, L.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Waldegrave, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Young, B.

Erroll of Hale, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Hale, L.

Phillips, B.

Archibald, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Popplewell, L.

Beswick, L.

Henderson, L.

Royle, L.

Birk, B.

Hughes, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Burton of Coventry, B.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Castle, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Summerskill, B.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

McLeavy, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

White, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Mais, L.

Williamson, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Melchett, L.

Winterbottom, L.

George-Brown, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Pannell, L.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Disqualification of Solicitor who is a justice]:
5.22 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 9, line 40, afer ("area") insert ("on which such solicitor is sitting").
The noble Earl said: Clause 13 deals with the position of justices of the peace who happen to be solicitors. It disqualifies them from practising in the area in which they are solicitors, regardless of whether they are on the bench, and their partners must not practice before the courts of which they are a justice. I think that this goes too far, and I should like the noble Lord to look at this.
What he is saying is that neither the partner of a justice, nor one of his staff, may directly or indirectly take any part in a case which will come before a court in a commission area in which one of the partners is a justice. I think that this is going too far. I suggest that they should not come before a court in cases in which the justice is sitting on the bench. That would obviously be wrong. But to say that one of the members of the staff—not a partner—cannot take part directly or indirectly seems to me to be going much too far. While I certainly would not suggest anything that would make it easy for justices to plead before their colleagues, I think that this is perhaps suggesting that there is a conspiracy with justices in an area and that they will all try to help each other, and it is quite unnecessary to make a suggestion of this sort. I do not know what "directly or indirectly" means. Does it mean that you may not ask the advice of any member of the staff on a case which might come before the justices in an area? If it means that, I think that it is unduly harsh.
The second point is that if you put in this rule it will become increasingly difficult to get solicitors who may be suitable to become J.P.s. In some areas the choice of suitable people may not be very great. It is for this reason that I suggest that the disqualification extends to all cases where a partner of a firm, or one member of a firm, is sitting on the bench. When he is not sitting, it does not seem to me that
340
it is essential to impose a disqualification. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: This is not a proposal which has been brought forward for the first time in this Bill. This is merely a continuation of the law as it has existed for 68 years. These are the provisions which are in the existing law in Section 3 of the Justices of tie Peace Act 1906, in Section 4 of the Justices (Scotland) Act 1856—I have not gone back in my reference to the years, because that applies only to the ex-officio justices, and that will no longer apply as a result of the Bill—and in Section 9 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1949, which makes an exception for justices on the supplemental list.
Its effect is to allow solicitors to be appointed as justices, but to preclude them from practising directly or indirectly, personally or through their partners, before any court on which their fellow justices in the same area sit. This is a sweeping disqualification, but it removes any possibility of the appearance of impropriety in the actings of the justices as a body, or of the individual justice as a solicitor. It has been the law both of Scotland and of England for a very long time, and there has been no complaint about its operation. In fact, solicitors have regarded this as a basis of protection for themselves, and it would definitely be a retrogade step to seek to change this after so long a period of perfectly satisfacory operation in both countries.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I wonder whether the noble Lord can answer two questions? Does this cover stipendiary magistrates, and do the previous Acts cover staff as well as partners?
Lord HUGHES: I am sorry, but I cannot give an answer. My first thought is about whether a stipendiary magistrate would be operating as part of a legal practice, having partners and so on. I should have thought that he would be a full-time justice, and therefore it would not apply to him.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Courses for justices]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 16.
Page 10, line 5, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
The noble Earl said: I hope that this Amendment will encourage the noble Lord to see that the schemes for training for magistrates really take place. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: I mentioned on a previous discussion that it is 13 years since I came here, and I think I would be fairly comfortably off if I could collect a £1 for every time that this argument had come forward. Every Government, without exception, resists the use of the word "shall" when the Bill uses the word "may". Once again I must follow the precedent and ask that it should remain. However, because of the way in which the noble Earl put it forward, I think I can satisfy him that it is not necessary to make this amendment for the purpose he has in mind. In the case of training schemes and courses for justices under Clause 14, there is no question but that these will be introduced, and that justices will be required to accept training appropriate to their experience.
The reference to training in Clause 15(2)(d) would not have been inserted in the Bill if the Government had not so intended. This is one of the justifications for the use of the word "may". If the Government did not intend to use it they would not insert it at all. We are inserting the reference with "may" with the intention that this is what the Government are likely to do. Indeed, the outline of the training scheme has already been discussed with the Central Advisory Committee and justices of the peace, to which the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, was good enough to refer in favourable terms during Second Reading. I can assure the noble Earl and your Lordships that these training schemes are to go ahead. I hope that with that assurance the noble Earl will be at least as content as were all his predecessors on the argument that "may" should remain and that "shall" should not go in.
Lord AIREDALE: I believe that such invariable practices of Governments, to which the noble Lord referred, are not
342
without exception, and that the noble Lord sitting beside him may remember that in the Bill which set up the Office of the Director General of Fair Trading I succeeded with an Amendment exactly like this one which said leave out "may" and insert "shall".
Lord HUGHES: That must have been on the one occasion when it was difficult for the noble Lord to give a satisfactory assurance about what "may" would do.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 17:
Page 10, line 9, at end insert—
("(2) Justices of the peace, unless otherwise qualified, will be required to attend the courses referred to in subsection (I) above before acting as a member of the district court.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is not the same as my noble friend's last Amendment, and while speaking to it I must thank the Minister for having sent a full letter concerning the Government's intentions on this matter. I know that the Government intend that justices should do these courses, but I ask the Minister and the House whether it would do any harm to have my proposed improvement to ensure that untrained magistrates did not sit in the courts in a judicial capacity. If this proposal were accepted there is one point which I would ask to be changed in the Amendment. I would take out the word "qualified" and insert "suitably experienced" instead because we thought "qualified" was too vague.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: The noble Lord's Manuscript Amendment to the Amendment will insert the words "suitably experienced" for "qualified".
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Yes, that is so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 9, at end insert—
"(2) Justices of the peace, unless otherwise suitably experienced, will be required to attend the courses referred to in subsection (1) above before acting as a member of the district court."—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
Lord HUGHES: The object of the Amendment is one with which I cannot possibly say I did not sympathise because I do. But we think it is rather a clumsy way of trying to ensure that there is appropriate training. It is intended that no justice should adjudicate until he has received instruction suitable to his experience. The situation is, however, very complex and there is comparatively little time in which to complete preparations for the justices courts to open for business on 16th May 1975. At that date there will be available for court service burgh magistrates with varied experience, serving justices, some with court experience and others with none, and newly appointed justices, including those nominated by district councils. That is my prediction as to what will take place. The objectives will be first to ensure a smooth transition from the existing courts to the new courts and, secondly, to give all new justices who sit in new courts at least the minimum instruction according to their needs.
It is proposed to issue a scheme of basic instruction together with a memorandum of guidance on how to use the scheme of instruction in the varied circumstances of each area. This will be considered first by the appropriate officers of district councils and then by the justices committee as soon as they are appointed. There are some matters—in particular legal aid—on which all justices, even the most experienced, will require instruction before they sit in the new court. But the scheme of instruction is not simply a matter of lectures; it will include experience of attending court, of discussions with other justices and visits to institutions.
It must be left to the justices committee in each area to determine what their colleagues need and in what order the various needs can be usefully met. For instance, a total prohibition such as the Amendment proposes on sitting in court until courses have been attended would make it impossible to include sitting on the bench as an observer as part of the syllabus. This is generally agreed to be a most valuable experience which illuminates what is said in lectures given both before and after it. It is not intended simply to throw the scheme of instruction out to the Justices Committee and leave them to their own devices. We
344
intend to keep in touch with the local arrangements, to help the Justices Committee to make contact with universities and other educational establishments which might provide lecturers and other facilities, and to ensure that ideas developing successfully in one area are taken up in others.
As regards sanctions against individuals who may be unwilling to comply with these arrangements, there may be three stages, where necessary, in preventing justices of the peace, who have not completed adequate training, from sitting on the bench. First, the justices committee, who have to approve the duty rota of justices under Clause 16(1)(b) will not put any name on the rota until they are satisfied that a justice has received training appropriate to his experience. No doubt this will work smoothly and amicably in most cases, but if any justices should persist in attending court when not qualified then the Secretary of State may transfer their names to the supplemental list under Clause 15(2)(d) and so disqualify for judicial functions any justice who neglects training. The Secretary of State would normally take this action on the advice of the Justices Committee. Thirdly, in an extreme case, the Secretary of State's general power of removal under Clause 9(2) might be invoked. This will apply to ex-magistrates who become justices under Clause 10 (2) and ex officio justices under Clause 11, as well as appointed justices.
To sum up, it is intended to give the scheme of training teeth, but especially in the short period before 16th May it will be essential to work flexibly, with the goodwill and common sense of the local justices, and statutory compulsion to accept training would increase the difficulties of dealing suitably with the great variety of local and individual circumstances. I hope that what I have said, and what I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, is sufficient to assure him that he and I are thinking on exactly the same lines, and that it is more likely to work satisfactorily without the Amendment than it would do if the Amendment were incorporated in the Bill.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I appreciate what the Minister has said, and I fully appreciate that time is not completely on our side in this matter.

345
Bearing in mind the Government's intentions and the noble Lord's words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Justices' Committees]:
5.38 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 12, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) The sheriff principal of the sheriffdom in which the commission area is situated shall by virtue of his office be chairman of the justices' committee.")
The noble Earl said: I have tried to make one point all the way through the discussion; namely, to bring together the two branches of the criminal court, the sheriff court and the district court. This is a very positive attempt to do just that. I would say it was a real step towards what Lord Grant and his Committee speak of—flexible machinery for deciding which summary court should take which cases. I propose that the sheriff principal, who quite recently we made full-time—therefore he is full-time with the sheriff—should have supervision of all criminal jurisdiction in his sheriffdom. He could do this best by being a member of the justices' committee and presiding at their gatherings. He could do a great deal there; his experience would be of very real value to them. If I may give precise examples of the subjects which are here referred to, he could advise the local authority on the administration of the district court, on adequate training arrangements and on the administration of justice in the district court. In all those matters he could be of great value to them, and add to the knowledge and experience of the district court. But it will, I believe, bring together and serve to integrate two sets of courts which are fairly wide apart and which should supplement each other—and it is in the long-term interests that they should do so.
This is really quite a small step, but I think it is an important one. In this Bill we are providing for the take-over of the prosecution of all cases by the Lord Advocate, and we strongly support that. I think the step we propose is a second one which can be taken; it would bring a little closer the benches in both
346
the sheriff court and the district court. I hope the noble Lord will be able to do this, because I think it is an important step which could have a long-term effect. It does not really involve anybody in any work. I am not suggesting that the sheriff should necessarily be there, but that he has access and can preside when it is convenient for him to do so. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: May I say right away that I hope very much that the senior members of the judiciary—the sheriffs, the sheriffs principal and the High Court judges—will take an active interest in the work of the justices and make available to them the benefit of the wisdom and experience which they have accumulated while sitting on the bench, but the proper place for this will not be in a justices' committee. The justices' committee will in many ways be a business committee—assisting and advising the local authority concerned on any matter relating to the administration of the district court, approving the duty rota of justices and making arrangements for training. In the busier districts, the justices' committee are likely to have a good deal of work to do and be required to sit relatively frequently.
While the sheriff principal, because of his experience in the administration of the sheriff courts, might be expected to be a source of advice and guidance on the effective running of courts, he would not have sufficient personal knowledge of the district courts to make him the most suitable chairman. Your Lordships must remember that he is not to be, as at present, an ex officio justice of the peace; so what we would in fact be doing is to bring about the situation that when the sheriff principal chose to come along he would, while not being a member of the committee, automatically become its chairman. I do not think the justices' committee are likely in all cases to take kindly to having a chairman imposed on them from outside.
Under the new arrangements the sheriff principal will be kept fully occupied in the sheriff courts within his sheriffdom. Within each sheriffdom there will be, on average, about nine or ten justices' committees, and it would be quite impossible, even if it were desirable, for him to become actively involved in the business of that number of committees. I do not

347
know whether the sheriffs principal have been consulted about this Amendment. I suspect that they have not, because I do not think that they would regard this as the most effective way in which they could help the work of the justices' committee. Therefore, I am sorry I cannot encourage your Lordships to accept this Amendment.
Lord BALERNO: I think this Amendment is vital. In Scotland we suffer, and have suffered, from the fact that there has been no legal supervision of these lowly courts, the burgh court and the justices of the peace court. That is why the injustices in the burgh courts which I related in my Second Reading speech—and it is no exaggeration to use the word "injustices"—have continued; and the bailie or the judge in the burgh court has continued with his almost, one might say, illegal practices, whereby it was known that if so-and-so was sitting on the bench you had better plead guilty because you would then be just fined and be away, and that would be that, whereas if you pleaded not guilty—
Lord HUGHES: I must ask the noble Lord to allow me to intervene. This repeated slander of bailies—because it is no less than that—I really cannot allow to go unchallenged. To suggest that this is common practice in burgh courts, even in Edinburgh—because that was the particular place to which the noble Lord was referring—I think cannot possibly be supported by any evidence, and it certainly is not the sort of thing that I have ever heard suggested outside the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Balerno.
Lord BALERNO: The evidence to which I refer is the evidence of a solicitor practising in the court, and I have no reason to doubt that he would be supported by other solicitors practising in the burgh court of Edinburgh. As I said before, if your Lordships do not believe the individual scandals which I have mentioned, I would draw your Lordships' attention to the very fact that so few people appearing in the burgh court at Edinburgh plead other than guilty. That is what I feel is so important. Now there must be some form of legal oversight over these lowly courts, over the district court. In England there is a pretty close oversight, I understand, of the justices of
348
the peace courts by the Lord Chancellor himself; and this is a plea, really, for some similar oversight in Scotland. While it is the fact that the sheriffs principal are now full-time officers, I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, very much in saying that they will not have the time to pay attention. They will hear if there are scandals in the lower court, and they will be able to take the appropriate action. I do not say that the occasions when there are scandals in the lower court are more common than when there are not scandals, but they do exist, and I think that some measure of oversight would give the people of Scotland more confidence in these new district courts; that is, if they knew that somebody was keeping a kindly legal eye upon them. Therefore I support this Amendment.
Lord HUGHES: In this connection, on the principle that people are likely to be classified along with the worst of their kind, may I suggest that if there was a scandal about a justice or about a number of justices in particular areas the people who would have the most direct need to have the matter dealt with would be the other justices, who are liable to be accused of being one of the same kind. I said that I would be surprised if this was a matter which was acceptable to the sheriffs principal themselves. I would suggest that the Amendment be withdrawn at this stage and the opportunity taken to consult sheriffs principal as to how they would react to such a duty being imposed upon them.
Baroness PHILLIPS: As an Englishwoman, I hesitate to intervene in this debate because, quite frankly, the more I listen to debates on Scottish law the less I understand about it. I should like to say only this to the noble Lord, Lord Balerno, as a member of what he describes as a humble court—I think he said the lowest court in England—that is, as a magistrate. We certainly elect our own chairman and our own deputy chairmen, and would resent very strongly any interference in this privilege, which is a very old one. I am a little confused when he says that we are under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor. This is certainly so, but I cannot recall an occasion when the Lord Chancellor has intervened in the way in which I imagine the sheriff would intervene under this Amendment.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I must say straight away that of course I have not consulted sheriffs principal because there are only two. It has been impossible to consult them, and I have not done so. What the noble Lord has not faced up to is the need to integrate the criminal courts. This Amendment gives the sheriff a status with the district courts, and I think he should have that status. The noble Lord says that the sheriff principal would not have anything particular to offer. I should have thought he had an enormous amount to offer about, for example, adequate training arrangements. This is the very subject on which he could give a great deal of advice. Then there is the administration of justice in the district court. Is that not precisely a matter on which the sheriff principal would be able to offer advice? I should have thought this was a field in which he could play a part. But the noble Lord has paid no attention at all to the need for a more flexible system between two sets of courts, to which the Grant Report draws attention—and I refer to that Report again because this will be the last serious examination of this problem. The noble Lord really has not made any contribution at all to the solution of this problem. I must ask him to say that he will look at this carefully or, alternatively, I must ask the Committee to insist on this Amendment, because I think it is right in the long-term interests of the administration of justice in Scotland.
Lord HUGHES: I will certainly undertake to look at the matter, and I am prepared to see that there are consultations with sheriffs principal as to what their views would be on this matter. I quite agree with the noble Earl that the sheriff principal is obviously a person who could give advice. In fact, that is what I have just said. But it is not necessary that he should become chairman of the justices' committee in order to give them advice on the various matters as to which his advice would be both valuable and welcome. We believe it is likely to be better received if it is advice coming to them from outside, rather than appearing to be something imposed on them, and that its value would then most likely be greatest. But I would certainly be prepared to examine
350
whether there is any merit in doing this. Quite frankly, I cannot see the merit at the present time, but at least we could ask the two sheriffs principal who are full-time at the moment just exactly what they think of the proposal, and any way in which they would regard themselves as being better able to serve the ends of justice, whether of integration or otherwise, by being chairman of a justices' committee, rather than by the method which the Bill implies, which is giving such advice as they feel desirable from outside.
The Earl of SELKIRK: With great respect, the Bill gives no such guidance whatsoever. There is no indication whatever in the Bill of advice being given from outside. If I may take the noble Lord's statement as it stands: very well, do not make them chairmen, make them ex officio members. Would the noble Lord think about that? Because I think the two systems must be brought together. But in view of what the noble Lord has said I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Allowances]:
5.50 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 12, line 20, at end insert ("or, in the case of a justice who is self-employed, as an alternative to the financial loss allowance, a fixed attendance allowance to be decided by the Secretary of State in addition to travelling allowance and subsistence to which he may be entitled.").
The noble Lord said: This is a small Amendment which I think meets a need in Clause 17. It is perfectly easy for people who are paid by the day or by the hour to come out at the end of the day and say what their loss of earnings is for any given time during which they have been doing their duty as a justice. But in Scotland we have many people, especially in rural areas, who are self-employed. The farming community springs to mind immediately. Therefore, this Amendment asks the Secretary of State to consider what he thinks is a suitable rate which such people would then be able to claim without their having to do some very complicated and, at best,

351
wild guesswork as to how valuable was their time per hour. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: The effect of this Amendment is to extend the allowances payable to a self-employed justice to include, as an alternative to the financial loss allowance, a fixed attendance allowance to be decided by the Secretary of State. I cannot claim to be an expert on the complex subject of allowances. The allowances system is now operating for local authorities this side of the Border and will come into operation in due course in Scotland. I do not think I am exaggerating when I say that it has not been received with universal approval; that in fact it is doubtful whether it is any more popular than was the former system.
I understand that Clause 17 re-enacts essentially the existing provisions governing the payment of allowances to justices in Scotland; but the principles underlying these provisions apply much more widely than simply to Scottish justices. Successive Governments have taken the view that justices should be treated for allowance purposes in the same way as many others giving service in which there is an element of public duty. The tradition has been, and is, that where there is an element of public service a limit has been placed on the rate of compensation paid for loss of earnings. This applies to jury service, to witnesses in court cases and to non-elected members of local authorities.
I appreciate that the objective of the present Amendment is to ensure the introduction of attendance allowances for a restricted group of justices; namely, those who are self-employed, as an alternative to the financial loss allowance where in many cases it is almost impossible to establish whether or not there is a loss. I therefore accept that the financial loss allowance provision may not operate very effectively in all cases for self-employed persons. With respect, it is far from clear that the alternative scheme proposed is likely to be any more equitable in practice. It might possibly serve to remove inequalities in some types of case at the expense of creating injustices for others. No doubt a good number of employed persons could claim with justification that an attendance allowance would be better for them than the financial loss allowance.
352
I hope, therefore, that I have said enough to show that the principles thrown up by this Amendment go far beyond the scope of the present Bill. We must accept, albeit with reluctance, that the Bill must concentrate on the essentials if Scotland is to have a system of lower courts in operation on 16th May 1975. I must therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment. I am sure that this matter will be looked at in a general way, because there is no doubt that we do not have a satisfactory solution to these problems. But it is not something which ought to be seen in this rather narrow field of justices, for there are so many other areas in which it could be argued that the injustice of the system is just as great. I hope that when the opportunity arises to look again at the position in general, the position of the justices in particular will not be overlooked.
The Earl of SELKIRK: The noble Lord's brief is very narrow and harsh. He talked about inequity and essentials. May I ask this question. When the noble Lord arranges to start paying local authority councillors, which I understand is likely to come shortly—and I gather that this will be next year—will he be able to pay justices who are self-employed on the same basis or will he require statutory authority to do so? If he requires statutory authority, this is where it should be.
Lord HUGHES: No, this is not where it should be. The position will be that all councillors, as is the position here, will be entitled to such allowances (up to a maximum laid down by the Secretary of State) as may be determined by the local authority themselves. They cannot exceed the maximum but they can pay less if they are so inclined. This will be payable to any member of the authority, whether employed, self-employed or whatever his status; for they are all on the same basis. So far as the justices are concerned, the position is that everybody is on the same basis. The allowances do not apply to them; what applies is the financial loss system, whether the person is employed or self-employed.
If we were to import this principle of giving allowances for the self-employed, obviously there will be inequality between

353
the man who loses wages and could get only financial loss allowance up to a given maximum, and the self-employed person who gets an allowance. Equity would require the system of allowances to be applied to everybody, even justices. If you are going to do this, why deny it to members of juries, why deny it to witnesses coming into court, why deny it to all other than the elected councillors who are subject to the system of financial loss allowances? It is because this is a narrow part of a wide field that it is wrong that we should attempt to do this in this Bill. If it is going to be done and is regarded as an injustice that there should not be allowances, then it must be done in the context of the whole scheme and we cannot alter the law of the land in relation to this wide field by making a special decision in relation to a comparatively small number of people.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I never like the argument that a small number of people do not make good law: they do. However small the number of people concerned, that has nothing to do with the principle. However, I take the noble Lord's point that the Government are aware that there are anomalies here and that they are not sitting back content to do nothing about it. I understood the noble Lord to say that the Government were actively considering ways of how to rectify these anomalies, and, provided that we have the assurance from the Government that they recognise this, I am prepared at this stage not to press the Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
6.3 p.m.
Clause 18 [Appointment and duties of clerk of peace]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 13, line 26, leave out ("an") and insert ("a duly qualified").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is similar to a previous Amendment. It is just that the words "an officer" seem a little vague. I am sure that the noble Lord will tell me that he has no intention of advising the courts, but why not put
354
in "duly qualified"? It would not hurt the Bill: it would only strengthen it. I beg to move.
Lord HUGHES: This Amendment, as the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has said, is similar to that already discussed on Clause 7. What is proposed here is that a local authority, in appointing an officer to act as clerk of the peace, should be required by Statute to appoint a "duly qualified" officer. As I have already explained, the general approach on the question of qualifications for local authority officials is to avoid specifying qualifications in Statute and to leave it to responsible local authorities to appoint officials with the skills and experience required for the post. I have indicated that I should be prepared to see a departure from this policy in the case of the clerk of the district court, accepting that there a suitable legal experience is what is needed and that we should find a way of putting that into the Bill. However, I think that that post can be distinguished from that of the clerk of the peace and, for that matter, of the clerk of the licensing court provided for in Clause 22. They do not fall into this category, not being legally qualified persons.
In these cases where the duties to be performed are essentially of an administrative nature, there does not appear to be any need to specify qualifications. In any event, what is a "duly qualified" officer? When it comes down to law, this is really meaningless. If they were so foolish, the local authority could go and pick up any Tom, Dick or Harry out of the street and say, "We are appointing this man because he is duly qualified". That would be the end of it. So we must accept that the local authority will want this to work and will in fact appoint the sort of person whom they think is duly qualified. We do not think in this case, as opposed to the one in which I have already conceded, that there is a need to specify any particular qualification. I hope therefore that the noble Lord will be content to rest on the good sense of the new authorities.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I am sorry that the Minister did not offer to come up with some suggestion of words that we should have been happy to assist in putting through on Report but, in view

355
of what he says, I will not press this and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clauses 19 and 20 agreed to.
6.7 p.m.
Clause 21 [Amendment of Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1967 and Legal Advice and Assistance Act 1972]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 15, line 39, leave out ("a district court") and insert ("the case of a district court by a local legal aid committee").
The noble Earl said: This is a question of how legal aid should be granted in district courts. We are all very glad that legal aid is being granted. The Bill suggests that it should be granted by the bench—that is, by the magistrate sitting on the bench. I am suggesting in the Amendment that legal aid should be granted by the local Legal Aid Committee. I should like in a few words to say why. It is true that a slight time advantage may be gained by having it granted by the justice sitting on the bench, but this involves a preliminary view of the case and means that the justice who will actually judge the case will have a preliminary view and may take up a prejudiced position before the case comes to trial. Secondly, it means that different standards are being set all over the country.
I am quite aware that the noble Lord will say that at the present time the sheriff does grant legal aid in Scotland, but the truth is that that presents the sheriff with a very real problem. He must decide what is in the interests of justice. With great respect if this point has to be examined before the case is actually heard, it is very nearly impossible to conceive that the justice when he hears the case comes to it with a completely open mind. I recognise that there are advantages on both sides, but I think, on the whole, that the justice who takes a case should not be in a position to have to take a preliminary view as to where the interests of justice lie before the case comes before him. I ask the noble Lord to look at that to see whether he would consider that legal aid should not be granted by the Legal Aid Committee who, I am given to understand, are perfectly
356
prepared to have a duty officer in all the courts at the appropriate time. I beg to move.
6.8 p.m.
Lord HUGHES: The noble Earl concluded by asking me to have a look at this, so I take it that he is not necessarily anxious to press this matter now. This would be a novel procedure, I am informed. I am also told that the Amendment as it stands is technically defective. I have been trying to find out exactly why this is so, but, though I have been told, I still do not know why it is so defective. It might be easier for the noble Earl to understand why this is so, but that is by the way. If it were otherwise acceptable, the technical defects could be removed fairly easily, but the view which we have taken is that in summary criminal cases in the sheriff court and, for that matter, in English magistrates' courts, legal aid is granted by the court itself. It would be entirely consistent with the present system for the justices to take legal aid decisions in the district courts.
This arrangement has the advantage of being quick, decisive and inexpensive and, more important, the statutory test on merit for granting legal aid in summary cases is that it is in the interests of justice that legal aid should be made available to the accused person. It is more appropriate for a test of this sort to be applied by a court rather than by any other body. As I have already said, training in legal aid matters is being given high priority in the training of justices and, with such training, I can see no reason why the justices should not be able to carry out this part of their work effectively. However, although the advice that I have is that the practice which is already applied in these other courts is shown to be a good one, that is no reason why I should not accept the noble Earl's invitation to look at the matter, and I will take an opportunity of discussing with the Department what has been said by the noble Earl today. If it would help him in the matter, I will write to him in ample time before the next stage, so that if he wishes to return to the matter on Report he will not be denied an opportunity to do so.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I thank the noble Lord. I can only say that I found what he said just now hopelessly misleading in certain respects, but I readily

357
accept his assurance that he will look at this again. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENT BILL
6.11 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: 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 Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Contributions]:
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 20, leave out from "2,500)" to end of line 21.
The noble Lord said: May I begin by declaring an interest as a self-employed person, as I did on Second Reading? May I also say very briefly that I am sorry not to have been able to move the first Amendment, because I feel strongly about the married woman's option. But in view of the importance of this Amendment and the lateness of the hour, I thought it best that we should pay more attention to this one.
I should like to remind your Lordships of the facts. Under the 1973 Act we proposed that the self-employed man should pay a flat rate stamp at the rate of £1·68 per week and 5 per cent. on his Schedule D profits in the band £1,150 to £2,500. This Bill now proposes a flat rate sum of £2·41 and 8 per cent. on his Schedule D profits in the band £1,600 to £3,600. I say again, as I did on Second Reading, that we have no quarrel with the increased band of profits, which is
358
effected merely by inflation, but we think it wrong and unjustified to increase the percentage on the Schedule D profits from 5 per cent. to 8 per cent. for no extra benefits whatever. The purpose of this Amendment is simply to restore the situation to what it would have been, so far as percentage is concerned, in our 1973 Act; that is, to reduce the percentage from 8 to 5.
We realise that more money has to be found to finance the extra benefits that have been announced, and that therefore the 1973 Act has to be amended, as it is by this Bill. But we believe that the way in which the Government have distributed the burden of these extra contributions is unfair to the self-employed. The employed person comes out of this Bill very well. In almost every case he will in future pay less than at present, because of the abolition of the flat rate stamp. At the same time, the self-employed man will be expected to pay substantially more, and we ask: is this fair on the self-employed man? He has no powerful trade union to defend his interests. He has no part in the social contract. Not much, I fancy, was said about the self-employed at the recent Labour Party Conference, and yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, himself said, they form a most valuable and indeed an indispensable part of the community.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: May I interrupt? I am sorry, but as I understood him, the noble Lord started by referring to the flat rate contribution of £1·68 under the 1973 Act. I think I am right in saying that it was the Conservative Government which raised the contribution to £1·99 last January and, if I am right in my recollection, it would be much fairer to talk about £1·99 and not £1·68. That gives the impression that this Government are raising the contribution to a very substantial amount.
Lord ABERDARE: I am not talking about the flat rate stamp. In the first figures I gave I was comparing the 1973 Act with this present Bill. But my quarrel is with the percentage increase and not with the flat rate contribution, because of course the flat rate is now £2·41 so there is no change in the flat rate. I am talking about the increased percentage from 5 per cent. to 8 per cent. If we

359
compare the self-employed man with the employed man, and take, for example, a man earning £50 a week, we find that the self-employed man will be paying £205 per annum and the employed man will be paying £111 per annum; that is, £94 less. On a weekly basis, whereas the self-employed man pays £3·94—that is, taking into account the flat rate and the percentage—the employed man will be paying £2·14 or £1·80 less. Yet the fact is that many of these self-employed people are themselves small employers and as employers they see their own contributions going up by a further 1 per cent. from 7½ to 8½ per cent. and, as self-employed people, they see their contributions going up from 5 per cent. to 8 per cent., while their employees continue to pay 5½ per cent. as at present. How can they be expected to think that this is a fair way of distributing the burden?
During the Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, based his whole case on the fact that the self-employed were not being asked to pay more in proportion than they would have paid under the 1973 Act. Just to get the position quite right, I should like to quote his words:
"The fact is that under the Bill the self-employed will pay exactly the same share of the cost of benefit as they would have done under the 1973 Act."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/12/74; col. 41.]
The noble Lord went on to say:
"This…is not in dispute."
But it is in dispute.
I am sorry to have to go into figures, but I must refer to some figures because both this Bill and the 1973 Act were accompanied by Reports from the Government Actuary, and figures are given in both of them for the contribution income in the year 1976–77. These two documents are Cmnd. 5143, which was the Government Actuary's Report relating to the 1973 Act, and Cmnd. 5652, which is a similar Report relating to the Bill which we are now discussing. Under the 1973 Act, the self-employed would have paid £143 million in the year 1976–77; that is, 3·8 per cent. of the total of all contributions. Under this Bill, the self-employed will pay £224 million in that year, which is 4·2 per cent. of total contributions. So I really cannot see how
360
the noble Lord can say that this Bill is maintaining the same proportion as the 1973 Act. If we are to keep the proportion the same as the 1973 Act, then the self-employed should be paying 38 per cent. of the total contribution and that would be some £21 million less than they are being asked to find. That is what would be achieved by this Amendment, reducing the proportion from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent.
On the last occasion a number of your Lordships spoke about the value to out economy and to our way of life of the self-employed. I do not wish to go over all that again because I am sure it is well in your Lordships' minds, so I will content myself with making one more point. I may well be asked how this cost of £21 million is to be found if it is not to be raised from the self-employed. There are a number of ways of doing this, a number of ways in which the contribution of other people to the fund could be altered; indeed it could be taken from the Treasury supplement. But I very much doubt whether it is necessary to find this money. I believe that the fund itself can well afford £21 million.
Again, I am afraid that I have to refer to the Government Actuary's report, but according to that the fund will be in deficit by £52 million in the year 1975–76, and thereafter there will be a handsome surplus. But the extraordinary fact is that this deficit is calculated on a rate of increase in earnings of only 8 per cent., and it is specifically stated in the Government Actuary's report that the Government have instructed him to take that figure. That is far below a realistic figure. The present figure for the increase in earnings must be more than double the rate of 8 per cent., and if a realistic figure is taken there will certainly be no deficit in 1975–76.
Indeed, the Government Actuary himself has acknowledged that there will not be a deficit, because since this Bill was introduced another Bill has gone to the other place—the Social Security Benefits Bill—which brings in a host of new benefits. Although there are new benefits and no new contributions the Government Actuary, left to his own devices and not being told by the Government what rate of increase to assume, has assumed an increase of the order of

361
17½ per cent. per annum, and has therefore arrived at a surplus in 1975/76 of £268 million. This is the latest figure in the latest Government Actuary's report for the surplus of the fund in 1975/76. Surely from that figure £21 million could be used for the benefit of such an important group of people in our community as the self-employed. I beg to move.
6.22 p.m.
Lord WADE: I think that this Amendment should be supported, mainly because it reduces the figure from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. and that, as is apparent, is less of a burden. Although, as I pointed out on Second Reading, I do not suggest that there is a deep difference of principle between 5 per cent. and 8 per cent., this proposed 8 per cent. is a steep additional burden on those self-employed with a net income of between £1,600 and £3,600. There is undoubtedly a wide range of people affected, including musicians, writers, persons with small businesses and many others who were referred to on Second Reading. Of course we have to weigh up the arguments about the distribution of the burden, and if your Lordships feel that too great a burden is being placed upon the self-employed then I hope you will support the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare.
But in discussing this Amendment I find that I must go a little wider than a comparison of the figures of 5 per cent. and 8 per cent. I do not wish to go over the whole debate on Second Reading, but I hope I shall be forgiven if I go a little wide of the Amendment before the Committee. It seems to me that three basic questions have to be asked. The first is: is this 8 per cent. imposition—if I might call it such—fair? The second question is: how strictly must we rely on the Government Actuary's calculations, having regard to the fact that the premises on which he worked are not decided by him, and we are not questioning the calculations? The third question which we have to ask in deciding whether 5 per cent. or 8 per cent. is right is: is the method of arriving at the amount payable, which is mainly by taking a percentage of net profit after
362
tax or net income after tax, justified or necessary?
On the first question as to whether this is a fair or an unfair burden, the point has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that the contributions do not produce increased benefits. In the leaflet NP18, which has been prepared in advance in order to make the position as simple as possible to those who wish to understand what is happening, there is a quite fair statement on the second page. It states:
"Clause 4 contributions will not entitle you to any additional benefit"
It then goes on:
"The purpose is to ensure that the self-employed as a whole pay a fair share of the cost of pensions and benefits."
That is the question: is it a fair share?
As your Lordships are aware, there were pleas on all sides of the House to the effect that the burden falling on the self-employed was not fair. I am not going over all that ground again, but there is an additional point—and if I am wrong I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will correct me. I understand that it is now provided that a director of a company who works part-time, or perhaps whole time, for the company of which he is a director may be treated for contribution purposes as being employed, and it seems to me that he will be in a more advantageous position than a self-employed person who is not a director of a company. But we must be realistic about this. I do not think there are many self-employed musicians who can turn themselves into limited companies, unless they are right at the top of the financial tree.
On the second question, I am not going over all the ground as to whether it is fair; that is a matter of judgment. But must we be strictly bound by actuarial calculation, which is based on the assumption that there is a National Insurance Fund? I am bound to say that I am a little sceptical about this National Insurance Fund which we have already been told does not exist. I want to be fair about this. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, asked what noble Lords had done when the 1973 Bill went through. I admit I did not take part; I had other responsibilities. The question was rather like: "What did you do in the Great War, daddy?" My answer to the noble

363
Baroness is that I did not do very much in 1973 as I had other tasks. But in days gone by I have on a number of occasions, mainly in the other place, taken part in these discussions about the contributions when a Government have brought in some new pension scheme.
We have had lengthy discussions about the calculations. We heard of the year 2004, now the calculation is the year 2010. Were the contributions too much or too little? Again, I say, it was rather unreal. Within a few years the discussion is forgotten because the calculations have become out of date. Therefore I for one must look at these calculations with some scepticism., This is important because it may affect the amount at a particular time that we have to pay into this somewhat mythical National Insurance Fund. It does, as your Lordships will know if you look at Cmnd. Paper 5652, go up to the year 2010. There is even one estimate of the cost of administration in the year 2010–11. I wonder whether it is possible to assess the administrative costs of a somewhat mythical fund in the year 2010. In passing, one wonders how many self-employed there will be in the year 2010. I suggest one is entitled to be a little sceptical about the Government Actuary's figures without for one moment questioning the arithmetic.
I do not think there would be any cataclysmic adverse effects if, for example, one adopted the 5 per cent. proposed in this Amendment without necessarily making other alterations. I understood the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to be making the same point. We can rightly consider temporary alterations to this Bill. My main point is that I think this must be a temporary Bill. I hope it will not be long before tax credits are introduced, or there is a major change in our tax laws. When this is done the whole question of Social Security contributions will have to be looked at again.
My third question is whether it is right to take a percentage of net profits after tax in the case of the self-employed; in other words, their contribution cannot be set off against income for the purposes of arriving at their tax liability. In this case —only in the case of the self-employed—the percentage is taken on the net profits after tax. Here may I very briefly correct a remark I made on Second Reading.
364
At column 19 of Hansard on 2nd December I was dealing with a case of a self-employed small businessman receiving £2,500 after tax. I said he would pay a flat rate plus £200 per annum. That was a mistake on my part—I meant £200 per annum including the flat rate tax. It did not affect the material point that I was making; namely, that the self-employed person who has to put capital into his business may have to find it out of what is left after paying tax, and he will have that much less if he also has to pay these contributions out of what is left after tax. I think this is a serious point so far as those who come within the band are concerned. It will be a very serious problem for people with small businesses; it is difficult enough as it is. Here you have a situation where they have to pay their tax and then, out of what is left, they have to pay these substantial contributions.
There is a temptation, as I mentioned on Second Reading, that people will try so to arrange their affairs that the net figure is lower in order that their contributions will be lower. I do not think that is a good idea. Therefore, for various reasons, I think it would be reasonable to reduce the figure from 8 per cent. to 5 per cent. I go much further, because I should like to see a complete revision of this method of arriving at liability. I should like to see the employed and self-employed put on a similar basis. But, within the terms of what we can do under this Amendment, some relief should be afforded. I think it is reasonable, and I hope the Amendment will be supported.
6.35 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: I support my noble friend Lord Aberdare in his Amendment, and in so doing I declare an interest, both as a self-employed person and as one interested in the agricultural industry. Your Lordships may be somewhat impatient at this late hour and, for that reason, I will speak only briefly. But I feel it important to stress the particular problems of the agricultural industry in this context. Your Lordships will be aware there are over 280,000 self-employed persons in this industry. There is a special problem concerning Schedule D in the farm context. It is a very complicated and difficult matter. The best explanation on which I can lay hands, which your Lordships may have

365
seen and read, is the Annual Review of Agriculture 1974. It is very brief. It is Cmnd. Paper 5565, and it says:
"… farm income is not directly comparable with incomes in most other sectors of the economy, since it includes elements of wages and changes in stock valuations as well as profits. It provides the return to farmers and their wives for their manual and managerial labour. It also provides the return on occupiers' investment in the farm business"
This is a special problem. If you are assessed under Schedule D and you have a farm, or you are a tenant of a farm, your particular problem is not how you stand at the end of one year, but at the end of a group of years.
Perhaps I may quote a personal experience. In the years when the tax system was changed, between 1965 and 1966, no less than three years of my personal taxation were in the hands of the Inland Revenue until the first, second and, finally, the third years were evolved. Farmers are totally unaware how they stand in relation to the Inland Revenue from year to year because of changes being made, because of the problems of their own stock valuation and because of the specific problem of the alterations of the tax position. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Wade, said in almost every respect and I should like your Lordships to consider the problem of assessment. The self-employed are not making muted mumblings; this is a real problem and they are seething with rage about it.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: I want to support this Amendment from a different point of view from that of the last speaker. Clearly, I have no self-interest to declare. I am, and always have been, an employed person. As an employed person, one also has to look generally at justice being done across the whole community. I have given as much attention as I could since the Second Reading debate to the Government's own case as it has, through the courtesy and kindness of my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell, been given to me. I do not think that they, although trying very hard, make a case in justice for what the Bill does.
There is one question we must get clear and perhaps my noble friend will clarify it in winding up. The self-employed people, organised variously as
366
they are, believe that they do not obtain a widow's pension for their self-employed contribution. My noble friend whispers to me that they do. We have to get this point very clear because many of them seem to think that they do not and that there is no widow's benefit in consideration of paying a self-employed contribution. Would my noble friend like to make that point clear now?
Lords WELLS-PESTELL: Yes, if the noble Lord would be good enough to give way. This is a matter, if I remember rightly, that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, raised when we were considering the question on Second Reading. I was able to say that, in addition to sickness benefit, invalidity benefit, maternity benefit, retirement pension, child special allowance, death grant and guardian's allowance, they are entitled to widow's benefit.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: To that extent I am relieved. I must tell the noble Lord that that will take a great deal of worry from many people's minds because for some extraordinary reason nobody seems to believe it. That point diminishes the case I want to make, but I trust my noble friend is right.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I do not want to confuse the issue, but the Minister said, "Widow's benefit". There is the widow's allowance which a widow receives for so many weeks after her husband's death. There is also the widow's pension. Perhaps the Minister would indicate what he is referring to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I was referring to widow's pension.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: So long as my noble friend will stand by that. I see a little consternation showing up in the Box—which when I was a Minister I got used to. I will keep talking for a while so that they may pass a note. But if the Minister is really committing the Government to the view that a self-employed man's contribution provides entitlement when he dies to a widow's pension, as an employed man's widow would be entitled, that to a large extent diminishes the case I was about to make.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. I am informed that I am right.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: I am so glad. There is a case for the Officials' Box after all. But I hope no Minister in the other House will walk away from it. To that extent, admittedly, the case I was to make is diminished, although politically it still stands. There are other benefits which the self-employed man does not receive, even on the Government's own case. The exceptions which the Government themselves make about unemployment, industrial injuries and earnings-related supplements are considerable. As I understand it—and I will give my noble friend and the Government credit for trying to state the case as fairly as they can—the situation is that they reached a point where the Government actuaries said: "If you do the thing right on the figures"—which, after all, is what actuaries are employed to provide—" you will have to put up the Class II rate"—and Class II, I gather, refers to the employed people—"to £2·70 a week." The Government decided—I do not think wrongly—that that would mean that a lower-paid worker earning, perhaps, £15 would be asked to pay much too large a proportion. The Government had to decide then whether to bear that additional burden on taxation, or redistribute it between the employed and the self-employed. They chose to do it by redistributing between the employed and the self-employed. As a result they pushed up the contribution of the self-employed from 5 per cent. to 8 per cent. in order to keep down, quite rightly, the contribution which the lower-paid person should pay.
The essence of this case is whether that was the right decision, or whether the right decision was, in fact, to put the cost on to taxation, which means, if I may declare my interest as a Socialist, putting it on to the shoulders best able to bear it. There is no reason, I submit to my noble friend (with whom I have had friendly talks on this matter behind the Chair), to assume that because a man or a woman falls into the category of being self-employed, like the lady from whose shop every morning I buy my papers, his or her shoulders are best able to bear it. We Socialists have always believed that the test of whether one's shoulders are best able to bear it is the income one has to return at the end of the year. Many employed people, including some friends of mine, have shoulders much better able
368
to bear it than some people who happen to be described as "self-employed". I frankly think that my Government—I say "my Government"—have been tempted wrongly here by the bureaucrats. I say to my noble friend: "If you aren't awfully careful, they'll get you wrong." I have a great deal of experience of this. They have been tempted to go the wrong way.
I take the figure the noble Lord, Lord Wade, gave. I have no figure to controvert it and I assume he has done his homework. He said it was £21 million or something of that order. If it was that which had to be distributed, then a better way to have done it, I submit, would have been by general taxation, placing the burden anywhere you like—placing it on me, if you like, because I am obviously better able to bear it than the lady in the newspaper shop; or placing it on some of the chaps on the other side of the House, if you wish, because they are obviously better able to bear it than I am: but, seriously, placing it appropriately, but not on individuals called "self-employed" who may well be a good deal less well off than the employed person in Ford's or Chrysler or a director who also can have himself described as an employed person.
I believe that this is where they have gone wrong. Having tried very hard, as the noble Lord asked me, to see whether I could find myself able to agree with their thinking, and having allowed for the fact that he has put right the question of the widow's pension—I trust for all time —and having to that extent diminished my argument, I still feel that they have put the burden in the wrong place. A figure of 8 per cent. instead of 5 per cent. in the case of somebody who is earning between £1,600 and £3,600, is putting hardship on to a section of our community which is suffering great hardship already.
There was a day when I thought that £1,600 to £2,000 was a hell of a lot of money, but I do not think so any longer. We have to remember that Members of the Lower House will become employed persons as from next April, having been self-employed persons until now. They are earning £4,500, plus a number of other things. I ask my noble friend, not as a farmer, not as a Conservative, not as any of these other things but as a

369
Socialist, how one explains to somebody who is working as hard, if not harder, than any other worker but who just happens to be doing it in his or her own name, that Members of Parliament get out of the self-employed category at the very moment when the impost on the self-employed, who are getting less than they are, goes up. To my regret—and I hope that my noble friend will accept that it is to my regret—I intend, if the Committee is divided on this issue, to vote with those who divide the Committee against the Government.
On Second Reading my noble friend said that if we did that we should hold up some benefits for some other people, and I am very conscious of the burden which I will share with them in doing that. I asked the noble Lord to consider whether he could put through the nicer parts of the Bill and hold back the other part, but for reasons which I understand he cannot do so. Having given a lot of thought to the matter, I shall vote with those who divide the Committee against the Government on this Amendment. I simply do not feel that one can divide this country between those who are employed by employers and those who work technically in their own name. Very often, the richer people are among those who can call themselves employed. A lot of my poorer friends are among those who have to call themselves self-employed. I wish that die Government could reconsider this point but, for timetable reasons, I understand that they cannot do so. I invite any of my noble friends who feel able to do so to follow me this time, with however a heavy heart, into the Lobby of those who divide the Committee against the Government on this Amendment.
Lord DARWEN: May I support what my noble friend has just said, and may I point in particular to the very diminished benefits which the self-employed get? I noticed that on Second Reading my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell said that, naturally, the unemployment benefit is not paid to the self-employed. Why "naturally"? After all, self-employed people can become unemployed, just as employed people can become unemployed. Very often, a self-employed person is a specialist in a certain field. It may be that because his business goes bust, or because he is unable to carry on for
370
financial or health reasons, he becomes; unemployed. Surely, therefore, in paying the rate that is now proposed he should be entitled to unemployment benefit. I do not see why it is "natural" that he should not be so entitled.
6.56 p.m.
Lord PLATT: At this hour I will be as brief as I can, especially as nearly all the arguments which were fully deployed during the Second Reading debate have been deployed again this evening, with some interesting and important additions. However, may I make one or two points? The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, favoured me also with a document which I think is the same as the document which he gave to the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown. Whereas I see in it a good many of the mathematical arguments, I cannot pos- sibly accept its logic because this is not a matter of mathematics and actuaries; it is a matter of opinion and feeling.
To a simple-minded chap like myself who has no training as an accountant or actuary, it seems to me that the position is this. The employed person pays a contribution for certain benefits and his employer adds something to that contribution—something very substantial, I understand. I do not know what the figures are, but the point is that there are two people who are subscribing to his benefit. The self-employed man must, presumably, shoulder all of the burden himself, because he does not have an employer to shoulder some of it for him. If, therefore, you are going to have logic he ought to pay his own contribution, plus the employer's contribution, but nobody in this House thinks that that would be just. Then you say, "Forget about logic. Ought he to pay 40 per cent., or 50 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the double contribution—his own and his employer's?" It is entirely a matter of opinion as to where one thinks that the burden should fall and who can best pay it. Therefore, I do not think that logical arguments based upon statistics and the calculations of actuaries will get us very far.
My second point, which I am very surprised has not been raised, is not irrelevant to this Amendment, although at first sight your Lordships may think that it is irrelevant. In columns 43 and 44 of the Report of the Second Reading debate,

371
the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and, later on, the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, both pressed that accredited organisations—that was one of the terms which was used—or, at any rate, respectable and responsible organisations which stand for some of the groups of self-employed such as authors and musicians (in which personally I am most interested) should have the chance of putting their case either to the Secretary of State or to the Minister of State. In reply, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, gave an assurance that this ought to be done and that he would put it to his right honourable friend. That was on Monday of this week. It is now Thursday. There has been no time whatever for those consultations. I know that at least the body in which I am interested has written about the matter to the Secretary of State, but there has not been time for a reply. You may perhaps say that that is not wholly relevant to the Amendment before us, but it is wholly relevant because obviously to take the extreme case, if all these bodies—musicians, authors, self-employed shopkeepers and so on—came to the conclusion that it was perfectly right for them to pay 8 per cent. (which would be rather surprising, but supposing they did) obviously it would influence my position and my decision as to which way I would vote.
My final point is that on Monday evening on Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, put the case for the Government and of the eleven speakers not a single one spoke in his favour. Now is the opinion of this House being sought or is it not? If it is being sought, then there was 100 per cent. against the case which was being put forward—perhaps very reluctantly, I do not know—by the noble Lord, and to that number has been added one new speaker this evening, which seems to me to make twelve. If that is just to be cast aside and no notice taken of the influence of this House, I think it is a serious insult to this House and a very serious criticism of the whole of the Parliamentary system.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: Although I shall not follow my noble friend Lord George-Brown into the Lobby in support of this Amendment, I have some sympathy with the case he
372
put and the case that has been put on behalf of the self-employed. In a few moment, if your Lordships will permit me, I will explain my position on this matter. First, however, I want to dispose of the misunderstanding about widows' benefits and the self-employed contribution. So far as I can recall, widows' benefits have always been attached to a self-employed contribution. I do not recall that ever was the widow's benefit not part of the insurance cover of a self-employed person. The two major benefits affecting the self-employed which it was originally proposed should not be attached to a self-employed contribution were sickness benefit and unemployment benefit. But Parliament decided, wisely, in 1947 that sickness benefit should be part of a self-employed contribution which unemployment benefit should not, and that is how the matter stands.
Now I must dispose of the position of Members of Parliament. It has been suggested that Members of Parliament are most conveniently being transferred from self-employed contributors to employed contributors, because it seems that the employed contributor will pay rather less than the self-employed contributor and therefore it is to the advantage of Members of the House of Commons that this change should be made at this point. That is purely coincidence.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Oh!
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I can assure your Lordships that it is. As Chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, for years I was pressing for the revision of the mistaken classification of Members of the House of Commons as self-employed contributors. It was never right. They were assessed for tax purposes under Schedule E. All employed persons are assessed under Schedule E, whereas self-employed persons are assessable under Schedule D, and it would have been to the advantage of Members of Parliament to be assessed as self-employed people for tax purposes, but they were not. They were always regarded as employed persons for the purposes of taxation. This was a grievous anomaly. When Members of Parliament lost their seats in the House of Commons there was no unemployment benefit, and after the General Election in 1970, the Parliamentary Labour Party Benevolent

373
Fund paid out £8,000 in a matter of two weeks to Labour Members of Parliament who had lost their seats and who were in need. It was disgraceful that Parliament should in that way treat its Members who had lost their seats.
The Boyle Report relating to the conditions of Members of Parliament generously revised those harsh conditions. The change from self-employed to employed contributions for Members of the House of Commons is long overdue and has been awaiting legislation for a long time, and the fact that it is being done now has nothing to do with the change in the contributions. That disposes of Members of the House of Commons.
I now come to the general proposition. What is wrong is the continuation of the mythology of the insurance principle. It was originally believed that under the insurance principle, the premium—which I think it is convenient to call it—was composed of two parts: the premium paid by the employer and the premium paid by the employee, and to the joint contribution an Exchequer contribution was made by the State. So it was thought that if a person was self-employed it would satisfy the insurance principle only if the self-employed person paid the two contributions which in the case of employed persons were payable by two separate persons, the employer and the employee. It seemed to the architects of the original scheme that the self-employed contributor must pay both as his fair part of the contributions to an insurance scheme.
But it is no longer an insurance scheme and it has not been so for a very long time. Therefore, when the contributions are switched from the flat rate principle to an earnings related principle, the principles of taxation come into this because it has nothing to do with insurance any more. It is a form of social tax, and in looking at taxation one should look at the equity of the matter, because the benefits that the self-employed contributor gets are no better, and in some respects are not so good, as the benefits of the employed contributor. Yet he can be asked to pay more for those benefits than is paid correspondingly by an employed contributor on the same income.
This is the injustice of what is proposed, and I think it should be rectified before long. The question is whether this is
374
the moment to attempt to do it. I fear that if this Amendment is carried, the Bill will be left in a very ragged state. If I may say so, it does not achieve the purpose that it sets out to achieve and it leaves the Bill almost incoherent in the structure of the contributions. It does not do the job. Nor, of course, does it deal with the substantial lowering of the contribution income which would come from the passing of the Amendment. Therefore I think it would be a mistake to make this change, though my message to the Government is that when the big change comes about next year—or so we are led to understand—then the opportunity should be taken to rid the Scheme of this nonsense that it is an insurance scheme. If that is done, I think the contributions can be put on a rational and equitable basis related to income, and related also to the common level of benefits to be given under this Scheme.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: Supposing we carry this Amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, thinks would leave the Bill in a ragged state, but which he clearly thinks itself is justified, we will have left the Government with £21 million, or whatever the figure is, to find from some other place. Is that not what the noble Lord is saying? Does he not think the Government, between now and next spring, could then find that out of what he calls social taxation?
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I am sorry, but my noble friend is mistaken here. The Exchequer contribution is fixed under Act of Parliament as a percentage of the total contributions by employers, employees and other contributors to the Scheme. If more of the burden of the benefits is to be thrust on the Exchequer, then it means revision of the Exchequer contribution. It is not merely a matter of putting it on taxation. It would disturb the relationship between the ratio of the Exchequer contribution to the total of contributions coming from other sources. But it would do more than that. It would maintain the self-employed contribution at a static level at a time when the Bill is increasing the contributions of the employed contributor. That anomaly would be left in the Bill, and would have to be rectified somehow, somewhere, if this Amendment were carried. I beseech your Lordships not to

375
mutilate this Bill now. This is the wrong moment, the wrong way. Let us keep our powder dry until we see the shape of the major proposals coming next year. I submit with great respect that then we can look for the riddance from social security of this outdated mythology that it is an insurance scheme, and we can no longer justify asking self-employed contributors to pay a disproportionate amount on the obsolete theory that they ought to pay two premiums instead of one.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: I rise with some diffidence to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, because on these matters I would think there is no greater expert than he in either House. I do not propose to offer the Committee any figures tonight; I have none to offer. When this proposal first came before this House, and before the Second Reading debate, instinctively I did not like it. I read the Second Reading debate with great care, and I have listened tonight to what has been said. I think this proposal is unfair. I find that a very simple statement to make, and I find it very difficult to avoid action to try to prevent unfairness taking place.
I note what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I, for one, would not dream of disagreeing with him. I am sure he is right when he proposes that if this Amendment is carried it may leave jagged edges. But I do not think that is our concern, because after all—and speaking entirely in a non-Party sense—if Members of Parliament feel that something is unfair, I do not think we are ever going to get anywhere if we sit down and say, "We will leave it until there is a better time". I am sure those of us who have been in either House for some time, and particularly in another place, know that the only effective way of making a protest is to make it across the Floor of the House. It does not make one popular, but it carries more weight than making it upstairs in a Committee room, or in sitting down here and letting something go through.
I think this is unfair. What disturbs me is that I do not like to hear my Government—because while I am a nuisance I still like to think of it as my Government—being accused of something that is not fair. I think this is mean. It is attacking
376
a section of the community which is not able to fight back. I would go further. I do not think such an attack would be made on a section of the community which could fight back. I am sorry to contribute to the ragged edges, but unless by noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell can convince me otherwise, I shall vote for this Amendment tonight.
The Earl of LYTTON: I should be more delighted one day to take part in a debate with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, on the abuse of insurance. It is evident we share the same kind of view. But I shall not do so tonight. I should declare an interest. For the last half of my life I have been a self-employed person. I am expecting to become an employed person as inflation progresses. I make my protest at the unfairness of this discrimination against the self-employed. I made a random list last night of 76 different groups of people in one-man jobs, one-woman jobs, man and wife jobs, father and son, two friends, brothers —hardly any of them employing anyone, and all of them on the first rung of the middle-class ladder and thereby engaging in work for an 80-hour instead of a 40-hour week. These are the small men and women who will be mightily hit by this. I feel certain it must have been done by some kind of accident. I shall support the Amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It would appear that I am batting on a sticky wicket. But first of all, I want to say to your Lordships that following the Second Reading on Monday, I gave an undertaking that I would consult my noble friend the Minister of State for Social Security in another place, and in turn he would consult the Secretary of State for Social Services. I fulfilled that undertaking. A good deal of thought has gone into the matter since we discussed this on Monday last. In some ways regretfully, but I think quite rightly that, having said that, I must resist this Amendment. I do so because I personally believe it is right that this Amendment should be resisted.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, complained with some feeling about various organisations not having an opportunity of consulting with the Secretary of State, but let us be quite frank about it. The Bill was introduced in another place in

377
June of this year. It had an unopposed Second Reading. Am I to be told that the various organisations which represent self-employed people did not know what was in the Bill? Of course they did. But there has been no move on their part, until presumably quite recently, to discuss this matter. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State, in the absence of applications which could have been made months ago and were not, presumably, is entitled to assume that the conditions that were laid out very clearly in the Bill—
The Earl of LYTTON: With great respect, may I interrupt the noble Lord. I find the Bill absolutely incomprehensible. It was not until someone jogged my elbow late in the day that I realised the peril in which my self-employed working friends were.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: In that case, the noble Lord must blame the Party on the other side, because this is based solely upon their 1973 Act. The only difference between us is whether it will be 5 per cent. or 8 per cent.
The Earl of LYTTON: I really do not want to blame anyone. I am a Cross-Bencher and in search of justice.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It is quite extraordinary to hear members of the Opposition saying, "Hear, hear", when the structure of the Bill is entirely theirs. I am not complaining about it. We accepted the structure of the 1973 Act.
Lord MOYNE: I said "Hear, hear" from an independent point of view; it was put by the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, and that is why I said "Hear, hear"; I said it from a non-Party point of view. This whole debate has taken place from a non-Party point of view. If other Parties or our Party have made mistakes, never mind. We want justice.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: It is very refreshing to hear the noble Lord put it like that. But from this side of the House, when there are so many "Hear hears" from the other side, I naturally ask myself what noble Lords opposite did when the Bill was introduced by them, when it was available; I do not know what action noble Lords on the other side took in respect of this matter. All I am saying
378
is—and it may be quite wrong—that so far as the Bill is concerned we have built the Social Security Amendment Bill 1974 upon the 1973 one.
After last Monday I made a point of seeing various Members of your Lordships' House because I felt, and I still feel, that there is some misunderstanding; I tried to get rid of that misunderstanding by giving them certain information to which my noble friend Lord George-Brown referred, because I thought it might help the situation. If I may put it like this, it has been the practice over a good many years that contributions should move in line with earnings. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has raised the point that perhaps we ought to look at our entire insurance scheme again, but we have always accepted that this has been the fairest way of dealing with it. It may well be that it is no longer the right way, but this has been the philosophy not only of the Government in power at the moment but a whole succession of Governments who preceded them. If we have to look at it afresh it may well be that the time has come, but at the present moment, basing the Social Security Amendment Bill on the structure of the previous Government's Act, it seems to me thta what we are suggesting is the fairest possible way for the self-employed man.
The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, quite rightly pointed out that there is the flat rate of £2·41 per week for every self-employed man in receipt of an income after he has had an opportunity under Schedule D of deducting his overhead expenses and so on; it will be on net profit or net gain of over £1,600, and do not let us forget this. He will be dealt with under Schedule D and this means that he will have an opportunity—quite rightly so as a self-employed person—of being able to set against tax overhead expenses and so on, a good many of which are allowable out-of-pocket expenses which the income tax authorities permit. After the £1,600 he will be required to pay, we want 8 per cent. of the net gains or profits. If I may come to the question of benefits, I do not want to go through them all again.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: Could we just get one point quite clear. I do not know how generous my noble friend's particular income tax inspectors are, but

379
we are quite clear, are we not, that the £1,600 represents the income of the self-employed person? He has not charged any wages before that. He may have charged his stamps or his stationery. I would hope my noble friend would not—I know he would not—even by inadvertence, mislead the House. The £1,600 represents the total income of the man after he has been allowed to charge whatever he is allowed to charge.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: Let us put it in very simple terms. It is the net income, not the gross income. Those of us who have been self-employed for a good many years know that there are some advantages in being a self-employed person.
Lord REIGATE: Before the noble Lord leaves that point, what are these advantages he draws attention to? In column 38 of Hansard at Second Reading he referred to the expenses which many employed people have to bear but cannot set against taxes. Is he suggesting that a self-employed man is in a particularly privileged position, or is there some fiddle?
Lords WELLS-PESTELL: I think the self-employed man is in a privileged position when compared with an employed person.
Lord PLATT: Is this not just the trap I pointed out on Second Reading, that because expenses are free of tax people think one is getting ones fares. Let us say a musician goes to Glasgow and he gets a set fee for that. He has to pay his fare, and he can claim back about one-third of it by not paying tax on that fare, but he has still paid the other two-thirds, has he not?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: With great respect, I would ask your Lordships to allow me to continue. I am merely saying that it is a well known fact that a person who is self-employed—and I have been self-employed for a good many years myself until fairly recently—can set against income tax certain kinds of expenditure, and the better the accountant the better you succeed. What I want to return to is the benefits which the self-employed people receive. I mentioned a moment ago that they are entitled to all
380
the benefits with the exception of unemployment benefit, industrial injury benefit, and earnings related supplements in relation to certain other matters. It is on that basis that the previous Government and we have determined the rate of contributions. I ought to explain at this stage that the term "widow's benefit" is a collective one for all the benefits to which a self-employed person is entitled; namely, a widow's allowance which is payable for the first six months of widowhood, a widowed mother's allowance payable to widows with children, and a widow's pension. We refer to these three benefits, all being available to the self-employed person, as "widow's benefits".
The Government Actuary estimates—and I do not want to burden your Lordships with figures, because I think they can be misleading and can be used to suit almost every argument—that the National Insurance benefits to which self-employed people are entitled is something like 90 per cent. in cost of all National Insurance benefits. The precise figures vary from year to year. From 1949 to 1950, and from 1950 to 1951, a self-employed person was entitled to 95 per cent. of the National Insurance benefits. It went up to 97 per cent. from 1960 to 1961; it was 91 per cent. in 1970–71, and in 1973–74 it was 93 per cent. So it means that to pay fully for what they get back in benefit the self-employed contributions should be—because it would not be unreasonable for them to be—90 per cent. of the employee-employer Class 1 contribution, but never at any time have the self-employed persons in this country been required to contribute that amount in terms of their own national insurance payment.
At the present moment the Class 1 payment—that is the payment made by the insured person and the employer—amounts to a total of 14 per cent. If we were to say—as the Government Actuary has said since about 1942 when we were considering the Beveridge Plan —to the self-employed person, "You have 90 per cent.; you are entitled to 90 per cent. of the benefits which the employee gets, therefore you ought to pay that amount", then we should be entitled, any Government would be entitled, to ask the self-employed person to contribute 12·4 per cent. In point

381
of fact, what we are suggesting in our Bill, the Social Security Amendment Bill 1974, is that they pay 8 per cent. and not what the Government Actuary has said over a period of time should be much higher.
I concede that the point between us is whether it should be 8 per cent. or 5 per cent. If it is 5 per cent., obviously —and I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would disagree with this —the flat rate of £2·41 per week would have to be increased to £2·70.
Lord ABERDARE: I do not agree with that. I tried to explain in my speech that there was surplus money in the Government Actuary's own figures which would meet the £21 million difference. I do not accept that.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: But, you see, benefits have to be met and paid for out of contributions, and always assuming—and I would accept—that there is a surplus, one has to bear in mind that the Government are committed to raising pensions and benefits in April next year and again in December. One has to keep a surplus in order to raise benefits and pensions in the coming year. It seems that the whole structure of our system has been that benefits should be related to contributions. As I said at the beginning, it may well be that the time has come when we have to think out this situation again, but what we are faced with at the moment is benefits related to contributions. We feel, rightly or wrongly, that when dealing with self-employed people—and it has been represented in your Lordships' House on Monday and again today that there are many who are receiving far less than £1,600 a year—it would, in our view, be quite wrong that we should raise the flat rate contribution, which would have to be done, from £2·41 to £2·70 in order to maintain Class 4 at 5 per cent. We feel that relieving the burden a little on the part of the flat rate and putting it on, shall I say, to Class 4
contribution by raising the 5 per cent. to 8 per cent., is the right thing to do.
We have thought of this again very carefully this week, and I feel that if your Lordships are concerned about the plight of the lower paid self-employed person then it is far better that he, or she, should have a flat rate that is being kept down, and that the balance which one loses as a result of that should be obtained from those who are financially better off.
Lord DARWEN: May I ask whether my noble friend thinks that that is the only possible alternative; namely, to vary the flat rate in order to recoup the money?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: As the situation is at present, the basis upon which we calculate contributions—not only this Government, but previous Governments—the present structure requires us to do that, yes.
Lord ABERDARE: I am sure that the Committee is ready to come to a decision on this matter. I am grateful to those noble Lords from all parts of the House, the Liberal Benches, the Government Benches, and the Cross-Benches, who have supported this Amendment. This represents the feelings of a great many self-employed people and organisations throughout the country, and it would be right that this House should express its view on this matter. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that this leaves any jagged edges. If there are jagged edges, then all we are doing is giving another place a chance to look at this again, to take into consideration the strong views that have been expressed in this House, and any jagged edges can be "unjagged".
7.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 87; Not-Contents, 28.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Belstead, L.

Courtown, E.

Airedale, L.

Bledisloe. V.

Cowley, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Darwen, L.

Amory, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

de Clifford, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Denham, L. [Teller]

Balerno, L.

Carrington, L.

Derwent, L.

Barnby, L.

Colwyn, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Barrington, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Elles, B.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Long, V.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Elton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

St. Davids, V.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lyell, L.

St. Helens, L.

Falmouth, V.

Lytton, E.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gainford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Sandford, L.

George-Brown, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sandys, L.

Goschen, V.

Milverton, L.

Seear, B.

Gowrie, E.

Monck, V.

Selkirk, E.

Greenway, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller]

Somers, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stamp, L.

Hacking, L.

Moyne, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Northchurch, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathspey, L.

Hanworth, V.

Oakshott, L.

Swansea, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Peddie, L.

Terringon, L.

Hereford, V.

Platt, L.

Teviot, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Polwarth, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Vernon, L.

Killearn, L.

Reay, L.

Wade, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Redesdale, L.

Wakehurst, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Reigate, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Robbins, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Hale, L.

Melchett, L. [Teller]

Beswick, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Birk, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Pannell, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller]

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Castle, L.

Janner, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

White, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

McLeavy, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
7.43 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE Lord ABERDARE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 33, at end insert—
"(5) No Class 4 contribution shall be payable in respect of self-employed persons over pensionable age."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to seek special concession from the Government in favour of those self-employed people over retirement age; that is, for men over 65 and women over 60. Many of these people are finding life pretty hard at the moment. They may well have saved throughout their lives only to find that their savings have been eroded by inflation, so that they are more or less forced to go on working beyond their normal retirement age. The Amendment suggests that to help them they might be relieved of the burden of paying Class 4 contributions of 8 per cent.—or, I suppose now, 5 per cent.—over the prescribed range of earnings.
There are several other instances where the Government have made concessions to the elderly, and only recently the Chancellor of the Exchequer put their exemption limit for investment income surcharge
384
at £1,500 instead of the normal £1,000. Indeed, in Clause 1(2) the Bill itself contains a concession to those over pensionable age. This is a complicated subsection, but it is summed up in the Explanatory Memorandum which states:
"Subsection (2) provides that no primary Class 1 contributions shall be payable by retirement pensioners or by certain other persons over pensionable age".
Here is a valuable concession being made once again to employed persons. Why is it that if the employed earner is to be excused from paying Class 1 contributions on retirement in certain circumstances, no similar provision is made for the self-employed? Here, again, there seems to be discrimination against the self-employed. But, as the noble Lord has admitted, it is a complicated Bill. I may not have correctly understood the position, and I shall not press the Amendment; my object is to find out what is the real position. I beg to move.
Lord WADE: I want only to take the opportunity of asking a question. At column 11 of Hansard of 2nd December on the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said:
"Clause 1 also amends the 1973 Act so as to remove all contribution liability from retirement pensioners who go out to work, and I

385
am sure that this has the approval of the whole House."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/12/74; col. 11.]
Does that mean all retirement pensioners, whether they were self-employed or in some other category? I just wanted some elaboration of that sentence.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: As I understand it, the purpose of this Amendment is to secure that self-employed people over pensionable age have no liability for Class 4 contributions. I think it would be fair to say that the Amendment is inconsistent with the contributions structure set up by the former Conservative Government under the Social Security Act 1973. The whole purpose of the Class 4 contribution established under that Act is to make the contribution arrangements for self-employed earners as close as possible to those of employed earners, and this is what I tried to say when we were discussing the previous Amendment. Although it is not possible to make contributions for the self-employed wholly earnings-related, as I accept they will be for the employed, the Bill goes a good way towards this by introducing the earnings-related Class 4 contribution.
This contribution ensures that the self-employed with higher earnings make a greater contribution towards the general cost of current benefits than those with lower earnings, as in the case with employed earners. Just as the liability of the employed earners under the new arrangement will continue beyond pensionable age if they do not require to retire, so will the self-employed persons' liability for contributions continue. There could be no justification for excepting the self-employed from paying Class 4 contributions without a corresponding reduction in the liability of employed earners for Class 1 contributions. So far as retirement pensioners are concerned, whether working as employed or self-employed, they will not be liable to pay contributions.
There is another factor. The loss of income to the National Insurance Fund which would result from the Amendment would, in isolation, be something like £1 million a year, and while the amount is comparatively small the point is that this Amendment could not be met in isolation. To do that would undermine the purpose of Class 4 contributions and
386
would produce a situation which was grossly unfair to employed earners. If anything were done it would have to apply to the employed earners as well. If all people were relieved of liability for contributions on reaching pensionable age, even though they did not retire, the loss of income to the fund would be something like £18 million a year, and this loss would have to be made good by increasing the burden on those below pensionable age. In fairness, this would have to include the self-employed, and in view of the Opposition's comments about the amount of contributions which the self-employed will have to pay from next April, I cannot think that they would wish to take any action which might increase it. If I may just say this, the Amendment talks about people over pension age who have not retired.
Lord ABERDARE: I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I understood what he was telling me. There is only one more point about which I should like to ask him, and perhaps he would like to write to me later on it because it is a little complicated. Under Clause 1(2)(a) an employed person does not pay contributions if he is retired from regular employment, and that is also true of the self-employed. But, with employed persons, equally they do not pay contributions if they have not so retired but do not satisfy the contribution conditions for a Category A retirement pension on obtaining that age. This is a concession to the employed man. If his contributions do not entitle him to a Category A retirement pension when he reaches retirement age, he does not have to go on contributing. The question I should like to ask is: does this concession also apply to the self-employed person who has reached retirement age but who has not satisfied the contribution conditions for a full pension? However, I have said that I do not expect the noble Lord to answer me straightaway, and perhaps we could talk about it later.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If the noble Lord would allow me to look at Hansard, then perhaps I could write to him or see him in order to reply.
Lord ABERDARE: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.52 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord ABERDARE: Before the Question on Clause 1 is put, I think the noble Lord, Lord Janner, and I are on to the same point with regard to people who are employed and self-employed and are liable to pay contributions under Classes 1, 2 and 4. It seems rather extraordinary that a person who receives only the same benefits as he would from paying Class 1 payments should be expected to contribute under Classes 1, 2 and 4. I can understand that if he is not doing a whole-time job and is filling in part of his time as a self-employed person, then there could be a case for asking him to contribute under these three different categories. But there are cases—and I am quoting particularly from the Council of Engineering Institutions—where engineers are fully employed in academic posts, in universities and polytechnics, where they are paying a full Class 1 contribution, but where, at the same time, they do consultancy work, which is very valuable to industry and very valuable to them in keeping in touch with industry, where they are expected to pay Class 2 and Class 4 as well. This is a particular case —and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Janner, may wish to say a little more about it—and it is something that is worrying the engineers.
Lord JANNER: I am obliged to the noble Lord for having raised this point. It has been brought to my notice as well, and I think that before we finish with Clause 1 I should like to ask my noble friend to deal with this matter. There is a large number of people, mostly in the professional field, who may find themselves obliged to pay not only Class 1 contributions but Class 2 contributions as well, in certain circumstances even Class 4 contributions in addition to that. As the noble Lord has said, this issue is causing particular concern to the Council of Engineering Institutions, which coordinates the activities of the leading institutions of professional engineers in this country, such as the Institutions of Civil Engineers, Technical Engineers, Chemical Engineers, Mechanical Engineers and so on, numbering 15 in all. They point out, for example, that many engineers hold academic posts in universities, as the noble Lord has said, or in polytechnics
388
and so on, and in addition to their salaried employment at such places they are frequently involved as consultants or advisers in practical engineering projects.
This can obviously be of the greatest benefit to industry and to the universities, in so far as it keeps the academics in touch with up-to-date practice in their professions. It can be of particular value in the field of technical and technological education. The anxiety of the engineering institutions has not been in any way allayed—indeed, the contrary—by a paragraph in the leaflet entitled New Contribution System for the Self-Employed and Non-Employed, (NP 7), which reads as follows:
"If you have two jobs at the same time, one as an employee and the other in self-employment, then you will have to pay both Class 2 contributions and, as an employee, Class 1 contributions. However, if you pay more than a specified amount, the excess will generally be refunded. In certain circumstances, you may apply for liability for Class 2 and Class 4 contributions to be deferred until after the end of the tax year. Details will be available from local Social Security offices in September 1974".
Of course, this kind of leaflet which is sent out is not very easily understood, particularly by people who are not accustomed to reading or to following legislation.
There appears to be no assurance in this paragraph that there will necessarily be any refund of the double or treble contributions, and unless the Minister can give some such guarantee there is obviously much trouble ahead. It is unfair in any event, I believe the Minister will agree, that one professional engineer earning a certain sum of money a year as an employee and another as a consultant—that is, shall we say, £5,000 or £6,000 in all—should have to pay substantially more in contributions than a colleague earning the same amount solely as an employee or solely as a consultant. I should like my noble friend to explain the position and to let us know how this is going to work in practice.
Lord WADE: I, too, have received this letter. I will not repeat what has been said but I shall be interested to hear the answers to the questions which have been raised. The only point which has occurred to me is that I do not know the date of the leaflet attached to the letter,

389
and that may possibly make some difference.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for mentioning this matter to me last night, and also to my noble friend Lord Janner, who did likewise. There is a leaflet—the noble Lord, Lord Wade, referred to it earlier today—NP 18, which refers to "Your contribution liability if you have more than one job". It sets out that, if you have more than one job and pay more than the prescribed amount of contributions for a year, you may obtain a refund; and then it sets out the ceiling of the contributions. Obviously, one cannot give a definite answer as to what the situation is in relation to people in that position generally. These matters have to be dealt with individually. It may well be that one person is employed almost whole-time, or whole-time, as a Class 1 contributor. He may be half and half; and these matters will have to be looked at individually. I would concede that perhaps the leaflet itself is not of very great help to people who are doing two or three jobs, because it has to be determined on the amount of time they spend in each job.
The only advice—and the best advice —I can give in the circumstances to people who find themselves in that situation, is that it would obviously be to their advantage, financial and otherwise, to go along to their local office of the Department and discuss their own position. The officers at local offices have been informed of this situation, and they are expecting people to put their own positions to them so that the level of contributions can be determined. If in any one year they do pay more, they can apply for a refund.
Lord ABERDARE: The only thing that is still unsatisfactory is the wording of the leaflet. When it says that if your contributions exceed a certain sum you may get a refund, it rather sounds as though you might not. I should have thought that if your contributions exceed a certain sum, you will get a refund.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: With very great respect, the noble Lord will know that there are always exceptions, and I think it would be quite wrong in an official leaflet to say you "will" when
390
at the time the leaflet was issued no-one could possibly know the individual circumstances of everybody to whom it would apply.
Lord ABERDARE: If the leaflet gives a ceiling, if it says there is a limit to the total contributions you need make, then if your contributions exceed that limit you certainly should get a refund, I should have thought.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: If it goes out from your Lordships' House to everybody who is likely to be involved that they can get on-the-spot, expert help and advice in regard to their own position by going along to the local office of the Department of Health and Social Security, I think this would meet every situation.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

FUEL AND ELECTRICITY (CONTROL) ACT 1973 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1974
8.2 p.m.
Lord BALOGH Lord BALOGH rose to move, That the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 (Continuation) Order 1974, laid before the House on 20th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I move my Motion may I apologise for having unwittingly crossed before the Mace, because it had disappeared from my view. I do apologise, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me.
I am sure that noble Lords on both sides of the House will agree that this Order represents a cautious and therefore wise precaution, and will support it in that spirit. During the debates on the Bill last year, both Parties recognised that it contained powers that would be useful in dealing with the longer term situation. Powers were taken in the first instance for a year; and, to quote the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn (whom, to my loss, I do not see here at the moment) in the Second Reading debate almost exactly a year ago, he said:
"I am sure your Lordships will agree that they are sensible weapons to have in our

391
armoury now and in the future, to deal with temporary energy difficulties."
The rest is history and I will spare the House yet another of my not very well received analyses of the then position which is vividly etched in all our minds. Rather, I think it would be more helpful to the House for me to review developments since 1974 in the energy sector and to indicate future prospects. It has been a period of great activity. A number of important decisions have been taken, but there can be no question of resting on our laurels, if any. The major aims of the Government's strategy so far have been, first, developing our indigenous resources; secondly, turning the country's attention to energy use as well as supply; thirdly, giving proper weight to scientific research and development; and, fourthly, pursuing international cooperation, by making sure that our sovereignty over our resources is not impugned.
I will now go through the various sectors of the energy situation. We have had the interim and final reports of the coal industry examination. We are setting out to reverse the decline in the last 15 years, which is a formidable task. We have endorsed the plan for coal which should enable the NCB to stabilise deep-mined output at around 120 million tons. This may not be attained this year. Short-term fluctuation in oil prices will not influence our investment decisions on coal, but coal must remain competitive in the light of long-term trends. There is an unparalleled opportunity for the industry with its future now virtually assured. It is up to all concerned in the industry to ensure that this opportunity is not lost and that the plan for coal is really realised.
My Lords, I now turn to nuclear power. We have taken the long awaited decision on reactor choice and published our White Paper in July. The issues were difficult, but we believe the decision we took was the right one. The SCHWR has substantial advantages. It should provide power reliably and give particular scope for British technology while meeting the test of public acceptability. It is essential that public confidence in nuclear power should be maintained. It is obviously sensible to start with a
392
relatively modest initial programme, not more than 4,000 mw over the next four years. So far as North Sea gas is concerned, this is very much a success story, as the House will know. The facts speak for themselves. Eleven million out of 13 million gas consumers are now using natural gas directly. There are proved and probable reserves of about 35 million million cubic feet, worth at today's oil prices about £30,000 million, and sufficient to support a production of 5,000 million cubic feet a day towards the end of the decade, and production might increase to 6,000 million cubic feet a day. That is twice the amount we had in 1972 if the Norwegian Frigg gas is included. A great deal has been achieved and the future looks good.
My Lords, we now come to North Sea oil. The picture here is constantly changing—five new discoveries have been made since the Brown Book was issued and twelve fields are now considered commercial. Proved and probable reserves from these fields are now increased to 1,160 million tons—at today's prices worth around £40,000 million. A great deal more exploration will take place and we are confident that huge quantities will still be discovered. Oil production in 1980, allowing for future discoveries could be between 100 and 140 million tons. There is a good chance that in 1980 we shall be producing all the oil we need. Such a miracle would have seemed unthinkable even a few years ago. With regard to the White Paper on the North Sea, noble Lords will be familiar with our proposals, so I do not need to go over them again. The necessary legislation will come forward this Session. I would stress that we regard it as an entirely reasonable, comprehensive package, which will establish a firm base on which oil companies can plan their future investment in the knowledge that we shall be providing a fair deal for them as well as for the nation, which will leave them with ample material incentive.
I am able, therefore, to report substantial progress in the energy sector. But there is still a great deal to do. We believe that we now have the country's energy strategy on the right lines. But we have to remember that we are only at the beginning of a period of change and that many of the risks still remain.
Let me consider those risks. I shall consider the present outlook briefly. First there is the coal industry. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy said on 25th November in another place:
"I want to be frank with the House. I think that it will be extremely difficult for the NUM and the NCB, even now, to get 120 million tons, but I still think that coal stocks and our electricity system are secure this winter. Assuming that even without any productivity scheme, normal supplies come through this winter, our electricity system will be secure".
I would remind the House that the National Union of Mineworkers have fully pledged their determination to achieve the best possible performance and we still think that coal stocks and our electricity system are secure this winter, given normal levels of working in the industries.
The current international oil situation appears to be satisfactory from the supply point of view, though, as we all know from last winter, there can never be complete certainty as long as we are dependent on foreign oil. As noble Lords will appreciate, the main problem is that of oil prices. The Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are busy dealing with the consequential difficult financial problems. Of the other fuels, nuclear power provides a further measure of diversification, and thus security, to our supplies: but the amount we can have available is of course limited until the policies put in hand by the Government come to fruition —and the time-scales for this are inevitably long. Gas continues to provide a valuable and secure source of energy, though it could not of course totally replace any of the other fuels if their supply were for some reason to be interrupted. To sum up, we cannot afford to be complacent and it would be foolish to assume that difficulties cannot arise but, as I have said, we believe that with normal supplies our energy demands will be secure this winter.
I now return to the Order before the House, which seeks continuation of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act of 1973. The Act contains flexible and wide ranging powers. These powers have been used both for crisis management—by the last Government in the winter of 1973–74 —and for specific measures concerned with the continuing management of our
394
energy resources. It is this latter use of the Act that is the immediate occasion for bringing forward the Order now, so that the powers in the Act can continue to be used instead of lapsing, as they otherwise would have done, on 30th November. The Order extends for a period of one year, to 30th November 1975, the powers contained in Sections 1 to 8 of the Act. These powers enable control to be exercised over petroleum and its products, over any other substances used as fuel, and over electricity. Thus the powers extend to coal and gas as well as to electricity and oil.
The powers in the Act are currently being used to relieve the British Gas Corporation from its statutory obligations under the 1972 Gas Act to meet demands for large new or additional supplies. The need to provide this relief arises from the change in the world energy situation in the last year or so. The attractiveness of gas has greatly increased—particularly for commercial and industrial use. It became obvious early this year that if the Corporation had to meet in full every request for large new and additional gas supplies which fell within the terms of their statutory obligations this would endanger the continuing security of supply to other users in the winters preceding the arrival of the Frigg gas and afterwards of Brent. Authority under Section 4 of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act to disregard this statutory obligation as respects new or additional supplies exceeding 25,000 therms per annum was therefore given to the Corporation on 25th March 1974. With this relief, the gas supply position in the coming winters should be secure. Without it, the continued pressure of demand could place the supply in jeopardy; and no other powers are at present available to maintain the relief from the statutory obligation of the Gas Board.
The Act includes powers to regulate oil product prices. It is clearly essential that these powers are continued in the face of the continuing uncertainty over security of world supplies from the Middle East and the increasing frequency of demands by oil producers for higher prices of crude oil. At present, the powers are only exercised over the maximum retail prices of petrol, derv and paraffin. These controls were introduced during the difficult supply situation last December, and we

395
are, of course, keeping them under continuing review so that we do not maintain them longer than is necessary.
It is further intended to use the powers of the 1973 Act to give directions to oil companies restricting disposal of oil stocks in order to implement our international obligations to hold minimum stock levels. The United Kingdom is obliged under the International Energy Programme and an EEC Directive to hold certain minimum stocks of oil. Because of the continuing uncertainty in the Middle East, such stocks are an essential part of our security of supply. With the huge increases in the price of oil, we can no longer rely on companies voluntarily holding high stocks. Therefore, in order to ensure that the United Kingdom has sufficient security this winter, directions will need to be given very soon to each supplying company ordering it to hold minimum stocks of oil. At present, the only powers under which companies can be directed to hold stocks are those in Section 2 of the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act which, but for this Order, would now expire. Indeed, my Lords, no other suitable powers exist at the present time under which we can continue with any of the three measures I have described. This is accordingly the first reason for continuing the operative provisions of the Act in force. Consideration is, however, being given by the Government to taking alternative powers under other legislation which would enable us in due course to dispense with the use of the 1973 Act for these particular purposes. Continuing the Act in force will of course also provide powers to introduce any emergency measures that might be necessary should the normal flow of energy supplies be interrupted during the coming 12 months. But that is not the Government's prime purpose in laying this Order. If it were, we could simply have left the Act in abeyance. I therefore hasten to reassure noble Lords that there is, on the part of the Government, no present expectation of difficulties. Should such a need arise, I expect that my right honourable friend would seek to make a Statement to Parliament before the powers in the Act were so used or, if the need were immediate, at the very earliest possible opportunity afterwards. My Lords, I
396
commend this Order to you, as I said at the beginning, as a cautious and therefor wise precaution, and I ask for your support in that spirit.
Moved, That the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 (Continuation) Order 1974, laid before the House on 20th November, be approved.—(Lord Balogh.)
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I believe that we on this side of the House should thank the noble Lord, the Minister, for his very full explanation of the energy situation as it stands at this point, and I think in general we would seek to assure him that he can count on our support in continuing this Order. Nevertheless, there are three or four brief points we seek to bring to his attention. The first point on which I would ask for clarification refers to coal stocks. From information we have gleaned of the overall situation, it appears that coal stocks, not merely at the pit head but at various National Coal Board storage depots, as well as in private industrial stores and at power stations, are considerably below the figures for last year—in some cases by as much as 30 per cent. We also noted with a tinge of regret the Statement in another place that the National Coal Board is not likely to achieve its targeted output of 120 million tons during the year 1974–75. Be that as it may, we can only hope that the coming winter will not be too severe and that the existing stocks will see us through.
One more small question hangs over the problem of petroleum supplies. As a result of the Budget last month, there was a very steep increase in the value-added tax applied to petroleum. I understand this tax has to be paid on delivery by both wholesalers and retail garages. This additional tax represents the cost of the sale and thus the retailer has had to meet considerably increased costs. For this reason he will require an increased margin but, as your Lordships will be aware, the margins are fixed on a cash basis and are not allowed to rise as a percentage. This has led to serious liquidity problems and to difficulties in remote, outlying areas all over the country. Perhaps the noble Lord would be kind enough to clear up these points. Also in the Budget Statement was a promise that we might look forward to a very definite Statement on energy conservation from the Department of Energy.

397
I understand that had been promised by the end of November. We are five days beyond that now, but I hope that we can look forward to this Statement before rising for the Recess.
Finally, North Sea gas, as the noble Lord pointed out, is in very considerable demand and we would seek clarification from the noble Lord that this Order does not relieve the Gas Corporation from the obligation which I understand they had until November, 1973, of attempting to meet the demand and being virtually obliged to supply gas to any consumer seeking to use it. We would hope that this Order will not be used to damp down the supply of gas and reduce demand too much. In conclusion, we would seek to add our support to the measures to conserve energy at this somewhat critical period.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister whether I understood him correctly when lie referred to, I think, the EEC Directive with regard to keeping stocks in this country. I had understood that this Directive was at the moment a draft Directive. I wonder whether there is another Directive which has become operative? Because it would seem to be a serious matter if we were already being governed by a Directive which, as I understand it, is still in the draft stage.
8.26 p.m.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord opposite for his helpful and kind remarks and constructive questions. I should also like to congratulate him on speaking for the first time from the Front Bench. So far as coal is concerned, the undistributed coal stocks held by the National Coal Board-currently amounting to just over 6 million tons—are, roughly speaking, half of what they were a year ago; but they are low because the Board have been endeavouring since the Strike to get all available supplies into the hands of consumers.
398
They have been successful in rebuilding distributed stocks to normal levels. Stocks at power stations—now about 13½ million tons—represent some eight weeks' normal winter demand and correspond to the early winter stock-holding in normal years. Preceding the three crisis winters of the previous Administration, abnormally high stocks were built up in readiness for industrial conflict in the energy industries, with the results which we have seen.
So far as the value-added tax is concerned, I have noted the noble Lord's question. It is not entirely within my field and perhaps he will allow me to communicate with him on this matter in writing. So far as energy conservation is concerned, I understand it has been announced in another place that at an early date a Statement will be made in both Houses. I hope the noble Lord will bear with patience until that time.
The gas situation is an extraordinarily complicated and interesting one. It originates in our very great success in obtaining North Sea gas at very low prices, so that the price of gas as a result, relative to other prime costs, was rather low. As recent Governments from both Parties have used these prices to stabilise and diminish inflationary pressure for the moment, the relative price of gas is still very low. As a result of that, there has been a concentration of rather large-scale demand on the gas industry. If the Order were not adopted we might face the danger of the Gas Corporation being sued by large-scale consumers throughout the country, thereby causing great difficulties and probably a failure of gas for those already on the grid. We must hope, of course, that this will not be continued indefinitely; and although there has been some delay in the Frigg plans I think that when Frigg ends and other gas fields in the North Sea come in, we shall have a unique situation in which we shall have a relatively plentiful supply.

  IMMIGRATION STATISTICS
  IMMIGRATION STATISTICS
  EEC MEMBERSHIP AND THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
  EEC MEMBERSHIP AND THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
  THAMES' SALMON
  THAMES' SALMON